I agree with Panda. Its not impossible. Does it take time… absolutely. Its almost a check point to make sure you don’t over-level your base as I’ve seen plenty level 200s that are still in Sapphire. I’m fortunate enough that I stumbled upon Red’s check-In sheet and have been following that (the best I can) since ±110. (THANKS RED!)

# Breeding Progression Proposal: Tear down this (Sapphire) wall!

**forScience**#42

But if they don’t, there are so many Obsidian dragons that go unchosen. How will the rest of us be heroes?

()

Edit for grammar fail

**TheRedDelilah**#43

I agree that it isn’t impossible. Id like to see paths “made equal” so that no matter if you chose the icicle or the A&A route, one doesnt fuck you and the other does.

**TheRedDelilah**#45

Breeding Icicle allows you to backbreed other mythic garnets. Breeding A&A or Gloom forces you to pay full cost for another mythic. Things such as this.

**xyzLunar63**#46

Nobody said it’s “impossible to overcome.” It just costs too much for a tier that isn’t 1 of the top tiers anymore. Nothing is impossible!!! There are people with money and those who don’t spend. The people with money should progress faster. I understand sapphire being more expensive than plat and gold bc it’s a higher tier. I am fine with that but 125k per dragon is 4 times the price compared to platinum. Don’t u think that’s too much? (64k for 2 legendaries = 32k per dragon/32k Times 4 = 128k)

**Panda**#47

Not really tons of people got it done. Tower levels seems much more of a “wall” than that one tier

**EidolonRM**#48

Yeah to some degree it feels like people are saying they want sapphire to be as easy to get as gold was. And it’s a necessary game mechanic to to keep making the game more difficult as you progress.

What I suspect people here are failing to articulate is that value isn’t adjusted over time properly.

I mean if I was In charge of the game I think I’d set an exponential cost, and periodically do some kind of roll up at the bottom so that real money for the top cost the same as it always has, but the bottom adjusts over time (as they become more and more worthless)

**LaceWing**#49

I’m not a breeding path follower

I would however like to see the egg token missions rebalanced first, then have a look at how that improves the ability to get through the tiers. If there are still walls and roadblocks then look at additional breeding paths.

Surely giving us more egg tokens as we grow shouldn’t be that hard to balance, they’ve made it X times more expensive to get dragons so token system should go up x times, not as much as the cost but to keep dragons reachable with a little more effort each level.

**EmrahT**#50

In news it said breeding event will come.

Will it be next event maybe adapted, or isnt it a priority for soon .

Can you please inform us about your plans about it.

**SavageAFforPG**#51

Exponential progressions eventually become indistinguishable from a vertical line.

A geometric progression would make far more sense. New players could rapidly cover the first 80%, but the final 20%, whatever it was at the time, would always be very difficult. It would allow long-time players and spenders the advantages afforded to them, either because of time played or money spent, and it would let newer players make significant progress without every actually catching up, unless they spent a good amount.

**EidolonRM**#52

Disagree.

Progress is always experienced as linear, but it is implemented as exponential to create competition groups. Without this you have people at the top competing with people at the bottom (like atlas)

For starters I’m not sure why you are calling it geometric progression. From what I know that’s just saying linear. So I’m going to continue assuming you mean linear, but if I missed an important nuance, please clarify

The 80/20 rule is actually a drastic over-simplification of the results of exponential growth. In nature there exists a more elegant hybrid but man made its almost always exponential. The 80/20 rule is a way of saying there are diminishing returns and so you should agree at a certain point the cost outweighs the benefit.

The big problem we have in my opinion is not scaling beyond the top. More specifically the free-to-play value diminishes over time but the catchup mechanisms don’t adjust for this. If properly implemented, there should ALWAYS be an insurmountable obstacle in front of you or else you just change to a phase of enjoyment where you feel the benefits long enough to then lose interest.

The trick to exponential (and similar types of progression) is that you must be given greater means to progress as you progress.

Now in this game those mechanisms are all manual. There is a ceiling where they just stop maintaining them. Not a single one of them are unbounded with a formula to guide them. In fact balance is so askew that even tower damage and dragon power is extremely massaged as a series of manual numbers that don’t conform to any curve. If you graph them you will see it’s like they manually adjusted them level by level.

I’ve mentioned this before but I think the issue here is that the game is reaching critical mass with complexity over time. Take dragons for example. There is no rollup mechanism to retire dragons. I’m sure such a thing would piss people off, but even to a new and free player the first 3 tiers could all be condensed into 1. Meanwhile the number of dragons, number of spells, number of tiers, number of towers, number of consumables all continue to grow with no end in sight and yet their interactions, both intentional and not are compounding on each other making exploits and bugs more likely rather than less.

So sorry if I went off on a tangent, but I’m not quite sure what you feel is the reason you want “geometric” progression. (Linear). I’m not sure what problem you think it will solve. To me that’s just saying put the carrot on a shorter stick. And you know if you do that some people will manage to get the carrot and it all falls apart.

**EidolonRM**#54

My bad, I misread google.

“In mathematics, a geometric progression, also known as a geometric sequence, is a sequence of numbers where each term after the first is found by multiplying the previous one by a fixed, non-zero number called the common ratio.”

Not sure what the difference here is. I don’t see a clear benefit, it actually increases the more drastically. I’m not sure how you could argue exponential wasn’t steep enough.

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128… (geometric f(x) = 2*2^x )

0, 2, 8, 18, 32, 50, 72 … (exponential f(x) = 2*x^2 )

**forScience**#55

Steps for a new model:

- Tape down a large sheet of paper.
- Draw an x and y axis.
- Duct tape a marker to the new intern’s shoe.
- Blindfold intern and place at (0,0)
- Place pizza/other favorite food in the relevant quadrant.
- Spin intern, then let the intern loose.
- Adjust numbers and axes according to result.

**SavageAFforPG**#57

This is simply not true.

After just 10 iterations, the exponential growth you refer to massively exceeds even cubic geometric growth. And if you take it to 12 (current number of dragon tiers), the red and blue lines look almost flat.

You are certainly free to disagree, but in this case, you are mistaken.

The red line is linear progression, the blue is geometric, the green is exponential. There’s a big difference. *[I mistakenly had the colors incorrect. I apologize.]*

80/20 was only an example. But I’ll grant you your point here.

Most of your other points I agree with.

**SavageAFforPG**#58

The graph I provided should clarify the differences. Exponential hits the “hockey stick” and then becomes a vertical line.

These are not scaled, but they show the curves over a large number of iterations. Were they scaled, the linear and geometric would appear flat.

**EidolonRM**#59

You don’t seem to explain why you think you need increased difficulty beyond squared/quadratic.

I’m sorry I misread the gogle definition. (See my

Other post). If they had show x^2 vs 2^x I’d not have made that mistake.

So I assumed you meant Linear because You started with this:

Which I now understand you meant the “hockey stick”

What you don’t seem to explain is why it should do this. Qudratic also goes to a near vertical line, but not as quickly. I hadn’t seen any argument where increased difficult was needed. It sounded like you were making the opposite argument. It’s tottally my bad on terminology, I haven’t taken a math class for like 20 years now.

**EidolonRM**#60

You have different scales for all of those. Here are all 3 on the same graph. Geometric shoots up way faster but is slower at first.

Red is geometric

Blue is squared

Green is linear