Spawn Rates

[Aspect of Sorrow]

Delete the South of Beregost map and the results will be similar for another map name (Uldoon for summoners, Durlag Ext for most others) and this discussion will reopen. The graph indicates the wyvern loop is the springboard of the 26-30 RCR but the decision responses haven't pointed out that it took part of the development discussion.

[eternal night]

Will the next graphs you make will take into account the players that left in dissapointment of these changes?

I see you love graphs so maybe make one about the reactions of these chnges regarding player numbers maybe it helps giving a new perspective.

[zan5bar]

Reducing the spawn rate at the wyverns was a welcomed change in my opinion. The xp rate was way too high and the risk next to nothing after the neutralize poison changes. Plus the area itself is one of the most boring places on the server. I've hardly ever seen any kind of rp taking place in there.

[gedweyignasia]

This is my favorite graph for telling the story...



Players are very good at optimizing their returns if things aren't too noisy (too random). You can see that the more popular areas (larger bubbles) are almost exclusively the ones with the best leveling rate. Ideally, this would look more like a line than a triangle; that would indicate that our areas are well-balanced.

This graph clearly shows that the wyverns are easier to kill more quickly than any other spawns around that CR except for Xvarts, and that they are much more popular than any other spot on the map.

This should not be the case for well-balanced areas. If creature difficulty and spawn rates are evenly balanced for all CRs, this plot will look like a straight line. There are some RP areas which will have fewer spawns, and safe areas, which will have practically none, but the large circles should all form a relatively straight line. The fact that they don't tells us that the balance is off.

Smaller circles represent areas for which we have less data. The wyverns are so popular that other areas of similar difficulty do not have much combat data available. That means it's hard to tell how well-balanced those areas are.

In this update, scaling was disabled and some spawns were rebalanced. We hope that the result looks more like a line, but things are probably still not quite there, so it will require further work in the future. This doesn't mean we're "taking away good areas and making the game harder"; it means we're trying to do a consistency pass to keep everything in line.

The rate at which players gain levels and XP can be adjusted independently of any area. If we've balanced our areas properly, it's easier to control that. In the perfect case that all areas form a straight line with no gaps in it, we can easily increase the rate at which players level by tweaking the XP formula.

We can see the rate at which the server gains XP as a whole, and we can see the amount of combat that people in the server participate in. If players are earning less XP, that's something we can fix.

There is a risk/reward curve in BGTSCC. We don't force everyone to play content at the same difficulty. Instead, we scale rewards with content. Harder areas tend to give better rewards. It would feel wrong if you could kill chickens for 200xp each, even though that might get rid of an annoying grind for a lot of players who would rather just RP.

So when there is an area that sits above or below the risk/reward curve, we try to adjust it accordingly. If it's too much risk for too little reward, we might lower the risk, increase the reward, or do a little of both. When there's an area that gives too much of a reward for too little risk, that has to be adjusted too. Unfortunately, players get really attached to those areas; they plan around getting those rewards. So it hurts when that area goes back to where it belongs on the risk/reward curve.

This isn't a local vault server, and players don't appear at Lv30 with all the gear they want. There's progression. For many players who wish to make quick progress, there's a grind. I do not personally find this to be an attractive system; I prefer the local vault format where players can create their character at the power level they desire. However, the community seems to agree that we should have a progression system. (Not just the BGTSCC community; NWN/NWN2 servers appear to be longer-lived and more populous with server vault.)

So we have to balance our progression. If it's too steep, we'll run into the undesirable features of a local vault server. If it's too shallow, players will feel like they're being inadequately rewarded for their efforts. It's a delicate balance, and we're working to get it right.

Fixing the risk/reward of an area is not an indication that we are trying to slow progression. Those are things that can be adjusted independently. If areas are where they belong on the risk/reward curve, there won't be one grind spot for a given level; every area at that CR will be viable. We're not trying to screw you. We just want to give you options.

[Snarfy]

Will the next graphs you make will take into account the players that left in dissapointment of these changes?

If you really want to learn why players are leaving, or don't play as much, you could always start a new thread and put up a "Why I don't play as much on BG" voting poll, that way you can really get a feel for peoples reasons(as opposed to the staff making some farcical graph based on peoples opinions that aren't their own... and this is assuming these departed players will even check the forums or vote).

Maybe even make it so that people can choose 3 options, and make sure to include reasons such as "mechanical implementations", "XP limitations", "loot changes" or whatnot... but don't forget to be fair and factor "real life obligations" and "quality of roleplay", or even "the playerbase" into the equation. It might just surprise you why players have stopped playing, or simply do not participate as much as they used to.

FWIW, and imho, spawn rates being tweaked are likely going to be the least of all culprits when it comes to the so-called dwindling of the population(which began way before now, and likely for other reasons entirely).

[Kaden Asen]

City of Heroes was an absolutely brilliant game. No doubt some of you played that gem when it was live, it suffered for a long time under the heel of Statesman. This developer/staff member had a policy of "nerf if", which almost ruined the game years ahead of its natural closing. The game made a comeback after the policy was removed and is still playable as a port in its full extent to this day. Still great BTW.

That said, instead of trying to dumb down what players find enjoyable I'd suggest finding out ways to encourage characters and players to visit other areas. Reducing clear points of success is a flawed development strategy, improve the other areas!

[Planehopper]

This change was made without discussion, without forewarning. It was a one liner in the update. It is no wonder that folks are frustrated.

And for me, as an area builder, this decision was and is flawed. Areas are not designed with a singular purpose. There are RP-focused maps without spawns at all, some with very few, all the way up to those that offer a more frenetic level of activity. There are puzzle areas, there are areas with more traps than others, some that offer more difficulty than others. Each serve a purpose, each support a play style and gamer preference.

And, for me, that is exactly what BG has always been. We bring a large playerbase because we offer a wide diversity in gaming experiences.

This change seeks to homogenize that experience. It was implemented in a way that doesn't feel good, and the data is being used to support a fundamental goal that I disagree with wholly. We should seek to further enhance the experience of our players by offering alternative avenues of fun and game play, not trying to pull each area into the same generic, bland, band of productivity.

But that's water under the bridge. The dice have been rolled, the decisions have been made. We get to experience it for a month. I guess we will see where it goes from there.

[Blaze]

I have expressed my concerns on discord regarding this drastic change of direction without any kind of warning, there has been so much talk about transparency and now many seem to be denying the fact that there was a discussion before this change, many devs and DMs are openly saying that they have never participated in such a decision and my question is...

Why?



Why do you have to adapt to the will of a few when most ask for the opposite to be done? Why should the decision of a few prevail over that of the many? Why is there constantly no open discussion with your community when it comes to such drastic decisions? It was enough to open a thread here as it is happening now, discuss it and understand what your playerbase prefers BEFORE making the changes. Many opinions and advice from various players are being read, many are listing possible improvements that may even be in line with the dev(s) decision but with a different perspective. But once again the lack of transparency was chosen and, as it should be, there are various criticisms.


But now I ask you some questions, wouldn't it have been better to improve the areas that are currently unused? Didn't it seem to you that the less populated areas have a bad design? Is it really that difficult to offer a variety of gameplay by giving space to existing areas but with different spawns from the current ones? Better loot? Better xp? Why didn't you ask the playerbase WHY certain areas are less populated than others since there is not enough data in your graphs?

I completely disagree with the main idea of ​​this nerf, because by doing so you do not give an opportunity but you literally impose it.

[Snarfy]

I just visited wyverns and xvarts on a level 17, can't really say I noticed a huge difference in numbers or drop off of spawns... maybe a bit less wyverns, and I can't really complain about them coming from every direction and pinning my character so I can't move ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Valefort]

It was not discussed by the team as a whole because it was deemed a small decision. Spawn rates have been changed in the past without anyone batting an eyelid, including more severe nerfs than these ones.

First I'll remind you we're talking about 4 areas whose spawning parameters were reduced (and 5 who were raised) in a server that has more than 90 combat areas. Secondly the nerfed areas didn't suddenly become unplayable or awful. Save for the wyvern map where the changes were large (proportionally to its overuse) I would have been surprised if anyone actually noticed a change happened if the commit message had not been completely explicit and transparent.

Thirdly this is a work in progress, the goal, if it was not clear, is to promote usage of all areas and not just a couple of XP cows. The expected XP rate should be a very small factor to consider when picking an area to kill monsters and for that they need to be comparable across areas of similar CRs.

Last thing adjusting spawn rate is indeed one possible parameter and there are others, sometimes more suitable depending on areas, they're on the table to be tweaked as well but we'll see what happens after these changes first.

[matelener]

Treat it IC. Adventurers succeeded in extermination and the population of wyverns has dwindled. Now, the trade route is much safer. That's essentially the meaning of a "Persistent World" reacting to player actions.

[yyj]

Treat it IC. Adventurers succeeded in extermination and the population of wyverns has dwindled. Now, the trade route is much safer. That's essentially the meaning of a "Persistent World" reacting to player actions.

Actually if this is the stance, I am willing to support these changes 100%

Seriously, if a DM wants to support this as RP... I do remember in the original Baldur's Gate game, a ranger scolded you if you killed too many Ankhegs because they messed with the ecosystem.

https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Gerde

You are a genius Matelener!

[MrSmith]

This change was made without discussion, without forewarning. It was a one liner in the update. It is no wonder that folks are frustrated.

And for me, as an area builder, this decision was and is flawed. Areas are not designed with a singular purpose. There are RP-focused maps without spawns at all, some with very few, all the way up to those that offer a more frenetic level of activity. There are puzzle areas, there are areas with more traps than others, some that offer more difficulty than others. Each serve a purpose, each support a play style and gamer preference.

And, for me, that is exactly what BG has always been. We bring a large playerbase because we offer a wide diversity in gaming experiences.

This change seeks to homogenize that experience. It was implemented in a way that doesn't feel good, and the data is being used to support a fundamental goal that I disagree with wholly. We should seek to further enhance the experience of our players by offering alternative avenues of fun and game play, not trying to pull each area into the same generic, bland, band of productivity.

But that's water under the bridge. The dice have been rolled, the decisions have been made. We get to experience it for a month. I guess we will see where it goes from there.

This is spot on. I noticed the change in the server update and posted a comment in "Loot Changes" Thread. I have copied and pasted it below.

For this, I think there are too many areas with too many mobs! Most dungeons give little to no time between the next spawn. And tactics for survival are moot besides building mechanics > mob stats.

This isn’t PnP Snarf-O!

To Steve's point, an aggressive spawn rate when moving through a dungeon can detract from the opportunity to dialogue and develop tactics. Yet, higher spawn rates are preferred when running racetracks (Wyverns, Trolls, and Reaching Forest). What works in one area may not apply to another.

I fear a constructive narrative on aggressive spawn rates when moving through a dungeon has to lead to a fundamental change on the server.

Revision: 900
Author: Valefort
Date: dimanche 6 février 2022 10:35:23
Message:
Reducing spawn rate in reaching woods.
----
Modified : /sun_north, reaching woods.GIT

Revision: 899
Author: Valefort
Date: dimanche 6 février 2022 10:33:58
Message:
Reducing spawn rate in troll claw hills, troll cave.
----
Modified : /sun_troll claw hills, troll cave.GIT

The Wyverns, Troll Caves, and Reaching Woods are areas where higher spawn rates are preferred because these three areas are where characters go to level.

Did I miss it, or were other spawn rates also reduced?

Cheers!

[Aspect of Sorrow]

I would have been surprised if anyone actually noticed a change happened if the commit message had not been completely explicit and transparent.

I... might be one of those since I maintain a tracking sheet ...

[fedex]

It was not discussed by the team as a whole because it was deemed a small decision. Spawn rates have been changed in the past without anyone batting an eyelid, including more severe nerfs than these ones.

First I'll remind you we're talking about 4 areas whose spawning parameters were reduced (and 5 who were raised) in a server that has more than 90 combat areas. Secondly the nerfed areas didn't suddenly become unplayable or awful. Save for the wyvern map where the changes were large (proportionally to its overuse) I would have been surprised if anyone actually noticed a change happened if the commit message had not been completely explicit and transparent.

Thirdly this is a work in progress, the goal, if it was not clear, is to promote usage of all areas and not just a couple of XP cows. The expected XP rate should be a very small factor to consider when picking an area to kill monsters and for that they need to be comparable across areas of similar CRs.

Last thing adjusting spawn rate is indeed one possible parameter and there are others, sometimes more suitable depending on areas, they're on the table to be tweaked as well but we'll see what happens after these changes first.

Dinamically change respawn rate as well as CR scaling at random, on a weekly base, for different areas?
PCs looking for exp runs will have each week to find the area which has the high spawn rate. the week after that changes and they will have to find the new area and deal with different content