Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

Paying resource to heal that same resource

  		Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Game Balance Issues >> Paying resource to heal that same resource
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
8/20/2024 21:22:30   
Branl
Member

In light of the recent discussion surrounding the design issues of a guest like Void Awakening Skull paying SP to charge SP, and the recent Mirror Vordred armors paying partial HP cost for a barrier, I felt it prudent to try to make a formal GBI thread surrounding this issue.
Most of what had been said, regarding the potential design issue of this cost has been laid out in the Void Awakening Item Discussion Thread. But, to keep it short and sweet:

Paying a resource to regenerate that resource can either:
1) Not heal the amount of resource you paid for, and is therefore, useless.
2) Heals the amount of resource you paid for and then some, and essentially, the cost of said item doesn't actually exist, and only the excess healed does (Basically just a free effect).

I'll be centering the rest of this post around the Mirror Vordred armor specifically, as the final outcome of where this armor winds up is of particular interest to me, but please note that the overarching discussion to be held is surrounding the Design issue of paying the resource you're healing as a cost. If this makes this thread more appropriate for a General Discussion thread, feel free to move it!

One of Mirror Vordred Splits HP/SP costs to generate a Barrier (Which is essentially HP healing). What this means is that the HP cost of this skill is fairly erroneous in nature. Further, the armor sort of has a design flaw of the elelock mode paying 12.5% of it's damage, a elelock that's only available for player attacks and not spells (thus, is a targeted Hybrid/FD Warrior function), on a resource unavailable to FD Warriors. This, in itself isn't a problem, if the design philosophy is designing an armor that can work for FD Warriors, but not optimally. However, the armor lacking any sort of incentive for investing in Intelligence whatsoever, means that there's very little reason to Hybridize for this armor, if incentivizing that was the goal.

One universal fix that, if implemented, I think would be popular would be to:
Make the Elelock Modes work with the same element spells.


So further, discussing the barrier skill:
With the presumption that the HP cost for a HP healing effect is eroneous, the barrier can either:
Pay full SP, or Split costs between MP and SP (And further, make the barrier scale with Int/End)

The former would be more consistent with the armor's current inclusivity with FD Warriors, but if this is chosen, I think we should make the MP Regenerating aspect of the armor heal SP. Keeping the barrier skill as is, and only making it full SP cost would create an inefficient FD Warrior armor that will be dropped when a same element FD Warrior armor drops that doesn't have a 12.5% Damage penalty to heal a resource they don't use.

The latter is potentially controversial as it would be introducing exclusivity to an armor. Which idea staff should go for depends on the design philosophy behind the armor. If it's to incentivize hybridization, then MP/SP cost splitting with an Int/End scaling barrier both introduces a new kind of barrier targetted to a specific build, but would provide a reason to hybridize for the armor and would make more sense with the armor paying for it's lean with MP Regeneration.

However, this could be a middle ground option here:
Introduce a toggle with the barrier. Either pay SP for an End Scaled barrier, or pay half SP/MP for a End/Int scaled barrier.
This would both incentivize hybridization (If you did hybridize, you get to use the elelock mode of the armor, and get to split costs between MP/SP and get partial scaling with said int, and if you don't you can only use the Full SP cost, End scaled barrier).
I think this could be the ideal solution, and if possible, I do think you could also make the Elelock of the armor work with same element spells.
The only wrinkle is that I don't know if development time would allow for this option. I still think it's worth floating.
AQ DF  Post #: 1
8/20/2024 21:45:05   
NightofLight
Member
 

 About the barrier its technically not HP so it wouldn't fall under the paying the same resource and regenerating more of it despite HP and Barrier being functionally very similar, can't use the barrier for costs in the same way you can with HP for example. It would be like saying you can't have an eleshield scale with HP cost since your paying HP to reduce the amount of HP damage you take.
AQ  Post #: 2
8/20/2024 21:55:29   
Branl
Member

quote:

About the barrier its technically not HP so it wouldn't fall under the paying the same resource and regenerating more of it despite HP and Barrier being functionally very similar, can't use the barrier for costs in the same way you can with HP for example.


Functionally, barriers work the exact same as Health, and things that apply barriers are considered to be healing spells/effects (Which is why Spellcaster lean not working on healing effects applies to barriers and why heal res affects barriers).

quote:

It would be like saying you can't have an eleshield scale with HP cost since your paying HP to reduce the amount of HP damage you take.


I think you could make an argument akin to this, although Barriers are directly considered to be a healing source, while eleshield would have to be considered "HP" more indirectly.

< Message edited by Branl -- 8/20/2024 21:58:19 >
AQ DF  Post #: 3
8/20/2024 22:29:47   
NightofLight
Member
 

 MP and SP heals were also affected by Heal Res and Spell lean when that was a thing and we have options that pay one resource to heal the other, barriers are affected by Heal Res and Spell Lean used to work on it before the changes so yes its considered a healing effect but its technically different than HP still even if functionally they are similar.
AQ  Post #: 4
8/20/2024 22:48:12   
Branl
Member

quote:

MP and SP heals were also affected by Heal Res and Spell lean when that was a thing and we have options that pay one resource to heal the other, barriers are affected by Heal Res and Spell Lean used to work on it before the changes so yes its considered a healing effect but its technically different than HP still even if functionally they are similar.


Mp and SP heals are entirely different resources, however.
Barriers are functionally healing spells/effects. This is recognized as such within the game itself.

Rather than argue in circles, allow me to propose an idea that would exclude barriers from being considering health (and thus, healing effects).
Barriers, cannot be affected by heal res, and if Spellcaster lean affects heals again, they can't be affected by those either.

If you feel this would make barriers useless, then that's implicit acknowledgement that barriers are hp healing spells. If you don't, then feel free to make the point.
Personally, I feel it's a rather extreme solution compared to just not paying health for hp healing effects (Which Barriers currently fall under).
AQ DF  Post #: 5
8/21/2024 4:57:08   
Telcontar Arvedui I
Member

I will refrain from commenting on Vordred because I currently have no stakes or interest in it, but I would like to say that
quote:

1) Not heal the amount of resource you paid for, and is therefore, useless.
is not absolutely true. In the case of Guests, there should be a (very niche, but still existing) case for sustainability.

First off, I'll concede that
quote:

2) Heals the amount of resource you paid for and then some, and essentially, the cost of said item doesn't actually exist, and only the excess healed does (Basically just a free effect).
shouldn't be allowed, period. Not even if the player has a specific Guest-boosting setup. Because Guests are already benefiting from resource efficiency. i.e. you already pay less for more output if you invest in CHA. However, if we have Guests heals the same resource they costs, but with the amount healed hard-capped to a fraction (not full) of their costs, this could open up the niche for players who want long-term fights with sustained higher hitcounts every turn. IMO this can be achieved simply by having equivalent-%Melee-exchange, as in the Guests pay a fixed amount of their output to instead reduce the same amount in their upkeep costs.

I understand that there already exists some cursed item interactions that can exploit this (per-hit status inflictions come to mind), and therefore the line can be really difficult to toe. But I think @Branl's point 1) need not be dismissed outright. As long as the design/usage intention is not "heal the resource it just costed you", but "sustain longer at the cost of lesser immediate output".

< Message edited by Telcontar Arvedui I -- 8/21/2024 5:00:56 >
AQ  Post #: 6
8/21/2024 5:16:29   
Branl
Member

quote:

However, if we have Guests heals the same resource they costs, but with the amount healed hard-capped to a fraction (not full) of their costs, this could open up the niche for players who want long-term fights with sustained higher hitcounts every turn. IMO this can be achieved simply by having equivalent-%Melee-exchange, as in the Guests pay a fixed amount of their output to instead reduce the same amount in their upkeep costs.


I think a version of this that's less awkward to implement, would be the staff taking the view that guests are spells, and creating efficient guests, or just paying some value to reduce it's own upkeep directly. Otherwise, I don't actually have much of an issue with guests that function like this. My concern is with healing that pays the cost with the resource it heals and does nothing else. Void Skull exists purely in a binary where it can either do more or less healing than it costs (Either useless or made to be abused), and Mirror Vordred's HP cost serves to do nothing but abuse the barrier side of the interactions with heal res to make the health cost irrelevant compared to the barrier generated.
AQ DF  Post #: 7
8/21/2024 8:04:26   
Sapphire
Member

First off, I am personally against any idea that says "This idea should never happen ever". I believe that staff should have some autonomy to try new ideas and find ways to pay for effects, find ways to mathematically justify X, Y, or Z. I believe if we go down that road we begin to limit things to the point that we will just always see the same application of some set of rules over and over and over and over. I find that this, over time, causes things to become stale. This is also why I believe that not all item design should follow the same old ideas of the past...ie as an example... FD armors will always use 100 procs and never have weapons based skills. Or FO armors should never have defensive skills, etc. Hyper min-modding everything in my opinion is also stale. I believe finding a number of combinations that on paper, don't always seem like they're synergistic doesn't mean that players can't find specific item interactions that make sense. This is why I think the Mandate spell is actually quite great, despite many believing the two effects it does doesn't make sense. I argue it does make sense, actually. It's called thinking outside the box. As a result, I applaud staff for finding new ways to implement ideas and if that sometimes means items like void skull guests and mirror vordred armor exists then thank you staff.

So right from the start, for me, making claims that something shouldn't ever exist is an automatic non-starter.

However, In terms of Mirror Vordred, I see no issue with having the barrier be paid for via split resources with it being HP and SP.

Has anyone done the math on what the average barrier would be assuming everything rolled in? So we're talking END stats. What does this look like compared to how much damage an average monster would do to you? So would the turn skip + barrier (assuming END is trained, which is what the armor seems to be assuming) yield positive results even when you include the HP cost to create the barrier?

This is a 1 turn sample, and not indicative of an average..but it does show possibilities ..But Using dual Poelala's on my INT/END/LUK char, I can get 900+ barrier . This is a 900-174=700+ return. Actually, this is also lucky strikable it seems, and I have seen a 1500 barrier on a LS, but this might be viewed as a separate issue by some. (Not me, luck needs to have some value and it is no longer assumed in player turns) If I'm using this as my light/ice armor this means I am fighting against a light/ice monster, assumes I am using a light/ice shield. There is no way 99%+ of monsters are hitting me for 700+ damage, making this "useless" even with the HP cost. The HP cost is actually some extra bubblewrap to prevent this from becoming out of control, especially if I employed some defensive tactics like panic/choke/eleshield, or even blocking stuff like blind to help reduce damage. While 900 barrier w/o dual Poelala isn't a likely outcome w/o a LS, I still feel as though I'd be ahead.

I view the HP cost as a form of bubblewrap. Either way it's fine and in no way, shape, or form is it a big deal. It's just creative armor design.

< Message edited by Sapphire -- 8/21/2024 8:21:54 >
Post #: 8
8/21/2024 8:15:18   
Branl
Member

quote:

So right from the start, for me, making claims that something shouldn't ever exist is an automatic non-starter.


That's great! But unfortunately, an idea being a personal non starter to you, has zero bearing on the validity of said argument. You've staunchly avoided discussing the topic at hand to soapbox about your personal view of game balance, absent any justification beyond trying to draw disanalogous comparisons.
As you have failed to address the GBI topic at hand, I feel it would be irresponsible to reply to your comment at large, as doing so would facilitate this thread being dragged off topic.
AQ DF  Post #: 9
8/21/2024 8:35:38   
Sapphire
Member

Actually, before and after the line you chose to focus on, I have. This was no soap box. It is providing the opinion that as long as staff can mathematically pay for an idea, then to me it's fair game in most cases. (As long as we don't go too extreme on how much we pay....for example paying a full SP bar for the same power is an example of too much) This armor isn't using extreme costs. You claim something should never be allowed to happen and that it's a GBI. I claim that it's not a GBI and is completely fine, and then provide an example below of an actual in-game scenario that was playing out in-game in front of my eyes that to me, seemed like the HP cost was of little to no significance. Ultimately, players labeling something as should never be allowed or not is an opinion and nothing more. If/when/once staff chime in and decide on whether or not something should or shouldn't be allowed, only then will any opinions of players then hold any validity. I know part of GBI is to make the case, which is what I am attempting to do. You see it differently than me, and I explained why I see it the way I do. I, in fact, addressed it.

If you split the barrier cost between SP and MP, you remove the armor's utility from anyone w/o MP (non mages). The accompanying weapon has an MRM toggle, so the armor thus was meant for everyone so this isn't a real option.

If you make it all SP, you strengthen the total gain to "effective HP's" by 174 (the HP cost it currently pays). You could make it just SP, but the HP cost worsens the barrier's effectiveness, but it is far from "useless" (your words) I just showed in my example that it wasn't useless, especially if you're using certain boosts) I think the Hp cost is purposefully put there to ensure the barrier isn't 'too good'. It scales with END, after all. Spending 174 HP on a build with 5800 and change HP's is nothing, and that same stat that gave you all those HP's probably makes up for the cost in END-based stat damage. I believe the HP cost decision is some minor bubblewrap.

< Message edited by Sapphire -- 8/21/2024 8:50:37 >
Post #: 10
8/21/2024 8:39:48   
CH4OT1C!
Member

@NightOfLight: The status... status of Barriers, Chi Shields, and Mana Shields is in somewhat of a weird place. They are implemented as statuses sensu stricto, but the way items like Gandolphin apply that status is to directly perform a heal spell, zero the damage, and then apply an 'Shield' status equivalent to the Heal damage just taken. You're absolutely right to say that there are differences between Barrier HP and true HP, but (i) it could easily be argued that these 'statuses' function as real HP (with the caveat that the cost of the Chi/Mana shields has not yet been paid), and (ii) there's nothing to stop Barrier from being consumed as part of a status eater (as is already the case with Wingweaver).

We desperately need clarity and consistency on whether these mechanisms should be treated as either healing effects, or as statuses, and the outcome will directly affect how Mirror Vordred is fixed:
If treated as direct healing:
  • The attack can be affected by Armour Lean (except SC lean, notwithstanding any further changes).
  • The attack can be affected by applicable spell-type boosters.
  • The attack can critical hit.
  • The attack is affected by Choke/Other negative status effects that reduce damage.
  • The attack can be affected by player heal resistance.
  • Barrier would be treated as additional HP.

    If treated as a status:
  • The attack cannot be affected by Armour Lean.
  • The attack is tagged as 'Other', meaning it cannot be affected by any standard boosters.
  • The attack cannot critical hit.
  • The attack is not affected by Choke/Other negative status effects that reduce damage.
  • The attack can be affected by player heal resistance.
  • Barrier would not be treated as additional HP.

    My personal preference would be the latter option.


    @Telcontar Arvedui I: I agree with you that failing to healing less than what you paid for isn't entirely useless. However, as I mentioned here, I do think it means the item fails to fulfil its purpose. Its goal was to restore Resource [x], not to prolong how many turns the item can remain active. A much more elegant solution would be simply to create an 'efficient' item, which provides a smaller bonus and costs less to compensate*. Preventing items from recovering the same resource they cost is the single most efficient way to prevent excess healing.

    *I want to stress that no, this is not something I support for the Void Awakening Skull Guest, or indeed any Guest. As Guests are inherently overpowered and scale on CHA, this could potentially lead to Guests being created worth 15% Melee but with no upkeep cost. As their damage scales on CHA, this would give CHA-users 15% Melee above all other builds in a world where CHA is already the strongest support stat.


    @Sapphire:
    quote:

    First off, I am personally against any idea that says "This idea should never happen ever".

    I will immediately disagree and say there are absolutely some ideas that should not be implemented. The staff retain their autonomy to experiment with new ideas, but this does not preclude the notion that certain items should not be created (e.g., a Weapon that allows you to bypass soft damage caps). That isn't 'thinking outside the box' so much as failing to adhere to good item design practices. Circular item designs are most certainly an example of these poor practices.


    @Branl: I believe a full SP cost would be preferable. It prevents any issues regarding shifting goalposts on who can use the Mirror Vordred's skills, while also dealing with the issue of circularity. I take no issue with the first skill not affecting spells; while it would be nice to have, it isn't an issue relating to Game Balance.


    < Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 8/21/2024 8:44:16 >
    • AQ  Post #: 11
    8/21/2024 8:52:03   
    Branl
    Member

    quote:

    This was no soap box.


    Respectfully, you didn't provide a counterargument that HP costs for HP healing effects aren't questionable design. You just said that "staff should be able to experiment with new ideas" and that nothing should be off the table, despite the whole purpose of the GBI is to discuss which ideas should be on or off the table. I can't really argue with you on whether ideas should be off the table or not, that's not an argument that can be held anymore,

    In the interest of dragging you on topic, I'd like to ask you to justify paying HP to generate HP. Or paying SP to generate SP.
    AQ DF  Post #: 12
    8/21/2024 9:15:01   
    Sapphire
    Member

    		If the effect that paid HP in cost mathematically didn't match the amount of HP gained, and the end result was different than 0, I think you'd have an argument. If the SP paid in cost mathematically didn't match the amount of SP gained, and the end result was different than 0, I think you'd have an argument.

    These effects to me are designed to attempt to provide boosts to create a gain. They require other outside items or conditions to create a gain. Many Other effects simply pay a % melee in whatever to gain the same power in something else. For example, I pay 50% Melee SP to get 50% Melee effect. With the case of paying a resource cost to regenerate the same resource, it's highly inefficient, even when boosted. And since these types of ideas require the item to be boosted to gain benefit, I view it as OK.

    Do I think this design should be widespread and the standard? No. Are these the types of ideas that can help "sell" premium items and provide incentive to obtain tokens and get them via packages/token items/ggbs? yes, I do. Because I think the idea that they're game-breaking is much overblown, and is a matter of opinion regardless. You're free to disagree, of course. We all have that right, right?
    Post #: 13
    8/21/2024 9:31:46   
    Branl
    Member

    quote:

    These effects to me are designed to attempt to provide boosts to create a gain. They require other outside items or conditions to create a gain. Many Other effects simply pay a % melee in whatever to gain the same power in something else. For example, I pay 50% Melee SP to get 50% Melee effect. With the case of paying a resource cost to regenerate the same resource, it's highly inefficient, even when boosted. And since these types of ideas require the item to be boosted to gain benefit, I view it as OK.


    So you acknowledge the existence of paying to heal a resource with said resource doesn't have a point aside from trivializing the cost?
    Then we both agree on this topic, and where we seem to disagree is:

    quote:

    Do I think this design should be widespread and the standard? No. Are these the types of ideas that can help "sell" premium items and provide incentive to obtain tokens and get them via packages/token items/ggbs? yes, I do. Because I think the idea that they're game-breaking is much overblown, and is a matter of opinion regardless. You're free to disagree, of course. We all have that right, right?


    You think effects/interactions like this can be a selling point for premium items, and creating that selling point takes precedence over actual justifications for problematic effects.
    I'll refrain from commenting further on this line of thinking, as it's widely off topic.
    AQ DF  Post #: 14
    8/21/2024 9:48:01   
      Ward_Point
    Armchair Archivist


    		 Reminder to all participants of the Dev stance on Game Balance.

    ALL items are subject to Game Balance practices. Even if something works out mathematically, it might not be balanced. A number of full-offence items were nerfed because they provided far too much Player power at the cost of defence.

    Stay on topic:

    Circular Regeneration, problem or no?
    AQ  Post #: 15
    8/21/2024 12:51:06   
    Dardiel
    Member

    		I don't think the mechanic is inherently broken since it's easy to balance in a vacuum, and I don't necessarily mind mechanics that are designed to reward the player for devoting multiple effects toward a single goal (the AQ gameplay meta is arguably about using item combinations to gain extra power); I also don't mind the concept of an effect that's occasionally worthless, since it means builds can have more depth to their pros and cons / more varied experiences in different situations.

    Since this topic came from discussion of the Void Awakening guest I will mention my stance on that; if it's advertised as an SP regeneration guest then yeah it's not good to have its design give it a net SP loss per turn because that's just not doing what's advertised. However if it's advertised as a guest that gives an SP rebate, I think it's a cool design where it's effectively an efficient guest that rewards investment but punishes subpar gameplay.

    As is tradition, I bring all of my GBI opinions back to what I always shill for: I enjoy when there's expanded design space and room for builds that are created around particular pros and cons (allowing for skillful build creation and gameplay), but I think there should be a soft cap on player outputs to prevent turbo-powerful/turbo-efficient setups from always being objectively correct and limiting build diversity.
    Post #: 16
    8/21/2024 13:10:20   
    Branl
    Member

    quote:

    Since this topic came from discussion of the Void Awakening guest I will mention my stance on that; if it's advertised as an SP regeneration guest then yeah it's not good to have its design give it a net SP loss per turn because that's just not doing what's advertised. However if it's advertised as a guest that gives an SP rebate, I think it's a cool design where it's effectively an efficient guest that rewards investment but punishes subpar gameplay.


    That's not currently what it is though.
    Sidestepping the issue pointed out with making efficient versions of an outlet that allows you to get a 1:1.5 input/output ratio already, if the goal is simply to create an efficient guest, then they can just directly do so by having the guest have a reduced SP/MP cost. That they didn't effectively means the item design around the item is to effectively have a guest that allows you to pay nothing for it's effect.

    I don't really accept the "need" of other item synergies as a real cost, because these synergies present a similar vertical power increase in all guests/pets.
    I haven't even really talked about the Voidskull specific issue of it being a damage scaled effect...
    AQ DF  Post #: 17
    Page:   [1]
    All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Game Balance Issues >> Paying resource to heal that same resource
    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