Pann

UPDATED: ACE Q&A for September - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ranik said:

I like the skill tomes but think they are a bit unrestricted as far as alts are concerned. Maybe add heavy diminishing returns to using several skill tomes or several tomes from the same account in a two week period?

 

IE Player A is using his alt to generate skill tomes every 3 days and feed them to his main. The first skill tome starts at 100% effect - Current tree %.

The second tome from his alt is now at 70% effect - current tree %. The third will be 40% effect - current tree% etc etc.

 

 

To prevent ALT's doing it, they could diminish the return of banked time a single account can use to create a tome.  

So for example, after you make a 72hr tome, for the next 100 hours your tomes cost a % equal to the time remaining more. After 72 hours from the last tome you made, your hours get put into tomes at a 72% efficiency.  100 hours after you make a tome, you can make a new 72 hour tome at full efficiency.

This way nobody could ever tome all their time.  Even a non-VIP account would be restricted to less than 1/3 of all time, and VIP would be restricted to less than 1/6th.

Heck, they could just make it "1 tome every 72 hours" and cut down the ability to ATL bank by 1/3.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this new system a lot, a couple things:

 - You stated in the video that obviously it'd be better to have more options on a single account.  Maybe, idk.  It seems like like it'd always be better to have a crafter on a separate account- class isn't super important, racials aren't super important, you can alt tab to start crafting instead of running back to base & hanging around.  Considering that one option costs a monthly fee and the other one doesn't, it seems like a no-brainer.  I guess if you can control your factories remotely it may not matter much.  The multiplying race/class options don't seem like a huge benefit given how hard it seems to swap vessels it seems unlikely that it's gonna get swapped a lot, but maybe I'm overestimating.  Personally I'm not as mega-worried about 30-account weirdos, I suspect they'll get rapidly buried in management tasks the moment crafting tables go in & their keep gets conquered, forcing them to move 30 characters cross-map.  It also seems really tough to walk the line between non-exploitative and definitely superior to buying two games.  But, crafting alts vs. VIP seems like it could be a common issue.  Honestly some FFXIV-style cosmetic loyalty rewards would maybe make a huge difference here.  I haven't played FFXIV in a long time, but when I last played, you'd get like a mount or something every 3 months you stayed subbed.  

 - Agree with someone above that there's a lot of opportunities for additive improvements in the current system, for instance, simultaneously training Man and Half-Breeds to get additive bonuses for half-breeds.  There's gotta be some amount of this going on if all race & class skills go through a single root tree, I guess, but not allowing you to train in a parent or child of another tree you're training (with a couple exceptions for root trees) seems like a good move.

Edited by canvox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

So for the price of taking 10 accounts to 7/10ths completion on 10 different 3 month skill trees, you get one account with an extra skill tree.

.75 * 30 * 30 * 24  =15120 hours of training.

VS

1 * 90 * 24 = 2160

2160/15120

That would be 14.2% efficient use of Alt account training time, just to push a single account three months ahead. Then you have to wait another three months to get the ALT's into the second tree that the first account is already at, then do the same thing again.

I don't see anyone who is willing to drop over 700$ on alt accounts to be that poor at math that they would give up 10 full 3 month skill trees for 1, or even if they did, how that would be a problem after the first player made it to the end of the same line without all the alt accounts.

I'm not sure how you ended up with 15120 / 24 = 630 days worth of training, which is 63 days per account, in 21 days' time. The number seems off by a factor of 3.

10 accounts should get a total of 210 days of training in 21 days, right? That's compared to the alternative of making tomes to give one account 90 days of training in the same time period, which is 90/210 = 42.86% efficiency. Also worth noting that it's 90/21 = 4.29x the normal training rate. Assuming @Verot's math is correct, I did not double check it.

Progress will slow after that, when you need to master the first tree on alts so they can boost the next tree, but you don't need to wait the full 3 months. You'd use some of the alts to boost the other alts to the end of the first tree faster. I did some rough estimates with a few different alt progression strategies, I think the fastest method is:

1. Use all 9 alts to tome the main account to the end of the first tree (as described by Verot)

2. The main starts training tree #2; meanwhile use 8 alts to tome the 9th alt to the end of the first tree

3. The advanced alt starts making tree #2 tomes; meanwhile use 7 alts to boost the 8th alt to the end of the first tree

4. At this point the main with tomes from the two advanced alts will finish tree #2 before a third alt can catch up to them. So you can do whatever with the remaining 7 alts, depending on your future plans. If you were planning to push for a third successive tree on the main, you'd start advancing another alt to tree #2.

If Verot was correct and my napkin math is close, the main can finish 180 days of training (two 90 day trees) in about ~91 days with this method. That's almost 2x the normal training rate. That's 20% efficiency if you only value the main's progress, or ~49% efficiency if you value the extra tree #1 training completed on some of the alts (the efficiency actually goes up because you spend some time doing real training instead of toming on some alts).

 

You're right that the problem more or less* disappears once non-boosted accounts have mastered a line of training. At that point the guy that just trained up all his alts normally is ahead of the game since he didn't sacrifice any training time to tomes with diminishing returns. It'll just take him longer to see the payoff, compared to those who rushed using tomes. And if tomes are not patched in until after that point, then the problem never really occurs.

*At least, the problem goes away for crafters/harvesters. Boosted combat players will be ahead for much longer, but I'm less worried about them.. a single guy with a 20% stat advantage is one thing, a crafter who can equip an entire guild with 20% better swords is something else entirely.

 

The problem also disappears if they go with the suggestion to cap the total training time, so that you can't ever surpass a day 1 VIP. I prefer this solution, then tomes will fulfill their purpose as a catch up mechanic only, without the side effect of boosted accounts advancing faster than intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

There are many multi day skills that will could be set up to be trained at the start of a holiday if you don't want to miss time and don't want to VIP. Any tier 1 skill, the lowest, takes 3 days to train, plus a 24 hour grace period, means 4 days between logins.  Any tier 4 skill will take 12 days (3 days per tier) + 24 hours = 13 days of training unchecked for Non-VIP.

Just because you can't pic the exact skill you want, in the order you want, when you go on holidays or don't want to log in every day, does not make this a problem. That's a reasonable choice to have to make.

If you're really worried about holidays, drop the $$$ for a month of VIP, or figure out a way to trade for it.

On the other side, players always have something to trade, their time and involvement in combat engagements.  Guilds will twink new players as much as they feel is necessary to make them viable contributors to the cause.

Thanks for the answer I did not thought of the skilling time :D You are right the deeper you get in the skill tree the longer it takes. I am still not convinced by the tomes only really usable for VIP Players. Sorry the reason I backed this game is because it said it won't be "pay to win" it will be "pay once". Okay it is not pay to win yet but AC is implementing more and more stuff and VIP gets more and more pushed each month. At least that is my impression, correct me if I am wrong. Regarding the tomes....First it is only useful for VIPs, second: you answer to my "who will trade with new players" was: guildmembers. So again I don't really like it because your guild development/finding new players after 3/6Month (whatever time tomes getting in the game) may be depending on your VIP status. Honestly I thought VIP was meant something else in this game but it is getting more and more like a VIP in a FTP (or a monthly payment)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just regarding 30-account garbage, it seems from some napkin math that with a 300-day tree you could get about ~60-80% of the way through in a month with 15 accounts.  So tark could alternate between 15 accounts advancing for a month and 15 accounts feeding for a month to make some rapid progress all over the board.  That said, this isn't a solution that scales, particularly, and in a game where numbers matter he's still just one guy that can, what, solo?  Who cares?  The question is what's going on at the 2-5 account level.  What should probably concern artcraft is that I can drop $120 (8 months of VIP) for an additional two accounts to do the same alternating feeder strategy to get an average of 25-50% faster advancement (higher, if I don't cap any trees) in the single trees I care about in return for not having the same breadth.  This bonus is permanent as long as I continue to pay attention to the game, without a monthly fee.  This seems better than VIP generally, and would have a measurable impact on the game if a lot of people chose to do this instead of VIP.  This bonus gets more powerful the more restrictions are added to VIP second-skill training, since things like feeding armor basics while your main trains chainmail are possible (and easier to maintain than always trying to feed the highest skill).

EDIT: Regarding the EVE comparisons in the video, it's worth noting that EVE is still effectively a p2p game, skill extractors cannot be used on alpha clones (they have a minimum skill point requirement that, after extraction, leaves you sitting at the alpha clone skill cap).  So it is impossible for alpha clones to feed skill points to anyone.  I think that this problem could probably be effectively solved by just making skill books give less than they take if you aren't the author.  If you tweak the ratio a bit, suddenly you're spending $120 for something more like a 10-15% bonus and then that's a choice that's a little more reasonable, without full on requiring a sub to participate in the system.

Edited by canvox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jtoddcoleman further thought:

You could always revive an original early element of the skill training design [either in general for "choice" concerns or specifcally for VIP or "double dip" concerns]

Quote

March 2015

"You can train a character in three skills at any one time. They don't all advance at the same rate, however.

You select a primary, secondary and tertiary skill to advance. The primary will advance quickest, followed by the secondary, followed by the tertiary

To reach 100% level with any skill takes 1 month of primary training, 2 months with secondary, 3 months with tertiary"

[either as three or adapt down to just two rates]

Edited by Tinnis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2017 at 8:01 PM, Busama said:

First of all I think the the 24h time bank accumulation for NON-VIP ist too low compared to a month for VIP. If they implement this feature even for NOn-VIP users it should be possible at least to go on a one week or two weeks holiday without losing time. Just buying VIP so you don't lose time on skills and don't have to "worry" on the beach about losing skill time is too much to ask in my opinion.

Regarding the tomes:

If I had understood it correctly it actually only makes real sense for VIP Players because they accumulate for a longer time than 24 hours. (So VIP is getting pushed here too, I mean isn't enough they can train two different skills in each sphere and have 30 days time bank...)

Second, these Tomes are supposed to be traded to players who will join the game later to push their skill tree development; however, I cannot see how a new player may have something interesting for a player who is in the game since the beginning to trade for the Tomes.

Don't you have concerns regarding these aspects?

  I think you're correct to say that VIP has become essential for every account. Todd seemed to say that this will be necessary to fund the game.

What you may have forgotten is that VIP tickets will be tradable currency like Tomes, resources, materials, items and thralls. You can buy VIP with whatever currency someone will trade for it. That may be one or more of the in-game currencies just mentioned or cash from the shop, or influence.

 

Edited by chancellor
Clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading the article...

HATE the tome idea. It's an awful catch up mechanic and, as it is currently with no restrictions, is exploitable for power with multiple accounts. Putting a cap on total training based on time since launch would mostly fix the exploitable part. Well, except you could then have multiple accounts to farm banked time and just sell it off. So, multiple accounts (even non-VIP) means free farming of skill points that can be traded for other tangible benefits. More real life money = more accounts = more passive income.

As for catch up mechanic... someone has to fall behind in training (or, as mentioned above, have extra accounts for farming time) in order for someone else to catch up? That's kind of an awful idea. A catch up mechanic should not cost someone. It should be a free mechanic.

The new breakdown of skill training actually sounds pretty great... except for the VIP part. Absolutely hate that VIP now just straight up gets more power. Sure, you can't train the same tree... but there are multiple trees that give bonuses. I can't double train Melee tree? No problem, I'll train "Melee" and "Weapon" trees at the same time. Can't double train the "Elf" tree? No problem. I'll train "Elf" and "Sylvan" at the same time. And before anyone says "well, those are pre-requisite trees" I will point you to "Child Trees can be unlocked at some percentage less than 100% of completion of the Parent." So, you train just enough to unlock the child tree, then train the remaining portion of the child and the parent tree at the same time. And that's not even counting the general trees where you could train "Weapons" and "Armor" at the same time, for example.

So, VIP players are now buying power and not just options.

Overall, really cool skill re-work ruined by a few bad ideas.

Edited by Svenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Avloren said:

I'm not sure how you ended up with 15120 / 24 = 630 days worth of training, which is 63 days per account, in 21 days' time. The number seems off by a factor of 3.

10 accounts should get a total of 210 days of training in 21 days, right? That's compared to the alternative of making tomes to give one account 90 days of training in the same time period, which is 90/210 = 42.86% efficiency. Also worth noting that it's 90/21 = 4.29x the normal training rate. Assuming @Verot's math is correct, I did not double check it.

Progress will slow after that, when you need to master the first tree on alts so they can boost the next tree, but you don't need to wait the full 3 months. You'd use some of the alts to boost the other alts to the end of the first tree faster. I did some rough estimates with a few different alt progression strategies, I think the fastest method is:

1. Use all 9 alts to tome the main account to the end of the first tree (as described by Verot)

2. The main starts training tree #2; meanwhile use 8 alts to tome the 9th alt to the end of the first tree

3. The advanced alt starts making tree #2 tomes; meanwhile use 7 alts to boost the 8th alt to the end of the first tree

4. At this point the main with tomes from the two advanced alts will finish tree #2 before a third alt can catch up to them. So you can do whatever with the remaining 7 alts, depending on your future plans. If you were planning to push for a third successive tree on the main, you'd start advancing another alt to tree #2.

If Verot was correct and my napkin math is close, the main can finish 180 days of training (two 90 day trees) in about ~91 days with this method. That's almost 2x the normal training rate. That's 20% efficiency if you only value the main's progress, or ~49% efficiency if you value the extra tree #1 training completed on some of the alts (the efficiency actually goes up because you spend some time doing real training instead of toming on some alts).

 

You're right that the problem more or less* disappears once non-boosted accounts have mastered a line of training. At that point the guy that just trained up all his alts normally is ahead of the game since he didn't sacrifice any training time to tomes with diminishing returns. It'll just take him longer to see the payoff, compared to those who rushed using tomes. And if tomes are not patched in until after that point, then the problem never really occurs.

*At least, the problem goes away for crafters/harvesters. Boosted combat players will be ahead for much longer, but I'm less worried about them.. a single guy with a 20% stat advantage is one thing, a crafter who can equip an entire guild with 20% better swords is something else entirely.

 

The problem also disappears if they go with the suggestion to cap the total training time, so that you can't ever surpass a day 1 VIP. I prefer this solution, then tomes will fulfill their purpose as a catch up mechanic only, without the side effect of boosted accounts advancing faster than intended.

I'm fairly confident in my math, I worked it all out on a spreadsheet last night at home, which I'll upload to a google doc later. I wanted to modify the sheet so I could vary the number of "booster" accounts, right now I have it hard coded to 10.

To clarify my math assumes a total of 11 accounts. 1 Main account boosted by 10 alt accounts. When I talk about the snowball effect, I am referring to taking the main account to a tier 2 skill tree, then using the alt accounts too boost each other while the main account continues training in the tier 2 tree. Also keep in mind that all VIP accounts can train 6 trees at once (2 Race/Class/Profession). I ran the numbers on a 1 year skill tree as well last night and it worked out to be about 86 days for 100% completion if my memory serves me correct. The % of time it took to reach 100% completion was roughly 23-24% of total time for both the 3 month and 12 month tree compared to a solo leveled account.

The other variable that needs to be considered, especially as it relates to the snowball account method, is that it has been discussed by the devs that you might only need to train to 50% in a given tree before it unlocks the next tier tree. On a 3 month tree the boosted account hits over 30% training after the first 3 day boost, and I'm almost positive it was over 50% once it hit the 2nd boost at day 6. If this holds out to be true you can see how one could quickly cycle accounts to get to the 2nd tier skill tree, where the more powerful skill will be, by first boosting the main account then boosting one of the alt accounts with the remaining alt accounts. Once the next alt account reaches tier 2 it can then be used to boost the main account, while the alts continue to boost another account to tier 2. A normal account would have to train for at least 45 days to get to tier 2 skills while the boosted account can get to those skills in only 6. There is never a loss of efficiency on the main account only quicker access to skills that will not be available to players who do not boost.

Again, I'm not saying this is the most efficient use of alt accounts but for some players or guilds who pool resources its an effective way to get a competitive edge by simply using resources which don't need to be "actively manned".

Edited by Verot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Svenn said:

After reading the article...

HATE the tome idea. It's an awful catch up mechanic and, as it is currently with no restrictions, is exploitable for power with multiple accounts. Putting a cap on total training based on time since launch would mostly fix the exploitable part. Well, except you could then have multiple accounts to farm banked time and just sell it off. So, multiple accounts (even non-VIP) means free farming of skill points that can be traded for other tangible benefits. More real life money = more accounts = more passive income.

As for catch up mechanic... someone has to fall behind in training (or, as mentioned above, have extra accounts for farming time) in order for someone else to catch up? That's kind of an awful idea. A catch up mechanic should not cost someone. It should be a free mechanic.

The new breakdown of skill training actually sounds pretty great... except for the VIP part. Absolutely hate that VIP now just straight up gets more power. Sure, you can't train the same tree... but there are multiple trees that give bonuses. I can't double train Melee tree? No problem, I'll train "Melee" and "Weapon" trees at the same time. Can't double train the "Elf" tree? No problem. I'll train "Elf" and "Sylvan" at the same time. And before anyone says "well, those are pre-requisite trees" I will point you to "Child Trees can be unlocked at some percentage less than 100% of completion of the Parent." So, you train just enough to unlock the child tree, then train the remaining portion of the child and the parent tree at the same time.

So, VIP players are now buying power and not just options.

Overall, really cool skill re-work ruined by a few bad ideas.

I've offered my opinion on the double dipping in other threads, probably this one as well. VIP is a force multiplier no matter if you can double dip or not. If all things are equal between 2 players (no guild support etc) and 1 has VIP and 1 does not and both players choose to train combat, but the VIP also has harvesting then the VIP should win that fight every time. I say this because that player can more efficiently harvest materials and supply himself before the non-vip player. This scenario is not all that different than the VIP player training both weapons/armor while the non-vip only trains weapon. 

If VIP can double dip it still allows players who wish to be be specialists to do so instead of forcing them to train skills they may not otherwise want. Also, IF they fix skill tomes so there is some sort of total training restriction, non-vip can purchase those to overcome any advantage the VIP player has. Personally I think that VIP should be the norm and its not so unreasonable to expect a vast majority of players to have it.

Edited by Verot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Verot said:

If VIP can double dip it still allows players who wish to be be specialists to do so instead of forcing them to train skills they may not otherwise want. Also, IF they fix skill tomes so there is some sort of total training restriction, non-vip can purchase those to overcome any advantage the VIP player has. Personally I think that VIP should be the norm and its not so unreasonable to expect a vast majority of players to have it.

Except ACE themselves have said they expect only 20-25% of players to have VIP.

I plan to have VIP at all times. I don't mind paying for it. But I don't like the idea of VIP equating to power in any way. I'd prefer if it was all cosmetic.

Paying for power is just going to push me away from the game completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Svenn said:

Except ACE themselves have said they expect only 20-25% of players to have VIP.

I plan to have VIP at all times. I don't mind paying for it. But I don't like the idea of VIP equating to power in any way. I'd prefer if it was all cosmetic.

Paying for power is just going to push me away from the game completely.

I respect your opinion on paying for power, but no matter how you slice it VIP getting to train more trees, be it double dipping a single profession or not, results in more power.

While I would agree that you are unlikely to encounter 1 to 1 real world comparisons of players who are islands unto themselves fighting each other, VIP equates to an advantage. The multiplayer aspect of the game will help to obscure a lot of that advantage but it will be there none the less.  Advantages will be earned one way or another. VIP, alt accounts, skill tome boosting (if it survives current concept) will all be used by players who look for and want that advantage because they want to be the best. Even so, this game is also supposed to be about player skill so hopefully the nature of the game, full loot/decay etc, will help to balance those issues out.

Edited by Verot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Verot said:

I respect your opinion on paying for power, but no matter how you slice it VIP getting to train more trees, be it double dipping a single profession or not, results in more power.

I don't disagree. Horizontal progression isn't as bad, but it's still not ideal. Like I said, I want VIP to be purely cosmetic. People will pay crazy amounts for cosmetic stuff (myself included).

I really don't like the direction the monetary model is going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Svenn said:

I don't disagree. Horizontal progression isn't as bad, but it's still not ideal. Like I said, I want VIP to be purely cosmetic. People will pay crazy amounts for cosmetic stuff (myself included).

I really don't like the direction the monetary model is going.

The cosmetic model is tricky here though. Almost nothing in this game is permanent, would you likely pay for a cosmetic armor set if it can be lost in one battle or is destroyed at the end of the campaign? Would you pay for cosmetics that are only available in the EK? I'm not saying you are wrong and that people won't pay, I just think its a bit trickier to do cosmetics only here. It would result in the devs devoting the vast majority of their time to creating new art/animations etc instead of building and growing the game because that is what would be funding the development. At least with VIP its a one off development cost that is continually useful and consumable which means players need to keep coming back to the trough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Verot said:

The cosmetic model is tricky here though. Almost nothing in this game is permanent, would you likely pay for a cosmetic armor set if it can be lost in one battle or is destroyed at the end of the campaign? Would you pay for cosmetics that are only available in the EK? I'm not saying you are wrong and that people won't pay, I just think its a bit trickier to do cosmetics only here. It would result in the devs devoting the vast majority of their time to creating new art/animations etc instead of building and growing the game because that is what would be funding the development. At least with VIP its a one off development cost that is continually useful and consumable which means players need to keep coming back to the trough.

I'd rather have a bunch of development go to creating new cosmetics than to put up with paying for any sort of power.

Also, just make the cosmetics not tied to destructible items. Just permanent skins that can be applied and moved between equipment. Or dye colors (GW2 showed that people will pay a lot of money for dye colors... especially if you make some slightly different shades of existing colors you have and sell them as exclusive or time limited).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of naysayers before they actually see the completed product . So far its all a bunch of speculation with a bunch of people saying no do it this way !? No do it this way?!?

How about we just let Ace make the game . Test it. Then let them decide if our worries are even warranted . Jesus.. people settle down and enjoy the ride. Wait and then check out the system when its live. Then put your 2cents in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Verot said:

I'm fairly confident in my math, I worked it all out on a spreadsheet last night at home, which I'll upload to a google doc later. I wanted to modify the sheet so I could vary the number of "booster" accounts, right now I have it hard coded to 10.

To clarify my math assumes a total of 11 accounts. 1 Main account boosted by 10 alt accounts. When I talk about the snowball effect, I am referring to taking the main account to a tier 2 skill tree, then using the alt accounts too boost each other while the main account continues training in the tier 2 tree. Also keep in mind that all VIP accounts can train 6 trees at once (2 Race/Class/Profession). I ran the numbers on a 1 year skill tree as well last night and it worked out to be about 86 days for 100% completion if my memory serves me correct. The % of time it took to reach 100% completion was roughly 23-24% of total time for both the 3 month and 12 month tree compared to a solo leveled account.

The other variable that needs to be considered, especially as it relates to the snowball account method, is that it has been discussed by the devs that you might only need to train to 50% in a given tree before it unlocks the next tier tree. On a 3 month tree the boosted account hits over 30% training after the first 3 day boost, and I'm almost positive it was over 50% once it hit the 2nd boost at day 6. If this holds out to be true you can see how one could quickly cycle accounts to get to the 2nd tier skill tree, where the more powerful skill will be, by first boosting the main account then boosting one of the alt accounts with the remaining alt accounts. Once the next alt account reaches tier 2 it can then be used to boost the main account, while the alts continue to boost another account to tier 2. A normal account would have to train for at least 45 days to get to tier 2 skills while the boosted account can get to those skills in only 6. There is never a loss of efficiency on the main account only quicker access to skills that will not be available to players who do not boost.

Again, I'm not saying this is the most efficient use of alt accounts but for some players or guilds who pool resources its an effective way to get a competitive edge by simply using resources which don't need to be "actively manned".

Yea, the concern is valid, running the math shows it's got more potential harm than previously expected, so I'll back down from that.

There are rather easy fixes though. The first that comes to mind is a restriction on how many tomes a player/ATL can make.  If there was a 96 hr cool down after making a 72 hr tome, the best an ALT could transfer is 75% off a single line,  or 25% of total skill earned.  It would be enough for real players to be able to hand off/sell 25% of their training (12.5% for VIP) to stimulate new players and an economy, without exposing the snowball effect. Now you would have to purchase 4X the number of accounts to get the same impact. 

Another fix, and one I liked from a previous poster, would be to base the banking efficiency of time on the amount of training in the line itself, so not only would you have to have the prerequisites to get into each tree, you would also have to have competed the tree or trade time at a lesser value than 1-1.

There is also nothing in the idea that restricts ACE from further limiting adding skill this way. 1% to 1% diminishing returns was I am sure arbitrary. There is nothing stopping them from doing the doubling thing, making it 2-1, and capping all tome ingestion to 50% of a particular skill tree. With the ability to move up the skill tree at below 50% of time into a skill, new players could push an entire tree to 3 pips, and then have to wait through the larger part of the training time.

They have plenty of time to adjust course on the numbers, since the tomes are not even going to be in place for launch.

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that they can make skill tomes work. There are plenty of options, I'm still partial to a total training time cap for accounts which means you can't have more training time on the account than could be earned naturally since the time of game launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Avloren said:

I'm not sure how you ended up with 15120 / 24 = 630 days worth of training, which is 63 days per account, in 21 days' time. The number seems off by a factor of 3.

10 accounts should get a total of 210 days of training in 21 days, right? That's compared to the alternative of making tomes to give one account 90 days of training in the same time period, which is 90/210 = 42.86% efficiency. Also worth noting that it's 90/21 = 4.29x the normal training rate. Assuming @Verot's math is correct, I did not double check it.

Progress will slow after that, when you need to master the first tree on alts so they can boost the next tree, but you don't need to wait the full 3 months. You'd use some of the alts to boost the other alts to the end of the first tree faster. I did some rough estimates with a few different alt progression strategies, I think the fastest method is:

1. Use all 9 alts to tome the main account to the end of the first tree (as described by Verot)

2. The main starts training tree #2; meanwhile use 8 alts to tome the 9th alt to the end of the first tree

3. The advanced alt starts making tree #2 tomes; meanwhile use 7 alts to boost the 8th alt to the end of the first tree

4. At this point the main with tomes from the two advanced alts will finish tree #2 before a third alt can catch up to them. So you can do whatever with the remaining 7 alts, depending on your future plans. If you were planning to push for a third successive tree on the main, you'd start advancing another alt to tree #2.

If Verot was correct and my napkin math is close, the main can finish 180 days of training (two 90 day trees) in about ~91 days with this method. That's almost 2x the normal training rate. That's 20% efficiency if you only value the main's progress, or ~49% efficiency if you value the extra tree #1 training completed on some of the alts (the efficiency actually goes up because you spend some time doing real training instead of toming on some alts).

 

You're right that the problem more or less* disappears once non-boosted accounts have mastered a line of training. At that point the guy that just trained up all his alts normally is ahead of the game since he didn't sacrifice any training time to tomes with diminishing returns. It'll just take him longer to see the payoff, compared to those who rushed using tomes. And if tomes are not patched in until after that point, then the problem never really occurs.

*At least, the problem goes away for crafters/harvesters. Boosted combat players will be ahead for much longer, but I'm less worried about them.. a single guy with a 20% stat advantage is one thing, a crafter who can equip an entire guild with 20% better swords is something else entirely.

 

The problem also disappears if they go with the suggestion to cap the total training time, so that you can't ever surpass a day 1 VIP. I prefer this solution, then tomes will fulfill their purpose as a catch up mechanic only, without the side effect of boosted accounts advancing faster than intended.

Let me walk through it. I had assumed your first numbers were using all the training in three lines, not just a single line, so certainly there would be some error there.

.70 = 21/30 days ( I corrected the language and the results to 7/10  in my original after you quoted me, but missed the .75 in the displayed formula)

30 (number of days in the month)

30 = 3*10 (three lines, times 10 accounts)

24 = hours in a day.

So yea, I made some invalid assumptions to get my numbers, there is a better return than I calculated.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.