2hbs and 4hbs are too expensive.
the threshold for boonback is too high.
i get that they are meant to be a little more special, especially the 4hbs. but even doubling the period time to a 2hb comes with such a big risk of losing over 1k boons, that a lot of people just hesitate to try it.
i wld suggest some adjustments to that system.

i agree the two battle types are a little more special and shldnt get offered for nothing, but maybe 3-5-7 or 3-6-9 are better thresholds for boonback and seems more likely too.

i don't mind the required boon costs but 11 for a 4hb to get them back is high af


================================

I posted this on discord, and some people already added their opinion to it, this thread is meant to get a few more opinions in.

[08:49]webriprob: 4hbs are rarer than majors rn lol
[14:55]damifortune🍈: yeah right now they sorta come with the general expectation that you might have to eat the loss
[14:57]damifortune🍈: before roz brought this up recently i hadn't thought about just how few of them have happened in the last several months, but they barely even happen and that's probably got a lot to do with it

================================

‏‏‎ ‎

sometimes i think boon loss should be proportional to how much short of the threshold you fall, so most boon losses would be partial. it's just so easy to blow all of them and have to wait a million years to get back up to safety. we should cut all the hosting costs by at least a third otherwise

Interestingly, I had a temptation to run XHBs that were longer than an hour, but never got around to doing so. Specifically, I was thinking of probably hosting a 2HB for SPCs in order to facilitate getting used to the various tools for SPC with a slightly less of a time constraint.

not exactly the same thing but I think it's a bit sad that there's a similar problem with less common and harder formats
I wish it wasn't so risky to host these, like maybe a boonloss decrease for formats that tend to appear less frequently

also, hosting vocal battles with 2HBs or 4HBs would make more people participate but will still end up in an almost guaranted boonloss rn

i agree with reducing boonback requirements for 2HB and 4HB. 3-6-9 makes the most sense to me, but i guess 3-5-7 or 3-5-8 could reasonably work, too; and maybe it would be smarter to go for the greater reduction as a more guaranteed fix for the problem

"partial boonloss" based on entry count is an interesting idea. i dunno if i'm feeling it for OHBs specifically, because it's easy enough to assemble 3 people in most cases*, but there sure have been a lot of 5 or 6 entry 2HBs, and those would sting a lot less if some of the loss were recouped for getting close. idk

(* i do agree less common and harder formats are riskier, but this risk can imo largely be mitigated by fishing for potentially interested folks in chat or a forum bulletin and working on scheduling with them, and this communication is good for us as a whole. of course, i dunno how to answer that when things just only have one or two interested people. for example, myself and perhaps TristEndo are like the only people here interested in NTRQ.)

i ran some Numbers on 2HBs and 4HBs today, based on the users i could think of who were frequent hostists: OPM, me, hanna, kleeder, and tennisers:
The Numbers are on this google sheet here!

they are pretty damning overall i think - 43.86% of 2HBs hosted by these people were boonlosses, and a staggering 68.97% for 4HBs. these don't cover *every* existing 2HB and 4HB which is sadly not easy info to obtain, but are still a pretty big sample size.
(notably, The Ultimate Hum 4HBs were a big boonsave success, largely because of having extensive planning, backing, and admin support; also, keffie hosted quite a few 4HBs that were mostly, to my memory, boonsaves, but i can't tally them up.)

the actual average entries are reasonably high overall though - 6.76 for 2HBs and 8.79 for 4HBs. (4HB has one notable huge outlier with 32 entries, and removing it reduces the average to 7.96...) if the theoretical new boonsave requirement were to aim below that average, 6 and 8 seem like reasonable asking requirements for 2HB and 4HB respectively.

open question for the table though: would that reduction alone make prospective hostists feel more comfortable trying their hand at 2HB or 4HB? it's a big potential loss regardless, i guess. curious what others think; maybe the proposed "partial boonloss" is a better solution (or additional part of solution)?

for instance with 2HBs, 26 out of 50 of the boonlosses had 5 or 6 entries, but that would still leave 24 boonlosses out of 114 battles. is that an ok percentage?

i'd like to propose a solution: what if boonloss and/or hosting price was dependent on some sort of... market

the more a certain format gets hosted, that formats hosting price increases (and/or the price of all OTHER formats decrease). and when cheaper formats get hosted, the expensive ones decrease in price, balancing things out..?

in this context, imagine a scenario with format A and B. now, A is commonly hosted, while B is rarely hosted. it thus becomes a cycle of: people regularly host format A > format A increases in price, causing format B to decrease in price > enjoyers of format B are more inclined to host it (for it is cheaper) > format B gets hosted more, increasing B and decreasing A > A enjoyers are more inclined to host A again > cycle repeats. both parties benefit

maybe the market even 'resets' every month or something, too

idk if this solution is necessary, and im not sure how possible it is. i just think its interesting ^_^

I very rarely participate in xhbs, so please take this with a grain of salt if it doesn't hit right, this just crossed my mind as an alternate way to structure these, which seemed in keeping with the rpg mechanics:

If the goal in having a high cost for 2/4HBs is to limit their regularity and keep them special, what if they cost similarly to OHBs, but were limited rather by frequency in some way, as a kind of special charge-up ability?

So the added cost could relate more to participation/hosting activity— like, as a requirement for hosting one (each time), a botbr would have to have hosted a minimum number of ohbs since their last multi-hour battle.

For example, "host 2x OHBs to charge up your 2HB ability", "host 4x OHBS to charge your 4HB ability". It could be a single skill slot, without a means to accrue them, needing to be built-up again every time, after using the special, to prevent someone from hosting many of them consecutively. Maybe once you're level 30, you could unlock a second slot or something hehe.

@sean i do think that's a pretty interesting idea, though i think it should never cost more than what the battles cost now, i.e. the range should max out at 750 at its most expensive [for OHB]. and also i kinda worry a little that it would frustrate people who just wanna host their favorite formats (or only have a small number of badges); but on the other hand it's delightfully encouraging towards trying new things and that rocks

feeling like you are getting a discount on some formats feels like the more palatable way to experience that

I think a 24HB would be awesome. If this would exist people could more easily partizipate regardless of the timezone one is living in.

it is called advent calendar and happens every december

xhbs are meant to be small little community events by nature. people hanging out in the chat together. resluts being anticipated in chats and celebrated there.
a 24hb wld break with that pattern and make it less personal imo. rather handle them as their own battle type with hosting requirements etc than to add it to the xhb style of hosting

sean i like the spirit of your idea but i think it's altogether too complicated and would discourage people from hosting their favourite formats just because they're popular. there's a reason certain formats are popular - they're fun! you don't want to discourage fun.

I like sean's plan because I think the resulting chaos would be funny

do it anyway

do moer ulti.ate him

inflation be like

skill issue

i think having partial losses if you get some submission, along with reducing the boonsave entrant from 3-7-14 to like 3-6-9 should probably reduce the risk a lot to where people are happy to host em

i'd imagine partial boonsaves would depend on how far away from the entrant quota you are (so if youre hosting a 2hb and you only get 3 entrants, you only lose 2/5 of the boons deposited)

while id be interesting in refining the idea for making rare formats cheaper to encourage hosting them i dont think that would do much to reduce the risk of hosting 2hb and 4hb battles, maybe that deserves its own thread

i guess its true that probably doing this will mean theres practically no risk to hosting since you always earn something back but theres a parasite aliment for those who just host crap and honestly if it means a community can host and create cool stuff id be in favour of reducign the risks

what if two or more botbrs could co-host a battle - splitting the overall cost....maybe the more wealthy botbr could elect to pay a bit more of the portion if they wanted to....

NO idea if such a thing could be supported by the site or even congruent with the botb ecosystem/ethos, but hey, makes you think!

i am all for this partial loss idea being thrown around. before i saw this thread i had no idea 4hbs were so risky to host even to begin with (i am too small and tiny to host battles)

how about a battle that lasts a couple days or so: at any time you can start a one/two/four hour timer and download the bitpack, and you have to submit before that timer is up

thats how the earliest remix battles worked. i agree this functionality shld come back!!

we should call these "mercenary batols" or maybe "wors"? I think it'd be best to limit the number of these that can happen on the site at a given time though

Clearly the solution is an even more expensive eight hour battle

After great deliberations at this here tribunal, the BotB stars got in a huddle and found some alignment the Gods could finally favor. These things take aching epochs of time to extrapolate and consider. It is no easy task and not for mortal ears to hear so to whisper into the eternal ether that is every noob's void-filled boon purse stature.

Hitherforth, XHBs no longer require 3/7/11 participants, but 3/5/7 for deposit return AND the deposit amount dropped from 750/1250/2150 to 725/975/1323 boons.

holy shit yes!!! THANK YOU

hosting 2hbs and 4hbs is less risky now

YES YES YES YES YES

Turns out hosting 2HBs is still too risky

going off the stats i compiled before, 21% of the 114 battles i indexed got less than 5 entries, which is about half as many bonlosses vs. when it saved at 7 (44%)

while that is still a significant amount, i feel pretty good about the costs and risks at this point personally - the update was generous i thought. i don't think it should be *without* risk to host a larger xhb. if the bonsave is a big concern, perhaps asking around in chat and getting people on board beforehand would help avert the risk. but you know you can also always ask for boons if you need them, we are happy to provide...

I'm sure the update was generous and it's nice that there are people like you who are happy to provide. Either way, I lost the high amount of 975 boons only because 1 single person didn't join. That's too unproportional imo. It takes months to earn that amount back.

I agree with hanna that boon losses should be proportional, which means boon saves would also be. So, instead of losing 975 boons, I'd have lost 185 if the total amount was divided for each participant who submitted an entry.

It would also mean participation would become more meaningful, because, despite not reaching the minimal participation required, people did participate in my battle. They put time and dedication into their entries in good faith. That's huge to me. Shouldn't that count for something? Partial interest ensued and shouldn't be completely ignored.

you also lose all boons on an OHB if only 2 peepz join. it was always like that.
I don't think the current thresholds around 2 and 4hbs are unfair anymore because it scales more accurately to the OHB thresholds.

I'm also not sure what you mean with "more meaningful" regarding participation.
entrants get points and medals and tincans for participating.
the host has to make sure to find enough people who wants to join their battle.

We're far less likely to boonloss from an OHB, though, because the minimal required are 3 participants. So, that 2HB wouldn't have been a boonloss if it was hosted as an OHB.

I already explained what "more meaningful" regarding participation meant in my previous post. I don't understand why my explanation isn't satisfactory.

Multiple precautions were already taken into consideration regarding that battle. First, I beghasted it within more than a day in advance, so plenty of people should know it was gonna happen. Second, the battle started at a weekend day and time that encompasses participants from multiple timezones. Third, I tried to make sure the bitpack was short, easy to understand and had popular appeal.

These precautions are indirect ways to find enough people who want to join. So, I don't see why boonloss should be total just because I didn't invite people directly on top of all the safety measures that were already taken. That's why I'm favorable to partial boonloss based on entry count.

we shld do partial boonloss for 4hbs maybe. i think that wld be cool

tex have u ever gambled, i think u shld try sometime. anyways the appeal of higher xhbs is the specialness and risk and rarity. imo the current cut is enoughly compensating, and any more wld just detract from Fun

you don't understand it is vital that my song game number does not go down

ABOLISH BOONLOSS! WHO'S WITH ME

i don't much feel the need to argue here since you have your opinion and i mine, and that's fine! but i will say what is the point of boonloss existing if there isn't inherent risk in hosting? ohb included. i was more interested in the "partial" idea with the old 3/7/11 entries and higher cost setup, but i feel since puke took another route to solve the problem, it would be too much now

also remember that boons are fake lol. they are a completely made-up on-site currency for fun and for keeping a system in working order here. and while i support at least moderate responsibility with them, there are more than enough boons between all of us to comfortably cover errant boonlosses such as your recent 2hb - and for anyone else who wants to host battles. no one should ever be sincerely worrying about boons. imho

i think its time to remove boons and pay for our xhbs with real hard earned cash from our jobs, at the exchange rates denoted on the lyceum

Ask your employer if they offer "boon matching".

Thank you for your elaborate and insightful suggestions.

you are welcome!!!

for every 10 ohbs someone hosts succesfully, they get a 2hb token that they can use to host a 2hb without boonloss. for every 20 successful ohbs, or 10 successful 2hbs, or 5 successful 4hbs, they get a 4hb token. for every 100 successful 4hbs, they get to take over the site for a year.

as future president of botbia i pledge to abolish boonloss, lower taxes for all (no one likes the taxman), stock the merchant's wares generously, and above all, support .mp3 as a valid filetype for every format - even visual ones!

ABOLISH BOONLOSS ‼️
MP3 AT ALL COSTS ‼️
DAMIFORTUNE 2024 ‼️

if you lower the taxes, how in the world are you gonna finance all that?? ;-;

Exciting Boon Investment Opportunity, Get In On The Ground Floor!

I can accept to have disagreements. And my opinion isn't even as inflexible as these reactions imply. But I don't come here to be disrespected.

that is good because noone here disrespects you

Tex, I apologize for helping derail the conversation above. I meant no disrespect, only to poke fun at the absurdity of the boon system in general, and I wasn't paying enough attention to the larger context of the discussion.

I don't have much to add to this discussion. I'll just say that I don't think the purpose of boonloss is risk, or the experience of gambling. In my view, the purpose of boonloss is to disincentivize clogging the schedule with battles that not many people are interested in joining, and the risk is an unpleasant necessary consequence of that.

If there are a ton of low-quality 2HBs & 4HBs happening and attracting little interest, then I'd say boonloss isn't punishing enough. On the other hand, if 2HBs and 4HBs barely happen at all, I'd say boonloss is too punishing. I've been fairly inactive since the update to boonloss thresholds, so I don't know what state we're in, but it seems like we might still be closer to the latter?

I should refrain from getting involved in further discussion regarding the development of Battle of the Bits in general. I don't understand what this place is all about, it seems. So, I often want it to be something it isn't meant to be, apparently.

aw, please don't be like that ;_;

i certainly meant no disrespect and i don't think anyone else did, either. but i shouldn't be acting silly when i know you're being serious

i wonder if maybe your suggestions, and arguments in their favor, are just coming off as more intense than you mean them to. they are not unwelcome. it is an aged and storied place, though, and its tides shift at a snail's pace because of that. and, people are gonna have opinions, and make jokes, because it's an internet community. they are not at your expense, i promise, and you are a valued participant of said community

more to the point about this particular suggestion, i don't think one data point of info - the only 2hb since the update - is enough to say it's still too risky, which is why i went back to my spreadsheet from before where i had compiled a bunch of entry count data and found that, statistically, boonloss risk was cut approximately in half. i think it's something we're going to have to feel out over the next, like, year or two. it's not out of the question that it needs more tuning - we will see how people feel as time passes

I don't think there is any disrespect involved if people have fun online and make jokes about topics that are in no way important to actual life. maybe it is extremly important to you and your actual life and therefore you think it is needed that everyone puts on a suit here and discusses every single argument in a dead serious way.
but I personally don't think this is how this place works. so in that regard it might be the case that you don't understand what this place is all about

nahhhhhh but most ppl on the net cant take things serious anyways. as for this place? tis a fun battleground where u can become more skillful in things that are absolutely useless in the real world. we do outdated things for hours and hours and watch numbers go up and laugh at 56, its insane so idk if ppl will take anything seriously here. (and the ones who do are terrible at showing it) (and imo dami is a weird outlier somehow). as for me, i mean no disrespect too. ur completely cool in my book

from what iv seen, things change slowly here. so i think taking a step back and letting things fall into place is better, before thinking abt ways to make a game easier (esp immediately after a change was already made to solve the same issue). i appreciate ur passion to help the community bro, srsly. i think sometimes its good to let things settle first idk

i meant no disrespect either for what it's worth, i shouldn't have made the post i did in the first place considering there was a sort of serious discussion happening, that is wholly my bad

i mean i'm just gonna echo everyone elses' statements really, i've been around this site for the past 10 years

mioh: i disagree, battle of the bits genuinely helped my artistic abilities a lot, started from nothing and i'm here now, being able to work on music very fast and being able to make some money off of it. that's not what this thread is about though

i'm just here to shitpost and amuse myself, but i was serious about my last post, it would be interesting to have that kinda gamey mechanic.

Im a big fan of the token idea that tennisers had, although i think the exchange rates they mentioned should probably be lower, like
6 good ohbs for a 2hb token, 12 for a 4hb token
6 good 2hbs for a 4hb token
3 good 4hbs for another 4hb token

like 20 ohbs sounds like it would take a very long time
that said I've never hosted before, so maybe 20 is good
either way its a cool idea! They're like punch-cards! (they could even be called that :3)

mayb i shld check on my own hosted battles, how many of them boonlossed up to now hmmmm

back when i compiled those stats

in march, it was 3/5 for your 2hbs and 8/12 for your 4hbs

with the new rules those would change to 2/5 and 3/12 (!)

oh wow wow that's a big improv for 4hbs.
I like it

i don't really agree with the sentiment of boons as totally meaningless play money because it obscures the fact that they represent something real - earning boons costs time and effort, so losing them feels like time and effort wasted. i know i have been discouraged from participating in the past after suffering repeated boonlosses.

i also think that perhaps very high level BotBrs could stand to appreciate that not everyone is able to participate at the same level because some people have a lot less free time than others. while 750 boons might not feel like much to someone who can join a battle every few days and submit to every major, it's something that could have taken somebody else months to earn over the odd free evenings they can squeeze between a full-time job or family obligations. boonloss for that person would carry a more potent sting.

while that is true, you can still just come into the chat and ask for boons and someone will give them to you, because they are meaningless enough TO SOME people here at least.
and if someone doesnt feel like asking for that, its their fault for not doing it.

i definitely understand the point you're making here, but i think it'd hold much truer if there weren't a ton of people happy to gift or loan boons away to prospective battle hosts (plus an atmosphere of encouraging that), and if there weren't just a massive surplus of boons across us all. it'd take a several-hundred boonloss plague to wear that down. and i think because everybody does know that losing boons sucks (whether to the intense degree you describe or not), they are all the more likely to help cover someone else if it happens

i also get not wanting to ask for "boon handouts", but i feel like that reluctance comes from, again, real actual money and the understandable resistance to ask for real actual money from a person in an individualistic capitalistic hellscape. i truly believe that comparison should be completely discarded - they're fake and in surplus! - and without it, there should be nothing stopping anyone from asking*. this is a game, for fun and for play and for sharpening one's creative wits. i'm with kleeder here - why handicap your own ability to have fun within it, if hosting is what you want?

i started hosting as soon as i got my first badge because the new friends around me were more than willing to help me out. both with the badge-getting and the boon-having. and i won't forget that! it would have indeed taken me months to get there otherwise, especially since i didn't do a lot of majors at first, ... but we are here to lift one another up

* i understand some people are also very very shy but i think even if that was the only message you ever sent on botb someone would still hook you up, and if it gets you to overcome shyness in even a small way, that's its own little win imo. being encouraged to wade into the waters of the community is a good thing...

i wish anyone whos shy cld just apply for GOVERNMENT CHECKS that contain BOONS every MONTH