Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

RE: =AQ= PREVIEW: Ironhoof Set Mechanics

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= PREVIEW: Ironhoof Set Mechanics
Page 2 of 2<12
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
7/23/2025 18:55:07   
  Lorekeeper
And Pun-isher

 

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.
Post #: 26
7/23/2025 19:51:56   
Rastaban
Member
 

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.
Post #: 27
7/24/2025 2:01:35   
  Lorekeeper
And Pun-isher

 

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.
Post #: 28
7/24/2025 10:36:24   
Dardiel
Member

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)
Post #: 29
7/24/2025 15:25:07   
Grace Xisthrith
Member
 

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.

AQ  Post #: 30
7/24/2025 17:54:06   
  Lorekeeper
And Pun-isher

 

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.
Post #: 31
7/25/2025 14:56:31   
Rastaban
Member
 

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.
Post #: 32
7/25/2025 16:47:28   
CarrionSpike
Helpful


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)
Post #: 33
7/25/2025 18:42:22   
  Lorekeeper
And Pun-isher

 

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.
Post #: 34
7/25/2025 18:57:19   
Rastaban
Member
 

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.

< Message edited by Rastaban -- 7/25/2025 20:46:00 >
Post #: 35
7/26/2025 1:28:40   
CH4OT1C!
Member

The assumed ability of a monster to resist Celerity infliction has always been a part of the status' cost formula.
AQ  Post #: 36
7/27/2025 0:59:20   
Dardiel
Member

Just in case it's important to bring up, the shield's turn skip would likely need to account for the player's Strength/Dexterity to determine how many charges it gives. Eg 75% melee with no Strength or Dexterity, up to 100% at 250 of either
Post #: 37
7/27/2025 10:08:09   
Telcontar Arvedui I
Member

My original post #10 contains opinions on the first iteration of the set (archived in @Lorekeeper's post #20) so here's my take on the second iteration!

But first, I'd like to say that I am particularly, pleasantly surprised with the Shield and Misc Item. I originally advocated for them to be a 2-piece combo, but this 2nd iteration did not take in my suggestion. Instead, these 2 items went in completely different directions, offering minimal synergy between them - but gave me hope that each could stand alone and turn Criticality Matrix into an independent component of the user's LS-related playstyle. The Shield's turn-skip feels like a good boon for players who do not suffer too much from turn-skipping (eg. CHA pet-centric builds with Optico), while the Misc hopefully can prove to be sufficient on its own to stack Criticality Matrix via offensive pressure (I am particularly intrigued by the possibility of the SP-fueled extra-hit being able to LS). Granted, 4k-donors can still benefit from better LS Manipulation by equipping both pieces at the same time.

Aside from the major issue I want to bring up below, everything looks fine by me, or is covered by @Dardiel's post #23.

* * * * * * * *

Regarding on-crit SP refunds on the weapon and FO armour passive, IMO the refunds mechanic is kind of awkward in that, due to @Lorekeeper's wording as of this post, I'm not sure about the extent of the refund. It could be, for example, that the weapons' clickable skill cost 50 %Melee, and then a 5 %Melee cost is tacked on, where
  • it can heal up to 50 %Melee depending on on-crit formula, resulting in an overall 5 %Melee cost if the player secures all LS hits, or
  • the refund only goes up to the aforementioned 5 %Melee tacked-on cost if all hits are LS.

    If it's the latter then I'm sure a lot of players would find it unappealing, as it at best showcases Lucky Strikes on-screen without any net value to the player, at worst pays extra SP for nothing. If it's the former, where players can potentially refund more than that of the additional cost (up to the whole SP cost of the skill/toggle), then I think it will encourage maximum LS-rate investment, but shunts the problem towards resource economy given that the weapons' clickable skill and the armour's FO toggle should not cost too much in the first place. So instead, I would like to propose that the "additional SP cost for on-crit refund effect" on the weapons and armour is replaced with "additional SP cost for (not-permanent?) Hypercrit, where the player gets +3.33% LS Rate in addition to extra LS damage".

    The few factors that were on my mind when I make this proposal:
  • Hypercrit is thematically tied to LS, therefore it fits the set very well, particularly complementing the LS Manipulation aspect.
  • Hypercrit can also act as the second placeholder condition that Prime Devastator consumes to deal True Void damage.

    Due to the 30-capped-stacks requirement, Prime Devastator is already looking at consuming 300 %Melee in Criticality Matrix (Unless I incorrectly calculated the %Melee value of Crit Matrix stacks, in which case skip this whole paragraph) when it's baseline output is considered to be 400 %Melee, being at skill-level power (200 %Melee) multiplied by 2 (because of True Void). Even if devs copy Void Empress' Vengeance's code and give Prime Devastator an Overcharged baseline, it would not require much %Melee value from Hypercrit to pick up the slack. My theory is that Hypercrit (or any secondary placeholder condition, for that matter) should only need (much) less than 100 %Melee in value, assuming Prime Devastator still has a resource cost. This would help bring down the cost-per-cast for Hypercrit infliction, particularly when considering that Prime Devastator's Void condition is meant to be fulfilled once every 5 turns. To further extrapolate my suggestion, IMO the Hypercrit condition can be, in @Mananite's words, trivially easy enough to fulfil, to the point where non-Ironhoof sources of Hypercrit are perfectly acceptable.
  • AQ  Post #: 38
    7/27/2025 10:28:40   
      Lorekeeper
    And Pun-isher

     

    My apologies for the lack of clarity. The mechanical concept uses the term refund instead of healing in order to imply that it wouldn't go above the total cost of the skill regardless of other modifiers. If players would prefer hypercrit over the refund mechanic, that can be worked in instead, though we are just about to have to close feedback on this set to work on final implementation.
    Post #: 39
    7/27/2025 11:55:11   
    Dreiko Shadrack
    Member

    Having had it brought up I did find it odd in retrospect that an LS focused set did not have the hypercritical status as a component effect on it, I do feel that it fits in better than the refund mechanic overall. The weapon concept did feel, to me at least, the most out of place and least desirable within the context of the set.
    AQ DF MQ  Post #: 40
    7/27/2025 13:03:20   
    Dardiel
    Member

    I would support Hypercritical being added instead of the SP refund; that would also potentially go with the suggestion for the offensive Criticality generators to overflow into Hypercritical.
    Post #: 41
    7/28/2025 13:34:53   
    Aura Knight
    Member

    It'll be interesting how these items slot in as an introduction to a coming change for luck. Shield update sounds like it'll play a huge role overall and misc doesn't sound too bad though preferentially it'd be way nicer as a generic booster. Those are the only items I'll have but will toss in support for hypercrit vs sp refund which was brought up.

    As we've reached the final week of this event the excitement of experiencing something new is high. It's always interesting to adapt to change. I can only hope it's easy to get used to and that these items help with that.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 42
    7/30/2025 17:26:34   
    Sylveonxy123
    Member

    Seems i might be in the minority here? But personally I wish we kept the 1st form of the set (excluding the shield), it had really unique mechanics with it playing with unlucky which now is back to being a near useless effect. And making celerity a chance and no longer guaranteed makes its comparison to h-series harder to confirm. As the appeal b4 was that it was h-series with upside, now it just a crit oriented simple energy set. I still plan to try to hit top 50, but a lot of the stuff that had me hyped for it is no longer what it is, and its quite disappointing.
    AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 43
    7/31/2025 2:30:02   
    Yozai
    Member

    ^ Agree with Sylveonxy123 above.
    AQ  Post #: 44
    8/1/2025 8:27:51   
    JhyShy
    Member
     

    I hope the misc has boosts all elements and not just energy

    Will put more thoughts in a bit
    Post #: 45
    Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
    All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= PREVIEW: Ironhoof Set Mechanics
    Page 2 of 2<12
    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