Algona
Well-Known Member
tl;dr I am wrong, Tony 85 the Generous and Vger are right:
There are no better alternatives then 1.9 for good players to lvl their GBs.
Thanks Tony 85 the Generous and Vger for prompting me to review the ananlysis that led me to the mistake.
The rest of this post discusses how I made the mistake.
I withdraw my mistaken statement that there are better alternatives to using 1.9+ to lvl your own GBs.
Thanks Tony 85 the Generous and Vger. You are right, I am wrong.
There are no better alternatives then 1.9 for good players to lvl their GBs.
Thanks Tony 85 the Generous and Vger for prompting me to review the ananlysis that led me to the mistake.
The rest of this post discusses how I made the mistake.
In another thread I was asked a pair of questions about something that was off topic.
I stated:
There are more profitable methods then 1.Xing to handle GBs in certain parts of their Reward curve.
and was asked:
and answered:
Happy to do so in another thread. I didn't want to take this one further off topic.
----------
In order to answer the questions from Tony and Vger , I went back to the model I created to analyze 1.Xing. From early 2018. That long ago? What has changed in the game in that time?
The model itself holds up. A simple soreadsheet (sorry Vger!) of the first 100 lvls of Arc compaing 1.Xing and my pet Reverse Triangle (RT) FP trading.
Through lvl 20 1.8(!) cost the owner about 8400 FP. RT costs about 9500 FP but netted 140 BPs and 100K Medals.
In early 2018 there were a lot of folk starting to run Arcs up ro lvl 80. Most top Guilds had a half dozen or more high level Archolders. Medals and BPs were nowhere near as easy to get as they are today.
At the time I thought that 140 BPs and 100K Medals more themn made up for the additional FP costs.
Revising for Medal and BP valuation, and changing to 1.9, RT does not break even in RTs best case scenario.
But there are more factors not mentioned that tilt the decision massively in favor of 1.9+ to lvl a players GBs.
Early 2018 was starting to see the effects of Event SB power creep. No GBG. No thousands of players with dozens of powered GBs.
Generous high end players and GBG and SBs combine to accelerate players ever faster.
The problems with any periodic swap system is that it depends on players reciprocating and requires coordination and administrative overhead. But when players can have huge swings in Bar FP from GBG and the effects of generous advanced players, reciprocating and administration of swaps can be very difficult and limiting.
Anyway, bottom line is that as the game changed the assumptions underpinning my model and analysis didn’t.
I stated:
There are more profitable methods then 1.Xing to handle GBs in certain parts of their Reward curve.
and was asked:
and answered:
Happy to do so in another thread. I didn't want to take this one further off topic.
----------
In order to answer the questions from Tony and Vger , I went back to the model I created to analyze 1.Xing. From early 2018. That long ago? What has changed in the game in that time?
The model itself holds up. A simple soreadsheet (sorry Vger!) of the first 100 lvls of Arc compaing 1.Xing and my pet Reverse Triangle (RT) FP trading.
Through lvl 20 1.8(!) cost the owner about 8400 FP. RT costs about 9500 FP but netted 140 BPs and 100K Medals.
In early 2018 there were a lot of folk starting to run Arcs up ro lvl 80. Most top Guilds had a half dozen or more high level Archolders. Medals and BPs were nowhere near as easy to get as they are today.
At the time I thought that 140 BPs and 100K Medals more themn made up for the additional FP costs.
Revising for Medal and BP valuation, and changing to 1.9, RT does not break even in RTs best case scenario.
But there are more factors not mentioned that tilt the decision massively in favor of 1.9+ to lvl a players GBs.
Early 2018 was starting to see the effects of Event SB power creep. No GBG. No thousands of players with dozens of powered GBs.
Generous high end players and GBG and SBs combine to accelerate players ever faster.
The problems with any periodic swap system is that it depends on players reciprocating and requires coordination and administrative overhead. But when players can have huge swings in Bar FP from GBG and the effects of generous advanced players, reciprocating and administration of swaps can be very difficult and limiting.
Anyway, bottom line is that as the game changed the assumptions underpinning my model and analysis didn’t.
I withdraw my mistaken statement that there are better alternatives to using 1.9+ to lvl your own GBs.
Thanks Tony 85 the Generous and Vger. You are right, I am wrong.