2.7 and beyond??

DLich · July 2017

Did the discussion title catch your eye? Good. So with the help of @Bill_ZRT analysis of how triple round and starting RSL are calculated I did some projections for the next couple of updates if the challenge system stays the way it is (with us losing stars for a "handicap" each time we upgrade our survivors)

These numbers are based off the math as follows.

Starting RSL is equal to the sum of your three best survivors, multiplied by .7 and then divided by 3.
..... Read as [(A+B+C)x.7]/3

Triple round is determined by the sum of your three best survivors divided by 3 then subtract 1 and drop the remained.
..... Read as [(A+B+C)/3]-1 rounded down.

The chart below assumes "natural progression". Leveling up survivors one at a time and not keeping most at lvl 20 for example and having 1 at 22. If you are curious where you might end up the number on the top of each section indicates the total sum of the three best survivors so 22+20+20 would land in the 62 bracket.

This chart is for educational purposes only. In no way am I trying to speak on behalf of Next Games or any of the staff of Next Games. This chart is created using the knowledge of how starting RSL & Triple rounds are determined.

Enjoy!!

Putchuco · July 2017

Super chart, very good overview.

What are we proposing to fix this?
Double round only on first repeat lvl?

JackBauer · July 2017

Don't scare me.

Teeceezy · July 2017

Best I can do is $3.50. @vshield50

DLich · July 2017

Working backwards this should be accurate.

zeeblack · July 2017

Great @DLich . As a result of 3 level 21s, I am losing 54 stars on levels lost. Level 14 plus two level 19. And not counting the bonus at end of each level

Troublemaker · July 2017

@Teeceezy @Shteevie fix this mess. Sorry if sometimes I get salty. Just fix it asap please. There's no math in the world that could logically explain how progressing is a penalty.

I explained the progression to my 5 year old girl and she couldn't understand how getting stronger can make you weaker. SHE IS RIGHT.

DLich · July 2017

zeeblack said:
Great @DLich . As a result of 3 level 21s, I am losing 54 stars on levels lost. Level 14 plus two level 19. And not counting the bonus at end of each level

Yep

18+18+18 = 54 round stars
14+19+19 = 52 bonus stars
106 stars total

This will happen again when we hit 3 lvl 25's causing a loss of 117 stars
This will happen again when we hit 3 lvl 28's causing a loss of 125 stars

The triple round is easy to determine. When the sum of your 3 best survivors is divisible by 3 is when the triple round increases. 51,54,57,60,63,66,69,72 etc. It's basically when you have 3 survivors of all the same level ex 20,20,20; 21,21,21; 22,22,22 etc. 20,21,22 will also cause this change.

The beginning round since multiplied by a decimal varies. There are some where it takes 5 survivor upgrades to change starting RSL. example being 19,19,20 through 20,21,21 all have starting RSL at 14.

19,19,20; 19,20,20; 20,20,20; 20,20,21; 20,21,21 will all have starting RSL at 14. Upgrading that 3rd lvl 21 bumps the starting RSL (21+21+21) = 63. 63 x .7 = 44.1 divided by 3 = 14.7 and bumps the starting RSL to 15 due to rounding. Since 63 is also divisible by 3 (63/3 = 21 - 1 = 20) it also bumps the triple rounds to 20.

This takes the biggest hit because both starting and triple rounds change due to the math used that changes these stats.

Basically this chart just shows how to current data analysis of the challenge star information will never lead you to get "more" stars without taking some away OR being in a location that doesn't warrant the increase. Ultimately being in a place that's "grey" won't affect any change in starting RSL or triple rounds.

Shteevie · July 2017

The charts leave off some information:
-Stars earned by reaching higher difficulties
-Stars per round increases overall based on starting from higher difficulties

Furthermore, the summation of the stars together and presenting it as some sort of 'total loss' is disingenuous, as it assumes that the player with level 19 survivors could complete the same number of rounds at the same difficulties as the player with level 22 survivors.

We are working on changes to specifically address this problem. Possible solutions or potential lines of inquiry can be sent to us directly, and should be to ensure that they are seen and considered. Further fanning flames of discontent only makes it harder for us on the dev team to actually solve the problem.

DLich · July 2017

So I'm to believe that if a player with lvl 19 survivors whom stars on RSL 13 and has triple rounds at 18 and completes 25 rounds and ends with a perfect score of 942 through 24.3 won't do as well as a player with lvl 22 survivors whom stars on RSL 15 and has triple rounds at 21 and completes 25 rounds and ends with a perfect score of 1005 through 27.2?

That's a difference of 63 stars.

But the player with lvl 19 survivors facing walkers at 24.3; their damage vs the walkers health are closer in relationship to each other than a player with lvl 22 survivors facing walkers at 27.3.

There's a thread somewhere that shows walker health progression. It is not linear. It's not quite exponential either but there is not a direct line path that says if a players damage increases by 200 that the walker health of the next level increases by 200 or that if a players health increases by 200 that the walker damage of the next level increases by 200.

I don't have the exact numbers but the gap between lvl 19 survivor damage and walker lvl 24 health is closer in comparison to lvl 22 survivor damage and walker lvl 27 health. Same goes for survivor health and walker damage.

If NG is using the "1 star your way through higher RSL's so you can collect the bonus stars" as a method of calculating someone "going further" then it's a false diagnosis in my opinion. Anyone can get lucky or use gold to replay the same map over and over again to get that star and get the bonus but I don't feel that should be used as a basis of "going further" into the challenge.

Know what I'm saying?

DLich · July 2017

Here we go. Thanks @JayZ

First example -
..... Lvl 24 normal walker has 2484 health; armored walker has 7218 health; tank walker has 12,567 health
..... Lvl 24 normal walker does 790 damage; armored walker does 790 damage; tank walker does 790 damage
..... Lvl 19 survivor (assault) does 536 damage + lvl 22 upgraded weapon does 911 damage = total 1,447
..... Lvl 19 survivor (assault) has 1082 health + lvl 22 upgraded armor has 1291 armor = 2,373

Second example -
..... Lvl 26 normal walker has 3493 health; armored walker has 10226 health; tank walker has 17904 health
..... Lvl 26 normal walker does 1063 damage; armored walker does 1063 damage; tank walker does 1063 damage
..... Lvl 21 survivor (assault) does 708 damage + lvl 24 upgraded weapon does 1247 damage = total 1,955
..... Lvl 21 survivor (assault) has 1366 health + lvl 24 upgraded armor has 1733 = 3,099

If a lvl 24 tank has 12,567 health and a lvl 19 survivor does 1,447 damage that's a difference of 11.75%
If a lvl 26 tank has 17,904 health and a lvl 21 survivor does 1,955 damage that's a difference of 10.91%

If a lvl 24 walker does 790 damage and survivors health+armor is 2,373 that's a difference of 33.29%
If a lvl 26 walker does 1063 damage and survivors health+armor is 3,099 that's a difference of 34.30%

I don't know if these numbers have changed since it looks like JayZ's post was from sometime in May, but although the chance of staying alive is 1% higher the chance of killing a walker is 1% lower.

Now to someone who is reading this and trying to figure out what it is I'm saying, although staying alive is important when you are +5 RSL pretty much 2 hits wipes you out. Needless to say it is very important to be able to kill enemies especially in the x.2 and x.3 rounds where there are more tanks/armored placed and especially when it takes multiple hits to kill a walker and there are less turns before a spawn and more shots creating more "noise" which attracts more walkers.

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

Governator · July 2017

@DLich Stop fanning the flames of discontent. I was perfectly happy not knowing how I'm losing out on challenge stars. I hadn't noticed.

DLich · July 2017

Governator said:
@DLich Stop fanning the flames of discontent. I was perfectly happy not knowing how I'm losing out on challenge stars. I hadn't noticed.

nadecir · July 2017

The new challenge system was done in by unintended consequences. NG designed a system that may have worked initially, but updates after the new challenge system's introduction rendered this original design inadequate and did so rather quickly. The cost to NG of this complicated design has been high in terms of internal costs involved in its design, development, and testing, along with customer support issues and customer dissatisfaction with this design. It is reasonable to assume that NG has lost revenue because of the complicated new challenge design. Now it seems there are redesign and redevelopment necessary.

Any redesign has to stand up to this problem of unintended consequences, both now and in the future. This is extremely difficult given that future changes to this game are impossible to predict. Players will continue to find new and creative ways to play this game that NG can't reasonably predict right now. Complicated designs are bound to have unintended consequences at some point in time.

I submit there is only one challenge system design that is best to prevent unintended consequences. Let the player select which level of the challenge that they'd like to start for each challenge. If players want to play more in a given week, they start the challenge at a low level. If they don't want to grind, and just want the challenge and good rewards earlier, they start the challenge at a higher level. This solution is simple to design, easy to understand, easy to develop and maintain, will be positively received by the players, and will likely increase revenue with booster and gold sales. Maybe most importantly, this solution will stand the test of time, no matter what changes are made to the game in the future.

NG has made many great design decisions in the development of this game. Like any development company, I am sure there are some design decisions that the company would change in retrospect.

With that in mind, and with all due respect, please give serious consideration to the simple solution to this issue.

tdiddy · July 2017

I think shteevie just said "blah blah, blah i have no idea about high level players blah blah, working on it,blah , coming soon

Pic · July 2017

Ty @DLich great post

crambert_nec · July 2017

Is it the triple rounds that throw off the star counts and contribute to the loss of stars? What if they just got rid of repeated rounds and start everyone at a set level below their highest 2 survivor levels?

Bill_ZRT · July 2017

Shteevie said:

Furthermore, the summation of the stars together and presenting it as some sort of 'total loss' is disingenuous, as it assumes that the player with level 19 survivors could complete the same number of rounds at the same difficulties as the player with level 22 survivors.

Two points to address here... First, the comment about the evidence presented being disingenuous doesn't encourage community involvement and it give the impression that the issue may not be fully understood. The claim isn't that:

Shteevie said:

The player with level 19 survivors could complete the same number of rounds at the same difficulties as the player with level 22 survivors

The claim/issue is that a player with 3x21 survivors is not significantly more powerful than a player with 2x21 survivors even though with 3x21 survivors the starting RSL increases to 15 (from 14 at 2x21) and the repeat RSL increases to 20 (from 19 at 2x21). Since that one extra 21 level survivor doesn't mean that a player can get significantly further than they could with 2x21lvl survivors, that player isn't getting as many stars as they could before they upgraded. This issue is real and very genuine, not disingenuous.

On to point #2:

Shteevie said:

We are working on changes to specifically address this problem. Possible solutions or potential lines of inquiry can be sent to us directly, and should be to ensure that they are seen and considered. Further fanning flames of discontent only makes it harder for us on the dev team to actually solve the problem.

I'm not sure who you see as fanning the flames of discontent here, but I don't see anyone calling for a sharpening of pitchforks or lighting of torches in this thread. I believe that this is the first we've heard from someone from NG acknowledge that this is an issue and that you are working on addressing it. That's a good thing.

What I do see is a lot of math and data illustrating the issue that players are experiencing. I see players keeping this issue alive in the absence of hearing anything official about it being addressed (which we now have). The longevity of this should demonstrate the severity of it in the eyes of the players. I see players helping each other understand what route might be most advantageous for them when considering how they should proceed with leveling their survivors. I largely see constructive discussion on what the issue is and in some cases how it might be addressed. I'm not sure why that's a bad thing.

Pain Walker · July 2017

I see the future... now I see my signature...now the future again...

The future is bright.

Dragonfyre · July 2017

Stars per round increases overall based on starting from higher difficulties?

Huh? What about lost stars from upgrading? Would take a lot of high lvl rounds to recoup those lost one would think!

Each round you go on to is worth 1 star more per round. 3peats would be a total of 3 per round. Because I have accidently unlock a worthless hero I am now with 3x22s and effectively lost 76 stars from when I had 2x22 and 1x21. So now I have to hope that my FTP gear I can find is worthy to lvl up to fight well into lvl 27 or 28. Just to offset the loss.

Still feels like we get punished for advancing. Find a system where we have a choice of grinding or not. Let us choose like nadecir has suggested. This system is broken and a solution sure has taken a long time to figure out when all it seems to take would be a way to reward us high end players, instead of punishing us for advancing.

Dragonfyre

crambert_nec · July 2017

I don't think having us choose our own starting RSL would be the best choice. If that happened, you would have to start on RSL 1 in order to stay competitive. This would piss people off because the low level grind would be miserable and it would effectively double the amount of rounds you would have to do in a given challenge in order to get to the RSL you normally make it to.

Dragonfyre · July 2017

Agreed crambert_nec but is a thought. There has to be a solution and thoughts like nadecir and others is how to fix a VERY broken system

crambert_nec · July 2017

The point of Challenge System 2.0 was to eliminate the low level grind, and I like that about it. What if they kept the same mechanics in place (starting RSL, RSL where triple rounds start, etc.), but had us start with a bank of stars equal to 3-starring and completing every round from RSL 1 up to where we started? Would the math still be off at that point?

DLich · July 2017

crambert_nec said:
The point of Challenge System 2.0 was to eliminate the low level grind, and I like that about it. What if they kept the same mechanics in place (starting RSL, RSL where triple rounds start, etc.), but had us start with a bank of stars equal to 3-starring and completing every round from RSL 1 up to where we started? Would the math still be off at that point?

Start me at RSL 30. Look at that I spent 0 gas and I earned my guild 1500 stars!!

I get what you're saying though. It would make it much easier as a streamline approach.

Hopefully NG has some plans in mind to fix this for the better. I'd like to be something that would also not discourage players from upgrading multiple survivors to lvl 22. If they could implement something that does both fix the issue and help players not feel screwed out of stars for upgrading to lvl 22 survivors it would be a win win!!

Dragonfyre · July 2017

Now there is another thought that could be used/adjusted. Or at least at higher rounds maybe 30 stars worth of maps each round? The offset would be a bit more digestible for us who have worked hard to get where we are. So many options. Just needs to get handled so players at higher lvls don't leave.

I am in a large guild and have watched some high end players walk away over this very issue. That does not go well when lower lvl players see that and hear the grumbling.

crambert_nec · July 2017

Lol @DLich. But you're the math wiz here. Right now I have 2 level 22 survivors, I start at RSL 15, start repeating at RSL 20, blah blah blah. If I still started at RSL 15 plus all of the stars I would have gotten had I started at RSL 1, would that fix the star imbalance? Or would everyone just have much higher star totals but with the same loss of stars based on what RSL you start at what round you start repeating at?

crambert_nec · July 2017

Or what if the bonus stars for each repeated round are multiplicative? 20 stars for completing RSL 20.1, 40 (20x2) for completing RSL 20.2, and 60 (20x3) for completing RSL 20.3? Would that fix anything? I'm just spitballing here...

DLich · July 2017

We'd have to be given the number of stars someone who started at RSL 1 and tripled whenever. Without doing the numbers it would have to be somewhere near 1K stars they'd have to give the higher level players to make up for it (if not more).

If players with lvl 22 survivors start at RSL 15 and the lowest, newest player on the forum would start at RSL 1 then we'd have to receive RSL 1-14 stars and completed round bonus. That's 18x14 = 252 stars just on single rounds alone!! Plus the bonus stars (1+2+3+4+5....+14 = 105). So 357 just on individual single rounds from RSL 1 through RSL 14. Plus any triple rounds that lower level survivors would earn that we can't.

Bottom line is I don't forsee NG giving out 357 stars as a "make up" headstart and all the rewards that go along with it for free. So I don't think that's a viable solution at all unfortunately.

edit * Apparently I have fat thumbs and clicked incorrect numbers. DAMN YOU THUMBS!!!!!!!

Second edit * assume NG gave us triple round worth of stars for RSL 1-14 that's 357x3 = 1071. That would be close to the number of stars we'd have to be given in order to make it "equal". Also since lower RSL's can get triple rounds on 15-20 like we cannot we'd have to add 2 rounds of each 15 through 20 and their stars too. 18x12 = 216 for round completed stars for 15.2, 15.3, 16.2, 16.3 etc all the way through 20.2. Plus the bonus (15+15+16+16... 20+20 = 210) another 416 stars.

357 stars for RSL 1-14 single round
357 stars for RSL 1-14 double round
357 stars for RSL 1-14 triple round
216 for RSL 15-20 completed double and triple rounds perfect score
210 for RSL 15-20 completed double and triple rounds bonus stars

1497 total stars going into triple round 21.1 for all things to be "equal"

Welcome.

Quick Links

2.7 and beyond??

Comments