Changes to qualification growth algorithm :: Forum :: Virtonomics

Search Rating log

List of forums -> Main forum -> Changes to qualification growth algorithm

Topic:

«...»

Topic created : 25 November 2011, 12:01

Last time edited : 13 April 2012, 18:26

VLLord

Golden Empire

3 days ago there was an inmportant announcement on the russian forum... Guess this information is worth to be mentioned here as well.

diska
Внесены корректировки в алгоритм роста квалификации.

Каждый "естественный" полученный уровень навыка увеличивает необходимое количество опыта для достижения последующего на 5%.

При этом приобретенные за очки уровни возвращают скорость естественного роста к изначальным значениям (без 5%-ных прибавок).
Каждый навык топ-менеджера учитывается отдельно.

Ранее достигнутые уровни (до 20 ноября) не влияют на скорость роста.

jobond
test01

Вопрос в образовательных целях. 11 "естественный" уровень будет теперь дороже на 10*5 = 50% или на 1.05 Pow 10 = 62,9% ?

Второе. Покупка квалификации сбрасывает рост к исходному уровню.

Now in English. I'll explain the new algorithm using the following example.

As for November 20, your qualification in production was 5.

According to the new algorithm you get a penalty of 5% growth slowdown for every "qualification up of itself". Penalties are summed up according to a compaund interest formula, not a simple one.

Expected growth in production:

Q lvl was now
5 40% 40%
6 36% 36/1.05 = 34%
7 33% 33/1.05^2 = 30%
8 31% 31/1.05^3 = 27%
...
20 18% 18/1.05^15 = 9% -> you decided to buy 21st lvl with game points
21 - -
22 17% 17%
23 17% 17/1.05 = 16% and so on...

Buying qualification with game points burns down previous penalties (for this qualification field only).
Penalties are independent for every qualification field (production, commerce etc.).

Let's consider another example.

You've just started and you want to get to Q50 in management.

Q lvl was now
1 100% 100%
...
10 27% 17%
...
30 14% 3%
...
50 11% 1%

Note #1.

All qualification skills gained before November 20, don't affect growth (no penalty).

Note #2.

It takes 28 days to get 10 in management on condition that you grow at max.

Table #1

Q lvl Slowdown (times)
1 1,00
2 1,05
3 1,10
4 1,16
5 1,22
6 1,28
7 1,34
8 1,41
9 1,48
10 1,55
11 1,63
12 1,71
13 1,80
14 1,89
15 1,98
16 2,08
17 2,18
18 2,29
19 2,41
20 2,53
21 2,65
22 2,79
23 2,93
24 3,07
25 3,23
26 3,39
27 3,56
28 3,73
29 3,92
30 4,12
31 4,32
32 4,54
33 4,76
34 5,00
35 5,25
36 5,52
37 5,79
38 6,08
39 6,39
40 6,70
41 7,04
42 7,39
43 7,76
44 8,15
45 8,56
46 8,99
47 9,43
48 9,91
49 10,40
50 10,92

Table #2

Page:

1 2 3 →

Message list:

25 November 2011, 15:14

JustNash

Premium Brands

thanks for informing us, non-russian-speakers!

Is my perception correct that when you reach a new level, there is now a sort of carry over of your excess? It used to be that if you were at 95% and grew the qualification by 15% overnight, you would level up and start off at 0% again. Now this is for example 10%. Although I'm not sure that it's carried over entirely or corrected for the tables above. Haven't tested it.

Anyway, if this is confirmed, is the table2 above my message corrected for this also? It is becoming damn near impossible to do this with the correction system stated in the OP :-)

25 November 2011, 16:14

Last time edited : 25 November 2011, 17:01

VLLord

Golden Empire

JustNash

Is my perception correct that when you reach a new level, there is now a sort of carry over of your excess? It used to be that if you were at 95% and grew the qualification by 15% overnight, you would level up and start off at 0% again. Now this is for example 10%. Although I'm not sure that it's carried over entirely or corrected for the tables above. Haven't tested it.

Absolutely right! But its effect is really nothing compared to penalties effect.

JustNash

Anyway, if this is confirmed, is the table2 above my message corrected for this also? It is becoming damn near impossible to do this with the correction system stated in the OP :-)

This table was done by noglues a year or two ago... Guess it'll be updated soon. Approximately the number of days to gain the next level will be reduced by 5..10% in case of no penalty.

26 November 2011, 00:49

giekas

i.G33K

Veridian Dynamics

This looks like a death sentence to my kind of company management/role playing - with no artificial boosting of qualifications.
Oh, and a big fat cross on specialization in research - and to think that I dared to dream that one day I can somehow catch up with the top 11...
Last ten months of investment now are down the drain - real motivation booster.

26 November 2011, 18:10

Moira

Moira World

Well, I also did the math, and in theory you can achieve lvl 10 Management - (M) - for the contest in 28 days, but there are a few important caveats come with the new change, namely:

The measly 2 day leeway means, you have to do everything almost optimally, and have to know the game inside out - which in practice means no new player will ever get to lvl 10 (M) in 30 update. So no more free points.

After 10 points of growth you should reset the penalty otherwise you fall behind. After 15 points you are very slow, and after 20 points, the growth is non existant any more. Without spending money it take 50-100 YEARS to achieve the lvl where the top players are now. Which is ridiculous.

To raise a Q with points you need 1 for Q1-9, 2 for Q10-19, etc. In practice it worth to spend your point at level x9 to achieve max effect for it.

The first advisable stage when you should do it is where your Qs are lvl 19. - You can reach it in about 120-130 days with the new rules.

There are 9 field of Qualifications, therefor you need 9x2=18 point to reset your Q penalties.

Where are you supposed to get the required 18 points? As a new player with the new rules, there are no way in hell to win the contest with the points.

Every day there are 5 tenders with points/Virts as prize for people with (M) Q1-30. Altogether 7 Virts, but not all of the tender Virts are prized, because a lot of tenders are won by ppl, who are not eligible - ie. ppl with higher Q.
For example if the tender 'City trade' or 'Storm' is take place in a contested City, then a Q15-20 player have no chance with the high rollers who has Q30-50-70 Commerce AND Marketing, not to mention very high Q goods.
So lets be generous and suppose every day 5 Virts are awarded to ppl who have Qs under 20.

It takes about 100 days to reach from Q10 to Q20. During that 100 days 500 Virts are awarded in the tenders. Which is enough for 500/18 about 28 ppl for the Q penalty reset. Which means daily 0.3 ppl can reset their penalties at Q19. Its about 100 ppl in a goddam year. Which is next to nothing IMHO.

You can do the math for higher Qs, but its getting worse and worse.

So this practically cement the top20-50 ppl, because you need to spend serious money - 50-100-200 USD - to stay competitive.

This means this game in no longer free to play. It seems like it is, but its not.
If you pay, you can compete, it you dont, then gtfo.

I really dont understand this decision of the creators. It will alienate a substantial share of the playerbase, and more importantly there wont be any new player who will stay around if he/she figures this out, that he/she have to spend literally hundreds or even thousands of dollars to catch up with the top players.

26 November 2011, 18:45

giekas

i.G33K

Veridian Dynamics

Moira
This means this game in no longer free to play. It seems like it is, but its not.
If you pay, you can compete, it you dont, then gtfo.

What especially grinds my gears in this case, is the attitude of the administration to the players:
- trying to not-announce this fundamental change officially,
- trying to sell (pun intended) the change as so unimportant that it's only worth mentioning as an afterthought,
- trying to justify not-announcement by calling the change 'so small that people won't even notice'.

Did they suddenly forget that their target audience so far was players who like to think, calculate, plan forward (and are able to do so) ??

26 November 2011, 19:24

Last time edited : 26 November 2011, 19:40

Melchior2008

RoMa Inc.

Thanks VLLord for the info. But, hell, that's some shitty news. This penalty is a cap to development. I have never spent points on qualification and I'll never will. I'm kind of lucky to have reached some level before that was put in place, while new players like Moira will struggle big time. Even if I play just for the pleasure and I'm not focused on winning virts, I understand this point of view. It also affects my pleasure since I feel a little stuck with these levels barely moving.

26 November 2011, 22:29

Dutchsmurf

Smurf International

It is funny how such a simple change can completely kill a game. My guess is that the game isn't making enough money anymore and they are desperately trying to increase their revenue. I only started playing a little over a month ago and with this change it seems I will get to a standstill at some point. Then it is either pay or leave and as fun as this game is, that choice is quite easy. So I guess I will just try to enjoy myself until I reach that point.

26 November 2011, 23:59

Last time edited : 27 November 2011, 00:05

VLLord

Golden Empire

Personaly I don't like this innovation, but ...

completely kill a game

I don't think so.

In times when Mary didn't exist yet, there was a qualification system much like the current one. 10 was the upper limit and majority of players were "on equal terms"... a couple of outliers boosted their qualifications... Very common to smth, don't you find?

Those times were the greatest ones I've played virta and the number of players exceeds the current one (even on Vera, the largest realm).

27 November 2011, 04:26

Moira

Moira World

It wont kill the game, just makes it totally different.

Right know if you dont dig up the forums, you dont realise that with this change you simply cant compete.
If you are a new player you just realise in a few month time, that you dont grow near enough, and the top is gettting further away from you, no matter how good you are.

In itself its not a problem if you have to pay for a game, but the designers of Virtonomics make it looks like that there is a paying server, and the other one which are free. So they would like to make the impression that you compete in a more or less even field in the free realms, when in reality with this new change, you are not even in the same ballpark.

Effectively its a level cap, practically you cant get past Q40 in an field without spending money

One big problem with this change, that it supports hugely the current top players, hence handycap the new small players. And this always leads to problems, because without new ppl, the game dynamic changes a lot - for the worse.

Probably belongs to the other thread which I started about game mechanics,but anyway, this game is geared seriously toward the top players.

Every advancement - Q level increase - not just linearly, but exponentially strenghten a given player.

For example every Q level increase not just allow you to have more ppl in the same field, but every of your ppl is more effective than at the previous level - produce, sell, raise animal, etc. more then before.

So this means, if the top players know what they doing, nobody can catch up with them.

The tenders are field days for ppl, who are close to the upper limit, because they can control more ppl, and each ppl is more effective, their each spent money on marketing is resulting in more result, etc. etc.

There is also the issue of too much money around. The wast majority of assets of top players is cash and some tech. Simply there is nothing to spend it on.

Except the state enterprise auction, which is also skewed toward the top, because its so exorbitantly expensive that only the top can afford it. And it enables them to produce items nobody else can, so they have a field day selling them in quasi monopolic way in cities without competition, so cash is rolling in big time, and then it makes possible to buy even more state enterprise auction. Not to mention that as the competition in normal markets increase, then premier market gives even more relative value.

If I would be the game designer, I would gear toward the new players.
One hand its encouraging to have success early on, and even better if you feel that if you are smart, you have ways to catch up with the top.
On the other hand as people get to know the game, the small things, the nuances, they became more effective and in a business game size does matter :-), especially the bankroll size, so developed player have serious edge anyway, and so they can cope with a handicap which scales with their level.

For example with every Q level you can control more ppl, but each of them is less effective - not more.
I would make the price and wage fluctuations much faster and extreme, AND make big companies react to it much slower, eg. building times would be longer, supply arrival would be longer than one turn, etc. etc.
This would make small companies more agile, more adaptable to changes, more competitive.
Every fix investment would scale with size - of course not exponentially, but rather logarithmically or so, the demanded wage by employees would increase as well, etc. etc.

Right now the development curve of a given company is practically exponential, which means that if somebody gets some small lead, then in short order he becomes unstoppable.

It would be much more enjoyable and competitive if the curve would be much less steeper, and rather a kind of logarithmic one

27 November 2011, 11:59

giekas

i.G33K

Veridian Dynamics

If winning a tender of the type "+10% to Something" would also reset this new penalty, I could probably live with that - assuming that Tor, Ksar, Murat, Harlus and the rest of TenderDaddies will not bother to reset their penalties every day.

27 November 2011, 15:06

Dutchsmurf

Smurf International

VLLord
Personaly I don't like this innovation, but ...
completely kill a game
I don't think so.

Any change that handicaps new players more than existing players means killing a game. Any game needs a constant entry of new players to stay successful. Virtonomics already has enough problems keeping new players as it is. Instead of making changes like this one, that should be the focus. I might be missing something, but the only reason I can see for this change is an obvious attempt to make players pay more.

28 November 2011, 03:27

Tee_Bickle

Bickle International

I agree with you guys, this is bad news especially for new players. I hope the game designers will listen to our complaints. New players should not be penalized in Q growth. I don't like the slowdown penalty, but if we cannot stop it I hope new players should be excluded.

I also agree with the observation of Moira that the game favours the older players too much. Moira, I like your idea to make ppl less effective at higher levels.

28 November 2011, 07:11

Last time edited : 28 November 2011, 09:17

Scrima

Shmoo Corp

Just started playing again recently, pretty sure I will be upset in after putting a few more weeks into this game and realizing that I can't grow anymore but until then ignorance is bliss...

In my opinion the way to grow is to make it EASIER for new players, a problem with growth/loss of players is universal to almost all browser games these days so you have to adapt. There is an inherent difficulty and complexity of this game which makes it difficult, but I hope the devs can figure something out for everyones sake. Having more new players is a necessity, I trust the devs make some changes in the right direction.

30 November 2011, 01:28

VLLord

Golden Empire

30 November 2011, 03:01

Last time edited : 1 December 2011, 01:39

Fanatyk

Fanatyk Extremely Limited

I'm quite new to this game (just couple of days), and I've done my research. And I've found, that most of new things devs are coming up with are just new ways of COMPLETELY SCREWING UP THE GAME.

If you want to get paid, you need to provide good content. I'm fine with paying a bit here or there to get some bonus. But if I have to pay to be competitive - I'm seriously thinking of quitting now. Because what I see is a game, that doesn't give me something extra for the money - it tries to squeeze money out of me.

Sorry guys, but it isn't fun anymore. And especially trying to hide it. I've payed a couple of times for some extra stuff here and there - I don't mind. But I always felt, that I was getting some bonus, not that I'm trying to keep my head above the water level and breathe.

I loved the game for these couple of days. Actually, I am going to write a review of that game for a start-up gaming website I'm managing (altergamer.blogspot.com) and it would be a great review - since it was a great game. But now? Sorry, I can't recommend something that is turning into crap.

Guys, if you want to gain, you need a great product. You need your customer's confidence. And you've just lost confidence of majority of players who read this news. Certainly you have lost mine. I don't know, what you are going to come up with next. And actually I'm beginning to think it's not worth waiting to see.

You get paid for providing new content to people paying, not by screwing the rest.

And can't you just add more ads? Come on, base of 600 000 daily players is a LOT of money from the ads only. And this will not really damage the game experience. You can even PM ads to non-paying players - I'm not a fan of it, but it's better than what you did.

Stop wasting your time on thinking up ways to destroy this game, start thinking of ways to improve it. And yes, maybe ways for willing players to gain some edge by paying - you've got to make for your living, don't you?

BUT NEVER, NEVER, NEVER! at the expense of your current players. Of people, that may not play - but also might bring you many more players, if they have nice experience here - players, who might pay for the game.

It's like spraying blood over your own advertising banners on the high street.

Cheers,
Adam

P.S. And yeah, I've done some business and marketing degrees in my life too. And if you really want, I can find quite a few case studies of companies, who started MILKING their customers, like you are doing now, lost their confidence - and ultimately failed.

P.S.2 Oh - I forgot - if you love top 10 players so much (a bunch of nice guys from what I see here) - you can really just ban the rest, you really can. But I don't think it's a nice business model, is it? Or maybe include a new "Autoba(h)n" feature, banning new players after 50 or so updates?

P.S.3 The only thing you (as a business) have are your daily players. This is the only thing you have. The game itself? I think I could do something very similar in a couple of days using EXCEL (3 weeks max). Well, maybe some graphic stuff would take me a bit longer to make it fancy. And for somebody skilled it is not a problem to make something like that for browser. Do you really want to loose THE ONLY THING YOU HAVE, and make it easier for competitors to eat you alive? Well, feel free to do it - it's your business after all.

Appendix - Case study 1:
Have you ever heard of game called "Mafia wars"? Yeah, I guessed so. Quite succesful - in business as well. You know why? Because of 2 things:

1. They ALWAYS add new content. I mean - every single day. There is ALWAYS something new you can get - and even if you are in TOP 10 - there are things, that you can still achieve, you are never stuck at where you are with no views for measurable gains.

2. You pay for extras. Premium features. And lots of people pay, trust me. But they never, NEVER hit their players in the face with taking away from them anything, unless they pay. And they don't make ANY feature EVER premium, if it wasn't premium before. Why? because anything that DISCOURAGES NEW PLAYERS is like shooting your own foot. Simply stupid.

BTW - It seems you should rename the game now to "Monopoly"

List of forums -> Main forum-> Changes to qualification growth algorithm

Page:

1 2 3 →