|
Telcontar Arvedui I -> RE: Lucky Strikes (8/3/2024 15:24:22)
|
First off, since @dizzle refuses to both define his hypothetical threshold of a "large number of players", AND look up a sample to support his claims of the same quote, I have decided to take a sample of the playerbase myself, to see if his claims can be taken seriously. I went through the top 300 token donors of the current summer donation contest (snapshotted at 4th of Aug, 10:52pm, GMT +8), opened 300 tabs of their char pages, and CTRL+F'ed "Grandd" and "Lazg". Yep, two very specific groups of letters, referring to the only items with 3x LS damage boost.
The results - out of 300 char pages,
4 listed both Granddad and Lazgorath in their active inventory,
20 more chars had one of the above weapons in active inventory,
Another 20 had (only) one of the above in stored inventory. Surprisingly (or not), no char has both in storage.
That's a range of 8 (if we consider active inventory) to 15 (including storage because some players may be temporarily testing new gear/builds, and/or likes to whip those weapons out once in a while) percent of my sample population who are enjoyers of Granddad and co. Whether it fits @dizzle's criterion of "large numbers" is up to him. I will say that while it is not insignificant, it doesn't fit my personal criterion of "large numbers" - that'd have to be above 20 percent for me. Also, feel free to criticize the bias in my method and sample - I agree it's definitely worth a debate, just that I'll still stand by mine until someone can prove a better and easier methodology by example (i.e. doing it by themselves). Fun-but-not-really-relevant fact, out of the 4 users who mained both Granddad and Lazgorath, only 1 of them also has LS-boosting equipment in active inventory. The remaining 3 do not have any LS-chance-boosters. I will refrain from interpreting this particular observation for now - have fun debating this one, too.
Preliminary conclusion, I disagree that these numbers are large enough. Therefore dizzle's claim, at least in that regard, has yet to succeed in getting me to align by it.
Now onto the "disaffection" part. If the claim is that I set out to nerf the experience of Granddad enjoyers out of spite or malice, that is almost-half true. Almost. My proposal did set out to nerf Granddad and co. And in doing so my proposal will negatively impact the experience of these weapons' enjoyers. I have firmly my reasons behind it in post #43. quote:
(When core assumptions of this game) can be easily deviated, subverted or exploited by players to consistently provide quadrupled-or-more returns, instead of just "sometimes bypass(ed)", I don't believe that it is only "slightly problematic", and I don't believe that a do-nothing approach is a reasonable reaction. Also, in post #38, I have outlined the intended goals of my proposal, that is to achieve quote:
2 distinct niches of LS-damage-boosting playstyles. One uses equipment that offer smaller LS-damage-boosts (1.5x LS damage weapons such as Monolith Mace and Unfortunate Umbrella), combined with longer-termed (2-4 turns) LS-chance-boosts, for a more consistent and sustained LS output by allowing natural resource (namely SP) regeneration to offset the per-turn costs, at the expense of lowered ceiling. The other goes all-in after accumulating enough resources for a big expenditure that results in a LS damage output that completely blows the roof off, brings the house down, etc. etc, at the cost of being nigh impossible to casually repeat that outcome over consecutive turns, again under a reasonable resource economy.
Yes, I am fully aware that I pass the ball into the "resource eco GBI" court, meaning the whole LS issue would take longer to fully resolve - but I am willing to endure such a long-pain scenario. Again, I have faith that the devs will do take the correct measures when the resource eco revamp fully comes around, and thus allowing the first of the two aforementioned niches to really step out of the second's shadow. Until then, enjoyers of the second niche (the current LS-Hypercrit-nuke setup) can either learn to wean off of it, or suffer worse withdrawal symptoms when the full resolution comes around :evil_smiles:
I copied the paragraph and split it to make the context of each half clearer. My proposal intends to properly segregate 2 distinct, equally-valid niches for LS-damage-boosters, thereby improving player choice diversity. I can say with confidence that this aspect to my proposal is unique - no other proposal in this thread, from yours to @Chaotic's, have convinced me that this objective is even considered, even when some of them claim to be "supporting/improving diversity". All of your proposals would have Unfortunate Umbrella (1.5x LS damage) and co. rendered obsolete by Granddad's, regardless of whether LS-damage-boost mechanics are affected. The split second half of the above quote outlines clearly that the final objective of my proposal cannot be achieved independently, nor can it be done within a short timeframe - but I believe it to be a valid tradeoff. The final sentence that @dizzle excerpted, is indeed a joke in poor taste - I'll admit to that. However, it doesn't take away the fact that my proposal has a distinct path on making the game better, even if it comes at a cost of negatively affecting a subset of players - who, I might add, had enjoyed the game at the expense of skewing their own perception about the game's balance and enjoyment.
* * * * * * *
@dizzle's proposal, as far as I can tell, is similar to the "let's nerf LUK to only provide two-thirds of what it currently gives to LS damage!" line of thought, but went after LS-rates instead of LS-damage. Sure, you can indirectly rein in free value that way, but as @Chaotic stated, it negatively affects just about every LS-related mechanic, while maintaining the status quo of having a minimal amount of valid niches related to LS (only one - boosting LS damage and rates as high as possible). I'd say the 1.25x LS rate cost may be better justified if the proposal looked forward and attempt to consider on-LS effects that are not just extra damage, eg. something like Neo-Airenal's Burn-on-LS. Until then, it seems like a random arbitrary number put forward just so "there is the math" to me.
Unfortunately I am not very creative - any further suggestions will probably look like taking a leaf out of my own proposal, and eventually turning it into a variant of mine. I do agree with fixing free multiplicative stacking (this is the biggest common ground amongst participants in this thread). Then again I disagree that LS-damage-modifiers don't need an independent fix.
* * * * * * *
I actually think @Sapphire's latest proposal can be valid with a few tweaks. W.r.t. direct LS-rate-modifiers, I don't think it matters whether said modifiers apply to base 10% or 100%. As long as the proper %Melee upkeep is paid, it can be read as "100% increase to base LS rate" or "10% increased chance to LS", you'd still arrive at the same result in a vacuum. I also agree with the Dragonguard bubblewrap, and can somewhat get behind the Granddad bubblewrap, even though it just means LS-damage-boosters are on a slightly slower power-creep trajectory because you'll need all 8 elemental clones. By "power-creep trajectory" I mean that any LS-damage-booster with a bigger buff will still simply eclipse all other smaller-buff equipment of the same item category. Also the bigger the LS-damage-buff, the more efficient they become due to exploiting core assumptions about the game model, so the power-creep still double-dips, unless Sapph finds a new aspect to add into the proposal to address this. But at least 1.5x LS damage weapons get a temporary reprieve, depending on LS-damage-modifiers' future release schedule. So, third in my preference.
That's assuming that the Hypercrit stacking rules get clarified as well. Like,
does it extend the duration of the Hypercrit overall, so 1-turn 4x plus 5-turn 2x equals 6-turn 1.67x Hypercrit, or
is it based on the longer duration of the components, like 1-turn 4x plus 5-turn 2x equals 5-turn 2.7x Hypercrit, or
do we first take the average of the component Hypercrit buffs before basing the duration upon said average, like 1-turn 4x plus 5-turn 2x equals 4-or-5-turn 3x Hypercrit?
* * * * * * *
I'll be honest, I don't really see a need to provide feedback to every other user's proposal, mostly because @Chaotic has done too good a job at it, most of the time before I have even started reading other users' proposals. I'm sorry I really don't have much to add without repeating the same points.
Closing note for this post - what follows is a few sentences excerpted from post #9. quote:
I don’t want to see LS stacks get buried, I want to see the player actually have to pay a significant cost for such a significant reward. I’ve said this a few times but given the massive leaps in power creep over the last year and a half, I’ve change my mind on balance in this game. I think that there shouldn’t be any steps backwards in terms of player power, but instead a step forward in properly and fairly valuing the power the player receives. Like, okay, you want to use granddads sword to deal stupid overkill damage? Fair enough, but you’re gonna have to sacrifice a massive amount of resources or defense. Way more than what we’re currently paying. Again, to re iterate, I don’t want to see the LS stacks buried, I want to see the player actually pay for what they’re getting. Taken at face value, I'd say amongst all the proposals put forth in this thread, my proposal achieves just about everything within the quote, with @Chaotic's proposal coming in second (because Hypercrit lean pays damage instead of resources to get better rates). And yes, Sapph's newest could potentially be in the running in my book too.
|
|
|
|
