|
CH4OT1C! -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/21/2024 5:32:27)
|
quote:
1: The 3 standards of crit chance increases, additive, multiplicative, and hypercrit status, stack in a multiplicative fashion, not additive. Currently, a 10% additive, 2x multiplicative, and 2x hypercrit boost, all of which cost the same amount (10% melee each, total 30% melee), instead multiply 2x2x2=60% crit chance. Instead of going 10 (base) + 10x3 = 40% crit chance, multiplicative relationships add extra power. This is particularly problematic when stacking multiple sources, say Lunar Hare Weapon (3x), Lust (+40%), and Timekiller (2x hypercrit), while only 70% crit increase is being paid for, you instead receive (10+40)x3x2=300% crit chance. The solution for this is to make all crit chance boosters additive. Potentially, that would be an easy fix, as prior iterations of crit boost items were all done additively. Server Caps and Crown miscs would be problematic if additive, however, they can instead use the hypercrit status, with ferocious crowns / red caps getting .5 hypercrit, and price crowns / blue caps giving 2x hypercrit while doubling and halving damage as they currently do, respectively.
2: Lucky strikes output 150% melee, but crit chance increases are 1% melee to 1% crit chance. Unless staff are satisfied with this unbalanced input to output ratio, and justify it with something like a player controlled trigger for an item requiring two stats to use, dividing crit rate increases by 1.5 or multiplying costs by 1.5 is a solution to this problem.
3: Lucky strike damage modifiers don't take into account current crit chance. I don't see this as a real bossing issue to be honest, since I expect the staff to remember to add plot armor and damage caps with .5 or below clawback to bosses. However, if staff wish to tackle pumping big numbers with LS damage modifiers, then take dardiel's solution a post above.
We appear to be aligned on solution 2, so no need for me to comment on that.
Regarding issue 1, there are definitely issues with stacking. I disagree that this would be an easy fix, but as @Ward_Point has requested the discussion ignore time limits, and given the pool of items that modify critical hit is relatively limited, this is something possible in the longer run.
I also partially agree with 3; I don't think it's necessarily a problem that LS items don't account for current crit chance. However, my reasoning differs to yours. I believe that soft/hard damage caps are often employed as an excuse to try and implement/retain extremely overpowered interactions on the basis that they won't affect powerful bosses so severely. I consider this justification to be bad practice, barring certain exceptional circumstances. With that said, depending on the solution implemented to fixing lucky strikes, I think we could potentially still continue to calculate Lucky Strike items based on the assumed 10% proc chance.
quote:
Reason I think leans are a terrible idea:
Making all crit modifiers a lean would mean that crit rate increases do not increase damage dealt. If lucky strike rate goes up, damage goes down, if damage goes up, rate goes down to match proportionately. No crit chance or damage modifier would actually change average damage dealt. This would have several ramifications:
1: There would be no meta purpose to using items to change crit. All effects modifying crits would average out to no change from not using them. This decreases item diversity players would use, because crit chance increases would serve no purpose.
2: There would be no reason to use crit items together. As stated above, crit items would average out to no change in damage. Currently, there are plenty of reasons to use 2, 3, or even 4 crit items at a time to synergize with each other (I don't mean timekiller + lust = 100% crit, I mean using more than one crit item to work together to reach a higher crit chance w/out the multiplicative stacking). Again, reducing the meaningfullness of player choice, and removing item synergies.
3: Leans are free effects, so all crit items would need to be adjusted to do something with the %melee paid for their effects. Presumably, since they were designed as damage items, all crit modifier effects that cost %melee would be rerouted into some kind of damage boost. Lunar Hare Weapons pay 20% melee, so they'd deal +20% damage (bloodblade). Granddad's Greatsword pays 20% melee, so it'd deal +20% damage (bloodblade). Zealot weapon + clone, for the same reason as above, bloodblade. This would be another example of reducing item diversity, as all these items which are currently markedly different from bloodblades, would instead become bloodblades with flavor RNG in damage dealt per turn.
4: If you'd like to argue that granddad's greatsword would be different from a bloodblade, because when you lucky strike (5% chance of occurring with the described lean model in the first post), you'd deal a boatload of damage, I'll make a comparison. If you have a 5 Proc weapon, 5% of the time, it does a boatload of damage. How different is that weapon from a 10 Proc, which 10% of the time, does a smaller boatload of damage. How different are those from a 0 Proc, which does pretty much the same exact damage without RNG each turn. This is why I believe that a lean would tank item diversity, because there'd be no real difference between Graddad's Greatsword, Lunar Hare Sickle, and any Bloodblade.
Crit chance items would serve a purpose, there just wouldn't be the same mathematical underpinning there is now. Players would be forced to make a tradeoff between the chances of landing a crit and the extra damage they provide, riding their luck to see if it pays off. To me, this increases item diversity by providing additional use cases for sub-100% crit rate modifiers
Regarding point 2, I can't say much more than I completely disagree with your interpretation.
Correct. You would need to retroactively adjust items. There are no situations in which there wouldn't need to be long-term investment. However, my lean change could be implemented relatively rapidly as the initial stage and primarily target the hypercritical status. While this would leave some items e.g., Arms of the Dragonguard underpowered, it is far less problematic in terms of balance to leave something underpowered as compared with overpowered. My solution is still long-term, but comes with the benefit of being able to implement the initial stages in a way that could make implementing @GwenMay's set more feasible. This is not something you could expect with the solutions you raise (fixing interactions on a number of items rather than a single status is likely to be more time and labour intensive).
quote:
This is not true. As of the third week of July last year, there had been 5 Crit related items released (Slaymore, 3 Lunar Hare Weapons, Shocked Monkey Board). As of the third week of July this year, we have 4 (Zealot Clone, Granddad Clone, Lunar Dragon Misc, Lunar Dragon Pet). There's not a blockade on crit items, they are being released at the same rate as last year. It's particularly telling that Granddad's clone was judged by staff as not needing adjustment, so clearly the power of crit items is not a cause for staff to block their release.
Arms of the Dragonguard, the earliest hypercritical item, was released in 2019, not last year. Nonetheless, there has indeed been an increase in hypercritical items more recently (no doubt due to persistent player demand):
Willbreaker at most boosts LS rate or damage by *1.5
The Lunar Hare weapons provide up to a *4 LS chance
Granddad's Greatsword and clones provide *3 LS damage
The Monkey Shortboard isn't associated with crits, but dodging. Maybe you were thinking of another item?
Slaymore offers pets +25% crit chance.
The Lunar Dragon Misc offers +50% LS chance.
The Lunar Dragon Pet has +50% LS chance.
Taking a closer look at this list, with the exception of Granddad's Greatsword, every one of these items offers equal or lesser power to items that were released 5-10 years ago. Dragonguard Guarantees crits, and LS damage bonuses of *1.5 have existed at least as far back as Midnight Wish Dagger in 2016. Moreover, all of these effects purely concern either Lucky Strike chance or damage. The variety of effects like those proposed in @GwenMay's set e.g., healing on lucky strike attacks, are completely missing. The staff explicitly mentioned that this kind of mechanic (healing on crit while multiplying the value by 10) is something that's not possible to implement when crits can be guaranteed. The evidence therefore points towards the staff intentionally restricting the LS items being released.
quote:
There are no magic weapons that pay weapon damage to increase spell lucky strike rate. Lunar Hare Lantern and Scythe of Serenia pay 15% melee in HP on spellcast, and their 5% melee MC. They give 30% increased crit chance to spells, which I can only assume is a mistake of some kind. If you count MC as weapon damage, that's 5x4=20% melee, +15% melee = 35% melee, so it would be 4.5x spell lucky strike chance if they were valued that way. Either way, using the current spell lucky strike booster weapons as a part of an argument when they don't seem to be balanced correctly on current standards is iffy.
This is perhaps a miscommunication on my part - In no way was I claiming that the spellboost mechanic and the LS mechanic are combined on a single weapon. If the staff are already careful about the crit mechanics they release, as is indicated by recent evidence, then combining lucky strike mechanics with larger multipliers would be completely out of the question. Take Monkey Shortboard, for example - if it really did boost crit power in the same way that it boosts regular attacks now, the amount would approximate +1000*[Blocks]/[Attempts]% Melee! I Mentioned both the Dodge and Spellboost modifiers because both of these modifiers are considered problematic for the power they provide. The *10 provided by lucky strike rate is considerably bigger than both.
Regarding both @Dizzle and @Dardiel's point for potential ways to boost LS rate directly - So long as Hypercritical is made into a lean, and the direct modifiers to LS chance were considerably lower than the 100% they can reach now, this is something I'd be open to agreeing with. This could effectively turn hypercritical into something very broadly similar to Berserk, where you can partially make up for missing LS rate and damage. To reiterate, though, it would need to be far smaller than the numbers now for it to be reasonable.
|
|
|
|
