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


#61

I was responding on my phone. I didn’t see your self-correction until after I responded. So, that’s my bad.

Math in tangentially related to my occupation, but it’s certainly not something I’d put on my resume.

I do believe in escalating difficulty. But it is important for new players that there be not only a sense of progress, but also real progress that matters being made.

Yes, of you take it enough steps out, even geometric sequences/progressions run up against a hockey stick, but it never gets quite as steep.

Presently, there are 12 tiers of dragons. There are 60 levels for most towers. If we stick with cubic values for our geometric progression and compare them to an exponential progression, you will see a huge difference. 12^3 is far smaller than 3^12 (or 60^3 than 3^60).

WD does not follow any neat curves. Every set of tower levels released since the original 25 follows its own curve, both in cost (time and resources) and in benefits.

The same for dragons. When I started, gold dragons were the kings of the skies. Now, many more tiers have been released, and the cost in fragment number increases, chance of fragment drop decreases, and time to incubate) has gone up markedly with each new tier. I have not counted out the Harbinger Tier yet, but at the moment, the Garnet Tier, which is useless to end game players, is the most expensive in all but tine and experience required.

Yes, I think the challenge should increase as you get closer to the “end.” But in this game, the end is an always receding target. Rewards should be scaled up and difficulty should be scaled back as the target gets higher and higher. But not with the goal that everyone reaches the target (or even a significant minority). It should be done with the consideration that the old is “less valuable” than it was when it was new. And for the sake of newer players, that they don’t get overwhelmed with a sense of the enormous amount of time or money they need to invest just to get to a point where they can contribute.

I think we may be saying very similar things, just using slightly different vocabularies.

I want the game to be fun and challenging for everyone. Geometric progression is a tried and true way to do this, while still keeping that “one more” just out of reach for almost everyone.

Look at the power stats on the new tier. Obsidian is WEAK by comparison. 1/3 the HP, 1/3 the firepower. I know that’s just on paper… But if even two of these new dragons live up to what their numbers suggest, it should allow the tower caps to be removed (at least raised), and when that happens, Obsidian will be on life support, and Emerald and below will be totally dead for those at the “end game.”

I don’t think everyone should be at the end game. I think everyone should have fun and be able to make meaningful contributions without investing thousands of dollars or years of play time. Ofc those who have done so will have the advantages that accompany such “investments.”


#62

What are you using for X?

Yes,. My scales are different, but I noted why. The X-axis goes out the same distance, but if you look at the Y-axis, you can see why I needed to put them on different scales. The geometric and linear lines would stay at (essentially) zero as the exponential value skyrocketed.


#63

#best

10 chars.


#64

Since we’re looking at 12 tiers of dragons, here are the curves on the same scale.

Red is geometric (constant exponent, increasing root).
Green is exponential (constant root, increasing exponent)
Blue is linear


#65

I’m using 1:1

F(x) = x (Linear)
F(x) = x^2 (squared/quadratic)
F(x) = 2^x (geometric - at powers of 2 because 1 doesn’t work)

Geometric will always outpace squared at scale. You can scale it for x values less than 1 to get a nice curve, but your graph won’t scale once you exceed that hard limit.

I can retool a graph for 2x^2 and 2x I’d you want that as more apples to apples. Geometric will always overtake squared/quadratic eventually.

The nature of the game is that there are things that work together to increase your progress so you should have matching difficulty to achieve balance. If you just want a nice smooth curve you could just use circular. F(x) = -SqRt(1-x^2) + 1

But the cliff is an intentional mechanic in my mind. One that should scale to the level of assist. For example If you wanted a linear difficulty increase, but are also giving a linear assist for level, you would add squared difficulty which when factoring in the level assist is actually linear from their perspective but exponential from the next rung down to try and compete with.

I agree that PG has virtually no curve. You plot out all of them and you see a series of a few short trends but what mostly looks like manual numbers. This is an indication that under the good things are not so good.

Really the problem here is their fixing the scale over time. Not the curve.

If you take all players and put them into 10 categories ranging from N-9, to N, at any given time the cost for N should be the most expensive and designed to keep N from becoming N+1

The error here is that when the next set of stuff comes out they tend to make N+1 more expensive, when instead they should be making N+1 cost the same as N with only slight occasional markups, and then retroactively adjust N so that the same exact cost structure exists but everything is now discounted to the cost of one tier less.

The math is quite simple, there is a belle curve showing the maximum profit at the top of the curve for the top player group, which should always be what the cost to have/upgrade to N is from N-1. N-1 should do similarly for the next tier of players, and so on, and so forth. The problem is when N+1 comes out they act like landlords and try to up the rent, but give no discount to what now is less valuable in the game.

And yes we might be saying the same thing but I don’t think geometric is better. It actually does the opposite of what you seem to be suggesting unless you are scaling it for values of X under 1 (where the nice gradual curve is)

Here is another graph with the same thing as before. Same scale but changed to 2x and 2x^2 for better apples to apples and move the position. Still 1:1


#66

Yup. Exactly. See how on the green line on yours it actually increases cost. I’m assuming x axis is level/progress/time and y axis is cost.

No matter what scale you use you will always price yourself out of existence if you always make the next thing more expensive and don’t cheapen previous things.

All things in the game have a value that is relative to all other things in the game. When you add anything better than all other things, the worth of all those things is diminished. (of corse some players will feel otherwise, but what makes things valuable is their usefulness which is related to what else is out there).

If we were revaluing everything when a new tier came out, you would see (SOME) spending and progress along the entire curve.

What we have is a condo in the city that we moved into for a great price but every quarter we renew the contract, they give it a fresh paint job, and it costs significantly more than it did before. If this continues we all have to move out and get something we can afford. This is all fair as long as someone else is willing to move in and pay it for the new cost. Another problem is that the attractive and awesome person you like that lives across the hall and doesn’t have much money is moving out because (s)he can’t afford to stay and so now the tenant that was staying just for that person isn’t so excited to stay even though (s)he may have stayed for said person.

The fact that the sapphire tier still costs like 95% what it did a year ago is absolutely crazy.


#67

I feel like we are saying the same thing two different ways (or at least approaching the same goal from slightly different angles).

I agree that one way to resolve the problem of infinite escalation is that the top tier should be N, and everything else should be “priced” according to its relative value to N.

N is always just out if reach for most players, but now with costs adjusting downwards, inflation is no longer infinitely increasing, the absolute value of all in-game resources remains constant, and I think we simplify things tremendously.

Even though we agree on the goal, it is just not true that geometric will outpace exponential.

Write it out and see:
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192
Or
1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100, 121, 144,… You can see it is lagging behind… Each level does get harder, but not as much harder.

Regardless, I like your N, N-1,… Progression. It is simple and solves many problems. :+1:


#68

I had the colors incorrect in my text. I have changed this.

I apologize.


#69

Agreed.

This one is geometric and not quadratic and to me it clearly outpaced the qudratic version. It has a common ratio of 2. You can see each value you can multiply the previous by 2.

You should have a formula like x^2

x^2 (quadratic/squared)
0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36,  49,  64,  81,  100,  121,  144
Vs 2^x (geometric/exponential)
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096

I see in your graph the cost goes up on the geometric faster than it does on squared.

EDIT: I see your mistake. You started one from zero and one from 1. And you added an extra entry as if they were equal. See my side-by-side to see proof


#70

You have them backwards, but your numbers are correct.

But we agree on the important part.

Lol.

Something should be done, and the solution you provided is elegant, simple, and requires the least amount of change in the system as a whole.

I say we @PGEggToken and @PGCrisis so they at least know it’s here. I’d @ a few others, but no reason to call down. The whole brigade. :blush:

I don’t think things will change, or if they do, it will likely be in an attempt to save the golden goose after its throat has already been sliced. But hopefully I am wrong. Hopefully PG is playing for the long game here and not the love 'em and leave 'em game. Hopefully, longevity of the game is more important than making a larger sum of money as quickly as possible. Think: profit over time versus cash up front. Even with a good interest rate, a 30 year mortgage profits the bank about 66% the value of the loan, if you put 20% down and make all your payments as scheduled. It can be more if you don’t do those things.

But wish in one hand and :poop: in the other–see which one fills up first. :man_shrugging:

PG - - I would LOVE for my wish hand to fill up.

Please, prove me wrong.


#71

We are both wrong then because that is the SAME thing that geometric is. I specifically said both side by side expecting if I was wrong you would correct it.

I guess the term I should have used was quadratic, or polynomial. I’ll edit my original posts to reflect the correct term


#72

:flushed::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I literally laughed going through all them charts. War Dragons players are some of the geekiest peeps I’ve met. That’s a compliment. :hugs:


#73

A teammate almost maxed this breeding event going after Mehaten. 14.1k points. Only ~850/1000. For a mythic that’s now 4 tiers obsolete.

Scale the damn cost.


#74

@EidolonRM @SavageAFforPG you guys just fought out a grade 12 math problem …


#75

That‘s only 72% of the initial 19.5k max points but anyway, still a good point :+1:t2:


#76

Define obsolete, it is not obsolete for things in that range base wise is it?


#77

Rename Mehaten to laserbeams and use it to clear invader bases :tada:


#78

I shall introduce Panda to a new thing called a dictionary.

Granted, it mostly applies to end-gane and near-end-game players. But even lower level players (like 50 to 80) are affected by new towers that are available to them while they are stuck with dragons created before these towers existed.,aside from divine dragons, which they likely cannot complete.

So, yes, even level-appropriate dragons have been made obsolete, and therefore less valuable, by the evolution of the game.

I feel this is so obvious you must be playing devil’s advocate.

I’m not a 500+ player, but at 300+, I think I have a reasonable (but nut perfect) understanding of value. I’ve been around long enough to see dragons come and go many times.

And the reality is, level 220 players today face much tougher bases than they did when I was a 220. :man_shrugging:

But maybe that is just my perception.


#79

I still think for people its perception. Does the release of a new tier cause them to stop working? Pretty sure they are still needed by some as well. If some of the mega spenders had taken the time to actually fly dragons from the previous tier they wouldn’t be so reliant on Noctua.

They do possibly face a tougher base but I don’t think that means they are obsolete and much instantly be discounted or made free. They still fly but maybe just not with the level of performance on the exact thing someone wants but someone still had to put in the time/effort. I dont see how screaming about doing the exact same thing now (actually, they have it easier, the 35k pack is double what you got back then), that others did back then is a solution. And yet, it is talked about like some wall that cant be overcome.


#80

i think one of the major problems people encounter when hitting this sapphire wall is the whole premise that seems to go around to build your base like a fool to get max xp. Don’t know how many time that has tried to be sold on me. I have no problem putting xp on my birds for my level.

I have an account i work that is level 121, and i have 4 sapphire dragons. I do not spend other than elite. Sure i grind the shit out of my egg mission s at times, but it is possible with work; which it should be. And i am finding the power output of these new saphire are just fine where i am at. Certainly not as effect as my divines, but very workable. I don’t know how many players i come across in their level 200’s and further behind on their dragons than me and constantly complaining about underpowered dragons. Build with a plan.

It is a strategy game that takes time. You can’t build like a mofo and expect to be able to build up egg tokens.

I have had a strict policy of no more than 6 levels per fort. Storage levels are every three, so i do not waste timers, and it gives me plenty of opportunity to gather needed egg tokens.

my tune may change as i go higher, but already prepped for either apo or hau next breed, and i plan to be level 126 for that, and right on track for frost at 132 if i play my cards right.