EleComp to Cost


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

EleComp to Cost

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Game Balance Issues >> EleComp to Cost

Forum Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

1/4/2023 11:22:28

RobynJoanne
Member

There has always been a problem with EleComp to cost that has only been so badly exacerbated by the release of efficient skills that it really shows itself now. Simply put, EleComp to cost is worse than EleComp to damage because one gets EleComp on a bigger amount.

The idea is simple: EleComp to cost only applies its EleComp to the cost, which, for a skill, is usually 100% Melee for Melee/Ranged and 125% for Magic, while EleComp to damage applies the EleComp to the entire skill, which is worth 200% Melee since it includes the normal attack.

Now, I don't think anyone's been claiming that weapon-based skills with EleComp to cost have been bad, far from it. Indeed, especially with the advent of damage caps, people often prefer the efficiency EleComp to cost provides compared to EleComp to damage, and spell-type skills with EleComp to damage have traditionally been unfavored. I would, however, argue that this is majorly affected by the fact that weapon-based skills get normal weapon boosts while spell-type skills always take a /2 to boosts. Due to a quirk in design, weapon-based skills have always just done more damage than they should, so no one cared or really even noticed that they were getting less EleComp.

EleComp to cost on basic weapon-based skills are fine, then, thanks to these factors. The problem lies in Efficient skills because the cost is now an even smaller amount of Melee: 25% Melee for Melee/Ranged and 50% Melee for Magic for the recent Efficient skills. The EleComp now provides an absolutely trivial upside for the downside of being stuck in an unfavorable armor.

I'll use Knightmare Plate as an example since it's the most recent armor that showcases this. In FO mode, its skill is an efficient skill costing 25% Melee and worth 125% Melee overall. Before EleComp, it should cost 98 SP. Right now, it costs 23 SP after EleComp. Relatively speaking, that's a substantial drop in cost. In absolute terms, however, that's only a drop of 19% Melee.
Now, what if Knightmare Plate were like H-Series, Griffinrider Mount, Graverider Mount, etc. and had just a normal attack with EleComp to damage? With its MRM and elemental resists, in FO mode, Knightmare Plate has ~1.8 EleComp. A normal attack would thus deal 180% Melee damage while costing no SP. This is objectively better than the current skill on all accounts, on damage and on cost.

Thus, I propose that all efficient skills should all get EleComp to damage instead of EleComp to cost. Right now, they're in an absolutely terrible place, especially the higher the EleComp.

However, this does also bring up a problem with EleComp to damage on normal attacks and on the recent weapon-based skills in the 20k Z-Token packages. They shouldn't be using FO EleComp; they should be using neutral EleComp. Just like how EleComp to cost uses neutral EleComp because weapon-based skills inherently use lean, weapon-based skills and normal attacks should use neutral EleComp for EleComp to damage. As they currently are, they get the benefit of FO damage twice, once on EleComp and once as the normal multiplier to damage. FD armors would get penalized twice. This still doesn't change the Knightmare Plate scenario. Its neutral EleComp is ~1.67, so it'd still deal 167% Melee damage while costing no SP if it were a normal attack getting EleComp to damage.

< Message edited by RobynJoanne -- 1/4/2023 11:40:06 >

Post #: 1

1/4/2023 21:17:00

Legendary Ash
Member

Current Elemental Compensation Standards:

Torontosaurus Rex Rider's Elecomp Discussion Post#160, Post#167, Post#168 discloses the calculation for Elemental Compensation to cost divisor applies to the entire 200% melee, afterwards the weapon component of 100% Warrior/Ranger or 75% Mage is subtracted from the cost, the Elecomp from the weapon component and resource cost component both goes into reducing the cost.

This produces a comparatively higher relative cost for a Mage to a Warrior/Ranger as the difference in the weapon component adds a flat +25% melee as the final step after all other variables namely Skill/Spell of any Efficient/Overcharged variable with any Elecomp has taken place, in mathematical terms the variables of Efficient/Overcharged Resources and Elecomp are multipliers/divisors whose product/quotient becomes the minuend subtracted by a flat subtrahend.

Elecomp as multiplier and/or divisor respectively for each Weapon-based and Spell-type is exactly how it should interact with Skill/Spell of variable Efficient/Overcharged Resources costs, the speed of how resources are consumed in a closed environment that excludes free/flavor/exchange of power actions, does not affect the outcome given that resources are used in a timely manner without loss from overflow.

SP is valued at 3/4 of MP that is consistent in their multipliers (3/4)(3/2) = 1.125*Damage converts to SP, 3/2 = 1.5*Damage converts to MP, the resource bar maximums follows this proportion, MP 500% melee SP 500%*3/4 = 375% melee, 25% melee SP regeneration per turn reaches the max in 15 turns, and would overflow in the 20 Turn model unless the player consumes this resource, an incentivized action assumed in balance standards to collect the remainder of 125% melee in Sp, a minimum of 25% melee of SP needs to be consumed each turn starting on Turn 15 to Turn 20 and for turns beyond.

An analysis for an expenditure of 500% melee Sp, assume the cost is for Warrior or Ranger with its assumed intended design of an identical average from the turn based damage modifier.
Independent Variable: Players freely choose Armors according to their diverse Efficient/Overcharged cost variable and Weapon-based or Spell-type Elemental Compensation application.
Dependent Variable: Total Damage including Armor base normal attack and damage excluding it that is attributed only to Elecomp and SPcost for each Efficient/Overcharged cost variable dependent on Elecomp application, the resulting damage per cast and turns of skill,
Controlled Variable: Armors share identical values of Armor lean, Defences, Resistances, BtH lean, which would produce the same Elecomp value.

Table 1: Cost variables demonstrate Elecomp 1.85 to cost and damage for a Weapon-based Skill.
BaseSPcost: Base+SPcostPower*(Elecomp split to mirror ArmorLean)/(OffensiveLeanElecomp -Elecomp split to mirror ArmorLean) -> Total SP/SPCost = Turns of Skill -> *Damage*ArmorLean = Total Damage -> -Base*ArmorLean = Damage from Elecomp+SP only
060% SP: (160%*1.25/1.6)-100 = 0% SP ------> *160*1.25 = 200% ------> 500% SP/0% = ∞ Turns -------------> = 4000% ----> -100%*1.25 = 1500% no SP assume ∞ is 20 minimum
100% SP: (200%*1.25/1.6)-100 = 25% SP -----> *200%*1.25 = 250% ---> 500% SP/25% = 20 Turns -----------> = 5000% -----> -100%*1.25 = 2500% from SP
125% SP: (225%*1.25/1.6)-100 = 40.625% SP > *225%*1.25 = 281.25% > 500% SP/40.625% = 12.307 Turns -> = 3461.538% > -100%*1.25 = 1923.0769 from SP
140% SP: (240%*1.25/1.6)-100 = 50% SP -----> *240%*1.25 = 300% ----> 500% SP/50% = 10 Turns -----------> = 3000% -----> -100%*1.25 = 1750% from SP
200% SP: (300%*1.25/1.6)-100 = 87.5% SP ---> *300%*1.25 = 375% ----> 500% SP/87.5% = 5.71 Turns ------> = 2142.857% -> -100%*1.25 = 1428.571% from SP
220% SP: (320%*1.25/1.6)-100 = 100% SP ----> *320*1.25 = 400% ------> 500% SP/100% = 5 Turns ----------> = 2000% ------> -100%*1.25 = 1375% from SP
250% SP: (350%*1.25/1.6)-100 = 118.75% SP > *350*1.25 = 437.5% ----> 500% SP/118.75% = 4.2105 Turns -> = 1842.105% > -100%*1.25 = 1315.789% from SP
260% SP: (360%*1.25/1.6)-100 = 125% SP ----> *360%*1.25 = 450% ---> 500% SP/125% = 4 Turns -----------> = 1800% -----> -100%*1.25 = 1300% from SP
460% SP: (560%*1.25/1.6)-100 = 250% SP ----> *560%*1.25 = 700% ---> 500% SP/250% = 2 Turns -----------> = 1400% -----> -100%*1.25 = 1150% from SP
500% SP: (600%*1.25/1.6)-100 = 275% SP ----> *600*1.25 = 750% -----> 500% SP/275% = 1.818 Turns ------> = 1363.636% -> -100%*1.25 = 1136.3636% from SP
660% SP: (760%*1.25/1.6)-100 = 375% SP ----> *760*1.25 = 950% -----> 500% SP/375% = 1.333 Turns ------> = 1266.666% -> -100%*1.25 = 1110% from SP
860% SP: (960%*1.25/1.6)-100 = 500% SP ----> *960*1.25 = 1200% ---->500% SP/500% = 1 Turn ------------> = 1200% ------> -100%*1.25 = 1075% from SP

Table 2: Cost Variables demonstrate Elecomp 1.85 to damage for a Spell-based Skill:
BaseSPcost: Base+SPcostPower*OffensiveLeanElecomp = Damage -> Total SP/SPCost = Turns of Skill -> Damage*Turns of Skill = Total Damage -> -Base*ArmorLean = Damage from Elecomp+SP only
000% SP: (100%*1.85) = 185% ----> 500% SP/0% = ∞ Turns ------> = 3700% ----> -100%*1.25 = 1200% no SP assume ∞ is 20 minimum
025% SP: (125%*1.85) = 231.25% -> 500% SP/25% = 20 Turns ----> = 4625% ---> -100%*1.25 = 2125% from SP
050% SP: (150%*1.85) = 277.5% --> 500% SP/50% = 10 Turns ----> = 2775% ---> -100%*1.25 = 1525% from SP
100% SP: (200%*1.85) = 370% ----> 500% SP/100% = 5 Turns ----> = 1850% -- -> -100%*1.25 = 1225% from SP
125% SP: (225%*1.85) = 416.25% -> 500% SP/125% = 4 Turns ----> = 1665% ---> -100%*1.25 = 1165% from SP
250% SP: (350%*1.85) = 647.5% --> 500% SP/250% = 2 Turns ----> = 1295% ---> -100%*1.25 = 1045% from SP
375% SP: (475%*1.85) = 878.75% -> 500% SP/375% = 1.33 Turns > = 1171.66% > -100%*1.25 = 1005% from SP
500% SP: (600%*1.85) = 1110% ---> 500% SP/500% = 1 Turn -----> = 1110% ---> -100%*1.25 = 985% from SP

Conclusions for the tables of Weapon-based and Spell-type, when comparing the damage per cast of the Skills at identical SPcosts and number of turns of skills, calculated for Weapon-based after Elecomp and Spell-type.
First rows of both tables: the Elecomp despite being split according to different flavors produce equivalent damage at an effective zero SPcost when an Armor's base in this case an Offensive Lean normal attack is removed after participating in Elecomp to correctly Weapon-based 4000%-1500% = 2500% and Spell-type 3700%-1200% = 2500%.
At every row of matching effective SPcosts, after Elecomp is applied to SPcost for Weapon-based: Starting with the second row at 25% SP for both Tables and at 100% SP at sixth row for Table 1 and fourth row for Table 2, Weapon-based both deals higher damage for the same SPcost, with 500% SP available and entirely consumed, the total damage including the Armor's base normal attack, and damage contributed by only Elecomp, SP and removing Armor's base normal attack, are both higher than Spell-type.
At every row of matching base SPcost at the front of each row, not the Elecomp to SPcost for Weapon-based: Starting with Base 100% SP at second row for Table 1 and fourth row of Table 2, Weapon-based deals lower damage per cast, however with 500% SP available and entirely consumed, the total damage including the Armor's base normal attack, and damage contributed by only Elecomp, SP and removing Armor's base normal attack, are both higher than Spell-type.

Post #: 2

1/11/2023 0:25:35

Ianthe

formerly In Media Res

@RobynJoanne - So right now the skill costs 43SP. I plugged TorRex's eleComp onto it and got that it should cost... -76 SP. Oops.

I'm up for switching it to being an Algern's Carapace/Griffinrider Mount/etc type toggle. Any other armours I can switch over?

Post #: 3

1/11/2023 3:23:35

Primate Murder
Member

Lord of the Skies

Post #: 4

1/11/2023 5:17:37

LUPUL LUNATIC
Member

Lord of the Skies
Akriloth's Hatred
Sinmawl's Maul

Post #: 5

1/11/2023 21:19:15

Legendary Ash
Member

For Armors with incorrect calculations of Elecomp split between damage and cost, the ideal appropriate action is to increase resource costs taking into account Elecomp to produce the original intended effective cost.
The chosen direction for changes currently is in favor of replacing the original design and flavour with a simple toggleable mode for the normal attack to receive Elecomp to damage.

The objective issues with this direction are presented in the explanation below:

1. The directions taken in the updates to the 20,000 Token Package Weapon compressing Armors of Akriloth's Wrath, Lord of the Skies, Sinmaw, went beyond correction, the decision to change to two Weapon-based Skills under precedents meant Elecomp split between damage and cost, the Efficient Skill's Elecomp is split between damage and cost, however the Overcharged Weapon-based Skill applied Elecomp to damage, breaking precedents in the name of preservation of the design and flavour of these Armors' original Spell-type SP Skill with Elecomp to damage.
2. The direction taken to address the situation of incorrect SP costs for Efficient Weapon-based Skills with Elecomp split between damage and cost, goes beyond correction, by a combination of design and flavour change, the removal of resource costs from a Weapon-based Skill whose Elecomp is split between damage and cost, and subsequently changed to a toggleable Elecomp normal attack, is objectively unfaithful to the original design.
3. While the two presented directions involved changes that are defined as beyond correction, there are striking differences that are identified.
The direction taken in 1. is very considerate of and prioritizes preservation of flavour that resulted in broken precedents, the one unavoidable tradeoff that is a loss, the Skill is no longer Spell-type, it will not function with equipment that are based on the Spell tag, it has an equal gain in being Weapon-type, effects from the equipped Weapon are applied.
The source has provided no official justification for direction taken in 2., thus under the presumption that this direction goes into implementation, we provide an objective analysis of the conflicts that this direction entails.

3. On the basis of AQ's Equipment design history timeline, this direction objectively replaces the existing further chronologically forward to modern design with a primitive design.
4. This primitive design is found in existing equipment, specifically the design exists for a shared Primary element and Armor Lean, the variations in non-Primary Resistances and Blocking do not produce significant differences among the Elecomp for those being compared and relevant to this critique, therefore under the criteria of design space, overlap and redundancy, it is objectively an ineffective use of Elecomp, as there exists observable instances in modern practices of Elecomp application to both Normal attacks and Skill/Spell, which are entirely composed of effects/statuses/mechanics or having to share the composition with a damage component, instead of the primitive design of pure damage.

5. Considering Equipment design's evolution and progression, simply reusing a primitive design without differentiation through additional effects/mechanics, that otherwise constitute modern practices in distinction of designs present in modern equipment design, that Devs generally are consistent in for equipment belonging to regular Quests/Storylines/Limited Time Shop releases, after the learning experience from the initial years of Donations, 2015's Crimson Crusader/Amaranthine, 2016's Beachmancer Weapon+Armor+Misc that are comparable to the designs of other permanent MC equipment from their respective times and year.
6. An increasing number of piece(s) of equipment from each Donation had experimental designs/mechanics that defined the capabilities of equipment created afterwards which were modeled and innovated after them, 2016's Cometfall, 2017's Steam Weapon+Armor+Shield+Pet+Misc, Nilak's Frostbite, 2018's Thunderbird Joust Weapon+Armor+Shield+Pet+Misc, 2019's Desert Raider Weapon+Armor+Shield+Pet+Misc, Balmung, Sunscale/Chaoswrought Weapon+Shield, 2020's Veywild Weapon+Armor+Shield+Spell+Pet+Misc, Brightslayer/Nutcracker Weapon+Shield+Misc, 2021's Frostwyrm Weapon+Armor+Shield+Pet+Misc, Boreal Cavalier/Shadow Phoenix Weapon+Shield+Misc, 2022's PaleSkull Weapon+Armor+Shield+Pet+Misc.
7. Regular releases with experimental designs, Destruction Burst and Void Takeover's Pyromancer Bloodmage contributed to expansions based on upon their designs, Golden Giftboxes' Bloodmages, Bloodzerkers, HexBound.
Both older Token Packages and Donations equipment such as Dragonrider Mount, Griffinrider, Thunderbird Joust Rider, presented chronologically each served as models where innovations built on them created the next successive and advanced design to the right, they lead to increasingly competitive designs such as Paragon Fiend Mount, Warmaster Dragon Rider, Abyssal/Infernal Champions.

Presuming the direction is to be implemented, the specific equipment that the fourth point mentions as concerning design space, overlap, redundancy, are Frostgale's Legacy and Graverider Mount, these each are Offensive Lean Ice Element Armors that have their MCs spent to compress a toggleable Ice Element locked Elecomp mode normal attack.
Additional Armors to consider in if making a new decision with concern for design space are the Old Standard Offensive Lean Horo-Show Vigilante with an Ice element locked Elecomp SP Spell and the Frostval Delivery's Old Standard Neutral Lean S.A.N.T.A with both an Ice element locked Elecomp SP Skill and Spell. the former with Elecomp to cost and the latter with Elecomp to damage.

Post #: 6

2/7/2023 1:38:30

Ianthe

formerly In Media Res

Armours are updated. Thanks!

Post #: 7

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Game Balance Issues >> EleComp to Cost

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