| Author | Threat level - hunts |
|---|
Hello,
after the merger the theat level of hunts don't correspond with the reality. I think the threat level of hunts depends on the record hunt.
However, the records are made with full ap, hunter sets and enchants. With these bonuses you get 160% bonus for damage beside min AP.
So I hope that the threat level of hunts (red, yellow, green and white) should be dependent on something else than record hunts. Mostly players are playing with min AP and they can't predict, how difficult will be the hunt because almost every hunt is white. |
+1
today i saw 297 hellhorses in white... lol |
+1
Though i often see green LOL and they are easy too |
| This task is actually harder than it sounds. How do you translate "difficult" and "easy" into computer language? And who's definition of "difficult" or "easy" should be used, big-game hunters' or light hunters'? Easier to keep things the way they are but with extended spectrum of colors. Maybe we could introduce "orange" between "red" and "yellow" and add the rest of the rainbow for the difficulty range from "green" downwards, maybe divide "white" further... |
Well, now I played against 540 unicorns and that was "white" hunt. Try to make it with min AP. I really dont know that the difficulty corresponds with the reality and it's peace of cake. The treat level loses its meaning. This record is made with bonus 140% to damage, so that's what I'm writing.
The options are:
1) to make more levels (more colors), for example:
white (up to 20% of record), grey(30), green (40), yellow (50), orange (60), pink (70), red (80), violet(90), black(100)
2) to make little bit distinct differences than currently (the colors should stay or as wrote Grusharaburas add orange color):
white (up to 20% of record hunt) green(20-30), yellow (30-40), orange (40-50) red (more than 50%). |
how about making 2 options for hunts with each there own difficulty system? the first being the same system we have now but a second that says "fight with minimum AP" if you click this one you must have minimum AP on. Then have a second leaderboard for min AP hunts fought by clicking this button and then the threat level for that button will correspond to those records.
easy to impliment because the coding and software is already there for it. |
| +1 |
for grahasburas:
I'm sure there can be a definite number of creatures that can be assigned corresponding to a threat level. If Devs know how to balance 9 factions with such diverse possibilities, stats, mechanics... They could surely have a way in making an almost approximate indicator of threat level for neutral units that have constant stats and no such hassles. |
I'm sure there can be a definite number of creatures that can be assigned corresponding to a threat level.
But that means predicting how many phoenixes are piece of cake or impossible at, say, CL 10. Requires too much thought and maybe even some esoteric mathematics. The beauty of the current system is that the "par" (in a golf scoring sense) value is decided by actual hunts of players. We just need to expand the current system because some difficulty category (like the "white" hunts) have gotten too wide.
Also, maybe there should be a numerical rating system instead of colors. Maybe we have color-blind players out there, who knows. Like say "1.00" for hunts equal to the current hunt records, "0.50" would be half the size of the current hunt record, "0.25" for quarter, etc... |
| "1.00" for hunts equal to the current hunt records, "0.50" would be half the size of the current hunt record, "0.25" for quarter, etc... +1 |
Requires too much thought and maybe even some esoteric mathematics. The beauty of the current system is that the "par" (in a golf scoring sense) value is decided by actual hunts of players.
Hunt records are made here in heavy enchanted sets probably beastbane artifacts wih enchants or some rare artifacts that im sure you have seen first time here.
Now, how does a guy in lesser ap be expected to face 0.25 of that amount and have it called easy?
I realise its sort of a load, but i could also stand the current system for as long as you dont care.... :) This is a suggestion that they could consider at a time when they could. Its not urgent.
BTW color blind people still get to read that "piece of cake" "medium" "hard" and "challenging" |
Now, how does a guy in lesser ap be expected to face 0.25 of that amount and have it called easy?
Don't ask me. I never said that 25% of hunt records, especially at high levels, was easy. It would be very useful for me to find out the ratio to the biggest kill of what I'm facing, though. Right now I pick only "white" hunts which could be anywhere from 0% to X% (I do not know the exact value) of the current hunt record. What I would really like is to limit my hunts to, say, 15% of the current hunt record. I just want to set a threshold for myself. I'm a conservationist, I like to manage my hunts. For this purpose, numerical system is better than color system. I suppose I could always pull up the hunt records and calculate but it's such a chore to do that for all the hunts. Yeah, I'm a lazy person. XD |
| have a look at personal records and watch your last fight if u like to know how hard it might gonna get |
have a look at personal records and watch your last fight if u like to know how hard it might gonna get
I was going to suggest this but this would mean that everyone view old battles just to see how they fare in their last successful hunt. Might put extra load on the server viewing those battles... |
have a look at personal records and watch your last fight if u like to know how hard it might gonna get
we all know that there is a solution... but this way needs unnecessary hardwork.
It would be very useful for me to find out the ratio to the biggest kill of what I'm facing, though.
+1 yes this will be better alternative to the original idea if the former seems complicated. |
-1
I think best solution is have a look at personal records and watch your last fight if u like to know how hard it might gonna get.
You don't need to watch every fight though as most players are very capable of deciding whether a hunt will be easy, hard, etc just from their experience of playing the game.
Specially at higher levels, the hunt indicator is just one of a number of factors a players uses when deciding what ap and setup they will need to have a chance at winning. So those who fight a lot of hunts will already have a very good idea of real level and those who don't hunt much are not likely to have extremely hard hunts being offered.
The indicators are most useful for people who are going to try for hunt records and the way they are shown now is best for this. |
DEATHisNEAR
okay.. so your perspective says that its not much required update... but this reason itself doesnt validate a -1. |
The indicators are most useful for people who are going to try for hunt records and the way they are shown now is best for this.
Not the best, it could be improved by removing the colors and just replacing them with numbers. For example, instead of "red!" we could replace it with "1.30" or "1.20" or "1.09" or whatever. Also, we could reduce server processes by skipping the color part and just outputting the result of the calculation. The way I see it, this is (probably) the pseudocode for the current system:
000 start;
010 get size of mob;
020 divide "current mob size" by "solo record mob size";
030 if result > 1, then set difcolor to "red!";
040 if result > a and <= 1, then set difcolor to "red";
050 if result > b and <= a, then set difcolor to "yellow";
060 if result > c and <= b, then set difcolor to "green";
070 if result <= c, then set difcolor to "white";
080 end;
I'm pretty sure that the admins may be using something more efficient than a "nested if" structure here but I'm also pretty sure we could simplify the whole process by removing that decision part and replacing it with:
030 show result truncated at two decimal places;
040 end;
That's like four lines less! XD |
