Hey,

I'm sure these have been asked elsewhere, but I can't find the answers I'm looking for, so I will ask them again.

We are shooting for a 25% decay on our new system (which is called EP/GP on the doaguild.dkpsystem.com website). We have a spreadsheet with various decay rates and we know that it takes 254 days for 100 points to decay to .007.

So the values we have in our system are (0, .25, 254). So our questions:

1) We have put raids in through 11/27. Someone had 1550 EP pre-decay, but 1341 EP post-decay. After six weeks, this seems extraordinarily high (I was expecting to see 400 or so). Are we doing something wrong?

2) Is there a place I can find a reference for comparison between number of days and an actual decay percentage?

3) If each point decays to a minimum of .25 points, would that cause the huge discrepancy?

Thanks in advance, I know these are kind of involved!

EDIT: We have realized that 254 days is NOT a 25% decay. More like 119 days. So that does invalidate question 1. But a followup question for our calculations - at what point is a point of EP considered 'essentially zero'? We've been assuming less than .01, but an official answer would be great.

Emoisha
GL, Defenders of Apathy (Proudmoore)

One thing to note is that the .25 above is NOT the decay rate, but is the minimum value that decay will reach. It is the decay FLOOR. The Rate is determined by the third value (the number of days to reach minimum).

Which answers your third question. If you want items to decay to zero, then zero needs to be the Full Decayed Value.

The Daily percentage varies, and drops off at an exponential rate (accelerates as it gets closer to the end). This post on my old guild forum describes the formula: http://pias.dkpsystem.com/viewthread.php?threadid=2526

If you want the items to reach zero in 195 days and start immediately, then your numbers would be (0, 0, 195).

--
It's all in the reflexes.

This is hugely useful, and shows me that I didn't have the faintest idea how your decay worked. I do understand now, thank you so much for the link!

You're most certainly welcome. That's one of the first "Thanks, that makes it clearer for me" answers I've ever gotten from that. Usually people say "that doesn't mean anything to me, could you explain it further."

I guess I talk a little too much like a math guy.

--
It's all in the reflexes.