Diminished returns for PVP stats

[MagicManICT]

D. won't just kill me outright and thus erase a ton of time's worth of effort so i could 'try' pvp.

Don't buy rage. I would have to dig up exact patch. This was a change made early this world if I recall correctly. Effectively, those without rage cannot be attacked while KO'd, so are not likely to be killed*. It's not a death 'opt out,' just makes it hard to die of anything short of player mistake or intentional suicide. And you can still die in PvP due to player mistake if you keep fighting until the concussion from the KO would kill you. There was a possibility with a player wielding a B12, but I've been told that has been fixed. (I still won't rule out other bugs hiding.)

As I've said earlier everything has the diminishing returns of a sqrt function -- we just need to talk about when the severe drop off should happen. I could be wrong in my math here as my background is not in math.

I've said this for years, and even gone into the math to show what it takes to get a 1% advantage over an oppenent when we're looking at numbers like 1000 or 5000. Of course, this all lacks any 'proof' of being an effective means of diminishing returns when quality of foods and gear are constantly scaling upwards, thus moving the bar up constantly. Potjeh is right:

Any function without an asymptote is unsustainable in the long term.

I've been arguing to move to a logarithmic function for nearly as long. The curve is very mutable based on dev needs, and allows for "infinite gain" without overburdening the player population as a whole. Of course, it is functionally little different than stat caps. Once you approach the asymptote, the necessary gains for any progress are so massive (on an exponential scale) that you might as well be happy where you're at. (Again, quality increasing constantly does move the precision between players around a bit, so one can't just sit a X STR and CON and be relatively sure they can survive a combat vs someone with 20x the stats.)

[MadNomad]

+1. 500+=1/2 efficiency, 1000+=1/4 eff, 2000+ =1/8 eff, etc.

510 would be worse than 490 in this case so they should definetly use some other formula for calculating the effectiveness

[azrid]

I think you people should try PvP before making threads about pvp, it will be better both for people that already know what they're talking about and also for devs.

translation: only 10 people who already quit the game/forum can talk about this issue

Its like you want this game to fail.
People who want to get into pvp should be listened to as well for what it would take for them to be able to do it.

[CaveHermit]

I think you people should try PvP before making threads about pvp, it will be better both for people that already know what they're talking about and also for devs.

+1 for ozzy. devs will hear retards what never was fight only hunt animals. And later we have combat like was 1y ago in w10 what jorb change for 1week and noone was like it and he remove it.

[Astarisk]

As I've said earlier everything has the diminishing returns of a sqrt function -- we just need to talk about when the severe drop off should happen. I could be wrong in my math here as my background is not in math.

I've said this for years, and even gone into the math to show what it takes to get a 1% advantage over an oppenent when we're looking at numbers like 1000 or 5000. Of course, this all lacks any 'proof' of being an effective means of diminishing returns when quality of foods and gear are constantly scaling upwards, thus moving the bar up constantly. Potjeh is right:

In my belief I think jorb has it right when he's talking about health and damage in that thread I posted earlier. The advantage may be tiny but once you overcome the threshold where damage > armor the person with the highest strength and armor tends to come out ahead greatly. Looking into how damage and armor works with one another and greatly reducing the HP so its closer to the lower end will do wonders.

[MagicManICT]

In my belief I think jorb has it right when he's talking about health and damage in that thread I posted earlier.

I think it's a step in the right direction, and will flatten the curve tremendously, but can still put a large burden on those that "can't keep up" when the numbers start hitting some range. If the true intent is to make a world that doesn't need a reset, a stable system needs to be considered.

[Ants]

D. won't just kill me outright and thus erase a ton of time's worth of effort so i could 'try' pvp.

Don't buy rage. I would have to dig up exact patch. This was a change made early this world if I recall correctly. Effectively, those without rage cannot be attacked while KO'd, so are not likely to be killed*. It's not a death 'opt out,' just makes it hard to die of anything short of player mistake or intentional suicide. And you can still die in PvP due to player mistake if you keep fighting until the concussion from the KO would kill you. There was a possibility with a player wielding a B12, but I've been told that has been fixed. (I still won't rule out other bugs hiding.)

Erm... how do you PVP without rage? I don't think you can aggro people without it.

I think you people should try PvP before making threads about pvp, it will be better both for people that already know what they're talking about and also for devs.

I quoted Headchef in the OP and I'm pretty sure he has combat experience.

[MightySheep]

I thought it already had, just not reflected in the visible numbers. I wish it was reflected in the numbers then people would whine less.

[MagicManICT]

Erm... how do you PVP without rage? I don't think you can aggro people without it.

All i can do is provide hearsay on this, but if the big PvPers are to be believed, there's not much trouble with that. You don't, but they will quite readily engage with anyone near the fight. That's my understanding.

[Vigilance]

D. won't just kill me outright and thus erase a ton of time's worth of effort so i could 'try' pvp.

Don't buy rage. I would have to dig up exact patch. This was a change made early this world if I recall correctly. Effectively, those without rage cannot be attacked while KO'd, so are not likely to be killed*. It's not a death 'opt out,' just makes it hard to die of anything short of player mistake or intentional suicide. And you can still die in PvP due to player mistake if you keep fighting until the concussion from the KO would kill you. There was a possibility with a player wielding a B12, but I've been told that has been fixed. (I still won't rule out other bugs hiding.)

Erm... how do you PVP without rage? I don't think you can aggro people without it.

you're kidding right? you don't need rage if you're in a giant snowball pvp format. if you just posture aggressively you'll get aggro'd by at least one idiot. stack coins on said idiot and watch more idiots aggro you.

ta-da