quote:

-(Min(PlayerCHA/ExpectedCHA*7.5,8)/1.4)% damage. In short, if your CHA is = to the expected CHA, you take -(7.5/1.4)% damage, if your CHA is a bit higher, you do get a BIT more, but only up to -(8/1.4)% damage.

quote:

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

quote:

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:

the proposal is intended to cut away END's excessive HP in exchange for allowing some influence on MP & SP as well

quote:

Again, if your stance is that 'Healing is not necessary anyway because the game is too easy'... Well, then none of what we're discussing here will affect you because you neither need the extra HP nor do you need Healing. You are free to leave the discussion.

quote:

I don't think anyone here disagrees that END currently provides too much HP. Thus, the proposal is intended to cut away END's excessive HP in exchange for allowing some influence on MP & SP as well.

quote:



And are currently looking at the implications of tinkering with Healing. They are in the middle of discussions & are looking for feedback.

1) Healing remaining unaffected by Berserk is here to stay
2) Devs are considering the further implications of whether Leans should or should not affect healing.

Notes:
1) Healing Spells were coded to have a -15 BtH Lean instead of a hardcoded *0.85 to damage. Now that Berserk no longer interacts with AutoHit, this issue is resolved.

quote:

I would then lean on this general point to make the further point that other participants have touched on - why are we even discussing this, when the stat revamp just happened? Why was END not better addressed at that point? Most notably, the oft-cited OP too much HP being given. I was less involved in that discussion so maybe I have missed reasons why. If then, it wasn't changed at that point for some reason known only to staff, it seems unlikely it will be changed now. If this is the case, it'd be great to know, so we don't waste time discussing something that isn't being considered. And if there is a reason this didn't occur in the stat revamp that is public knowledge then I'd appreciate being informed also!

quote:

Further Lupul used a figure of 3845 for new max HP, and I haven't fact checked this, someone please correct me if wrong here. However, the following point will still stand if the max HP cut is similarly large. I acknowledge it is mathematically OP, but given the length of time it has been this way, and the above point about staff not changing this in the stat revamp, I think this is kind of fine, and presumably staff do too, to an extent? Again, very happy to be corrected here. However, I would say that this change if implemented as severely as this would likely receive significant backlash, and I'd oppose it for this reason, even though it wouldn't affect me personally. *Doomlight discussion probably not for here.

quote:

CHARISMA

Guests have always provided several times the power they paid for, as they were originally designed based on a damage and accuracy model that was never implemented. Their cost discount was meant to be a decompression bonus for using Beastmaster weapons, as part of this model in which CHA would have been a main stat and DEX a secondary one. Since this old model was never completed, and guest costs couldn't be dynamically adjusted, the end result is essentially a spell being cast every turn that only pays part of its actual cost. That really isn't fair to any other build.

However, reducing guest power to what is being paid for would feel awful, and just increasing the cost would be just as harsh. The adjustment needed to be split, with a further way to mitigate the resource cost increase. We sourced the above value adjustment from mixed community feedback in June 2023, and the Style Bonus is fully dedicated to guest Ferocious Strikes, so that keeping costs manageable can be part of the stat behavior itself.

quote:

^ So why would the staff consider the implications of guest power adjustments as something that would "feel awful" and increasing cost to be "just as harsh", only for later on to make wholesale changes to the game that would affect the very same players mentioned in the above quote? See, the underpinning issue here is you have a group of people who dislike staff's approach to CHA/Guests, and their ideas they present wholly ignore it in hopes they change course...when there's been evidence (not just above, but if you'd like I will gladly list SEVERAL either here or on discord/DM"s, up to you) that staff are keenly aware of potential backlash caused by major changes to certain aspects of this game. My approach has this in mind, not only because it directly affects me, but also because I believe 10000000000000% that causing a jaded playerbase doesn't justify the outcome in-game when you could actually potentially resolve "the issue" w/o the backlash of most players. This is the major line in the sand that's underpinning this entire discussion.

quote:

I wrote a GBI saying that SC lean shouldn't boost healing. That lean type was made with MAges in mind, and Warriors and Rangers didn't have an equivalent armor lean type catered to them alone that also boosted healing as a side effect of the design, so I proposed that SC lean no longer boost healing. By the way, I run Mage builds, and I run SC lean armors at times on my BeastMage setup. So this was nerfing myself. Some will claim I am only self servant, but that's just an absurd talking point.

quote:

The inequality of Healing, in my opinion, has become apparent. While the creation of the spellcaster lean has helped push for more spellcasting, the universal boost to spells has now given Mages an advantage.

While anyone could, in theory, hop into a spellcaster armor and boost anything, like for example, a ranged healing spell, this would still mean using an armor design not actually meant for a Ranger.

Not only has healing now been made to be more advantageous to Mages, who have an entire MP bar to use for healing since they can just use weapon based skills just as good as other archetypes, but they also heal better than Warriors and Rangers.

I think if we are to seriously look at attempting Archetype vs Archetype equality in as many aspects as possible while attempting to create unique dynamics catered to each archetype, I think it would only be fair that at the very least healing be equally powerful regardless of the mainstat trained.

As a result, I propose that spellcaster leans and generalist robes no longer boost healing spells. They only boost outgoing damage to the monster.

This also will curb another aspect to healing that mages are enjoying some supremacy on: Barriers. The ability to boost barriers with several means is also problematic and barrier stacking can essentially trivialize even bosses.

So again, I propose that healing no longer be boosted by spellcaster leans, Poelala (any boosters), sila's staff, etc etc and only allow these things to boost outgoing damage to monsters.

I think healing equality is an essential part of game balance and no one archetype should get supremacy simply by items meant for a single archtype to use.

I also think berserk , at a later time, might need to be looked at too for it's healing ability, but at least for right now it's a universally used status and therefore for now, it's probably OK.

quote:

That GBI post was mostly silent, with very little replies. In that post, I included other things like SIlas staff, Poelala, etc from boosting heals but I have since changed my mind on those items because they're not tied to a lean and are items catered to a build. My position is either make all leans affect healing or none. Also, my position is at baseline, when talking about Warrior v. Mage v. Ranger, access to healing should be equal. Secondaries and what they do are wholly different and are no significance to what I have labeled as Archtype Balance.

quote:

The GBI was accepted by staff, and the SC lean at stat revamp time was altered. Later, they found a way to disable berserk's ability to boost healing. Everyone knows berserk's boost was unintended, but I also think SC lean's was also. Lean calcs are never considering healing. They only consider damage out vs damage incoming. Healing has never been apart of the equation. It CAN, but there are no armors with leans that cater to Warriors and Rangers w/ the exception of the newfound warrior lean in FD armors. I'm on board with undoing SC lean if there's a way to also make it fair for warriors and rangers within their armors. But I think this would be rather difficult.

quote:

The end result is some seem to think the change means healing needs a complete overhaul, and CHA builds provide an advantage over other non CHA builds in terms of all healing. I don't disagree that CHA builds do currently create a healing discrepancy especially because non CHA buuilds were using SC lean and berserk stacks, but I also believe that's due to a combination of longstanding item support and the SC lean/berserk changes. This is why my position is to 'replace SC lean and berserk' with items actually intended to heal, for non CHA builds. These can be also catered to Warriors/RAngers/Mages. This approach doesn't trample on beast builds (Ya know the backlash and 'feels bad' thing Hollow mentioned?)

So END is being used as a way to boost heals. Most players agree that END provides an unnecessary amount of HP's. I have long argued that training END means there's less of a need to heal. So the idea is to lower HP's some, but give END some power with heals. It's the approach that's up for debate. One group wishes CHA was nerfed more during the stat revamp and are perhaps using this debate as a means to an end (no pun) and others are being more realistic with the approach. You're right....END as-is was deemed OK despite being the most OP stat in the game mathematically. So why completely alter it when staff seems to have deemed it fine? Because maybe some are calling for END nerfs to justify CHA nerfs.
Instead, we should just be replacing what was lost with SC lean/berserk, and not making a brand new game..trampling on many players experience and creating major backlash in the process. I have pointed out how their idea tramples on those who train CHA and Lupul has pointed out how their idea tramples on END. Most players don't wish to see a completely redesigned game. My approach simply makes END more attractive, doesn't tick off the majority of players (both END users and CHA users), and provides a pathway for heal support for non-CHA builds which also includes new items designed for those builds. Their approach is "CHA OP, nerf nerf nerf there's already too much power for players" You can't have a healthy game when nobody plays it. And just because I have a difference in approach, I get told "Nobody will take you serious" and other ad hominem.

Thats a long summary, but we'll see if this post manages to not get altered.

quote:

I would then lean on this general point to make the further point that other participants have touched on - why are we even discussing this, when the stat revamp just happened? Why was END not better addressed at that point? Most notably, the oft-cited OP too much HP being given. I was less involved in that discussion so maybe I have missed reasons why. If then, it wasn't changed at that point for some reason known only to staff, it seems unlikely it will be changed now. If this is the case, it'd be great to know, so we don't waste time discussing something that isn't being considered. And if there is a reason this didn't occur in the stat revamp that is public knowledge then I'd appreciate being informed also!

quote:

I'd further note that the stated point of this is to make END more desirable - and this change, perhaps similarly to what others have said, doesn't quite check out in this respect. END becomes the healing STAT, but my actual HP benefit is much less. So I need to switch up and use that boosted healing just to get the equivalent benefits as pre-change - in this specific context, END becomes much less desirable than before, for one of the stated END stat characteristics (tank play). So from a pure tank warrior perspective, I may be put off END. Weird. Whereas, as a mage, END would look fairly essential with proposed changes/MP heal affected. This feels, again, just preference based. Why make such a significant change based on preference?

quote:

a) Every time the player character conducts an action that includes a Healing effect (eg. a vanilla/quick-cast Healing Spell, an attack with a weapon that Heals on hitcount, or simply chugging a healing potion) reduce the player character's HP_HealRes by a fixed amount (I propose somewhere between 15% and 20%), to a minimum HP_HealRes value (I propose somewhere between 5% and 20%, where the player character can still heal a non-zero, albeit very inefficiently low, amount of HP).
b) After a set amount of turns (I propose 2, but another value between 3 and 5 could work too), at the end of the monster's turn (to prevent Celerity abuse), restore HP_HealRes lost from a) by a fixed amount (I propose this value to be no more than the amount of HealRes deducted after two (2) Healing effects).

quote:

Generalising from the above, the logical conclusion is (3) 'Direct Damage modifiers cannot interact with Healing in any way'.

quote:

Now, you have backtracked completely. You are trying to claim that Spellcaster lean was never intended to boost Healing Spells and attempting to limit the entire Healing discussion to Armour Lean only.


You have backtracked on your stand with Sila's Staff and Poelala so that you would not have to deal with the logical conclusion from (3), where all Items & Style Bonuses cannot affect Healing.

quote:

my opinion is- END is a strong stat ATM, has obvious and valuable reasons to be picked. Swapping all healing scaling to END makes explaining items would 1: reduce item diversity 2: make END wildly OP 3: make countless counterintuitive MP bar resource payment interactions - among other things. Nerfing END, if that's the goal, could come in many forms, including reducing max HP

quote:

In fact, I wish we'd even see a 1-2 month-long test and see what players think. It would just be maybe 2 mods to the stat? .75x on the scaling and 1.25x on the healing, no?

quote:

In an alleged pursuit of balance you’re well under way to creating the strongest stat this game has ever seen in its 20 year life span.