Grace Xisthrith
Member
|
Telcontar: I agree with what Lupul posted, predicting that hypercrit will function the same as before with its crit rate simply 2/3s of what it was (assuming no item adjustments). So, dragonguard would go from 90% crit increase to 60% crit increase, and be additive. I assume there would be no change to stacking rules of the status, which are currently choose the longer duration of the status if the duration differs, and divide the power over that duration. Frostvale Crowns: Balance wise, these don't need to receive any changes (unless there's backend stuff). The crowns already funtion in a balanced fashion, if you double your damage, you halve your rate, etc. They already use the lean feature that is proposed to be added, so I'd imagine there would be no changes. General / continuing Lupul's thoughts. I truly believe the biggest issue with LS currently is that you can get excess free value because of multiplicative modifiers. For example, if you had three 2x crit modifiers (lunar hare (pretend it's 2x for simplicity), timekiller, and idk that one energy armor, it's 2.5 and additive but ignore that for simplicity), you get 10x2x2x2 = 80% crit chance, but you're only paying for a 30% crit increase. This goes even further when you use larger numbers (Lust +40%, Lunar Hare x3, timekiller x 2) and you're only paying for 70% crit rate, but you end up at 50x3x2=300% crit chance, letting you use Frostvale Crown for double crit damage, so you're getting not only 100% crit rate, but also double crit damage for what should be a 70% crit rate increase. This is why I think the additive crit rate changes are the most significant nerf, and most justified nerf, they remove a lot of the free value that was really good. Player controlled trigger / Lucky strike 1.5x value: Context for this: Lucky strike items objectively require two stats to use and take advantage of (mainstat and LUK), most items that require two stats to use get some type of power increase, usually a player controlled trigger. There are endless examples of this, often with items that have CHA, like Frogzard Board's stun having decreased stun cost because it uses a CHA save for example. There's like 14 different standards for using multiple stats on an item (especially CHA), so we can't fully base any decision on current balance precedent. That being said, almost all dual stat item standards that I know of are at least 1.5x power increase, the exceptions are higher. So, we can go with a baseline of 1.5x power increase for requiring two stats to make sense. However, I'm of two minds in general. 15% melee per turn is what lucky strikes alone gives, and that's really bad compared to CHA or END, objectively for the base performance of the stat. The status rolls portion for minor rolls can be really good or mostly useless depending on build, initiative is generally not super impactful (from luck, from armors it is) in my opinion, and Lucky breaks are super OP against many bosses. I bring this up because I think whether or not LUK deserves a player controlled trigger is decided by how much value the stat generally gives. I think without style bonuses, its value is relative to CHA and END, low at base, so giving it a 1.5x player controlled trigger for investing in two stats seems not only in line with many precedents, but reasonable if LUK could use more love, relative to CHA and END's base performance. LS damage: The LS damage scaling makes sense balance wise, however it's become a flashpoint of displeasure among some vocal players. Balance wise I have no issue with it, but it would make items like Grandad almost entirely undesirable for optimized builds, compared to items like Bloodblades, or recent more optimized bloodblades like Multimaul, Twinmaul, G-Maul, etc. I think that damage changes really won't have an impact on bossing, because 95% of bosses have damage caps or plot armor (stop using .75 clawback reminder) so the extra damage provided is mostly irrelevant, so I don't see why giving damage items a little extra value would cause a huge balance issue. The idea is basically to reward players for getting very high crit chance, and give them double expected output on crit damage modifiers. So, if you had 10% crit chance, Grandad's would provide that +200% crit damage. If you had 100% crit chance, Grandad's would provide +200% crit damage, but it's divided by crit chance, so +20% melee, EXCEPT that it has trigger which scales up with crit chance, maxing at double output, so 40% melee at 100% crit chance. I suppose you'd get 30% melee at 55% crit chance, being +45% of the +90% needed to hit 100% rate. That got convoluted, but the main idea is giving crit damage items a small amount of extra power at higher crit rates, not to make them really good, but to make them better than normal damage items if you invest heavily in LS strategies. This in my opinion wouldn't change the power of the items that much, but gives them a purpose and doesn't relegate them to worse bloodblades. Also, if getting 2x output sounds way to OP, remember that hitcount scaled items get that for free with no extra investment, and they pay much more %melee for their effects than any current crit damage modifier. CHA / Style Bonus tangent: The 1.5 player controlled trigger for 2 stats being required argument also applies to guests. This logically means that guests should get 1.5x to their output. I've been vocal about my disagreement with the implementation of style bonuses in the past, and to my knowledge, the main reason for their implementation was guests. If you use the 1.5x 2 stat requirement model for guests, then you don't need a style bonus to get them up to 60% melee output, so we could remove all style bonuses and keep guests identical to how they are now, with base 30% melee cost and 60% melee output. This would have the benefit of undoing the massive powercreep caused by the style bonuses. Obviously a tangent from the LUK topic, but I thought I'd bring it up, since we're editing stat behaviors again.
|