Thoughts on RQ Rescaling

Hutch_RobinHutch_Robin Posts: 939 admin
edited March 2 in General Discussion

I’m working on the balancing of the RQ of cars, and just thought I’d lay out some of the thought processes of checking the ratio between the old and new system, and some other vaguely connected thoughts. This may not be particularly focused and might just be insider baseball, but I’m writing it to help articulate some of my thinking, so I may as well share it.

This is the RQ scale I’ve been working with:

10-19 Common/F
20-29 Uncommon/E
30-39 Rare/D
40-49 Super Rare/C
50-64 Ultra Rare/B
65-79 Epic/A
80-100 Legendary/S

In a perfect world, I would like a more consistent scale. I really think there’s an elegance and ease of understanding that comes with a new tier starting with every ten. I’m coming to accept there’s not a great way to do this though. There are around 25% more Ultra Rares than Super Rares, so it feels like that is the point to break the scale and jump to the 15s.

The new system means players start with 100 RQ instead of 35, and this is a little thing, but TD is often seen as daunting which repels a lot of potential players. It’s important we work to address this more. Starting at 100 RQ instead of 35 feels like one of those things that just seems a little less odd.

RQ Ratios

Currently we have a system where the RQ of a car within a rarity tier matters less the higher the tier, which theoretically means lower RQ cars in those tiers are less useful. The larger RQ bands for higher Rarities hopefully will increase the usefulness of those lower RQ cars within each rarity tier.

Rarity Barometer

We don’t move the performance level of what it means to be an Epic or Legendary, e.g. the Lotus Exige S (2015) is often seen as the weakest Legendary. In general, when new cars come in, if they’re win less than that, they’re not Legendaries, if they’re stronger than that, they are. Cars can drift with engine changes or corrections, of course, but in general the barometer of what it means to be a particular rarity doesn’t change.

If we look at RQ values, the Lotus Exige S vs. the best Epic will be cheaper to use than it currently is, relatively speaking. 80/79 is 1.2% more RQ, currently it's 27/26, or 3.8% more RQ. So in the new system, you'll be getting the same performance boost for picking a Legendary, but the cost is less RQ.

RQ Granularity

One small change is when there were fewer ranks, we split up the cars relatively evenly within each rarity. This time, we’re using the winrate value itself to determine its RQ rank. This means some RQs have more cars than others, but it feels more authentic and appropriate for the game now. The difference of winrate between two RQ values values is smaller in those larger tiers - this is how there can be very few cars rated on each of the 95-100 RQ ranks.

In numbers this means two thirds of Legendary rarity cars are 80-89, versus one third 90-99. Even doing this, some Bugattis end up with the same RQ value. As one example, the current draft of RQ 98 has these cars (ordered randomly between the 5):

Bugatti Veyron 16.4 (2005)
McLaren P1 GTR (2015)
Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super Sport (2010)
Lamborghini Veneno (2013)
Lamborghini Centenario (2016)

The Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Grand Sport (2009) sits at 97, the Bugatti Chiron (2017) is at 99, and the Bugatti Chiron Sport (2019) at 100, so pushing one car to another rank just creates another instance of this phenomenon at a different RQ level. This won’t happen nearly as often as it does now, but it’s not avoidable. (I suppose we could have even more ranks, but eventually the RQ difference becomes quite large between similar performing models).

Specialists

We can now finely tune cars’ RQ more than before. In general, I don’t like to jump in and manually adjust cars’ RQ. We have changed some cars, but as a percentage, this is a very small number. The RQ system is always going to be bumpy - that’s a great thing. Players might think a car is under/overrated if the ratio of tracks in the RQ ranking tool ever deviates from what we use in events, or if scoring points is better for certain challenges vs. others, or if strategy means you use a car only when its strongest. We only need to tweak the cars that deviate so far in strength from that RQ level that it becomes disruptive.

Overall, the current RQ ranking system is flavour that’s very useful in the game. It means within each rarity tier, there’s more diversity than there would otherwise be, and it means there are hidden gems to be found. That is part of the strategy and fun of the game.

On that note, the top cars raised as needing the Specialist RQ tweaks (that we very occasionally do make) are the Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 and the Caterham Superlight R500. The suggested changes are to change their RQ and not their Rarity, as they have a long standing reputation, and so the fusing advantages would be very large (vs. the Land Rover changes where we assessed the advantage to be much smaller, and so did make the change to rarity). I think we’ll manually make them 64 and 79 RQ to start (the largest values within their rarity) and then we can think about any changes for future updates.

(By the way, I think the most likely outcome of a brand new RQ ranking system is balance of the game that is different...but not necessarily better or worse.) I’m not looking to fundamentally change the ranking system at all. The RQ changes should be just moving things to a new scale, rather than shaking the foundations of a system everyone is comfortable with and generally works well. This lowers the risk - the main concern is just hoping everyone can get used to the system within 2-3 days!

Post edited by Hutch_Robin on
«1

Comments

  • Blue2moroBlue2moro Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Great insight Robin. Thank you.

    Couple Questions.

    1) Will we still have cars crossing rarity borders? Ie Audis that are currently epic but have RQ in the legendary range?

    2) Any plans to alter fusing system at the same time as RQ system? Will it still be 3 Cs to fuse a B or will some RQ points system be implemented for example?
  • AndreasSimmerAndreasSimmer Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This was mentioned some weeks ago... does it make sense to put the Chiron Sport at 100 or could the lead to future problems, eg when Bugatti releases the new Supersport 3000 or some other rocket on wheels? Or would you rescale RQs in such cases to adjust them to their ingame performance?

  • juan_cruz_96juan_cruz_96 Posts: 306 ✭✭✭
    Things are looking great. I thought that the top-RQ legendaries would still be pushed to 100 RQ alltoghether, but somehow you managed to solve that, which shows your cleverness (hats off). On the other hand, and if I understood the granularity thing, seems like frontier cars will be more irrelevant now than before, because the winrate of a 64 RQ and a 65 RQ, for example, will be separate by 3 wins or less or more or whatever but a smaller difference in the end, than between a 22 RQ and a 23 RQ in the present RQ range. That's why we ask for a re-inventation of the fuse system, specially for this cases. But you allready know this and Tim surely has it on "The List", so it's just an observation and should be the next step in the process of this new and excellent RQ range.

    Keep up the good work, we value very much indeed your efforts.
  • StealthFTStealthFT Posts: 336 ✭✭✭
    Sounds good!
    About adjusting specialist cars, e.g., Superlight R500 & Colorado ZR2, I personally really appreciate the fact that these will be handled by adjusting RQ, not rarity. Thank you for this @Hutch_Robin. After almost two years of playing, I never managed to pull some of these game changers, i.e., Superlight R500, Furai, Megane Trophy. Making these legendaries would have made it very difficult for some of us since many people already have multiples of these fully maxed.
  • GT47LMGT47LM Posts: 424 ✭✭✭✭
    Very informative and thought out, thank you for reaching out to the community for this. 

    This is a large step forward and something I have been advocating for over a year now, so it is welcomed with open arms.

    I would like to be honest here and would like an honest response back on a related matter. As I have stated previously, the other issue with RQ balancing has to do with the inconsistent in-game physics. Your team has attempted various times throughout the games life at improving the current issues in terms of weight, midrange acceleration, different surfaces, and how they behave under maps (slalom most commonly) with varying degrees of success.

    Although it is unfortunately still not at the level of consistency the community would like to see, are there currently any future plans on improving or again attempting to improve the current physics engine and the anomalies that come with it? 
  • AvengedAvenged Posts: 520 ✭✭✭✭
    I disagree with S (and maybe A) being as wide as F.

    S is that much harder to get. It stands to reason that only the best of the best should be S. As it stands now, there are so many useless S that even pulling one of these 1 in a million cars has a high chance of not feeling like a win but a waste of good fortune. There is so much inflation of S, especially with IR, but this isn't addressed. Instead, cash farming was nerfed with the argument of inflation when the true inflation was ignored.
  • milewski1015milewski1015 Posts: 2,235 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Avenged said:
    I disagree with S (and maybe A) being as wide as F.

    S is that much harder to get. It stands to reason that only the best of the best should be S. As it stands now, there are so many useless S that even pulling one of these 1 in a million cars has a high chance of not feeling like a win but a waste of good fortune. There is so much inflation of S, especially with IR, but this isn't addressed. Instead, cash farming was nerfed with the argument of inflation when the true inflation was ignored.
    Are you arguing that S and A should contain less than the 10 RQ values that F has? Then we’re right back to the same problem we have now, where an RQ30 Chiron Sport wrecks just about every other RQ30 for the same RQ cost. Widening the RQ bands allows the cars to be more distributed throughout each rarity based on performance, increasing the accuracy of performance/RQ cost. This is a much needed and welcome change. 

    I hear what you’re saying, and I understand and can agree that I’d be frustrated to pull an RQ80 S when there are much better ones. But again, the RQ value will more accurately reflect the performance of the car, which is a big part of what this redistribution is being implemented for. The slew of IR legendaries you mention will all be more useful, given that RQ limits are a major factor in events, and having those legendaries that are lower in the RQ band will be more important than ever.
  • HeissRodHeissRod Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭✭✭
    What is pyramid tiering?
  • TD42792TD42792 Posts: 2,264 ✭✭✭✭✭
    My 2 cents.

    What is annoying right now:
    1- Lower RQ cars in each band are useless, beaten by high RQ cars of the lower band with just one or two fuses, and sometimes even without fuses
    2- Top end legendaries (and some epics) that are god cars, destroying anything else for little to no RQ cost

    Regarding #2, it seems the proposed change will attempt to address it. I would suggest (someone else already mentioned it) to make the current god cars a maximum of 95, not 100, to leave room for future better cars that will undoubtedly come. There could also be a new category (say RQ 90-100) for these god cars, but then we would run into problems of people already having fuses in them having a huge advantage so unfortunately this cannot be implemented due to game legacy.

    Regarding #1, there are three possibilities I can think of:
    A. Move the boundaries so that lower RQ cars (especially legendaries) are demoted to the category below. But this will just move the problem to the next boundary so I am not sure this solves anything.
    B. Complete overhaul of the upgrade system. This is in my mind the only way to address this problem. Especially as RQ bands become wider, upgrading a RQ 80 legendary should NOT cost the same in terms of resources as upgrading a RQ 100 car. Because this is still a mobile game, the upgrading system needs to be kept simple. I personally like many of the ideas I have seen with complicated formulas or systems but I dont think they have a place in a mobile game that needs to remain somewhat simplistic. Someone would need to design a progressive update system, which can be done for the IGC part of the upgrade cost, but not the fused cars part, which is what really matters unfortunately. Requiring 1B + 2A vs 3A for instance to upgrade legendaries of different RQs could be done but is imo already becoming too complicated.
    C. So that leaves us with keeping things as they are and accept that many cars have virtually negative value, ie pulling a RQ 80 car is actually a curse more than a blessing. They are either beaten by lower RQ cars or cost an arm and a leg to make competitive, and even when upgraded at such cost they will be beaten by better cars. It is a shame because this means quite a lot of legendaries, epics and even URs are almost never used, but I cannot think of a relatively simple way to address this given how the game has been designed. We would probably need a whole new game to change this. I do hope someone has a great idea somewhere to address this with the current game but I personally cannot think of a viable way to do it.
  • 0liver770liver77 Posts: 357 ✭✭✭
    Regarding #1
    I think only an increase of rarity will solve this issue. An example: The B-band is now from 19 to 22 (in future from 50-64). 22 and some 21 cars are worth to max as they dominate over the 19-20 cars. If we double the amount of raritys, we would have the rarity 19-20 in a band, lets call it B1 and the 21 to 22 in band B2. The ratity bands should then get better names of course. Let's take the Lancias to explain it more. The B21 Delta Integrale Evo II dominates over both B20 cars. I have the Delta Integrale Evo II twice, fully upgraded. And when I pull one of the B20 Integrale, I'll fuse them into my epics.

    With the new bands I would keep them and upgrade them, because they are then the top cars in the new band:
    For maxing one of the B1 Lancias you would need C cars for fusing. For maxing B2 Lancias you would need B1 cars.
  • TD42792TD42792 Posts: 2,264 ✭✭✭✭✭
    0liver77 said:
    Regarding #1
    I think only an increase of rarity will solve this issue. An example: The B-band is now from 19 to 22 (in future from 50-64). 22 and some 21 cars are worth to max as they dominate over the 19-20 cars. If we double the amount of raritys, we would have the rarity 19-20 in a band, lets call it B1 and the 21 to 22 in band B2. The ratity bands should then get better names of course. Let's take the Lancias to explain it more. The B21 Delta Integrale Evo II dominates over both B20 cars. I have the Delta Integrale Evo II twice, fully upgraded. And when I pull one of the B20 Integrale, I'll fuse them into my epics.

    With the new bands I would keep them and upgrade them, because they are then the top cars in the new band:
    For maxing one of the B1 Lancias you would need C cars for fusing. For maxing B2 Lancias you would need B1 cars.
    I like this, works well for current rarities up to B.

    But what about the top rarities, especially what would become A2 and S2 (god cars)?
    In the new system, if I pull a Chiron I will need to upgrade it with S1 cars (current RQ27 and RQ28), whereas many players already have maxed Chirons that they were able to upgrade with current Epics. It would be next to impossible to compete with them.
  • AndreasSimmerAndreasSimmer Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 3
    43MK4 said:
    Regarding update on the fusing I was thinking about something like this.
    Simple to implement and clear:


    I like this idea, this could bring in more use for the lower rq cars of each tier and add some strategy into hand selection

    Post edited by AndreasSimmer on
  • AndreasSimmerAndreasSimmer Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Heres is a possible new RQ100 car beating the Chiron Sport, so i think it makes sense to leave some room on top, like 2RQ.
  • adms87adms87 Posts: 426 ✭✭✭
    edited March 3
    Guys, the problem is easily solved if they increase drop rates!!!! I would even consider spending more money in this game if had more chances to win a legendary. I mean I think I have more chances to win the lottery than a Bugatti Chiron in this game from a normal carbon fiber. This is just ridiculous...


  • hajduk_fanhajduk_fan Posts: 423 ✭✭✭
    Heres is a possible new RQ100 car beating the Chiron Sport, so i think it makes sense to leave some room on top, like 2RQ.
    i doubt anyone will make car that much better than Chiron Sport for it to be worth 2rq more
  • KarhgathKarhgath Posts: 182 ✭✭✭
    I see the extended range on Legendary being very helpful:

    - "Worse" legendaries will be more useful as they can save more RQ now. That 80 Exige S vs a 100 Chiron now is a bit more useful than before

    - If you take a 120 typical RQ limit, before it was 5x 24 RQ, or 1x30, 3x24, 1x18 for example. RQ18 is still the top RQ of it's class. Now it is probably around 360 RQ limit, or 5x72 RQ. If you put that 100 RQ Chiron in you'd have 3x72 and 1x 44 RQ - smack in the middle of C class. If you put a RQ 80 Exige S instead, it's 1x80, 3x72 and 1x64 - that is a top end UR ! So Front Loading top legendaries is slightly less RQ efficient than before, which I think is good, while using a less powerful legendary has more RQ benefits.
  • MrpiratepeteMrpiratepete Posts: 968 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Karhgath said:
    I see the extended range on Legendary being very helpful:

    - "Worse" legendaries will be more useful as they can save more RQ now. That 80 Exige S vs a 100 Chiron now is a bit more useful than before

    - If you take a 120 typical RQ limit, before it was 5x 24 RQ, or 1x30, 3x24, 1x18 for example. RQ18 is still the top RQ of it's class. Now it is probably around 360 RQ limit, or 5x72 RQ. If you put that 100 RQ Chiron in you'd have 3x72 and 1x 44 RQ - smack in the middle of C class. If you put a RQ 80 Exige S instead, it's 1x80, 3x72 and 1x64 - that is a top end UR ! So Front Loading top legendaries is slightly less RQ efficient than before, which I think is good, while using a less powerful legendary has more RQ benefits.
    The problem that I still see, is that a high end S is still far to supirior than a low end S. I will probably stomp you with my Chiron harder on one track than you can make up for it with your additional top end UR on another track.

    I think one of the main problems continues to be present even with the rescaling. Low End Legendaries should be cheaper to upgrade than high End Legendaries. We need something "revolutionary" for that, something like the proposal from @43MK4.
  • juan_cruz_96juan_cruz_96 Posts: 306 ✭✭✭
    edited March 3
    I think we have another solution to the fusing cost problem, one that is more comfortable: the upgrade perks/vouchers/tickets or whatever you wanna call it.
    If this is implemented, cars will not longer be fused, but sold instead. So the aim is to balance this inflation by:
    A- pricing this perks accordingly (I don't know if will be proper to get them from packs).
    B- pricing the fuse cost accordingly (so that we can get them from packs).
    The other thing is how to classify them:
    A- they could be categorized by rarity, as cars,  and be used like so. Then you don't need to pull 3 useless Epics, but only 3 Epic perks to upgrade your Legendary.
    B- they could have no rarity, but the amount of them you need to upgrade a car, will increase with its rarity or its RQ. As an example, you could need only 1 to upgrade a Common from 1.3 to 2.0, but you could need 3 to upgrade an Uncommon from 1.3 to 2.0 and so on. Same for the RQ scaling

    This solves 2 current problems:
    1st) upgrading frontier cars, because the perks are items used only for fusing and not for racing, because they're not cars you could, maybe, one day, in a one in a lifetime opportunity, use, like your current Volvo XC90 V8 lol. What I mean is, the lowest RQ car in its rarity gains usability value over fuse material value, is better use it than fuse it.
    2nd) frontier cars that are currently useless/food, could see the light of day and get some love, being actually usefull as RQ savers. The current RQ range extension does this but not strong enough for some of us, we could still want so sacrifice 5 RQ or 10 RQ to have a better car in our hand than a, may be, more balanced hand overall. What I mean is that the lowest RQ car in its rarity is now worth keeping because it's easily upgradeable and competitive for the first time in its life. Gains competitiveness value over fuse material value, is better upgrade it than fuse it.

    It seems a good idea, surely has its flaws, nothing is perfect. But it sounds quite promising. It was not my idea, I just read it in the TD Show comments and bring it here, with a little bit of my POV.
    Post edited by juan_cruz_96 on
  • adms87adms87 Posts: 426 ✭✭✭
    edited March 3
    adms87 said:
    Guys, the problem is easily solved if they increase drop rates!!!! I would even consider spending more money in this game if had more chances to win a legendary. I mean I think I have more chances to win the lottery than a Bugatti Chiron in this game from a normal carbon fiber. This is just ridiculous...


    Really? 6 dislikes for suggesting higher drop rates? What is wrong with you guys? Lol
    You are all discussing that low tier cars from S and A are useless because of the fact that you cant upgrade them. And what is the main reason for that? That's because is ridiculously hard to get fuse material because of the fact that drop rates are too low. And the more cars Hutch add the more difficult it will be. And the more unbalanced this games is getting. I play this game REGULARLY for more than 2 years and spent the equivalent to a PS4 game. What did it leave me to? Less than 10 legendary cars...none fully upgraded. All this discussion is useless for me.
    Post edited by adms87 on
  • mauro07mauro07 Posts: 2,964 ✭✭✭✭✭
    i'm scared about this changes... and this proposals... it's a big change for the game (rq rescaling and some proposal for upgrading cars) and we need certainties and balance....  if a wrong decision were made there would be a risk of the game "dying"!!
    also because how will reach liv. 500? will something change there too?

  • LSMSCLSMSC Posts: 57 ✭✭

    This is the RQ scale I’ve been working with:


    10-19 Common/F
    20-29 Uncommon/E
    30-39 Rare/D
    40-49 Super Rare/C
    50-64 Ultra Rare/B
    65-79 Epic/A
    80-100 Legendary/S


    The rarity "steps" look weird. As you said, tens would be good per class. So how about we go from 10-100 to 1-100?

    1-9 Common/F
    10-19 Uncommon/E
    20-29 Rare/D
    30-39 Super Rare/C
    40-59 Ultra Rare/B
    60-79 Epic/A
    80-100 Legendary/S

    With this little change, you would get the "steps" end on a nine, while still getting the larger brackets.
Sign In or Register to comment.