Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

Compensation for Random Elements

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Game Balance Issues >> Compensation for Random Elements
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
7/20/2024 5:57:01   
CH4OT1C!
Member

The recent release of Chromatic Champion Pulverizer has highlighted an inconsistency that has persisted for years. This inconsistency is the main subject of this GBI.

To compensate for an attack that deals random elemental damage (shifting among the 8 standard elements), items normally receive a *132/109 modifier (either to their damage or to something else). This is slightly different with the new weapon (which deals *1/1.1 damage), but this is because its random elements also include Void and Harm. As far as I'm aware, the staff have never explained precisely why either modifier is accurate.

The random element compensation bonus has been around for a long time; after a quick search, the earliest item I could find that used it was Changing Staff, pushes its development back to 2012 at minimum (due to the post edit). Despite cycling through all the elements, Elemental Unity does not include it, suggesting the modifier could have been developed as early as 2008-9. This places it in the early days of the sweep, when mechanics were heavily subject to change and many of the base assumptions we now take for granted did not apply.

The assumed resistances of a monster are currently:

quote:

Base: 70%
Ally: 85%
Neutral: 100%
Poor: 115%
Opposed: 130%
Void: 200%
Harm: 100%


Each element in a random element attack is equally likely to occur, meaning we don't need to weight any of the ingoing resistances when calculating an average. Applying this both to the standard 8 elements and the new weapon:

quote:

(70 + 85 + 85 + 100 + 100 + 115 + 115 + 130) / 8 = average 100% resistances
(70 + 85 + 85 + 100 + 100 + 115 + 115 + 130 + 200 + 100) / 10 = average 110% resistances


These figures provide a justification for why the new weapon deals *1/1.1 damage; if the new weapon were assumed to be striking against 100% resistances like a harm item, the modifier would bridge the resistance gap. However, this approach is entirely inconsistent with the *132/109 modifier applied to standard random element weapons, since they already strike against 100% resistances. In this scenario, there'd be no need to apply a bonus at all! Moreover, even if we did apply the bonus, the attacks strike against the equivalent of 121% resistances, lower than the optimal 130% resistances the player is assumed to strike.

There are multiple ways to resolve this inconsistency:
1) We can assume the penalty is supposed to bridge the gap between average resistance and the optimal 130% value. If so, random element weapons should deal *1.3 damage (not *132/109) and the new weapon should deal *1.18 damage. However, there is an issue - harm attacks strike against 100% resistances, deviating from the 130% assumed resistance value. Harm attacks have always been strange in that they strike against suboptimal resistances, but also receive a further 'always useful' penalty despite that. That's a subject for a different GBI, but I raise it here because this option would strengthen the case that the current status of harm items should be reviewed.
2) These attacks can be treated like harm (i.e. striking against 100% resistances). This justifies the multiplier of the current weapon, but means that all items with the *132/109 modifier are overpowered and thus require nerfing. It's also worth mentioning that, despite their apparent overwhelming strength, random element items aren't typically favoured by hardcore players.

Due to logistical constraints, neither of these solutions could be implemented immediately - retroactive adjustments to older items would be needed regardless of which option is taken. It is also possible that rather than being compensated relative to 130% Resistance, it could be relative to 130*0.9 resistances due to the random element nature of the attack.


Thanks to @gavers for the help with this GBI




Edit: For the Mana Golem, the numbers would be:
quote:

(130 + 115 + 115 + 100 + 100 + 85 + 85 + 70 + 100 + -100) / 10 = average 80% resistances

As such, the modifier would need to be either *1.25 (if hitting like harm) or *1.625 (if hitting against optimal 130% resistances)

For this same reason, we could also modify the compensation for suboptimal elements:
quote:

Ally: *1.06 (both elements) or *26/23 (one element)
Neutral: *1.15 (both element) or *1.3 (one element)
Poor: *1.21 (both elements) or *26/17 (one element)
Opposed: *1.3 (both elements) or *13/7 (one element)


< Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 7/20/2024 13:53:46 >
AQ  Post #: 1
7/20/2024 7:43:05   
Sapphire
Member

I'm not the math expert in terms of AQ balance, but to me it feels like random elements gaining a 132/109 'bonus" is actually a penalty.

If standard assumptions are 130% to the monster's worst element, and the spread averages to 100%, wouldn't I rather just use the element that's going to be hitting versus 130% for 130% damage rather than playing a RNG game that's only going to average to 121% (132/109)?

Random element should not be a penalty. It should gain a bonus that exceeds hitting against 130% on average due to the randomness of it. I could hit 70% and 85% mostly, making using it a bad decision.

This bonus should start at assumptions...meaning it is assumed you will target 130% resist. SO the starting point IMO should be +130%. However, because it chooses random elements, then the following options should be the case:

If the item is choosing between the 8 standard elements only, then it should gain an additional 1/8 on top. Thats +12.5%. So 130*12.5%=146.25% damage bonus for multi element when targeting the 8 standard elements.

If the item is choosing between the 8 standard elements plus harm, then it should gain an additional 1/9 on top. That's +11.11%. So 144.44% damage bonus for multi element +harm .

If the item is choosing between the 8 standard elements plus harm and Void, this alters things a bit more. We get an average resist spread higher than 100% when including void's 200%. This means 110% average instead of 100%. So Instead of a starter boost of 130% (130/100) like the other two, here we start at 130/110=118%. Then we add on a 1/10 to represent the 10 elements it randomly chooses, and this becomes +129.8% when void is included

8 standard-> 146.25%
8 standard+harm->144.44%
8 standard+harm+void=129.8%

My approach and math might be off, but seems logical to me until someone convinces me differently

Post #: 2
7/20/2024 13:12:45   
Grace Xisthrith
Member
 

I'm all for buffing randomization in game, I think more randomization being viable would be fun. The below stuff is using the built in monster assumptions resistance spreads, IE, it doesn't account for monsters that don't use it (until I go into that later)

However, if I'm understanding this proposal correctly, the goal is to make random weapon elements (potentially) deal 130% damage baseline, like you'd expect a normal weapon to do where you're able to pick the monster's weakest resistance and only attack with that.

I think making random element weapons deal assumed damage (130%) would be kinda strong, maybe too strong. An easy example is, if a random element weapon always does on average 130% damage, a player wouldn't need normal elemental weapons, they could just use the random element one and run 7 utility weapons, their expected damage output would be the same. Another issue I see is that random element weapons also apply their random element bonus to their utility or status effects they use. They should do this, it makes perfect sense, but that already leads to strong mechanics (rainbow twilly board, Nith's Fang (imagine it was a zero proc just pretend teehee)) right now, so if the multiplier were instead 1.3x, those utility and status weapons would become even stronger. I'm having trouble explaining this as well as I'd like, so I'll use an example with Heroic Titan's Melee Weapon.
-Heroic Titan's fist basically pays 100% melee (50% in damage, 50% in resources) to inflict 100% melee in burn per hit. If it was instead random element (and inflicted say, prismatic burn, like several random element weapons), it would have a 1.3x multiplier on the status, so it would get 130% melee per hit, capping out at 520% melee output instead of Heroic Titan's 400% melee. That's just another way of saying that status and utility weapons would be 1.3x stronger instead of ~1.2x stronger, but it's a significant jump to make, in my opinion.

So, super short, giving random element gear a 1.3x multiplier is a lot, even if you just go by assumed monster resistances.

Now if you take into account not assumed monster resistances, there's a lot of cases where these weapons would become really crazy. Tibbles is a boss with balanced resistances, so is voidwraith, so are (maybe? My memory is foggy) silk screamers, sugar gobbler (not balanced but closer to the point I think random element would be better than wind), and then some different but same outcome examples are void dragons, any primordial / godscourge boss, where resistances are very different from monster assumptions. In these circumstances, random element weapons are already really good, and we have other random element effects (like the chromatic imbue, prismatic burn, 8 element spells use with status magestaves) that are already really good for these circumstances now, they'd be even better with a stronger multiplier.

So, in short, there's currently situations now where random element weapons are already really good. Some of the situations I listed above are certainly debatable, and come with tradeoffs, but a stronger random element modifier would make these situations for rainbow elements even more better than normal single element options than they already are.

Final note, I think that realistically, upping the random element bonus to 1.3x is not a big powercreep leap. I'm also pretty sure there aren't more than 20 random element effects on modern standards, so it probably wouldn't be a huge effort to update them one by one, relative to some other proposals in the GBI section. Also, I just advocated for giving a compensation boost to random effects in AQ in a recent GBI, so IDK why I'm stuck on this, but I think random element weapons shouldn't be as good at base for damage as picking a single element
AQ  Post #: 3
7/20/2024 14:45:30   
Sapphire
Member

In my opinion, you can't base balance standards using assumed stuff for a number of ideas, then take this idea and say "but versus some non-standard resist spreads this becomes too strong". The issue with that is you can make the exact opposite argument versus monsters who might have negative resists here and there, or 0.

I think the only course of action is to continue to base this on standard assumptions. I think it fully makes sense to use 130% buff at east as a baseline, but I think a further amount on top makes sense to adjust for RNG.
Post #: 4
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Game Balance Issues >> Compensation for Random Elements
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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition