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 5 of 6«<23456>»
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
3/29/2024 19:29:54   
CH4OT1C!
Member

@KhalJJ: You raise a really excellent point: Why are we discussing this when the stat revamp just happened?
It goes without saying that I can't speak for the staff around why they didn't consider any of this. However, as @Ward_Point has very kindly thrown me under the bus (I forgive you ) I can at least explain why I specifically haven't raised it until now. There are actually multiple reasons:
1) Throughout the stat revamp, I was working hard with @Dreiko Shadrack, @RobynJoanne, @Lv1000, @Dardiel, and a number of other players on trying to put forward the best revamp in a single move we possibly could. For obvious reasons, not all of that revamp was implemented, and I couldn't get to everything I wanted to fix at once. Why? Well...
2) I was prioritising other discussions. A lot of the stat revamp discussion was sucked up by two things: (i) The DEX-related changes, and (ii) Wallbreaker. As we've seen with this thread, it's very easy for one small facet of a much wider topic to completely dominate the discussion. In that instance, I couldn't get to discuss END as much as I would have liked.
3) END isn't like the other stats. During the stat revamp, pretty much every other stat was "open", i.e. we had the ability to change them without major obstacles standing in the way. The only exception to this was CHA due to the changes needed for Guests, and even this could have been worked around (though it would have been far more challenging. Thank you @Ianthe!). END is different. With END, you cannot just nerf the absurd amount of HP it provides because it's a part of why people use it. And, as I mentioned in my prior response to @dizzle, this isn't just about the stats. I'm trying to solve multiple problems simultaneously. To do what I wanted with END, I needed something to replace the unfair amount of HP it provides. That's something I think can only really be solved through items (hence my position). And that brings me finally to...
4) I'll be blunt - I care about the coders. I care about @Ianthe and @Kamui, and I knew how massive this project was for the both of them. Time was running out, the changes I've proposed certainly aren't small, and I thought it would be better to not add to their workload in that extremely stressful time. That's also why I've posted three GBIs soon after the stat revamp. I've been saving them up. It's not an accident these happened now and not before the stat revamp.

That's why it's now. Of course, it's perfectly reasonable to respond along the lines of "but CH4OT1C!, you haven't proposed a nerf to END yet". Correct, at least until this post right here!

I propose we nerf END! Specifically the amount of HP END provides. How much? A lot. Currently, END provides approximately +98% to base HP, which is not great because it doubles the amount of turns the player can stick around. This is nowhere near in line with what the other support stats are providing - CHA is giving Pets 20% Melee plus the 30% or so for Guests. LUK is providing quite a significant boost, but it's nowhere near as much as END because it's only happening an assumed 10% of the time. It's one of the reasons why @Sapphire's earlier comparison makes no sense; it's a miracle that CHA really got anywhere near END given how OP it is on paper.

So, with that in mind, how much do I want to reduce it by? I'll be blunt: 5 turns. That's 25% of current max END, which came from a discussion between @Dreiko Shadrack and I. To put that into context, I'll use the numbers relative to modern HP. Here's a quick linear calculation I drew up for you to see how much that would be:
quote:

100+(19.05*Level)+(2958*0.25*END/250)

At Level 150 with 250 END, this formula means you'll have 3697 HP. At 0 END, you'll still have 2958. However, please do note that the current HP formula is ancient and certainly not based on any modern standards. As far as we can tell, it's even different compared to the one we use for old HP costs (if 151 HP = 100% Melee, the player should currently have 4228 HP at 0 END...), so it's safe to say that this formula could do with an update if possible. In any case, we were thinking of 250 END equating to whatever the base HP is at 0 END +25%. (If anyone cares for why the formula is linear, the current one we use is slightly curved and responsible for depressed HP values in the mid-levels. I wonder why mid-level players find the game considerably harder...).

Yes, all of that sounds pretty severe. And it brings me onto a critique made by @LUPUL LUNATIC:
quote:

Cutting HP to 3845 is a MASSIVE cut, i for one have a Tank Warrior which uses END as a way to tank damage and foregoes healing pet/guest in favor of outlasting Attrition bosses.
I also have a Backlasher which surely wont want cutting HP from 5853 to 3845.
I do agree with scaling END for Healing but reducing END HP surely not because then Tank builds will cease to exist and be replaced with builds that just heal instead of tanking,its an aspect of END that i enjoy playing,tanking hits without healing pet/guest.

Yes, it is a lot. I'm not particularly worried about backlashers (see here for why), but I am sympathetic towards just how radical some of these ideas are. With that said, isn't that what this thread is supposed to be about? Spitballing some ideas and then seeing if we can all come to a compromise on how to take things forward. If you think my numbers here are too low, what do you think would be better?

Speaking of which, @Grace Xisthrith has made the point that they'd be concerned about potential significant buffs to healing. My preference to solving this is simple: Neither healing nor END is inherently assumed within the player turn model. Therefore, we can have these items scale on END without too many complications. i.e. The healing of an item can be multiplied by:
quote:

[Heal] * ( 0.5 + 0.5 * [END]/[Expected])

In a similar way to other types of items, this ensures END-users heal the full amount, while non-END users can still heal, albeit at 50% efficiency.

So, since I've thrown a lot of ideas out there without fully establishing where I properly stand on this topic, here are my points:
  • All healing scale on END. This includes HP, MP, and SP
  • The healing should scale as: [Heal] * (0.5 + 0.5 * [END]/[Expected])
  • The bonus HP of END should be reduced down to +25%
  • I'm in favour of @Dardiel's suggestion that we then add to this a soft damage cap component to prevent excessive heal interactions.
  • Treat statuses as statuses i.e. Barriers/Mana Shield/Chi Shields are treated as "other" type attacks.

    In relation to my other GBI:
  • To me, it doesn't matter whether we allow damage boosters to affect heals, just so long as we're consistent in their application across the board.




    I'd also concur with @Dreiko Shadrack that the "skipping turns" idea is likely to cause more problems than it solves.

    < Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 4/1/2024 20:09:57 >


    _____________________________


  • AQ  Post #: 101
    3/29/2024 20:54:20   
    dizzle
    Member
     

    quote:

    This is laughably off base. The proposal would ultimately treat End with regards to healing no different from how effects that scale off of primarily one stat does. Half effectiveness without, full effectiveness with.
    For End supposedly being the healing stat, it currently is the least effective stat FOR healing. This is one of the ways to address that if we believe End is supposed to be the healing stat.


    “Laughably off-base” seems rather confrontational but I’ll let it slide this time only out of respect for your Olympax war efforts.

    Jokes aside, I was just giving my opinion on the matter. I fully understand the proposal, my point was I don’t think we’re fully considering the implications of this. I went more in depth on my previous post but it got edited into oblivion so I’ll elaborate here in an attempt at a more civil and constructive conversation.

    Having every item that heals scale with END was and is the proposal. Where else do we receive heals other than the passive SP regen and twilly-like heals between battles? Unless I’m dangerously confused (which is definitely a possibility knowing me) this means literally.. every item that heals will have its heals scale off of END. As was proposed. Again I’ll invoke my analogy I made earlier in the week - INT is the MP and Spell stat therefore every single spell in the game must cost MP and scale with INT. While you’re welcome to think that’s a good idea, I do not believe that to be a good idea. Maybe if we were to design a brand new game then you could argue for that and I’d be on board, but we are 20 years deep into this game with thousands of items and exponentially more item combinations. Diversity and freedom is what makes Adventure Quest Adventure Quest. The ability to use any build, any stat, any combination effectively and at only slight disadvantage (due to item support atm) to any other stat combination. Having a plethora of options to choose from and nearby limitless possible stacks/shenanigans is what this game is. Maybe not what it was 10-15 years ago, but that’s undoubtedly what defines this game. Slamming the door to item design and funneling the entire concept of healing into a single stat, in an age of AQ where resource regeneration is so important and popular, seems to me like not an attempt at balance, but an attempt to change the way the game is played into a shadow of what it is currently in such a way that some people think would be better. It’s okay to have an opinion on how the future of the game should look, but there’s 2 sides to this.

    I personally think that slamming the door on creative item design is the biggest reason I’m against this proposal. Just as not all spells should scale with INT, I too believe not all heals should scale with END. You could argue that it’s not closing the door to item design, but I think that’s rather semantical and not the point I’m making. Sure they could make a Tricksters Arsenal 2.0 where they deal M/R/M damage, but the heal scales with END. This just seems not necessary, given the goal is to wash away the disparity of healing between items/stats. A melee weapon that heals you where the heal scales off of END effectively makes it so that you’re required 2 stats to get the most out of 1 item. In other words, anyone who is *not* invested in END will essentially view this item as.. idk not appealing? The meta idea is to maximize optimization in this game. If you start requiring INT for all spells in the game, or, yes even this, requiring CHA for all companions in the game, then it just limits possibilities and creativeness unless you sacrifice a part of your game in another area.

    What I’m not saying is that no items need boundaries and anything should be possible for anyone. We need each stat to have a core foundational aspect that helps differentiate it from other stats. What I am claiming is that Healing in general should not be one of these aspects of END. I’ve seen multiple people say that beast masters have had an unfair advantage over healing. My question is - in comparison to whom exactly? Who are we comparing beast masters to? Non beast masters? We’re not in a vacuum here so if the player is not invested in CHA, then those 250 points have to be invested somewhere else. Luckily for us, right now healing does not scale with END so you can enjoy any and I do mean any combination of stats and still be okay in regards to healing. Yes this is my claim, the disparity between builds in regards to healing is not as serious as is made out to be, and that is why the proposal was put forth in the first place. And also, to me, this is a good thing. Diversity and creativeness to me are the most important things in this game, and I will continue to protest any proposal that attempt to put a yoke on something so universal as healing.

    You go on to mention that anyone can still use healing, it’ll just be 50% effectiveness without training in END as if it’s no issue at all. This exact same argument could be made for anyone “not invested in cha.” Healing pets and guests are available to everyone. Would I be against a healing companion that scales on END? No of course not, why would I? But what I would be against *all* healing companions scaling with END. You’re effectively shifting the imbalance in healing and just slapping it on END at the detriment of what I could only guess would be at the very least, half of the players. Even Chaotic, the one who proposed this radical change, admitted that it’s an unfair proposal. But his goal is to “balance” the unfairness and I just can’t see how this balances anything. It vaults END into immediate danger territory and immediately creates an imbalance in secondary stats.

    If the one proposing this radical change admits it’s unfair, then instead of being totally and wholly uncompromising, why can we not work together to find a solution that most people are on board with instead of alienating and looking down upon anyone who disagrees.

    < Message edited by dizzle -- 3/29/2024 21:07:46 >
    AQ  Post #: 102
    3/29/2024 20:56:12   
    Red Blood
    Member

    Weighing in on those points a bit I would love to see an expected heal output using a few examples+ plus a rough idea of what the soft heal cap would be. Only fair to have a rough example of each to help further sell the point no? Also I'd hope the heal cap is made in such a way it addresses each bar individually vs having a good heal sap say your sp regen depending on when the cap is looked at as Plot armor has some weird funk to it I can point out. Bundling End with all bars sounds fine to me as mages flat out have a t3 class option that encourages such at stat at present so one can't claim it's too heavy handed of a generalization. Bit wary on the barrrier/shields and wouldn't mind some sort of in game test armor for that be it just a G plate with 3 Other type shields for an example as unlikely as that would be. Find with the hp drop long as it offers overall general recovery/ finds gear options to leverage the ideas of a warrior capable of shrugging things off/ taking blows that should kill the average person.
    AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 103
    3/29/2024 23:33:49   
      Ward_Point
    Armchair Archivist


    Well Dizzle, do you have an alternative solution?

    I have addressed Aura's proposal of END creating a Damage Reduction effect. At the end of the day, whatever value of HP that is set for 250 END needs to be effectively equal.
    quote:

    At Level 150 with 250 END, this formula means you'll have 3697 HP. At 0 END, you'll still have 2958. However, please do note that the current HP formula is ancient and certainly not based on any modern standards.
    If I used the above numbers:
    [3697-2958]/3697 =~ 0.1998
    For a Player with 2958 HP to have 'effectively' 3697 HP, the Player must take an approximately 20% damage reduction. Well, okay. But how does this make END any more desirable? We're just switching numbers around but doing nothing of consequence. Unless, of course, you have no intention of making END desirable and only want to discuss Healing.

    Dizzle, we're going back to what was discussed across the first 2 pages, which is about Opportunity Cost and Consequence of Choice. I'm going to remind you that that part of the debate is done. One of the goals of Chaotic's entire proposal about shifting Healing to END is entirely about creating limited consequences for the Player. If you do not agree that a player should suffer such consequence, by all means, suggest something of consequence. All you have done repeatedly is to essentially state that "Let's retain the status quo!" The status quo for END is not healthy and we would like to see that change into something that is desirable, yet not assumed nor essential for the Player. For this situation, the Proposal that has gained traction is one of tying Healing to END.
    I also think this would be a good point to highlight the why there is a belief that some change must happen in the first place.

    There are some overarching themes.
    1) Consequence of Choice:
    Stat Points are limited, and there are some very clear consequences with every choice. The Mainstats of Strength, Dexterity & Intelligence enable use of different weapon types and forms of damage, and since the Stat Overhaul, somewhat different playstyles. Charisma enables usage of Companions. LUK enables Lucky Strikes and some minor support utility. END increases HP and its effects are exclusively defensive.

    2) Opportunity Cost
    There should be an opportunity cost to all decisions a Player makes. On a small scale, all Players do this whenever they choose an equipment loadout. The Mark of Ruin Pet will always attempt to Burn the foe using CHA vs DEX on the major roll, it's toggle is a stronger Burn that costs HP. The Rosebud pet has a Toggle that allows it to switch between Burn & Damage modes. If you encounter a Foe with high DEX, Mark of Ruin might probably deal less damage than a Rosebud in direct Damage mode. Pumpkin Spice Weapons have a Celerity option while Lorekeeper's Oath has a Harm Toggle. Small decisions like this have very direct consequences in how we play the game, there must be a benefit and a drawback

    3) END is not assumed
    Because END is not assumed in the 20-Turn model, choosing not to invest in END has zero consequences for the Player. 2958 HP is more than sufficient to deal with 20 turns of battles. This creates a situation where END is often overlooked as a stat. To make END somewhat more desirable, the Staff decided to effectively double Player HP when END is trained. Endurance is mathematically imbalanced. Yet, the challenge is to find a way to give END a benefit that is not essential to the game, while attempting to minimize potential drawbacks on other Stats.

    The proposal of tying all Healing to Endurance fulfills all three conditions above. Yes, other stats that currently Heal will face some drawbacks as the proposal takes away Healing from all other Stats and makes END the exclusive stat that can affect healing. The subtopic of taking away from CHA has been discussed extensively in the first 2.5 pages of this thread and has been repeatedly addressed. If your voice hasn't been heard, apologies, but you've also had a week to voice your opinions regarding CHA. I have declared further discussion of that subtopic off limits.

    I want to hear from players who are affected by the proposal's effect on everything else.
    Be it a weapon you like to use like Haunted Dragonlord Weapons which regenerate SP, the Strength-Dependent Haunted Dragonlord Shield that casts a Barrier or the HP-Healing Trickster's Hide.
    Are you concerned over your tank build being played differently? Well I would hope so! Is it bad to change a playstyle? Not necessarily.
    Instead of using the same armours/weapons as everyone else and bashing away, you might need to select Healing-related gear so that you can maintain the feeling of being a Tank.

    How do you think it will affect your Playstyle? Those of us who are familiar with the actual numbers will attempt to translate your feelings into the system to see if it's possible within the confines of AQ's system.

    What shouldn't happen is for any member to post here and adamantly refuse to listen to logic.
    AQ  Post #: 104
    3/30/2024 0:06:24   
    Aura Knight
    Member

    The awkwardness of forced stat adjustment to compensate for the loss of heal potential with this suggested transfer of power from the previous stat to endurance is something which will likely never sit right with me. As strong as existing resource management might be, it's something we're used to. Stat revamp happened recently and before we can really get used to it we're now expected to focus on something brought up rather suddenly as a focus? The underlying issue with heals is they're intertwined with other already popular stat choices. The fix proposed is to remove heals from those same stats with hope to increase use of the neglected one. Nobody currently ignoring endurance will shift to it regardless of how attractive a choice it becomes. Something will be lost and the choice for me would be to remove luck but then there's the issue regarding luck becoming less needed. With regard to hypercrit you could try to use that to compensate for lower heals at 0 endurance which would keep endurance itself still unnecessary.

    An extreme fix would be to allow use of 1000 stat points. Keep the 3 main ones then have the rest go to endurance. This keeps existing builds the same while adding reason to use endurance but how stat points work will never permit it. Maybe lowering the full benefit threshold for heals would work. Rather than 250 for the full effect go with something lower like 50. The proposed hp value change could reflect better with that as it wouldn't be a high number.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 105
    3/30/2024 1:30:17   
    dizzle
    Member
     

    quote:

    All you have done repeatedly is to essentially state that "Let's retain the status quo!"


    quote:

    If your voice hasn't been heard, apologies, but you've also had a week to voice your opinions regarding CHA. I have declared further discussion of that subtopic off limits.


    Come on man no way I spent 20 min typing that post on my phone just for you to strawman it like that. The whole point of this thread is about healing which is primarily what I addressed in it. You might want to go back and read it again because I think you might’ve missed some parts. This discussion is turning into a melting pot of ideas about healing and the future of END. When you ask “Well Dizzle, do you have an alternative solution?” You also must’ve missed my comment on this issue on the GBI post, as well as my referral back to it in this thread. Anyway, my solution is pretty much creative item design to bolster those stats or builds that you personally feel are lacking. Use your familiarity with the actual numbers to see if you can translate those feelings onto the game, just with item suggestions and not wholesale changes to the Healing mechanic, you know? That’s the entire idea brother.

    The essence of this thread is shifting from Healing to more of a focus on END. I have been posting my thoughts about others suggestions and comments just like everyone else in here so I’m not sure why I’m being targeted. When someone says that one of my comments is “laughably off-base” I felt the need to elaborate to try and find some common ground. There’s suggestions flying all over the place and we’re supposed to voice our opinions here on those suggestions aren’t we? I apologize for not having a more revolutionary fix for this issue.

    quote:

    How do you think it will affect your Playstyle? Those of us who are familiar with the actual numbers will attempt to translate your feelings into the system to see if it's possible within the confines of AQ's system.


    Yea maybe we could VC about this! It just seems there’s some disconnect between what my posts actually say and what you are processing.

    Edit: I gotta edit in and just say that I’m by no means against changing END or healing. I just am not a fan of some of the suggestions I’ve seen in this thread and felt the need to give my perspective on how I think they would impact the game. I thought that was the point but I just wanted to re iterate I’m not against END changes or Healing changes, I’m just against the ones that I’ve said I’m against lol

    < Message edited by dizzle -- 3/30/2024 1:39:41 >
    AQ  Post #: 106
    3/30/2024 4:26:55   
    Dardiel
    Member

    As a potential direction for an END identity that might be agreed upon, I'd like to at least put forward that there should be some sort of END-related thing that happens during battle and that the player can have some control over. Mainstats can feel rewarding by giving you accuracy and damage, CHA allows for good pet/guest outputs, and LUK gives lucky strikes - at the moment END "just" gives a huge amount of HP, which is super strong while not feeling strong because it's just sitting there and there's no real payoff other than just dying slower. This is of course a game design concern rather than a balance concern, but since we're on the topic I think it could be neat to see what ideas others might have for ways that players can use END actively without moving heals over to it (and presumably without just making END gear, since that's an answer that's already been mentioned).
    Post #: 107
    3/30/2024 7:38:00   
    CH4OT1C!
    Member

    @Dizzle:
    quote:

    Edit: I gotta edit in and just say that I’m by no means against changing END or healing. I just am not a fan of some of the suggestions I’ve seen in this thread and felt the need to give my perspective on how I think they would impact the game. I thought that was the point but I just wanted to re iterate I’m not against END changes or Healing changes, I’m just against the ones that I’ve said I’m against lol

    Ok, I'm going to run with this since it is pretty unequivocal as a statement. This isn't about being against changing these things, you just don't want to do it in the ways I've suggested. That then brings up why my proposals are problematic for you

    quote:

    I personally think that slamming the door on creative item design is the biggest reason I’m against this proposal.

    From here. There's not really a lot I can say in response to this, because it's inherently opinionated. Since you've offered your opinion, I'll do the same. I think you're wrong; to me, it's a very weak claim to argue that forcing healing to scale on a single stat is a restriction to creative item design (key point). To understand why, flip the narrative. Would you consider all Guests, which intentionally scale on CHA, an inherent restriction on creative item design? The obvious answer to that is no; obviously you can do a huge number of different things with Guests. For a less well-aligned, but I think still very relevant example - look at bloodmage. It has a full suite of elemental options. Does that contribute significantly to good creative item design? It's the same idea, just copied in different colours of the rainbow.

    I'm not arguing that making healing scale on END has no impact on creative item design at all. What I'm saying is I think you may be mistaking item design for player setup. With healing scaling on END, it naturally follows that players without END will start to consider whether healing items are beneficial for their character over other options, and some may choose to switch. This would restrict the options available to them. That's what the Trickster-related example in this post is all about - people are going to think twice about using Trickster for its healing skill because it heals based on END and they haven't invested any points into it. If only the item was designed better so that they were worth using i.e. scaling as it does now. That's why I think you're viewing it as a potential item design problem. Do correct me if I'm wrong in my train of thought.

    If the above is correct, then it's what I consider to be the impacts of opportunity cost, as @Ward_Point highlighted here. We should feel like we're missing out on something by not investing in a stat. Those opportunity costs are the pull factors that make us want to invest in it. I don't agree with the opinions expressed by people like @Aura Knight who want the player to be inherently overpowered. There should be consequences for the stats you choose to invest (and likewise not invest) in. And you miss out on getting the most out of certain items without the right stat. Crucially though, that's not a product of poor or boring item design.

    Of course, I could be wrong. You might actually think this is a creative design issue purely related to item design. But in that case, I would seriously question: how much creative item design are you actually getting out of maintaining the status quo? Because, to me at least, it doesn't seem to be all that much.

    But there's also a second point too:
    quote:

    It vaults END into immediate danger territory and immediately creates an imbalance in secondary stats.

    The reason for that being set out here:
    quote:

    Is getting a monopoly over every single healing pet and guest, weapon, misc, shield, spell, skill, armor, etc not enough of a buff? Remember this isn’t just a buff to “healing” this is pretty much a buff to the player in every single aspect of resource regeneration which has become a staple in the way AQ is played

    Effectively, you're saying this would amount to an undeserved player buff. It's also fairly clear this is what you were referring to in your posts here and here. In addition, from this post, you've already seen my intention to nerf the HP of END as set out here and still think this would be insufficient.

    So far, so good. I disagree with your take based on my other plans, but again that's a difference of opinion. Where I have a problem is your proposed solution:
    quote:

    Anyway, my solution is pretty much creative item design to bolster those stats or builds that you personally feel are lacking.

    Of course, I have already questioned this approach multiple times on this thread without my concerns being addressed, but there's something else here too. You're questioning my changes for making the player too powerful and proposing we solve it by... providing new item-based options to increase the power of some players? There's a logical discrepancy here. I've already pointed out multiple times that the HP provided by END is extremely overvalued in an effort to make people want to use it. If you're concerned about player power (which is totally reasonable), why choose this alternative? The only way you can make this work is by arguing the status quo is fair and balanced. That despite the unfair HP provided to END, it all works out with the other support stats. This, you do imply in this post by claiming the healing disparity isn't as big as I made it out to be. But then, this brings us right back to where we started, that you aren't against changing END and healing?

    Based on the above, I think your opinions on this matter are a little confused. You don't like my proposed changes, that much is obvious, and I don't have a problem with that. They're radical after all. But the reasons you use to dismiss them, they don't align with your alternative either. If player power is too much (and I agree), then we should nerf then, not further consolidate what they already have.

    < Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 3/30/2024 7:53:11 >
    AQ  Post #: 108
    3/30/2024 7:43:36   
    ruleandrew
    Member
     

    quote:

    Makes END the exclusive stat that can affect healing.

    This logic will not work for pets that heal hp to character and guests that heal hp to character because CHA is used to power pets and guests.
    I want to avoid the case where a character can fully power a pet that heal hp to character by training END without training CHA.

    One possible standard for pets that heal hp to character and guests that heal hp to character
    Half of the stat damage bonus is powered by CHA. Other half of the stat damage bonus is powered by END.

    AQ  Post #: 109
    3/30/2024 7:50:39   
    Sapphire
    Member

    This is from Dardiel above, but this isn't in response to him solely as it is more towards everyone.

    quote:

    As a potential direction for an END identity that might be agreed upon


    There seems to be a fundamental flaw underpinning this entire thing. Players aren't coming to the table to share their thoughts in order to find a compromise. Not on this topic. Not to a change of this magnitude. If there are people that think that's the goal, that there will be compromise had, or if from a foundational level that this is coming from..in a search for some unified agreement, then I must say you have flawed logic and are actively advocating for an exercise in futility. The complete and total lack of understanding how the proposed change in the GBI will affect players gaming experience, or the lack of care shown towards it, in some pursuit of wholesale altering of this game..is fundamentally rubbing people the wrong way. If this is news to you, that should go to show you that on a fundamental level how far apart the debate is. If people believe that somehow a player offering his or her opinion is uncompromising as a bad thing, that logic is just as flawed. I personally am not offering my opinion in order to eventually bend to the knee of those who seem to think they know best and others don't simply because they presented their own opinions as if it's so solid of an idea that everyone else's opinion is automatically wrong or flawed or whatever other adjectives get haphazardly thrown our way.

    Look, players didn't buy Item A on Heromart only for it to be altered on a fundamental level from how they have been using it. Players didn't buy token package B for the same reason. Players didn't spend their UR GGB on a new exciting item only for it to change what's needed to get back how it worked originally. These ideas trample all over many players preferred gaming experience. This pursuit to upend how END fundamentally works or how it will be added to a subset of item types is also rubbing players who LOVE END how it is the wrong way as well, not just the stat that WARD is autocratically demanding nobody bring up . And that's an issue all unto itself considering this is *General Discussion* and people aren't actually breaking any rules in mentioning it. The Optics of that further rub people wrong. It comes off as narrative control, in order to provide for a specific desired result. It's actually toxic if I say so myself. I understand the WHY, but it's not actually helping.

    It is also flawed to ask people to provide suggestions, and then when they do, reflexively shoot them down using the DOGMA inherently tied to the other's own suggestion. People ARE offering suggestions. It's just that you people disagree , no different than how we disagree with you. Why this can't be viewed on equal standing is baffling.

    I saw a post in discord yesterday essentially saying something along the lines of "We should just present our solutions and let them present theirs and let staff decide what direction they choose" Um, why has it taken this long to come to the conclusion that I think should have been the mindset from the beginning? I'm pretty sure if a player feels like this change will completely alter their AQ experience, they're not going to like it and they're going to uncompromisingly speak up about it. And there's nothing wrong with that. Attempts at shaming someone here or elsewhere for taking on that opinion would not be OK, as well.

    Ultimately, in my opinion (we're allowed to have these, right?) making all healing items scale with END would

    1. Upset many players who like how their stat choices and items work for the most part.
    2. Upset players who support AQ by spending their own hard-earned money to provide an enhanced gaming experience for themselves. Why should anyone continue to support this game if the items they have get altered in such a massive way? This isn't even "an item". It's MANY. What are the repercussions of such draconian changes? All in some pursuit "perceived equality" <--opinion. Even *if* it actually rectified something (it doesn't), is it still worth the backlash? (Nope)
    3. Create a Super-Stat where an entire Meta will be created and evolve around it. Dizzle IMO is correct here.
    4. Create other snowball effects that would also have to be dealt with such as how items get buffed, builds get buffed (like No Main-stat), etc. More will need to be changed than just items listed. Gibby IMO is accurate here.


    Ultimately, the issue *is* overblown. Heck, I even showed that a Mainstat/ENd/LUK build v. a Mainstat/CHA/LUK build in 20 turns, using the same healing pet/guest/gear had more functional HP's available as-is. That doesn't mean figure out how much lower to reduce END's HP valuation to mathematically justify your proposal in lieu of the comparison. It doesn't change the 4 points above. Like, at all.


    This issue is essentially Burn Bridges v. a softer approach. I support a softer approach, even though I think it's overblown. I understand the 'feels bad' nature from the SC lean and berserk changes, which is why I forsee the proposal being a massive feels bad for far far far more players than those who will enjoy it. I know of several who haven't spoken up on the forums who are more in line with my approach than this re- making of the game, but they don't like to give their opinion that differs due to the frenzy that they think will occur. That's not hyperbole. Thats what IM TOLD.

    So if anything should change, be delicate. It's just best.



    Post #: 110
    3/30/2024 8:45:36   
    AQ Player753
    Member
     

    Could anyone from the staff please comment on whether they are seriously considering such drastic changes as the END scaled healing proposals?

    I believe it was made clear in the "DEX's style bonus" thread that it is no longer appropriate to be putting forth GBI's about stat identities. Making END the sole proprietor of healing would be a massive change in identity, akin to shifting thematically from a tank to a cleric. Furthermore, many items being made build exclusive in this manner is a huge concern as a customer, and it raises a couple of questions:

    How will potential changes affect seasonal opportunities like the upcoming crossover event or the current doomlight promotion? I feel as though it is not possible to make informed purchases regarding healing/backlash items if we cannot expect them to function the same way in the forseeable future. Maybe their availability could be extended if a decision were not made before they leave.

    Similarly, would it be possible for players to exchange premium items that are affected as a result of a significant change to END? I would greatly encourage staff to consider this if it goes against standard practice because players should not be expecting extreme changes at this time.



    Regarding the timing of this conversation, I also care for the wellness of the developers, but staff specifically told the players during the stat revamp they they wanted feedback on what should be changed. That was the time for extreme proposals. Attempting to schedule staff"s workload by intentionally withholding information about potential problems regarding stat identity did them zero favors. Even more, some of these proposals would have been at least partially rejected during the stat revamp due to the inclusion of SP being affected, so withholding them until now seems advantageous to the players that want this change. If players chose to prioritize other discussions during the stat revamp, the community should not suffer radical changes now as a result.

    Finally, I agree with the sentiment that END is already a great stat and it should only receive minor adjustments. I understand that END provides more value than the standards would allow, but the "On Balance" thread makes it clear that it is allowed to exist outside of the standards. I would, however, support the creation of new items that bolster the identity of END as a tanking stat, despite some players disagreeing with this approach.
    Post #: 111
    3/30/2024 10:23:09   
    Aura Knight
    Member

    Heals made to focus endurance will not make the stat worth using especially if the hp value is to be lowered for us. If we're fighting something able to hit high even with proper defenses we'll end up with a heal loop where 0 damage to the target is done. There's only one playstyle where it could work which is backlash but if that's the case, we're better off changing nothing.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 112
    3/30/2024 10:42:01   
    Telcontar Arvedui I
    Member

    w.r.t. Chaotic's bullet points per post #101, I have expressed my own stances per post #86 (END only affects HP Healing, blah blah blah), so this one will only address bullet 3, while adding on some material for our differences in bullet 2.

    quote:

    The bonus HP of END should be reduced down to +25%

    I cannot say I understand the overall mathematics of stat valuation enough to agree or disagree with this, so I'd like to ask both Chaotic and anyone who does - how (much) does Healing give or take away the power budget of END as a stat to have to end up with such a big slash to total HP? And what possible shifts in the power budget can we do to reduce the slash?

    Because I was hoping for 250 END to allow a very dumbed-down hyper-offensive attrition playstyle of "slash-slash-heal in FO Elecomped armour and correct elemental shields". Would that be possible? Anyway, you know me Chaotic - if you want me to do my own homework, I'll do it, but I need directions to the proper area in the library XD

    quote:

    The healing should scale as: [Heal] * (0.5 + 0.5 * [END]/[Expected])

    I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with these numbers. Not when 0 END effectively becomes locked out of HP Healing Spells.

    Healing Spells, being spells, cost 200 %Melee on the regular - split between the opportunity cost of a turn not attacking, and whatever (combination of) resources used. After a *0.9 "always useful" multiplier, we're expecting to gain a maximum of 180 %Melee in return. A base 0.5 power heal means 0-END builds heal 90 %Melee, when the monster is expected to attack and deal 100 %Melee in damage, turning any and all HP Healing spells into an actual detriment. I don't think we can even draw comparisons to scenarios like using a Melee weapon or damaging skill as a 0-STR build, because in those scenarios at least you are dealing some damage to the monster - this is an actual negative output of "I took damage for absolutely no player output this turn", not just a "significantly inefficient output".

    This is counter-intuitive to general gameplay. Unless my math and/or assumptions are wrong, in which case please provide corrections.
    Regardless, I am asking, as a (fellow) player, that such results don't happen. And because it's rude to point out problems w/o offering proper solutions, I am here to propose my alternate formulae:

    EDIT April 2nd, 2024: New formulae introduced per my post #121, with better reasoning backing them up. Therefore the formulae below are scrapped but still documented here.

    END-scaling formula #1 for Heal = [Heal] * (0.6 + 0.4 * MAX(1.1, END/Expected_END))
    END-scaling formula #2 for Heal = [Heal] * (0.7 + 0.5 * MAX(1.1, END/Expected_END))

    Chaotic mentioned to me in an off-forums conversation that the regular shebang of abuse-prevention measures apply to his formula, even though he didn't include them. So I shall put the *1.1 overcap limit to my formulae as a sign that abuse-prevention will be applied, even though I am not quite sure which measure is appropriate for stat-scalings.

    Formula #2 is obviously a power-creep for END builds, which I guess ties back to my question regarding Chaotic's bullet 3, about END's power budget. I want to pursue its possibilities, but to do that I would need to understand the required compensations. If it proves unfeasible then Formula #1 is the compromise.




    I also concur with @Dreiko and @Chaotic that the "skipping turns" idea is likely to cause more problems than it solves. Also also, dev hours.



    w.r.t. Dardiel's call for END to provide proactive player autonomy/interaction per post #107, I am here to offer a very radical proposal.

    Let's Fix Essence Orb. Somewhat
    quote:

    Cap the amount of Essence Orb (EO) clicks per turn to 1 + MIN(3, FLOOR(END/100))


    EO's biggest problem has been the absence of any restrictions aside from your HP bar and your imagination. And when we have multiple item interactions that can effectively neutralise the former, well...... Many people, myself included, thinks that it is unhealthy to the state of the game.

    Also, because EO has no click limits, players who took the 10 minutes to pore through the infosubs realised that lower item levels of EO correspond to more efficient conversion rates. This has resulted in competitive players using Level 5 EO (the lowest level) with their Level 150 Guardian characters, and clicking 9x more than they would with a L150 EO. What's more, EO is a Guardian-only item! Well, at least this means Adventurers can stave off Carpal Tunnel Syndrome for a while longer, right? /rolls eyes

    I am of the opinion that the items player characters use should be appropriate to their level. I'm sure the devs agree, since we've had items that tie their power and cost directly to the item level, and items that just become useless if the player overlevels the item past a threshold.

    The proposal above attempts put the first step forward in balancing EO by emulating the "tie item power to item level" avenue, ties END as a stat to a item and game mechanic so prominent in the current meta, ties the narrative concepts of both END and EO together (for real, there's only so many times you can slice your skin and bleed yourself before it hampers your combat/overall capabilities), and hopefully is achievable with very little dev hours required.

    Currently, on average, one click of a Level 150 EO provides 94 SP, or roughly 19.1 %Melee. With my proposal above, 250 END gets 3 clicks, averaging a total of 282 SP or 57.3 %Melee, though you're more likely to end up with 264 SP / 53.6 %Melee. Either should be enough to fund quite a few effects, at the cost of HP which the 250 END character is already packing. Future non-misc item releases that offer +END effects can allow players to reach the theoretical cap of 4 clicks/turn.

    I understand this doesn't fully balance EO. The conversion rate is still wonky, and Adventurers are still denied this item's availability, just to name 2 issues. But we've been talking about EO for such a long time, I figured this idea might just be crazy enough to fulfil multiple goals outlined in this thread, whether on- or off-topic. After all, Healing in AQ, IMO, is "Trading X amount of %Melee in order to gain Y %Melee in resources". And EO technically fits the description XD

    < Message edited by Telcontar Arvedui I -- 4/1/2024 20:05:43 >
    AQ  Post #: 113
    3/30/2024 23:58:42   
    Aura Knight
    Member

    So this might not be the worst change after some thinking. Still think more could be offered to the END stat where the only benefit isn't better regen. In other AE games there are effects which rely on low hp and high so something to do with damage affecting I think should be considered.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 114
    3/31/2024 2:27:47   
      Ward_Point
    Armchair Archivist


    Summary of Guest numbers changing as a result of END being used as the 'Healing' Stat.

    So Guests have 45% Melee power at 30% Melee Upkeep.

    Assuming only 250 CHA, 0 END with all Stat Bonuses being applied from END.
    0.45 / 2 = 0.225

    Apply 5% Melee Style Bonus
    0.225 + 0.05 = 0.275

    Apply Ferocious Strikes. Slightly more complicated since this is multiplicative.
    (0.8 * 0.275) + (0.2 * 2 * 0.275) = 0.33

    Conclusion:
    250 CHA / 0 END: Guests Cost 30% Melee and Heal 33% Melee per turn
    0 CHA / 250 END: Guests Cost 30% Melee and Heal 45% Melee per turn
    250 CHA / 250 END: Guests cost 30% Melee and Heal 60% Melee per turn

    All the above numbers calculated without applying the necessary Healing Penalties.

    This is actually pretty cool. This brings Healing Guests approximately equal to existing Heal Wounds in terms of efficiency at 250 CHA / 0 END.

    Of course, 250 END Healing Guests would be on standard at 45% Melee and there will be no change to 250 CHA / END investment.
    AQ  Post #: 115
    3/31/2024 8:49:34   
    CH4OT1C!
    Member

    @Telcontar Arvedui I: Excellent points!
  • Regarding the reduction in HP: I haven't presented a detailed, well-supported answer to this so much as provided a formula to achieve something within the correct ball park. I did this because I thought that the amount of reduction would server as an important topic of discussion
  • Regarding your other point: Your goal here is to ensure that a heal skill or spell can outheal the %Melee damage dealt by a monster. Monsters deal 140% Melee with 85% accuracy = 119% Melee.. This is the magic number we should be aiming to beat.

    A standard heal spell on the above END scaling at 0 END (50% efficiency) deals:
    quote:

    200 * 0.5 *0.9 * 0.85 = 76.5% Melee


    This seems problematic. However, it's really crucial to remember that this reflects player damage. Player damage is very different to monster damage. Under player damage, the player is expected to deal 404 damage on a normal attack, or to pay 348 HP for a 100% Melee effect. This means, under those conditions, 100% Melee is either 404 or 348.

    By comparison, a single monster attack is worth 140% Melee, or 1/20th of the player's HP at 0 END. This is 2958/20/1.4 = 105.6 HP for 100% Melee. Very different to the player number above. We can also use the 151 HP = 100% calculation that was used for old HP costs (following items like the old version of Pyromancer Bloodmage).

    Heal skills are player damage, but that HP is assumed to be used for tanking monster attacks. This means we need to apply a ratio to the above 76.5% output to see how much the attack would be worth in relation to monster damage. Here are four scenarios:
    quote:

    76.5 * (348 / 151) = 176.3% Melee
    76.5 * (404 / 151) = 204.7% Melee
    76.5 * (348 / 105.6) = 252.1% Melee
    76.5 * (404 / 105.6) = 292.7% Melee


    As you can see, we exceed the necessary value in all four of the above cases. In other words, 50% scaling is still sufficient to keep Heal skills useful for non-END builds (albeit less effective). Some may choose to argue that this is insufficient, that actually player damage assumes a striking against 130% resistances:
    quote:

    176/1.3 = 135.4% Melee
    204.7/1.3 = 157.5% Melee
    252.1/1.3 = 193.9% Melee
    292.7/1.3 = 225.2% Melee


    We still exceed the number in all cases. The only caveat is the lowest number, which may fall below the necessary value assuming pure damage. Moreover, (i) it's very close, (ii) not using the most realistic assumption set, and (iii) can still be boosted over the value extremely easy.

    I don't view the 50% scaling as a problem for those reasons.

    @Ward_Point: Really nice to see that it aligns nicely with Pets + Guests too. It wasn't originally intended, but it's a nice accident!
  • AQ  Post #: 116
    3/31/2024 19:39:38   
    Grace Xisthrith
    Member
     

    Ward: You've assumed the 5% melee from style bonus (not ferocious strikes) isn't subject to stat scaling, and would therefore provide 5% melee without the stat in question (END) invested. I'm almost positive it would give 2.5% melee instead. Not a significant change either way, just worth noting.

    Chaotic:
    I'm going to translate your numbers into actual resource input to output so I can look at them more easily. I'm doing SP just cuz it's easier, could do a similar thing with MP just changing it to 653. As well, you're using 105 for monster damage per turn, which is rarely applicable to bosses, although it is totally accurate. I figure that's worth pointing out.
    1: Spend 392 SP and your turn: Heal 266 HP, lose 151, profit 115 HP.
    2: Spend 392 SP and your turn: Heal 309 HP, lose 151, profit 158 HP
    3: Spend 392 SP and your turn: Heal 266 HP, lose 105, profit 151 HP
    4: Spend 392 SP and your turn: Heal 309 HP, lose 105, profit 204 HP

    Again, this is assuming you're using old HP cost items for the first two slots, so with modern items you'd be taking ~2x that, and assuming 105 for monster damage, which again is very often a significant undershot (or an overshot, looking at Kero :P ).

    In the first two examples, you're saving yourself 1 turn or less. In the second two examples, you're saving yourself 1.5-2 turns. These healing numbers can be boosted, yes. However, the resources you spend boosting them generally (except of course resourceless items like Oath of Desire or Angelic Robes) wouldn't profit per resource spent, from my eyeball calculations (for example, a booster guest for 118 SP (30% melee) giving 18% more output would not net 30% melee in HP).

    I personally would not view this as a reasonable way to spend resources. In fact, unlike Telcontar, I see it very similarly to how I would not view a mage using a melee SP spell a reasonable way to spend resources, since you're losing half, or more, of your output.

    Telcontar's fear you're addressing seems to be "turning any and all HP Healing spells into an actual detriment. I don't think we can even draw comparisons to scenarios like using a Melee weapon or damaging skill as a 0-STR build, because in those scenarios at least you are dealing some damage to the monster - this is an actual negative output of "I took damage for absolutely no player output this turn", not just a "significantly inefficient output". While you've correctly proven that this won't happen (again, if you're using old HP costs and 105 for monster damage), I think many players would view earning themself one additional turn (or less) with a healing spell pretty much a detriment, and waste of time. That's my personal opinion on how a healing spell would be without END, using the numbers you provided, which I admittedly have not checked myself, but look right.
    AQ  Post #: 117
    4/1/2024 5:33:54   
    ruleandrew
    Member
     

    One possible standard for hp heal skills
    Heal amount = Heal * [0.75 + 0.25 * [MIN (1.2, END / expected END)]]

    One possible standard for defence boost skills
    Defence boost amount = Defence boost * [0.75 + 0.25 * [MIN (1.2, END / expected END)]]

    One possible standard for hp heal pets and hp heal guests
    Heal amount = Heal * [0.5 + 0.25 * [MIN (1.2, END / expected END)] + 0.25 * [MIN (1.2, CHA / expected CHA)]]

    One possible standard for defence boost pets and defence boost guests
    Defence boost amount = Defence boost * [0.5 + 0.25 * [MIN (1.2, END / expected END)] + 0.25 * [MIN (1.2, CHA / expected CHA)]]

    One possible standard for character hp
    Character hp = Character hp ceiling * [0.825 + 0.175 * [MIN (1.2, END / expected END)]]

    One possible standard for character combat defence
    Bonus character combat defence = MIN(12, END / 25)

    These standards did not consider style bonus impact or LUCK impact. These standards are designed to give END a distinct identify. END need to focus on increasing character combat defence and increasing character hp. Under these standards, character can use a stat drive to boost stat value.



    < Message edited by ruleandrew -- 4/1/2024 9:11:56 >
    AQ  Post #: 118
    4/1/2024 10:05:00   
    Ogma
    Member

    There's one piece of equipment that is not really dependent on stats (besides misc) is armor. How about making END improve armor's lean? FD incoming damage x0.8 at 0 END > x0.7 at 250 END, FO weapon damage x1.25 at 0 END > x1.375 at 250 END, Spellcaster spell damage x1.375 at 0 END > x1.5625 etc..
    AQ  Post #: 119
    4/1/2024 12:07:48   
    CH4OT1C!
    Member

    @Grace Xisthrith: Of course, there are numerous different valuations of HP (this is something that really should be dealt with), but of the different combinations...
    quote:

    4: Spend 392 SP and your turn: Heal 309 HP, lose 105, profit 204 HP

    ... would be the closest. The reason being that this assumes real average player damage (404) and real monster incoming (105) rather than their equivalent player costs. I'm not personally a fan of converting these (given the numerous complications associated) but this is at least good enough to draw out the key underlying points:
  • It will be "useful" i.e. heal more than you lose
  • That could be more than 1 turn extra, particularly if you boost it
  • Boss monsters will deal more.
  • It's not a good strategy without END

    That last point is the cost of this solution, as well as the cost of every solution to the problems I'm trying to address. My goal is to make END better without undermining the integrity of the balance model (i.e. having END provide way more HP than it should) or causing powercreep (which I assume is also a key motivating factor for you). This means we have to give to END something that players already have. Something that they want but crucially do not need. That's why regeneration is, in my mind, such a good choice. It's something that players can already do, it's something that they want, but under the balance model it's not strictly necessary for them to do it. But, for this to work, healing without END needs to be something isn't necessarily a good idea. Otherwise, why bother investing in END in the first place? In some ways, this solution cannot be implemented through powercreep, again because there's no reason to invest in END if you can heal sufficiently without it.

    It's for this reason that I don't support @ruleandrew's solution. While I find it noble that they are attempting to make healing effective for non-END builds, it runs counter to my goal in the first place. All that matters is making the heal "useful", the idea should not be to make healing a good strategy even without END.

    Of course, this is still better than, say, a Warrior using a Magic skill. Unlike that scenario, healing is autohit. You're taking a penalty (that you would take anyway), but it's still far better than a mage skill where you lose both damage and accuracy.

    @Ogma: The first thing to say is... I think your idea is pretty feasible? Under normal circumstances, stats should interact with statuses. However, as a status, Armour Lean is completely unique and barely functions as a status at all. It'd definitely be fair to make an exception. Provided you focused on damage reduction rather than increased output, it would also fit the existing role of END; You would increase your ability to "endure" combat.
    There are some potential caveats to that though:
  • I'm not fond of the idea of a FD 100-proc Ranger dealing *1.15 output with *0.7 intake. The efficiency was already somewhat dubious, and this makes it even worse. What's worse is for a 20% Melee valuation, you'd be looking at a 14.2% reduction (i.e. I think you may be underestimating just how crazy the efficiency would be).
  • I can see this being a good way to replace the extra HP END provides. I can't see this being a way to incentivise people to invest in END. What part of this bonus couldn't be replaced by, say, a +20% damage misc, or a *0.5 damage misc, or an eleshield. There are so many items that can do this, and the point of a stat is to offer an exclusive benefit. You might even disincentivise some people because now they have less HP to use backlash/HP costs. And that brings me onto...
  • This could be an interesting addition, but I think you'd have to combine it with my suggestion of having healing scale on END (and the remove of additional HP, obviously). I simply don't think it's going to be enough on its own. With the healing, I think you could make a case for it to be an effective fix to END.

    < Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 4/1/2024 12:11:28 >
  • AQ  Post #: 120
    4/1/2024 13:39:42   
    Telcontar Arvedui I
    Member

    @Ward - Your math is definitely more accurate than what I posted in another thread, though thankfully I still arrive at the conclusion you did. The numbers prove that with the proposed formula, Guests at 0 END still heal at a higher efficiency than Healing Spells at expected corresponding stat investment. That alone should be reason enough to not necessitate conceding a portion of stat-scaling back to CHA. Am I still willing to concede up to 80:20 END/CHA scaling for Pets and Guests that heal HP? Only if the devs make that call.

    * * * * * * *


    @Chaotic - Thanks for correcting my numbers. I have to admit, prior to your response I hadn't really caught on that 105 player HP is equivalent to 404 monster HP. I guess the Chosen really is more equal than other Lorians :P

    Consider me convinced and on-board supporting the Healing formula. But only for HP Heals - I am still advocating for MP/SP Healing being standardised according to equal/equivalent %Melee exchange rates, instead of being directly scaled by END (or any single stat, for that matter). And I will still put forward some variants of your formula, for reasons stated below.

    @Grace - Another thing to consider is that, since those are HP Heals at 0 END, the implications are that the player character has the opportunity to allocate those statpoints elsewhere. The obvious example would be into CHA, for an extra 20 %Melee pet damage output per turn, which may just be enough to deal the finishing blow to the monster with that extra one (1) turn gained from Healing. Something along the lines of:

    Turn 8: Player heals, pet attacks, monster attacks and player doesn't die.
    Turn 9: Player attacks, pet attacks, player wins.

    instead of

    Turn 8: Player attacks, pet attacks, monster attacks and kills the player at 38.9 %Melee health left.

    Of course, the scenario above would be a one-in-a-million, but that's to be expected. My point being the statpoint allocation opportunities presented by 0 END investment should be enough to capitalise on any extra turn, whether singular or plural, gained from casting a Healing Spell. That's why my goal is to simply make sure HP Heals at 0 END do not end up being irrevocably detrimental to the player, and therefore counterintuitive to gameplay at all levels. We do NOT want to have to tell new/casual players that the Healing Spell they bought from Warlic's is actually an absolute, undisputed waste - because they have 0 END.

    Still, here are some variant formulae for you (and others perusing this topic) to consider:

    quote:

    END-scaling formula #3 for HP Healing: = [Heal] * (0.65 + 0.35 * END/Expected_END)
    END-scaling formula #4 for HP Healing: = [Heal] * (0.65 + 0.5 * END/Expected_END)


    Abuse prevention measures are implied even though not explicitly included in the formulae.

    In the (unlikely? far future?) event that this game equalises both player and monster HP (i.e. 1 Player HP = 1 Monster HP), a 0.65 base power Heal reaches 99.45 %Melee. Add that to a 20 %Melee pet damage output, and we'll be able to ever-so-slightly overtake the expected monster damage output of 119 %Melee. With 0 CHA and 0 END investment to boot. So IMO a 0.65 base power HP Healing Spell is about as future-proof as we're going to get.

    However, raising the baseline power does result in 2 immediately obvious outcomes that we must choose between. Either we accept the dilution of END-scaling (from *0.5 to *0.35), and thus accept that END has to be less appealing in this regard, or we maintain the END-scaling factor of *0.5, nudging HP Heals into power-creep territory.

    Personally, I'll be in favor of the latter. Because w.r.t. HP alone, currently END already offers buffs to HP_HealRes and flat maximum total HP. We should be able to funnel those power budgets into Formula #4, thus alleviating power-creep concerns. Which brings me to my next topic.

    * * * * * * *


    How much HP do we, the player character, really need?

    This is a topic I want to address, given its relationship to HP Healing - I agree with the notion that "the less HP totals you can have, the more reason for you to need/want HP Healing". Therefore, I did a thought experiment on how much HP is required to sustain the most obvious counterintuitive playstyle IMO, i.e. hyper-offensive attrition in FO Elecomped armour and correct elemental shields.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1881rgjHJpU64HIatgeglINT4dG-7hs__dnFVBDd8rQU/edit?usp=sharing
    EDIT 3rd April: Welp, I predicted this - wrong assumptions, wrong results. Google Doc has been updated, new write-up below. Sorry Chaotic!
    The results, as seen in the Google Doc linked above, is quite surprising, at least to me. Such a playstyle deals in big outgoing and incoming damage, yet with 1 single Healing Spell at 250 END, the player character can defeat the average monster while only sustaining a hair above 1400 %Melee in damage, almost conforming exactly to the basic player turn model. Even if we do away with that Healing Spell, the player character would intake approximately 2100 %Melee in damage, i.e. only require 250 END to provide +50% to the player's total HP.

    The results, as seen in the Google Doc linked above, are less surprising after the corrections, but still points in the same general direction. Such a playstyle deals in big outgoing and incoming damage, yet with 1 single END-scaled Healing Spell at 250 END, the player side can output 1400 %Melee while taking in ~2400 %Melee in return. That's ~73% extra HP required from the 0 END baseline. Sorry Chaotic, you gotta withdraw your compliments now!

    Although, I believe it's still worth noting that I achieved those results while still leaving a lot of headroom open, from winning Initiative, to further midbattle equipment changes, to Stat Bonuses, to a whopping 250 uninvested statpoints. If I input a better EleComp multiplier (*1.84 instead of *1.7) for example, and add a +5% MC damage bonus to the weapon, these two changes alone would've won the fight one turn earlier, bringing total damage intake down to ~1900, or only ~37% extra HP required. The inference here is that maximum END investment giving +100% to baseline HP is totally unnecessary from a tanking perspective, when one of the most counterintuitive high-risk playstyle can comfortably win battles with less than +50%. I would daresay actual players that pursue this kind of playstyle are smart enough to minmax their way to only require no more than +22% baseline HP for tanking purposes.

    Again, I am not familiar with all this math, therefore I could very well be off by a couple hundred %Melee. Which is why I post this out here to invite further debate and playtesting (including with different playstyles, such as Backlash). But until I am proven horribly wrong (again), I will use these results to posit that 250 END only needs to give the player character 15 to 20 20 to 40 percent extra total HP (i.e. add between 592 and 1184, to 0-END's 2958 max HP), AND the remaining power budget of END can/should be allocated towards HP Healing (and/or status resistances). That is not to say the devs cannot choose to give more, of course. But I would still disagree with that decision, because as far as I can tell, the excess HP will, 99 percent of the time, only be converted into upfront damage output buffs, which defeats the intent of END providing tanking options.

    In conclusion - yes, by broaching this topic, I am fully aware of the possible end result being changes to HP Healing and nerfs to total HP. But I will claim with confidence that all of my posts in this thread aim to a) give HP Healing a (narratively + mechanically) cohesive identity, b) tangentially, give END a more prominent identity by tying it to HP-related mechanics, thus really turning END into the endurance/tank/healing stat, not the EO-resource-conversion-abuse stat.

    < Message edited by Telcontar Arvedui I -- 4/2/2024 22:24:21 >
    AQ  Post #: 121
    4/1/2024 17:39:51   
    Aura Knight
    Member

    I know this is a few days old topic but I will question the importance over healing needing a change. Existing methods are all acceptable, every build has options and while we do have a neglected stat in endurance the way to fix this being a change to heals is a rushed conclusion. The stat itself has a purpose in tanking and it currently offers this through the extra hp we get from having points in it. The usefulness of this however is limited as the game allows us too much power and what we fight too little. Even if heals change to rely on endurance completely it will be wasted change if enemy damage remains weak. To correct this problem I would suggest we offer monsters a more powerful berserk effect in which their damage increases as their hp lowers. However, unlike typical berserk their accuracy goes up too. From our end the effect would have our heals boosted the lower our hp is. Stat function between player and monster do not need to have direct mirroring. With a change like this we gain reason to heal and also to put points to endurance. With this though I think it best to ease up on how much we're to consider decreasing max hp with 250 endurance due to the added risk of the monster empowerment idea. And we can go beyond just heals for endurance stat features.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 122
    4/1/2024 18:05:56   
    CH4OT1C!
    Member

    @Telcontar Arvedui I: Excellent! As mentioned, I could stretch to the build independence of SP. We could also talk about the build independence of MP regeneration too, although it is worth mentioning this would be a deliberate prejudicial nerf to Mages (Warriors + Rangers would have 100% of their player damage scalable, Mages would only have 75% since 25% is in MP). This isn't necessarily a problem, as Mages are meant to be the build based on suboptimal efficiency, but we should at least discuss whether that is something we want.

    It's also really excellent to see that the 25% END-based boost to base HP that @Dreiko Shadrack and I were thinking here is still sufficient to be useful. Thanks for doing the calculations!

    < Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 4/1/2024 18:13:28 >
    AQ  Post #: 123
    4/1/2024 18:12:02   
    Dardiel
    Member

    I agree that monsters should be doing more; putting them and the player both on the same scale for % Melee would be a great start (as seen with the wild math where a player can heal like 50% melee and that's somehow more than the monster doing 119% melee purely due to HP being worth different amounts in different situations).

    Without thinking too hard about it, I think I like Aura Knight's idea - if monsters get stronger over time, then endurance could be the stat for also getting stronger over time to match. I'm uncertain whether scaling with HP is optimal compared to something more directly associated with time (the return of ramping, but for monster output and player END functionality?) but overall I like it thematically and I think it could easily handle my personal gripe of "END doesn't 'feel' like it does anything since it's purely static and passive".
    Post #: 124
    4/2/2024 16:42:49   
    KhalJJ
    Member
     

    quote:

    This isn't something I could promise any implementation or timing for, so just for the purposes of discussion for now: Rather than passive damage reduction for END, how would folks like an addition to the battle menu that allows for spending a turn defending?

    Mechanically, this could be handled in several ways. For example:

    An attack with weakened output (Not just reduced direct would be important for status weapons not to simply bypass this downside) in exchange for taking reduced damage.
    Skipping the player turn, getting no benefits from equipped weapons, to pay the turn value for reduced damage. Likely splitting the value with another effect, such as a small heal.

    Crucially, the effectiveness would scale with END. That way there could be a universal defensive action everyone can use, but END builds would be the masters of it. This would potentially clean up the subject matter: Whether Healing should be END's bag can then be considered without trying to specifically fit it into END lacking an active use.


    I know this was a little while back but I wanted to shout out LK's suggestion as a huge positive; this is a really creative compromise suggestion that tried to meet the needs of differing player bases, and I'd applaud him for this! I think it is cool, and would successfully give END some more identity, without taking away from other stats. I also don't think this is something that is too hard to come by in game already, in that tomes etc. can skip your turn usefully, and having more options like this with different effects would be interesting. Again, could see this being an item also though. I'd accept though that others point out this may be power-creepy, and I can agree that if implemented poorly that would be the case. This is another thing that would be cool to play-test I guess. A lot of this is really difficult to play out without some testing in fact!

    I think a lot of cool ideas have been thrown around aside form this, and overall I feel pretty much all of them make for either potential cool item mechanics, potential cool boss mechanics, or are not worth implementing.

    I have a general point on the chat about how much HP players "need", and efficiency of healing currently - I'm not here to play "EfficiencyQuest" - I feel like I need my health! and I feel like I need my healing as is! It is fun to find creative ways around bosses/challenges etc. - I got wrecked by the new burn boss first time round because I just rolled in and didn't specifically prepare. The challenge level felt about right for me. I feel strongly that the proposed severe cuts to END, with increased healing, would simply make END less attractive. I recognise this is the play preference of an individual player however.

    I have little else to add that isn't re-iterating my same previous points, and I think the main divide is over the necessity of such changes, hence not conducive to discussions on the step 2 of that, ie. what those changes should be - if someone views it as not necessary, then obviously they will engage less well theorycrafting changes beyond that point. Whether END change is a necessity comes down to a) staff aims for Stat usage, which I've covered and in my view have evidenced as a non-issue and b) individual playstyle/game flavour preferences, which vary wildly.
    Post #: 125
    Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
    All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: Healing
    Page 5 of 6«<23456>»
    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


    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition