XP loss

[the570z]

JJ your track record of opposing changes is well established . IF everybody thinks at the END of this round the losses are too low, we can adjust them. IF people just think that war-bird losses are too low, could we not adapt the code that decides if an italic player is a legit kill or not(armed or not) to change the xp loss for dying in an combat ship vs dying in a trade ship. Speaking of which, we should also have newbies at a lower xp loss rate then "vet" players.

[Freon22]

I think hunting skill was weaken in a thread called "Make Trading harder" or something like that. From all these threads I read it looks like hunters wants more kills. Well now they can have more kills and the traders do not have to pay the high price so the hunters can have more fun. I see it as a win win!

But then you can push the death lost of exper points back up there or even higher and see how many more players the game loses. I think Page is trying to make the game fun for everyone hunters and traders. The trader can get killed and he does not have to restart from square one again.

[the570z]

That was the idea nobody wants to wreck the game for anybody! But trading did need to be harder, it was a joke, and honestly still is. Every single bit of trading can be done with formulas, as the NPCs are proving without a doubt. Honestly the changes did absolutely nothing to make trading any harder. They just gave traders a choice, play it safe or take a risk, so for anybody who is distressed by the idea of dying, the PSF is still available and damn near invincible. Honestly, I dont see any reason to coddle folks that chose to get in a freighter or IST too much, you have other options if you do not wish to risk death. I like the xp loss change more so the high xp types in alliances wont be so reluctant to op. And personally, id rather see the xp loss flipped for ports/planets/mines and PvP. Dying to a planet or port is out of your control other then not showing up for ops. There is no skill set that can be used to avoid the pod, its just luck.

[Azool]

The experience for PvP exp loss was adjusted because of the trade ship changes, the trade ship changes do not affect deaths to ports/planets hence why they haven't been changed (whether they should is a separate discussion, but unrelated to trade ships).

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. Can you clarify that? What do the trade ship changes have to do with the exp loss? Are you saying since the ships are more fragile you want to make dying less painful? That is understandable, but if exp loss is so low, then why even bother with the "safer" ships? Also, you can make more exp with the new trade ships, so overall exp in the game can increase significantly with these changes. I don't think that the exp loss from death should warrant a change in the exp loss formula. If you think it does, then why not make the change apply only to players in trade ships and not warships?

The previous numbers were clearly pretty punishing, especially for anyone trading as it has essentially undone all of their hard work for however long (which with the PSF wasn't too big of an issue, but that's no longer the case). At the end of the day the numbers are always going to seem low for exp simply because even if you reset them to 0 exp then it will only take a few days to trade that experience back up.

Again, not 100% sure what you are saying about the PSF (are you saying with the PSF you don't have to worry about dead? Or are you saying you could gain the exp back fast with a PSF so dying didn't matter?). I still don't understand all the hate for the PSF. For an experienced (as in time playing the game, not the experience #) player, the IST was very often a better choice to gain exp faster (and was much more widely used). Removing the PSF simply allows the gap to widen between the good (or fast/lots of time on their hands) traders and the bad (or slow/busy) traders. But that is an entirely separate discussion.

The logic of not wanting to undo all the players hard work also applies to planet/port raids. A player loses significantly more exp when dying to a port or planet. I think this warrants some discussion as well (this seemed like an appropriate thread for it, but we could make another port/planet death specific one if needed).

[Page]

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. Can you clarify that? What do the trade ship changes have to do with the exp loss? Are you saying since the ships are more fragile you want to make dying less painful? That is understandable, but if exp loss is so low, then why even bother with the "safer" ships? Also, you can make more exp with the new trade ships, so overall exp in the game can increase significantly with these changes. I don't think that the exp loss from death should warrant a change in the exp loss formula. If you think it does, then why not make the change apply only to players in trade ships and not warships?

The changes to trade ships meant you had to take a lot more risk to get the same trade power that used to be available, as such there is a much higher chance of dying (admittedly I have been told the map design makes hunting harder but I can't really comment on that). This change could apply to just traders, yes, however it is much easier to apply it to all and the fact is that the same hard work was put in to gain the experience regardless of whether you switched to a different ship or not, I also do not feel the need to deter traders who have reached high experience from switching to a warbird and participating in combat.

Again, not 100% sure what you are saying about the PSF (are you saying with the PSF you don't have to worry about dead? Or are you saying you could gain the exp back fast with a PSF so dying didn't matter?). I still don't understand all the hate for the PSF. For an experienced (as in time playing the game, not the experience #) player, the IST was very often a better choice to gain exp faster (and was much more widely used). Removing the PSF simply allows the gap to widen between the good (or fast/lots of time on their hands) traders and the bad (or slow/busy) traders. But that is an entirely separate discussion.

The PSF was normally the better option for gaining experience, except in the case you had a nice jump route. And the PSF is an issue because it was so hard to kill (sure, maybe it didn't used to be, back when there were more traders on dialup for the hunters on broadband/in Germany to kill, but not many people are still on dialup). As such the PSF essentially makes it very hard for a player to die but they also lost a huge amount, often in the region of a 1/4 of their experience, this basically makes hunting pretty boring/tedious as it's rare to get a kill or even come close (especially considering the time required), and it means a trader loses a load of their hard work in a single death, not particularly fun for them either. As it stands having more viable targets makes hunting more interesting whilst not being brutally punishing for the trader when they die.

The logic of not wanting to undo all the players hard work also applies to planet/port raids. A player loses significantly more exp when dying to a port or planet. I think this warrants some discussion as well (this seemed like an appropriate thread for it, but we could make another port/planet death specific one if needed).

Just start up a new thread, this one is aimed at PvP and existing rather than proposed changes, I have no issue with PvE exp loss being changed but I'd rather it got it's own full attention.


Also some more numbers, the spreadsheet will give you some idea on numbers but it was mainly for me to work through the numbers.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreads ... HppZ0dGc1E

[Azool]

The changes to trade ships meant you had to take a lot more risk to get the same trade power that used to be available, as such there is a much higher chance of dying (admittedly I have been told the map design makes hunting harder but I can't really comment on that). This change could apply to just traders, yes, however it is much easier to apply it to all and the fact is that the same hard work was put in to gain the experience regardless of whether you switched to a different ship or not, I also do not feel the need to deter traders who have reached high experience from switching to a warbird and participating in combat.

Agreed, that is why I think PvE should change as well...I'll start the thread.

The PSF was normally the better option for gaining experience, except in the case you had a nice jump route. And the PSF is an issue because it was so hard to kill (sure, maybe it didn't used to be, back when there were more traders on dialup for the hunters on broadband/in Germany to kill, but not many people are still on dialup). As such the PSF essentially makes it very hard for a player to die but they also lost a huge amount, often in the region of a 1/4 of their experience, this basically makes hunting pretty boring/tedious as it's rare to get a kill or even come close (especially considering the time required), and it means a trader loses a load of their hard work in a single death, not particularly fun for them either. As it stands having more viable targets makes hunting more interesting whilst not being brutally punishing for the trader when they die.

Agree with all but the first sentence The intangible pieces (turns used to bank, kill scouts, hunters chasing you off route, turns lost hittings mines, etc) still make the IST better for experienced traders IMO (Granted, these are less important now with a smaller player base and thus less hunters, but in many cases still make a significant difference, especially if you are specifically targeted by a hunter).

Also some more numbers, the spreadsheet will give you some idea on numbers but it was mainly for me to work through the numbers.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreads ... HppZ0dGc1E

Awesome, that helps a lot for the discussion, thanks

[JettJackson]

Bump, I still think this needs revising. The problem is those who are high exp when dying aren't losing enough exp so they continue to have a greater advantage, even after dying. It causes an unbalance because those that are high stay high and don't fall down much while dying, while those that are low can't get ahead even while killing. I understand the original exp loss was probably too high, but this is too low, a compromise in the middle would probably better suit the game, combined with an reduction of exp loss when dying to a planet/port as per noted in another thread on here.

[Beausoleil]

Bump, I still think this needs revising. The problem is those who are high exp when dying aren't losing enough exp so they continue to have a greater advantage, even after dying. It causes an unbalance because those that are high stay high and don't fall down much while dying, while those that are low can't get ahead even while killing. I understand the original exp loss was probably too high, but this is too low, a compromise in the middle would probably better suit the game, combined with an reduction of exp loss when dying to a planet/port as per noted in another thread on here.

+1

[Page]

Now I could be wrong, but JJ, you are currently 15k exp so it would be 100% beneficial for you if people who have worked for experience were to lose more exp and you will be naturally biased on this. Same goes for Infinity at 13k. Beau is admittedly slightly higher at a more respectable 43k, but he's still beaten by a good 40 players or so.
Overall this thread is predominantly lower exp players arguing for increased experience loss so it's hard to tell how much is biased and how much is truly objective.

[RCK]

Now I could be wrong, but JJ, you are currently 15k exp so it would be 100% beneficial for you if people who have worked for experience were to lose more exp and you will be naturally biased on this. Same goes for Infinity at 13k. Beau is admittedly slightly higher at a more respectable 43k, but he's still beaten by a good 40 players or so.
Overall this thread is predominantly lower exp players arguing for increased experience loss so it's hard to tell how much is biased and how much is truly objective.

+1