RE: Lucky Strikes


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

RE: Lucky Strikes

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Game Balance Issues >> RE: Lucky Strikes

Page 3 of 4

Forum Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

7/27/2024 12:10:20

dizzle
Member

quote:

[As of yet, you haven't provided any figures to exemplify how your system would work, but how would you ensure your system isn't subject to the exact same criticism? At the very least, @Telcontar Arvedui I's proposal does have its costs grounded in the game's math.

This is really just because I’m too concerned with the math specifics and I’d also rather not stick my foot in my mouth when talking numbers. I know what I know and I know what I don’t know and I don’t want to offer up some numbers to “ground my suggestion in the games math.” Mostly just because that’s not the approach I’m taking and I think that it would distract or take away from the points I’m making. My goal is to provide a logical and reasonable solution to the problem and let the devs sort out the details as opposed to trying to redesign their game for them. You are definitely right though, my arguments are 100% subject to the some of the same criticisms as telcontars suggestion seeings how they both have an increased cost based solution as part of the fix. However they’re 2 completely different approaches and I believe mine to be the more reasonable one since it doesn’t subsequently disaffect a large number of players via collateral damage.

AQ	Post #: 51

7/27/2024 18:43:21

Grace Xisthrith
Member

Briefish my opinions post before main point down below:
My strongest opinions are:
-staff should decide whether they want to increase the cost of crit chance increases to reign in crit items
-staff should definitely transfer all crit chance increases to additive, while leaving items like the crowns multiplicative (to my understanding they now work with additive modifiers like Lust or Masamune, so no issues there, unless of course I'm mistaken)
-runon warning cuz I'm lazy: while leaving damage modifiers unchanged leaves the door open for future abuse cases, and as they are currently they provide a disproportionate output to input ratio, my personal opinion is that the benefits, including diversity in player decision making, of damage modifiers being very strong in theory, outweighs the benefit gained by reigning them in, particularly due to the existence of damage mitigation effects on bosses, although I recognize other people disagree with using what used to be (I agree with dizzle that I don't see them as bandaids anymore) bandaid fixes as part of balance justification. An exception of that damage multipliers on healing effects. Fortunately, I'm pretty sure there are no LS damage modifiers that impact healing that don't also decrease LS rate to compensate, although this should be considered if items do in the future, since heals are not affected by damage mitigation mechanics.

I was thinking about something that I thought would be very beneficial to having informed discussion on the topic of lucky strike items, which we don't currently have. In short, staff comment on what their vision for bonuses items receive for requiring two stats should, can, or will be.

At the moment, we have several items that require use of multiple stats, and to my knowledge, 4 different standards for how requiring two stats is compensated. (player controlled trigger or 1.5x power increase, 1.25x power increase, 1 other I forgot but I swear existed don't @ me, and no change in power)

In an earlier post, I said that crit chance increases should probably cost 1.5-1 instead of 1-1 %melee to crit boost. However, in this post, I was a bit more vague, because depending on the item standards (this has been brought up multiple times by myself and others even in threads outside of this one), a player controlled trigger makes that 1:1 ratio make perfect sense. However, I think if staff are decided on the topic, or are able to become decided on the topic, it would greatly inform player discussion.
Some examples of possible outcomes are:
-Maybe staff decide that non player offensive stats (like END or CHA) get a 1.5x multiplier when requiring their use for an offensive effect, like Hexbound Weapon, but luck is an offensive stat so it gains no bonus, or a smaller bonus
-maybe staff decide that any item requiring two stats to use should be compensated, but a 1.5x multiplier is too high, so they lower it to 1.25 or something
-decide that using two mainstats deserves compensation, but a mainstat and a substat doesn't
-decide any number of other possibilities

My point is, if staff are able to shed light on what interactions and bonuses items can and should get from requiring two stats to use, particularly in the case of a mainstat and LUK, it would be very helpful for us players with our ideas. Item precedent gives us too many mixed messages, so I personally believe we'd need current staff comment to really make a strong argument one way or another

AQ	Post #: 52

7/27/2024 20:10:46

Sapphire
Member

Anything draconian for me is off the table. I get that staff have final say, but it must be considered how players will view this. When looking at the voting of this year's dono suggestions, I would have thought that Gwens set would have been off the table. I don't understand voting for something with so many unknowns. But it does show how utterly popular lucky strikes are. It literally carries the stat. The rest of what luck does is so utterly 'meh' that a draconian nerf to lucky strikes IMO would warrant giving luck a few new ideas. You'd see a shift away from it en masse.
This is why any and all ideas that create an entirely new dynamic, crazy costs, and outright completely altering the way lucky strikes works would be a horrific idea. Are lucky strikes in some specific iterations insane? Yes. The issue is the items, not the 'system'. However, I would be willing to tweak the system such that the extremes are way more difficult to obtain. This is the basis for any suggestions I've made here. I could be on board if there's a middle ground, but with the usual push for decapitating another longstanding gameplay aspect. You'd just run more people off (like with what happened even discussing the END/Healing debate.. (this isn't hyperbole, it's a literal observation)

I would just exercise a bit of caution instead of placating to over-nerfers.

This does make me wonder, though. So much of what luck did was removed from assumptions and that includes damage models? If you go through and reign back lucky strikes, then making and allowing more things and more aspects to be lucky strikable could be viewed as OK, now.

Anyway, I have faith staff won't ruin the game with some draconian adjustment. I just hope those pushing for that don't get too upset when they don't.

< Message edited by Sapphire -- 7/27/2024 20:13:33 >

Post #: 53

7/27/2024 20:18:55

CH4OT1C!
Member

@dizzle: I definitely understand why you might be hesitant to provide specific details if you're not confident in being able to provide any numbers. However, as far as I understand it, your preferred direction is a cost increase that is (i) less severe than that proposed by @Telcontar Arvedui I and (ii) effectively arbitrary (i.e. has no grounding in the game's math). That's leaving a lot open to interpretation. Putting to one side whether your proposal would be subject to the same criticism, this is such a wide remit it's effectively impossible for me to understand your perspective. I recognise you don't have the prerequisite knowledge to balance this properly, but even providing some arbitrary ball-park figure of what you deem acceptable would greatly help me (and everyone else) to see your position a lot better.

@Grace Xisthrith: I see - that is unfortunate. It seems, like @dizzle, we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion; I will not support an approach that doesn't significantly reduce the maximum power critical hits can deal when the chance of landing one is guaranteed. Ultimately, there are significant hurdles to increasing the abundance and diversity of LS-related items. I believe this in itself is a constraint to player choice. I do, however, agree that it would be useful to get some staff clarification on their position regarding bonuses for requiring 2 (or more) stats specifically within this context.

@Aura Knight: I vehemently disagree with you. I think LSs should be possible from 5 LUK. I also think changing the threshold for LS solves none of the problems raised by this thread.

EDIT
@Sapphire: While I recognise that you might view my idea of shifting hypercritical to a lean system as 'draconian', I can assure you that it lies on the more reasonable end of what I had envisaged may truly be necessary for LS effects (For example, I worried the switch to lean may not be enough and considered a rate cap as well. I also considered reducing damage modifiers like Granddad for the same reason). This was me trying to be reasonable, and I have made further concessions to my position in an attempt to make the change more palatable. The issue here is this isn't only a continuum of light-to-severe nerfs; it's also a tradeoff regarding the variety of LS-related item effects the staff can reasonably implement in future. The 'softer' LSs are nerfed, the more heavily these effects must continue to be restricted.

< Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 7/27/2024 20:34:54 >

AQ	Post #: 54

7/27/2024 20:41:12

xiProZombiEz
Member

i'm normally not vocal about literally anything in this game, i just play, collect items and kill some stuff occasionally. i don't really have anything to contribute to resolve the issue regarding lucky strikes and hypercritical but i figured i'd jump on here as a super casual player and drop my two cents.

i'm pretty old school when it comes to AQ. i get the most enjoyment out of the game by playing like we're still in 2008 by spamming the attack button. as a hybrid i occasionally use spells but i tend to stick away from armour skills. i don't like big setups and min maxing, i strictly like to throw on an armour and shield to defend against the attacking element and then chip away at the enemy's health by simply clicking attack. i play the game for the artwork and attack animations.

that being said i have 250 points invested into luk. it is beyond satisfying to hit that lucky strike 10% of the time. it's a huge rush of endoprhins seeing those clovers and the boosted damage appear. where i play so casually and don't do any setup the crit rate and damage feels just perfect. i know that numbers wise it may not be perfectly "balanced" but for someone like me it feels great.

the idea or thought of significantly reducing the power of a LS is a huge bummer for me. i personally don't feel like the issue is LS damage but more of how easy it is to boost your LS rate to a spot that it's guaranteed.

i feel like the best solution would be to change hypercrit so it isn't multiplicative. if we could just have our sources of hypercrit and LS chance all be additive and possibly even reduced so it's much tougher to reach 100% LS rate. you know for timekillers you could increase the SP/MP cost and or lower the additive LS rate instead of being x2 then x3 it could be an additional 6-7% LS rate each cast. or for something like arms of the dragon guard where it is automatically a guaranteed crit you could lower the damage of that attack by x%. i just feel like the issue is more hypercritical and not LS damage.

i haven't fully read everything in this discussion but i did scim over a fair amount, i know it was mentioned that LS damage numbers wise isn't "balanced" and i mean, heck even if it isn't and you want it slightly lowered i'd be okay with that, i just don't see the need to crush LS damage completely. especially where we have soft and hard damage caps, we have plot armour, you know there's things in the game already to counter hypercrtical and LS damage (not saying there isn't issue with them because obviously there is) but i mean for the most part the fights that matter have counters. most of us like to have that tough challenge boss at the end of a quest or a gauntlet, but if we want to maximize and do as much damage as possibly againsnt normal mobs when questing or random battles why not?

AQ	Post #: 55

7/27/2024 20:50:04

Aura Knight
Member

quote:

I think LSs should be possible from 5 LUK.

Luck should be required and 5 is much too low.

The concept of necessary stat thresholds needs to be considered. Someone with low luck should see no benefit from lucky strikes.

AQW

Post #: 56

7/27/2024 21:16:20

Branl
Member

@xiProZombiEz

quote:

the idea or thought of significantly reducing the power of a LS is a huge bummer for me. i personally don't feel like the issue is LS damage but more of how easy it is to boost your LS rate to a spot that it's guaranteed.

It's actually both, and someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
1) The inconsistency between multiplicative and additive values of Lucky Strike Rates makes it much easier to reach guaranteed hypercrit than is actually intended. Regardless of the solution chosen, these multipliers would all have to become additive so that compounding different LS Rate multipliers doesn't result in a bunch of unaccounted generated free value.
2) LS Damage is only an issue when you start increasing LS Rate on top of it. In addition to the valuation issue LS Rate already faces, LS Damage Multipliers provide significantly more value than they are supposed to, with Granddad being 15x stronger than intended when you guarantee hypercrits. LS Multipliers would also have to be additive to avoid the same issue faced by multiplicative LS Rate modifiers.

The issue with this is apparent. Other offensive applications and playstyles are strictly inferior. Luck as, a Secondary Stat, is able to contribute far more damage than mainstats, virtually every other form of damage booster or increased enemy damage intake is allowed to. Even worse, much of this value is completely free.
This has significant impact on the viablility of other offensive effects if they're so thoroughly outcompeted. Even Elecomp, which is widely acknowledged as extremely powerful, is significantly weaker than Lucky Strike's current functionality. Further, this also has major ramifications on the type of effects Lucky Strikes are able to have. LS Triggers, for instance, are very questionable as it stands due to the ease of guaranteeing hypercrit and how save rolls in a trigger can compound with Lucky Strike's excess value (Guaranteeing Lucky Strike on a status MC that triggers on Lucky Strike, provides 10x stronger than a normal trigger effect, or 20x stronger than a normal save roll status effect.) This is very likely, why, to date, there has been a single LS trigger effect (Neo Airenal's Cunning). Further, because of LS Damage Multipliers working off themselves would compound the issue with LS Damage Multipliers, the only LS Damage Multiplier NOT on an weapon (And thus, can be used alongside one), is the Red Server Cap, which stops abuse cases by halfing LS Rate, which is essentially the lean idea in item form.

quote:

i just don't see the need to crush LS damage completely. especially where we have soft and hard damage caps, we have plot armour, you know there's things in the game already to counter hypercrtical and LS damage (not saying there isn't issue with them because obviously there is) but i mean for the most part the fights that matter have counters. most of us like to have that tough challenge boss at the end of a quest or a gauntlet, but if we want to maximize and do as much damage as possibly againsnt normal mobs when questing or random battles why not?

Damage Caps aren't made to excuse the existence of gamebreaking mechanics, they're a tool used to reign in balanced item/mechanic interactions that would, nontheless, prematurely end the boss fight.
As far as mobs go, that's honestly another issue worth discussing, where mobs haven't really been keeping up with the power of players. This raises the question of why bother designing mobs if they're meant to be trivialized? And further, why not include a button in every quest allowing players to skip fodder enemies, if they aren't meant to test the player at all?

< Message edited by Branl -- 7/29/2024 6:17:06 >

Post #: 57

7/28/2024 6:56:41

CH4OT1C!
Member

xiProZombiEz:

quote:

that being said i have 250 points invested into luk. it is beyond satisfying to hit that lucky strike 10% of the time. it's a huge rush of endorphins seeing those clovers and the boosted damage appear. where i play so casually and don't do any setup the crit rate and damage feels just perfect. i know that numbers wise it may not be perfectly "balanced" but for someone like me it feels great.

the idea or thought of significantly reducing the power of a LS is a huge bummer for me. i personally don't feel like the issue is LS damage but more of how easy it is to boost your LS rate to a spot that it's guaranteed.

For the more casual players, I want to make clear: I have no intention of reducing the power of LSs that land 10% of the time. This thread is not about that. LS-related items are costed based on that figure, and under those conditions, you get what you pay for. The issue I have, and the point of this thread, is that you can guarantee that power bonus due to hypercritical and other rate boosting effects. That is what I am targeting by turning hypercritical into a lean. Under such a system, your damage would decrease as your chance of landing one increases, but (i) you would still be able to guarantee a crit, and (ii) you wouldn't be taking a reduction in power if your LS rate is 10%. Thus, if your worry is that LSs landing 10% of the time will become less powerful, the solutions on this thread will not do that.

quote:

I feel like the best solution would be to change hypercrit so it isn't multiplicative. if we could just have our sources of hypercrit and LS chance all be additive and possibly even reduced so it's much tougher to reach 100% LS rate. you know for timekillers you could increase the SP/MP cost and or lower the additive LS rate instead of being x2 then x3 it could be an additional 6-7% LS rate each cast. or for something like arms of the dragon guard where it is automatically a guaranteed crit you could lower the damage of that attack by x%. i just feel like the issue is more hypercritical and not LS damage.

Of course, this is an alternative approach, but it would require (i) some pretty significant nerfs to existing items (e.g., arms of the dragonguard), (ii) a cap on how high LS chances can go (soft or hard), or (iii) both.

quote:

i haven't fully read everything in this discussion but i did scim over a fair amount, i know it was mentioned that LS damage numbers wise isn't "balanced"

1% LS chance should be equal to 1.5% Melee. At the moment, most items aren't following that ratio.

@Aura Knight: Going on such a tangent would be the subject of a different GBI as a threshold for lucky strikes has no chance of solving the problem this thread is trying to address.

< Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 7/28/2024 6:59:09 >

AQ	Post #: 58

7/28/2024 11:46:17

Sapphire
Member

Server cap and frostval crowns "lean" system doesn't do anything to curb these issues. They make them worse. And using them that way on top of a base lean system would make them bad.

Post #: 59

7/28/2024 13:03:11

Aura Knight
Member

quote:

a threshold for lucky strikes has no chance of solving the problem this thread is trying to address

I can't see how it's an irrelevant point. It would help in keeping the excessive power in check. If hypercrit manipulation required high minimum luck wouldn't that be fine? Luck itself should be present in the damage process. Hypercrit could be weaker than natural lucky strikes while offering frequency of occurrence. Maybe they can be separate things.

AQW

Post #: 60

7/28/2024 16:55:14

Lorekeeper
And Pun-isher

Luck providing no benefit until a given threshold would break from how stats are supposed to work for no benefit. This would make it a pointless stat to invest in until it can be maxed out, and its only impact would be a nerf to already harried early level players. Optimized setups using hypercrit would have max LUK in the first place and be unaffected by such a change.

Post #: 61

7/28/2024 18:14:49

Dreiko Shadrack
Member

Although radical (as in extreme) I'm fond of the idea of removing the LS chance from LUK and just making it something that all player builds get as a baseline with LUK being the designated stat scalar for its damage, this would have the benefit of definitively making critical strikes be part of the player's turn value rather than the pseudo-assumption they currently are and as such have a much more grounded basis for determining % worth and what its allowable upper limits should be.

EDIT: The idea I shared above was not mine but of @LV1000, though they've retreated from the community on the whole, I felt it best to share (or rather paraphrase) their idea in here all the same as it's very appropriate for all cards to be on the table as it were and it's one I personally am fond of as stated.

I plan to open another GBI thread for another matter that would also impact the subject of this one but wouldn't be restricted to it alone.

< Message edited by Dreiko Shadrack -- 7/28/2024 18:53:49 >

AQW

Epic

Post #: 62

7/28/2024 18:45:06

CH4OT1C!
Member

I think the idea Dreiko Shadrack raises is very interesting. However, I'm slightly worried that people might not fully understand the concept. So, in the interests of clarity:

Enshrining LSs within the player turn model is a big deal. It means making lucky strikes a direct part of Player, Pet, and SP damage. LUK is a support stat, and so the player isn't assumed to possess it. However, this idea isn't as unprecedented as it might first appear - Pets are already a part of the model, while CHA is not. It's just that pets are valued at 20% Melee, they exclude the part of their damage associated with CHA. Dreiko is essentially saying the same could apply to LSs.

There are a myriad of implications to doing this. However, the most important would be that Player, Pet, and SP damage needs to directly incorporate LSs (without the LUK, obviously). This would give them a specific value within the model. To do this, we would need to reduce the power of Player attacks (Weapons + Spells), Pet damage, and Skills to compensate. Following the precedent set by pets, and assuming that LSs (i) add 150% melee in damage and (ii) occur 10% of the time (as they do now), we would need to reduce the power of each by 7.5% respectively. In exchange, 10% of the time, the player would deal a critical hit worth the equivalent of + (75 + (75 * LUK / Expected))% Melee [Please note that this would be the equivalent of adding LUK*3/16 to stat damage. (LUK/10 for pets)].

Yes, this would need to apply to all three components, otherwise they wouldn't be able to LS at all.

@Sapphire:

quote:

Server cap and frostval crowns "lean" system doesn't do anything to curb these issues. They make them worse. And using them that way on top of a base lean system would make them bad.

Making hypercritical a lean would, at 100% LS chance, divide the power of LS damage boosts by 10. This would, therefore, curb the main issue of this thread (that the extreme power provided by LS damage modifiers can be guaranteed).

< Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 7/29/2024 5:21:13 >

AQ	Post #: 63

7/28/2024 20:49:56

Dreiko Shadrack
Member

To be clear: the idea I presented wouldn't solve the issue itself, it'd just make it easier to tackle given the defined assumed worth of critical strikes in a player's turn if it were to be implemented.

AQW

Epic

Post #: 64

7/29/2024 6:53:04

Aura Knight
Member

This is a very random thought like most others I have but I recall an effect from AQW called Curse of Blades which heals a target if you crit. Can this somehow be implemented here and at times cause LS to heal a target as a means of keeping it in check?

AQW

Post #: 65

7/29/2024 11:50:28

dizzle
Member

While Aerins suggestion is interesting, I’m not sure if it’s actually on the table given the multiple confirmations from staff that the Stats will not have any further major changing for the foreseeable future. Although I wouldn’t mind discussing this further I feel it might distract from the goal of this thread unless we get a thumbs up for LUK getting another major change. I think the problem doesn’t lie with LUK as much as it does with +LS Rate boosting in combination with a multiplicative hypercrit

AQ	Post #: 66

7/31/2024 12:15:00

Sapphire
Member

I feel like the more radical and drastic the suggestion, the less likely it will be implemented. It also doesn't guarantee an actual fix, as it's simply an opinion and nothing more. Radically altering this thing will not end well for AQ as a whole. Big picture. It might behoove a few folks to be less radical and try and find a middle ground.

Another much more measured approach (although maybe be difficult to implement, but I do think it is more middle ground) , assuming additive replaces multiplicative, would be to simply add in a couple of features from other ideas.

That is, a soft cap based on base melee % valuation and then a clawback system thereafter. This actually kind of addresses a couple of issues.

But what I mean is this:

Base Melee Valuation

Weapon Attack-100% Melee (weapons based skills get 100%)
Spells and spell based skills-200%
Pets-40% (I know pets are 20% w/o CHA but we're rolling with 40% here based on this idea)

Eater "skills" are hard capped at 200% add-on to the 'thing's' valuation. For example, a spell is valued at 200% but then can eat up to 2x that, or 400% status.

This idea uses this to an extent, but it's a soft cap with a scaling clawback.

So each item category will have a cap on the LUCK portion of stat damage. This will be some formulation that combines rates and damage enhancers to calculate how much extra damage will occur. Stacking elevulns, eleempowers, etc will not compute here. It's simply Rate=average damage increase + Enhanced LS damage over normal and roll it into a soft cap, which will differ base on item category (weapon, skill/spell, pet) And then once it hits these soft caps, the clawback kicks in. It starts out at 75% for little, then 50%, then 25%. These should control the top end shenanigans as well. What those soft caps and clawback would be, are just examples given..the idea remains the same.

You should still get significant lucky strikes in the same manner you do today, but the extremes are handled and scaled way down. So guaranteed LS's aren't hitting damage caps, etc

This is a much better, much more measured approach that wont run people off with all these radical, wild game-altering ideas that I think are a complete waste of discussion space. (I'm not suggesting for people to not say their opinion, but in mine, I think it's a waste of time to be so drastic with solutions)

Another random thought is to make luck (or even Dex) have a feature that counters lucky strike damage. So enemy luck (also your luck vs enemy LS's) could clawback LS damage at a % rate. Luck was sort of left with less during the stat revamp, and again, LS's have always carried it and now it might be hacked to the point to make it pointless to train. (I don't believe this will be the result, but there's always a chance) If it's based on Dex, it could be another boon for Rangers but also for Monsters, especially, where dexterity causes you to move much more swiftly and lucky strikes rates simply are reduced based on DEx defensively.

There are other approaches to smoothen this out , and monsters have needed something else and we mostly have all agreed that the stat revamp left older pre-stat revamp monsters lacking due to their innate uselessness of Dex stat being an old "must have". You can address lucky strikes in other ways.

< Message edited by Sapphire -- 7/31/2024 19:39:31 >

Post #: 67

7/31/2024 16:31:12

CH4OT1C!
Member

@Sapphire:

quote:

I feel like the more radical and drastic the suggestion, the less likely it will be implemented.

Fair. With that in mind:

quote:

That is, a soft cap based on base melee % valuation and then a clawback system thereafter. This actually kind of addresses a couple of issues.

But what I mean is this:

Base Melee Valuation

Weapon Attack-100% Melee (weapons based skills get 100%)
Spells and spell based skills-200%
Pets-40% (I know pets are 20% w/o CHA but we're rolling with 40% here based on this idea)

Eater "skills" are hard capped at 200% add-on to the 'thing's' valuation. For example, a spell is valued at 200% but then can eat up to 2x that, or 400% status.

This idea uses this to an extent, but it's a soft cap with a scaling clawback.

So each item category will have a cap on the LUCK portion of stat damage. This will be some formulation that combines rates and damage enhancers to calculate how much extra damage will occur. Stacking elevulns, eleempowers, etc will not compute here. It's simply Rate=average damage increase + Enhanced LS damage over normal and roll it into a soft cap, which will differ base on item category (weapon, skill/spell, pet) And then once it hits these soft caps, the clawback kicks in. It starts out at 75% for little, then 50%, then 25%. These should control the top end shenanigans as well. What those soft caps and clawback would be, are just examples given..the idea remains the same.

To condense the above:

A soft cap system that directly targets the LUK portion of stat damage

The cap's value would vary based on the item type (weapons get a higher cap than pets, etc.)

Rate + Damage would both be factored in. Effects that do not explicitly target LS modifications would not.

The exponent (clawback) would vary depending on the size of the modifier

Before you could even implement something like this, you'd need to revamp all LS rate and damage modifiers to make them additive. If you didn't, you wouldn't be able to adequately value the bonuses. You would then need to instantiate two new variables which sum: (i) The final LS damage modifier (e.g., Granddad =3; [LS Damage]) and (ii) the final LS rate modifier (e.g., Hypercrit from Shieldcake = x6; [LS Rate]).

From there, you'd need to calculate the total bonus value the above rate and damage modifiers produce ([Bonus]):

quote:

[Bonus] = [LS Rate] * [LS Damage]

You'd then need to create a damage cap relative to the LS damage component you're restricting ([Item Modifier]). Base LS damage is worth *1.5 your standard damage, so:

quote:

[Cap] = 404 * 1.5 * [Item Modifier] * [x] * [Bonus]

404 relates to standard weapon damage (worth 100% melee) at Level 150. 1.5 is the conversion factor to the LS component, and [x] is an additional modifier that's going to be needed to properly control the size of the cap and choose the threshold when your soft cap kicks in. Now, we come to the cap itself. To make this as simple as possible, I'm butchering the existing formula used for soft caps already in the game:

quote:

[Final LS] = sround( [Cap] * ( [LS] / [Cap] ) ^ [Exponent])

Sround can be ignored (this just stands for stochastic rounding). [LS] represents the damage of the lucky strike component. The [Exponent] is your clawback, which you also want to vary relative to the size of the final modifier. For that, you'd need two thresholds relative to the obtained [Bonus] modifier ([B1] + [B2]):

quote:

[Exponent] = 0.25 if [Bonus] <= [B1]
[Exponent] = 0.5 if [B1] < [Bonus] <= [B2]
[Exponent] = 0.75 if [Bonus] > [B2]

If all of the above sounds complicated, that's because it is. What you are suggesting here is extremely difficult to properly execute. I haven't even mentioned that you would need to (i) Provide essentially arbitrary values for [x], [B1], and [B2] (NB: the 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 values from the exponent are also arbitrary), and (ii) You'd also need to calculate the stat damage provided by LUK on a LS completely separately to the main attack in order to generate the [LS] variable for this system to work. Not to mention, you would need to calculate all of this in the time between the attack is flagged as a LS and when the final damage is displayed.

I don't think it's practically impossible to set up this kind of system. However, looking at the big picture, it's logistically challenging, and even if it were implemented, it would be nearly impossible for the player to tell what the soft cap was on each LS. Not to mention the several entirely arbitrary variables that would need to be decided and tweaked. In my opinion, this option is extremely radical with very little practical benefit to the player. Get the numbers wrong, and it could still very severely restrict the player (i.e. the thing you wish to avoid). That wouldn't even be difficult to mess up - since Elemental Empower and other non-direct effects are excluded, they don't count towards the cap.

As for your other ideas, aside from also being radical (you'd be direct changing the mechanics of a stat), you'd need to nerf the stat being modified to provide a counter to LS, since there's no available power budget for it. These ideas aren't measured, they're actually more radical than the ones you're trying replace.

@Dizzle: Whether @LV1000's idea is feasible is ultimately up for the staff to decide, though I think it's important to raise regardless since it could help to make implementing a fix to LUK easier. That said, I broadly agree that the central goal of this thread focuses on the extreme damage achievable with LUK due to the effects of LS rate boosters, with the interactions between hypercritical and other items being one source of the problem.

< Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 8/1/2024 7:20:27 >

AQ	Post #: 68

7/31/2024 19:05:11

Dardiel
Member

Just piping up to mention that the LS debate can be viewed as a smaller version of the general damage debate and healing debate (ie all monsters are too weak unless they're given 10 layers of anti-burst mechanics that'll still get ignored in some way or another, and players can outheal any monster damage if they want to).

My opinion is that the game should have a soft cap that applies to all player-side outputs (damage and healing); that way there's a theoretical handle on all abusable damage and all abusable healing and there's less/no real need to handle every single method of having big outputs on a case-by-case basis.

My proposal would be that the cap (and clawback?) is also divided by monster power level, so that weak monsters can still be nuked (to make the player feel strong, which is what weak monsters are generally for) while boss monsters cut down on gimmicks and can have their info scroll contain interesting information rather than the usual grocery list of anti-gimmick statuses.

Post #: 69

7/31/2024 20:04:13

Sapphire
Member

There's a big difference between finding a way to cap something as a show of taking a middle ground approach, even if difficult to try and tackle, compared to completely nuetering longstanding current gameplay mechanics and altering it into something else entirely. The same select few folks that liked some of the other drastic, wild, and wildly unpopular ideas in recent debate/gbi topics seemingly are on board, here, too. It's fine that people think alike and have similar points of view, but I assure you it's very, very few. And again,there's no guarantee such a massive nerf would fix anything, and it'd be a high probability to be highly contentious and unlikable if implemented. The ROI in my mind isn't worth altering it drastically, and this is the basis of saying some of the things I said before. The lean system idea has zero valuation and pushing LS rates higher would serve to be pointless. I also agree with Gibby's point regarding some of the Boss-level "band aids" . I don't view them that way. It's simply boss mechanics and outside of serving to cause certain ideas to be null and void in my chars everyday inventory (stuns), some of the ideas serve enough of a "cap" thus my honest opinion is it's **mostly** good enough. They just need some **minor** alterations to a few **items**, and altering hypercrit to be additive and see if valuations can be solved w/o making it into a stat revamp 2.0. I was once told by staff directly in DM's in regards to another OP issue something to the effect" We know it's an issue, and we will address it but don't worry, we will make sure fun is always considered instead of going too hard the other way" (This is not an exact quote, but it roughly describes things) And they did address it. And it was VERY minor. (ALthough I've heard that fix never **actually** got implemented, but the approach validated staff's word to me.) Therefore, I have no doubt that this issue will be no different. So any idea I will give will be finding ideas and ways to keep that in mind, rather than going overboard into game-altering territory. There is no benefit at this stage to do so, on any topic. We don't have the manpower nor the player-count to make it a worthy endeavor.

I get it, and trust you, that the idea I presented would be a lot of work, and might outright be impossible. But it's literally entirely besides the point I was making. It's simply a way to soft cap the extremes. Maybe Dardiel's approach is a better one, and his reasoning has some merit. That doesn't sell it to me entirely, because I'd want to see and understand now vs then before I could endorse it. (Not that an endorsement from myself, or anyone matters) Just saying.

< Message edited by Sapphire -- 7/31/2024 20:08:18 >

Post #: 70

7/31/2024 20:57:51

Branl
Member

I feel the need to remind people that a lean system (I.E, a reason to do anything with crit aside from guarantee it), would provide players a "free" way to directly control how much risk they're willing to leverage for their damage.
Which is far more thematically appropriate for the Luck stat anyway.

Post #: 71

8/1/2024 8:26:04

CH4OT1C!
Member

@Sapphire: Ok so, to clarify:

According to you, one of the current prevailing positions of the people in this thread (leans) is 'drastic'. Neither is it popular, with the 'majority' of the community. The staff will ensure not to nerf items too severely. If they did, players would leave.

There would be no incentive to increase critical hit rates under the lean system

You agree with @Grace Xisthrith regarding damage caps.

You prefer a softer fix, with "**minor** alterations to a few **items**", as well as fixing hypercrit stacking.

You agree with my assessment that your idea is logistically difficult to implement, but that's besides the point. You actually meant it as an example of ways to nerf LSs less severely.
Assuming that I have all that correct...

I do not consider the lean idea to be extreme. In my OP, I note the proposed nerf is significant, but also that it is necessary. Ideologically, it isn't even close to the most extreme nerf proposed on this thread (that would be @ruleandrew's proposal that hypercritical should cap at 15%). Moreover, the lean proposal was also adapted to incorporate more concessions. This isn't a debate of polar extremes. Your argument that the wider playerbase would not support this is entirely unsubstantiated, a fabrication. It is also entirely beside the point - we are discussing a nerf, and almost no nerf is popular. That is not its goal. I could argue your proposed solutions would also be unpopular for the same reason, it still wouldn't change the fact a nerf is necessary. I can, however, understand your preference for an even softer nerf than this adapted proposal, focused on minor item alterations. With that said (i) Multiple of your proposals directly affect LSs and LUK, not items, and (ii) Like @dizzle you don't attach numbers, so it's difficult for me to ascertain how 'soft' you want this nerf to be.

The one criticism you levy at the lean proposal (unrelated to how extreme it is) was addressed in this post very early on. I also direct you to Berserk for an example of how zero-value statuses can still be valuable.

< Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 8/1/2024 10:30:31 >

AQ	Post #: 72

8/1/2024 11:29:24

Telcontar Arvedui I
Member

Please show me that a non-insignificant number of players actually considered your proposal as a reasonable middle ground, @Sapphire. Given I can readily name 3 others who can generally agree with mine, and you claim it to be "very, very few", please prove that yours can and has attracted far more than that - at least thrice as much, IMO, in order to counter the usage of two "very"s. They have to be able to articulate why and how it works. Heck, given the Warwolf poll now numbers more than 120 votes, why not get more forums user to flock to this thread and debate the merits of your proposed soft-cap from multiple perspectives? Surely any number less than 12 (a tenth!) would count as "few", right? Or do you have a different threshold?

The reason I spent a whole paragraph above, is to prove a point - GBIs don't attract a big crowd, therefore any idea would be hard-pressed to find a chorus of agreements within the thread. Well, except maybe ideas that call for benefits to the players, such as buffs to playerside power. Or free tokens for everyone. This is why I will say your claims of "wildly unpopular", "very few thought alike", etc. hold no water. I can use those very words to describe YOUR ideas. Unless you have enough forums users to prove me wrong.

Now, "drastic" and "draconian". I challenge you (and/or people who agree with you) to prove that your proposal does not fit these criteria. I figured an easy way is to look at this (sorry @Chaotic I'm adapting your formula shamelessly):

quote:

[Cap] = 404 * 1.5 * [Item Modifier] * [Bonus_from_Loadout]

Given:

Weapon Modifier = 1

Spell Modifier = 2 (you can expand upon this to include efficient and overcharged variants, feel free)

Guest Modifier = 0.6

Pet Modifier = 0.4
Taken from the Eater mechanic caps, since you want to differ based on item category. Now, how big should [Bonus_from_Loadout] should be before the cap starts kicking in? What should the clawback values be? Different thresholds and clawback values of course, since your proposal suggested that.

And no, you don't get to shy away by saying "I'm not a maths guy". Because then anyone can plug in any number they like, and that means anyone opposed to your idea can easily call it "drastic" and "draconian" by plugging severe numbers that is their own. Do your algebra. Get some math enthusiast to do it with you, if you like. You should be able to find one (or more) that agrees with you, if your claim is true.

* * * * * * *

The same goes for you, @dizzle. Prove that your proposal not "disaffecting disaffect a large number of players via collateral damage" makes it "more reasonable". Define "large" quantitatively, prove that the quantity is satisfied (I'm sure there are 3rd party databases that can help your point), and prove that there is "collateral damage", not "intended nerfs". I will straight up admit whether the points you listed are intended effects of my proposal, or not. Do note that under my proposal, most 1.5x LS-damage-boosting weapons only need to pay 75 %Melee per LS, which can be lowered to 25 %Melee given they're already paying 5 %Melee per turn (mostly via MC).

Do it. Try to persuade me. Otherwise, we'll be at an impasse, as I claim my proposal to be "more reasonable" than yours.

* * * * * * *

@Grace Xisthrith, I challenge your notion that "the benefits, including diversity in player decision making, of damage modifiers being very strong in theory, outweighs the benefit gained by reigning them in". Because I challenge the existence of such a benefit as "diversity in player decision making" when such powerful LS-modifiers exists, to the point where a warrior swinging Granddad can be better at nuking than a mage slingling OVercharged Spells, and be more efficient to boot. What are the benefits of "diversity in player decision making", when every other choice proves to be lesser? ELI5.

* * * * * * *

Yes, I am challenging your stance, your solutions, and your ideas, by reflecting the very same adjectives you used back at you. Please prove your statements, and your proposals, valid. Please prove me wrong, and I could be swayed. Other forum users have done it in the past, so can you.

< Message edited by Telcontar Arvedui I -- 8/1/2024 11:37:21 >

AQ	Post #: 73

8/1/2024 14:33:46

Dardiel
Member

I've been asked (kind of on here but also on discord) to add some detail to my suggestion so here's what I'm proposing as a starting point:

- Rather than damage mitigation being required on enemies for them to be a challenge, the AQ damage system itself imposes a soft cap

- The soft cap "resets" for player/guest/pet, each one is treated separately but subject to x0.6 for guest and x0.4 for pet

- The soft cap is divided by hit count. Eg a cap of 800 vs 4 hits becomes a cap of 200 per hit

- The soft cap is also divided by enemy power level. A power 0.5 enemy would have a higher cap, allowing it to be nuked so that the player can still feel really strong for doing high-damage setups

- The soft cap is on damage above average (eg 100% melee, doubled for spells/skills, x0.75 for magic weapon attacks, etc). This means the player will never experience a cap that reduces their damage below expected amounts.

Example
Normal player damage in this example is 400, while guests do 240 and pets do 160.

The soft cap is +1200 damage.

The player is fighting a power level 2 monster, reducing the cap to 600 for the player / 360 for guest / 240 for pet.

The player attacks with a 4-hit armor; 400 damage / 4 hits = 100 damage per hit. This also means the 600 cap is divided among the 4, to make 150 per hit.

Since the cap is on bonus damage, it means each hit is capped at 100+150 = 250 damage per hit.

The same attack against a power 0.5 enemy would be capped at 100+1200/0.5/4 = 700 damage per hit.

The same attack against a power 4 enemy would be capped at 100+1200/4/4 = 175 damage per hit.

For the sake of clarity about how player damage can never go below average:
The same attack against a power 1200 enemy (I believe level 500 Nightbane is power 20) would be capped at 100+1200/1200/4 = 100.25 per hit.

I think the main catch with this system is that it does require the game to be able to know the number of hits before the attack is finished (bonus points if it also knows the strength of each hit, so that the 1200 cap vs a 50%/25%/25% 3-hit attack can properly be 600/300/300).

There could also be a debate about whether to assume pets are 40% melee or 20% melee, and I personally would like for the cap to notice when it's heal damage and apply further modifications based on the enemy's lean so that defensive enemies aren't easy to outheal.

But that's the basic premise; a soft cap that's divided among the hits rather than being per-hit, which specifically only reigns in damage that's beyond normal amounts and accounts for how difficult the enemy is intended to be.

< Message edited by Dardiel -- 8/1/2024 14:59:30 >

Post #: 74

8/1/2024 15:04:13

Sapphire
Member

I hate the lean system. It'd turn out to be rather fruitless in the end. Increasing rate, thus lowering damage means that the average damage output is always the same. There is no 'buff'. So stacking more rate turns out to continue to lower damage and for many players would be pointless. Furthermore, items or statuses that have rate increases would be valued at zero and so you might as well at this point, just add in a slider on the game menu to adjust base rate to whatever you want. I might prefer a 50% rate but others might like 30% while others might like 70%. The ultimate endgame guaranteed LS rate = no damage increase. That's no longer a lucky strike. It's a normal everyday hit. The lean system completely removes what lucky strikes have been, are, and should be going forward.

The only way to make rate increases a worthy endeavor is then to also have LS damage increases, but even this is lowered due to the rate increase. The lean system removes the idea of lucky strikes in my opinion. A rate increase by itself should simply have proper valuation and thus, creates a buff like almost everything else in the game...ie pay something to get something. Any deference from that IMO is head scratching.

The BTH lean system works because there's another mechanic involved, another aspect..and that's monster blocking, which varies. We have a variable and a variety that makes BTH leans mean something. The LS lean idea has no other potential counter . It's essentially all player-side dictated. That's why it's a horrendous idea. And it is drastic, and I don't forsee it coming remotely close to being implemented. And for the reasons that some people are choosing to downplay or outright do not care about, which specifically has been mentioned by several. That aspect IS a consideration when considering all options. And it's why I'd be shocked if a lean system was adopted.

I could possibly entertain other, more measured approaches to nerfing the current lucky strike meta. I recognize something is needed. But I can only take a middle ground approach with any seriousness. Even if that middle ground (meaning the change to LS's) would require a lot or a little BG work to accomplish, as the amount of work to get their doesn't compute to in terms of what constitutes middle ground. I do recognize that a lot of staff work likely removes any idea from contention, too, but it's better than wholesale altering how the game functions for reasons that I think should be rather obvious.

< Message edited by Sapphire -- 8/1/2024 15:07:03 >

Post #: 75

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

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Game Balance Issues >> RE: Lucky Strikes

Page 3 of 4

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