RE: =AQ= PREVIEW: Ironhoof Set Mechanics (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion



Message


Lorekeeper -> RE: =AQ= PREVIEW: Ironhoof Set Mechanics (7/23/2025 18:55:07)

quote:

I do not appreciate the titanic nerf to the armor but the rest of the changes look good.


There hasn't been a titanic nerf. The armor concept no longer features Celerity, and the SP instead goes into reaching +180 LUK faster. It's also leaning towards getting even better elecomp through a 39/42/42 resist spread. This is losing one theoretical feature, gaining another, and heading towards higher damage output.

Notes taken on the matter of stack overflow and the FD mode feeling indistinct, folks. Thanks for the heads up! I'll talk to the team about addressing this without increasing complexity beyond what can be done in one week. Extrapolating from the shield's function is a valid suggestion; it could be a good way of gaining some sustain back when facing an enemy you want to keep the stacks high against.




Rastaban -> RE: =AQ= PREVIEW: Ironhoof Set Mechanics (7/23/2025 19:51:56)

Dropping at least 105% value per turn down to 5% in exchange for no particular gain.

EDIT: Oh, I see where you're going with this now. You mean after it reaches max stacks far more quickly than the previous concept it will revert to pushing SP for celerity? Not bad! That could still be very interesting in wars.




Lorekeeper -> RE: =AQ= PREVIEW: Ironhoof Set Mechanics (7/24/2025 2:01:35)

The post says nothing about the celerity being traded for a feature worth 5% melee. Where is this figure coming from?

There is also no mention of reverting to the previous behavior.




Dardiel -> RE: =AQ= PREVIEW: Ironhoof Set Mechanics (7/24/2025 10:36:24)

As a suggestion for the placeholder condition on Prime Devastator, I think it could be thematic for the armor to have a Prime Devastator Charge % meter while the misc is equipped; the meter starts at 0, and each Lucky Strike hit landed increases the meter by 10/LSRate/AttackHitCount (eg if 1 of your 4 hits on a turn are a Lucky Strike, you get 25% meter; if you doubled your LS Rate then it's 12.5%).
Prime Devastator can then deplete the charge meter to multiply the void damage by that amount - since that adds a trigger condition for full damage (needing 100% charge), it would also justify giving the damage a x1.5 player-controlled-trigger bonus to let the effect function like a 2nd status to be eaten without needing to devote resources to it. The 1.5 could be just applied to the damage formula, but I also like the aesthetic flavor of the Charge meter spiking to 150% when it's full (but on the other hand 100 becoming 150 immediately might feel weird, so maybe the meter charge rate is like 10.5/stuff and you need to get 101+% for the meter to jump to 150)




Grace Xisthrith -> RE: =AQ= PREVIEW: Ironhoof Set Mechanics (7/24/2025 15:25:07)

I assume Rastaban is pointing out that the armor now only trades some amount of "-MRM" for initiative and a chance at celerity, where in the past, it had "After attacking, pay SP to guarantee a turn of Celerity." Armors do not pay more than 15% melee in MRM (-9 MRM), and initiative has a cost of 5% melee, so the % melee devoted celerity has decreased significantly, whether it's now 5% or 10% melee compared to 105% or 110%. Please let me know if I understood you incorrectly Rastaban.





Lorekeeper -> RE: =AQ= PREVIEW: Ironhoof Set Mechanics (7/24/2025 17:54:06)

The armor concept is not simply losing 100% melee in exchange for no particular gain. The skill concept that priorly applied Celerity now reads:
quote:

After attacking or casting a spell, spend SP to gain Criticality Matrix.




Rastaban -> RE: =AQ= PREVIEW: Ironhoof Set Mechanics (7/25/2025 14:56:31)

The truth of that picture is actually even grimmer than how I painted it because I forgot the existence of the new and more expensive standard for celerity. It is probably closer to a loss of 115% per turn.

The feature in its place acts in concert with multiple other pieces of the set that are also accelerating stack gains to the same maximum before fizzling. Considering the function of celerity in this case, claims that the change in armor concept would boost the speed of stack acquisition are dubious at best.




CarrionSpike -> RE: =AQ= PREVIEW: Ironhoof Set Mechanics (7/25/2025 16:47:28)

quote:

The truth of that picture is actually even grimmer than how I painted it because I forgot the existence of the new and more expensive standard for celerity. It is probably closer to a loss of 115% per turn.

The cost of the Celerity status hasn't changed in years (except for Guests where it actually became less expensive). The only "difference" between older and newer items with Celerity effects is that Celerity isn't implemented with a save roll on newer items. This is probably for the best given that potency effects (of any kind) don't work on Celerity, and almost all older implementations of Celerity use VStat instead of player stats for the MajorStat when rolling the save. As such, the Celerity save roll on these items is effectively static, which is far from ideal.

All of this being said, just so we're all on the same page, the cost of Celerity 100% melee for the Player, 40% melee for Pets, and 15% melee for Guests.


Now looking at the current proposed concept (top post):
quote:

-MRM pays for initiative boost and a chance to gain Celerity at the end of every turn.

As has been stated in other posts, the initiative boost effect is worth 3 MRM (5% melee), this leaves either 3 or 6 MRM (5% or 10% melee) for the Celerity chance, which would translate to a passive 5% or 10% chance to gain player Celerity. (This assumes that the armour does not have more than 15% melee worth of flavor effects)




Lorekeeper -> RE: =AQ= PREVIEW: Ironhoof Set Mechanics (7/25/2025 18:42:22)

The cost of player Celerity has not changed to 115% melee. The updated concept post doesn't say how much %melee in SP the substitute mechanic will pay for Criticality Matrix stacks, since (As one might note from the start of the original post) this preview isn't for final numbers in the first place.




Rastaban -> RE: =AQ= PREVIEW: Ironhoof Set Mechanics (7/25/2025 18:57:19)

If you are correct to say that I have misremembered the standard cost of guaranteed celerity increasing to reflect the inability of the monster to dodge or resist, this is a matter for GBI. That said, I do not plan to spend hours writing paragraphs preaching the virtues of cost penalties.

EDIT: The revision does not need to specify final numbers of %melee.




CH4OT1C! -> RE: =AQ= PREVIEW: Ironhoof Set Mechanics (7/26/2025 1:28:40)

The assumed ability of a monster to resist Celerity infliction has always been a part of the status' cost formula.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
7.800293E-02