View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryLast Update
0004658Valley 1Gameplay IssueJan 28, 2012 9:04 am
Reporterzebramatt Assigned To 
Status closedResolutionopen 
Product Version0.519 
Summary0004658: Always most efficient to go for caves which are the lowest level for a given gem tier
DescriptionPROBLEM:
At the moment, you find tier 2 gems from level 10, tier 3 from 20, 4 from 30, etc.

This means that it is currently always most efficient when searching for a gem of a particular tier to go for the lowest level region for that tier.


JUST ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION:
One way to solve this might be to muddy the lines a little.

For example, a level 5 region might give you a 50% chance of getting a tier 2 gem and a 50% chance of getting a tier 1 gem. Level 6: 60/40, level 7: 70/30, 8: 80/20, 9:90/10, 10:100; then level 11 might have a 95% chance of giving you a tier 2, and a 5% chance of a tier 3. Level 12: 90/10, 13: 85/15 and 14: 80/20.

Or, you know, whatever level gates for whatever probabilities you like. It'd still be important to have a dead cert level for each gem tier but now there's incentives both ways - go higher and you'll definitely either get what you're after, or maybe a shot at something even better. Go lower and it'll be easier but you might get the tier below instead.
TagsNo tags attached.
Internal WeightFeature Suggestion

Relationships

related to 0004323 closedChris_McElligottPark Loot more randomized 
related to 0004640 resolvedChris_McElligottPark Item spawning behavior given level differences within tiers 
parent of 0004776 closed Blurring gem tier level breaks - another way (caution advised) 

Activities

tigersfan

Oct 7, 2011 8:57 am

reporter   ~0016051

I agree, this wasn't something that was all that important when each tier was only 5 levels, but now, I think this would really add something to the game.

KDR_11k

Oct 7, 2011 4:38 pm

reporter   ~0016137

While I do think there needs to be something done about the level efficiency I don't like the idea of adding randomness on such a scale (it's a dice roll whether you get what you're looking for after fighting a boss which could get VERY frustrating).

It might make more sense to influence the dust drops in some way while leaving the gem itself alone.

jerith

Oct 7, 2011 4:45 pm

reporter   ~0016139

You typically want to put some effort into upgrading your gear when you reach a new tier, and then use that until you need more. Because of this, you probably aren't going to be scouring the later levels in a given tier for gems -- you'd already have them from earlier.

zebramatt

Oct 8, 2011 5:00 am

reporter   ~0016196

@KDR: If you go for level 10, it's 100% - no dice roll. If you go lower, the boss will be easier but there's an element of randomness. The chances are at 9 or 8, you'll still get what you're after. Lower and it's more of a gamble.

@jerith: I think you can mitigate that by adjusting the (illustrative only) possibility figures. Even with the figures above, you only have a 1/5 chance at level 14 of getting more than at level 10. I concede that you might accumulate a few higher tier gems without even trying, however, so it's a fair comment. And it does make level 15 more of a gate: you suddenly have a coin flip chance at the higher tier stuff.


Perhaps a better approach would be to have it rolling with your civ level? So rather than it being set at level 10 for the 100% chance, any region which is equal to your current civ level has a 100% chance of giving you the current tier gem, with a sliding scale on either side?

zebramatt

Oct 8, 2011 5:54 am

reporter   ~0016198

Also, it occurs to me a buffer of a level or two would be useful.

So +/-1 same level could be 100%, maybe.

That way you retain the ability for players to play up or down a level to tweak the difficulty without any shift in the gems received.

Dizzard

Oct 8, 2011 8:57 am

reporter   ~0016212

Honestly I only ever go looking for gems in underground levels equal to my level or one or two levels above.

It's better for the exp too anyhow.

Sherlock

Oct 8, 2011 10:33 am

reporter   ~0016219

I'm not sure i like the dropping of lower-tier gems in a range. It just adds a point of frustration if you go through a boss fight and get something useless.

Preferably have more gems drop when in a high-end cave. I also really like the more-dust idea.

Maybe once more gems and resources get added later, the rarer ones could be up-shifted by 5 levels and that would take care of things on its own

zebramatt

Oct 8, 2011 11:58 am

reporter   ~0016225

Hm. It's odd. At the moment, you have 0% chance of getting a tier 2 gem from anything lower than a level 10 chunk. I propose the game give you a 50% chance at level 5 of getting one... and somehow the fact that you MIGHT get a tier 1 is worse than DEFINITELY getting a tier 1...

I'm not all that married to this idea, as it happens, but I'm struggling to see the weight in this particular counter!

KDR_11k

Oct 8, 2011 1:41 pm

reporter   ~0016239

When you give players the CHANCE to have something happen that influences the way they play. Given that we're talking about very low frequency events here I think the rewards should be guaranteed. Yes, you can go into the regular tier level to get your gem at a 100% chance but it'll have a psychological impact.

zebramatt

Oct 8, 2011 1:50 pm

reporter   ~0016240

But it's up to the player to choose! I'm not proposing it be kept a secret.

Toll

Dec 13, 2011 11:14 am

reporter   ~0017809

If I understood the upcoming changes correctly, tiers will be completely taken out, yes? If so, this isn't really a problem anymore.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
Oct 7, 2011 8:53 am zebramatt New Issue
Oct 7, 2011 8:56 am tigersfan Internal Weight => Feature Suggestion
Oct 7, 2011 8:56 am tigersfan Status new => strongly considering
Oct 7, 2011 8:57 am tigersfan Note Added: 0016051
Oct 7, 2011 4:38 pm KDR_11k Note Added: 0016137
Oct 7, 2011 4:45 pm jerith Note Added: 0016139
Oct 8, 2011 5:00 am zebramatt Note Added: 0016196
Oct 8, 2011 5:54 am zebramatt Note Added: 0016198
Oct 8, 2011 7:09 am Spork Relationship added related to 0004323
Oct 8, 2011 8:57 am Dizzard Note Added: 0016212
Oct 8, 2011 10:33 am Sherlock Note Added: 0016219
Oct 8, 2011 11:58 am zebramatt Note Added: 0016225
Oct 8, 2011 12:02 pm zebramatt Description Updated
Oct 8, 2011 1:41 pm KDR_11k Note Added: 0016239
Oct 8, 2011 1:50 pm zebramatt Note Added: 0016240
Oct 10, 2011 11:11 am zebramatt Relationship added parent of 0004776
Oct 13, 2011 2:32 am zebramatt Relationship added related to 0004640
Dec 13, 2011 11:14 am Toll Note Added: 0017809
Jan 28, 2012 9:04 am tigersfan Status strongly considering => closed
Apr 14, 2014 9:28 am Chris_McElligottPark Category Gameplay - General Complaint => Gameplay Issue