Screw The Botters

[dafels]

Stat caps are bad, I suggest that we rather make stat effectivity to be scaled with stat value in a logarithmic way.



From the graph:
Once you reach 300 stats, the effectivity is 100%.
Once you reach 2000 stats, the effectivity is 110%.

Stats to be scaled:
Strength:A player with 2000 stats will deal only for 10% more damage than a player with 300 stats.
Constitution: A player with 2000 con will only have 10% more hitpoints than a player with 300 stats has.
Agility: A player with 2000 agi will be 10% faster than a player with 300 stats.


Pros:
Doesn't set a limit to stats, keeps the unlimited stat grind in the game.

Cons:
Botters are going to be mad

[overtyped]

Stat caps are bad, I suggest that we rather make stat effectivity to be scaled with stat value in a logarithmic way.



From the graph:
Once you reach 300 stats, the effectivity is 100%.
Once you reach 2000 stats, the effectivity is 110%.

Stats to be scaled:
Strength:A player with 2000 stats will deal only for 10% more damage than a player with 300 stats.
Constitution: A player with 2000 con will only have 10% more hitpoints than a player with 300 stats has.
Agility: A player with 2000 agi will be 10% faster than a player with 300 stats.


Pros:
Doesn't set a limit to stats, keeps the unlimited stat grind in the game.

Cons:
Botters are going to be mad

nah... you are just assuming everyone is a casual, and doesn't care about stats. What this does is hurt people that want to make a good character.

[Redlaw]

Don't we already have this in the game? 10, 20, 40, 80, 160 ect... are when how effective things are doubled.

[dafels]

Don't we already have this in the game?

No.

[Redlaw]

So your saying make the dimishing returns worse after a point? so the time it would double after 340, (680), it only increase by 10% instead of another doubling of the base amount?

[LadyGoo]

He is taking it to an absurd level when no-one would care to upping the stats after a certain point. It doesn't stimulate trades and people won't see any reason to level up further.
The devs already implemented things so that with 200 ua you will have only 16% disadvantage to a player with 400 ua.
Something like this is understandable, since gaining lp is much harder than attributes.

But when there is only 10% difference if you'd get 2000 stats, that's just another stat cap. And all of us have already seen what impossibility to constantly improve leads to. Not really thought-through post.

[ricky]

horizontal asymptote should be in place, but with much more lenient numbers.

how about set base ability, 100% ability at the old stat cap of 330 and set double base ability, 200% power at 3300, 10x the base. and for triple base ability, 300% power, should be set at 33000, 100x the base.

so:
330 = 100%
3300 = 200%
33000 = 300%
330000 = 400% (if this is even physically possible)

[sMartins]

I'm agree for sure...i don't know what is the current curve, and which numbers we need...but i agree for sure, if is not already the case, that the stats gain curve should be the inverse of the exponential. Then it's only a balance matter...

P.S. Yeah with an asymptote i mean...is the current curve a logaritm with no asymptote at all?

[tyrtix]

Don't we already have this in the game? 10, 20, 40, 80, 160 ect... are when how effective things are doubled.

This: ppl just won't understand there already is a cap in the game, i suppose devs just removed the cap because they understood that after 300 the return in stats will be lessened to an extend that at some point is just not worth continue. I already proposed a logaritmic scale for stat return (now is not exactly like that), but anyway such return have to be enough so some ppl will continue raising stats, even if the effort is not repayed (but they enjoy in that way, who cares)...

I guess devs knew already that the difference in game by having or not having stat caps is not all that important, also gaming stats says clearly that ppl that have a powergaming mind trough the game is the one that generally invest more money in the game itself, so making them happy have a good return, while caring for all the gamers categories and trying to have a balance in the playerbase make the game alive.
My critique now is that the game is not noob friendly enough to have a decent player retention (i remember when in salem devs asked for that issue and everyone told them to make a functional tutorial). Right now i can say, with a small analysis, that the problem fo the noob is the fact that get killed in the first phases of the game is incredibly easy, and getting killed = loosing all the progress made. The game also features a steep starting curve, while going on everything becomes really easy (always for a noob.. a pro player knows few tricks to lessen the curve to the point it become flat...).
I saw clearly that a large part of the actual playerbase is tied (too much) to that way of thinking, and any small difficulty inserted in the game become a motivation for asking many things to become even more easy or requires less time/resources to make, especially when the thing affects directly their gaming ideas and ideals.

To some extents, botters are a known thing and is still in place because a war at botting is a waste of time, and to some others, because botting become a feature for those players that have a certain style of play.
Another thing is, instead, finding a balance to those who can't or won't bot for having 2k stats, and those who do.
Maybe saying that at death we regain stats inversely proportional to the stats we have, instead of a fixed %, may be better.

[sMartins]

Maybe saying that at death we regain stats inversely proportional to the stats we have, instead of a fixed %, may be better.

Yeah, this is pretty clever also....good idea.
Btw,in my mind, an asymptote at some point is also required (if there isn't already one).

P.S. Even more if we aim to have a permanent world.