pack size mod = more xp? really?

pack size affects all packs... whites blues and rares...


more magic monnsters increases amount of packs of blues you find...

more rare increases more rares your find...

however again pack size should be increasing all the monsters in each of those 2 packs...

if I'm wrong apologies, but that's how it should be working?

"

pelife123 wrote:

^
I didn't insult anyone, if i did please copy paste the excerpt where i'm insulting others. I said I get stupefied with something that others say, something that, aparrently, you agree with me:

"The only wrong conclusion from most people is:
You dont get +50% xp! "

Also i'm mostly talking about pack size while you are talking about.... monster rarity????

In addition there is known wrong stuff on wiki. Wiki is not 100% accurate, so it doesn't work this way "go to wiki and learn the absolute truth of the game". Wiki is made by players, the same players who state things like "50% pack size = 50% more xp".


"Thats why top racers practically skip every white trash and go for blue and rare ones for faster progress." Another false rumour. At early levels in races people usually skip rares until they gear up because it takes too long to kill and even at late game there is no reason to "skip" white mobs because people usually 1 hit aoe them, it doesn't reduce your xp/time at all, besides "top racers" are mostly people who play 24/7 with good computer (no lag) and low latency, i don't see why bring up "top racers" in an attempt to valid your argument.

And just to finish it, you tell me to "learn to read" when it is you who need to learn how to write... "more xp thEn"? And that terrible syntax... i had a hard time trying to understand what you were trying to say.

First of all, I don't think you know anything about racing if the reason they are winning is good computers and low latency.

Second, I see no reason why 50% pack size is not 50% more exp, it's not quite there because rare's don't come in packs.

Also I'm pretty sure syntax is incorrect in this context.

Fyi, your sample size is too low, no one is telling you to make the graphs to prove it to us, but if you want to prove it to us, don't come to us with 15 maps completed and tell us that you are stupefied when you clearly haven't tested it properly. There is obviously something up when you tell us you got the same exp from a map that had 50% more monsters, compared to one that had a normal count. It could have been rng, but I feel like you dicked up somewhere.

I always try alt magic monsters for the extra exp.
When i get packsize i run that also, mostly due the extra chance of maps.
This was especially true in the 1 week race. Packsize we're king if you could handle beyonders.

"

I_NO wrote:

Yes really -.-

As others have said, from observation the map will roll its own inherent pack size mod with a significant range. The shape of the map plays a role with where packs spawn. If a pack spawns partially in a wall, you lose part of the pack. If a map is small and narrow, there is not a lot of places for the mobs to spawn as their distribution seems random as well. There are layers of rng mods on top of the displayed, fixed mods.

while rolling maps is much easier than ever, you still need to understand how map layout affect these two mods.

for example, a crematorium map with magic monsters will be significantly worse than with pack size. that map layout has many rooms in which a pack can spawn with pack size but will be very empty otherwise

"

BackwoodsS wrote:

"

I_NO wrote:

Yes really -.-

As others have said, from observation the map will roll its own inherent pack size mod with a significant range. The shape of the map plays a role with where packs spawn. If a pack spawns partially in a wall, you lose part of the pack. If a map is small and narrow, there is not a lot of places for the mobs to spawn as their distribution seems random as well. There are layers of rng mods on top of the displayed, fixed mods.

That the shape of map causes "part of the pack" being lost, is bad design.

"

mazul wrote:

"

BackwoodsS wrote:

"

I_NO wrote:

Yes really -.-

As others have said, from observation the map will roll its own inherent pack size mod with a significant range. The shape of the map plays a role with where packs spawn. If a pack spawns partially in a wall, you lose part of the pack. If a map is small and narrow, there is not a lot of places for the mobs to spawn as their distribution seems random as well. There are layers of rng mods on top of the displayed, fixed mods.

That the shape of map causes "part of the pack" being lost, is bad design.

If you think rng is bad design, yes.

I did the same experiment but with courtyard maps, about 20 of them, and I could not see any difference in the experience gained. However, statistical accuracy comes at around 1000 samples so the result of 20 samples is not reliable.

There are some assumptions we have to make about the pack size mod.

1. Does "50%" increased pack size mean an absolute increase in pack size or does it mean that there is a 50% chance of the pack being bigger?

2. How is the pack distribution calculated? Ie, how is the random generation of packs affected by the increased pack size mod? For example, if the game calculates the area a pack covers does it then take that into consideration of where to place the next pack? If yes, then the amount of packs will be less when each pack size is bigger.

3. Is the total number of monsters in a map decided before the amount of packs is decided? For example, if the game first gets a random random number to decide the maximum amount of monsters, let us say 1000 monster. The game would then check the pack size, let's say 10 for normal and 15 with 50% increased pack size, and then calculate the number of packs giving us 100 packs for normal pack size and 75 packs with 50% increased pack size while keeping the total amount of monsters the same.

4. Does the game take the area in which the pack spawn into consideration? For example, if a pack does not fit in any given area does the game remove the whole pack or is that particular pack reduced in size until it fits the area? If the pack is removed completely you could theoretically end up with less monsters total in a map if you have the increased pack size modifier on a map.

We simply do not know these things.

for a proper study you would also need a control group. Is xp consistent on white maps? Or is packsize adding the consistency?

For the science. I run few tropical islands at lvl 84 char.

First white:
594 232 xp

Second white:
866 177 xp

that 1.457 times more than first, pretty random, right?

Third blue with 40% pack size:
1 096 507 xp

that 1.8 times more than first map.

Fourth blue with 48% pack size:
1 250 820 xp

Also I checked how much xp you get per mob on pack size and not pack size map, its the same, so there is no any penalty or balancing, white monkey give you same 684xp on both maps. Same 2395xp for blue monkey on both maps. (both = pack vs no pack)

Basically, random is random, but pack size indeed give you more XP.