quote:

Would there be any acceptance for restricting lucky strikes to only resource recovery effects? Only regen can do it. This will help resource management while cutting down direct offense.

quote:

Make all LS-rate modifiers additive.
LS-damage modifiers should only activate by paying their full cost on a LS, otherwise they don't activate at all.
Please consider other effects that can happen on LS, instead of just boosting LS damage.

quote:

didnt finish reading, but why always thinking in the way of 'the dmg is too op, lets balance (nerf) the dmg'? Why cant it be 'the dmg is too op, let the player sacrifice more for it'? items provide more then it s intend to? pay more rss for it, it is just pay more gain more. I see someone mentioning Granddad's Greatsword, etc and believes LS is broken, how about just require SP/HP paying for the effect? like how Masamune works, paying a chunk of SP for the big dmg. Chaning the whole LUK mechanism will broke all the LUK-related items. Taking away smthng that a player already paid for is a terrible idea, I still remember how bad i feel when I pay 50 bucks buying the updated Akriloth's Wrath for its OP dmg and suddenly it got nerf because of the OP dmg.

quote:

Also note that it echoes another of my key points - that this affects the fun ideas they can implement in future:

quote:

If the initial stages of a fix aren't implemented before this set gets released, it is at significant risk of becoming redundant. This would apply regardless of the initial state that the set is released in. It would also force the staff to be more conservative than they otherwise would be precisely because of the information provided in the quote above. Any subsequent feedback would be subject to the same restriction.

quote:

I don't think these items should function with no limits and, if so, this severely limits how far these items can boost LS damage at base.

quote:

So ideas attempting to re-write and re-invent this to me is a huge waste of time, because it will already cause players to dislike their items being all nerfed , and an alteration to this lucky strike system itself too much will make it worse. This is a delicate balance between adhering to standards but not destroying player's gaming experience.

quote:

That would take away the biggest pro of LS and change its playstyle completely so it's a hard no from me

quote:

Cost = 392 * ( 3 - 0.05) = 1156 SP
or:
Cost = 349 * ( 3 - 0.05) = 1030 HP

quote:

I would ask for examples but you would probably say there are none since they havent/cant be created yet. Would like to hear what you have in mind that cant be implemented because of the current system. Your claim + what staff says is quite the opposite from reality though. If what was stated was indeed true then all LS and Hypercrit items created past Arms of the Dragonguard would be useless or not fun. That is far from the truth. Staff have continued to make Hypercrit and LS items afterwards and they have all been generally well received. I do not see this arbitrary restriction that keeps getting brought up

quote:

There aren't many existing examples for the reasons you state. However, one possibility is Neo Airenal's Cunning, a weapon that burns on a critical hit. This is extremely difficult to implement right now because, in addition to the *10 hypercrit modifier, it also receives *2 from the save roll. This turns a 5% melee effect into 100% Melee, which can be guaranteed to attempt the status, and then heavily swung in the player's favour with status potency effects.

quote:

First, these cost far exceed current precedent in terms of how much the player can pay for power. However, even if we did toss precedent to the wind, it also causes mechanical complications. Is this ratio constant? Or is it only over a threshold? How much is the split? Do different items have different ratios? It's far better to keep things simple.

quote:

Maybe I'm unaware but as powerful as that sounds, I don't really hear many people using it if at all? I know it's a big package item but even the whales I know of don't use it. I know you don't agree with this but I personally think usage rate is a good statistic to show how good or bad an item is

quote:

I am in support of the cost split idea and have been for just about anything else for some time now. Precedents shouldn't stay the same forever. I think pushing it to new highs once in a while keeps things fresh and exciting than the same old "oh we already know this item won't exceed this power etc". Your questions regarding the split is valid. Personally I think it would be much better to have different splits and different ratios for each item to encourage diversity but I understand the time taken to do this. A blanket split may cause some items to be great and some to be horrible. It's a solution I support but I know it will take a long time to do if done individually

quote:

I am in support of the cost split idea and have been for just about anything else for some time now. Precedents shouldn't stay the same forever. I think pushing it to new highs once in a while keeps things fresh and exciting than the same old "oh we already know this item won't exceed this power etc".

quote:

With LUK investment, the player is assumed to LS 10% of the time. This is called the base LS rate. A lucky strike is bonus damage modifier that’s applied to your attacks 10% of the time. You get this bonus *because* of your stat investment. Just like you get MP because of your INT investment. This value is factored into the games core assumptions. This is why you do not pay resources when a LS lands, because you’ve already paid for it via your LUK investment. Granddads sword pays MC + 15% melee in HP every single turn you attack with it. Think of this melee% as a stockpile that eventually goes towards your next LS that procs. This is why you’re not getting “free” melee with it. Just because you can sometimes bypass the turns where you don’t LS doesn’t mean that the core assumption of 10% LS doesn’t apply. This item specifically uses this assumption to justify the 20% melee you’re funneling into it every single turn.

quote:

[Where your logic falters is that Granddad and other LS items directly assume that your LS rate is 10% in their cost calculation. This means, if you, to put it in your words, 'bypass LS turns', you are, in fact, receiving %Melee that the cost on the LS item was never designed to cover.

quote:

FD as a lean is, due to expected monster and player output, the strongest lean in the game. It also sits pretty solidly in being the least popular.

quote:

I recognise that you regularly have serious concerns regarding nerfs to just about any part of AQ. I cannot speak for the staff, but nailing your flag to this mast means it is likely that (i) the more powerful LS items currently in existence are at serious risk of being substantially nerfed and (ii) the staff would heavily restrict the LS-related items they released - the core issue of the x10 modifier has not changed.

quote:

Therefore, I'm willing to concede a bit of ground, and request for Granddad's ilk to pay a small margin of the cost per-turn instead of paying it all on-LS. This should allow them to retain their 3x LS damage modifier effect, but still be expensive enough to be unable to activate all the time under a proper resource economy. Example numbers will be edited into post #22. Sidenote: it's also worth keeping in mind that, it might be possible for the devs to code something that divides the cost by armour / weapon-proc hitcount, making it much more palatable, especially if the player has non-guaranteed LS (aka <100% LS chances). For example, using Granddad with a 2-hitcount armour means you're only paying 150 %Melee if you LS on one and not both of the hits.

Simple! I've mentioned this in post #22 - the LS damage modifier doesn't activate if you can't afford pay the cost. This might, in practice, turn LS-damage-modifiers into a spell-like cost mechanic - if you can't pay, you can't cast the effect.

Combine the two answers above, and you might see what I'm trying to achieve - 2 distinct niches of LS-damage-boosting playstyles. One uses equipment that offer smaller LS-damage-boosts (1.5x LS damage weapons such as Monolith Mace and Unfortunate Umbrella), combined with longer-termed (2-4 turns) LS-chance-boosts, for a more consistent and sustained LS output by allowing natural resource (namely SP) regeneration to offset the per-turn costs, at the expense of lowered ceiling. The other goes all-in after accumulating enough resources for a big expenditure that results in a LS damage output that completely blows the roof off, brings the house down, etc. etc, at the cost of being nigh impossible to casually repeat that outcome over consecutive turns, again under a reasonable resource economy. Yes, I am fully aware that I pass the ball into the "resource eco GBI" court, meaning the whole LS issue would take longer to fully resolve - but I am willing to endure such a long-pain scenario. Again, I have faith that the devs will do take the correct measures when the resource eco revamp fully comes around, and thus allowing the first of the two aforementioned niches to really step out of the second's shadow. Until then, enjoyers of the second niche (the current LS-Hypercrit-nuke setup) can either learn to wean off of it, or suffer worse withdrawal symptoms when the full resolution comes around :evil_smiles:

quote:

I believe that reaching 100% Lucky Strike chance should be possible but I also believe that getting x10 for "free" due to assumption abuse is too far, however I do support allowing a full-crit setup to get at least a small for being heavily invested into a single mechanic.

quote:

LS Rate modifiers should stack additively with one another.

quote:

The Hypercritical status should become a lean affecting LS damage modifiers e.g., +40% Rate = /5 Damage (since 50% total chance of LS). This also means it has no %Melee cost to apply it. This I believe should help to address @Dardiel's concerns

quote:

Direct LS rate items can still exist. However, the LS rate should not be able to exceed 30-40% without hypercritical. This is to ensure that the free %Melee involved does not become uncontrollable. I would prefer to manage this as a hard cap, but am also open to a strong soft cap. Retaining a 30-40% cap is still considerably higher than the spellboosting items you mention @Dizzle. Items like Granddad can increase LS damage by 200%, which is far more than any normal spellbooster. This also incorporates part of @ruleandrew's approach, only with an increased cap (I think a maximum 15% cap would be too low). EDIT: Please note - this can be increased up to 100% through Hypercritical, so long as the necessary damage penalty is still applied.

quote:

@dizzle: Forgive me, but I seem to be a little confused precisely where you stand. It's clear to me that you don't support the increased cost system presented by @Telcontar Arvedui I, as we don't ask the player to pay this kind of additional cost in other situations where item interactions cause extra %Melee to be obtained. I'll put aside whether LS items were designed with this in mind, as (for the moment, at least) it's irrelevant to my question. However, in your original reply to this thread, your (admittedly preliminary) position was:
A lean system could be interesting, though a 1:1 rate might be too harsh
Re-evaluate the cost of boosting LS rate
I bold the second point because, albeit approached from a slightly different angle, this is pretty much the same kind of cost system as the one you just rejected. I thought this might be because @Telcontar Arvedui I's approach is simply too harsh, but based on your reasoning, it seems like your position more fundamentally opposes a cost-based solution. With that in mind, does that mean you now reject your original cost proposal? If so, what do you now prefer?

quote:

I was saying that the one proposed that got the most traction is fundamentally not an option unless the devs start contradicting standards and to be honest doesn’t really make sense given how this game works. I think initially I was misunderstood so I had to explain why I believe it is not an option due to how assumptions play into player power.