2.7 and beyond??

13

Comments

  • blynknzblynknz Member Posts: 1,988
    Can I check what you are meaning @Dlich. You are mainly talking about progressing between full teams of the same level?
    So when you have 3 level 21's and move 1 to a level 22 etc?
    Because by my calculation, if you have full teams of the same level, and the triple rounds formula is correct, and that someone can get to your Level + 4. Then the progression does work.

    A level 19 would get 881 points, a level 22 would get 960 points.
  • PigPig Member Posts: 1,870
    I bet @Dlich has ladies lining up. Chicks dig a guy with smarts.
    Bad Pig
    Bad to the bone!
    The Notorious P.I.G.
    "I'm stuck in forum prison, and time keeps draggin' on"
    "I’ve never said I’m a perfect pig, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not."
    vshield50
  • GladiGladi Member Posts: 616
    @DLich Awesome job, thanks for your work and dedication. Afraid that stubbornness of some ppl might derail it, but still hope it wont. Anyway, please keep doing what you are doing, you are real help to (not only) the community here.

    Not going to mention any names, but you two, please stop or use PMs. I can see your different reasons for your posts here(and not completely agree or disagree with any of you) but, for Christ sake, stop it here.

    NG should come with really unique solution here, I tried to think about some posibilities myself, but once I tried to count some numbers, I really dont think any of those would work. What I can say, tripple rounds start makes the biggist problem here, but thats just my point of view.
    vshield50
  • crambert_neccrambert_nec Member Posts: 1,376
    What if everyone started at a higher RSL but they made every round a triple round?
    Leader of WATCH TOWER RoD
    Pig
  • AvengersAvengers Member Posts: 674
    > @DLich said:

    > Comparing lvl 19 to lvl 21 survivor health from 2373 to 3099 is an increase of 30.6%
    > Comparing lvl 24 to lvl 26 normal walker health from 2484 to 3493 is an increase of 40.6%
    > Comparing lvl 24 to lvl 26 armored walker health from 7218 to 10226 is an increase of 41.7%
    > Comparing lvl 24 to lvl 26 tank walker health from 12567 to 17904 is an increase of 42.5%
    >
    > Comparing lvl 19 to lvl 21 survivor damage from 1447 to 1955 is an increase of 35.1%
    > Comparing lvl 24 to lvl 26 (all walker types) damage from 790 to 1063 is an increase of 34.6%
    >
    > So to recap; the walkers damage is increasing at a faster rate than the survivors health. 24-26 increases 34.6% for the walkers yet 19-21 increases 30.6% for the survivor. The walkers health is increasing at a faster rate than the survivors damage. 24-26 increases around 40% for the walkers yet 19-21 increases 35.1% for the survivor

    Ummm...no. Something is very wrong, either you have mixed up words or numbers which is very likely with such lengthy posts.
    If I go with exactly what you have said, then the recap is that walkers health is increasing (by a drastic amount) compared to survivors health whereas survivor damage is fairly equivalent to (actually slightly greater than) walker damage. But either way, I believe this still is an issue/reason for lost stars.
    Looking for a guild? The Den is the place to be! We bring the fun back!
    Challenge Strategy and Videos! Other fun chats and support also available!

    Everyone is Welcome! We have guilds for the super competitive players as well as relaxed and lower level players.

    Email us to make our home your home: [email protected] or join one of our guilds. They rank in the following: Grimes Den, Dixons Den, Shivas Den, and finally Maggies den which is our training guild.
    carefree
  • AvengersAvengers Member Posts: 674
    > @Mabiki said:
    > @DLich
    >
    > I don't quite understand your logic on which round is replacing which. To my mind, 14.1 is being replaced by 15.1, and 20.1 (first triple round) is being replaced by 21.1, etc. I don't get how 14.1 is being replaced by 25.2 in your view...

    I fully agree with @Mabiki here. Just because you have to complete additional rounds, you can't compare those rounds to starting rounds such as 14.1.
    Let's try to be clear and precise in our posts please. Don't go comparing grapes to bananas, it just makes it confusing.

    But I agree, progressing through the same amount of rounds with a higher lvl army (against a more difficult enemy) just to get BACK to the same amount of stars (give or take a few) as you would with a weaker survivor army is the absurd part!!! Sounds like the hospital situation all over again.

    @Mabiki please do show us how well you do when you are at a higher survivor lvl on a challenge that you have completed before. I'll be looking out for that. I hope you remember to take screenshots (both now and later when you upgrade).
    Looking for a guild? The Den is the place to be! We bring the fun back!
    Challenge Strategy and Videos! Other fun chats and support also available!

    Everyone is Welcome! We have guilds for the super competitive players as well as relaxed and lower level players.

    Email us to make our home your home: [email protected] or join one of our guilds. They rank in the following: Grimes Den, Dixons Den, Shivas Den, and finally Maggies den which is our training guild.
  • CaptainslayerCaptainslayer Member Posts: 1,424
    @Avengers @Mabiki I understand the reasoning behind dl comparing 14 to 25 since you are already do 15.1 and 20.2 & 20.3 with lvl 20's. For myself usually been able to get to rsl 26 to make up the extra stars to get back to the same amount of stars when i get to 21 I'll have to compete rsl 26.1, 26.2 & 26.3 so in my head rsl 14 19.2 & 19.3 are replaced with rsl 26.1-26.3
    Elder of dragons weyr a top USA guild
    WahooDawggespuerShut_Up
  • AvengersAvengers Member Posts: 674
    Ahh ok I see what you mean now. Thanks for making that clearer.

    But @DLich said: So in essence they have earned 20 stars but did it by losing 14.1, 20.2, 20.3 and substituting in it's place 25.2, 25.3, 26.1 25-14 is 9; 25-20 is 5; 26-20 is 6; 9+5+6=20... 20 is the "bonus" stars they have now earned by facing the same number of rounds yet the rounds they are facing are way harder.

    > 25.2 is no comparison to 14.1
    > 25.3 is no comparison to 20.2
    > 26.1 is no comparison to 20.3

    So yes you have replaced playing 14.1 with 25.2 or whatever but you CANNOT COMPARE those rounds to each other! A better comparison would have been comparing 25.1 to 26.1. This is why I was confused
    Looking for a guild? The Den is the place to be! We bring the fun back!
    Challenge Strategy and Videos! Other fun chats and support also available!

    Everyone is Welcome! We have guilds for the super competitive players as well as relaxed and lower level players.

    Email us to make our home your home: [email protected] or join one of our guilds. They rank in the following: Grimes Den, Dixons Den, Shivas Den, and finally Maggies den which is our training guild.
  • DLichDLich Member Posts: 5,541
    edited July 2017
    Avengers said:

    Ahh ok I see what you mean now. Thanks for making that clearer.



    But @DLich said: So in essence they have earned 20 stars but did it by losing 14.1, 20.2, 20.3 and substituting in it's place 25.2, 25.3, 26.1 25-14 is 9; 25-20 is 5; 26-20 is 6; 9+5+6=20... 20 is the "bonus" stars they have now earned by facing the same number of rounds yet the rounds they are facing are way harder.



    > 25.2 is no comparison to 14.1

    > 25.3 is no comparison to 20.2

    > 26.1 is no comparison to 20.3



    So yes you have replaced playing 14.1 with 25.2 or whatever but you CANNOT COMPARE those rounds to each other! A better comparison would have been comparing 25.1 to 26.1. This is why I was confused

    The reason why these rounds are being compared to each other is because (and without going into a whole diagram) the 3 levels that are taken away "in the front" are given back "in the back". I know you understand what I'm saying.

    This is probably a terrible analogy (my wife tells me I'm horrible at comparing things) but imagine your boss gives you a raise but in turn you're income is now in a higher tax bracket so your check at the end of the week is actually less than it was before. You now have to work an extra hour each week to make up for the increased "tax rate".

    If I was able to keep playing 14.1, 20.2 & 20.3; keep the stars I would earn on those and now since my survivors are all a lvl stronger I am able to face lvl 25.2, 25.3, 26.1 then yes I can see comparing "the highest a survivor used to go to the highest a survivor can now go".

    I don't want to keep beating a dead horse and hopefully, possibly, NG has something in mind to fix correct change this so were arguing semantics anyways.

    Do I think lvl 22 survivors can make it further in the challenges than lvl 21 survivors. ABSOLUTELY!! If lvl 21 survivors can make it to 24.3 (example) then lvl 22 survivors should make it to 25.3 (example). But when it's all said and done both have completed 20 rounds and you netted 20 stars in exchange for your hundreds of million xp and time. That's what my main gripe is.

    image
    | OG | NOC | USA | UK | CA | CQR | UC | RAD | ZEN |
    Other Leaders | Kick_ass | Pic | abailey362 | GunnerGaz | JMo2127 |
    MAVERICK'S 1 Million Star Club | OG | USA | NOC
    Analyze This with ALF4reals | v1 | v2 | v3 |
    | My YouTube Videos | My 1st Interview | Best Analogy Award!! |

    Freemium... the "mium" is latin for 'not really'
    Shut_Upcarefree
  • MabikiMabiki Member Posts: 1,732
    DLich said:


    I don't want to keep beating a dead horse and hopefully, possibly, NG has something in mind to fix correct change this so were arguing semantics anyways.

    Do I think lvl 22 survivors can make it further in the challenges than lvl 21 survivors. ABSOLUTELY!! If lvl 21 survivors can make it to 24.3 (example) then lvl 22 survivors should make it to 25.3 (example). But when it's all said and done both have completed 20 rounds and you netted 20 stars in exchange for your hundreds of million xp and time. That's what my main gripe is.

    Semantics indeed. I think that's what was causing the disconnect in communication, for me at least.

    I agree wholeheartedly with the above statement. I just don't view it in terms of 'lost stars.' Even if you can push farther than 20 extra stars with higher level survivors, the way the game scales means a lot more time/gold spent on healing, so it's a pretty minimal payoff considering the investment required to get there.

    That said, I still intend to level up and compare my total stars on Challenges of similar difficulty at level 21 vs 20 to gauge the actual return on investment for myself. And FWIW, I find the chart you posted during our exchange to be more useful and meaningful than the one with which you started the thread. Personally, I think framing it as a poor ROI will have more impact in convincing NG to adjust things than will the the focus on lost stars. It sounds like they're at least considering some changes, and hopefully our discussion has not "further fanned the flames of discontent" and made it "harder for.. the dev team to actually solve the problem."



    tabernacDLichCaptainslayer
  • DLichDLich Member Posts: 5,541
    @Mabiki I agree with everything you just said. :). It's ultimately the ROI. This game progresses and I'm not even opposed to the starting RSL increase. That's only a minor loss in the grand scheme of things.

    Do I expect my Lvl 21's which start at 15 to also start at 15 when Lvl 23 and Lvl 24 comes out? Not at all.

    It's the triple round advancement happening everytime you have 3 survivors of the same level (literally the moment you upgrade your 3rd of 25+) you're hit with the triple round increase. You've barely had time to relish in the fact that you've advanced that far before realizing what's happened or what's going to happen.

    If the ROI was millions of XP spent to get more stars (more than 20) I don't think players would have any issue. I do understand "eventually" they'll get there but it's the immediate hit that's causing chaos.

    image
    | OG | NOC | USA | UK | CA | CQR | UC | RAD | ZEN |
    Other Leaders | Kick_ass | Pic | abailey362 | GunnerGaz | JMo2127 |
    MAVERICK'S 1 Million Star Club | OG | USA | NOC
    Analyze This with ALF4reals | v1 | v2 | v3 |
    | My YouTube Videos | My 1st Interview | Best Analogy Award!! |

    Freemium... the "mium" is latin for 'not really'
    tdiddypaintbeasttabernac
  • sligoemsligoem Member Posts: 330
    edited July 2017
    @Shteevie Regarding the tax analogy...I play to have fun, not encounter real life woes in-game. Glad the current situation was unintended and that it is being addressed, thanks.
  • sligoemsligoem Member Posts: 330
    @TheLostOnes how about expanding to include ATM fees, long queues at the post office, and traffic jams?
    TheLostOnestdiddyGrimGael
  • Japes87Japes87 Member Posts: 1,399
    "But I hope you get my simple point"

    I think someone should be warned for insulting the intelligence of the community, we are all forum users and the way we choose to conduct ourselves should be equal no?

    If a player were to make a statement such as this , other forum users would be all over them.
    GrimGael
  • TroublemakerTroublemaker Member Posts: 1,461
    Shteevie said:

    We're busy working on solutions [and trying to make time in the dev schedule to boot], but I wanted to point out one element of the analogy:

    imagine your boss gives you a raise but in turn you're income is now in a higher tax bracket so your check at the end of the week is actually less than it was before. You now have to work an extra hour each week to make up for the increased "tax rate".


    Most tax systems in the developed word are progressive, and part of the basic concept is that income is taxed differently based on the citizen's total income. That is, if you are taxed 1% on the first $100 you make, and then taxed 2% for the next $100, your total tax bill for earnings of $200 would be $3, not $4.

    Applied to the analogy, this means that you'll never need to work an extra hour to make the same net paycheck based on a raise carrying you to a higher tax bracket. The new additional money you make from the raise would be taxed at a higher rate, but unless that rate were greater than 100%, you would still make more at the end of the month. [disclaimer: no tax system is really that simple, and credits and deductions are complicated. But I hope you get my simple point.]

    Applied to the challenge system, we agree that this was all an unintended consequence, and it was never our goal to make players any less than 100% excited and confident about raising their survivors to the next level. We will be addressing this as soon as we can.
    I can't express how happy I am after reading this (except for the tax part). Thanks and LET'S DO THIS!
    NG_SamKaLiWeekOne
  • paintbeastpaintbeast Member Posts: 1,188
    Aw, come on @Shteevie, give the guy a break! He admitted in the post that he was bad at analogies. ;)
    GindyCaptainslayer
  • Shut_UpShut_Up Member Posts: 2,295
    edited July 2017
    Now we have a tax analogy to explain the circular logic used to justify taking away an early round. Is it always about money for NG because that's curious to hang your hat on a tax analogy.

    How about this for an analogy. The New England Patriots have won 5 out of the last 16 Superbowls. Could you imagine if when they start the 2017 NFL season they told the Patriots that because of their success they will be penalized by making them go 120 yards to score a touchdown while the rest of the league still has to only go a 100 yards to score a touchdown?

    If I knew more about soccer teams I would add a similar analogy where they penalize a successful soccer team by making them defend a bigger goal or they have to take shots at a smaller goal.
    Captainslayer
  • Shut_UpShut_Up Member Posts: 2,295
    > @Bill_ZRT said:
    > Applied to the challenge system, we agree that this was all an unintended consequence, and it was never our goal to make players any less than 100% excited and confident about raising their survivors to the next level. We will be addressing this as soon as we can.
    >
    > I think this is the message that many, many players were hoping to hear. It let's them know that this is seen as a real issue and they're not just screaming into the darkness. Thanks for sharing - very excited to see what the solution will be.


    I hope their solution isn't worse than the problem because this new challenge system was supposed to be the answer to the challenge grind and it is far from a successful solution. It's more of a grind and penalizes you for upgrading so I don't know how this current system was a solution. I have been let down by NG one too many times two I will temper my enthusiasm for the solution.
    TroublemakertdiddyGrimGael
  • DLichDLich Member Posts: 5,541
    Shut_Up said:

    Now we have a tax analogy to explain the circular logic used to justify taking away an early round. Is it always about money for NG because that's curious to hang your hat on a tax analogy.

    It's my fault for the tax analogy. I brought that into this and my analogy was incorrect based on the way taxes are determined. I would ask that that analogy be stricken from the record.
    Shut_Up said:


    How about this for an analogy. The New England Patriots have won 5 out of the last 16 Superbowls. Could you imagine if when they start the 2017 NFL season they told the Patriots that because of their success they will be penalized by making them go 120 yards to score a touchdown while the rest of the league still has to only go a 100 yards to score a touchdown?

    Woulda been 7 if it wasn't for those pesky New York Giants! (Go G-Men). 48 more days until the season begins!!





    image
    | OG | NOC | USA | UK | CA | CQR | UC | RAD | ZEN |
    Other Leaders | Kick_ass | Pic | abailey362 | GunnerGaz | JMo2127 |
    MAVERICK'S 1 Million Star Club | OG | USA | NOC
    Analyze This with ALF4reals | v1 | v2 | v3 |
    | My YouTube Videos | My 1st Interview | Best Analogy Award!! |

    Freemium... the "mium" is latin for 'not really'
    tdiddyShadowaceAzPig
  • ShteevieShteevie Staff Posts: 1,335
    Shut_Up said:


    If I knew more about soccer teams I would add a similar analogy where they penalize a successful soccer team by making them defend a bigger goal or they have to take shots at a smaller goal.

    Now that you mention it...

    In football [which is different from handegg (I am a fan of both)], doing well in your domestic league means you have to work a lot harder the next year. You might get promoted into a higher league where you play against harder opponents for larger prizes, be entered into an international tournament where your players have to play more matches in the same time period, increasing fatigue, strain, and injury risk as well as causing you to need to field younger or less-quality players in some matches, and your best players will suddenly become transfer targets for teams with more money than you have.

    There's a lot more glory and reward to earn in that year that follows your original success, but the job is exponentially harder. Look at Leicester City, who broke all sorts of records by winning the English League the year after coming up from a lower tier, and then completely crumbled in the face of the tougher challenge of competing domestically and internationally the following year.

    I digress. No Man's Land doesn't aim to be a game where players should be worrying that leveling up and playing as much as you can will get you anything but better rewards for your efforts. We have a good number of improvements in various stages of development, and we'll likely be adding one at a time if needed until everyone can agree we're in a good spot. All the while, new content, characters, rewards, and other elements will be added to the game as well.
    Development Team Member - The Walking Dead: No Man's Land
    Please note: Development is a fluid process, and suggestions and implementation take time and iteration. Any discussion of future features, deadlines, updates, balance changes, and such should be considered prospective and subject to change.
    TroublemakerzbotPutchuco
Sign In or Register to comment.