#21
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#22
|
||||
|
Where are you all getting the idea that the baseline has changed? Or that the bonus changes a zone's baseline?
This is the explanation we had from Rogean in the patch notes thread: Quote:
So let's say we have one zone with a shitty .4 modifier like the example. That zone got a 50% boost to make it a .6 modifier. Now we have another zone that had amazing ZEM of 1.5, but got a 25% nerf, that brings it down to 1.125....which is still WAY better ZEM than the zone that got the 50% boost. We don't know either the baseline or the individual modifiers of the zones in actuality. So seeing that Perma got an 88% boost to its mod, does not mean that Perma is suddenly the hotness and Highkeep is total trash, if Perma's mod was miniscule compared to Highkeep's in the first place. Its still worth exploring and experimenting based on the announced numbers, and it will be interesting to see what plays out. But most of the playerbase is just looking at those announced percentages and assuming that it means flat XP gain for the zone increased by that much like its double xp weekend, but its only an increase to the zone's mod. | |||
|
#23
|
|||
|
PLOT TWIST: what if some zones had negative xp modifiers and the boosts only served to bring them up to the baseline?
| ||
|
#24
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Percentages are percentages. They work no matter what the units are, or what the order of magnitude is. Let's pretend that there are 3 zones. A, B, and C. During player experimentation, they discover that it takes 5 kills of Amobs to level from 1 to 2, 8 kills of Bmobs, and 10 kills of Cmobs. Now, given that as the only data, no baseline can be calculated. But, you can chose and arbitrary baseline! I chose C. So, I will declare C as having a ZEM of 100. B, will thus have a ZEM of 10/8*100 or 125, and A will have a ZEM of 200. C as baseline:
Or, you could choose A. In this case A will have a ZEM of 100, B will have a ZEM of 62.5, and C will have a ZEM of 50. A as baseline:
Now, the devs come along and say that they have determined what the baseline should be and have altered the ZEMs accordingly. A's ZEM is reduced by 20%, B is left unchanged, and C's ZEM is increased by 20% ZEM changes as a percent change:
Now under the my choice of C as the baseline, A's ZEM is now 200*.8 = 160. B's ZEM is still 125, and C's ZEM is now 100*1.2= 120. C as baseline new ZEMS:
Under your choise of A as the baseline, A's ZEM is now 100*.8 = 80, B's ZEM is still 62.5, and C's ZEM is 50* 1.2 = 60. A as baseline new ZEMs:
Now, assuming there are no other changes, let's look at the number of kills needed now. With C as the baseline, we first compare Cznew to Czold. What used to take 10 Cmobs now takes 10 * Czold/Cznew = 10 * (100/120) = 8.333mobs. Doing the same for the others: Akills = 5*Azold/Aznew = 5 * (200/160) = 6.25, Bkills = 8*Bzold/Bznew = 8 (unchanged). Kills needed, C as baseline, new ZEMs:
Doing the same using A as baseline, Akills = 5*100/80 = 6.25, Bkills = 8(unchanged), and Ckills = 10*50/60 = 8.33. Kills needed, A as baseline, new ZEMs:
Now, the whole "baseline" concept gets muddied when you don't give the baseline the value of 100, as the "old ZEMs" did in the outdoor zones, giving them the ZEM=75(100) nomenclature. But the result is the same. The number of kills changes in all zones, no matter what you chose as the baseline. Now, we have one additional piece of information that the exercise above did not use: rogean explicitly said: Quote:
So, we know to set B as the baseline. B as baseline, old ZEMs
B as baseline, new ZEMs
Kills needed:
Or, if you prefer using only the new ZEMs, you have to use the numkills from the baseline only: Kills needed:
Amazing how math works. | ||||
|
#25
|
|||
|
You guys are analyzing this way too much. The reason for posting the percentage differences in the news post was not so that people could know exactly what the new ZEMs are, and people need to stop acting like they are entitled to know that. The reason we posted the percentage is so people know that some zones that were not worth exp'ing in before may now be worth it.
What some people have said is true, if a zone had a very low modifier before and it was increased by 50%, it's possible the new ZEM value is still lower than other zones. Whether that's the case or not, I'm not divulging. The point of all of this was, if you previously avoided a zone because it gave bad XP, well now it gives 50%, or 66%, or 88% more than it was before. So, go give it another shot.
__________________
| ||
|
#26
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Naxy Dent
Cleric of Karana, Kingdom, Green Once proudly in Veeshan's Fury on Bristlebane | |||
|
#27
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
60 Gnome Arch Mage - Christina PVP
52 Gnome Heretic - Isis/Desirae PVP 53 Halfling Wanderer - Carter PVP 45 Dark Elf Wizard - Smurf PVP 41 Enchanter - Jeffery PVP 37 Iksar Monk - Buster PVP 26 Human Ranger - Kenny PVP RED99 | |||
|
#28
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#29
|
|||
|
Should have just said "ZEMs changed, or maybe not, figure it out for yourselves like we did back in '99, you filthy ingrates" and inject some of that exploration/mystery back in [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
__________________
Another witty, informative, and/or retarded post by:
"You know you done fucked up when Yendor gives you raid commentary." - Tiggles | ||
|
#30
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
|