Weekly Developer Activities - 5/19/08

[Angelus_dead]

Well, I think the whole point of the Shroud was to design a raid that both casual players, and hard-core players could run. Casual players mainly run 1-3 and get tier I greensteel items. The hard-core players will run parts 4-5 and get the uber tier II items.

Just because something was intentional doesn't mean it was necessarily a good idea.

Creating a single quest which is rewarding for weak players and yet never boring for strong players is very difficult. In this case, it was a mistake to have Shroud part 1 be so sleepwalkingly easy. Note, however, that there are many easy steps that could be taken to make part 1 more interesting without it becoming harder.

[Angelus_dead]

Barring AFK lootbots, the current system gives you the same amount of raid loot per person regardless of group size. That is, no one's being rewarded, no one's being punished.

No, it does NOT. On two separate occasions I've given you complete mathematical explanations of the wrongness of that claim. If you don't believe me, you could respond to it and tell why you disagree.

I understand why people can make this mistake: if you use simplistic assumptions of the situation you'd come to a result that is oversimplified and wrong. Garbage in garbage out. The primary mistake is to assume raid loots are fungible. They're not.

Here is a word problem to help you figure it out on your own
Twelve players are ready to beat Queen Laliat. Each of them is able to solo the raid in exactly the same time it would take a group. Six are sorcs who want a Torc of Prince Rayium-de, and six are barbs who want Bracers of the Demon's Consort. To maximize their loot received, should they go in groups of 1, a group of 12, or something in-between?

Once you answer that question, you should see why the loot reward is doubly biased towards larger groups.

[MysticTheurge]

If you don't believe me, you could respond to it and tell why you disagree.

I have.

[dragnmoon]

I have.

Cool... Forward that to me to..

[Laith]

Here is a word problem to help you figure it out on your own
Twelve players are ready to beat Queen Laliat. Each of them is able to solo the raid in exactly the same time it would take a group. Six are sorcs who want a Torc of Prince Rayium-de, and six are barbs who want Bracers of the Demon's Consort. To maximize their loot received, should they go in groups of 1, a group of 12, or something in-between?

Once you answer that question, you should see why the loot reward is doubly biased towards larger groups.

the simplistic answer is: as long as they go in with 1sorc/1barb pairs, they're maximized.

unfortunately, what happens if a 2 person group pulls 2 torcs? One goes to waste. If they had 4 people (2 sorcs, 2 barbs), they'd be better off.
This trend doesn't continue up to max party size though, since it becomes more and more unlikely that the same item will be rolled 3, 4, 5+ times. So perhaps, 2-3 people per "wanted" item is ideal (as additional people add more competition than chance for you to get your item).

in a view that ignores "wanted" and "unwanted" loot, all parties sizes are equal. we never raid in that view though.

[Angelus_dead]

I have.

That is untrue. I paid careful attention, and you did not reply, or act as if you had even seen it.

Anyway, why not give a fast answer here:
Do you or do you not believe raid loots are fungible?

[MysticTheurge]

Here is a word problem to help you figure it out on your own
Twelve players are ready to beat Queen Laliat. Each of them is able to solo the raid in exactly the same time it would take a group. Six are sorcs who want a Torc of Prince Rayium-de, and six are barbs who want Bracers of the Demon's Consort. To maximize their loot received, should they go in groups of 1, a group of 12, or something in-between?

Once you answer that question, you should see why the loot reward is doubly biased towards larger groups.

Your characters need only to go in groups that are sized multiples of 2 (1 sorcerer, 1 barbarian) in order assure themselves an equal chance at the loot they desire. Whether that group is 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 people is irrelevant. Each additional set of 2 adds to the chance that the item will drop, but also adds to the chance that you won't be the one to get it.

So yes, a 12-person group where each individual person wants one specific item which is different from the item that every other personin the group wants is, in fact, the ideal group to be in if you want to get a specific piece of raid loot.

But, back in reality, that just doesn't happen. So a six person group where each person wants a different item is just as good as a 12 person group where 2 people want each given item. A four person group where each person wants a different item is just as good as a 12 person group where 3 people want each given item. And really, how many items are there in those raid loot pools that people actually want? How many people out there are actually going to want each of those items.

There will be a few scenarios where a larger group is more beneficial than a smaller group (in those few cases where you do have a wide variety of people who all want different items), but more often it's irrelevant.

[Coldin]

Just because something was intentional doesn't mean it was necessarily a good idea.

Creating a single quest which is rewarding for weak players and yet never boring for strong players is very difficult. In this case, it was a mistake to have Shroud part 1 be so sleepwalkingly easy. Note, however, that there are many easy steps that could be taken to make part 1 more interesting without it becoming harder.

I actually enjoy Part 1. Making the increasingly dangerous mobs spawn the longer it goes presents a nice challenge. Then again, I'm the one usually keeping the mobs dead in Part 1.

And for the most part, I think the Shroud was good design. I just think Parts 4-5 are a little more challenging than they should be.

[Milolyen]

No, it does NOT. How many times would I need to explain that to you?

On two separate occasions I've given you complete mathematical explanations of the wrongness of your claims. If you don't believe me, you could respond to it and tell why you disagree. But instead you ignore it, and then go back to repeating this myth.

I understand why people can make this mistake: if you use simplistic assumptions of the situation you'd come to a result that is oversimplified and wrong. Garbage in garbage out.

If you 3 man a raid back when you had the warded chest with the stones you got 2 raid items. That is 2/3rds of your party could get raid loot. Now take 6 people in to do the raid with 2 raid items and that is 1/3rd of party can get raid items. Now take 12 people and you get 1/6th of the party getting raid loot ... so how does it NOT punish the full raid?

Now you have the % chance per person to get raid loot no matter how many you take. If you take 3 people on a raid with a 15% chance to get raid loot you have 3 people with 15% chance to GET raid loot. You take 12 people to get raid loot then you have 12 people with the 15% chance to get raid loot. Just because you have more people does NOT increase YOUR chance at raid loot ... it increases THE RAIDS chance to get raid loot and that is 2 different things. No matter HOW you decide to twist the math.

If you have 6 people and 1 peice of raid loot drops you have 1/6th of people getting raid loot. Now if you have 12 people get 2 items you have 2/12th of the people getting raid loot. For those of you that are not good with math then 1/6 = 2/12 no matter where you are from or what planet you are on.

Nice try A_D but you scewwed the math to try and prove your point instead of going with the ACTUAL facts.


Milolyen

To answer your "word problem" the answer is IT DOES NOT MATTER if you go with groups of 4,6, or 12. EACH person has a % chance to get the item they so desire. You go as a group of 12 the chances of the Torq or Bracers dropping are greater for YOUR RAID to have them drop but not the chance that they will drop for YOU PERSONALLY.

[Angelus_dead]

Your characters need only to go in groups that are sized multiples of 2 (1 sorcerer, 1 barbarian) in order assure themselves an equal chance at the loot they desire. Whether that group is 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 people is irrelevant.

That is completely false. The group size is relevant, as is trivially demonstrable.

For a simple example, compare the situation of four players who are deciding to go in either 2 groups of 2 or 1 group of 4. In either case they'd have even number of barb and sorc within a group.

Scenario A:
Team 1: sorc + barb
Team 2: sorc + barb

Scenario B:
Team 1: sorc + sorc + barb + barb

When the quest is won and each player looks in the chest, there are 3 possible things that can happen: He gets a Torc, he gets Bracers, or he gets Nothing relevant. 3 results per player * 4 players means total 81 outcomes to consider (although many of them are equivilent in a different order). Results can be written in the format of NNNN for nothing or NTNB for two different loots, for example. For any particular result, we can look at it under scenario A or B and tell if the benefit for the players is the same, or biased towards one scenario or the other.

So look at a result such as NNBB, which means two players got nothing and two got bracers. Under scenario B, everyone is in the same big group, so both Bracers can be resassigned to barbarians who want them. But in scenario A, only the barb in team 2 can get bracers. They cannot be reassigned to the barb in team 1, because they didn't drop for his group.

That's just one example, but it represents a class of outcomes, and anyway, a single example of where scenario B gives better loot than scenario A is sufficient to disprove your claim of irrelevance.

[Laith]

That's just one example, but it represents a class of outcomes, and anyway, a single example of where scenario B gives better loot than scenario A is sufficient to disprove your claim of irrelevance.

yes, it's a good example. but i'm not sure how it applies to larger parties.

is the increase in chance to loot multiple items of the same type actually relevent?
How often do you see 3,4,5,6+ of the same raid item in a chest?

the percentage chance for an item to drop increases linearly as you increase the number of people (albiet at a slow rate).
the percentage chance for you to GET the item doesn't decrease linearly as you add "competition", it actually slows down (50%[-50%] for one other person, 33%[-17%] for 2 other people, 25%[-8%] for 3 other people, etc).

...this is assuming that all wanted items are up for a fair roll.

[PhoenixFire31]

...and this argument has WHAT to do with this weeks WDA?

[Milolyen]

...and this argument has WHAT to do with this weeks WDA?

Something about raids not being good for the game and they adding 2 of them.

Atleast I think that was how it got started hun.

Milolyen

[Angelus_dead]

Nice try A_D but you scewwed the math to try and prove your point instead of going with the ACTUAL facts.

Not at all- my result is correct. The only way it could be said to be screwed up is to be insufficient explanation to help other people understand it.

To answer your "word problem" the answer is IT DOES NOT MATTER if you go with groups of 4,6, or 12. EACH person has a % chance to get the item they so desire. You go as a group of 12 the chances of the Torq or Bracers dropping are greater for YOUR RAID to have them drop but not the chance that they will drop for YOU PERSONALLY.

Inaccurate. Do you understand what it means that "Raid loot is not fungible"?

Items are fungible if they are equally as valuable as one another, or at least can be shifted from one to another. For example, dollars and euros are fungible because you can always go to a bank and have them exchanged at some listed ratio- it's all just money. But raid loots are not fungible: not only are the different items of different value, but characters owning that item cannot trade it with others for something they really want.

That means that when judging the raid loot provided by a certain rule system, you cannot simply look at the raw number of raid loots per person and act like that's all that matters. To see the real picture of who is rewarded or punished, you also need to look at the likelihood someone can take a loot he wants, and how the group size alters that likelihood.

[Angelus_dead]

There will be a few scenarios where a larger group is more beneficial than a smaller group (in those few cases where you do have a wide variety of people who all want different items), but more often it's irrelevant.

That's a fallacious line of reasoning. The fact that something is "often irrelevant" doesn't mean it doesn't matter, and it certainly doesn't translate into genuine irrelevance. By that logic, nobody should wear seatbelts driving their cars, because it's most often irrelevant.

[Angelus_dead]

...and this argument has WHAT to do with this weeks WDA?

The WDA implies that new high-level content in module 7 will be mostly just 12-man raids.
Some players who cannot often organize a 12-man group are unhappy with that, and would prefer more 6-man quests instead.
Some people tell them that it doesn't matter, because they can get the same loot reward by beating the raid with 6 guys.
Other people explain that this is false, and that raid loot inherently rewards larger groups.

[moorewr]

Here is a word problem to help you figure it out on your own
Twelve players are ready to beat Queen Laliat. Each of them is able to solo the raid in exactly the same time it would take a group. Six are sorcs who want a Torc of Prince Rayium-de, and six are barbs who want Bracers of the Demon's Consort. To maximize their loot received, should they go in groups of 1, a group of 12, or something in-between?

Once you answer that question, you should see why the loot reward is doubly biased towards larger groups.

You are asking two questions.

1) What will affect the drop rate of raid loot? Answer - the drop rate is same in all scenarios.

2) What is more likely give me the particular item I want? There is no mathematical answer to this, because the process is social, but it is obvious that the larger the group, the larger the chance that you can exchange items to get what you want. You are free to ignore other players in your quest for a particular item.

The devs were explicit that the change was intended to take away any incentive to short man, and they succeeded, so you are arguing that they succeeded.

[Milolyen]

Not at all- my result is correct. The only way it could be said to be screwed up is to be insufficient explanation to help other people understand it.


Inaccurate. Do you understand what it means that "Raid loot is not fungible"?

Items are fungible if they are equally as valuable as one another, or at least can be shifted from one to another. For example, dollars and euros are fungible because you can always go to a bank and have them exchanged at some listed ratio- it's all just money. But raid loots are not fungible: not only are the different items of different value, but characters owning that item cannot trade it with others for something they really want.

That means that when judging the raid loot provided by a certain rule system, you cannot simply look at the raw number of raid loots per person and act like that's all that matters. To see the real picture of who is rewarded or punished, you also need to look at the likelihood someone can take a loot he wants, and how the group size alters that likelihood.

First off the chance of your 2 bracers dropping in a two man raid would be like 1 billion to 1 (rough estimate but prolly not to far off and prolly underestimated : D ) and you are baseing your arguement of "group size alters the likelihood" of one person getting raid loot on something that has next to NO CHANCE of ever happening? Even IF that senerio happened you laugh and shrug it off, this IS a game after all and if you put THIS much work into it then how are you haveing any fun? I have always prefered the larger groups because they tend to be more fun. Titan for instance is not much of a challenge even for 3 people ... so why go as just 3 4 or 5 people? The point of a raid IS to get a larger group together and go have fun takeing down tough mobs.

The fungible part of it you stated is one of the arguements I had made about how the glyph system was not netting more useable raid loot than the current system because a lot of it in the 3 manned raids where just sold to venders cause people in the group either had it or didn't want.

Sorry but I just find it funny how you are using math as selectively as you are to argue this.

Milolyen

[Yaga_Nub]

...and this argument has WHAT to do with this weeks WDA?

Absolutely nothing, but Gimpster, I mean A_D will still go on and on and on and and on and on AND on and on and on...

[Angelus_dead]

The devs were explicit that the change was intended to take away any incentive to short man, and they succeeded, so you are arguing that they succeeded.

No, they were not explicit about it. Not only did they not comment on their motivation in a general sense, but they especially didn't use the term "short man". The reasoning they gave was no more involved than "Now we can reassign loot in chests, so let's do that".

It is possible that you are correct about their intention- but just because something was intentional doesn't make it a good idea.

Anyhow, there already was an existing disintcentive to use a non-full group: it lowers the chances that a group member can use the item that drops, and raises the chance that good items will rot in the chest with nobody who wants to take it.