I'm interested in what constitutes "accurate enough". Accurate enough for what? The top end players are fine. More numbers just makes already stacked characters look even better.
The problem with IL is in the 2-3.5k range, with the bench marks for queue entry.
That should be as accurate as it can possibly be. Its the only genuine FUNCTION that IL serves beyond "mine's bigger than yours".
If the purpose of IL isn't to manage character eligibility through measuring capability in queue based content, then what the hell other purpose does it serve?
I honestly cannot get my head into the same mindset that allows a function of the game to be deliberately not as accurate as it could possibly be because. "we didn't want to".
I couldn't agree more, mordekai. I hope it is a poor choice of words with "accurate enough" rather than "as accurate as possible." "Enough" means we went with the first plan that came into our heads, while "as possible" means we worked out out plans and got to it as close to perfect as feasible.
I'm interested in what constitutes "accurate enough". Accurate enough for what? The top end players are fine. More numbers just makes already stacked characters look even better.
The problem with IL is in the 2-3.5k range, with the bench marks for queue entry.
That should be as accurate as it can possibly be. Its the only genuine FUNCTION that IL serves beyond "mine's bigger than yours".
If the purpose of IL isn't to manage character eligibility through measuring capability in queue based content, then what the hell other purpose does it serve?
I honestly cannot get my head into the same mindset that allows a function of the game to be deliberately not as accurate as it could possibly be because. "we didn't want to".
I would respectfully disagree. Whereas I agree on the theoretical level that ilvl would ideally be a perfect representation of character effectiveness/strength/contribution, we run into 2 very real issues:
A system for capturing effectiveness more effectively would necessarily be more complicated. Stuff like applying multipliers for bonding stones, counting only the 1st orange pet, or having enchants provide different values depending on where they are slotted are all systems that would have to be built out and tested. And the problems that come with complicated are: harder to explain / understand, more effort to develop / test, and more likely to introduce some sort of bug / unintended effect.
Development effort needs to be prioritized, because any time spent working on one thing is necessarily not spent working on something else. So you have to ask the very important question: should we put more effort here or have the developers move on to other items?
#2 is exacerbated by #1. The more complex something is, the more time it takes to make and test leading to a higher opportunity cost (what the dev could have done instead if they weren't working on this).
I've managed software development projects before, and I know that introducing new mechanics into legacy code is double trouble, and adds even more to the complexity.
With all that said, I think that trying to make the ilvl system perfect just isn't a very good investment with respect to both player priorities (content, QoL, bugs) and publisher priorities (stability, monetization). The ilvl system was overdue for a rework to take into account boons, companions, and insignia. Now it does. It's not perfect, but it doesn't need to be. As you pointed out, it's only really needed for lower ilvl gating of end-game content. And I really do think that for that purpose it'll do it's job well enough.
It's "accurate enough" because "as accurate as it could possibly be" is way too expensive in this context, and I'd much prefer more time spent on other priorities.
I couldn't agree more, mordekai. I hope it is a poor choice of words with "accurate enough" rather than "as accurate as possible." "Enough" means we went with the first plan that came into our heads, while "as possible" means we worked out out plans and got to it as close to perfect as feasible.
I think in this case "enough" means that "we tried to balance effort required with eventual impact on the game, and decided this was a swell balance before moving on to other exciting development"
This game is free to play, it's clear that development time is a scarce resource. It's in all of our interests if it's spent improving many aspects of the game rather than perfecting one (in my opinion somewhat inconsequential) aspect.
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
I agree with dupeks. They've been balancing classes for ages and have yet to hit a sweet spot on many of them. There are bugs in dungeons/skirms that have existed for ages. I like the sounds of the new IL system but, at the end of the day, I would prefer they spend resources fixing and improving other aspects of the game.
Dev resources need to be assigned to a LOT more important things than the #whocaresaboutthatanyway item lvl/gear score whatever you may call it
Nancy - Dragonborn, SM Guardian Fighter A proud member of "mythical horde of DPS GFs"
1). Is SW more dps or tank based? 2). Yes. I am panzer! 3). Get ACT if you want to celebrate your epeen. 4). Horniness will not stand between me and what I believe - "MM"
I'm not looking for perfect. I just believe the words "accurate enough" express an attitude of "this is all we feel like doing for this." Is 51% "accurate enough"? Those 2 words are just too vague for me to gauge how the IL will work during actual gameplay.
I'm not looking for perfect. I just believe the words "accurate enough" express an attitude of "this is all we feel like doing for this." Is 51% "accurate enough"? Those 2 words are just too vague for me to gauge how the IL will work during actual gameplay.
I don't think you're being fair. The dev literally wrote a detailed explanation to provide context to his use of "accurate enough" mentioning the tradeoff between more exactly capturing player effectiveness vs. complexity. You seem to be selectively honing in on one tiny part of that where he used the term "hopefully "accurate enough"" in quotes, in a parenthetical to boot. Here's the whole quote for context:
In terms of accuracy, there have been lots of great suggestions that would make the system more accurate, but as others have pointed out, the goal isn't to maximize accuracy so much as to make things more accurate than before (and hopefully "accurate enough") and still preserve simplicity. One thing that's important to simplicity is, I think, that each item gives a fixed number -- not contextual numbers. I also don't want to go down the path of saying specific item X or Y is more powerful, so we will give it more item level. I think it's better if we keep things by category (purple enchantment is worth X, blue artifact is worth Y), and if we keep the number of different categories low.
He goes on to address individual items like insignia, bonding stones, and utility enchants.
Maybe I'm not being fair, and I completely agree with the philosophy of keeping it as simple as possible (no contextual numbers based on items to be perceived as better or worse). I am interested in having even more details than what has been posted so far.
This thread began with IL being necessary to run specific content, so I still don't understand if the upcoming changes are going to address any discrepancies we currently have in a meaningful way.
I could be completely wrong when the update happens, but as of now I am not getting it.
I wish I'd had one job in my life where the fact that a task might be difficult absolved me of the need to do it. The quote I was directed to as the reason for this change stated that they chose not to implement changes that would improve accuracy.
If the changes do not reflect an accurate view of characters, why waste that oh so precious time in the first place?
Claiming that adding new sources for IL makes it more accurate is a non sequitur. Adding additional factors, which may or may not be accurate to an equation that already contains factors that may or may not be accurate does not increase accuracy. It simply widens the range of what may or may not be accurate.
I wish I'd had one job in my life where the fact that a task might be difficult absolved me of the need to do it. The quote I was directed to as the reason for this change stated that they chose not to implement changes that would improve accuracy.
If the changes do not reflect an accurate view of characters, why waste that oh so precious time in the first place?
Claiming that adding new sources for IL makes it more accurate is a non sequitur. Adding additional factors, which may or may not be accurate to an equation that already contains factors that may or may not be accurate does not increase accuracy. It simply widens the range of what may or may not be accurate.
And I wish I had one job in my life where I didn't need to prioritize tasks based on their relevance and relative effort.
The changes reflect an improved view of characters compared to the system that is there now, although the new system has obvious shortcomings as well. Still, it was needed to bring in additional sources of character ability like boons and companions. Would you really like that hey keep the current I'll system instead? If so, that's your opinion but I think it's baseless and wrong.
It's not guaranteed that a more complex system would be more accurate either, but it would definitely take more time to put together. In my opinion it's ridiculous to argue that the proposed system doesn't increase accuracy.
@mordekai#1901 have you actually calculated the percentage of error/variance that you expect to see with the new system?
I mean, with the current system leaving out everything on mounts and companions, you're looking at a ballpark figure of anywhere between 0% and perhaps 50% of a players stats. These have now been added. Have you worked out what difference you'd expect between the new system currently on preview and the contextual version you are adamant the game requires?
If I read your previous suggestion correctly, you actually wanted a kind of pve scoreboard that tracked and weighed how well a player performs compared to those with similar gear. Do you actually have any professional technical experience that would enable you to understand the breadth of task you're expecting the development team to perform with such a suggestion? (let alone the social impact from introducing such an elitist system, but that's a different subject).
But the point I find really amusing is you're berating them for putting in little effort and not bothering to do a proper job, but in the "What Would You Pay 10 or 20 Bucks For In Game?" thread your position was 'these guys are the professionals, they know what they're doing'. Funny how that view only holds as long as it validates your opinion.
Please Do Not Feed The Trolls
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
personally I think good enough is good enough. this is by far better than what is there now. it's not perfect but it's definitely workable. right now the system might as well not be there at all for how much it represents the work that has gone into a toon. teh new system seems far more representative. we know how bad bugs are in this game and it was stated by the devs straight up that this system went beyond the superficial and may have unintended effects on other things. can you imagine if they multiplied that? they'd have weird bugs they'd NEVER be able to find lol. If they say it's too complex and good enough will do than I'm fine with that knowing how frustrating bugs are in game.
some effort is better than no effort. (and by that I'm not being belittling to what has been done. imo the things that aren't perfected ARE small things in the big picture)
personally I think good enough is good enough. this is by far better than what is there now. it's not perfect but it's definitely workable. right now the system might as well not be there at all for how much it represents the work that has gone into a toon. teh new system seems far more representative. we know how bad bugs are in this game and it was stated by the devs straight up that this system went beyond the superficial and may have unintended effects on other things. can you imagine if they multiplied that? they'd have weird bugs they'd NEVER be able to find lol. If they say it's too complex and good enough will do than I'm fine with that knowing how frustrating bugs are in game.
some effort is better than no effort. (and by that I'm not being belittling to what has been done. imo the things that aren't perfected ARE small things in the big picture)
Completely agree.
Even with the "good enough" changes, we had bugs pop up. Vivified relic gear stats got messed up and needed to be fixed The level-based damage scaling for all weapons got messed up too and needed to be fixed.
And those are just things we found from testing on preview. I'd bet my hiney that there will be more items that come up once the changes hit live and the larger population pressure tests it.
@mordekai#1901 have you actually calculated the percentage of error/variance that you expect to see with the new system?
I mean, with the current system leaving out everything on mounts and companions, you're looking at a ballpark figure of anywhere between 0% and perhaps 50% of a players stats. These have now been added. Have you worked out what difference you'd expect between the new system currently on preview and the contextual version you are adamant the game requires?
If I read your previous suggestion correctly, you actually wanted a kind of pve scoreboard that tracked and weighed how well a player performs compared to those with similar gear. Do you actually have any professional technical experience that would enable you to understand the breadth of task you're expecting the development team to perform with such a suggestion? (let alone the social impact from introducing such an elitist system, but that's a different subject).
But the point I find really amusing is you're berating them for putting in little effort and not bothering to do a proper job, but in the "What Would You Pay 10 or 20 Bucks For In Game?" thread your position was 'these guys are the professionals, they know what they're doing'. Funny how that view only holds as long as it validates your opinion.
Do you really need the full statistical breakdown to realise that the only way the new system will make any genuine difference in an accurate reflection of a characters capability is that people with guild boons will be in a new tier?
Other than that, it doesn't tell you what a character has beyond a rough bracket with massive disparity between items within those brackets.
You didn't read it correctly. Players would be measured via class based criteria, not vs each other. One measurement based on the weighted value of their build, one on an AI based simulation based on an agreed format for each class and one based on your own performance against what you should be able to achieve.
Does it really confuse you to the point of amusement that someone can believe that a person or organisation can be wrong about one thing and right about another? Particularly when one of those points is based on "we could have made it more accurate but we chose not to"
As with the guys at the HAMSTER measuring contest, it seems the one phrase no one wants to hear is, "it's not how big it is, it's what you can do with it that counts".
I love the way you never answer questions posed to you If there's one thing I've learned by now it's that you make a profession out of myopia. You've had the devs explanation, you've had experienced players who've seen it on the preview server explain it to you and if you go read the main thread you'll see the player base is broadly in favour of it.
Of course that's still not good enough and you are the only genius here who's right and everyone else is wrong.
I'm done debating with you on anything as you're always like this.
Please Do Not Feed The Trolls
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
I think the new IL system is amazing... to many times people ask for 4k GS because players put anything on their characters to get into groups... when in reality 3.2-3.5k GS are blowing (DPS Wise) 4ks out of the water due to mounts, insignias, companions, and boons.
With the new system people can't just spend $200 on the game, buy 10 r12s without doing any of their boons. Sure they can buy the campaign completion packs if they want to spend more, BUT it will show a characters true gear ability. Granted player skill goes pretty deep also.
If I have to see 1 more 4.3k say HDPS LFG.. that when I was 3.5k was doing over 50m-100m in MSVA than them... I may kill myself.
Comments
Accurate enough for what?
The top end players are fine. More numbers just makes already stacked characters look even better.
The problem with IL is in the 2-3.5k range, with the bench marks for queue entry.
That should be as accurate as it can possibly be. Its the only genuine FUNCTION that IL serves beyond "mine's bigger than yours".
If the purpose of IL isn't to manage character eligibility through measuring capability in queue based content, then what the hell other purpose does it serve?
I honestly cannot get my head into the same mindset that allows a function of the game to be deliberately not as accurate as it could possibly be because. "we didn't want to".
- A system for capturing effectiveness more effectively would necessarily be more complicated. Stuff like applying multipliers for bonding stones, counting only the 1st orange pet, or having enchants provide different values depending on where they are slotted are all systems that would have to be built out and tested. And the problems that come with complicated are: harder to explain / understand, more effort to develop / test, and more likely to introduce some sort of bug / unintended effect.
- Development effort needs to be prioritized, because any time spent working on one thing is necessarily not spent working on something else. So you have to ask the very important question: should we put more effort here or have the developers move on to other items?
#2 is exacerbated by #1. The more complex something is, the more time it takes to make and test leading to a higher opportunity cost (what the dev could have done instead if they weren't working on this).I've managed software development projects before, and I know that introducing new mechanics into legacy code is double trouble, and adds even more to the complexity.
With all that said, I think that trying to make the ilvl system perfect just isn't a very good investment with respect to both player priorities (content, QoL, bugs) and publisher priorities (stability, monetization). The ilvl system was overdue for a rework to take into account boons, companions, and insignia. Now it does. It's not perfect, but it doesn't need to be. As you pointed out, it's only really needed for lower ilvl gating of end-game content. And I really do think that for that purpose it'll do it's job well enough.
It's "accurate enough" because "as accurate as it could possibly be" is way too expensive in this context, and I'd much prefer more time spent on other priorities. I think in this case "enough" means that "we tried to balance effort required with eventual impact on the game, and decided this was a swell balance before moving on to other exciting development"
This game is free to play, it's clear that development time is a scarce resource. It's in all of our interests if it's spent improving many aspects of the game rather than perfecting one (in my opinion somewhat inconsequential) aspect.
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
Member of Casual Dailies - XBox
Nothing more.
Dev resources need to be assigned to a LOT more important things than the #whocaresaboutthatanyway item lvl/gear score whatever you may call it
A proud member of "mythical horde of DPS GFs"
1). Is SW more dps or tank based?
2). Yes. I am panzer!
3). Get ACT if you want to celebrate your epeen.
4). Horniness will not stand between me and what I believe - "MM"
Source: https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter#/discussion/1229553/offcial-feedback-thread-changes-to-item-level-system
Sounds well thought out to me, and not "this is all we feel like doing for this"
This thread began with IL being necessary to run specific content, so I still don't understand if the upcoming changes are going to address any discrepancies we currently have in a meaningful way.
I could be completely wrong when the update happens, but as of now I am not getting it.
The quote I was directed to as the reason for this change stated that they chose not to implement changes that would improve accuracy.
If the changes do not reflect an accurate view of characters, why waste that oh so precious time in the first place?
Claiming that adding new sources for IL makes it more accurate is a non sequitur.
Adding additional factors, which may or may not be accurate to an equation that already contains factors that may or may not be accurate does not increase accuracy. It simply widens the range of what may or may not be accurate.
The changes reflect an improved view of characters compared to the system that is there now, although the new system has obvious shortcomings as well. Still, it was needed to bring in additional sources of character ability like boons and companions. Would you really like that hey keep the current I'll system instead? If so, that's your opinion but I think it's baseless and wrong.
It's not guaranteed that a more complex system would be more accurate either, but it would definitely take more time to put together. In my opinion it's ridiculous to argue that the proposed system doesn't increase accuracy.
I mean, with the current system leaving out everything on mounts and companions, you're looking at a ballpark figure of anywhere between 0% and perhaps 50% of a players stats. These have now been added. Have you worked out what difference you'd expect between the new system currently on preview and the contextual version you are adamant the game requires?
If I read your previous suggestion correctly, you actually wanted a kind of pve scoreboard that tracked and weighed how well a player performs compared to those with similar gear. Do you actually have any professional technical experience that would enable you to understand the breadth of task you're expecting the development team to perform with such a suggestion? (let alone the social impact from introducing such an elitist system, but that's a different subject).
But the point I find really amusing is you're berating them for putting in little effort and not bothering to do a proper job, but in the "What Would You Pay 10 or 20 Bucks For In Game?" thread your position was 'these guys are the professionals, they know what they're doing'. Funny how that view only holds as long as it validates your opinion.
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
Member of Casual Dailies - XBox
some effort is better than no effort. (and by that I'm not being belittling to what has been done. imo the things that aren't perfected ARE small things in the big picture)
Even with the "good enough" changes, we had bugs pop up.
Vivified relic gear stats got messed up and needed to be fixed
The level-based damage scaling for all weapons got messed up too and needed to be fixed.
And those are just things we found from testing on preview. I'd bet my hiney that there will be more items that come up once the changes hit live and the larger population pressure tests it.
Other than that, it doesn't tell you what a character has beyond a rough bracket with massive disparity between items within those brackets.
You didn't read it correctly.
Players would be measured via class based criteria, not vs each other.
One measurement based on the weighted value of their build, one on an AI based simulation based on an agreed format for each class and one based on your own performance against what you should be able to achieve.
Does it really confuse you to the point of amusement that someone can believe that a person or organisation can be wrong about one thing and right about another?
Particularly when one of those points is based on "we could have made it more accurate but we chose not to"
As with the guys at the HAMSTER measuring contest, it seems the one phrase no one wants to hear is, "it's not how big it is, it's what you can do with it that counts".
Of course that's still not good enough and you are the only genius here who's right and everyone else is wrong.
I'm done debating with you on anything as you're always like this.
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
Member of Casual Dailies - XBox
With the new system people can't just spend $200 on the game, buy 10 r12s without doing any of their boons. Sure they can buy the campaign completion packs if they want to spend more, BUT it will show a characters true gear ability. Granted player skill goes pretty deep also.
If I have to see 1 more 4.3k say HDPS LFG.. that when I was 3.5k was doing over 50m-100m in MSVA than them... I may kill myself.
I love the new system!