=AQ= STAT REVAMP BALANCE


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

=AQ= STAT REVAMP BALANCE - DEX

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Game Balance Issues >> =AQ= STAT REVAMP BALANCE - DEX

Forum Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

2/6/2024 0:35:53

Lorekeeper
And Pun-isher

THIS IS A TECHNICAL THREAD. PLEASE READ THE POST AND STAFF POSTS iN THE REVAMP THREAD IN FULL BEFORE REPLYING.

This thread is for the discussion of the balance of the DEX changes of the imminent stat revamp. This is where players can provide formula and balance concerns about the new features in general and stats relative to each other. Is anything broken? Do you anticipate any broken interactions or technical concerns we seem to be missing?

This is not a general discussion or general opinion thread. To provide feedback beyond this point, it's essential to familiarize yourself with the concepts of balance in the context of AQ ( Explained in this thread). Feedback must be concrete and presented in a constructive manner. To that end, we will have to be stricter with its content. The more grounded in the game's concepts a point is, the more likely we are to be able to work with it.

This thread is set to open at a point after noon EST on Tuesday the 6th.

Current summary of upcoming changes:

quote:

DEXTERITY

Base Behavior Changes:

Ranged attacks once again have a baseline of 100% melee.

Adaptation: After each successful Ranged hit, the lean shifts by -0.75 BtH. After each miss, the lean shifts away from damage and towards accuracy by +4.25 BtH. The effect on damage would be a multiplier of 85/(85±LeanMod) damage. The maximum values are +/-20 BtH. If not performing any Ranged attacks, the lean change is frozen. When using an autohit attack, the lean does not shift nor affect the attack.

Style bonus:

Weapon special attacks gain bonus output increasing logarithmically with their proc rate. With a power budget of 10%, this means 100 proc weapons will get a boost of 15% before being affected by DEX's adaptive behavior.

+4.25 BtH

< Message edited by Ward_Point -- 2/6/2024 11:21:13 >

Post #: 1

2/6/2024 13:29:17

Dardiel
Member

I do maintain that the ranger adaptation identity's current specifics are a GBI.

Point 1: If lean is balanced, then the cap (especially a hard cap on a mechanic that already interacts with inherent caps) is arbitrary. I see no reason why a lean of 0 is fine, and 20 is also fine, but 20.5 is unbalanced; if leans ARE unbalanced such that they require an arbitrary cap, then the stat revamp should avoid relying on an unbalanced mechanic.
Edit: As Sapphire points out below, the cap existing is itself abusable; DEX gives inherent BtH and it's incredibly easy to get additional BtH via stat buffs and statuses. This results in the ranger identity being "get some accuracy to beat the cap and now you're a strictly better warrior with both consistency and a bigger damage multiplier".

Point 2: Adjusting lean by a flat amount is unbalanced. Due to lean being based on the denominator (85/x), a lean that decreases at a steady rate has an impact that accelerates to infinity before flipping into the negatives. The lean adjustment must be modified so that the impact is being modified and the lean represents it rather than the other way around like it is now.

Sub-point: Early lean changes as proposed are incredibly slow, especially when increasing damage. This related to lean's acceleration when adjusted by flat amounts, and potentially just an opinion as well, but initial damage increases are as low as 1% which is statistically insignificant within the range of multipliers an attack can have; additionally, a single miss will adjust the lean so far toward accuracy that it takes 5+2/3 hits just to break even - a fight only assumes about 20 attacks (2 per turn, 10 turns), so one unlucky early miss means that nearly a third of the battle is spent compensating (1 miss + almost 6 hits = 6.66/20 attacks).

Solution: My proposal of tracking a variable, and applying a lean modifier based on that. The variable starts at 0, goes up 1 per hit landed and goes down 1 or 2 per miss. The player is given a lean of (in a more visual notation to reduce brackets):

-85*[Variable]^2
~~----------------------------------~~
[Variable]^2+26*[Variable]

That equation endures that early hits are more significant than continued hits, removes the arbitrary cap in favor of an asymptote of -85 which means it automatically scales lean changes based on their impact while preventing the computing issues of reaching/passing -85, and makes misses always move the lean toward accuracy faster than hits move away but on a scale that doesn't occupy a large portion of the fight.

This equation has the player reach -20 BtH as of their 8th consecutive hit landed; the 26 in the denominator can be replaced with a 32 for it to be -20 as of 10 hits, or a 39 for it to be -20 as of 12 hits.

I'm not certain that this equation is perfect, but I do believe it achieves the goals in a cleaner and smoother way while also handling the issues that flat lean changes have.

< Message edited by Dardiel -- 2/6/2024 19:15:15 >

Post #: 2

2/6/2024 13:52:18

Sapphire
Member

^ By capping the lean, then main stat and other BTH boosting to outperform the -20 cap will result in a Meta that rangers can front load BTH and then not be at risk of missing too much. A +50 toggle shield, a +50 toggle misc is already 16 BTH. Or there's miscs that have pure BTH boost. Not only that, NYS spell is 16ish. Defloss or TheCold and other ways to land hits are all very easy to stack alongside this. These items will be the preferred gear set and they serve to bypass the supposed downside.

If this is ok by staff, then by all means proceed.

But what Dardiel is suggesting is to uncap the lean such that eventually you can't actually out-boost (in terms of BTH) the cap. And you will actually miss.

I think both approaches (cap and no cap) have merit. On one hand, a cap also caps the damage boost. But the cap also provides a target to overcome, which is actually simple to manage to do.

If a cap were to be removed, it almost feels like there should maybe be a soft cap instead where once you cross it, landed hits more drastically decrease BTH on a faster curve such that it may actually cause you to miss even with the most stacked BTH boosts imaginable. I understand this means huge damage if the hits land, but I'm just theorizing real life gameplay scenarios.

I honestly think uncapped is bubblewrap

Post #: 3

2/6/2024 17:44:39

Dreiko Shadrack
Member

Capping was always going to happen as indeed all things are capped in AQ in one way or another, stat behaviors and leans are no exceptions.

However I do agree that the current proposed model for the accuracy ramp for negative bth lean is unacceptably and brokenly slow. Even at an average of two (2) hits, which is the most common amount of hits for armors and 100 proc weaponry, to reach the -20 cap requires 14 turn to achieve this (it's technically 20 / 0.75 / 2 = 13.(3) turns but you can't have fractional turns so it's 14 in practice).
God forbid you have weaponry/armors with only one (1) hit per turn then that's 27 turns, far exceeding the limits set by the 20 turn model, this wouldn't be a rare issue either as equipment with only one hit is (as I recall at least) more common in-game than those with more than 2 hits.

The ideal timeframe to reach the lean cap on this adaptation effect is 4 to 6 turns, beyond that and it's more or less a pointless effect to begin with.

EDIT

Proposal for new numbers on ramp:

º Modifying the current relation of the negative to positive skew: -2 for hits +4 for misses. At an average of 2 hits per turn this translates to 5 turns to reach the cap for hits and 2.5 -> 3 turns for misses.

º Modifying the current relation of the negative to positive skew (personal preference): -2 for hits and +3.25 for misses. At an average of 2 hits per turn this translates to 5 turns to reach the cap for hits and 3.07 -> 3 turns for misses.

I find the current relation skew to be too extreme in favor of the positive lean, even though I do understand the reasoning for it.

< Message edited by Dreiko Shadrack -- 2/6/2024 20:23:47 >

AQW

Epic

Post #: 4

2/6/2024 18:14:04

CH4OT1C!
Member

I agree with @Dardiel and @Dreiko Shadrack that the ramp is slow. In this interests of a hotfix I think the proposals laid out by @Dreiko Shadrack are great. However, this is also breaking the current ratio between hit and miss of 85:15. With that in mind, I also offer a range of solutions that would allow the player to reach the negative cap in 4-6 turns assuming 2 hits per turn. I don't support them, but I feel it's important to lay all options on the table.

1). -1.5 bth lean on hit / +8.5 bth lean on miss / 14 hits to cap
2). -1.75 bth lean on hit / +10 bth lean on miss / 12 hits to cap
3). -2 bth lean on hit / +11.33 bth lean on miss / 10 hits to cap
4). -2.25 bth lean on hit / +12.75 bth lean on miss / 9 hits to cap
5). -2.5 bth lean on hit / +14.1 bth lean on miss / 8 hits to cap

EDIT: @Ianthe's solution below also looks great!

< Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 2/7/2024 17:12:18 >

Post #: 5

2/6/2024 20:47:24

Grace Xisthrith
Member

There are various items with infinite scaling mechanics, so the idea that infinite scaling isn't a thing in AQ isn't really true. Additionally, the previous iteration of ranged had it. Not really a huge deal though

I think Dardiel's equation very effectively ramps up damage at a slow but not crazy pace, and the ramping into accuracy is significantly faster, as one would expect as missing is much rarer.

For a bit of context, I made a spreadsheet, it takes 8 consecutive hits to get to -20 bth, 15 to hit -30, 24 to hit -40, and 38 to hit -50. Maybe it could be slower, maybe not, idk.

I do think misses could lower the variable by more the higher the variable is, since the higher you go, the slower the decrease. Something like Round(Variable / 10) x (number) would work to increase the impact of misses even as you go higher (number could be heavily adjusted of course). Then again, maybe if you're able to chain 15 hits at a significantly negative bth lean you shouldn't increase your bth lean that fast.

Post #: 6

2/7/2024 8:15:02

ruleandrew
Member

One way to apply ranged adaption
RA = number of ranged hit attempts to hit monster during current player turn

RH = [number of ranged hits that hit monster during current player turn] / [RA]

Check RA value and RH value at the end of player turn.

Ranged hit lean at the start of battle is 0 bonus to hit.
Ranged hit lean maximum is + 10 bonus to hit.
Ranged hit lean minimum is - 10 bonus to hit.

RA = 0 case
Ranged hit lean for next player turn = [Ranged hit lean for current player turn]

RA > 0 and RH > 0.5 case
Ranged hit lean for next player turn = [Ranged hit lean for current player turn] - 2 bonus to hit

RA > 0 and RH <= 0.5 case
Ranged hit lean for next player turn = [Ranged hit lean for current player turn] + 5 bonus to hit

Note
Ranged auto hit is not affected by ranged hit lean. Auto hit is not considered a ranged hit.

Post #: 7

2/7/2024 16:59:01

Ianthe

formerly In Media Res

quote:

-85*[Variable]^2
~~----------------------------------~~
[Variable]^2+26*[Variable]

Sure. Going with +32 so it takes 10 hits.

quote:

If a cap were to be removed, it almost feels like there should maybe be a soft cap instead where once you cross it, landed hits more drastically decrease BTH on a faster curve such that it may actually cause you to miss even with the most stacked BTH boosts imaginable. I understand this means huge damage if the hits land, but I'm just theorizing real life gameplay scenarios.

I can hack the lean modification so that if you go beyond +20 then the downside of the lean is doubled.

-30 lean gives a damage boost based on -30 but a penalty of -40 BTH

-40 lean gives a damage boost based on -40 but a penalty of -60 BTH

Post #: 8

2/7/2024 17:09:36

Grace Xisthrith
Member

A quick clarifying question if I may:
Would the lean modification hack only count the lean from DEX behavior, or also from weapon / attack?

IE, if I attack with uhhhh Homework Cannon (-10 bth lean) and Grakma Harbinger (-15.3) and I have a -15 from the BTH adjustment (total -40.3, only 15 from lean adjustment)

Would I receive the extra downside? Or not until my lean adjustment lean itself is -30?

Post #: 9

2/7/2024 17:23:41

Branl
Member

I prefer running bth boosts to prevent missing rather than guarentueing that I will at some point so I prefer the cap over uncapped.

Post #: 10

2/7/2024 19:26:44

Ianthe

formerly In Media Res

quote:

A quick clarifying question if I may:
Would the lean modification hack only count the lean from DEX behavior, or also from weapon / attack?

Only from DEX. If you're using Homework Cannon then the above examples become:

-30 Ranged lean plus -10 lean from weapon gives a damage boost based on -40 but a penalty of -50 BTH

-40 Ranged lean plus -10 lean from weapon gives a damage boost based on -50 but a penalty of -70 BTH

< Message edited by Ianthe -- 2/7/2024 19:47:20 >

AQ	Post #: 11

2/7/2024 20:00:09

Grace Xisthrith
Member

Wicked, I appreciate the info :)

AQ	Post #: 12

2/7/2024 20:26:16

Ward_Point
Armchair Archivist

While not entirely a balance issue, I think curbing outliers by capping off the lean is somewhat healthy unless Ianthe is open to the possibility of revisiting this in the future for adjustment.

AQ	Post #: 13

2/7/2024 20:37:15

Branl
Member

A lot of FD armors/weapons pay for their weapon damage for status effects, but the ramp seems to imply that you either need to stay at a +BTH lean, or at neutral to not be overpaying for your status.
Would it be possible to apply a modifier for statuses based on the bth lean? From .85, status effects would ideally become more powerful towards -BTH and less powerful towards +BTH.
Probably not too feasible at this point, but I figured it's a concern worth raising.

Post #: 14

2/7/2024 23:07:25

Ward_Point
Armchair Archivist

While I understand the concern brought up above, I think this plays well into the Ranger's playstyle. In terms of 'Input Commands', the Ranger will play similarly to the Warrior, basically hitting the Attack button most of the time. However, more thought should go into each action.

What's my current accuracy? Is my accuracy lean high enough that Fixed Damage now probably outweighs the damage penalty? Is my accuracy high enough that I can toggle off the Status effect and get a bit more damage?

It creates a style where the player has to be more deliberate and thoughtful with each action. I strongly believe that this should be encouraged. A skilled Player will be able to squeeze just that little bit more out of DEX than an unskilled one, rewarding knowledge of game mechanics.
This actually emulates the archetype of the typical Warrior/Mage/Rogue quite well. Warriors hit things. Mages cast Spells. Rogues are careful and opportunistic. As far as the limitation of turn-based games go, within the context of AQ, I believe that this is as thoughtful & deliberate as you can get.

AQ	Post #: 15

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Game Balance Issues >> =AQ= STAT REVAMP BALANCE - DEX

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