Eclipsed dragonlord weapons no longer regenning Sp/MP


	Home \| Login \| Register \| Help \| Play

Eclipsed dragonlord weapons no longer regenning Sp/MP

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Eclipsed dragonlord weapons no longer regenning Sp/MP

Page 1 of 2

Forum Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

10/12/2021 16:17:14

Sapphire
Member

As titled

Discuss!

Post #: 1

10/12/2021 16:21:51

Zacky Vengeance Aloy
Member

The dragonlord weapon + H-Series Tempest Power Armor was great for warriors warring ):
Sad to see this feature go

Post #: 2

10/12/2021 16:27:29

OG Ranger
Member

Wow, even the bow. The bow wasn't even broken too. That's why no one was using it. If this is just a temporary change I suggest leaving the bow as is. If not then even I won't use the bow anymore.

Post #: 3

10/12/2021 16:30:11

Sapphire
Member

The wind version, Haunted, doesn't regen either

Hunch-> You all have today and tomorrow and Thursday by 3pm to get your Soul Gauntlet

Post #: 4

10/12/2021 16:45:01

PD
Member

They’re in the process of being updated although we will have to see what the final change will look like. I suspect even after the changes though these items will still be considered useable, or even still highly used for their respective elements (just won’t be broken). Nonetheless it’s great that they’re making updates as the DL weapons have been particularly problematic for some time, and have been contributors to builds and strategies that have been less than healthy for the game.

I’m wondering what changes will come of the other pieces of the set, mainly the shield and armor. I can’t imagine the later needing changes but the former should also get hit if this is going to happen on the weapons as the shield mechanic heavily reduced design space for other shields of their elements.

In the meantime, you can grab Nith’s Fang for the same effect, and come Frostval (which is coming soon!) you can grab a Dreamweaver Bow which does the same thing as the old Dragonlord weapons, except as 100 proc and fire element.

Ps: for those of us thinking Soul Gauntlet should be the dodge to this update, I don’t see why that rares or premiums should escape adjustment either.

< Message edited by PD -- 10/12/2021 17:21:13 >

Post #: 5

10/12/2021 19:21:50

Angelus111
Member

As an enthusiastic player of this game for the better part of the last 2 years (so much so as to get 6 characters guardianship and max.level) I'll just say: the day we lack any truly efficient form of SP sustain (right now the options we have are either laughable -ie.taxing cutlass and the like- or broken -essence orb, and to a lesser degree Soul Gauntlet-) is the day mage builds become the only viable way to play at endgame (and to a far lesser extent, backlash, and uber optimized Beastrangers). The problematic interaction between SP regen / Quickcasts and Purple Rain is more so the problem and should draw attention to the latter of those items in my opinion. Again, all of this could be very well remedied by nerfing sp regen items to oblivion if the community thinks is the way to go, but at the same time making END or STR give you additional SP the same way MP contributes to your mana pool, and/or affect your natural sp regen rate as well. Otherwise, a Mage version of any build will almost always be greatly superior to its non-MP accessing counterpart.

Here´s to hoping.

PS: As of the writing of this message Dragonlord weapons' regen factor has been overcorrected to the point where the FSB went from being a full SP bar worth of regen (Broken, as properly noted) to less than 200 sp in the best case scenario. Opening design space in this fashion can only be justified if and only if said space is properly adressed in the following months. Again, I hope I'm wrong and str/dex/cha focused charachters remain as viable for endgame bosses/challenge content as always, but I'm not sure.

< Message edited by Angelus111 -- 10/12/2021 19:34:23 >

Post #: 6

10/12/2021 20:08:45

Burblespue
Member

is this change intentional or a bug?

Post #: 7

10/12/2021 20:14:06

Dreiko Shadrack
Member

The previous healing numbers was the bug, the weapons are now fixed.

You're supposed to be healing 3.31% melee in sp/mp per hit, before the fix this was being boosted by basically everything that boosted attacks...which was a big bug.

In any case, you can regen the appropriate amount now.

AQW

Epic

Post #: 8

10/12/2021 20:17:59

Lorekeeper
And Pun-isher

The current state of the weapons is what the posted formula for them always added up to, minus the bugged state that allowed them to heal far in excess of their stated output. Thus there was no arbitrary nerf, only a correction of errors that allowed this value to be affected by boosts that shouldn't have increased the healing to begin with. The earlier lack of any healing was due to an issue during the release of this bug fix.

While we've seen the concerns that the fixed performance may be too low, please consider that the weapons were always meant to mitigate resource costs, not overturn them to the point of continuing to heal even while using stat drives and beast forms. They shouldn't be expected to approach their originally broken output.

Post #: 9

10/12/2021 20:28:39

OG Ranger
Member

@Angelus
You're right about mages dominating if SP regen dies. I like your idea about tying END to SP. I don't think END should directly affect SP. However, I like the idea of EO's SP regen scaling off of the player's END. This makes SP less available to the offensive builds while simultaneously buffing END a stat that many consider the weakest stat. Right now EO is about 1.19 SP for each HP. You could do something like at 250 END 1 HP = 1.2 SP and at 0 END 1 HP = 0.8 SP. Maybe you'll start seeing some builds with 50 END builds pop up.

AQ	Post #: 10

10/12/2021 23:58:04

Sapphire
Member

quote:

You're right about mages dominating if SP regen dies. I like your idea about tying END to SP. I don't think END should directly affect SP. However, I like the idea of EO's SP regen scaling off of the player's END. This makes SP less available to the offensive builds while simultaneously buffing END a stat that many consider the weakest stat. Right now EO is about 1.19 SP for each HP. You could do something like at 250 END 1 HP = 1.2 SP and at 0 END 1 HP = 0.8 SP. Maybe you'll start seeing some builds with 50 END builds pop up.

It already scales off END. It "costs" HP , and end gives more HP. End Is build neutral. It makes you a tank variant, that's all. It doesn't solve the issue of "mages will become the dominant build"

quote:

As an enthusiastic player of this game for the better part of the last 2 years (so much so as to get 6 characters guardianship and max.level) I'll just say: the day we lack any truly efficient form of SP sustain (right now the options we have are either laughable -ie.taxing cutlass and the like- or broken -essence orb, and to a lesser degree Soul Gauntlet-) is the day mage builds become the only viable way to play at endgame (and to a far lesser extent, backlash, and uber optimized Beastrangers). The problematic interaction between SP regen / Quickcasts and Purple Rain is more so the problem and should draw attention to the latter of those items in my opinion. Again, all of this could be very well remedied by nerfing sp regen items to oblivion if the community thinks is the way to go, but at the same time making END or STR give you additional SP the same way MP contributes to your mana pool, and/or affect your natural sp regen rate as well. Otherwise, a Mage version of any build will almost always be greatly superior to its non-MP accessing counterpart.

Here´s to hoping.

PS: As of the writing of this message Dragonlord weapons' regen factor has been overcorrected to the point where the FSB went from being a full SP bar worth of regen (Broken, as properly noted) to less than 200 sp in the best case scenario. Opening design space in this fashion can only be justified if and only if said space is properly adressed in the following months. Again, I hope I'm wrong and str/dex/cha focused charachters remain as viable for endgame bosses/challenge content as always, but I'm not sure.

I agree with the premise. Even the first quote, but the solution is simple. 390 melee sp vs 490 magic sp for skills (whatever it is) isn't anywhere close to good enough. And beast warriors probably just got nerfed even more than normal warriors.

Simply make SP regen more based on Strength. Str/5 more per turn over current amount would yield 50 more SP per turn and grant you 1 more skill cast at turn 8. If you also use SP regen weapons, this can probably get you down to turn 5-6.

You can't say "mages win because bugged OP'd sp regen got nerfed, and then say scale it to END. You have to scale it to STR with that argument, which needs to happen.

Heck, I wouldnt even be against a small Charisma/25 add on too.

Edit-> Just tested them. The new regen is abysmal. Too much of a nerf. I'm all for the "fix" but this is asinine. And no FSB?

< Message edited by SapphireCatalyst2021 -- 10/13/2021 0:11:56 >

Post #: 11

10/13/2021 0:47:44

PD
Member

I just checked, and the SP regen still works with the set pieces? I used Eclipsed Dragonlord and it's clearly with the Shield + Sword doing double the SP regen (44) than with sword only (22). And Haunted Dragonlord, of course requires all 3 pieces (AKA, you need the armor, weapon AND shield). I was doing with Haunted, 23 without the FSB, and 69 with the FSB.

But let's be clear, Dreiko and Cray are right. It's wrong to think about this change as a nerf because quite frankly the way it was operating before was not intentional to its original design. And SP regen as a mechanic was never intended to be a way to sustain and even gain multiple buffs. Anyways, I suspect that this will only be a good thing for the game's future. Quite frankly the way that these weapons were before, they completely took over the design space of Wind/Dark weapons. Now that they're where they should be, it should open up those elements like it was always meant to be. I actually look forward to integrating other equips of those elements into my character now that DL isn't THE clear cut choice for wind/dark weapons.

Post #: 12

10/13/2021 1:13:29

Noone
Member

I had noted during testing initially that minotaur crystal misc was giving a significant buff to the healing. Was that the fix? Can somebody in the know tell me if the max number of hits for the regen is fixed/assumed to be a set number now (say 2, 4 or whatever). I remember because of the way it was coded it wasn't fixed/assumed and it also wasn't spread evenly across all hits, it was additive, the 7-hit gogg attack healed bazonks worth of mana. Is gogg still 3.5 times the heal of a 2 hit armour?

It's not like Gogg form is spectacular anyway I just really like it. And it was like my little secret.

Post #: 13

10/13/2021 6:38:24

Angelus111
Member

quote:

But let's be clear, Dreiko and Cray are right. It's wrong to think about this change as a nerf because quite frankly the way it was operating before was not intentional to its original design. And SP regen as a mechanic was never intended to be a way to sustain and even gain multiple buffs. Anyways, I suspect that this will only be a good thing for the game's future. Quite frankly the way that these weapons were before, they completely took over the design space of Wind/Dark weapons. Now that they're where they should be, it should open up those elements like it was always meant to be. I actually look forward to integrating other equips of those elements into my character now that DL isn't THE clear cut choice for wind/dark weapons.

While I cannot argue against this sentiment neither in theory, or from a math-based balancing standpoint, I think there's also something to be said about "game feel" as a factor that should come into play when adressing needed changes to problematic / overly meta-impacting items and/or strategies. This criteria is, in virtue of it being somewhat subjective, incredibly hard to get right for any designer, I know, even more so for a small team as AQ currently has, so that's why I don't want to go overboard in my criticism of this one change.

Instead, I'd rather focus on what both OG Ranger and SapphireCatalyst adressed in their respective takes; namely the problematic nature of sp vs mp as resources and how to balance around it (again, more so from a "game feel" perspective than a purely math-based one). For example, warriors/beastwarriors/offensive rangers don't currently have an equivalent of Essence of Carnage's Defiant mode, and they should (they also don't have a SP equivalent of the "free" MP Regen that Tomes provide for mages, but that's a whole different issue). Even more, when EoC got changed and its MP heal went from bonkers (about 650mp a turn per normal attack standard for a FO mage) to abysmal, it too got reverted to a somewhat balanced state, which I agree was the right decision; but it makes it look -again- as if MP based strategies get punished less severely for their peaks in power level than non-mp based ones. Heck, my main charachter was a Beast Warrior before I grew bored of the complete "under-optimizationess" of that playstyle -mostly the lack of clear cut strategies for it that dindn't revolve around permastunning non boss monsters and praying for a PR/EO miracle for boss ones- and moved into a hybrid backlasher instead (not coincidentally, an MP capable build)

I'd also like to add that these hardships in playstyle for non-mp based buids come after last year's major meta-shifting needed nerf to Chieftain's IronThorn. A change that by all intents and purposes hampered warrior builds more so than mages. For mages it was more of a way to revert their nuking strats back towards more spell based options, which was good mostly by virtue of it being flavorful. For warriors/FO rangers it meant that their ability to actually 'nuke' with proper setup required many more workarounds , besides the fact that mages start every 2/4 battles with a full MP bar, as well. While certainly off-topic I wanted to point this out because context is important in terms of how certain changes 'feel' at any given time of a game's lifecycle.

Again, I believe that if this design space is taken advantage of, we will all agree with that first quote's sentiment; but in order for that to happen we as a community have to speak up on it and notice just how much in need of support for their respective playstyles and viability certain builds are, builds that would otherwise get lost. And losing build diversity in any RPG is always a bad thing, no matter the criteria.

< Message edited by Angelus111 -- 10/13/2021 7:44:54 >

Post #: 14

10/13/2021 7:54:12

Sapphire
Member

The weapons were broken. They should have been fixed right after they were released. Waiting is going to and has caused a bit of an uproar. There are things about Necromancer that I believe will be fixed, too, and if it's waited for a year or longer, it too, will be another oversight that will cause a similar reaction.

The SP regen at the beginning of each batte certainly hlps, so let's not forget this change. The weapons needed to be addressed no doubt, But 22/23 SP is abysmal. It's so bad that those weapons just went from the best weapons to use in wind/darkness to perhaps a storage placeholder going forward. 23 SP isn't going to do anything.

At the end of the day, maybe until EO is wacked, END just became a thing. I may try a tank build with items that eat my HP like zerker/bloodmage stuff, and other things that cause me to take on more damage...

Post #: 15

10/13/2021 7:55:10

OG Ranger
Member

quote:

It already scales off END. It "costs" HP , and end gives more HP. End Is build neutral. It makes you a tank variant, that's all. It doesn't solve the issue of "mages will become the dominant build"

More HP =/= scale off END. I can regain the HP I lost from EO from a heal to imitate having high END. It's not the same thing. I was referring to the efficiency of HP to SP conversion for END scaling. This would essentially make EO the same as it now at max END but considerably worse at 0 END. Tank builds would get to mitigate their lower offensive capabilities with more SP resources while glass cannons have less fuel to burn so to speak.

quote:

Simply make SP regen more based on Strength. Str/5 more per turn over current amount would yield 50 more SP per turn and grant you 1 more skill cast at turn 8. If you also use SP regen weapons, this can probably get you down to turn 5-6.

I don't see how STR affecting SP makes any sense at all. Thematically it makes 0 sense. All this would do is start turning warriors into mages for the sake of giving STR something else to affect.

I don't think the answer to balancing builds vs mages is to turn everyone into a mage. I enjoy different build identities.

< Message edited by OG Ranger -- 10/13/2021 16:37:23 >

AQ	Post #: 16

10/13/2021 8:54:02

Angelus111
Member

quote:

I don't think the answer to balancing builds vs mages is to turn everyone into a mage. I enjoy different build identities.

Thank you for pointing it out. I completely missed it. It is true that build identity is just as important as build diversity, or rather, it's in a way a part of it; and my previous comments oversaw that crucial fact.

Problem is that, if not good for sp nuking (because it would mean a FO 'mage' identity in disguise so to speak) , what should the de-facto Warrior/Beastwarrior offensive build center itself around, thematically? Efficient damage output while tanking is a way, but END being build neutral as was pointed out earlier makes it so mage builds can theoretically play in this fashion too -granted, in a negligibly less dmg per turn efficient way- , and better (using Mana shields, and sustaining toggles and items with sp as well as guests with mp). Full on aggresion for Beastmasters could work, but the problem here is that any guest + any toggle eats through your resources after the first active skill paid for in SP you use (Again, making BM mages better suited for this playstyle, sadly). On the other hand, status effect play with defensive setup too is an option, but again better suited and taken advantage of by rangers, given the nature of 100-proc weapon play, as well as their ability to go full dodge as a plan b of sorts.
I do understand that non-magic based skills cost around 25% less than magic based ones, but that does so little, when mages too have just as much total sp, regain just as much sp at the beggining of each battle, pay just as much sp for item use, have the same sp cost in their toggles, as well as an entirety of another resource engine (MP) at their disposal.

So I'm a bit at a loss here... What should warriors in general, and specifically different builds of the archetype, 'gimmick' be, in terms of identity, after taking everything else into account?

PS: Been testing around a while more and can confirm that the Eclipsed Versions- FSB remains inactive; Haunted is working as intended.

< Message edited by Angelus111 -- 10/13/2021 14:10:30 >

Post #: 17

10/13/2021 15:52:51

Sapphire
Member

Sorry, giving warriors approx 50 more SP regen per turn doesn't in any way, shape, or form make warriors into another mage variant. Dragonlord weapons did that.

And doing this, in fact, DOES make sense, or we wouldnt have cheaper melee cost for skills compared to magic skills...so obviously someone at some point that warriors having more access to skills made thematic sense and was in fact, implemented already.

Post #: 18

10/13/2021 16:36:53

OG Ranger
Member

quote:

And doing this, in fact, DOES make sense, or we wouldnt have cheaper melee cost for skills compared to magic skills...so obviously someone at some point that warriors having more access to skills made thematic sense and was in fact, implemented already.

Warriors having cheaper skills does not imply that STR should boost SP regen. All it implies is that non-mages should have cheaper skills. A staff member can chime in and clear this up if they want. Why would more muscles and the ability to swing harder boost your spirit?

quote:

Sorry, giving warriors approx 50 more SP regen per turn doesn't in any way, shape, or form make warriors into another mage variant. Dragonlord weapons did that.

My comment about warriors turning into mages was focused on STR boosting SP regen in general. An extra 50 SP would not do much to fix the edge mages have over warriors since most battles don't last more than 2-3 turns. The boost will only matter vs bosses that force longer battles. What about defensive beast rangers? They have a higher SP upkeep than warriors but would not benefit from this SP upkeep boost.

AQ	Post #: 19

10/13/2021 17:00:39

Sapphire
Member

I mentioned beast warriors took on a harder hit to this than plain warriors in an earlier post. I know.

I also mentioned that I wouldn't be opposed to even adding a small charisma boost like I had for strength too, though to me it's less viable.

In the end, it makes sense via indirect inference. If you want to claim it makes no sense that STR should help replenish "spirit" because Strength can only mean muscles, then fine stick to your guns. I view it differently. I view it as SKILL POINTS, though with regen they talk about "spirit". And skills take using your HANDS, and thus, indirectly you need to be able to use your arms/hands better...thus more SP regen... And nobody ever claimed it would fix an edge mages have over warriors, though to me that's a little bit arguable. While non boosted attacks generally have spells outclassing weapons attacks, you can actually approach the damage cap much easier with melee/STR...ie warriors. Damage boosters almost always get halved for spells, so they will always assist warriors much, much better.

In addition,

"Warriors having cheaper skills does not imply that STR should boost SP regen. All it implies is that non-mages should have cheaper skills."

Why not? Warriors have cheaper skills because they train strength, and training strength means you're using melee weapons, and using melee weapons changes the SP cost downwards. There may not be the implication STR doesn't change SP regen, but it sure as heck allows for cheaper SP skills, which is another way to say that warriors already get faster SP regen. It's just a different P.O.V, but it's actually *the same*. I'm just attempting to help the BUILD a touch, without breaking an item, or items.

This may not "solve" your problem, one that I feel is overblown, but I do acknowledge that warriors DO need more access to SP.

What, exactly, do you think should be done?

Post #: 20

10/13/2021 19:13:56

Legendary Ash
Member

The question is do you understand the fundamental balance standards in regards to different build identities, and from your Dexterity and Luck GBI's suggestion that Guests start getting Lucky strikes, it implies you don't, otherwise you would have known that your suggestions as is will destroy the balance that had long existed in builds exclusive of equipment design whose individuality and accessibility to various builds are the true influencers of a player's perceptions of build competitiveness.

The -25% melee penalty a Mage takes for weapons gets funneled into the resource known as mana, worth 25% melee per turn for 20 turns. For a Mage to overcome that loss in weapon damage of 200% melee skill, it pays that very amount in Sp, thus skill efficiency for a Warrior to a Mage in melee% to Sp cost is the exactly the same, a Warrior is able to cast five skills +100% melee each and a Mage is able to cast four skills +125% melee each, both total 500% melee through 25% melee of Sp per turn for 20 turns, therefore your argument that a Warrior has faster Sp regen is proven false whose origins are founded on the problematic exclusion of a Mage's build identity with mana as the resource that is part of its damage scheme, which when accounted for, one will see that the balance standards specific to builds are perfect as they are.

AQ	Post #: 21

10/13/2021 20:01:39

CH4OT1C!
Member

I thought that this would be a good point for me to weigh in my thoughts.

In a purely superficial sense, Cray and Dreiko have already summed up the situation. These weapons were nerfed because they were healing more than they were ever supposed to. There can be no argument from the perspective of balance, and I think everyone is more than willing to accept that. The issue being raised here is that this could have negative ramifications for the effectiveness of certain builds. At its most simple, this manifested in comments like the one below, indicating that many builds become unviable:

quote:

the day we lack any truly efficient form of SP sustain (right now the options we have are either laughable -ie.taxing cutlass and the like- or broken -essence orb, and to a lesser degree Soul Gauntlet-) is the day mage builds become the only viable way to play at endgame

I can only ever consider such an opinion as hyperbolic and unhelpful to the discussion at hand. Aside from being bluntly untrue (we played this game perfectly well before Essence orb existed), it encourages the propagation of the unhelpful warrior vs mage dichotomy. This isn't to say that there is no smoke without fire; Mages have traditionally had access to larger equipment stocks than other builds. Although MP isn't a unique resource in its own right (for reason which I'll gloss over for the moment), it undoubtedly represents a more accessible resource than the equivalent options for other builds. However, for the purposes of this conversation, propagating this dichotomy has two negative side effects:
i). This becomes a dichotomy. We overlook the other builds played. For example, by the standards of a Ranger, Warriors have it pretty good. This isn't about warriors vs mages. This is about ensuring all builds, with their respective identities, are catered for properly. I gloss over whether builds have a true identity for the sake of parsimony.
ii). We pigeonhole SP as a Warrior/Ranger resource when it isn't. In terms of balance, SP is an inherently universal resource. In an ideal world, Mages would have equal access to SP resources just as other builds would. The reason for differential access is not because SP is inherently a resource designed for non-mage builds. It was decided by the staff that other builds would get better capabilities, even in spite of the obvious implications for undermining balance, in order to better and more effectively balance the relative tradeoffs between builds.

It is for this latter reason that having SP scale by STR (or DEX, for that matter) would be an inherently flawed system. Just as it isn't a dichotomous Warrior vs Mage, it isn't SP vs MP either. SP is universal, whilst MP is mage exclusive. Transferring SP to STR or DEX would force it to become a build specific resource. Out of necessity, this would mean removing it from Mage assumptions, meaning they would need extra power from elsewhere. Alternatively, other builds would have to pay for this exclusive resource in some way. The best case scenario would be that non-mages would find themselves in a situation akin to a pseudo-mage, with their own exclusive bar and resource. It would stifle build identity and wouldn't hamper mages as much as you would think. As @OG ranger eloquently put it, I don't think the answer to balancing builds vs mages is to turn everyone into mages. This precludes all the problems with then differentiating which builds are then able to use SP vs which aren't (if it scales with STR, then Rangers get DEX as a main stat, does that mean they can't use SP anymore?). Addressing you specifically @SapphireCatalyst2021, this issue is nothing to do with theme. On a fundamental level, this would be a huge amount of work to implement a change that would not work, and may cause more problems than it solves.

The real problem with mage as a build is that it attempts to utilise a strategy of high damage output at an inefficient cost. As it stands, balance standards assume a 20-turn model and offers resources accordingly. For FO players, 2 battles (the number of battles between heals) takes nowhere near this amount of time. In many cases, you'll be lucky to see turn number 6. Mages have no incentive to be efficient, because they have more health, more MP, more SP, than they will ever need. To be fair to the staff, recent bosses and quests have attempted to shift this. However, it is still very much a work in progress. To fix that is going to take a lot more than retaining a few busted items like Dragonlord or the old CIT. They're bandaids to a deeper underlying problem and, just like the SP issue, they cause more problems than they solve.

To be clear, I understand your frustrations. It's not fun to see one build getting more toys than you. All I wish to convey is that rash decisions aren't going to solve this deep, underlying problem. The groundwork has being lain already. I'm also not against, as mentioned in a more limited sense by @Angelus111, going outside of balance as a temporary measure to reach a healthier equilibrium. As I mentioned above, this is what the staff have already been doing with regards to SP. One thing that could immediately help is having some blatantly overpowered Mage-exclusive items (e.g. Mana regen on Essence of Carnage), being fixed.

In short, my argument would be this: It's ok to be frustrated about the current situation, but don't let it cloud your judgement as to how best to solve the problem. This isn't about warriors vs mages, or about SP vs MP. To fix this problem, we need solutions which target the source of the problem, not ones that could act as bandaids in the short term (or, in the case of STR influencing SP regen, make the situation worse).

Regarding the Dragonlord items specifically, I've suggested a fix whereby they deal -10% damage in exchange for a tripling of the current regeneration levels. This should increase the heal without it becoming ridiculous. With that said, it is likely to take some time before these items are assessed again.

< Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 10/13/2021 20:10:28 >

AQ	Post #: 22

10/13/2021 20:58:19

Angelus111
Member

@Legendary Ash @CH4OT1C! as seasoned players and community members that you both are I sincerely thank you for weighing in your thoughts on this topic, and doing so in a very constructive way.

I'll be the first one to admit that the math-based criteria behind AQ balancing, fascinates me, both in the sense that I recognize it can go a bit over my head sometimes as well as finding it close to perfection in terms of the thought that goes into giving it solid foundations. Again, I'd be a fool to argue in that direction. I agree this change was called for, even if CH4OT1C's proposed alternative would have provided a more elegant solution.

Secondly, I do take the blame for the hyperbole, and its eventual irresponsability in terms of leading the discussion down a falacious road; but believe me when I say it comes from a place of truly worrying about how alll builds and playstyles have their own identity and place under the sun to shine. I leave the optimal means for that in better hands and more capable minds than my own.

But, and believe me when I say I'm not trying to be stubborn here, I really wish to know in good faith what makes non-mp Fully Offensive based strategies and builds unique in this current state of the game? Or am I beign blind to a whole design space within the meta? Or, and just as an example, to put it in simpler -albeit more problematic, I know- terms: is there a consistent way for a Fully Offensive non-mp based charachter to beat the Wicked King in Challenge Mode , without cheesing it with purple rain / esssence orb loops that doesn't involve shifting the better part of your active inventory around just for that fight alone or abusing potions?

< Message edited by Angelus111 -- 10/13/2021 21:02:52 >

Post #: 23

10/14/2021 0:50:34

Sapphire
Member

Im sorry but while I think the game is relatively balanced, I find it extreme fallacy to even entertain the notion that balance is perfect. That sounds more like catering, and therefore, null and void. The math, because it's MATH, can always be manipulated, changed, and re-imagined for balance sake. If one wants to argue against certain ideas pushing change for something due to how it might snowball entire equations and time constraints make said change highly implausible, then I can deal with that argument all day long. I get it. It still might not make it the best answer or the best route. It just might be considered not worth it by some, especially those who'd be involved in the work. So let's start by making sound statements on that front rather than predictably and closed-mindedly pointing at current standards as if it were dogma. It's absurd.

If nobody can ever try and view something as an issue, have an idea at a resolution, strive for new ideas, or even just simply make a suggestion without the same tired choir singing the same "but the standards say this" , then what is the point of suggestions, topics, discussion, and the existence of said forums. Just copy+paste every reply with "but the standards say this" and let''s zombie-mode every topic shall we?

Quick Example-> Guests not getting lucky strikes. It might unbalance the equation, but you can rebalance it on the other side with other changes. So do we leave it alone because it might undertake massive work? Ok then fine, but let's not be dishonest and claim the world's perfect to begin with. Nothing is. Pets didnt always have lucky strike capability. Lucky strikes didnt always exist. But things changed and standards changed. Automatically pouncing on any idea that's possibly outside current standards at this point comes off as not value added whatsoever. It defeats the purpose of the forums. Maybe its one massive reason they're not as active as the past. Who knows.

Hopefully this will be the last reply in regards to zombie-mode rebuttals. I just wish to see some imagination take foot and sweep out the status quo groupthink.

Post #: 24

10/14/2021 3:35:06

PD
Member

Nobody here is or has suggested that we stick ourselves to perfection to "balance", whatever that even means. What's being said is that we're trying to use as a general measuring stick the guiding principles that Legendary Ash has thankfully written out into numbers (which I was about to try to do as well, but I'm not that great with AQ numbers). There are indeed problems with the 20-turn model that has been more or less the gold standard of AQ design for the better part of a decade since the formalization of The Sweep. But using the 20-turn model as a guide provides the best sense of handling design space for the game. As far as I'm aware (and of everyone else), we haven't deviated from the 20-turn model since it's been used. What "standard" has changed, is really our expectations. Admittingly, the way we've gotten to this point of the game's "balance" is doing exactly that - testing the limits of that 20-turn model, or outright bending or even breaking of it has resulted in less-than-favorable outcomes by constantly demanding things that either match or surpass our expectations.

And I have to say on that prior thought, the phrase "design space" has been thrown around quite a bit as of late (1 shot for every mention of this, we'll see how my liver handles that!). But this phrase also serves an underlying but important purpose. Every time that AQ makes a new release, it has to make a design about what to do, how, and why. It has to take into consideration what has been done, what they want to do, and what can they do. You can think of this concept like laying down tracks and hammering down the spikes. What's done today affects what's possible in the future. The 20-turn model, for all its flaws ensures that we're laying tracks and spikes in a reasonable matter. Without considerations, we'd be liable to making really questionable decisions that could possibly make the dev's jobs harder than it need be by implementing a rash design choice that would have bad consequences later. It's a fragile process in short.

There have been talks here and there to re-orient the 20-turn model into something else in light of all the knowledge that has been revealed to us. But consider the alternative scenario where we don't have some guiding principles to inform our decisions. We'd be back where we started which for all the fun shenanigans that was Pre-Sweep AQ, it was not fun for those whom weren't taking advantage of the gaps in design. If there's a "dogma" that exists now, it's because the community has a better sense of everything and what to do with the knowledge that has been gained over the better parts of a decade. In the days of yesteryear before our better-informed decisionmaking there was a definite meta (Heal Loop Tanky Beast Mages!) that existed because of the lack of informed decision-making. Our "dogma" (which really, it's not, it's knowledge) doesn't single-mindedly stick us to truisms. It actually does the opposite - it removes ignorance, and rectifies the gaps and inequities that would have stayed hidden or been deemed un-proveable statements. It by accepting those axioms, allows us relative positive freedom of design so long as we continue to abide by those said axioms which exactly is the purpose of the 20-turn model. And for all the problematic interactions that do exist, the results show - build parity is *way* better than it was in the past and we have nothing to thank but our informed design principles for that.

As for the comment around Math - philosophically speaking yes. Numbers and expression and like can be re-jiggered around, but in general is governed by axioms and rules (No, we're NOT going to talk about Godel's Incompleteness Theorems today). If you're going to argue for said re-jiggering, you have to to prove that said re-jiggering is provable to the original stated axiom(s). Otherwise, that's not really Math. That's just a value statement.

As for the general comments about SP, it should be said we're still in a state of flux with all the intended changes. I suspect once the most problematic interactions are fixed (PR, resource loops, quickcast stacking), that we'll get a clearer picture of where everything stands and what adjustments we need to do. I still give my thanks to the staff for fixing this, and look forward to more essential updates and fixes down the road. We desperately need them if we're going to talk about the need for a functional product down the road.

< Message edited by PD -- 10/14/2021 3:54:10 >

Post #: 25

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Eclipsed dragonlord weapons no longer regenning Sp/MP

Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

Icon Legend

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Forum Content Copyright © 2018 Artix Entertainment, LLC.

"AdventureQuest", "DragonFable", "MechQuest", "EpicDuel", "BattleOn.com", "AdventureQuest Worlds", "Artix Entertainment"
and all game character names are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Artix Entertainment, LLC. All rights are reserved.
PRIVACY POLICY