CL: Rank statistics
Ann GM
of ranks trained, which looked like this:
> 0- 100 **************************************************
> 101- 200 ****************************
> 201- 300 **************************
> 301- 400 ***************************
> 401- 500 *****************************
> 501- 600 ***************************
> 601- 700 *********************************
> 701- 800 *******************************************************
> 801- 900 ******************************************
> 901-1000 *********************************
> 1001-1100 ****************************************
> 1101-1200 *********************************
> 1201-1300 *********************
> 1301-1400 ************
> 1401-1500 *********
> 1501-1600 *****
> 1601-1700 ***
> 1701-1800 **
> 1801-1900 **
> 1901-2000 .
> 2001-2100 *
> 2101-2200 *
> 2201-2300
> 2301-2400 .
Each * represents 4 characters, for a total of 1902 logged on in the 30
days before I took the data. (A dot is half a *, fewer than 3 but more
than zero.)
In response to an emailed request, here's the same information now, for
characters logged in over the last 30 days:
0- 100 *************************
101- 200 ********************
201- 300 *******************
301- 400 ******************
401- 500 *******************
501- 600 ******************
601- 700 *********************
701- 800 **************************
801- 900 ***********************
901-1000 *********************
1001-1100 ************************
1101-1200 ****************************
1201-1300 **********************************
1301-1400 *******************************
1401-1500 *******************************
1501-1600 ************************
1601-1700 ******************
1701-1800 ***********
1801-1900 *******
1901-2000 *****
2001-2100 ****
2101-2200 ***
2201-2300 **
2301-2400 *
2401-2500 .
2501-2600 *
2601-2700
2701-2800 .
2801-2900
2901-3000 .
Ann
Simsu
Interesting info... I take this are accuall ranks and not trained ranks.
How about the numbers for top 10 for each class? How about # of ranks
for players that have started since 10/01?
I'll also take the time to restate the need for more mid level areas
i.e. tgbg, lp, rc. (Shown here by the 800-1500 rank range) And before
someone says it, yes they can tag along with stronger groups to go to
Valley, KI, etc, but they should be able to hunt areas without the help
of the 1800+ rank 'elite' I'm sure the GMs talk about the rank gain and
how to cut down on rank whores... Wonder if any of then thought tha if
there were more mid level areas they could go to they wouldn't have to
tag along in areas that give 100% vanq and would therefore rank
slower... Not to mention have a great deal more fun at the mid level
area of play.
Mason, former h.w.c.
Helpful GM
> Interesting info... I take this are accuall ranks and not trained ranks.
I'm not sure how you mean to differentiate the two, but I believe that
Ann's stats are what we GMs call "actual trained ranks", regardless of
the relative "weight" of said rank. That is, 300 Skea adds "300" to
your "score" just as much as 300 Atkus or 300 Mentus or 300 Higgrus or
300 PF would.
Every time you train a rank of something, the trainer (a) bumps some
stat(s) by some balanced amount between 0.01 and 1.00 (this is what we
mean when we say "some ranks are 'bigger' than other ranks" and the
total amount is what affects your "slaughter level") and (b) bumps your
"total ranks trained" "stat" by exactly 1. Note: your TRT "stat" has no
game impact, whatsoever, it's a leftover from beta-days and is now only
interesting to see who has how many trained ranks.
I'm pretty sure Ann's histograms are the TRT numbers.
--
You have to remove stuff from my e-mail to reply, it's not difficult.
Everything here is my personal opinion, do with it what you will.
"[T]he idea of a game with people nicer than in CL makes me wanna puke."
-Michael
Simsu
>
> I'm not sure how you mean to differentiate the two, but I believe that
> Ann's stats are what we GMs call "actual trained ranks", regardless of
> the relative "weight" of said rank. That is, 300 Skea adds "300" to
> your "score" just as much as 300 Atkus or 300 Mentus or 300 Higgrus or
> 300 PF would.
Giving an example.
Evus gives a benefit if you train him.. Say you had 500 'trained' ranks
(you got 500 you got better at evus messages) If you look at the other
trainers and take the lowest possible value of the messages it will be
more than 500. That number (The number you get from adding up the other
trainer messages is actual ranks the person has) I don't know evus very
well but to give an example I know of. While training my Zo I had about
450 atkus, 200 darkus, and 200 baltus trained, but when I talked to
baltus the message he gave me was closer to 450 baltus. Which means my
trained ranks was 850, but my actual ranks were closer to 1300.
In the case of the 2900-3000 rank person(s) she listed have those people
accually gotten that many '•you got a rank messages' or have they gotten
less than that many messages, but with the extra help some trainers
give, they have that many actual ranks.
I bring up the differance since when comparing class rank gains, and so
on, it would be a great deal more accurate to only count trained ranks
and not accuall ranks. (since more healers tend to train with the
trainers that give advantages, like eva, spiritus, etc, rather than
fighters who tend to spread their ranks out more.)
Mason, former h.w.c.
Helpful GM
> Evus gives a benefit if you train him.. Say you had 500 'trained' ranks
> (you got 500 you got better at evus messages) If you look at the other
> trainers and take the lowest possible value of the messages it will be
> more than 500. That number (The number you get from adding up the other
> trainer messages is actual ranks the person has) I don't know evus very
> well but to give an example I know of. While training my Zo I had about
> 450 atkus, 200 darkus, and 200 baltus trained, but when I talked to
> baltus the message he gave me was closer to 450 baltus. Which means my
> trained ranks was 850, but my actual ranks were closer to 1300.
Ah, I understand now.
So, if 1 rank of Chumus gives you .25 of Simus, .25 of Malkus, .25 of
Pruus, .25 of Helpfus and .25 Skea (total: 1.25), you'd say you had
"1.25 actual ranks" -- that sort-a makes sense.
We don't track that kind of stuff. Well, we do, but in a form that
makes it very difficult to do histograms :)
So, again, I'm 99.44% sure that Ann's stats are what we call "Total
Ranks Trained" which, in the Chumus example, above, would be "1" for
every "you feel more Chum-like", not 1.25.
Note, though, that "you feel more chum-like" only comes if you let the
"training daemon" come around and bump your ranks. If, for example, you
speed-train, you might get a dozen (or more, or less) ranks-trained, but
only one "you are now lots more chum-like" message. Your TRT message is
still bumped by the number of ranks you trained.
I hope that makes sense.
Helpful "except when he's more confusing <G>" GM
Mr. Chrystalis
> In October 2001, I posted a histogram of players with different numbers
> of ranks trained, which looked like this:
>
>
> Ann
You forgot the last one,
3001-3500 But it's all sunk into making the perfect chilli dog.
-Leo
Lex
> accually gotten that many '•you got a rank messages' or have they gotten
> less than that many messages, but with the extra help some trainers
> give, they have that many actual ranks.
It's actual ranks trained, not rank-worth. So this 2900-3000 person trained
3000 ranks, but by trainer message probably has way over 3000 rank's-worth
of mixed skills.
Yeah, pretty fucking insane huh?
Lex
peterbayly
"Ann GM" <a...@admin.SPAMLESSclanlord.com> wrote in message
news:190220030017365179%a...@admin.SPAMLESSclanlord.com...
Is it possible for these stats to be devided up into the proffessions?
So we can see the exact variations in the number of ranks both within the
different proffessions and between the proffessions?
Mjollnir
Jeff Ray
> So we can see the exact variations in the number of ranks both within the
> different proffessions and between the proffessions?
I'd like to see "ranks minus departs".
-j
Fogtripper
Can I have a Spriggin Stick?
Noah
>
> Note: your TRT "stat" has no game impact, whatsoever, it's a leftover from
> beta-days and is now only interesting to see who has how many trained ranks.
>
Doesn't it affect the title (Master, Lord, etc.) NPCs give you? Will
there ever be any titles after Lord or is that not on the list?
Lex
from
> > beta-days and is now only interesting to see who has how many trained
ranks.
>
> Doesn't it affect the title (Master, Lord, etc.) NPCs give you?
I think you're right. Evus doesn't get you get to mistress any faster that
Skea.
Lex
Hidden
fogg...@hotmail.com (Fogtripper) wrote:
> Can I have a Spriggin Stick?
No no no no no no no.
It's
"kan i haev a gr8sw0rd plz??!???"
--
HWC for Hidden <hid...@noDASHop.com>
"Nothing says "Shut the Fuck Up" Like a baseball bat to the head."
Ann GM
> In the case of the 2900-3000 rank person(s) she listed have those people
> accually gotten that many 'ïyou got a rank messages' or have they gotten
> less than that many messages, but with the extra help some trainers
> give, they have that many actual ranks.
They've gotten that many "you got a rank" messages (adjusted for the
speedy trainers).
> I bring up the differance since when comparing class rank gains, and so
> on, it would be a great deal more accurate to only count trained ranks
> and not accuall ranks.
It's not really worth trying to compare class rank gains at all. One
rank of Faustus isn't worth exactly the same to a character as one rank
of Atkus. The relevant question is whether people in different
classes, after playing for about the same amount of time and in about
the same way, can be useful in the same places. The healer might have
100 ranks when the fighter has 200, but if the healer's ranks are
"bigger," that's fine.
Ann
Chum
Jeff Ray <jeff...@dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
Wouldn't the more interesting stat be "ranks plus departs"? If you
assume equal value (as r-d does), it'd be "how many ranks you COULD have
had, were it not for departs."
Btw, I don't make such an assumption.
--
You have to remove your clothes if you want me to read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, ever purchase any product from
any company which gathers addresses from the usenet; period.
Ann GM
> I'd like to see "ranks minus departs".
Since departs subtract from your experience, ranks minus departs would
be counting departs twice. Ranks *plus* departs might be interesting,
but it's easy to read too much into that, since experience lost to
departs doesn't count against slaughter level or the cost of the next
rank the way it would if you'd used it to train.
Anyway, it's not a whole lot different.
Ranks + Departs:
0- 100 ************************
101- 200 *********************
201- 300 *******************
301- 400 ******************
401- 500 *******************
501- 600 *****************
601- 700 *********************
701- 800 *************************
801- 900 ***********************
901-1000 **********************
1001-1100 **********************
1101-1200 **************************
1201-1300 *********************************
1301-1400 *****************************
1401-1500 *************************
1501-1600 **********************
1601-1700 ******************
1701-1800 *****************
1801-1900 **********
1901-2000 *****
2001-2100 ******
2101-2200 ****
2201-2300 **
2301-2400 ***
2401-2500 **
2501-2600 **
2601-2700 *
2701-2800 .
2801-2900 .
2901-3000 .
Ranks, for reference:
Jazz
> Evus gives a benefit if you train him.. Say you had 500 'trained' ranks
> (you got 500 you got better at evus messages) If you look at the other
> trainers and take the lowest possible value of the messages it will be
> more than 500. That number (The number you get from adding up the other
> trainer messages is actual ranks the person has)
Curious stuff. Based on just fighter trainer messages and assuming I
am at the minimum message level like you say I would have 1400 pure
fighter ranks. I know for a fact that I have had no where near 1400
actual fighter rank messages.. more like 1150-1175 give or take. I
have never trained a fighter trainer besides Evus and a little Swengus
(170ish) which I don't know if there is a bonus or not.
This leads me to believe that the bonus from Evus is considerable...
on the order of 250 "rank stats" per 1000 Evus rank messages (!!!).
Could that possibly be right? I'm pretty darn stupid so probably am
looking at this all wrong. If that's true.. well.. I may suck as a
fighter, but I bet I'm up there on the min-maxer scale. Goooo Evus!
:-p
Jeff Ray
>
> Since departs subtract from your experience, ranks minus departs would
> be counting departs twice. Ranks *plus* departs might be interesting,
> but it's easy to read too much into that, since experience lost to
> departs doesn't count against slaughter level or the cost of the next
> rank the way it would if you'd used it to train.
Right, one of those "what I meant, not what I said" things.
> Anyway, it's not a whole lot different.
Not at the lower end. It does seem visible at the upper end. The
meaning of the difference is certainly debatable, as you point out.
Would it be possible to produce graphs of individual professions? If
so, would it be possible to break the mystic class down a little
further, since the promotion mechanism makes mystics more like three
separate professions? It would be interesting to see how I stand verses
other JM.
-jrr
Hidden
Chum <Chum@*YOUR-CLOTHES*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> Btw, I don't make such an assumption.
Yeah, I've noticed a depart is a fixed ammount of experience for me, so
nowadays it's a tiny tiny tiny fraction of a rank, so I don't really
mind much. I've also some theories that the situation of the depart may
influence how much it hurts.
Maeght
Chum <Chum@*YOUR-CLOTHES*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> In article <jeff.ray-D8535A...@ftp2.dfrc.nasa.gov>,
> Jeff Ray <jeff...@dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> > > Is it possible for these stats to be devided up into the proffessions?
> > > So we can see the exact variations in the number of ranks both within the
> > > different proffessions and between the proffessions?
>
> > I'd like to see "ranks minus departs".
>
> Wouldn't the more interesting stat be "ranks plus departs"? If you
> assume equal value (as r-d does), it'd be "how many ranks you COULD have
> had, were it not for departs."
>
> Btw, I don't make such an assumption.
There's also the issue of the time lost while fallen, time that could
have been spent earning experience.
- Maeght
Maeght
ja...@nrdbpost.com (Jazz) wrote:
Yep, the standard estimate is 1.25 skills per 1 rank trained with Evus.
I think Evus is up there, slaughter-wise.
- Maeght
Hidden
Maeght <awes...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> There's also the issue of the time lost while fallen, time that could
> have been spent earning experience.
I think one and a half hours is roughly the cutoff point where it would
have been better to depart for a casual clanner. For a hardcore rank
whore it might be closer to 30-45 minutes.
Hidden
Ann GM <a...@admin.SPAMLESSclanlord.com> wrote:
> The relevant question is whether people in different classes, after
> playing for about the same amount of time and in about the same way,
> can be useful in the same places.
Nope. While I gain ranks MUCH slower as a healer, I'm about 5x more
useful than a fighter with my ranks. As far as speed of rank gain vs.
usefulness goes, Healers are WAY overpowered. Or perhaps fighters are
way UNDERpowered. The problem with fighters is a fighter who doesn't
have enough atkus to hit things, enough swengus to support the atkus,
and enough histia/detha/balthus to stay up isn't useful at all. Whereas
a 2nd circle healer could be brought to KI or the Valley and contribute
in a meaningful if not terribly important way. A 2nd circle healer who
has 100 higgrus, 50 respia, and 350 horus will be MUCH better loved than
a 2nd circle fighter with 100 atkus, 200 swengus, 100 histia, and 100
darkus, who will be virtually worthless outside of the South Forest.
Warren J. Dew
Wouldn't the more interesting stat be "ranks plus departs"? If you
assume equal value (as r-d does), it'd be "how many ranks you COULD have
had, were it not for departs."
What I'd like to see is ranks divided by departs - "how many ranks you would
have gotten in the character lifetime, if it wasn't immortal".
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Lex
> on the order of 250 "rank stats" per 1000 Evus rank messages (!!!).
> Could that possibly be right?
Probably, but since you can't really compare the value of one rank to
another, the bonus isn't easy to measure. And some other trainers give
mixed stuff. Atkus for example also gives Balthus and Regia, maybe a 0.2
rank bonus or more.
Lex
Lex
>> have been spent earning experience.
>
> I think one and a half hours is roughly the cutoff point where it would
> have been better to depart for a casual clanner. For a hardcore rank
> whore it might be closer to 30-45 minutes.
There's also the fun factor to be considered. Being fallen for more than a
couple minutes sucks, and being fallen more than 1/2 hour REALLY sucks. I'd
rather depart and re-join the fight if possible even though I might not get
back all that exp.
Lex
Hidden
> Being fallen for more than a couple minutes sucks, and being fallen
> more than 1/2 hour REALLY sucks.
Ah. I bring my PowerBook next to my PC and play a backup game while I
wait, so I don't really have trouble with that.
Michael
Michael
> In article <awessels-B33D4F...@news.supernews.com>,
> Maeght <awes...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > There's also the issue of the time lost while fallen, time that could
> > have been spent earning experience.
>
> I think one and a half hours is roughly the cutoff point where it would
> have been better to depart for a casual clanner. For a hardcore rank
> whore it might be closer to 30-45 minutes.
Fuck no. Takes me longer than that.
Michael
Michael
> In article <3E538373...@attbi.com>, Simsu <si...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > Interesting info... I take this are accuall ranks and not trained ranks.
>
> I'm not sure how you mean to differentiate the two, but I believe that
> Ann's stats are what we GMs call "actual trained ranks", regardless of
> the relative "weight" of said rank. That is, 300 Skea adds "300" to
> your "score" just as much as 300 Atkus or 300 Mentus or 300 Higgrus or
> 300 PF would.
>
> Every time you train a rank of something, the trainer (a) bumps some
> stat(s) by some balanced amount between 0.01 and 1.00 (this is what we
> mean when we say "some ranks are 'bigger' than other ranks" and the
> total amount is what affects your "slaughter level") and (b) bumps your
> "total ranks trained" "stat" by exactly 1. Note: your TRT "stat" has no
> game impact, whatsoever, it's a leftover from beta-days and is now only
> interesting to see who has how many trained ranks.
>
> I'm pretty sure Ann's histograms are the TRT numbers.
It would sure be nice if there was a way for us to find out how many
ranks we have. I would love to know where i fall on the scale, but
since I dont count ranks I have no idea. I am pretty sure I am over 2k,
but thats about all I know.
Michael
Jeff Ray
> assume equal value (as r-d does), it'd be "how many ranks you COULD have
> had, were it not for departs."
>
> What I'd like to see is ranks divided by departs - "how many ranks you would
> have gotten in the character lifetime, if it wasn't immortal".
Which assumes an even distribution of departs throughout the character's
ranking career. Maybe "largest block of ranks without a depart"?
-j
Hidden
mike...@mac.com (Michael) wrote:
> Fuck no. Takes me longer than that.
Do you observe your rank messages carefully? Try it next few times you
think there might be a depart in your future and you'll notice it
doesn't hurt as much as you think it does.
Lex
> think there might be a depart in your future and you'll notice it
> doesn't hurt as much as you think it does.
I've noticed since I was very new up until recently, I go down about 2
messages - that's about 1/3 a rank? Although I suppose when you're new it's
easier to get back that 1/3 rank, but the amount doesn't seem to have
changed.
Lex
rhdennis
Very interesting Ann and thanks. Several things can be seen here and
although its very difficult to make any real analysis with just two sets
of data, at first glance we can see some trends.
The first is that fewer new characters are being played by about one
half. This seems to support many of our recent posts regarding fewer in
the lands.
Second, as suspected in five months the average moved about 500 ranks
and the previous peak at around 800 has moved to 1300. This peak is also
reduced by about one half, but this is to be expected as well if one
considers the aforementioned attrition.
Third, there is yet another small peak at around 800 and I'd think this
might be most of those left out of the original 0-100 crowd as well as
some second characters of younger players.
Fourth, little has changed in the upper end of the graph other than
fewer in the steep end of the arm 1300 - 2000 in graph A vs. 1700 - 2300
in graph B.
The trends don't look promising, but as I mention no real analysis could
begin without several more sets of data. I hesitate to try generating a
predictive histogram based on two sets, but when I did it myself it
looked awful for Clan Lord.
Again, thanks.
rhdennis
Althea
Hidden <hid...@no-op.com> wrote:
> In article <253d72ac.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> fogg...@hotmail.com (Fogtripper) wrote:
>
> > Can I have a Spriggin Stick?
>
> No no no no no no no.
>
> It's
>
> "kan i haev a gr8sw0rd plz??!???"
no no no... its
"can I have a pony?"
Althea
Garscow
> Will
> there ever be any titles after Lord or is that not on the list?
I believe there is something in the works related to the master/lord
thing.
In short, you title you have at any one time will be related to the
other exiles that are currently online. Something similar was going to
be introduced for karma.
The last I heard of this was a number of months ago, so plans could have
changed.
Garscow
Pernille Jensen
> The first is that fewer new characters are being played by about one
> half. This seems to support many of our recent posts regarding fewer in
> the lands.
Also, fewer characters are being played overall. Down from ~1900 to
~1700.
> Second, as suspected in five months the average moved about 500 ranks
> and the previous peak at around 800 has moved to 1300. This peak is also
> reduced by about one half, but this is to be expected as well if one
> considers the aforementioned attrition.
The first histogram is from October *2001*, 16 months ago.
- Pernille
Garscow
> Very interesting Ann and thanks. Several things can be seen here and
> although its very difficult to make any real analysis with just two sets
> of data, at first glance we can see some trends.
I think it's difficult to see any trends in these two sets of data
because the second set has two factors changed from the first.
The first being the time of the sample, about a year and a half
difference.
The second is what has been measured. (All characters, compared to
characters that have left the library in the last 30 days.)
> The first is that fewer new characters are being played by about one
> half. This seems to support many of our recent posts regarding fewer in
> the lands.
The first graph would include a large number of exiles that were created
and left in the library to gain ranks. They would more than likely not
appear in the second graph.
> Second, as suspected in five months the average moved about 500 ranks
> and the previous peak at around 800 has moved to 1300. This peak is also
> reduced by about one half, but this is to be expected as well if one
> considers the aforementioned attrition.
This a slightly more reliable conclusion. Though only if you count raw
numbers, as opposed to relative bar size.
> The trends don't look promising, but as I mention no real analysis could
> begin without several more sets of data. I hesitate to try generating a
> predictive histogram based on two sets, but when I did it myself it
> looked awful for Clan Lord.
It should look better if we had two sets of data that were actually
comparable! :)
But on the whole, it's very useful data no-the-less.
> Again, thanks.
>
> rhdennis
Garscow
Baff
As of yesterday Thuja says she has 2979 ranks. Of course, Mujin may have 2900+
ranks too, I have no idea.
Baff
Haenk
> As of yesterday Thuja says she has 2979 ranks. Of course, Mujin may have 2900+
> ranks too, I have no idea.
To my knowledge, she already passed the 3000.
Haenk
test
Can we get the summary data you gave for the previous release I really
do not want to count each asterick and multiple and I do not know for
sure how much a . is worth.
Warren J. Dew
Which assumes an even distribution of departs throughout the character's
ranking career. Maybe "largest block of ranks without a depart"?
That would be even better, but I'd be surprised (and impressed) if they
actually tracked data from which that could be extracted.
Ann GM
<garsNO...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> I think it's difficult to see any trends in these two sets of data
> because the second set has two factors changed from the first.
>
> The first being the time of the sample, about a year and a half
> difference.
>
> The second is what has been measured. (All characters, compared to
> characters that have left the library in the last 30 days.)
They were both data from characters who had left the library in the
previous 30 days. I apologize if that wasn't clear.
Ann
Ann GM
<hid...@no-op.com> wrote:
> In article <190220031333310534%a...@admin.SPAMLESSclanlord.com>,
> Ann GM <a...@admin.SPAMLESSclanlord.com> wrote:
>
> > The relevant question is whether people in different classes, after
> > playing for about the same amount of time and in about the same way,
> > can be useful in the same places.
>
> Nope. While I gain ranks MUCH slower as a healer, I'm about 5x more
> useful than a fighter with my ranks.
That's exactly my point: you can't compare ranks between classes.
> The problem with fighters is a fighter who doesn't
> have enough atkus to hit things, enough swengus to support the atkus,
> and enough histia/detha/balthus to stay up isn't useful at all. Whereas
> a 2nd circle healer could be brought to KI or the Valley and contribute
> in a meaningful if not terribly important way.
I've seen careful low-level fighters get tags and contribute to the
group in some remarkably difficult places. It's true that healers are
generally more useful way above their level than fighters are, but I
think that's all right.
Ann
Baff
She says 2979 and Ann says nobody has over over 3000, so that seems unlikely.
Baff
Baff
> In article <hidden-357295....@news.stanford.edu>, Hidden
> <hid...@no-op.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <190220031333310534%a...@admin.SPAMLESSclanlord.com>,
> > Ann GM <a...@admin.SPAMLESSclanlord.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The relevant question is whether people in different classes, after
> > > playing for about the same amount of time and in about the same way,
> > > can be useful in the same places.
> >
> > Nope. While I gain ranks MUCH slower as a healer, I'm about 5x more
> > useful than a fighter with my ranks.
>
> That's exactly my point: you can't compare ranks between classes.
Exactly! Yet in your graph you lump all the incomperable classes together
rendering it meaningless ;P
Thanks for all graphs, numbers, etc that you have posted here over the
years. They have been quite interesting, spurred some great debates and far
beyond anything you are obliged to do.
Baff
Lex
> group in some remarkably difficult places. It's true that healers are
> generally more useful way above their level than fighters are, but I
> think that's all right.
>
> Ann
Or more specifically, certain healer skills are useful to high level parties
even if the healer who possesses them is a low level healer. Horus is one
example, as some high level healers have very little or sometimes none at
all, and more importantly, it's additive. Two healers with 200 Horus can
raise someone that requires 400 Horus. But two fighters with 200 Atkus
can't both swing and hit something that requires 400 Atkus. Other healer
skills like Higgrus aren't as additive (or at least not as easily).
Fighters *can* contribute though at low levels, just not with Atkus. I
hunted a lot with people way above my level when I was newer, and I didn't
really like feeling like I wasn't contributing if all I did was luck tag.
So I got good at things like chaining, Skea, Dentir (for noids where I used
to hunt a LOT) so that at least I was a functioning member of the group.
One thing I find is that if you want to hunt above your level, the best
thing you can do is not be too stupid or too greedy. Sometimes just being
friendly, courteous, funny, or have an IC personality that's entertaining
can contribute more to a hunting group than any amount of ranks does.
Lex
Kojiro
> Helpful GM <HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com> wrote in message news:<HelpfulGM-364AB...@sea-read.news.verio.net>...
> >
> > Note: your TRT "stat" has no game impact, whatsoever, it's a leftover from
> > beta-days and is now only interesting to see who has how many trained ranks.
Ladies and germs, your TRT stat determines something VERY important:
how much exp you need for your next rank.
- Kojiro
Helpful GM
its...@garhole.com (Kojiro) wrote:
Oops. I stand corrected -- this is true.
--
You have to remove stuff from my e-mail to reply, it's not difficult.
Everything here is my personal opinion, do with it what you will.
"[T]he idea of a game with people nicer than in CL makes me wanna puke."
-Michael
Lex
>> how much exp you need for your next rank.
>> - Kojiro
>
> Oops. I stand corrected -- this is true.
So, if a newbie starts out and gets 100 Skea, s/he needs the same amount of
exp to get the next rank as someone who trained 100 ranks of Evus? That
doesn't seem right.
Or is it that the amount of exp is the same, but one will get more exp for a
given creature than the other?
Lex
Helpful GM
You're asking me about numbers. The system has been carefully balanced
to be "right." I'm sorry if it doesn't seem right to you. I could
assure you that it is, but those who do not believe it won't be
convinced by my words, and those that do don't need my reassurance.
Dandelion
wrote:
>
> Sometimes just being
> friendly, courteous, funny, or have an IC personality that's entertaining
> can contribute more to a hunting group than any amount of ranks does.
>
> Lex
>
Really, really well said.
Dandelion (yah, yah, I know ... "me too" is bad form ... but ME TOO!)
--
Solipsism is pointless. - Kojiro
Yes, but it's only pointless to me. - Michael-HWC for Monolith
Kojiro
- Kojiro
Ann GM
<psych...@aol.com> wrote:
> What I'd like to see is ranks divided by departs - "how many ranks you would
> have gotten in the character lifetime, if it wasn't immortal".
Here's ranks divided by (departs + 1), since your current life has to
end too (and dividing by zero isn't much fun), for people logged in in
the last 30 days. Each * is 10 people, each . is between 1 and 5.
0 **
1- 50 ************************************<<>>***** (64 *s)
51- 100 ****************************
101- 150 ******************
151- 200 **********
201- 250 *******
251- 300 *****
301- 350 *****
351- 400 ****
401- 450 ***
451- 500 ***
501- 550 ***
551- 600 ***
601- 650 **
651- 700 ***
701- 750 **
751- 800 **
801- 850 *
851- 900 *
901- 950 *
951-1000 *
1001-1050 *
1051-1100 *
1101-1150 *
1151-1200 *
1201-1250 *
1251-1300 *
1301-1350 .
1351-1400 *
1401-1450 .
1451-1500 .
1501-1550 .
1551-1600
1601-1650
1651-1700
1701-1750
1751-1800
1801-1850 .
On average, people get 210 ranks per depart, although as you can see
the spread is wide.
Ann
Warren J. Dew
What I'm really curious about now is who has 1800 ranks without a depart. I
know Ann can't answer that, since it's specific to a character, but I'm hoping
other players can provide some speculation....
Warren
Hidden
psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:
> What I'm really curious about now is who has 1800 ranks without a depart. I
> know Ann can't answer that, since it's specific to a character, but I'm hoping
> other players can provide some speculation....
Angel.
rhdennis
p...@ac.ixserve.org (Pernille Jensen) wrote:
>
> The first histogram is from October *2001*, 16 months ago.
>
>
> - Pernille
Doh! right.. my bad.
test
Has Angel been out in the last 30 days...or did she change the
parameters on us for these stats??
Lex
I
> know Ann can't answer that, since it's specific to a character, but I'm
hoping
> other players can provide some speculation....
A lib character that never leaves town and was created just after the rip
war could probably have 1200 ranks by now - so someone who doesn't ever go
very far or take chances could get to 1800 and never need to depart.
Lex
Ann GM
<its...@garhole.com> wrote:
Lex <co...@mac.com> wrote in message <BA7AD69C.13DF4%co...@mac.com>...
> So, if a newbie starts out and gets 100 Skea, s/he needs the same amount of
> exp to get the next rank as someone who trained 100 ranks of Evus? That
> doesn't seem right.
>
> Or is it that the amount of exp is the same, but one will get more exp for a
> given creature than the other?
The amount of experience it takes to earn a rank depends on how many
ranks you've trained already. The amount of experience you earn from a
given creature depends on your "slaughter level," which depends on
which trainers you've trained as well as how much.
Ann
Drablak
<piss...@swirve.com> wrote:
> In article <b33gqt$fdr5$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, "Lex" <co...@mac.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Sometimes just being
> > friendly, courteous, funny, or have an IC personality that's entertaining
> > can contribute more to a hunting group than any amount of ranks does.
> >
> > Lex
> >
>
> Really, really well said.
>
> Dandelion (yah, yah, I know ... "me too" is bad form ... but ME TOO!)
Yes but it doesn't get you invited in the first place.
Drablak
Garscow
Haenk
> Yes but it doesn't get you invited in the first place.
Almost everyone gets the chance to join a party above their level at
some time. That is a good time to introduce yourself (not *you* of
course, but in general) - some people tend to forget, that skills
besides Atkus (and swearing <g>) are often more useful to that group,
social skills included. Advanced (non-RW) groups will honor that and
most likely invite you again. I personally prefer a clever 2nd circle
chainer over the average 5th circler ;)
Haenk
jiff
there effect to each other, and done the statistics on developing a good
charrecter.
jiff
> Every time you train a rank of something, the trainer (a) bumps some
> stat(s) by some balanced amount between 0.01 and 1.00 (this is what we
> mean when we say "some ranks are 'bigger' than other ranks" and the
> total amount is what affects your "slaughter level") and (b) bumps your
> "total ranks trained" "stat" by exactly 1. Note: your TRT "stat" has no
> game impact, whatsoever, it's a leftover from beta-days and is now only
> interesting to see who has how many trained ranks.
if it's between 0.01 - 1 dosen't that meant the max steps posible is 100?
Unless you go some sort of place holder system?
what's the expected avarage?
Hidden
wrote:
> if it's between 0.01 - 1 dosen't that meant the max steps posible is 100?
Consider it
0.01000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
written as 0.01 for convenience, if you want to be nit-picky about it.
It's a floating point number, there are no hard "100 step" restrictions
on it.
Helpful GM
> > Every time you train a rank of something, the trainer (a) bumps some
Actually, where I said "between 0.01 and 1.00", it should say "between
0.01 and infinity" -- but that's complicated and didn't really get
across what I was talking about.
As to specific answers to your questions: that's numbers, I can't answer
that.
However, as an example:
Let's say you have zero ranks of Helpfus. Let's say that you start
training Helpfus, and, as you come out of the library, you get 4 ranks.
Each time he trains you, let's say Helpfus adds 0.07 to your
CrystalClearExamplesSkill stat. So you go from 0.00 to 0.28 (4 ranks *
0.07 = 0.28.) It's easy to see how, after you get 203 ranks of Helpfus,
your stat would be 14.21. So, more than 100 "steps" (if I understand
what you meant) -- see?
As to "expected average" -- in addition to being a numbers question,
that just doesn't make any sense, since everything is in different
"units." That is, if 1 rank of Wattus gives you 0.26 watts and 1 rank
of Gallous gives you 0.14 gallons, and 1 rank of Metrus gives you 0.11
meters... you *COULD* say that the average is ((.26 + .14 + .11) / 3 =
...) "0.17" -- but what does that mean?! 0.17 *WHAT*?!
It's the same thing with attack, balance, defense, hit points, healing
speed and mental power as your "units." For me to say "the average is
0.17" wouldn't make any sense.
Heh. Even less helpful: the expected average from training in any skill
is "1 rank" for every rank trained.
---
It gets even weirder. (*** ALL NUMBERS FOR EXAMPLE ONLY! ***) Let's
say that I tell you that Atkus gives you +0.50 to your attackSkill,
while Detha gives you +0.25 to your defenseSkill. (*** ALL NUMBERS FOR
EXAMPLE ONLY! ***) Someone might see that and think "wow, you get twice
as much Atkus per rank as Detha." But wait! What if the DidHeHit()
function works like this:
boolean DidHeHit (int attack, int defense)
{
return ((attack * 2) > (defense * 7));
}
As you can see, defense counts for 3.5x as much as attack in terms of
whether or not you get hit. (*** ALL NUMBERS FOR EXAMPLE ONLY! ***)
So, what *LOOKS* like "half as much" is really "3.5x as much."
...Except that everything is far more complicated than that -- I just
gave a grossly simplified example (*** ALL NUMBERS FOR EXAMPLE ONLY!
***). A great deal of effort during beta (and, much smaller
fine-tunings after that -- on the order of 0-1% changes) was spent
tweaking all these formulas such that everything was deemed "fair" and
"balanced" by the game's creators (arguments about what baffoons they
were and how much you or I could do a better job is how "SACWAG" came
into being, btw :) During beta, there were wild swings in the various
abilities -- old timers may recall various updates where the only thing
you were allowed to train was Atkus, for example. Just so we could see
what happened when we did that.
Anyway, this is turning rambly -- but I hope it's helped clear up some
things about stats.
---
Heh. Here's one more thing. Some skills are deemed to be more
"valuable" than others -- so they impact your slaughter more. Raising
your slaughter is how we balance for training powerful stats -- so you
get additional ranks slower. But some stats don't reflect that in how
much they give you. Like, remember the Atkus = +0.50 example? (*** ALL
NUMBERS FOR EXAMPLE ONLY! ***) Well, Skea gives +1.00. But that's only
because a GM invented Skea, and was too lazy to convert funny numbers
into "ranks trained." But then does Skea bump your slaugher 2x as much
as Atkus? No!, that'd be silly -- so Skea gives you +1.00 skinning, but
-0.95 dummyStat (a stat which has no meaning), so your "net" is only
+0.05 to your slaughter. (*** ALL NUMBERS FOR EXAMPLE ONLY! ***)
Like I said -- it's way more complicated than even that. But that gives
you an idea of how pointless it would be to try to compare raw-numbers.
This is why "total ranks trained" is probably a fair approximation of a
player's "level" -- because the "big" stats make the next ranks come
slower, so it all balances out. At least according to the folks in
charge of balancing things :)
Helpful "and prolix!" GM
Helpful GM
wrote:
> I always wnder if DT bothered to run all the posiblitys of ranks, compared
> there effect to each other, and done the statistics on developing a good
> charrecter.
Sort of. We do modeling to help us balance new skills against existing
ones. "Developing a good character" is difficult to define. Is the
ability to speak all languages "good"? Is having a ledger "good"? What
you call "good" and what I call "good" and what Vagile calls "good" may
be 3 different things. I'm sure there are more :)
Jazz
> Sort of. We do modeling to help us balance new skills against existing
> ones. "Developing a good character" is difficult to define. Is the
> ability to speak all languages "good"? Is having a ledger "good"? What
> you call "good" and what I call "good" and what Vagile calls "good" may
> be 3 different things. I'm sure there are more :)
You've also been known to adopt an existing characters stats for
testing yes? Is the test server still around? Can exiles still use it?
It was a lot of fun to pop on there every once and awhile and see what
500 Troilus would be like. :-)
Michael
I guess it depends on where you hunt. Chainers that are on their back
are not all that useful. There is a minium amount of ranks you need to
be useful and stay alive in a given place.
Michael