Lv 1000
Member
|
Quickcast Effects and Lucky Strike Damage:
quote:
Quickcast effect should not be able to Lucky Strike as this would mean that the player could potentially receive multiple turns of Lucky Strike damage within the same turn. This is an issue because player is expected to only be able to receive one turn of Lucky Strike damage per turn. There are a few examples of quickcast effects both being able to Lucky Strike and not being able to Lucky Strike.
Can Lucky Strike
Haunted/Eclipsed Dragonlord Shield: Barrier Skill
Gandolphin Spell
Insightful Armor of Awe: Shield of Insight
Cannot Lucky Strike
Spectral Chains
Knife to Meat You
Other Cases:
Necromancer Class: (Aggressive) Anima Ward
This falls into an "Other" category because it is currently bugged. These passives are not meant to be able to Lucky Strike (see info subs), yet they currently do.
Fear Chance: Undead Reindeer Stampede vs. Looming/Searing Fear (Necromancer Class)
quote:
Both Undead Reindeer Stampede and Looming/Searing Fear pay 50% damage for a Fear effect.
Undead Reindeer Stampede:
Pays MC + 50% spell damage (100% melee) for a 42.02% stun rate Fear that lasts 4 turns.
Looming/Searing Fear:
Pays 50% spell damage (100% melee) and maybe MC (unsure) for a 50% stun rate Fear that lasts 4 turns.
Clearly, one of the above is incorrect as both spells are paying a very similar amount for a significant difference in Fear stun rate.
From what I understand about stuns, I'm leaning towards Looming/Searing Fear being the correct calculation. Thoughts:
The monster's turn is worth 140% melee, we multiply that by 4 because the status lasts that long, so we have 140*4 = 560% melee, however the monster has hit rate of 0.85 so we have 560*0.85 = 476% melee, then we consider the save for both of these effects which is 50%, so we have 476*0.5 = 238% melee, next we consider the player's hit rate, which is 0.85 for both spells, so we have 238*0.85 = 202.3% melee. Now that we're at this point we need to decide which stun rate fear of the two spells makes sense given that this effect costs ~200% melee if the stun rate were to be 100%. We can easily see that Looming/Searing Fear applies a 50% stun rate Fear which would line up with the spell's cost (albeit roughly), i.e., 202.3*0.5 = 101.15% melee, which lines up almost exactly with the spell paying 100% melee, or 50% damage.
Dreamweaver Armor: Arbitrary Lockouts and Missing EleComp
quote:
Scathing Dreamweaver's "toggle" Overwhelming Insight is has multiple effects, it:
1) Changes the armor's lean to Spellcaster Lean.
2) Boosts the damage of spells by +25%.
3) Changes your basic attack into a spell that is worth 75% melee which is split between damage and MP healing.
Additionally, it locks you out of all player actions except for normal attacks (effectively a spell while active), spells and the flee button.
Let's go through each of the above and see how these effects are paid for.
1) Changing armor leans has no cost (other than possibly an MC, but this is not important now), see Paladin, Necromancer, etc.
2) This is paid for via SP, +25% spell damage is +50% melee, which is 196 SP
3) This effect is free as the assumed normal attack for mages deals 75% damage, and the spell that replaces the normal attack is also valued at 75% melee, thus they cancel out and the spell has no cost.
This leaves us with the last remaining penalty, the lockouts. You could make the claim that they pay for the lean swap, but this is AT MOST worth 5% melee (an MC), however, claiming that this many character lockouts is worth 5% melee is a HUGE stretch. Therefore, I conclude that the character lockouts are entirely arbitrary and serve no purpose in the balancing of this item. While I understand the thematics of having them exist, thematics do not take priority over actual balance and never should. I see two possibilities, either 1) The lockouts are removed, or 2) The lockouts are kept, but beneficial effects are added to compensate for the lockouts existing.
As a further note unrelated to this specific issue: Because the armor's normal attacks are locked to a fire spell for the duration of the toggle, it would makes sene for the spell to get EleComp since you are locked to a fire spell while using a fire armor. I can understand why it wouldn't for general balance reasons but I thought I would mention this as it technically should recieve EleComp.
Eye of Naab: Effects Are too Weak.
quote:
Eye of Naab has you skip your turn, on a save roll, at apply a +40 MRM Defence Boost and a +15 BtH Boost, each for 1 turn. However, these effect magnitudes/durations do not match what is paid. The player's turn is worth 100% melee and with a 50% save, this is worth 200% melee. If we assume that 100% melee goes to each effect, this would be a +60 MRM Defence Boost and a +85 BtH Boost, which is definitely not what it currently provides. Additionally, I'm not sure why the shield's effect provides a +BtH Boost that can't be used by the player, it really shouldn't be there if it's intended to only be applied for 1 turn.
Big Dictionary (Panoply): Effects Are too Strong.
quote:
The Panoply spell from the Big Dictionary tome applies +29 MRM Defence Boost for 5 turns and pays 125% melee in MP for this. Let's break down the actual cost of this effect. A +29 MRM Defence Boost is worth 48.33% melee, and over 5 turns this is worth 241.67% melee. As you can see, this cost value is much higher than the current value. Since 241.67% melee would be a massive amount of MP, I suggest calculating the +MRM Boost based on what it currently pays, which would be +15 MRM for 5 turns, or find some middle ground like +25 MRM for 3 turns, or even increasing the cost for more Defence Boost effect, etc. There are a few potential solutions.
< Message edited by Lv 1000 -- 1/23/2022 13:28:23 >
|
Printable Version
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
