RobynJoanne
Member
|
This is an analysis of the stat overhaul as proposed. Because this will be a change that strongly impacts the game, it is important that everyone properly understands the nuances of its effects. This analysis is here to help with making well-informed decisions by providing information that may be overlooked or unknown from just the post Hollow made.
I am personally against the style bonuses, as I find Player power to be completely rampant and would heavily favor buffs to Monsters. Players can max out three stats at level 150, so Players are getting 60% Melee extra per turn, which is a substantial increase when we consider how the entire Player turn is only worth 140% Melee. That's my basic opinion out of the way, and the rest explains the stats and the changes, with explanations of stats coming up when relevant to proposed changes.
Str
Base Behavior:
Warrior lean exists to allow Warriors to use FD Armors effectively by emulating the behavior of using a 100-Proc Weapon in an FD Armor. This could be done by multiplying Weapon damage by *1.25 in FD Armors if the Attack is Melee (0.8*1.25=1). For those unaware, while Mages and Rangers both get 100-Proc Weapons regularly, Rangers more so than Mages, Warriors have only a handful of 100-Proc Melee Weapons, and 100-Proc Melee Weapons as a concept have been deprecated. Warrior lean makes all builds equally capable in theory to use both FD and FO Armors at full effectiveness. There is a need for a minor change, however. 0-Proc Weapons are meant to be used in FO Armors. That is why their 0-Proc Bonus is *1.08 while 100-Proc Weapons with no true Weapon Special have a bonus of *1.1. As 100-Proc Weapons bypass the Armor, they deal damage as if they are in a Neutral Armor. The 0.08 of the 0-Proc Bonus becomes 0.1 with the FO *1.25 damage effect. Thus, to be most accurate, Warrior lean should provide a slightly higher multiplicative effect when holding a 0-Proc Weapon: 1.27315.
Warrior lean does let FD Warriors use every Melee Weapon to full effect, unlike Mages and Rangers who can only use 100-Proc Weapons to full effect, which gives FD Warriors a massive advantage in versatility purely in terms of Weapons.
Style Bonus:
+15% damage is +15% Melee per turn. A 4-turn -12.5% damage Choke with no save is worth 70% Melee. Making the Choke once per 10 turns means an average of +7% Melee per turn. Thus, Warrior's Style Bonus is worth 22% Melee per turn, slightly higher than the 20% budget.
It is possible to emulate this damage reduction effect by adding a damage reduction passive when holding a Melee Weapon if tying a build to a particular Status Effect is undesirable. Warriors also have a high number of Backlash items, and Backlash has some anti-synergy with damage reduction effects. A flat spike damage effect can work if the desire is for a style bonus related to taking damage.
Dex
Base Behavior:
To keep all builds equal, all builds must deal 2000% damage over 20 turns in a Neutral Armor. This is the 20-turn Model. Warriors stably deal 100% damage every turn with Weapon Attacks. Mages deal 75% damage on Weapon Attacks and 200% damage on Spells. Mages have enough MP to cast four standard Spells. 200%*4+75%*16 = 2000%.
Under the proposed ramping system, Rangers would deal 80% damage on the 1st turn, increase by 7% each turn for the next 3 turns, and increase by 3.5% each turn for the next 16 turns. 80%+87%+...+101%+104.5%+...+157% = 2454%
In fact, the earlier explanation for the 20-turn Model was incomplete. The 20-turn Model models two 1 Power Monster fights (mobs) or one 2+ Power Monster fight (boss). Each mob battle takes 10 turns, and the boss battle takes 20 turns. Ramping inherently favors longer fights, so it should be overpowered for a 20-turn boss battle. It's more important that it be balanced for 1000% damage over 10 turns. 80%+87%+...+101%+104.5%+...+122% = 1042%. The numbers would ideally be adjusted to be accurate here, but the specifics would be up to the devs and the player base. The most important point to remember is that the builds should deal the same amount of damage over the length of a battle regardless of whether or not ramping becomes/stays Dex's base behavior.
I believe it's worth mentioning that any kind of behavior that doesn't keep at least the default 100% damage for the first turn has anti-synergy with Initiative, which provides a +50% damage boost on the first turn if the Player moves first and only on that turn, and there is one Ranger-focused Armor with Initiative and a couple of others that are Ranger-related.
And, yes, I know the 20-turn Model doesn't reflect reality, but it's here to stay, which is to players' benefit. As explained above, Mages have enough MP to cast four standard Spells because of the model. If the turn count were halved to better reflect reality, MP would similarly need to be halved. That is among the many potential changes necessary, mostly nerfs, to change the turn model. A longer discussion on the matter is here for those interested. For the record, I would support changing the turn model both because of a desire to reflect reality better and because I generally support nerfs.
Style Bonus:
+6 MRM is +10% Melee per turn.
The other bonus requires an explanation of BtH leans first. Expected accuracy in AQ is 85%. This is the accuracy you should have if you have expected Mainstat investment and no BtH bonuses or penalties and are fighting a Monster with the expected amount of MRM. Items can have BtH leans, which are free effects that change BtH. Because BtH leans are free but changing BtH would change the expected amount of damage dealt, BtH leans also come with a damage multiplier to compensate. This multiplier is *85/(85+[BtH lean]). A positive lean reduces damage dealt due to higher accuracy, and a negative lean increases damage dealt due to lower accuracy. The status effect Berserk is a negative BtH lean and has a damage multiplier in its description; that damage multiplier comes from this formula.
At +20 BtH lean, the multiplier is *85/(85+20) = 0.809 or *80.9~81%.
At -20 BtH lean, the multiplier is 85/(85-20) = 1.308 or *130.8~131%.
Dex's style bonus reduces the downside of BtH leans by 25%. For positive BtH leans, this is a reduction in the damage penalty. For negative BtH leans, this is a reduction in the BtH penalty. +20 BtH lean's *81% damage becomes *86% damage, as a quarter of the 19% damage penalty is removed. -20 BtH lean's BtH penalty becomes -15 BtH, as a quarter of the -20 is removed.
It's hard to value this effect, but I believe it helps to not think of these as two separate effects. Instead, let's think of both effects as BtH bonuses.
-20 BtH lean to -15 BtH is obvious. That's +5 BtH.
It's less obvious with a positive BtH lean like +20 BtH lean, but we can use the multiplier formula again. *86% damage can come from *85/(85+14). That's a 14 BtH lean. We can think of the BtH lean as a 14 BtH lean with +6 BtH as the style bonus.
There's a slight discrepancy between the positive and negative BtH leans of the same absolute amount, but it's minor enough. The point is that this helps us value this effect, as BtH bonuses have a definite Melee % value. +5 BtH is 5.88% Melee. That's a bit over half the 10% Melee per turn this should be.
There are other problems as well.
To properly value this effect, we should have an expected amount of BtH lean change as a baseline. That's not easy, as there are no guidelines for BtH leans on Items. BtH leans pay for themselves, so items theoretically have no limit on BtH leans. In practice, there are some limits, but there are no strict rules. The loosey-goosey nature of BtH leans means that any value we put on this style bonus will almost certainly be either underpowered or overpowered. The valuation itself is also an issue. I said earlier that +5 BtH is 5.88% Melee, but that Melee % valuation comes from an expected accuracy of 85% (specifically, 5.88% Melee*0.85 = 5 BtH). BtH leans will change your accuracy, so expected accuracy will no longer be 85%. The valuation is inherently flawed in that regard. Finally, because the style bonus is 25% of the penalty of the BtH lean, the style bonus scales with the absolute amount of the BtH lean, so it rewards extreme behavior. People must decide if they wish for Rangers to be tied to extreme BtH leans.
Int
Base Behavior:
There are no changes, and I have already explained how Mages' damage works (16 75% Melee Weapon Attacks and 4 200% Melee Spells). It is worth mentioning that the MP bar is slightly more than 4 Spell casts' worth. At level 150, a Spell costs 653 MP, and 653*4 = 2612 MP. The MP bar of a level 150 Mage with the expected number of 250 Int is 2632 MP.
Style Bonus:
Wallbreaker is a Spell bonus, so its valuation must account for the limited number of Spells a Mage is expected to use. A Mage is expected to cast a Spell once every five turns on average. Spells deal 200% damage, so a boost to a Spell is worth double in Melee %. 20% Melee per turn on average is thus equal to +20%*5/2 = +50% damage to Spells. Wallbreaker should thus provide +50% damage to Spells on average. As seen in the examples provided, Wallbreaker's current formula increases the amount of damage inversely proportionally to Elemental Resist of the Monster as a pseudo-normalization effect, but even at an extreme 10% Elemental Resist, it's merely +45% damage, still less than the +50% it should be.
The current formula is also not the most accurate to keep the amount of boosting equal. True normalization would do this: +50%/[Elemental Resist].
>> Example: Against 90% resistance, spells deal +55.55% damage. Equivalent of hitting 140% resistance.
>> Example: Against 50% resistance, spells deal +100% damage. Equivalent of hitting 100% resistance.
>> Example: Against 10% resistance, spells deal +500% damage. Equivalent of hitting 60% resistance.
In every case, there's a +50% increase to resistance. Normalization comes with its own issues. The relative change is drastic and can cause break fights where the Monster's Elemental Resists are all low and designed with that in mind. There are Spells that already have normalization baked in, and providing more normalization lets these Spells double-dip, potentially making them far stronger at low resists than higher resists. Finally, hitting for 140% resist at 90% resist but hitting only for 100% resist at 100% resist is a clear example of misaligned incentives. The Player shouldn't desire lower resists on a Monster but would in this case.
Wallbreaker's limitation to only working on Elemental Resists lower than 100% is an arbitrary limitation. There is no mathematical reason for it. That's not to say there's no reasoning behind this decision. Mages exploit numerous limitations with the game's expectations and item design to be far stronger than expected (e.g. 4 Spell casts from the 20-Turn Model as noted earlier), and arbitrary limitations are useful for keeping Mages in check.
End
Base Behavior:
End provides HP. That's all it does at base. Unfortunately, because there are two different valuations for HP, End is simultaneously extremely overpowered and extremely underpowered depending on which you use. The first valuation uses damage intake. Under the 20-Turn Model, the Player's HP bar should last for 20 turns of Monster damage. Thus, 1/20th of the HP bar is equated to 100% Melee. End investment is not assumed for this, so it's 1/20th of the HP bar with 0 End. At level 150, this is 148 HP. The second valuation uses resource conversion. 1 HP = 1.5 MP = 1.125 SP. At level 150 2612 MP is 500% Melee, so 348 HP would be 100% Melee. 148 HP and 348 HP are wildly different numbers relatively speaking, and it causes problems with balancing End. Which should be used? In practice, Players will encounter both kinds of uses for HP, so it's hard to be sure. As long as this discrepancy remains, it will be hard to balance End mathematically.
There's also a practical problem with balancing End. HP exists to keep the Player alive, but one only needs 1 HP to win a battle. Thus, if one wins with any HP more than 1 and is then healed, the remaining HP is "wasted." Of course, one will often want a larger buffer between victory and defeat, if nothing else than peace of mind. Nevertheless, this remains a problem with End as long as its only base effect is to increase HP.
Style Bonus:
The implemented effects are +12.5 Heal Resist for HP and +5 Status Resist when End is fully invested. These are each worth 5% Melee, so End's Style Bonus is worth 10% Melee per turn currently. These bonuses would need to be doubled to reach 20% Melee, but this comes with other concerns. To prevent invincible setups, Heal Resist cannot reach too high a value, and even End's current bonus pushes things quite far. Status Resist is not as egregious a problem but can also neuter some bosses, including some challenge ones, if allowed to reach too high values. Beyond these concerns, however, these Style Bonuses contribute to the primary problem of End where its defensive properties are wasted when they're too much. The primary way to lose a battle in AQ is to reach 0 HP, and these Style Bonuses only further make it harder to reach that number when End already has that problem at base.
Cha
Base Behavior:
Changing Pet/Guest accuracy to use [Mainstat+Cha] instead of [Dex+Cha] finally fixes the longstanding problem of Dex being a secondary accuracy stat for everything.
To understand why Guest costs and output have been nerfed, it's important to understand where the original numbers come from. In AQ, normally, to gain power, an equivalent amount in Melee %, the unit of power in AQ, must be paid as a cost. Guests have always had a disproportionate output compared to their upkeep costs. This is because Beastmasters were meant to use Cha Weapons in addition to Guests. Cha Weapons do 75% damage, the same as Magic Weapons, which is why Cha Weapons deal Magic damage. It's a conflation that can be confusing because Cha Weapons deal 75% damage for something different to the one for Magic Weapons. As explained above, Magic Weapons deal 75% damage because of Spells. Cha Weapons deal 75% damage because of Guests. By paying 25% Weapon damage, Beastmasters now have 25% Melee to allocate to Guests. That 25% alone doesn't explain the 37.875~38% Melee difference between the 22.125% Melee cost and the 60% Melee output. The rest is an erroneous decompression bonus worth 5% Melee and some eldritch logic lost in the annals of AQ history.
There are two major problems with this logic. The first problem is that Cha Weapons barely exist. Hollow's post mentions this. How can game assumptions be made based on something that's not even theoretically reasonable? There aren't even enough Cha Weapons to fill an inventory. The second problem is the existence of Pets. Cha also doubles Pet effectiveness, providing a further 20% Melee there. This logic doesn't explain the increased power of Pets. This logic also implies something about Cha: it treats Cha like a Mainstat. If Cha were to be a Mainstat, then it would have to follow the same rules as the other Mainstats where one only deals 100% damage average base, requiring paying additional costs for additional power. Cha provides 75% from Weapon, 60% - upkeep from Guest, and 20% from Pet. Bringing Guest upkeep to 35% would balance Cha to 100%, excluding Pets, and it would be necessary to change all Pets to scale off Mainstat instead. That's a massive undertaking on par with Ianthe's incredible work with Guests recently.
Ultimately, this is a purely academic thought, useful for explanation but of no practical significance. Cha Weapons are a discontinued concept, and the devs have taken the stance that Cha is not a Mainstat, which means Cha is a supporting stat.
Cha being a supporting stat brings yet another layer to Guests. Simply put, as they are currently, supporting stats provide free unaccounted power to the Player. As noted earlier, the damage intake valuation of HP assumes 0 End while the conversion valuation ignores End completely. Neither assumes End investment, so investing in End is free extra power. The amount of free extra power depends on the valuation, of course. Luk similarly provides free power. Lucky Strikes are *1.5 the normal stat damage, which is half of overall power, and occur 10% of the time, so they're worth 15% Melee for Players and 3% for Pets per turn on average. This extra damage is notably not considered for Player damage normally. Luk also has an Initiative component worth 5% Melee per turn on average, accuracy component, and status roll component. The last two are hard to value but definitely provide some power. Anyway, the point is that supporting stats provide free extra power. In that case, Cha can justifiably provide some free power on its own and doesn't necessarily have to pay the upkeep of Guests entirely. Cha provides the 20% Melee component of Pets and then some nebulous extra amount based on how much End and Luk are worth can pay for partial Guest upkeep.
We're still not done discussing Guests. Ianthe's work on the Guest files needs to be praised as much as possible, but the unfortunate reality is that Guest output should be kept at 60% Melee on average. All items that interact with Guests in any way assume Guest output is 60% Melee, so if Guest output is changed, then all of these items are now unbalanced. Ianthe's work does allow for Guest output to be modified dynamically, and that gives us room to change things if keeping Guest output at exactly 60% Melee since the average is what's important.
Style Bonus:
A 22.22% chance to double Guest output is worth 0.2222*45% = 10% Melee per turn. This would need to be doubled to reach 20%. That would break the 60% Melee average output for Guests that would be ideal, so part of Cha's power would have to be allocated elsewhere. Specifically, a 33.33% chance would make average output reach 60%.
Luk
Base Behavior:
Luk's influence on MRM has been removed. Luk used to provide Luk/50 MRM. At level 150, most Monsters have 225 Luk, so they've lost 4.5 MRM with this change. This is an increase in BtH for Players without investment in Luk. Do note that Monsters without Luk have not lost any MRM.
Luk's accuracy component is now an accuracy floor. Because Luk's influence on MRM has been removed, its influence on BtH must similarly be removed to maintain balance between MRM and BtH. This accuracy floor caps the effectiveness of dodge strategies at 95% effectiveness to combat the general overpoweredness of dodge as a playstyle, which can relatively easily create unbeatable setups that are the same for every fight. In the 20-Turn Model, this effect would only proc once on average, so it doesn't truly fix the problem but could be viewed as a starting point.
Style Bonus:
Flipping a status debuff is the equivalent of removing a status and then providing an equivalent one. Both components should be equal in value because they have the same amount of effect in absolute terms. It costs 50% Melee to remove any status effect, so this is 100% Melee total. 20% chance brings this to 20% Melee per turn.
Flipping status debuffs has some anti-synergy with Luk's natural protection against Status Effects as the Minor Roll of Status Rolls.
The bulk of this analysis has been on the Player side of things, but that's because the stat overhaul primarily focuses on the Player side. After all, style bonuses are Player-exclusive, and most base behavior changes are similarly Player-exclusives. Nevertheless, stat changes still affect Monsters. There's the reduced health scaling nerf in End and the MRM nerf in Luk mentioned earlier. Indirectly, since most Monsters have Dex but Dex has no benefits for Monsters that do not attack with Ranged, most Monsters have effectively lost 250 stat points. This contrasts the 250 stat points Players gained at the same time, though one could argue this is actually 500 stat points now that only Players are only assumed to have Mainstat investment. Losing so many stat points is a substantial nerf to Monsters, and they do need compensation for this. From what I understand, it should be relatively easy for the devs to just change the stat spread of non-Ranged Monsters to shift their Dex to something else. This could also be a solution. There will be niche scenarios in which a Monster attacks with Ranged or has at least one Ranged attack but is not considered a Ranged Monster, but those are relatively rare.
I believe this should be a decently extensive guide to understanding all the nuances worth considering for the stat overhaul. Please let me know if I have missed anything. With that said, I would like to remind that the notes on style bonuses are not suggestions I endorse. They are simply examples based on the proposed style bonuses. Again, I personally dislike style bonuses universally, but I considered it still necessary to explore those avenues for thoroughness.
< Message edited by RobynJoanne -- 1/26/2024 16:01:06 >
|
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
