Experiance for groups with a mule
McCarron
So, if we wander up to the Bazaar, and add in our mules, does that
get us the 4 person modifier? even if there are large level differences?
Mccarron, on Luclin
Sean Kennedy
If they can't get xp (out of range, out of zone, too low) they
won't count for the bonus - this according to Absor on Caster's
realm a bit ago.
Lance Berg
McCarron wrote:
Yes, on all the mobs you kill in the bazaar, as long as they are within level
range to get exp and close enough to you, you'll get the full bonus.
Since that number is zero, I'll go further;
Bring the mules out of the bazaar into your killing zone, park them near you,
and -if- they are high enough level to get exp, you'll get the bonus. Then
you'll have to split the exp with them. So you may end up with less exp than
you were with just your partnership, lets look.
Say you have two level 20 mules, and you are both level 30.
Soloing a mob, you get 100% exp.
Partnered, you get 120% exp divided by 2, each, or 60% per kill versus
soloing.
Now, if you instead bring in your mule, you get 120% of the exp, but you get
3/5ths that and your mule gets 2/5ths, or 72% and 48%.
If you partner up and bring one mule, thats 140% exp per kill, with you and
partner getting 3/8ths each and your mule getting 1/4th: 52.5%, 52.5%, 35%.
Bring both mules and its 160% per kill, with you and your partner each
getting 3/10ths and mules each getting 1/5th: 48%, 48%, 32%, 32%.
Bring in another pair of mules and you now get 216% exp, 3/14ths per main,
1/7th per mule: 46%, 46%, 31%, 31%, 31%, 31%.
Now ideally, each member of a group at least adds proportionally his weight
in kill rate, so that you + partner kill twice as many mobs per hour as you
did solo. This means that while you get 60% of the exp per kill, you get
120% exp per hour compared to soloing... and in practice, a good team kills
-better- than this rate by combining their special contributions; for
example, my cleric sat beside a ranger in COM for half an hour and we each
killed three mobs, then we paired up and killed thirty mobs in the next half
hour, thats 15 times the expected "twice as many" rate.
But your plan involves adding in mules that will contribute nothing at all.
So for soloing with mule, you lose 28% per kill... but you are PLing your
mule at 48% per kill, a net gain if you care about such things.
With your partner and both mules, you are looking at 96% of your soloing with
no mule rate, compared to 120% that rate if you didnt' bring the mules... but
the mules are getting PLed at 64%.
If you bring "bots" instead of mules, alts that bring something to the table
like buffs or heals that your partnership doesn't bring, they may be able to
up the kill rate enough to pay for themselves or even more than that; but it
will be along the lines of that ranger/cleric synergy I was talking about,
instead of just by being there, as the whole "exp bonus" thing might have led
you to believe.
And unless they are bards or using some form of group based spell ability, it
would be better still if they -weren't- grouped with you, but still
contributing their helpful buffs/heals; then they'd get no exp at all but you
wouldn't have to give them a hefty hunk of what you are earning.
Matte, 10 chanter, Morel Thule
Tim Smith
> Now ideally, each member of a group at least adds proportionally his
> weight in kill rate, so that you + partner kill twice as many mobs per
> hour as you did solo. This means that while you get 60% of the exp per
> kill, you get 120% exp per hour compared to soloing... and in practice, a
> good team kills -better- than this rate by combining their special
> contributions; for example, my cleric sat beside a ranger in COM for half
> an hour and we each killed three mobs, then we paired up and killed thirty
> mobs in the next half hour, thats 15 times the expected "twice as many"
> rate.
Actually, it doesn't even take combining special contributions. Consider
two Warriors fighting as a pair, making sure to share damage (by each
tanking every other mob, or by taunting each mob off each other). Twice the
damage output cuts the length of each fight in half, which means the mobs
total damage output is also cut in half. Since that damage is shared, each
warrior takes 1/4 the damage he'd have taken soloing, so they have 1/4 the
downtime. That should let them kill more than twice as many mobs per hour,
so even without a grouping bonus, they'd come out ahead.
Compare to two Wizards. Again, the fights go twice as fast with two. So,
each uses half the mana. However, since the downtime for Wizards (other
than when something goes wrong) is entirely due to mana expenditure, rather
than to recover from anything the mob does over time, there is not that
extra factor of 1/2 that the two Warriors have, so in the case of two
Wizards, all they get is downtime being cut in 1/2. So the best they get is
twice as many mobs per hour. Without the grouping bonus, they might as well
just solo, unless they want to take mobs that are bigger than either can
solo.
> But your plan involves adding in mules that will contribute nothing at
> all. So for soloing with mule, you lose 28% per kill... but you are PLing
> your mule at 48% per kill, a net gain if you care about such things.
>
> With your partner and both mules, you are looking at 96% of your soloing
> with no mule rate, compared to 120% that rate if you didnt' bring the
> mules... but the mules are getting PLed at 64%.
One more case to consider now, with the new bonus system, is when you've got
a group of 5. It would then be great to bring along one mule, if that mule
is high enough to get XP, because that XP will be free.
--
Evidence Eliminator is worthless: www.evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
--Tim Smith
kaev
<snip>
> One more case to consider now, with the new bonus system, is when you've got
> a group of 5. It would then be great to bring along one mule, if that mule
> is high enough to get XP, because that XP will be free.
OTOH, if you find a sixth contributing member than the xp from the
additional kills will be "free xp" for the other 5 group members.
So that "free" xp for the mule ain't necessarily free.
kaev
Lance Berg
Tim Smith wrote:
>In article <3F048945...@dejazzd.com>, Lance Berg wrote:
>
>
>>Now ideally, each member of a group at least adds proportionally his
>>weight in kill rate, so that you + partner kill twice as many mobs per
>>hour as you did solo. This means that while you get 60% of the exp per
>>kill, you get 120% exp per hour compared to soloing... and in practice, a
>>good team kills -better- than this rate by combining their special
>>contributions; for example, my cleric sat beside a ranger in COM for half
>>an hour and we each killed three mobs, then we paired up and killed thirty
>>mobs in the next half hour, thats 15 times the expected "twice as many"
>>rate.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, it doesn't even take combining special contributions. Consider
>two Warriors fighting as a pair, making sure to share damage (by each
>tanking every other mob, or by taunting each mob off each other). Twice the
>damage output cuts the length of each fight in half, which means the mobs
>total damage output is also cut in half. Since that damage is shared, each
>warrior takes 1/4 the damage he'd have taken soloing, so they have 1/4 the
>downtime. That should let them kill more than twice as many mobs per hour,
>so even without a grouping bonus, they'd come out ahead.
>
>
Your logic here is flawed. Yes, killing one mob they each take only
1/4th the damage they would have soloing it, but they must kill two mobs
in order to equal the exp of killing one mob (without considering the
grouping bonus). This means that they end up each taking half the
damage they would have via soloing, to get the same base exp. Add the
two half damages together and you get the same damage taken to get the
same amount of exp hmm, ok your logic isnt' flawed after all I just
wasn't following it all the way. The benefit is that they each then
heal at their normal rate, pathetic as it is. If they had a cleric
healing them you wouldn't see this benefit, since the cleric would use
just the same amount of mana (or more mana if they were of CHeal level)
to heal two halfs as he would for one whole. Warriors could do this as
well, but since they can only bandage up to 50% this lets them handle a
lot more damage.
I still put it to you that the ranger/cleric team I mentioned comes out
-way- ahead of your two warrior team, as does any competent pair that
works well together, I suppose warrior is just a weak example of that
same principle.
>One more case to consider now, with the new bonus system, is when you've got
>a group of 5. It would then be great to bring along one mule, if that mule
>is high enough to get XP, because that XP will be free.
>
>
Lets see. 5 level 30s versus 5 level 30s and one level 20
5 level 30s: 180% exp divided 5 ways = 36% exp each
5 level 30s and a level 20: 216% exp divided up: level 30s get 3/17ths
and level 20 gets 2/17ths: 38%, 38%, 38%, 38%, 38%, 25%
Hey, a case where the group members actually get more exp than they did
without the mule, assuming the mule contributes nothing at all.
If that mule was level 30 like the rest then you'd have each member
getting 1/6th 216% which is 36% same as the 5 way split, the 6th man is
free but not actually benefitting the group unless he does at least a
little work.
If though, you take a group of level 20s and add one level 30 as the
"6th man" you get
216% exp divide up: level 20s get 2/13ths and level 30 gets 3/13ths:
33%, 33%, 33%, 33%, 33%, 50%
So be cautious in assuming adding a 6th man is always free, despite the
way they worded it in the patch message, he's only free if he's lower
level than you, and really what you want is someone who will actively
help the group by adding more exp coming in instead of just worrying
about how the split will work.
Bergh
ihatespam
> 5 level 30s: 180% exp divided 5 ways = 36% exp each
> 5 level 30s and a level 20: 216% exp divided up: level 30s get 3/17ths
Does a 6 man group really have 116% bonus? I knew the 5 man was 80%,
but I had not heard how they do the 6 man bonus.
Lance Berg
ihatespam wrote:
They say that a 6 man group gets the same exp bonus as a 5 man group,
and then distributes it as though each of the 6 people was in a 5 man group.
Simple math will show you that 6/5ths of 180% = 216%. They worded it
the other way in order to make the claim that "the 6th person is free"
but thats just fiddling with numbers to make a point, both are identical
ways to deal with the question.
BUT since you rarely see groups with all members at the same level, its
very confusing to try and work in "6th man free" while manipulation of
the numbers from 100%, 120%, 140%, 160%, 180%, 216% is much simpler.
For added fun, They could also claim that each person from 2 thru 5
costs only 80% of their nominal split portion and the last one costs
only 65% (I might have screwed up the math there) and give you even more
of a headache trying to figure this all out.
How about this one: per kill, one person gets 100%, two people get 60%,
three people get 46%, four people get 40%, five people get 36% and six
people still get you 36%.
So the second person costs you 40%, adding two people costs you 54%,
adding three people costs you 60%, adding five people costs you 64% and
adding six people also costs you 64%.
OR how about: adding the second person costs you 40, adding a third
person costs you a further 14%, adding a fourth costs you 16% more than
that, adding a fifth costs you still another 4%, and adding a 6th when
you have 5 doesn't cost a thing.
But you could also assume each person brings the same average kill ratio
to the table as everyone else. This would mean the group bonus is all
pure gravy: 2 people get 20% more exp, 3 people get 40% more exp, 4
people get 60% more exp, 5 people get 80% more exp, and 6 people get a
whopping 116% more exp.
This would mean the second thru 5th people each add 20% more exp, while
the 6th person adds 36% more exp.
See how wording the exact same figures yeilds different seeming results?
Funny thing is, experience tells me that pre change, soloing was
usually less exp than two people (barring the very good solo classes),
three people tends to be a bit better than two, and after that, 4, 5 and
6 tends to actually drag exp per hour down. This change seems
deliberately designed to counter that tendancy so that groups of any
size end up being just about as efficient as groups of any other size,
the anomolies being that fourth person.. he's too expensive for his
likely improvement in your kill rate, and the soloer, who sees 40% more
exp than a pair... so the pair still needs to be a big improvement to
win out.
A funny idea for soloers would be to group up and solo next to each
other. Then they'd get to use my last calculation system, so 6 soloers
would be each seeing more than twice the exp per hour as they would for
doing the exact same thing but without hitting the follow button.
This assumes that the soloers are all identical in level and equally
good at killing and that there are sufficient mobs that they aren't
stepping on each other's toes and that they all manage to be in the exp
range of each other for each and every kill, of course.
Another thought is that the good old fashioned PB AE group might once
again be the king of exp per hour, it always took 6 people to do this
well, and the 6 man group is now looking at a substantial improvement in
exp rate.
Food for thought
Matte, 27 enchanter with 2 PB AE stuns...one more chanter and 4 wizards
and lets clean out Mistmoore or something!
sugarman
wrote:
Your logic breaks down a bit here. A mob killed taken down is only
dishing out half the damge as well, so the duo has less down time
(with or without a cleric) than it would soloing also.
--sugarman--
Clayton
I've always been a little confused about the exp itself but I think I have a
clearer picture based on your postings. Feel free to correct me where i'm
wrong.
A mob gives out "x" experience "points" no matter who kills it, right? If
it cons yellow to you and blue to me and we each kill one, we would each get
the same number of "points", the points would just mean a little less to me
than you based on our respective levels.
And if we were grouped (and still different levels), we would split 120% of
these "points", with my share being larger than yours based on a straight
ratio of our levels.
Just for example, a level 40 and a level 20 walk into a bar and kill the
bartender (assuming the lv40 gets exp for the kill), they would get 80% and
40% respectively.
But, for my big question, if we were grouped and killed a mob that was blue
to you and green to me, would you again get a percentage based on the ratio
of our levels while I would get nothing?
Again for example, the same lv40 and lv20 kill a different bartender who is
green to the lv40, does the lv20 get 40% while the lv40 gets nothing?
Thanks.
Clayton
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Sean Kennedy
news:3f0a1c3b$1...@127.0.0.1:
> Lance, I wanted to thank you for your math lesson and ask a few more
> things.
>
> I've always been a little confused about the exp itself but I think I
> have a clearer picture based on your postings. Feel free to correct
> me where i'm wrong.
>
> A mob gives out "x" experience "points" no matter who kills it, right?
> If it cons yellow to you and blue to me and we each kill one, we
> would each get the same number of "points", the points would just mean
> a little less to me than you based on our respective levels.
>
> And if we were grouped (and still different levels), we would split
> 120% of these "points", with my share being larger than yours based on
> a straight ratio of our levels.
>
> Just for example, a level 40 and a level 20 walk into a bar and kill
> the bartender (assuming the lv40 gets exp for the kill), they would
> get 80% and 40% respectively.
>
> But, for my big question, if we were grouped and killed a mob that was
> blue to you and green to me, would you again get a percentage based on
> the ratio of our levels while I would get nothing?
>
> Again for example, the same lv40 and lv20 kill a different bartender
> who is green to the lv40, does the lv20 get 40% while the lv40 gets
> nothing?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Clayton
>
>
You're mistaken in a spot or 2 - let's cover the mechanics of XP -
Given :
ML = Mob Level
ZEM = Zone Experience Modifier (examples are 100 in the Hole,
75 in DL, 90 in Umbral Plains)
GB = Group Bonus (1.2 for 2, 1.4 for 3, 1.6 for 4, 1.8 for 5,
2.16 for 6)
The Base XP (B) a mob gives is
ML^2 * ZEM * GB
now, Given
PL = Player's level
SL = Sum of levels for the group
N = number of group members
HCB = High Con Bonus (for players
over 50, any mob within 5 levels of
their level has a bonus that gets
higher as the mob level gets higher.
The XP for the player is
B * ((PL + 5) / (SL + (5 * N))) * HCB
Where
HL = the level of the highest level
in a group
LL = the level of the lowest level
char in a group
then
LL >= ((HL * 2/3) Round Down)
Sometimes you'll see this as
LL * 1.5, but this misses some levels
where the lower level would get xp.
(namely a 38 does get xp with a 58,
43 with a 65 - both of which I have
empirical evidence of)
So, answer to question #1 is, if the
characters are over 50 the person for
whom it is a yellow con gets more absolute
XP than the higher level person, not just
higher relative xp.
Question 2, yes - the base xp is multiplied
by 1.2 before being split proportionate to
levels.
question 3, the 20 wouldn't get any xp. Make
the 40 a level 30 and you get -
Level 20 gets 25/60
level 30 gets 35/60
question 4, Yes - again, make the 40 a 30,
the 30 gets nothing (green mob) and the
20 gets 25/60 of the xp.
Sonnetta
level up, or a third of your level down.
ie. at 24 (cause I can work it out) you can group with someone level
16 to 32
at 16 you could group with someone 8 to 24
and at 32 you could group with someone 24 to 48
(with a minimum of 5 levels maybe???)
Don't know if its still the same, although it appears to be.
S.
As I lay me down to sleep,
I pray the Lord my soul to keep.
If I die before I wake,
I pray I have a recent saved game to go back to.
-- Gamer's Prayer
kaev
> "Clayton" <cta...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
> news:3f0a1c3b$1...@127.0.0.1:
>
<snip>
>>A mob gives out "x" experience "points" no matter who kills it, right?
>> If it cons yellow to you and blue to me and we each kill one, we
>>would each get the same number of "points", the points would just mean
>>a little less to me than you based on our respective levels.
>>
<snip>
> So, answer to question #1 is, if the
> characters are over 50 the person for
> whom it is a yellow con gets more absolute
> XP than the higher level person, not just
> higher relative xp.
>
Doesn't the "sweet spot" for post-50 xp range from PlayerLevel-4 to
PlayerLevel+2 (i.e. high blue to yellow)? So if a L51 and a L56
fought a mob that was yellow to the 51 both would get the bonus xp?
kaev
Sean Kennedy
The data for this was gotten at
http://www.knightsofloyalty.com/expcalc.php
Which has always proved accurate in the past,
and he seems to have the new bonuses and ZEM's
for PoP in there.
The math that follows simply shows that if
a 51 and a 56 both kill a level 55 mob, they
both get a bonus, but he 51 gets a bigger
bonus.
The lowest level mobs that give the bonus are level
Max(55, PL - 5)
The base bonuse at PL-5 is 1.95 and it increases .13
for each level
So, given
PL = Player level
ML = Mob Level
HCB = High Con Bonus
(forgive the pseudo C notation, but it is the most
compact way to represent the formula)
HCB = (ML < Max(55,(PL-5)) ? 1 : (1.95+(.13 * (ML-PL+5))))
So, for a level 60
ML HCB
54 1.00
55 1.95
56 2.08
57 2.21
58 2.34
...
65 3.25
67 3.38
...
70 3.90
For a level 55
ML HCB
54 1.00
55 2.60
...
70 4.55
For a level 65
ML HCB
59 1.00
60 1.95
...
70 3.25
kaev
> kaev <tos...@nottospam.net> wrote in news:3F0ADBA...@nottospam.net:
>
<snip>
>>Doesn't the "sweet spot" for post-50 xp range from PlayerLevel-4 to
>>PlayerLevel+2 (i.e. high blue to yellow)? So if a L51 and a L56
>>fought a mob that was yellow to the 51 both would get the bonus xp?
>>
>>kaev
>>
>>
>>
>
> The data for this was gotten at
>
> http://www.knightsofloyalty.com/expcalc.php
>
> Which has always proved accurate in the past,
> and he seems to have the new bonuses and ZEM's
> for PoP in there.
>
> The math that follows simply shows that if
> a 51 and a 56 both kill a level 55 mob, they
> both get a bonus, but he 51 gets a bigger
> bonus.
>
> The lowest level mobs that give the bonus are level
> Max(55, PL - 5)
> The base bonuse at PL-5 is 1.95 and it increases .13
> for each level
<snip remaining details>
Thanks!
Clayton
exp with a lv40, it just made the math easier for me.
And since we're on a roll here, what happens if you throw a pet or two into
the equation? If I'm soloing, I understand I get more exp if I do more
damage than the pet (not sure of the formula) but what happens in a group?
As a side note, I'm only interested in the under lv50 math if that makes any
of this easier.
Clayton
"Sean Kennedy" <x@n.n> wrote in message
news:Xns93B1BFD5CED4sk...@207.225.159.6...
Sean Kennedy
> Thanks for the math lesson and the answers. I knew the lv20 wouldn't
> get exp with a lv40, it just made the math easier for me.
>
> And since we're on a roll here, what happens if you throw a pet or two
> into the equation? If I'm soloing, I understand I get more exp if I
> do more damage than the pet (not sure of the formula) but what happens
> in a group?
>
> As a side note, I'm only interested in the under lv50 math if that
> makes any of this easier.
>
2 types of pets to consider -
Summoned pets and charmed pets.
For summoned pets - if the pet does 100% of
the damage he gets 75% of the xp (this is
bad :) If anyone in the group does just 1 point
of damage the pet takes none.
This is a marked change to the old rule, where
it was necessary to outdamage the pet to prevent
him from taking xp. (we cheered this change
loudly on the Tower)
For charmed pets it's a bit different. They
take from 0% to 50% of the xp based on how
much of the damage they do. I don't know the
exact ratio - but I'd guess it's linear (IE
XP% = Damage%/2)