Discussion thread for the new high output chain

Trekman · Post by **Trekman** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 3:22 am

Personally I was never interested in entering some "high-output chain" but I do not damn the idea either

The fact that the chain-managers already have begun to plan about the announced changes is very good

although I agree with those who say that "chains" will be more or less gone in the future.

Ok - every system can get "exhausted" or even exploited - but I guess the developers have thought the new system through for quite a long time (but apparently had a Microsoft muzzle around their chin before the deal).

If I remember correctly the new Loyalty / Leadership bonusses not only include online time, but also a longer "RL time". So after the change you might be able to reach X weeks of online time through drudge-dancing, but the 3,4 or more months of RL time will be a problem

In this respect it is good to form a "new-system-'chain'" before the change if they really keep the pre-change Loyalty bonus.
But on the other hand this makes such a 'chain' even more immobile than the current bonus rule - which potential participants should be aware of.

Edit :

This is the wrong thread - but what will happen to the current chains ?

Apparently FC/OH quotas will have to be redefined/cancelled. Patrons of power players will have even more benefit compared to patrons of casual players than in the current system.

As of today many or most of the chain members in fact *are* casual players, at least as far as exceeding the quota is concerned. So a potential new quota cannot be set too high, which in return will frustrate the power-player patrons who will be more dependent on direct vassal XP.

I do not envy the Chain Management and the HC....

Oof · Post by **Oof** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 4:09 am

Trekman, I think the existing CC/FC/OH segments will probably take a wait-and-see approach. My first impression of a suggested approach to quota is to simply let the numbers by whatever they are for a while and then let typical production drive the new quota numbers. Depending on how the leader/loyalty bonus works, yes it could make the chains practically immovable regarding repositioning. Quota enforcement will need to be much stricter than it has been I think, if for no other reason than chain patrons will start yelling quickly if their vassal doesn't produce according to quota.

We'll know more in a month or two, or as soon as Turbine publishes exactly how the new system will work.

[Edited to correct typos.]

Nakamuro Zataki · Post by **Nakamuro Zataki** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:03 am

First some history. A while ago I spoke to a person who is doing his master thesis in game theory. When the Brittish government was selling 3G licenses they wanted to get as much money from them as possible, in order to do that they wondered how to set up the auction in the best way. A brittish professor was called in...

There were three 3G licenses and three big companies that competed for them, as well as five minor companies. If they had just done an open bidding, the small one would have realised they could never win against the big ones, and backed out, and the big three would get the license for minimum bids.

What did the government do then? After many computer simulations by the professor they decided to do this; They first held an open bidding, to decide which four candidates would get to be in the final bidding. Of the four final bidders, only three could win so a second closed bidding was then held, and the three highest bidders would get the 3G license for the cost of the third highest bid...

If you think about it for a moment you will see what happens... the clever government made a HUGE amount of money on the auction.

___________________________________

So what does this have to do with things? Well since the order of the chain is VERY important, ideally the production numbers between patron and vassals would be roughly equal. But how to do that?

Well here is an idea to ponder. What if each person in a PM "bids" a quota, say "I am willing to hunt 200M per week". This is done privatly and noone else knows about this number. Then once every one has "bid" a quota, the chain is ordered according to those bids. The chain page will reflect the individual quotas, and as long as you keep that promissed quota you keep your position, if you fail the quota, you are moved to the bottom of the chain for a trial period, when you are later reinserted your location depends on your new production numbers, or your new "bid" depending on which one is lower.

As long as there is 10 days before the patch there is no point in preserving loyalty bonuses, you can just stay online for ten days and have it rebuilt. The order, if the chain survives, is what is important. Uneven production numbers in the chain will cause strain, "why is (s)he getting so much more than me despite that I hunt three times as much"... etc.

Ofcourse there is the question if the reduced gains by restructuring before March is bigger or lower than what the reduced gains would be if you did restructuring after March, when chain efficiency might be a third of what it is now or something, despite the higher quota. Ie, longer loyalty rebuilding time might be offset by lower gain per day, so smaller total loss to restructure after March patch. This is just speculation, what is best long time I dont know and maybe it does not really matter.

This post was brought to you by "Hire a mathematician" a non-profit organization that seek to promote the use of mathematics and clever brains in the world.

Trekman · Post by **Trekman** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 11:15 am

Nakamuro Zataki wrote:Well here is an idea to ponder. What if each person in a PM "bids" a quota, say "I am willing to hunt 200M per week". This is done privatly and noone else knows about this number. Then once every one has "bid" a quota, the chain is ordered according to those bids. The chain page will reflect the individual quotas, and as long as you keep that promissed quota you keep your position, if you fail the quota, you are moved to the bottom of the chain for a trial period, when you are later reinserted your location depends on your new production numbers, or your new "bid" depending on which one is lower.

I pondered - and I wondered.....

First of all the idea doesn't sound bad...but :

1) Nobody really can bet *now* on what XP one can produce (= how long one will able to play daily) in the future. RL things change all the time, especially for those having a "dynamic" job, even for those having the same (boring ?) school routine every day - not to mention family business.
Furthermore dynamic content with new or rebalanced monsters will change personal XP output in general (although probably towards an increase).

2) With the new system the order of a "chain" in a sense of high-, or low-position does not matter. There is no use in destroying some Loyalty Bonus (however it is calculated) by placing people to the bottom of a "chain" after failing some quota.

3) The proposed "chain structure by betting XP" *does* make sense if the bets are used to calculate who gets whom as vassals - to adjust XP distribution. For instance one patron might have 2 vassals betting 50M while another might have 5 vassals betting 20M....but even if so : see 1)

4) "...you are moved to the bottom of the chain..." obviously means that all chain members have to be 126+. What about the other levels where the order is dependent on the actual level ? Or did your proposal only mean current OH ?

5) For all we know by now a "chain structure" might flatten to some sort of "Ponzi Scheme". Compared to today maaany contributors will deliver XP to relatively few beneficiaries. Right now people in the lower third/quarter of a chain are poor souls delivering far more than they can gain, in the hope of reaching a higher position later. In the future the ratio will shift towards those contributors, which means more contributors with much less chance for each to finally get to a "position" of having an effective number of high-output vassals.
Will this dim future of a "contributor" influence the own bets hoping for a better ranking ?

I do not want to turn this into another annoying macro discussion - but in my opinion the new XP system will result in an increase of UCMs.
The proposed "bet and win/lose" system further increases that danger : "Oops 4 months ago I promised to deliver 200M per week. Due to some reswearing my Loyalty Bonus is sooo low I actually have to hunt for raw 600M but I can't due to RL - so I have to let Tank keep my promise...."
This fear of mine does not take into consideration if and when Turbine might get serious about enforcing current COC. As long as I do not actually *see* some action I have to assume nothing will change in this respect - no matter what Turbine says *now* in Dev Chats and boards...

Nakamuro Zataki · Post by **Nakamuro Zataki** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:03 pm

Ofcourse things can change in real life, but this might be a way to sort the chain. Also it said "hunted" not "passed up", ie loyalty bonus is not factored into this.

Flattening out the chain into a pyramid scheme is just a way to focus the xp to a few people, it is basically a way to scam people. So I doubt that will happen, there is no real gain from doing it if you look at total output.

My personal opinion is that normal patron/vassal relationsships will be much more beneficial, and so in more ways than just xp. Regardless, the chain sorting problem is interesting to discuss because it might make or break the post-patch chain atempt.

Trekman · Post by **Trekman** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:50 pm

Nakamuro Zataki wrote: Also it said "hunted" not "passed up", ie loyalty bonus is not factored into this.

Oops - my bad....BUT :

As of now "hunted" means "add to the 93.75% passthrough" which is pretty much acceptable by an "XP oriented" patron like in a chain.
But in the future "hunted" vassal XP are pretty much everything such a patron will receive, therefore "200M hunted" (resulting in 50M passup at worst) might not be acceptable for this patron....

If "hunted" is in the policy of any chain after the change - and most likely you cannot maintain a maxed Loyalty Bonus everywhere - there will be a lot of flaming about XP expectations not met, about how lazy and unproductive those d*mn chain vassals are,.....

As of now passed-up XP are already part of the various policies, the result of hunted XP *and* required Leadership/Loyalty values. And as of now the Loyalty Bonus is a convenience, but in most cases not really a requirement.

In the future though this Bonus will be key for a decent XP output.
Therefore in my opinion it would make no sense to define the quota by "hunted" XP, because this makes XP output pretty much unacceptable the moment the chain begins to change due to reswearing, even with very high quota.

Assuming the chain structure is still limited to one chain-vassal and even assuming that "optimum" Leadership/Loyalty values are a prerequisite each patron suddenly will see a drop in chain XP by 3/4 !!! once he has to get a new chain vassal for whatever reason. Nowadays the drop might be noticable too, but by no means that brutal.
And in the future this drop will shrink muuuuuch slower than today.

On the other hand if quota is defined by "pass-up" and not by "hunted" this means that even a vassal with "maxed/capped" Leadership/Loyalty has to hunt 4x as much in the beginning which is equally unacceptable. And the time for such additional efforts is muuuuch longer than today too.

We won't find a really viable solution - I guess Turbine had spent very much planning time in the new system (including the Bonus timers) even before the MS buyout.

But I agree that discussing it is interesting, even if to no avail

Speaking of discussing :
I cannot comprehend how the new system (or the intentions for the original system, for that matter) should force/promote "real vassal/patron relationships".
A "real" relationship is a personal one and does not prevent some chain membership - therefore we have 12 available slots.
Anyone interested in personal relations with vassals already has up to 11
opportunites while reserving one chain-vassal slot, or even 12 slots.

How many people not even interested in XP/chains already have 6,8,10 or even 12 direct vassals they have a personal relationship with ? Not very much I assume. And those will not be motivated by the new system either.

But even if we concentrate on the chain-members who are supposed to be "driven" to personal relationships with the new system :
Reality shows that many chain members have filled their slots with (cross-server-trade-)mules. Of course there are exceptions to the rule and nobody is obliged now to list their vassals and their relationships to them.
But in general many chain-members/XP-oriented players simply are not interested in personal contact to more than maybe 1 - 3 vassal-friends.
And *if* they have some personal vassals, they already treat them now the way the new system is supposed to push them to.

XP-oriented players will look for additional playing vassals considering them an annoying necessary evil, not because they suddenly had been converted to good Samaritans.
I predict they will not search for vassals to care about and to support, but as "XP producers with as little contact as possible".
This in return will frustrate vassals, especially those who are *really* new to the game. Ok - vassals can break and look for new patrons, but the currently increasing XP fee for each break punishes vassals for breaking.

XP-oriented players will create pools and mini-chains instead of discovering their "social conscience" which perverts the vassal/patron relationship at least as much as the current system.

Edit: the only ones "pushed back to personal relationships" will be the vassals who think "I do not gain XP from the chain, I can as well swear to my old patron again or look for a patron who can supply me".

Nakamuro Zataki · Post by **Nakamuro Zataki** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 2:18 pm

How long did that take to type up Trek?

Trekman · Post by **Trekman** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 2:27 pm

Nakamuro Zataki wrote:How long did that take to type up Trek?

Not long - although I had to Edit it a few times for typos and word order.
But the thoughts are not new, I have had mixed feelings about "vassal/patron relationships without a proper base from RL or ingame" for quite some time....

Oof · Post by **Oof** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 2:52 pm

Trekman posted the following in the application thread. It is pasted here so his post is conveniently listed before my answers.

I know this is not the Discussion thread, but since the quote is in here........

Although "Pusher" might not be the correct term, Blue's worries are justifiable (paranoic or not ).
Since this chain apparently will be formed outside the existing ones at least one if not more have to be pure contributors at the end of whatever structure the new chain will have. Everone from the second level up to the top can expect the predefined quota from their direct vassals, but not the first level.....
So far this is not much different from current chains, but today people can have the hope to move up in the chain in an acceptible timeframe.
But this chain will be supposed to be rather static to preserve the Loyalty Bonus causing all this stress before the February patch. So their chances to move "up" in the hierarchy are rather limited. Even if the chain will get new members at the bottom after the patch due to the new Loyalty formula those current contributors will need a long time to see benefits...

Another thing I noticed is the level range of the new chain.
I do not know the level of the current volunteers now, but probably most or all of them are 126+. That would make ordering the chain by whatever considerations pretty simple.
But .... the chain is 50+ as far as I remember the summary.
Personally I cannot imagine how a level 50 is supposed to deliver 50M per week without becoming crazy - especially if for some reason the maximized Loyalty Bonus is jeopardized.
But more significantly everyone below 126+ who has to be ordered according to level and under all 126+ when the chain is created is automatically in the weak position to be a "forced long-term contributor"...

Furthermore the quota is defined with 50M as of now. With one chain vassal this quota does not justify the name "High Output Chain" in the new system. Therefore the structure of the chain probably has to be tree-like, with 3 or 4 chain vassals for each patron. As in every "Ponzi Scheme" with such a structure that results in even more pure, benefit-less base-level contributors.
The only way to avoid a tree structure is to significantly raise the quota, which makes the 50+ level range even more - uhm - strange...

I am sure that these points already are being discussed in the secret negotiations. I am curious about the results

Ok ok - since I will not attend the new chain I am already leaving this thread

Oof · Post by **Oof** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 3:34 pm

I'm going to re-order some of Trekman's quote to provide a better logical flow for my answers.

Furthermore the quota is defined with 50M as of now. With one chain vassal this quota does not justify the name "High Output Chain" in the new system.

Heh, yes, we should update the name, or actually get a name. The "High Output Chain" was just a temporary title from before Turbine's announcement of their changes. 50M quota is also a holdover from the old, and still current, quota passthrough rates. Generally, people can expect to hunt for roughly 150M a week (currently) in order to pass up 50M a week. That quota is significantly higher than the OH's current 12M a week. The number will need to be modified after we can determine what is reasonable to expect a higher producing member to make. One of the rules with the new chain is that quota requirements will be modified as time goes by.

Personally I cannot imagine how a level 50 is supposed to deliver 50M per week without becoming crazy

The chain will be 50+. See below.

Everone from the second level up to the top can expect the predefined quota from their direct vassals, but not the first level.....

Agreed, the bottom person will need some sort of incentive, otherwise, why bother being in a chain at all?

Not many level 50s can deliver 50M, maybe not any, I'm not sure. It is very difficult for a level 50 character to make "uber XP" without help. Traditional pushers won't work for the new chain because the XP is almost completely absorbed by the immediate chain patron. We can and will do a few things, case dependent. We can and will take the bottom person as a healer to VoD. We all know a level 50 cannot hunt effectively (or at all

) in VoD; however, he/she can function well as a healer. I have a 50-something character I can swear as an additional vassal to the bottom of the chain and can take my little character (second account) to VoD when the bottom chain member isn't available. Some of the other applicants to the new chain have said they can do the same. We will, some way or other, help the bottom chain member with quota.

Another possible alternative that hasn't really been discussed yet is having a sliding scale sort of quota, where a level 50's quota simply wouldn't be as much as a level 126's quota.

Therefore the structure of the chain probably has to be tree-like, with 3 or 4 chain vassals for each patron. As in every "Ponzi Scheme" with such a structure that results in even more pure, benefit-less base-level contributors.

I don't see the chain structure doing that because it is not workable in the long term. Eventually, you run out new recruits to place on the bottom. That "eventually" by the way would come very, very quickly. The only way I could imagine a Ponzi scheme working is if the time to maximize loyalty bonus was a week or less, which won't happen. If the bonus maxed quickly enough we could set up rotating cells of characters, but I think it is pointless to talk about that possibility because it has already been stated it will take longer to build the loyalty bonus in the future.

I am sure that these points already are being discussed in the secret negotiations. I am curious about the results

Not secret discussions, simply brainstorming sessions that eventually turn into real discussions. Any thoughts/discussions we have to yield results are posted out here for everyone to see. As the managers have more thoughts, and as chain members post more questions, I post additional information.

If anyone has questions, post them. That was the entire purpose of this thread: to share information and to see what additional information anyone might be looking for.

.Urrasa. · Post by **.Urrasa.** » Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:10 pm

Arrgg!! im so confused!!! (but for me thats not hard to do.. :p)

Just tell me when to sign up if it happens..

Nakamuro Zataki · Post by **Nakamuro Zataki** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 8:28 am

Turbine does not store the real date when you swore to your patron, but they can estimate it based on the assumtion that you have played roughly the same amount of time over the character's entire lifespan.

There are two ways to interpret the next part of the turbine article...

1. Your old in game time sworn is used to calculate the bonuses for in game and real time sworn bonuses.

2. Turbine does some trick with the in game time sworn, to make sure you get 50% in game time bonus if you currently had 50% in game time bonus, but they wont make it longer than your total character age.

If it is the first case, then reforming the chain before the patch does not make any sense. Instead of using post-patch time to rebuild the bonus you use pre-patch high output time, ie bad idea since each day is only counted as a day both pre and post patch.

If it is the second scenario, then reforming could help... depending on the lifespan of the new chain and the efficiency of it.

Rotating patrons will not work.

http://ac.turbinegames.com/index.php?page_id=162

Nakamuro Zataki · Post by **Nakamuro Zataki** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 8:35 am

There is a third interpretation too.

Now that I think of it that one makes more sense. The in game time needed to build up full bonus for AC time will be 10 days, just like the old system, but the real time needed is MUCH longer.

This means that swearing your character to your patron and leaving your toon online for 10 days just before patch will not help much. Your AC time bonus will be maxed, but it would have been maxed just by leaving the character online for 10 days after patch too.... (so no real gain there)

Also the real time bonus will not be maxed out from doing it prepatch. It will be set to a percentage of your total character lifetime, probably a bit longer than those ten days, but not enough to warrant the loss in loyalty bonus for the last ten days of good chains just before patch.

Conclusion, based on the assumption that this third case is correct. Keep food and hyssop chains until patchday, then after that go for a high output crazy hunt chain for those that want, the rest either keep the current chains or reabsorb into the rest of the clan.

Oof · Post by **Oof** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:55 pm

Ncatyl · Post by **Ncatyl** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 7:04 pm

Making assumptions about numbers is easy. The new passup algorithm demands you account for human behavior in a different way. Even among the most disciplined population or individuals, human behavior can only be guessed at.

I do not think that any pyramid organizations will function for longterm periods. Too many people are used to the type of almost instantaneous gratification which the old system allowed. Getting the mostest for the leastest will no longer be an option. Maximizing your output will have no intrinsic reward. Maximizing your input will not give you a net benefit either. Basically there's no more getting something for nothing that people have gotten used too.

There have to be incentives to advance beyond those that come with the game. Those same incentives cannot come in the form of a more favorable position in the XP stack because of penalties suffered for patron hopping.

Chain managers really have their work cut out for them. I'd suggest getting some insight from the folks over at Ruthless. You know they've been all over this conundrum. Well, maybe not the realities of human behavior, but they'll have the numbers down pat.

Personally I feel its all going to come down to figuring out how to finance loyalty & leadership. People will have to cease putting themselves first and that will be a hard adjustment. On the upside the new passup structure gives patrons ample time to hunt for quality items so that their retainers can advance in style. I don't see this working with any group that contains a large % of the under 21 crowd*.

Anyway...Good Luck! it'll be neat to see how this wave rides.

*(under 21 refers to mental age, not physical age)