RE: Healing


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

RE: Healing

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: Healing

Page 3 of 6

Forum Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

3/26/2024 18:31:44

Grace Xisthrith
Member

READ FIRST! I discussed the difference in our item counts with Ward, and I believe we came to the conclusion that our starting assumptions were very different, which explains why our numbers are so different. In general, where I see an armor that has healing that doesn't scale off stats, and wouldn't be affected by the change, Ward sees an armor that would be affected by the change, because non stat scaling healing items should in his view be changed to scale with END. As well, I counted clones as one item (like subraces, that makes up like 7 neko, 4 werewolf, 4 vampire, 3 werepyre, already 18 of our ~30 armor gap), and missed a few entries (chiefly the 8 chaos slayer clerics). With that being said, Ward's numbers are much closer to what's accurate if you count non stat scaling healing effects, and mine are much closer to accurate if you don't count non stat scaling healing effects. So, in reading the below post (I've left unedited since someone was discussing it with me earlier, so I want to leave it unchanged for record purposes), keep in mind that WARDS NUMBERS ARE NOT WRONG, THEY USE DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS. For my own opinion, I stand by that non stat scaling healing is non stat scaling for a reason, and my numbers represent what I think would end up being changed. Of course it's up to staff to decide that though, but my opinion (and feedback to the staff) is that not everything has to scale off stats.

I say this as a huge fan, perhaps even the hugest, of your spreadsheets Ward, but those item number comparisons are not exactly fair, (or accurate at all in count by my measure), to how those item categories would be affected by making all healing items scale off END. For this reason, I'm going to provide some examples, and explain why I think those numbers shouldn't be counted as real evidence. I love your spreadsheets, and I'm glad so many people care about AQ to keep discussing this topic on the thread, but I'm concerned that as a forum mod, your evidence might be more readily believed, and lead people to make their opinions based off, as you'll see, what I believe to be massively incorrect information. I mean no disrespect in this analysis, and if there are large scale mistakes in my methodology to explain the huge discrepancy between my numbers and yours, I'd be very happy to remove this post. I would hate to accidentally spread misinformation in my quest to remove it, so 100% let me know.

For my assumptions, I copied your armor index in February, and I searched "Heal", going top to bottom until I got bored. I'm also assuming no stat scaling healing will stay no stat scaling, which I assume is a safe assumption, but who knows. I'll tally with and without that assumption to be more holistic.

Armors:
1: Vibrant living armor: No stat scaling, unaffected by change
2: Twilly Form: Has Healing spell both off END and INT. Affected by change for ENDless mages.
3: Angelic Robes: Unaffected (no heal on here, makes sense, just documenting my process)
4: Light Lord's Cleric: Same as above
5: Mythical Warrior: Uses END, unaffected by change
6: Advanced Werewolf + Variants (5 Entries): Uses END, unaffected by change
7: Advanced Vampire + Variants (5 Entries): Mist Form stat scaling undocumented. Lifesteal scales off any of 3 stats. Affected by change depending on lifesteal treatment. Bleed passive lifesteal unknown changes.
8: Chilly Form: Has Healing spell both off END and INT. Affected by change for ENDless mages.
9: Werepyre + Variants (4 Entries): Uses Hybrid Stats, affected by change. Lifesteal passive unknown changes.
10: Mighty armor of Awe: Scales off END, no change
11: Insightful Armor of Awe: (not tagged under heal but I saw it right above might) Scales off END or INT, affected by change for ENDless mages.
12: Master Fighter (2 Entries): Heal scales off STR, affected by change
13: Broomstrider: MP heal from hits doesn't scale off stats, no change.
14: Wingweaver: Barrier doesn't scale off stats, no change.
15: Devil Geiger: Heal from hits doesn't scale off stats, no change.
16: Wishweaver: Lifesteal scales off any of 3 stats. Affected by change depending on lifesteal treatment.
17: Infernal Angel: Healing spell scales off any of 3 stats. Affected by change.
18: Trickster's Hide: Healing scales off DEX. Affected by change.

Several things are immediately obvious. First off, I don't have every armor that can heal the player in this search. Quester's Heavy Gunner, or Predatory Vampire Form / Savage Werewolf / Wabio Superstar aren't listed, for example. That being said, I'd be very curious to understand how you got up to 58. I think perhaps there's a mistake somewhere in there. Or perhaps there really are 40 poison siphon armors : p . Also, I'll refer to the total as 16 instead of 18, since Angelic and Cleric don't count, I was just documenting my process. After a quick recount, I only spot like 2-3 unique drain armors and 2-3 unique damage shield armors not in this list, so those can't make up the defecit.
Secondly, if you use my assumption that healing that doesn't scale off stats will remain that way (presumably they made those items that way for a reason), then 7/16 armors aren't affected by the proposed change. This is a tiny fraction of your initial number of 58. It's possible that I'm off a few armors, or that HEAL, RSHD, and DRAN weren't all the search terms you used. That being said, I'd be shocked if I'm off by more than seven unique armors.
Thirdly, even if no stat scaling heals are updated to use END, that would only add 4 armors. In conclusion, your armor number is by my count, extremely flawed in some way.

As another example, and I brought this up earlier, but I'll go into detail on shields. (I searched Barr, RSHD, DRAN then HEAL. This time I edited out inapplicable items that popped up from the search times like MADM Barrier or Amethyst Guard)

1: Dragonlord's Will (2 Entries): STR scaling, would be affected by change.
2: Mana Crystal Defender: Doesn't scale off stats, unaffected
3: Knightmare Omen: END scaling, unaffected
4: Samuketsuri: SP heal on hit, no stat scaling, unaffected
5: Morningstar Buckler: Lifesteal on dodge no stat scaling, unaffected
6: Kindred's Spirit's Devotion: Heal MP or SP on charges, no stat scaling (charge collection scales with stats but like... needs a rework anyway + charge collection sources have multiple uses so making them END scaling would be weird)
7: Horoshow Void Vindicator: SP heal on dodge, no stat scaling, unaffected.
8: Heart's Defender: SP heal on dodge, no stat scaling, unaffected
9: Thunderbird Joust Shield: SP heal on passive, no stat scaling, unaffected.
10: Bloodfang Omen: Lifesteal HP heal on dodge, no stat scaling, unaffected.
11: Moonfang Omen: SP heal on dodge, no stat scaling, unaffected
12: Thunderlord's Crest: SP heal on burn trigger, no stat scaling, unaffected.
13: Nutcracker Defender: HP heal spell on toggle, scales off END, unaffected.
14: Legion Shogun Defender: SP heal on hit, no stat scaling, unaffected.
15: Slime Barrier: HP heal on hit, no stat scaling, unaffected.
16: Terror Totem: HP heal on fear eat, no stat scaling, unaffected.
17: Wingweaver: END scaling heal, unaffected.
18: Wishweaver: END scaling heal, unaffected.
19: Trickster's Fanged Buckler: HP heal on dodge, no stat scaling, unaffected.
20: Vengeance of Nulgath's Defender: MP heal on dodge, no stat scaling, unaffected.

Conclusion: Every healing shield listed but Dragonlord's Will (2 of the 20/21 total) is unaffected by the proposed changes. Not doing the stat scaling list in comparison here because I'm lazy. Yes, the no stat scaling assumption would have a much larger impact here compared to the armors in changing that factor, in such a great way they'd probably outshine armors for most changed item category (probably not weapons but anyways I'm getting off track)

Overall: The numbers you provided in your initial post, and in your secondary post, are, best I can tell, way way off, and I'm going to politely claim that they're incorrect. It's entirely possible I've made mistakes, or that our assumptions were widely different, but I simply can't get anywhere close to your 58 healing armors number, and even if I could, almost a majority, if not a majority of them would be unaffected by the change. I suspect going by my terminology (compressing 1:1 clones for example), you'd also find somewhat less than 18 pets, and somewhat less than 13 guests (twilly clones and FGM clones). That being said, almost all of those items would actually be affected by the change, given their stats all scale the same way. Either way, I think that players should be careful when providing evidence, or making mathematically based claims to back up their ideas, particularly when they're off by a factor of 5, or 10.

< Message edited by Grace Xisthrith -- 3/27/2024 17:56:07 >

AQ	Post #: 51

3/26/2024 18:51:22

Dreiko Shadrack
Member

quote:

Overall: The numbers you provided in your initial post, and in your secondary post, are, best I can tell, way way off, and I'm going to politely claim that they're incorrect. It's entirely possible I've made mistakes, or that our assumptions were widely different, but I simply can't get anywhere close to your 58 healing armors number, and even if I could, almost a majority, if not a majority of them would be unaffected by the change. I suspect going by my terminology (compressing 1:1 clones for example), you'd also find somewhat less than 18 pets, and somewhat less than 13 guests (twilly clones and FGM clones). That being said, almost all of those items would actually be affected by the change, given their stats all scale the same way. Either way, I think that players should be careful when providing evidence, or making mathematically based claims to back up their ideas, particularly when they're off by a factor of 5, or 10.

So, according to your findings the amount of items that would need to be reworked are actually drastically smaller than the numbers provided by Ward would initially seem to indicate? Isn't that more or less proof positive that changing such items would not be that much of an addition to the workload and would instead fall more into the trivial category?

AQW

Epic

Post #: 52

3/26/2024 20:03:07

CH4OT1C!
Member

While I believe that @Sapphire is perfectly entitled to hold his opinion that CHA shouldn't be nerfed, the logic and numbers he has presented while comparing a high END versus a high CHA build is subject to such a staggering number of errors and misconceptions, I feel it important to highlight and address at least some of them.

To demonstrate just how problematic some of these assumptions are, I'm going to run through exactly the same calculations as @Sapphire used, with one key exception:

quote:

However, one could make an argument that a guest with a direct heal isn't striking the monster, and is then therefore a form of booster. So it shouldn't be gaining FS.

While you could certainly argue this within a GBI (just as you could argue many things), this is not how healing Guests currently function. As such, I'll be using the 45.9% @Sapphire states before making this unwarranted reduction:

quote:

45.9 + 30.6 = 76.5%
76.5 / 100 * 348 = 266.22 HP/Turn
266.22 * 20 + 2958 = 8282.4 HP

As you can clearly see, simply changing this assumption to match how healing Guests currently function alters the result so that CHA now exceeds the 8115 HP provided by END. To be clear, I make this adjustment not to show that CHA is actually superior, but rather to demonstrate the associated errors completely undermine the final result. Here are some other examples of errors in this post:

As they already updated in their post, they exclude the heal resistance provided by END.

The value of the additional HP provided by END is not the quoted amount. The amount should use incoming HP values (151 HP = 100% Melee) because this HP isn't being used as a cost. Similarly, this doesn't apply to the damage output by Pets and Guests, except in the event that their healing was fixed.

@Sapphire assumes for this comparison that the core purpose of CHA is to provide healing, when this is not the case. You can use Pets + Guests for healing, but you can also use it for a myriad of other purposes. This is factored into the power of the stat.

Guests are treated as a skill. The comparison allows END to use Guests but not END-based healing skills. Similarly, it doesn't allow for CHA users to use CHA-based healing skills.

This is just a few of the errors. This doesn't include the problems in relation to my proposals:

Even supposing that the above numbers are correct, @Sapphire is quite literally proving one of my main points! They are demonstrating that the item-based benefits of CHA enable them to gain the healing benefits of END without needing to invest in the stat. It's no wonder that END is so unpopular!

A major point of my proposal is to make healing items scale on END so that we can reduce the unfair amount of HP provided by END. @Sapphire is comparing CHA to END's unfair numbers, not the numbers if it were properly balanced.

Even the comparison itself is a problem. END was made unfair because nobody was using it. This is providing more reasons why you shouldn't use END!

I think this attempt at a comparison serves as an extremely important cautionary tale. Providing numbers can indeed help lend weight to your position in a discussion, but crucially those numbers are only useful if they are underlain by robust, reasonable assumptions. The assumptions underlying this calculation ascribe completely new definitions to existing game mechanics. To reiterate, I think it's perfectly acceptable to hold the position that my proposed nerf shouldn't go through, but the numbers provided within this calculation don't help that case... in any way whatsoever.

To respond to some of @Sapphire's other criticisms

It's perfectly reasonable to argue that this additional workload should not be viewed within a vacuum. My proposal could be implemented retroactively over time like HP costs. Regarding return on investment, I've already demonstrated how my proposal solves more problems in one action than @Sapphire's alternative (their proposal does not solve the problem of END and makes powercreep worse). As for why my propsals nerf CHA-related items, perhaps this is because CHA-related items enjoy benefits other item types don't. Neither am I targeting CHA; this change affects all non-END builds. As of "trampling" on the community, my proposal is a deliberate nerf for long-term gain, and no nerf is initially popular (as has been proven time and again on this forum). Sometimes nerfs are necessary.

Regarding CHA items, I thank @Sapphire for agreeing that CHA based items have an advantage. This is part of what I'm trying to fix with my proposal.

Regarding their alternative for END, I think @Ward_Point said it well, so I'll quote it here:

quote:

Your proposal throws all semblance of balance out the window to make END a ridiculously overpowered stat in an attempt to match CHA's versatility. To be extremely clear: You've put forward a proposal that buffs END to utterly ridiculous levels in order to keep Heal on your Companions. This runs completely opposite of Chaotic's goal, which is to ultimately Balance END while giving it a niche of its own.

@Aura Knight: As mentioned by @Dreiko Shadrack, this couldn't be considered as it runs completely counter to the purpose of investing in stats to begin with. You'd be able to heal better because you have less END, and you would be incentivised to not invest in the stat. It's not weird but workable, it's a complete non-starter.

As of @Grace Xisthrith's post, it looks like my proposals appear more feasible and reasonable than I had initially thought. Thank you for reducing the list!

< Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 3/26/2024 21:21:00 >

AQ	Post #: 53

3/26/2024 20:13:54

Aura Knight
Member

For heals to matter the stat attempted to tie them to has to offer lower base hp. Who would heal if they're at max endurance and taking low damage? The stat itself needs a change before we get to moving heals to it as an incentive to train it. And even then it should only affect hp.

AQW

Post #: 54

3/26/2024 20:38:01

Dreiko Shadrack
Member

Aye that's why END necessarily needs a nerf relating to the amount of HP it currently offers as has been stated several times by now in other posts, its current state is entirely due to decisions of the past of trying to make it appealing giving it far too much HP that can't be justified...even though no one wanted more HP even back then.

< Message edited by Dreiko Shadrack -- 3/26/2024 20:45:17 >

AQW

Epic

Post #: 55

3/26/2024 20:54:12

dizzle
Member

After some intense debating and serious inquiry I’ve decided to 180. I think it would be truly incredible to see Chaotics proposal get implemented. With the relentless verbiage and backing from very well respected members of community/mod team I think it’s honestly hard to see this any other way. All healing items that scale with any other stat should be changed to scale with END, especially pets and guests. I think both the short term and long term consequences would just be fascinating to watch unfold and I’m curious to see how this change will be perceived by the rest of the community.

My only wish is that we could’ve had this same determination when Jeanne proposed the turn model update. I know that it got a lot of backlash because consequently the MP would’ve been cut in half, and I know that some particular players who are discounting Sapphires argument regarding player reception in fact used the exact same argument to show why cutting the MP bar in half would not be a good idea.. but that’s in the past and I’m looking forward to seeing this change get implemented! Luckily for us Gibby showed Wards math was off and exposed the workload to be even smaller than we thought. Small enough such that Dreiko even called this proposed change trivial!

Please do limit your sarcasm. ~Ward

< Message edited by Ward_Point -- 3/26/2024 21:13:00 >

AQ	Post #: 56

3/26/2024 21:30:07

Ward_Point
Armchair Archivist

@Grace
Quoting from Chaotic's opening post in this GBI with some minor edits:

quote:

These reasons are non-exhaustive, but serve to demonstrate the potential advantages of this approach. To properly implement this fix, I propose the following:
1) Ensure all new healing-related items solely scale on END. Regardless of item type.
2) Retroactively rescale old healing related effects on END. This needn't be done immediately or all at once, instead gradually phased in like HP costs
3) Ensure that hit-based healing effects now scale based on END too.
4) As this change constitutes a nerf to healing-related effects, the relative strength of potions should be reviewed. It's important to ensure that non-potion healing still remains worthwhile.
Conversion miscs would be subject to this change
5) Damage-scaled healing represents a grey area, but should be subject to a full review given their numerous problems (worthy of a GBI on their own).

As stated, all the focus has been on CHA. Not all the points are addressed.

Let's look in particular at Points (2) & (3).
If one extreme is taken, which is to rescale all Healing items based on END it bears consideration as to the amount of work to be done. If, as you say, most of the above items remain untouched, then of course the work would be less.

The point that I'm trying to get more discussion is the following: I think it is a point worth discussing as to whether all of the items as filtered out should be rescaled based on END. Everyone seems to be so focused on CHA to the point of excluding every other piece of equipment that exists.

Should HP/MP/SP on Block be scaled by END? Should HP/MP/SP on Attack be scaled by END? Should Status (Siphon, Resource Shield, Elemental Shield, Barrier) actually scale on END? These are all questions that almost all members partaking in this discussion seem to assume will be untouched.

For example, since Moonfang Omen regenerates 132 SP (Hits Blocked/Hits Attempted), should it retain it's current ability to regenerate 132 SP at PLevel 153, or (Perhaps) halve this value so that the Player will always regenerate 66 SP on Block, and allow up to 66 SP to be scaled based on END? These numbers are just samples, but it's worth pointing out that END needs incentive to be trained. If, for example, base was 75% of the original amount, and END allowed Heal scaling for up to 1.25 the original amount, would this be enough incentive to train END in a situation where maximum HP has decreased? These are questions worth discussing.

Again, I will repost two particular points which I feel are very direct which deal with this side-topic
@Andlu

quote:

SP AND MP heals in my opinion are a different breed entirely. One is a build specific while the other is a build-agonostic resource, and I could see logical reasons to make END at least affect MP healing, but NOT SP at all. If anything, SP healing being scalable with anything makes less sense.

@Chaotic

quote:

Of course, you may still disagree with me. Perhaps the above isn't convincing for you. That's a fair conclusion to reach as well. In which case, I have a second solution which both achieves my goal and avoiding this sore point entirely too. In all honesty, I hadn't originally intended to raise my nuclear option, but I feel this question warrants the idea being tabled:
You could solve the problem by shifting SP from being build agnostic to build independent
What I mean by that is SP gets no bonuses from stats at all. SP healing pets get cut to 20% Melee. Ferocious strikes and Lucky Strikes would be entirely disabled. SP regenerating Spells can no longer exist. All SP healing weapons normalise relative to Melee attacks. The full works. By cutting all ties to stats, no one build has any ability to capitalise on SP healing above another. It's not really the way I want to go, but I can get behind it if this is preferable. We would still need to expand the range of SP healing item types though, just to eradicate any remaining unfairness.

< Message edited by Ward_Point -- 3/26/2024 21:54:45 >

AQ	Post #: 57

3/26/2024 23:00:34

sujin6614
Member

quote:

Luckily for us Gibby showed Wards math was off and exposed the workload to be even smaller than we thought. Small enough such that Dreiko even called this proposed change trivial!

Yay!!! now the devs can work on arch mage now finally. Phew i thought we would never see it and maybe ik im being greedy here but maybe even void revamp.

Post #: 58

3/26/2024 23:31:40

Grace Xisthrith
Member

quote:

46 Weapons
58 Armours
5 Spells
13 Shields
18 Pets
13 Guests

As you can clearly see, there are less Companions that Heal compared to other pieces of equipment. I've missed some guests, definitely, but they still fall short compared to Weapons & Armours.

@ Dreiko: You may have missed the point (or just decided not to comment on it, which is of course fine). The post wasn't a comment on an opinion, it's a fact check. Yes, a smaller amount of items is relevant to previous posts I've made on the thread, but not relevant to the fact check.

@ Chaotic: If you check dizzle's recent post, you'll see sarcasm isn't allowed, you may be lucky you missed a warning. I've done this before as well, (and not gotten a warning either haha) it's admittedly easy to slip into. I recommend rereading the forum discussion rules and adjusting accordingly. Apologies if this is minimodding, I'll edit it outI allow sarcasm for creative expression, to a point. The nastiest of barbs was moderated by me. I do not see evidence of Chaotic being sarcastic in the above post at all. ~Ward

@ Ward: We discussed this elsewhere, but I'll summarize what I got from it here. My post wasn't an opinion, it was a fact check, so talking about what stat should be focused on isn't really the point, I aimed to make sure discussion was held with accurate information. That being said, it seems as though most of the disparity in our armor numbers comes from my compressing subraces (1 Neko instead of 8, 1 Werewolf instead of 5, etc) and missing a few armors (8 Chaos Slayer Clerics, Bun Barian / Eternal Champ / Scathing Dreamweaver). Adding those in would bring up the affected armor count significantly, and pretty much clear up my ~20 compared to your ~50. I'm glad to have figured that out, I thought I was going crazy

For the implications of that, if non stat scaling healing of all resources were to be scaled on END, armors would certainly become an extremely modified category. Should protoparagon's 2.5% SP hit regen or Bun Barian's base 5% SP regen for example, be affected by END? I'd say no, but you're completely right as to that being an important point of discussion, and the implications either way would be quite significant (10x-ing the number of affected shields for example). I'm personally pretty drained on the discussion, from my perspective it relatively quickly devolved into debating to "win" and not debating to really consider different opinions (myself included) but I hope you're able to put together an interesting discussion.

As for increasing scaling of items based off END (.75x power base and 1.25x power scaled), I think that's a very risky idea. All healing items in the game were designed without that in mind, so 1.25x-ing their power is probably a powercreepy idea. Resource conversion is one obvious example of a risk case. Of course there's ways to fix that, but I think semi-universally 1.25x-ing the ceiling on heals is a bad idea.

< Message edited by Ward_Point -- 3/27/2024 8:58:20 >

AQ	Post #: 59

3/26/2024 23:44:57

Ogma
Member

Training STR offers the versatility of melee weapons, as well as help in STR related status.
Training DEX offers the versatility of ranged weapons, as well as help in DEX related status.
Training INT offers the versatility of magic weapons, MP bar and spells, as well as help in INT related status.
Training CHA offers the versatility of pets and guests, as well as help in CHA related status.
These stats mostly help items to reach their full potential.

We get two stats that aren't really equipment based stats :
Training LUK offers extra offensive in the form of lucky strike for all type of damage, minor help in status, as well as one time Lucky break.
Training END offers extra HP, healing bonus, reducing enemy's HP scaling, status resistance as well as help in END related status.

If we are to turn END into an item stat, items being anything related to healing, then it should behave similar to other item stats I suppose. But unlike other stats, END won't have an exclusive equipment piece (like melee weapons for STR or pet/guest for CHA), it will instead intrude in others domain, like a reversal of the current situation where other stats intrude in healing domain. 250 END will be required to have optimal healing damage, just like 250 STR is needed for optimal melee damage. INT got its MP bar to cast spells, but END doesn't need it, just like CHA doesn't create new resource for guest and uses already existing resource (HP/MP/SP). Enemy's health scaling reduced will stay as END's base behavior, and style bonus are status resistance, increased heal resistance (it should be HP and MP only if we want to make SP build independent) and one time lucky break.

END would be the only pure defensive stat (since it mainly help healing and resisting hostile status).

AQ	Post #: 60

3/26/2024 23:48:37

Aura Knight
Member

Why can't END be for damage resist and heals get no bonuses from any stat? Make them free with turn cooldown time.

AQW

Post #: 61

3/27/2024 6:44:05

Dreiko Shadrack
Member

quote:

Enemy's health scaling reduced will stay as END's base behavior

Small note: That is not something that is part of END's behavior, that's something that just happened as part of the stat overhaul in general, it's not a bonus inherent to END when players invest in it.

@Gibby: It is however a fact that is relevant to the thread altogether as your fact check had run directly counter to a previous argument as to why this measure shouldn't be done at all, so I fail to see what your criticism is exactly of me pointing out a fact check based on your own. Especially as you've noted that your original fact check has several inaccuracies due to your self-admitted mistakes in "compressing" items, which is an odd thing to do when your whole reason to make that post was to be as accurate and absent of opinions as possible.

@Aura: Because that's an even bigger scope overhaul that implies all sources of healing (including those from pets, guests and conversion miscs like EO) for all resources would be free, not scale with anything and also have cooldowns of several turns. Oh and you also seem to want to add a new style bonus to END for damage resistance? unless you just meant that the extra HP is damage resistance which is not quite how that sentence reads but fair if indeed it was that. You're effectively advocating for chaotic's nuclear option but being even more nuclear about it.

< Message edited by Dreiko Shadrack -- 3/27/2024 7:29:37 >

AQW

Epic

Post #: 62

3/27/2024 7:08:08

Sapphire
Member

Alright aside from debating over exact numbers, which I am not an expert on nor will I waste my life drilling down all the nuanced 'this and that' of AQ balance Dogma, even if after 20 turns Chaotics final numbers of 8282 'effective HP's' vs the END player's 'effective HP's' of 8115 is a difference of 167. That's it? So let's bring in the heavy equipment and build a new foundation? LMAO!!!! Oh wait...

This still doesn't account for two very important details....

A. This assumes infinite upkeep for guests on both parties, which means 2 very important details. 1. It's SP upkeep (not MP) and 2. You're not using a single other item that consumes SP (unlikely). SP upkeep for all 20 turns is possible with the starter SP they give you as long as you don't use SP for anything else. This in real life gameplay isn't likely. And MP upkeep runs out at turn 16. So I use SP to make this more balanced. (MP upkeep needs to come down a tad IMO to 131, but diff topic)

B. I didn't even include END's +12.5% heal resist modifier. I mentioned this, but I guess Chaotic had hoped this aspect was ignored (maybe selectively, also?) The 113.13 each of the 20 turns actually gets a 12.5% boost. The 2262 in actuality becomes 2545. That added 283. So the END build still ACTUALLY wins by 116 Hp's. And that assumes infinite guest upkeep!!

Even if you ditched the 12.5% heal bonus, 167 HP advantage over 20 turns isn't enough justification to completely upend the system and trample over current gameplay, ruining many player's experience when the perceived imbalance is minute.

The same boosts that exist for a BM also exist for a non BM. They just choose to run different gear, like I've already said. This is an item support issue. Full stop. The discrepancy is in gear choices. SP is a little bit of a different comparison, sure. But it still doesn't justify trampling over players gaming experience, like Iv'e said. Just give the non BM more options. It needs to be done anyway with the impending Essence Orb change, anyway.

Premature celebration isn't exactly a trait I'd personally hang my head on.

< Message edited by Sapphire -- 3/27/2024 7:29:34 >

Post #: 63

3/27/2024 7:22:34

CH4OT1C!
Member

@Sapphire:

quote:

Alright aside from debating over exact numbers, which I am not an expert on nor will I waste my life drilling down all the nuanced 'this and that' of AQ balance Dogma, even if after 20 turns Chaotics final numbers of 8282 'effective HP's' vs the END player's 'effective HP's' of 8115 is a difference of 167. That's it? So let's bring in the heavy equipment and build a new foundation? LMAO!!!! Oh wait...

The main point of my post was not to demonstrate which build was better based on the numbers and assumptions you made. It was instead to show that the assumptions and numbers provided made the entire comparison too flawed to be useful to begin with.

quote:

A. This assumes infinite upkeep for guests on both parties, which actually isn't possible. I could break it down and determine at what point they run out of SP and therefore must abandon the guest portion. This hurts the CHA player far more than the END player because the END player had a head start on 'effective HP's' simply via training END
B. I didn't even include END's +12.5% heal resist modifier. I mentioned this, but I guess Chaotic had hoped this aspect was ignored (maybe selectively, also?) The 113.13 each of the 20 turns actually gets a 12.5% boost. The 2262 in actuality becomes 2545. That added 283. So the END build still ACTUALLY wins by 116 Hp's. And that assumes infinite guest upkeep!!

Absolutely. Thanks for highlighting more of the flaws I decided not to comment on in my prior response.

I'm glad we agree the comparison is fundamentally flawed.

@Aura Knight:

quote:

Why can't END be for damage resist and heals get no bonuses from any stat? Make them free with turn cooldown time.

I mean, this could be done, but it effectively amounts to my nuclear option, making SP be completely build independent. That would be an even greater nerf as compared to the one I'm already proposing.

AQ	Post #: 64

3/27/2024 7:31:25

Ward_Point
Armchair Archivist

Apparently I was not clear enough.

All posts beyond this point shall deal with the wider topic and implications of Healing regarding the other ~100 pieces of equipment that exist besides Companions.

AQ	Post #: 65

3/27/2024 7:34:41

Sapphire
Member

Updated my post with SP upkeep being used as it is possible to have a guest with SP upkeep for all 20 turns with just the starter SP given. MP upkeep for 20 turns w/o help isn't. SP upkeep for 20 turns is possible after all, if you purposefully omit all other SP costed items (unlikely in today's game) That's a nonsense sacrifice IMO, but just showing it is possible . It also doesn't take away from the numbers presented. And it especially doesn't help your argument. It shows all this is for nothing.

@WARD

Is the .75x power for 1.25x heal meaning the .75x is a reduction in what END provides in HPs? So That means instead of adding 2895 HP's at 250 END, we do 75% of that to 2171, a reduction of 814. I have been saying reduce it by 800-1k for a while now.

Then increase heals by x1.25!? And this is separate from the style bonus? If this is the idea being presented, I'm on board. But a massive distinction is this:

1. IMO, it should include all resource bars.
2. It should not boost heals that come from pets and guests
3. Heal items should not "scale with END"
4. They should be BOOSTED by END

In your Moonfang Omen example... Altering the SP down to 66 then having it scale with END is not the route to take. This nerfs the item for everyone but those with END and since END isn't assumed, the mathematical design is then underpowered. Boosting it back up to the same heal as it is now via END-scaling doesn't resolve anything. Instead, Leave the normal SP heals as mathematically designed since END isn't assumed for balance standards, but END adds it's X1.25 on top. This is how you bridge gaps. No need to upend multiple items and recode them and trample on Beastmaster gameplay.

@Gibby

~~Glad you noticed inconsistent application of rules. I get DM'd about this all the time. Anyway does your sweet voice preclude you from getting a finger wagging? I mean,I get it! Nice voice! -kiss-~~ Rather obviously, you have not read Chaotic's post in full. It is clear that there is no sarcasm. If you have issue with my moderation, the Forum Rules provide clear recourse. ~Ward

^I was talking about Gibby's self-deprication. I also don't see it in Chaotic's post, but it has been edited . (Not saying it was there then removed, but it being edited at the end of the day I really don't know..just saying I don't see it, either)
Firstly, you shall not edit your post any further.
Secondly, the timeline of events as set out is as follows
Chaotic made a post that was edited at 0921
Grace made a post at 1121 in response to Chaotic's edited post accusing Chaotic of sarcasm. I deemed no action necessary since I thought it was obvious that there as no sarcasm.
You posted at 1934 agreeing with Grace that there was sarcasm, despite not seeing any, by your own admission. It was at this point where I deemed moderation necessary as false accusations were being propagated.~Ward

< Message edited by Ward_Point -- 3/27/2024 10:15:19 >

Post #: 66

3/27/2024 9:52:15

Ward_Point
Armchair Archivist

@Sapphire
As both Chaotic and I have mentioned multiple times now, END should be balanced by bringing HP down by 70% in exchange for all Healing Items to only use END (in some form of another) as either a Stat Bonus to damage effect or some other effect that can be discussed further. You have agreed with us on reducing END's effect on Player HP, however this is not the 75% I am referring to.

quote:

For example, since Moonfang Omen regenerates 132 SP (Hits Blocked/Hits Attempted), should it retain it's current ability to regenerate 132 SP at PLevel 153, or (Perhaps) halve this value so that the Player will always regenerate 66 SP on Block, and allow up to 66 SP to be scaled based on END? These numbers are just samples, but it's worth pointing out that END needs incentive to be trained. If, for example, base was 75% of the original amount, and END allowed Heal scaling for up to 1.25 the original amount, would this be enough incentive to train END in a situation where maximum HP has decreased? These are questions worth discussing.

In this example, I set out two proposals

1) Regenerate a base 66 SP on Block and scale up to 132 SP (The original maximum) at 250 END.
2) Regenerate (0.75 x 132)=99SP as a base amount at 0 END, and then scaling up to (1.25 x 132)=165 at 250 END.

The general model that the game follows is that 250 investment into a Main Stat doubles the power of that item, using this as a reasonable first step, a Player with 0 END should Heal half of what a Player would at 250 END. This is how (1) came about.

(2) came about by thinking of an 'upside' to training END & an associated downside. Similarly to how not training INT locks you out of using Spells or MP, not training END should come with a penalty of not being able to Heal as efficiently as a character that does train END.

To follow on this, what are the further implications of using either model?

For (1), essentially, Players would only receive half a Mastercraft effect (2.5%) on associated Healing Items, with only Players who train 250 END getting a full 5% MC. I admit that I'm not a huge fan of this.
For (2), Players receive 3.75% Melee on a Mastercrafted item at 0 END, which scales up to 7.5% Melee at 250 END. This sounds somewhat better, since a Player Controlled trigger is actually worth 7.5% and is consistent in general with the rest of the game. If a trigger exists, it should have an appropriate downtrigger. Taking a downtrigger is logical.

I am using the terms 'Scaling with END' and 'Boosted by END' somewhat interchangeably, because we have not reached any consensus on any formula to be used.
Again, these are sample numbers to open discussion, as these are two fairly different ways to approach the issue of 'Healing being influenced by END.

Other questions that are also worth discussion
A) Are Players agreeable for ONLY Endurance to affect Healing for other equipment across Weapons/Armours/Shields/Spells?
B) Should all Healing be modifed based on set %Melee values?
C) Besides some sort of Cap to be set on Healing per turn (Thanks Dardiel) to curb the Algern's/CIT combination of yesteryear, what else can be done?
D) Should END affect the amount Healed by Status effects like Siphon? Resource Shields? Barriers?
E) Should END affect Healing MP?
F) With respect to Healing SP, should Healing be build agnostic... or build independent? This is a particularly scary question, but we should not waver from presenting opinions on the matter.
G) With respect to Nickelclad Knight Defender (and by extension to items that modify Heal Resist), should the model of (2) be applied to its Heal Resist as well?

< Message edited by Ward_Point -- 3/27/2024 10:16:48 >

AQ	Post #: 67

3/27/2024 10:46:21

Ogma
Member

A) Are Players agreeable for ONLY Endurance to affect Healing for other equipment across Weapons/Armours/Shields/Spells?

Can't we test this out rather than always discussing theories? Let us see how this affect how we enjoy the game.

B) Should all Healing be modifed based on set %Melee values?

What do you mean by this?

D) Should END affect the amount Healed by Status effects like Siphon? Resource Shields? Barriers?

To be consistent yes.

E) Should END affect Healing MP?

If it doesn't affect MP too, then END will have different rules depending on the build, I don't think that's logical, so yes it needs to be affected. Potentially this can affect mage's offensiveness, like having a pet healing MP so much so that mage can keep casting spells. Like, 250 INT/CHA/LUK have more damage potential per cast while 250 INT/CHA/END can cast more often.

F) With respect to Healing SP, should Healing be build agnostic... or build independent? This is a particularly scary question, but we should not waver from presenting opinions on the matter.

What is the difference between build agnostic and build independent? I thought staff wanted SP to be neutral regardless of the build, no build can inherently make more use of SP than the other?

G) With respect to Nickelclad Knight Defender (and by extension to items that modify Heal Resist), should the model of (2) be applied to its Heal Resist as well?

Depends on the design of the item I suppose. It could be stat dependent or it could be not stat depending and thus fixed value. Each has its advantages, stat dependent can be affected by stat buff & debuff on top of heal buff & debuff, meanwhile non stat dependent can only be affected through heal buff & debuff.

AQ	Post #: 68

3/27/2024 11:49:33

Sapphire
Member

quote:

In this example, I set out two proposals

1) Regenerate a base 66 SP on Block and scale up to 132 SP (The original maximum) at 250 END.
2) Regenerate (0.75 x 132)=99SP as a base amount at 0 END, and then scaling up to (1.25 x 132)=165 at 250 END.

Disagree with both. A. This breaks the mathematical balancing of the item on paper in both examples. B. END is not assumed, so making an unbalanced item on paper scale with an unassumed stat would require an overhaul of standards that essentially means item-making follow a completely different standard if we're designing healing. Base item design standards IMo shouldn't change.

If you simply made the heal x1.25 at 250 END as a boost rather than as a scaling effect you get the same result for END players w/o nerfing the heal for non-END players. For 0 END players this item should remain at 132 based on the mathematical balancing of the item as a foundational design choice, like everything else that's designed. I see no reason for special treatment just because it heals. However, a X1.25 base behavior effect to *all* resources from player derived heals with an accompanying loss in HP's (70%) is where I stand. When you include the +12.5 heal resist mod as a style bonus, that 165 is then increased further. It does then need to be asked, is it better for X1.25 or +25%. Because the style bonus interaction with this change acts differently doesn't it? If base behavior is first, then style bonus comes next, we have 132*1.25=165, but then a +12.5% on 165 makes this 185.6. 185.6 vs 132 isn't too bad of a boost. If it's +25% and also +12.5% together its 181.5? Maybe splitting hairs.

quote:

A) Should all Healing be modifed based on set %Melee values?

IMO, no. All items are already following design rules which are already based on 100% melee being a foundation. Each item category has a power allotment already based on this model. No reason to provide healing some special case rules IMO in this regard.

quote:

B) Besides some sort of Cap to be set on Healing per turn (Thanks Dardiel) to curb the Algern's/CIT combination of yesteryear, what else can be done?

Wishweaver received a cap on it's 'exchange' skill that pays HP's to do the skill but heals = to the damage dealt. I am not 100% opposed to caps as an idea. I felt like her cap amount was actually fair. It is "high" but it is still capped. Dardiel's proposal piggybacked on the fact that damage caps exist. The damage cap is massive. It far exceeds almost any monster's HP's, which only the exception of specific monsters usually designed to not be beatable. (We all know players have typically found ways despite this) The damage cap doesn't;t care about where it comes from. The Melee valuation of weapons, pets, skills/spells, guests, etc etc etc are all different and follow the same rule. If a cap is to be had, I would personally want it to not be per TURN but rather per HIT or per total attack. For example, the misc gets its own cap, shield gets it own cap, armor gets its own cap, guest gets its own cap, pet gets its own cap, weapon gets its own cap, spell/skill gets it own cap, etc via item design...not some type of total cap. Going "Plot Armor" for healing is draconian and drastic and absurd. Stop trying to reign in synergies and stacks. Caps on specific items IMO is a workable compromise for me provided it isn't a draconian one. (Like Wishweaver's wasn't)

quote:

C) Should END affect the amount Healed by Status effects like Siphon? Resource Shields? Barriers?

Yes. But not scaling. Just a boost

quote:

D) Should END affect Healing MP?

Yes.

quote:

E) With respect to Healing SP, should Healing be build agnostic... or build independent? This is a particularly scary question, but we should not waver from presenting opinions on the matter.

It should be ARCHTYPE agnostic. Mages and Warriors and Rangers should have the same access. But IMO, there's no issue with secondary stats effecting any heals IMO. They already do, in fact. Hypercrit already boosts heals. If I cast Dguard and then next turn I use Wishweaver's Exchange skill , which is two hits..lets say one hit misses but the second hit lands and lucky strikes, it is likely that lucky strike damage will allow this skill to hiot the cap. Luck helped fuel more SP heal. CHA fuels heals from pets and guests to be better. Luck also partners with CHA to boost heals further. The problem is that END can't currently assist with SP and MP heals via item design. So make END effect all heals. So Secondaries already affect heals, including SP and MP. Instead of reigning those back as suggested, include END with the X1.25. The answer here isn't Chaotic's nuclear option, nor is it forcing END to always be involved. It's to just LET END be involved. All other approaches tramples on player's existing gameplay experience and all you'll do is tick them off. Mark my words. In conclusion, open to capping individual items as long as it's consistent with the damage cap approach. (same for everything, and not some draconian lowball number) Or at least item design capping it on the actual item. I think the bigger issue is with END's true access, though.

quote:

F) With respect to Nickelclad Knight Defender (and by extension to items that modify Heal Resist), should the model of (2) be applied to its Heal Resist as well?

IMO, no. Leave it alone. Again, forcing you to need END to heal is absurd. You already have a HP head start by training it (even if you reduce HP's by 70% at 250 END) and it's not assumed. So balancing items in a vacuum shouldn't change *at all*

< Message edited by Sapphire -- 3/27/2024 11:56:31 >

Post #: 69

3/27/2024 11:51:34

AQ Player753
Member

I would like to share my extreme disapproval of the proposals involving END scaled healing. I believe that such drastic changes to the behavior of END should have been discussed with the stat revamp and would cause excessive volatility now. Similarly, I feel that a change to the build agnostic design of SP, at this point, is a mistake.

Thank you for encouraging feedback.

Post #: 70

3/27/2024 12:11:30

Dardiel
Member

Ooh big fan of lists to give rapidfire opinions to:

Regarding the impact of healing, I think it makes sense for END to match the general theme of "half for free, half from stats"; presumably that's 50% base that becomes 100% with full END investment unless there's some justification for it to be a higher base. Alternatively, END's nature as an unassumed stat does nake me think that getting END should give a healing bonus rather than there being a punishment for not having it.

A) Are Players agreeable for ONLY Endurance to affect Healing for other equipment across Weapons/Armours/Shields/Spells?
I'm fine with it, if END is the healing stat with no major nuance then it's easy to remember and to value

B) Should all Healing be modifed based on set %Melee values?
From my understanding, this question is largely asking if heals should be constrained by the value assigned to them in item design (eg an item that pays 10% melee for a heal ALWAYS heals for 10% melee) - my opinion is that healing should be just as open as damage is, provided there's also a way to prevent turbo-heals from negating damage starting turn 1 (woah hey there soft cap suggestion, where did you come from?). I'd largely stick with that; I think there's a solid niche for items that heal a specific fixed amount, but I also think there's room for playstyles that want to set up big heals the same way players like setting up big damage.

C) Besides some sort of Cap to be set on Healing per turn (Thanks Dardiel) to curb the Algern's/CIT combination of yesteryear, what else can be done?
I'm not sure I have much to throw in the ring that isn't the soft cap; I feel that healing is already mathematically on the slightly weak side but that it gets boosted by synergies in the same way that damage does; bosses can be given more HP or lower resists or caps to mitigate extreme damage but there's not much enemy-side for mitigating heals.

D) Should END affect the amount Healed by Status effects like Siphon? Resource Shields? Barriers?
I do believe I've seen requests for siphon heals to be boostable, and I do agree that it would be fun to boost the heal half without having to boost the damage half. Regarding resource shields and barriers I think they should also be affected, since they're still methods for generating effective health

E) Should END affect Healing MP?
I vote yes, END should affect anything of the Heal element. It's simple and easy to remember, I think it's intuitive as well.

F) With respect to Healing SP, should Healing be build agnostic... or build independent? This is a particularly scary question, but we should not waver from presenting opinions on the matter.
Same as above, I think END should apply here too; removing SP from player influence entirely feels a bit extreme to me.

G) With respect to Nickelclad Knight Defender (and by extension to items that modify Heal Resist), should the model of (2) be applied to its Heal Resist as well?
My gut says that heal resist from items should be affected by END, since it is functionally an item that is giving you more resources. It double dips a little by being an END-scaling boost that applies to END-scaling heals, but booster pets/guests and things like the stat/BtH boosting spells all work the same way.

Post #: 71

3/27/2024 12:43:10

Aura Knight
Member

quote:

Are Players agreeable for ONLY Endurance to affect Healing for other equipment across Weapons/Armours/Shields/Spells?

Obviously not. You cannot make the one stat which prevents the need for heals to be necessary for their power.

quote:

Should all Healing be modifed based on set %Melee values?

No.

quote:

Should END affect the amount Healed by Status effects like Siphon? Resource Shields? Barriers?

Would be ok with barrier strength scaling off endurance.

quote:

Should END affect Healing MP?

Probably not in the way some think. I do think it would be nice if the difference between max and current hp affected the mp you regen but this can be done independent of the stat.

quote:

With respect to Healing SP, should Healing be build agnostic... or build independent? This is a particularly scary question, but we should not waver from presenting opinions on the matter.

Absolutely. SP is not a resource which any one build should handle better than others which is why a percentage based regen for every source of it would be ideal.

quote:

With respect to Nickelclad Knight Defender (and by extension to items that modify Heal Resist), should the model of (2) be applied to its Heal Resist as well?

Heal resist is ok as is. If we're to make it better at 250 what's the point when the stat itself makes you not need to heal?

AQW

Post #: 72

3/27/2024 16:24:42

dizzle
Member

Snips. See PMs~Ward

Edit 2 -

A) Are Players agreeable for ONLY Endurance to affect Healing for other equipment across Weapons/Armours/Shields/Spells?
Yep, all healing across the board for everything should scale with END, as originally proposed.

B) Should all Healing be modifed based on set %Melee values?
This was my originally idea. Instead of changing every healing item, modify all incoming heals by END before final calculation.

C) Besides some sort of Cap to be set on Healing per turn (Thanks Dardiel) to curb the Algern's/CIT combination of yesteryear, what else can be done?
Doesn’t matter one way or another. There’s a plethora of ways to get resources. Capping case by case basis would be less effective than capping healing amount per turn, but that’s murky waters. Would have to be more detailed before I’m on board

D) Should END affect the amount Healed by Status effects like Siphon? Resource Shields? Barriers?
Yep, see my response for point A.

E) Should END affect Healing MP?
Yep, see my response for point A.

F) With respect to Healing SP, should Healing be build agnostic... or build independent? This is a particularly scary question, but we should not waver from presenting opinions on the matter.
See my response to point A.

G) With respect to Nickelclad Knight Defender (and by extension to items that modify Heal Resist), should the model of (2) be applied to its Heal Resist as well?
Why not

< Message edited by Ward_Point -- 3/27/2024 19:48:36 >

AQ	Post #: 73

3/27/2024 20:49:37

CH4OT1C!
Member

A) Are Players agreeable for ONLY Endurance to affect Healing for other equipment across Weapons/Armours/Shields/Spells?
I support this one. I think it clears up a number of problems at the same time

B) Should all Healing be modifed based on set %Melee values?
I agree with @Dardiel that I think there can be a degree of leeway here. I believe this should apply within reason (i.e. a 10% Melee effect shouldn't be healing 500% Melee after boosting)

C) Besides some sort of Cap to be set on Healing per turn (Thanks Dardiel) to curb the Algern's/CIT combination of yesteryear, what else can be done?
Absolutely. To be honest, it's actually something I've already floated with the staff before

D) Should END affect the amount Healed by Status effects like Siphon? Resource Shields? Barriers?
This is a bit more complicated. My broad opinion on this is no - status effect damage in general is already independent of stats, so bringing END into this mechanic may cause more trouble than is worth. However, that doesn't mean we couldn't necessarily have the the initial power of the infliction scale on END e.g., Pay damage to gain regeneration 0.1*[END]/[Expected] Power, 1 round.

Given the circumstances, I may as well introduce another radical idea. Barriers, Chi Shields and Mana Shields currently function as if they're heal spells. I believe they should be completely treated as "Other" type attacks i.e. receiving no bonuses whatsoever outside of heal resistance. These effects are statuses, not heal spells. They do not function like additional HP; you can still benefit from them even at max HP. We should therefore be treating them as statuses.

E) Should END affect Healing MP?
Yes, MP is part of player damage. Doing anything less would give Mages an unfair advantage (which is the last thing I think anyone wants!).

F) With respect to Healing SP, should Healing be build agnostic... or build independent? This is a particularly scary question, but we should not waver from presenting opinions on the matter.
I prefer agnostic, but can tolerate independent. I think if healing items aren't scaled on END... we should seriously consider making SP build independent.

G) With respect to Nickelclad Knight Defender (and by extension to items that modify Heal Resist), should the model of (2) be applied to its Heal Resist as well?
Same as @Dardiel, my gut is currently saying "Yes".

More to come! I plan on bringing up a way to nerf the total amount of HP provided by END should this change go through (yes, it will be a drastic drop in extra HP. Giving advanced warning!).

< Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 3/27/2024 20:59:18 >

AQ	Post #: 74

3/27/2024 21:47:12

Aura Knight
Member

Heals could just be given extra effects to improve their use. If, for example, we're hit for high damage constantly, healing wouldn't put us close to a win. Adding a damage reduction would help. This is why I think one option is to move some effects from the luck stat to work for endurance. This adds reason to invest in the stat.

AQW

Post #: 75

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: Healing

Page 3 of 6

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