Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

On Guests

  		Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> On Guests
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
3/25/2022 1:56:52   
Primate Murder
Member

As Ward Point pointed out, the stat revamp thread is not intended for discussing Cha, which is fair enough. Still, it's something worth deliberating, and so I wanted to move the discussion to another thread.

Here are my thoughts on the matter:


RJ posted a comprehensive summary of the issues with guests, so, before anything else, I wanted to say thanks. It really helps.

On a personal level, I'm not a big fan of increasing the upkeep costs beyond what is sustainable with a turn's worth of sp regen. Aside from what seems like a mountain of work for the staff, it also turns guests into pseudo-spells - something you can use for a damage boost at the start of the battle, and only rarely afterwards.

Lowering overall guest damage seems like a more reasonable idea, as does giving the player some penalties.

For example, when a guest is present and active, you loose 16.6% player damage and take +(16.6/1.4)% damage from monster attacks as you concentrate on issuing orders and maintaining coordination with your ally.


Any other thoughts, ideas suggestions?
AQ DF  Post #: 1
3/25/2022 2:38:58   
dizzle
Member
 

 The only problem I see with giving the player a damage penalty when a guest is out is that it’s kinda contradictory of the booster guests which are (I would assume) money bags for the staff since they’re all URs lmao. I like the idea but after thinking about it for a minute it might not be the best option. A lot of newer items are very cleverly designed to “avoid” penalties or make the cost of an effect seem less than it really is. Kinda like twinmaul sacrificing only a few mrm for added effects. Maybe this could be another one of those situations

The whole deal with guests definitely needs to get sorted out sooner rather than later tho. I’ve said this before but pulling melee out of thin air completely breaks the balance that’s constantly being chased in this game. But, surely there’s a way to fix the guest problem that doesn’t involve 1) Killing CHA 2) a 200sp upkeep or 3) a massive decrease in damage. Having a guest out is pretty much the standard in this game regardless of the fight, build, play style etc.

< Message edited by dizzle -- 3/25/2022 2:47:08 >
AQ  Post #: 2
3/25/2022 2:55:52   
Veleqwii_Fox
Member

Well basing on the explanation given by Joanne:

quote:

Guests currently cost an upkeep of 21.875% Melee, which is 17.5% of 125%. Cha is indeed overperforming, but more specifically, guests are the problem. Legendary Ash explained the reason for this overperformance, but I'll provide another explanation. The source of the difference between a guest's output and its upkeep is Cha weapons. Cha weapons are worth 75% Melee. 25% Melee is sacrificed to be given to the guest. Because one needs a guest to deal the full 100% Melee damage, guests get a further decompression bonus. This decompression bonus is currently 13.125% even though decompression is usually only worth 5%. 21.875%+25%+13.125%=60%. This is how a guest works.


The melee unaccounted for is only 8.125% ~ 32 SP (at Level 150). I think an increase of upkeep too 118 SP is fine.

If it's still too much, maybe guests could instead get an additional 28 HP cost instead because:

quote:

you concentrate on issuing orders and maintaining coordination with your ally


and it's draining to do that. Lol

Post #: 3
3/25/2022 3:14:05   
Primate Murder
Member

"Robina, that was your cue!" "Oh? I thought you meant 'Don't worry, I've got it'".

"What was that, Mogsterio?" "A blast of eldritch magics!" "While I was still in the melee!" "Mehehe."

"I know just the spell for it!" "No, wait, Barry, do- aaargh!"

"Creature 72, why didn't you attack the way I told you to?" "Fwee?" "...ok, you get a pass."
AQ DF  Post #: 4
3/25/2022 11:16:55   
sunblaze
Member

quote:

On a personal level, I'm not a big fan of increasing the upkeep costs beyond what is sustainable with a turn's worth of sp regen. Aside from what seems like a mountain of work for the staff, it also turns guests into pseudo-spells - something you can use for a damage boost at the start of the battle, and only rarely afterwards.


Now I did read the post this discussion is based on and I get that CHA weapons break the idea that guest-cost originally had.

But aside from that:
Can someone explain me please why the original base of "Warrior: 20 rounds 100% damage "vs "4 rounds 200% and 16 rounds reduced damage" does not exactly work with guests anymore? (CHA weapons aside just for raw damage please)

My asumption was always that your guest brings you back to 20 rounds of 100% damage with the addition of optional status effects possible. (which you pay with MP or SP for)
Compared to a warrior that needs 1 less stat for same damage and can have better secondary stats.

Clarification would be appreciated.
AQ  Post #: 5
3/25/2022 12:30:17   
dizzle
Member
 

 This is my understanding of how guests work. Someone else might correct me if I’m wrong or elaborate further to help understand why it’s a problem.

The way guests work currently is that they *assume* you’re using a cha weapon which deals 75% melee as opposed to the standard player attack of 100% melee. That missing 25% is taken from the weapon and given to your guest. This is why the sp cost is so low for guest upkeep. You’re *assumed* to be sacrificing 25% weapon damage. This is problematic because there’s not enough cha weapons do validate this assumption. Not only that, but cha is a “secondary stat” meaning that you can freely invest in a mainstat, melee for example, and use a weapon that deals 100% damage while still getting getting the discounted upkeep cost for your guest. This is why it’s considered a “free” 25% melee. It doesn’t matter if you’re a mage ranger or warrior, anyone who invests in cha has a 25% melee advantage every single turn over someone who doesn’t. You can completely disregard this assumption and get full weapon damage, while still paying the discounted upkeep for your guest.

< Message edited by dizzle -- 3/25/2022 12:41:49 >
AQ  Post #: 6
3/26/2022 6:16:50   
Sapphire
Banned


 I will say right off the bat that the assumption of using a charisma weapon is fallacy and unrealistic.

In addition, charisma weapons are magic and take a75% damage hit like magic, *and* they all take even more damage hits for the effects they provide. Now, blasfemur and cephaloss weapons info subs did not mention damage penalties to my recollection, so I don't know if those are assumed, but they may or may not be there.



I simply view charisma as the offensive stat. If staff decides (they should) to decouple blocking from DEX, and then tie it back onto each mainstat, this means most Beast builds will naturally be less defensive. Deciding to train luck with charisma means even more less defensive. They may have the lowest overall defense because training char/end means 1 mainstat and therefore, not training 2 mainstays for blocking, but they do get the HP's

If they train cha/luck, that's even worse defense.

The answers to charisma overperforming have to consider the lack of defense that most variants will have and therefore, attempting to make total damage output on par with other non Beast builds would be a mistake. The big picture is damage output and what's the total defensive picture of each build? The more defensive you go, the lower your offense goes...and vice versa.

I just hope this dichotomy is understood when piecing the charisma puzzle into the new layout.
Post #: 7
3/26/2022 8:04:38   
ruleandrew
Member
 

 Note (standard armour)
Melee weapon attack with 250 STR is worth 100 % melee.
Melee weapon attack with 0 STR is worth 50 % melee.

Pet attack with 250 CHA is worth 40 % melee.
Pet attack with 0 CHA is worth 20 % melee.

Guest attack with 250 CHA is worth 60 % melee.
Guest attack with 0 CHA is worth 30 % melee.

Guest (30 % melee power) ideal cost is 30 % melee.
Misc (30 % melee power) ideal cost is 30 % melee.

Ideal pet bonus to hit:
CHA * (3 / 20) + (LUCK / 40)

Ideal guest bonus to hit:
CHA * (3 / 20) + (LUCK / 40)

< Message edited by ruleandrew -- 3/27/2022 22:09:55 >
AQ  Post #: 8
3/27/2022 20:01:40   
battlesiege15
Member

I still don't understand why Guests don't get LS. Not sure where to post it so just gonna comment here lol
AQ AQW  Post #: 9
3/27/2022 20:33:46   
Sapphire
Banned


 Oh no.... NOT AGAIN!!!


Lucky Strike is intended <--Key word to be universal and be build agnostic. The rate (10%) and amount of damage add-on is the same irregardless if it happens on a melee attack/spell, Ranged attack/spell, magic attack/spell, pet attack, etc.%).

So Warrior lucky strike add on = Ranger lucky strike add on = Mage lucky strike add on.
Pet on BM build lucky strike add-on = Pet on non BM build lucky strike add-on.

I was once told that guests are not assumed, and I was told that they are assumed. To me, this is the big issue. I have no clue which one it is. Nobody has done a good enough job with old posts on this issue outlining this. There in value is the following quote: "Guest damage is not assumed in the damage models". To nobody's credit, I don't recall this ever being said in threads that I partook in, or I overlooked it as sometimes I'll skim read. BUT I *think* that's the right answer ... That it is *not assumed*, which probably should change. To assume a BM isn't using a guest to me make me scratch my head, but w/e topic for another time.

But assume the following:

1. Guests not assumed for *any* build

Compare Beast build vs non beast build.

Players can get LS, pet can get LS (same amount build vs build, BM vs non BM for Pet).

Now a non Beast build isn't running a normal damaging guest, so if staff gave it LS, a Beast build gains an extra attempt at LS over a NOn beast build.

It is extra damage, or an extra attempt at more damage, since guests are not assumed.

Illogical as can possibly be.

But that's why, I think.




< Message edited by SapphireCatalyst2021 -- 3/27/2022 20:46:13 >
Post #: 10
3/27/2022 21:07:09   
Legendary Ash
Member

Guests and Lucky Strikes Post#5 explains why Guest don't get Lucky Strikes.

As stated in =AQ= Stat and Training Overhaul Post#15, Guests currently receive twice the power of a singular decompression bonus, this bonus that may have been reasonable in the past may no longer be justified since Guests simply are comprised of a Cha Weapons' -25% penalty with a resource cost for additional damage.
Additionally the current Stat revamp's earlier proposal in 2019 planned for Guest to increase upkeep to 30%, which would have decreased the bonus to 5%, but it is unsustainable with base Sp regeneration per turn and does not address the entirety of the root of Cha's overperformance.
There is no real decompression here, it can be perceived as a skill/spell with added damage from other sources., its one of the specialized equipment types and output distribution schemes unique to each Mainstat like how Int has Mana and standard Spells do not have a decompression bonus.
Guest may need to have their standards changed to 50% melee to reflect the above, and Pets still remain an additional source of Cha Mainstat damage to account for, that may be resolved with Post#15 's proposal.

Beastmasters are being denied acknowledgement as a Mainstat by those who initiated the current Stat revamp despite being treated as such by Kamui and IMR in equipment releases that include Cha Mainstat weapons, SP skills of Spell slots and Armors, all of which their Damage/BtH formulas resembling other Mainstats for each standard equipment type and is treated like Int validate Cha being a Mainstat.

At 200 Stat points 100% melee is comprised of 50% base from equipment Base/Random + 38.5% Mainstat and 11.5% Luk.
Damage modifiers like Damage Boost/Skill/Spell have the same Lucky Strike damage as a normal weapon attack, Guest follow the same logic.
Guest's current upkeep of (0.5+0.385)*25% melee does account for the fact that they cannot Lucky Strike, Skill/Spell fail to account for the unmodified Lucky strikes in their costs that from their perspective make Guest appear undercharged, however it should be perceived in the reverse where Skill/Spell are overcharged.
AQ  Post #: 11
3/27/2022 22:08:44   
ruleandrew
Member
 

 I flagged this guest problem last year.
quote:

I want to reach this goal: Guest cost is 30 % melee on the basis guest add 30 % melee for the current player attack turn.
I want to achieve this outcome: Guest cost is on the same standard as CHA skill cost.
AQ  Post #: 12
3/27/2022 23:39:34   
Sapphire
Banned


 I dont think it will come to pass because I think every single guest would need updated, but Guests should just be considered assumed to be used, and apart of a BM's damage output. And I don't think having an assumption of using a charisma weapon makes any sense, unless there's some type of actual benefit over other types, to which I currently do not see other than I admit, some of the effects are sometimes cool...and other than damage type locked skills and abilities and how it overrides that, are the only reasons to use them. But to assume they're used isn't realistic in today's game. Maybe eventually in an updated game with more options...


Making guests akin to some type of cheaper skill/spell that is spread out more over several turns instead of more bursty IMO is a hugely bad idea. That doesn't really honestly solve any problems, nor make any sense.

They can still cast spells and use skills all the same as everyone else, and making guests akin to this hampers a BM's ability to cast spells and skills that everyone else gets access to, and a lot of those tend to be build agnostic, too.

You would have to make SP guests cost more if you have INT, and less if you have DEX/STR (maybe based on weapon held) just like other skills.

Likely, the player side of a BM's damage needs a Nerf, to accommodate for the guest/pet side somehow and Guest + Pet should be assumed in the package.

Nerfing player-side damage to "pay for" whats going on with guests/pets is a much better idea, and thematically proper.

Maybe Charisma could act like more of a "Power transfer" from player to Guests/Pets as it's acting like an Influencer of sorts, maybe not too unlike a Mob boss or Gang boss in a way. The boss isn't likely doing the damage. It's the cronies. (Guest/Pet)

However, at the end of the day, beast build damage I think is justified in doing more compared to the other builds if training charisma inherently means less defense because you're deciding to use charisma instead of a stat that has some defensive assistance with it. This *really* works out if Dext is decoupled from universal blocking, though I do have a hunch it might end up staying and there will be some other justification for it staying. Dext likely stays OP, but we will see.

The *only* justification I can envision for keeping Dext to aid in blocking going forward , is reducing Ranged damage to compensate....in an attempt to continue to create a niche. I wouldn't be totally against that concept, where Dex=blocking + Ranged damage where 250 Dex = X% Melee power, and Ranged damage takes the same % Melee power less to pay for it. Ranged weapons could focus on DoT effects, like poisons, burns, disease (disease needs revamped), bleed, etc that are stronger than normal inflictions.

Maybe status affects at their core function could grow in power based on DEX.


Sorry, off track based on the topic


< Message edited by SapphireCatalyst2021 -- 3/28/2022 0:08:52 >
Post #: 13
4/1/2022 13:46:25   
RobynJoanne
Member
 

 I think the simplest way (since it seems my previous explanations only added to the confusion) to show the exact amount of Cha's overperformance is just to run the numbers on how much damage per turn you'd do with Cha. I'm equalizing accuracy for the sake of argument.
With Cha, one gets full damage from Cha weapons, pets, and guests (250 stat cap has changed it so. That's respectively 75%, 40%, and 60% Melee with 100%-75%=25% from Cha weapons going to guests. However, you also have to pay an upkeep of 21.875% Melee, so you'd subtract that from the sum. In total, a build with has on average 75%+40%+60%-21.875%=153.125% Melee per turn. That's in comparison to warriors, rangers, and mages who'd all get 100% from player damage, 20% from pet damage, and 30% from guest damage. If we again subtract off upkeep, we get 100%+20%+30%-21.875%=128.125%. I think it's fairly obvious there's a fairly significant difference even before we get into accuracy, which would just push Cha further ahead.

Now, unfortunately, there's no simple way to fix this. The most notable problem is the problem with guests. Broccoli and Legendary Ash have basically pointed out that guests are like QC spells in a sense. Spells do not get a decompression. QC spells also have to pay for all their output. We should thus have 25%+21.875%=46.875% from guests. Because guest costs are based on the individual item, it's completely impractical to universally change their costs as according to the original proposal by Kaelin. It is also possible to keep the current output but pay further in other ways like more weapon damage or reduced SP regen per turn. These come with their own issues though. Further reduced weapon damage just means players are likely to skip their turns for boosts that assume a turn worth 75% or 100% Melee, completely bypassing the weapon damage decrease. The reduced SP regen per turn proposal isn't even confirmed to be feasible. Even with these changes, Cha players still have extra pet damage, which is why Legendary Ash had the proposal to make pet damage scale off mainstat in general. This would mathematically solve the problem with Cha.

As Legendary Ash mentioned above, this still leads to our main disagreement about how to deal with Cha: the status of Cha as a mainstat. I believe Cha weapons and SPells are a mistake, and leaning further into them to make Cha into a mainstat would be doubling down on a mistake. That Kamui and Imry have been supporting the idea implicitly through item releases does not change my opinion on the matter. Taking away pets from Cha is just a thematically inappropriate, and Cha has far too little support to be a good mainstat. We'd be turning a overtuned secondary stat into the worst mainstat. That's not a solution in my opinion, only shifting the nature of the problem to its opposite.

Hopefully, this has been a clearer explanation of my case than the previous post, which was too focused on exploring multiple ideas for the stat revamp to truly dive into any singular one.
Post #: 14
4/1/2022 15:03:32   
Sapphire
Banned


 The #1 problem with this idea that all builds have to have = damage output is that all builds do not have the same defense.

While we have the FO armor vs FD armor balance, we do not have this in terms of build *at all*.

As long as dexterity remains as universal blocking, there will be builds with more defensive prowess in power than what they lost in offense.

There has to be a defined power attribute assigned to blocking and endurance.

And there has to be a equal amount of defensive power gained for say, focusing on HP's or Blocking, than what was lost by not training a stat that provides an offensive boost, such as luck, or another mainstat for hybrids..most notably mage-based hybrids.

Charisma can't be viewed as a mainstat. It needs to be viewed as the most offensive leaning secondary, and I believe if you simply have a real life balance model in place, there should be an understanding that after mainstat is chosen, from there you have secondaries that will be defense leaning or offense leaning or maybe luck gets a middle ground and can provide a touch of both.

But to simply view this discussion only from an offensive PoV is a mistake at it's core.


The idea I provided of decoupling dexterity from universal blocking and making each respective mainstat provide blocking to itself not only makes INT=DEX=STR on paper, it forces the idea that :

Deciding to train charisma has no bearing on defense inherently, where EVERY other stat provides SOME defensive help. This justifies the offensive nature of the stat, as balance. That doesn't mean leave it alone.

It just means there really isn't a well-defined Power value assigned to blocking, endurance, etc and being able to compare it to the offensive power values of luck and charisma. The answer to this complete balance question simply lies there. If I train endurance instead of charisma, is the defensive benefit = to the offensive detriment? If I train charisma instead of endurance, is the offensive benefit = to the defensive detriment?

If I train END instead of luck, is the defensive benefit = to the bth+blocking+damage +misc detriment of luck?

Only then will we understand what the final product should look like.

So viewing this from an offensive PoV is fallacy * infinity, just like making it assumed BM's are using nothing but Charisma weapons...

Charisma weapons, etc may have been a mistake. Maybe the decrease to their damage isn't enough? Your math above IMO may not be completely accurate as I believe most, if not all, charisma weapons are actually doing less damage but is this to counter the effects on them or is this in addition to? If its a counter, then it needs to be more to bring DPT down under this false assumption.

I think this charisma weapon assumption is a red herring TBH, and the larger solutions are as I have laid out.
Post #: 15
4/1/2022 16:08:46   
  Lorekeeper
And Pun-isher

 

 This isn't a fallacy. Turn values are standardized precisely so that there is a framework for these discussions. That doesn't pertain to some notion of all builds having the exact same damage output, but the same 'power' to distribute towards different ends, various means of damage output included. Lastly, in order for feedback to be constructive, the impression that a mathematical point is wrong needs to be backed mathematically, itself.

< Message edited by Cray -- 4/1/2022 16:20:58 >
Post #: 16
4/1/2022 20:49:47   
ruleandrew
Member
 

 - Melee weapon with 0 CHA path -
(Melee weapon power) * (Turns using melee weapon) + (Pet power) * (Turns using pet) + (Melee skill power) * (Turns using melee skill)
(100 %) * 3 + (20%) * 4 + (200 %) * 1 = (580 %) melee

Sp cost over 4 turns is 100 % melee.

Player power across 4 turns is 480 % melee.
[(580 %) - (100 %) = (480 %)]

- Melee weapon with 250 CHA path -
(Melee weapon power) * (Turns using melee weapon) + (Pet power) * (Turns using pet) + (Guest power) * (Turns using guest)
(100 %) * 4 + (40 %) * 4 + (60 %) * 4 = (800 %) melee

Sp cost over 4 turns is 87.5 % melee.

Player power across 4 turns is 712.5 % melee.
[(800 %) - (87.5 %) = (712.5 %)]

-- One method to fix guest --
If player run pet and guest at the same time, monster will heal hp equal to 28.125 % melee at the start of monster turn.

(((712.5 %) - (28.125 %) * 4) - (480 %)) / 4 = (30 %)

30 % melee is the value of 250 LUCK (one turn).


< Message edited by ruleandrew -- 4/1/2022 21:56:29 >
AQ  Post #: 17
4/2/2022 12:00:50   
Sapphire
Banned


 Dealing with Guests will likely be a ton of work, but if staff wanted to "fix" charisma I think there's only one solution. Manual updates of guests, and a different P.O.V of BM's.

Let's be realistic. a BEASTMASTER, when that player decides to train Charisma, is purposefully knowing they're going to be doing a ton of damage WITH Charisma.

Just like a warrior uses Strength.

Just like a Mage uses Intelligence.

Just like a Ranger uses Dexterity.

Some say the introduction of charisma weapons, et al was mistake. Maybe, if you believe Charisma to be a secondary stat...

But the reality is, to a Beastmaster, it's not. It's their mainstat. So I think everyone should just realize that we have 4 Mainstat builds in AQ and stop playing pretend like we don't.

Mainstat+END+LUCK = the Pure builds for Warrior, Mage, Ranger, and Beastmaster alike. It's really that simple. Stop overcomplicating the game.

Therefore,

You place BTH at charisma+luck, for charisma weapons and pets/guests just like with the other mainstats.

You then understand that the Charisma weapon is this build's main weapon of choice. Staff assumed charisma weapons in their models. It never made sense (still doesn't) because the CHAR/END/LUK build is not really a feasible build unless there's more charisma gear made, ESPECIALLY F2P stuff.

This means, what we think of as standard beast builds *are actually beast-hybrids*, where the other mainstat is serving more like a co-main or even a secondary stat either for more weapon damage (STR/DEX) at the cost of BTH (luk), or the INT then supplies MP-based guest upkeep and if so desired, spells..

I was originally thinking maybe charisma weapons should take on a damage decrease, but then why not just train INT and use magic weapons?

Solution-> If using a charisma weapon, guest upkeep is given a discount This might incentivize the "pure" BM playstyle and compete with hybrid BM's...??

Solution-> Increase upkeep for MP-based Guests by quite a bit, based on 20 turn models. 2632 MP/20= 131.6 per turn. Mages get 4 casts @ 653. This leaves 20 MP. So lets use 2612 instead. 2612/20=130.6.

I say MP Guest upkeep get bumped to 131/turn. If using a Charisma weapon, which will have lower damage than a magic weapon, guest upkeep is then pushed to 98. This is a 25% discount. At 98, in 20 turns they spend 1960 MP, leaving 672. This is enough for 1 spell used in 20 turns. To me, that's fair. The charisma weapon held, is paying for a lower Guest upkeep which goes from 131 to 98 per turn, allowing for 1 spell cast.

The same needs to occur for SP. If a "BeastMage" gets 20 turns of MP-based guest upkeep, so should other variants.

Starting SP-> 395.
Max SP-> 1470
SP Regen/turn.-> 98
SP Guest-> 86/Turn

So this is +13 /turn

In 20 turns, the 395 starter SP becomes 655 SP (turn based regen minus guest upkeep) But this means no misc upkeep, or anything else. +13 is small. So 25% SP upkeep discount then means:


65 SP Guest Upkeep. That's +33 SP gained per turn.

In 20 turns, the 395 starter SP becomes 1055 SP.

So Proposal:

1. Charisma recognized as a mainstat
2. CHAR/END/LUK is the Pure Beastmaster build
3. Other Mainstat/CHAR/END or LUCK = BM Hybrids
4. Lower Charisma Weapon Damage below Magic via STATS. Unsure where as of yet. I think 56% Melee as of now, but will see. (25% off 75%)
5. Raise MP Upkeep on MP Guests to 130 from 114. This leaves 20 MP after 20 turns, just like 4 Mage spell-casts. A BeastMage uses the same MP if they cast 4 spells, or have MP guest for 20 turns.
6. Keep Guest SP Upkeep the same
7. Discount MP and SP Guest upkeeps 25% if wielding a charisma weapon. If Charisma weapons are lower than magic, this incentivizes their use by discounted upkeep costs. This becomes 98 MP and 65 SP.
8. Hybrid BM variants will use resources less efficiently, and can use a variety of things...better weapons, spells, skills, etc. Pure BM gets discounted upkeeps to use guests longer, charisma weapons continue to override all type locked skills, but has a lot lower damage.

This would require manual updates to guests. I think while the workload is a lot, it's the best answer. No band aid solution here.




< Message edited by SapphireCatalyst2021 -- 4/11/2022 8:47:01 >
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> On Guests
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