RE: =AQ= Grand Giftmaster Prizes


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

RE: =AQ= Grand Giftmaster Prizes

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= Grand Giftmaster Prizes

Page 3 of 3

Forum Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

1/27/2026 8:27:50

Lorekeeper
And Pun-isher

@Aura Knight: And a few others*:

Please read what I actually posted. If you read even the first paragraph, you can see what actually happened and that this was not done in response to any complaints. There is no "monopoly" over game standards by a third party; nor even over any sort of feedback. This has been explained repeatedly in general and to you specifically: Mechanical feedback that strives to follow the way the game mechanics already work is inherently easier and faster to work with. Your repeated open rejection of the official staff explanation for how balance standards are applied is your own prerogative. However, when choosing to reject the official information on how a system is run, it's the height of rudeness to then enter discussions with other such explanations to ignore them too and then repeatedly present the same conspiracy theory in place of the given answers.

The forum rules have not vanished on account of our error. This is not a thread for conspiracy theories, political hot takes, and other flagrant rule breaking. Locking the thread until a moderator can review it.

The lack of forum etiquette needs to be swiftly brushed up on. Please make sure to follow the forum rules here. I'll be reaching out to a few of you via pm shortly, to ensure you receive a personal copy to adhere to. ~Anim

In the meantime before this gets unlocked. I highly advise all to read, or re-read, LoreKeeper's posts on this matter. ~Anim

Reopen! If you want to give feedback that's fine. Do so constructively, focussing on the release rather than targeting anyone else please. If you're unsure how to do so please read this guide by Scakk!

Please note disparaging comments towards others will not be tolerated.~Anim

< Message edited by AnimalKing -- 1/29/2026 16:17:24 >

Post #: 51

1/29/2026 22:29:41

Dardiel
Member

I'd like to thank staff for their clear communication here, and their attempts to make everybody happy. For the updating of the giftmaster rules I'm curious to see whether the clarifications end up restricting options or expanding on what people thought was possible. I would also like to suggest that if the rules are posted ahead of time, then there can be a chance for players to ask questions and get potential edge cases figured out before they become a problem that needs retroactive fixing.

Post #: 52

1/29/2026 23:10:27

kibouemon
Member

Kinda weird it supposedly took so long to realize you pushed the update early even though staff already agreed on the items with the giftmasters to the point of them getting fully coded into the game. If I didn't know any better this almost looked like trying to placate the loud minority of chronic complainers

Post #: 53

1/30/2026 13:54:02

ichigohatake
Member

Hey, I am Orihime, the creator of Cataclysm.

I initially wanted to clone Big Dictionary, but decided against it after the staff mentioned how it would be nerfed (not just for me but for everyone who owns it). Then I decided to choose Warcaster and was told it was a great choice because of how it's already been through recent balance changes.

I don't understand why my weapon has to be changed, it perfectly meets the rules of being a clone, and the staff approved my choice in the first place.
It's exactly the same as any of the other Warcaster staves, and it does not have anything that the other Warcasters don't have.

I followed the rules and now I'm being punished for it. This is very upsetting and make me feel like it's not worth it to go for a dev ticket again, if it's just going to be changed on a whim.

< Message edited by ichigohatake -- 1/30/2026 14:13:58 >

AQ	Post #: 54

1/30/2026 14:25:17

Aura Knight
Member

The fix to warcaster was implemented with the update it got. It's definitely confusing as to why it again needs a rework. If all desirable items become targets for change why would anyone request the good stuff? I think the restrictions placed here need complete removal. Players should decide.

AQW

Post #: 55

1/30/2026 20:08:55

Singularity
Member

ugh the weapons are so awesome in my single player game please leave it

Post #: 56

1/31/2026 1:46:12

Dardiel
Member

At the behest of 1 (one) person prodding me to post it, I'll add a new opinion that may or may not be worth considering:

Wrath is a hybrid item, and hybrid items are weak, so Wrath should be buffed to become a new and proper hybrid precedent.

My premise here is looking at what you give up for taking two mainstats, and what you gain from it. I'll use CHA as the sample secondary stat because it's the most directly linked to actual value numbers.

In theory, CHA gives +50% pet damage; that's easy, it's valued at 20% melee. By having INT and another mainstat, you switch from an expected rotation of 4 200% melee spells + 16 75% melee attacks (2000% melee, aka 100%/turn) to 4 200% melee spells + 16 100% melee attacks (2400% melee, aka 120%/turn). Wow how convenient, the numbers are the same and therefore INT hybrid is balance.

But absolutely no it is not because
- Pet accuracy is also half based on CHA, so the remaining 20% is actually only 10% because you're doing half damage at half accuracy.
- Guests are free value for CHA users, getting another 15% melee for turn (outputting 45% at a cost of 30%)

Therefore CHA gives 45% melee per turn and not 20%, therefore INT hybrids are currently lacking 25% melee per turn in value.
STR+DEX hybrids are even worse off because their turn structure doesn't change at all, so they're lacking the full 45% melee per turn.

(and for what it's worth, END is around 45% melee/turn as well; 348 HP is 100% melee and 250 END gives 2895 which makes 41.6% melee; except that's basically double HP and therefore 20 turns of survival with 20 turns being 2000% melee so END could also be argued at 137% melee per turn. So if anything I'm picking the extremely low number)

There is one problem I'd like to pre-emptively avoid though, which is running multiple hybrid items simultaneously and running a single one simultaneously. If every hybrid item gets 25/45% melee per turn, 2+ items is immediately way too strong; but if it's divided among item classes you immediately reduce diversity to basically nothing and hybrids are all weaker whenever they aren't using hybrid items.

I propose that any item with a hybrid component would have some scaling boost attached to it, and (similar to Warwolf passive charge scaling) the player's boost is divided among their hybrid items to ensure they always get exactly 25/45% melee in value per turn.

Alternatively, there could be a "hybrid style bonus" that ensures the player gains that bonus value regardless of items; this would likely be more balanced, but potentially harder to design since you'd be adding a mechanic to players rather than just increasing the power budget that items were going to be spending anyway.

For Wrath itself, its hybrid bonus is: "each successful weapon hit grants your next offensive spell [5% melee affected by math for accuracy and hit count]".

That's not even 5% per turn since the expectation for an INT hybrid is 16 attacks not 20; so it's only giving 4% melee right now out of 25.

The proposal for a new hybrid bonus on wrath would increase the % melee from 4 to 25, which after re-applying the hitcount and accuracy math makes it:

31.25/0.85*hits/attempts % melee

(I swapped it from hits/2 to hits/attempts because it's 2026 and we gotta stop just giving people free double value)

Everybody is more than welcome to yell at me about why the math is bad; maybe we'll stumble across some good math on the way.

Post #: 57

1/31/2026 2:25:50

Jakau Ryuu
Member

I ain't gonna yell at least, that's a refreshingly intriguing set of ideas and the math makes enough sense at a glance to my insomnia-addled brain. I personally find the concept of Hybrid style bonuses more compelling than trying to get some sort of hybrid cross-item interaction thing going, in that it would be more consistent across characters and potentially faster to see fully implemented than waiting for entire inventories' worth of items to be designed or redesigned to meet some experimental new standard... but it would be interesting to see what such an item could look like as a sort of testing ground were that approach considered. Would help further unify the weapon's two halves as well, and... hey, if folks want these things to be strong, that would inarguably be a straight buff to one of them in keeping with its initial flavor.

Would create a lot more work for the team than expected, though, and things are already rather chaotic as it is without this one cursed contest casting such a potentially leagues-long shadow over the game's future. Gotdang weather and human frailty....

< Message edited by Jakau Ryuu -- 1/31/2026 2:29:57 >

AQW

Post #: 58

1/31/2026 4:00:59

Anointed One
Member

Hello,
As there has been conflicting information posted here and via the Discords, I would kindly like to request for The Hollow Roaming to provide a statement here on what is the finalized decision for each item to prevent confusion amongst the players and help those players who are still waiting on buying the items.

I know everyone has an opinion here but I would strongly urge the staff to prioritize the decisions and reasoning given by the Giftmasters for their respective items over the other players. It makes me think less of the game and the contest if the decisions of the Giftmasters who have not only spent thousands of dollars on said items but have also graciously chosen to share it with the public can be so easily overwritten by the opinions of several non-winners.

If the people here are truly concerned about staff's workload then we should let them leave the items as they currently are instead of asking them to go back and rework them again. As I understand, the items have already been made to the Giftmasters' satisfaction as well as many other players.

Absolutely no one is asking staff to go back and update all the old items whenever a new standard or precedent is set, this is just part of normal game progression. Staff does not need to feel pressured about this.

Mathematically, it checks out but logically it doesn't. A Mage's typical playstyle is to frontload all of the damage (i.e spellcasting). This would be the same for Hybrids. There is no point to have the buff to spells after melee attacks because you would only rely on the melee attack after running out of mana.

I am not against the idea of buffing Hybridization items but only if the Giftmaster (Gwen) supports this idea for her item as well.

Thank you.

Post #: 59

1/31/2026 12:03:29

RobynJoanne
Member

As the one person in question:
There are very few Hybrid items in the game, likely because they have yet to be justified sufficiently. That does not mean that Hybrids are unpopular, but they do have relatively few specific releases. The existing Hybrid items primarily consist of items that use MP but are not Magic items, which include Wrath, and Hybrid stats items. The latter items already need a buff due to being underpowered by any standard. The former are even fewer in number.

For the purposes of this specific release, if Wrath were to be based on a new standard, then it would need fewer changes to be mathematically balanced. That is why I consider it a useful topic to consider. Currently, Wrath has a Spell Boost paid for with EleVuln that likely needs an x1.4 Omni-Elemental penalty. Since it pays 20% Melee for this boost, the x1.4 increases this by 8% Melee. It has two Hybrid 5% Melee bonuses, one in its Weapon hit Spell Boost effect, and one for its Spell Compression. That is 18% Melee instead of the current 5% Melee Hybrids get. That 5% is for all effects that scale off 2+ stats. This is a standard that has problems, because there is obviously a logical and mathematical difference between Str/Dex and Str/Int as builds, yet we consider items that would use these stats identical in terms of penalty. This is why Dardiel's post is necessary. Regarding the Weapon Hit Spell Boost in question, Dardiel is also correct that it only gives a bonus for 16 turns in total and must be buffed.

Dardiel's proposal for Hybrid bonuses in general is mechanically complex but accurate. Realistically, it is likely preferable to make an "expected" number of Hybrid items a Hybrid would use and base a single number on that for simplicity. Players use an Armor, Weapon, Shield, and Pet as expected, but Miscs are practically expected, while Pets should not factor into a point on Player effects. In that case, we can "expect" Hybrids to use two Hybrid items and give 12.5% to Str or Dex/Int Hybrid items and 22.5% to Str/Dex items. This is where I differ from Dardiel's perspective. My focus is on minimizing the number of changes to Wrath in total, while Dardiel's is on changing one specific effect.

As an addendum that is unrelated to the Hybrid point:
Warcaster's current balance is fundamentally wrong. It pays x1.5 cost as a handwave, but the Omni-Elemental penalty, the generally highest penalty, is only x1.4 cost. It is currently weaker than it should be. The way Warcaster likely should work is paying x1.4 cost and scaling off the casted Spell's Element. Both changes are buffs. The cost would be lower than it currently is, and the scaling would be more beneficial (generally, you want to scale off the Spell's Element instead of a fixed one, since that Spell Element is more likely to be optimal. That's why you are using that Spell). This is why we need mathematical discussions: changes are not necessarily buffs or nerfs, and we need to evaluate the numbers to know which is the case. Reflexively rejecting change leads to the aversion of buffs.

< Message edited by RobynJoanne -- 1/31/2026 12:10:07 >

Post #: 60

1/31/2026 12:18:30

icetears
Member

I thought wrath on release was quite reasonable with draw mana and boost on spell hits. The reason they were gone was because we were comparing it to Silas in order to justify the item. Presently wrath do feel weak on a practical use case as a hybrid weapon. Maybe we can fuel mp to boost on spell hits?

Post #: 61

1/31/2026 12:29:17

CH4OT1C!
Member

I would question the above justification for that level of a hybrid bonus on a mathematical basis too:

quote:

But absolutely no it is not because
- Pet accuracy is also half based on CHA, so the remaining 20% is actually only 10% because you're doing half damage at half accuracy.
- Guests are free value for CHA users, getting another 15% melee for turn (outputting 45% at a cost of 30%)

While neither of these statements are incorrect, they don't reflect the balance assumptions of these items. Pets are worth 20% Melee under the player turn model; it's why several of us argued that Pet accuracy should be entirely scaled with mainstat during the stat revamp. Similarly, Guests aren't a component of the player turn model at all; instead, they're treated as skills. Since skills can scale on any stat, they can be ruled out entirely. Is it fair? Probably not, but it is how the balance assumptions currently operate.

That leaves:

quote:

(and for what it's worth, END is around 45% melee/turn as well; 348 HP is 100% melee and 250 END gives 2895 which makes 41.6% melee; except that's basically double HP and therefore 20 turns of survival with 20 turns being 2000% melee so END could also be argued at 137% melee per turn. So if anything I'm picking the extremely low number)

I would disagree with the thrust of this point, and instead argue that it proves END is grossly overpowered and shouldn't be used to make a balance-related case. The 41.6% is more a coincidence than anything else. Following through, the former valuation uses outgoing HP costs rather than the incoming value, which is what the player turn model is valued on. Following the same format, and using the same calculation as what I assume @Dardiel has used:

quote:

2895/[2958/1.4/20]/20*100 (the value of 100% Melee in HP) = ~137% Melee per turn.

There are a number of other ways you could do this; the main point consistent with all of them is that the HP provided by END falls outside of what any stat should provide (though again, you do make an absolutely valid point that END provides more than what is assumed).

I am supportive of a re-evaluation of the 'hybrid bonus'. I do, after all, recognise that the reason these points were raised is to highlight the difference between balance assumptions and reality in-game. I'm just not convinced by the way it's executed here.

< Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 2/1/2026 6:36:24 >

AQ	Post #: 62

2/2/2026 5:54:56

KhalJJ
Member

*editing to add - refreshing to see a relaxed take on the multi-element spellboosting point, and interesting too - ty to RobynJoanne.

For context, these are rewards for essentially paying 1000$+ . That is how much these items actually cost.

Firstly, it is undeniable that pushback/player feedback caused these changes to happen when they happened (ie. promptly, which as an aside, functionally means they *may never have happened otherwise* due to current overwork). I’m not sure arguments really even have to be made here, but in case:

- how would staff even know it was a problem? If they don’t clock it sufficiently in the 5 months before release to enable them to act on it in time, they were never going to anyway, without the wider player feedback.

- To further outline the point, to use warcaster as a pertinent example of this, only warcaster was changed at that point in time (GBI), certainly because of all the hot air around it, despite the fact that I specifically brought up 4 other weapons in the same category, at the same time, and none of those were changed at the time (because there was no further discussion around them) and only one has been changed since (Carnax Cneeboard, to my knowledge) presumably because I kept making a fuss about them (PM-ing staff), and even now it is presumably still *wrong* in some people’s/staff’s? view, given it has the same change as warcaster (extra SP cost for off-element), it hasn’t been changed further or even discussed further, because no one is making a big enough noise. I think this is workable for most items/problems - noise is a useful proxy for importance of the problem, and when you have such limited time/resources this can be a fine method, and this has been demonstrably the case for many many items/releases over the past years. It is however completely unacceptable for giftmaster items.

- Cataclysm specifically was communicated as having no balance issues, to the respective donor, pre-release. Again the explanation for this is that that communication was a mistake, but this feeds into the arguments above.

You can argue that this player feedback helped, in a correct manner, to find bugs or faulty balance interpretations, at which point this becomes somewhat circular, and leads into the points I make below, but namely that staff's take on balance should hold more weight than player's, extra care should be taken for these high value items, and if any new balance standards are created for these, even more caution should be shown, with a commitment to not roll this back without heavy consideration (ie. more than the few days it took for Wrath to be changed)

Secondly, onto the giftmaster item miscommunications, for full context going over the the 2024 issues here:

If we take the staff response at maximum best faith reading: (quoted from Discord as I did not find an official forums response)
- Gwen’s item was the source of some controversy, and ultimately it was stated to have been released in an erroneous state (pending changes to base item not applied), but allowed to remain as released.
- it was stated “The old discussion on changes slipped Kam because he was working late” (quote from staff)
- And “in September (2024), Hollow said they were considering nerfs but hadn't decided” (quote from Gwen) - then released in January
- So they had ~4 months to quality check, and discuss with Gwen over her item, communicating over any expected changes, and clearly communicate this within the team+discuss known issues, but it came down to Kam forgetting on the day of release due to overwork.

Okay, so ultimately just a catastrophic communications error/staff over-work issue.

This year, the official response states that “Early on Saturday, the confirmation that the gifting contest items were ready for release was erroneously sent out early, while discussion about balance concerns and other errors in the WIP versions was still actively in progress”

Best case, and taken at face value, I struggle to comprehend what is going on behind the scenes. This is a beyond unacceptable mistake to make in the context - the same mistake, happening to the *same person*, again.

- Why is there still no effective quality control for the most high profile, high value process? Okay, staffing is the answer, but this doesn’t suffice given the situation last year and the clear lack of any sufficient changes being made.
- How has it possibly been allowed to happen again *to the same donor*?
- Why are these internal discussions occurring at that stated time, 2 days post usual release time? Given the extent of time before hand, and the necessity of making a decision on these known issues before the item is actually coded?
- Who has the final say as to releases going live?

Suggested check for future:
“Kam/coder, have you double checked with *EVERY* member of staff regarding the balance of your item? If no, it CANNOT BE RELEASED. if you answer yes, we are not changing this post release. (notwithstanding bugs in implementation deviating from the items info sub, shared with donor)” - if this means the release is delayed, this is definitely still preferable imo, for Giftmaster releases specifically. This is my best attempt to be constructive.

I’d also point out that currently “Rewards released in a state that is not representative of what a deliberate finished product would have looked like” doesn’t add weight to any conclusions or arguments, as this is (currently) the case with every release due to staff overload, which they have my sympathy for.

It is particularly sad, given the potential positives (eg. Teryle updating GSS) that the best option is for giftmasters to keep their items private. In the absence of improved staff communications/protocols, I would strongly advise any future giftmasters not to take the risk.

Tldr;
1) It is inarguable that changes occurred due to player feedback, on some level
2) better release control is needed for these events, see my suggestion above
3) Kneejerk changes in this context are extremely damaging - a few days to decide to change wrath after a creation period of 5 months is not acceptable
4) Giftmasters are currently incentivised not to share their items - I would currently recommend this, but I'd like this to change

< Message edited by KhalJJ -- 2/2/2026 10:23:07 >

Post #: 63

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= Grand Giftmaster Prizes

Page 3 of 3

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