Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

RE: =AQ= Grand Giftmaster Prizes

  		Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= Grand Giftmaster Prizes
Page 2 of 3<123>
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
1/25/2026 18:55:34   
GwenMay
Member

A big thank you to staff for doing an excellent job creating my weapon and the other custom items! Every year I am amazed by the masterpieces the AQ staff creates for the Giftmasters, and by the generosity of my fellow Giftmasters in sharing their items. The Giftmaster Prizes release has turned into one of the most highly anticipated releases of the year, and I look forward to many more examples of the staff and community's creativity.

Normally, I would end my post with that. However, considering the ongoing discussion about my weapon, Wrath, and several other custom weapons, I would like to respond in a respectful way to the players who have raised concerns. Loosely speaking, these concerns seem to fall into three "buckets": balance concerns, contest rules concerns, and AI art concerns. I address each in turn.

Balance Concerns

The balance concerns raised in this thread so far seem to fall into two categories: (1) that Cataclysm (and Wrath) include a spellboosting effect that can apply when used with a spell of any element, and (2) that Wrath is a tome with a baseline attack. I do not view either of these as balance concerns, and in fact agree with @CH40T1C that these should be treated as new (or rather, clarified) balance standards. While, for transparency, I did not participate in the Warcaster GBI and am only vaguely aware of the drama surrounding it, it seems to me that spellboosters that work with spells of all elements have been created several times, and that warcaster (and now Cataclysm and Wrath) are nothing new. Sila's Staff, of course, has been an omni-spellbooster for over a decade, and both Adventurer Figure and its recently released clone Frosty Adventurer Figure also included omni-spellboosts without any complaints from the playerbase. As @KhalJJ points out, we also have several spellboosters that inflict status conditions with spells of any element by paying SP like Warcasters/Cataclysm, including Chaotic Lacerta, Classic Carnax Carnage Cneeboard, Glory/Dominion's Brilliance, and Ebbing Fortune. That some players disapproved of this concept in a GBI thread and interpreted a staff post as approving their views on balance does not mean spellboosters that work with spells of any element are against balance standards. Rather, Cataclysm and the other listed examples indicate that this is allowed (although for variety's sake it shouldn't happen with all or even most new spellboosters). If this wasn't the standard before, it should be now.

I also agree that Wrath represents a new balance standard for tomes, because this is the first time a non-magic tome has been created. I disagree with @CH40T1C, however, on what the new tome balance standard embodied by Wrath is. It's not that all tomes now should have access to a baseline weapon attack. Instead, the standard Wrath embodies is that non-Magic tomes with INT-scaling MP-cost spells can have a non-Magic baseline attack while still compressing Magic spells. This is because a Melee weapon that compresses MP-cost INT spells is, for all intents and purposes, a tome for 0 STR pure mages. A mage attacking with a melee weapon with 0 STR will do far less than a baseline melee attack (assuming it even connects, which is unlikely), and indeed far less than the resources they'd gain with Draw Mana. Mages, in effect, have no reasonable or effective baseline attack when attacking with Wrath or any future non-Magic tomes, and so weapons like Wrath are neither unbalanced nor require that all tomes be updated to include a baseline attack. Rather, traditional tomes should remain the same, and staff can create future non-Magic tomes like Wrath when they feel appropriate. The key, for both me and (I believe) staff, is whether the tome allows a mage to both effectively attack and compress spells: Wrath does not, so it does not violate tome standards. The effectiveness of the ability to perform a baseline attack, not the technical ability to perform one at all, should control what is or is not a tome. Wrath is staff experimenting with a new conception of tomes, which demonstrates creativity that is much needed and appreciated. That staff created a new type of tome, however, does not mean that the old traditional tomes may or should now deviate from their current standard.

Contest Rules Concerns

Separate from any balance concerns, @CH40T1C and @Maxtrigon both raise concerns that Wrath, Cataclysm, and Fran's Luminous Edge were examples of staff violating contest rules. While I will address each of their specific concerns individually, I must preface my comments with what I feel to be the fundamental point missed by their posts: the rules are for the Giftmasters, not staff. The rules state what Giftmasters can expect to happen and what they can expect not to happen. A Giftmaster has absolutely no right to demand or receive anything beyond what the rules provide, and staff can reject Giftmaster requests beyond the scope of the rules for any reason or no reason at all. The rules do not, however, prevent staff from granting exceptions or approving alterations in case-specific circumstances when they feel appropriate. This has always been the case - in past years staff have modified FSB effects like with Vanity, permitted alterations to underlying mechanics like with Arcrender, and even granted additional Golden Dev Tickets to non-top 5 players in both 2024 and 2025. None of this is provided for by the rules - indeed, all of these examples appear to be against the rules - but staff had the authority to approve them because AQ is their game, and they have the right to make decisions about what to allow and what not to allow. They can permit variations from the rules for business reasons, or for fairness reasons, or because they find a proposed change to be good for the game or the playerbase, or for any reason at all. While staff can't provide less than what the rules promise - they have to give the top 5 Giftmasters a Golden Dev ticket per the rules - they can absolutely provide more. The notion that staff can violate their rules by going above and beyond for the Giftmasters is, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed. As for the concerns about precedent, staff can accept or reject any future variations proposed by Giftmasters as they see fit - each item is an individual, case-specific circumstances, and there are no binding precedents staff have to honor beyond the minimum requirement of creating custom art for a cloned item.

To illustrate this, imagine if I had instead posted my suggestion for Wrath in the suggestions thread, and staff both liked and wanted to implement my suggestion. Would staff have the right to create a new weapon based on my suggestion? Absolutely. I wouldn't even need to spend a Golden Dev ticket on it, although I could certainly make a deal with staff to use my Golden Dev ticket to design the art for my suggestion. Would approving my suggestion obligate staff to approve any of my future suggestions, or suggestions by other players? Of course not. At the end of the day, staff have the right to create whatever items or mechanics they please. Players do not get to veto their decisions, although staff can certainly veto player suggestions.

With this in mind, I turn first to the complaints about Cataclysm, which essentially boil down to the notion that staff stated that warcaster was an "exception," which some players interpreted as meaning that no future warcaster clones could be created. I feel this criticism can be easily disposed of by turning to the very rules cited, which provide that Giftmasters can clone whatever weapons or shields they please except those specifically forbidden, or those staff in their discretion choose to reject on a case-by-case basis. Warcaster was not on the banlist, staff chose not to exercise their discretion to veto Orihime's suggestion, so no rules were violated. Period. That staff could have said no is unquestioned, but the only reason to do so would be if Warcaster violated balance standards, and as previously discussed I do not think it does. That there may have been drama surrounding a GBI on warcaster is not a sufficient reason, in my view, to criticize staff's decision to permit a non-banned item from being clone.

The other complaints center around my weapon, Wrath, which has been criticized as being a true custom weapon and not a clone of Sila's Staff. I respectfully disagree with this assertion. Wrath deviates from the original Sila's Staff in essentially 4 ways: by being a melee weapon, by having an altered spellboost, by having a hybrid bonus to gain charges on attack that boost the next spell cast, and by having a slightly modified spell list. The first, changing Sila's Staff from magic to melee, is not forbidden by the rules (although it's also not expressly permitted), and I believe it has been done before. While it does represent a first for AQ by creating a melee tome, the balance logic behind it is defensible for the reasons I previously stated, and is a permissible change under the rules. The concerns about the changes to the spellboost and the spell list are also unfounded. Sila's Staff is a very old weapon, and the rules explicitly state that clones of outdated items will be brought up to modern standards. While this means that old overpowered gear can be nerfed, it also means that underpowered gear can be buffed. Staff did so with Wrath by adding another spell with new effects to its spell list (modern tomes allow 3 spells and draw mana) and by modifying the original's spellboost in the manner staff felt appropriate to modernize it. Changing the elements of the original's Sila's Wrath spell to Harm and Energy, respectively, in my clone's Gwen's Wrath and Gwen's Judgment spells is also permissible, as the rules permit and staff have previously allowed cloned tome spells to have their elements changed so long as the spell animations remain the same (which they did). As for the hybrid bonus charge system, that is an addition, but not a major one, and not one I view as much different from the FSB changes to Vanity last year and (I believe) Aegon's Nogalacna shield this year, i.e., a small bonus staff gave to compensate for fulfilling a specific set of circumstances (using multiple pieces of the same gear, or using 2 stats by attacking and then spellcasting). If those items aren't completely new customs, then Wrath is not either.

Notably, the original Sila's Staff does not need to be updated for Wrath to be an updated clone of Sila's Staff. While I would personally love an update to the original Sila's Staff, the rules stated that "If an item's mechanics operate on outdated standards, or are bugged, they will be updated accordingly," not that the original item itself will be updated. Sila's Staff's outdated mechanics were "updated accordingly" with Wrath, regardless of whether Sila's Staff is also updated.

Finally, there has been some discussion about how Fran's Luminous Edge (which is a Light Star Sword clone) has a melee/magic toggle despite the rules stating that "For weapons with multiple forms (Melee/Ranged/Magic), only one form may be selected for reskinning." I am not certain that Fran's item violates the rules at all - it depends on their interpretation. While the rule could mean no mrm toggles are allowed, it could also mean that Giftmasters must clone a specific version of an item with an mrm toggle, so that, for example, an item is not a 0 proc sword in melee mode and a 100 proc wand in magic mode, or an item with a -5 bth lean in melee mode does not have a +5 bth lean in ranged mode. It could also just mean that players don't get to design 2 or 3 different versions of their weapon for the melee/ranged/magic variants, and instead can have only version of their art. Even if Fran's mrm toggle "violates" the rules, I (and apparently others in this thread) do not view it as a major "violation," and it is no more a change in my view than other modifications like with Vanity, Arcrender, and Nogalacna's shield.

AI Art Concerns

Finally, @Maxtrigon has expressed concerns that Orihime submitted a reference photo created with AI to staff as part of their description of their item's appearance, and called for Cataclysm's art to be changed. While the prior two concerns are fair, I feel this one is not. For context for the many players who haven't gone through the Golden Dev ticket process, creating a custom item involves emailing a precise description of the item's appearance to staff with, if possible, reference images to assist staff. Staff then assign an AE artist to design the item, and create an entirely new item from scratch based on the description, any reference photos provided, and the artist's preferences and creativity. The descriptions do need to be precise - indeed, my first attempt to describe my item's appearance this year required additional clarification because I was initially too vague and included too many contradictory reference photos. Apparently, in the interest of providing a teaser to other players, Orihime shared in an unofficial discord server that he included an AI reference photo with his photo references, and provided the pictures - which, importantly, have significant differences from the final released item designed by staff. @Maxtrigon has now seized upon this, publicly posted these photos, and called for "some kind of change to the weapon’s art."

But this problem isn't a problem, and @Maxtrigon's proposed solution is frankly outrageous. To be clear: Staff never used AI in any part of the creation of Cataclysm or any other custom item. They created an entirely new item based on the description provided by Orihime. There was frankly nothing staff could have done to prevent Orihime from including an AI-generated reference photo, but regardless, the fact that such a reference photo was sent does not in any way taint the final, artist-designed product. This is creating a problem from nothing. @Maxtrigon also misreads Artix's statement on AI. In his statement, Artix (rightly) promised "that every single piece of content in that game was created by from the endless creativity and mouse-clicks from our corps of artists and game designers," but acknowledged that AE sometimes uses AI tools to assist them and "we would be absolutely foolish to not realize that the future is coming whether we like it or not." He explained that "[o]ur guiding light is to protect our artists and other creative team members, and keep them employed and making games." That reasonable policy was met here. Cataclysm was designed by real, and talented, AE artists, and the fact that an AI-made reference photo was included in no way detracts from that, and in fact accords with Artix's acknowledgment that AI tools are becoming more and more prevalent and necessary. The "contributor" art that Artix's posts says was rejected was from an AE contributor who attempted to include an AI designed artpiece directly in game - this is a far cry from an item developed by real AE artists based on a player provided description that also happened to include an AI-made reference photo that never appeared in game.

Far worse, however, is @Maxtrigon's proposed solution. Orihime, like all Grand Giftmasters, spent thousands of dollars of real money and donated millions of tokens in order to have the privilege to help design an item with custom art. No one before now has ever questioned that Grand Giftmasters can have any art they please, subject to community guidelines on appropriateness and practical limitations imposed by staff. Otherwise, Orihime has the absolute right to have his item look however he pleases. The notion that other players may arbitrarily call for a Giftmaster's art to be changed should be rejected outright, especially when based on as thin an argument as this. While I do not mean to disparage @Maxtrigon, I feel it's necessary to nip in the bud any suggestion that other players can veto or ootherwise alter a Giftmaster's custom art to suit their liking.

Please note that, while I have stridently defended staff's decisions in this post and been critical of the AI art allegations, I do not mean any offense to any players in this thread. I simply view this as an important topic that needs clarification, which sometimes must be blunt. I certainly appreciate @CH40T1C and @Maxtrigon's disclaimers that they do not mean any offense to the Giftmasters themselves, and I hope they similarly view this post as intended to defend the staff and to provide clarity, not as an any criticism of them personally.

< Message edited by GwenMay -- 1/25/2026 19:04:17 >
AQ DF AQW Epic  Post #: 26
1/25/2026 19:23:36   
Gateless
Member

I think Gwen's position that the contest rules are intended for donors rather than staff, is a correct and defensible position. The contest rules, in practice, modulate donor expectations first and foremost, and only secondarily direct staff action. Nevertheless, problems arise when the contest rules no longer reflect what is done in practice. It is defensible to state that the rules do not enforce hard limits on what the staff can or cannot do. What is not defensible is stating that there arises no detriment to integrity when rules consistently fail to reflect practices.
Post #: 27
1/25/2026 19:26:08   
Lee
Member
 

 I want to preface this by saying that I haven't fully read (and digested/processed) GwenMay's post. I will try to do so later today, I just wish to throw my two cents into the void before I get sidetracked or decide not to do so - I will also try to keep my personal emotions out of this thread as best I can. I want to also preface this by stating I do not have a complete understanding of AQ's balance - seeing as this isn't the GBI section, it should not matter too much but I prefer to point it out in the off chance it comes up.

I also understand that the team has the final say in what goes when it comes to donation items and the like. Saying that here because I don't want to keep repeating that line throughout my post.

I'm going to avoid the AI discussion for the record as well. There's only so much I can yak about at once.

------

I am really disappointed in the AQ team for how this has panned out. Last year was a mess with Vanity happening, which is a clone of Voidforged. Which is known to break a fair few balance standards. I don't wish nor intend to bring old drama back to the surface, it's moreso me bringing it up as I intend to use it as an example later on. This year the team has ignored their rules yet again, to essentially create Wrath. In my honest opinion, an absolute monster of a weapon that should not exist in any capacity. It's a melee weapon that is a tome, which comes with 3 spells and a Draw Mana skill. As well as boosting your spells.

I've seen the argument that it's "a clone of a (future (lol)) Silas", but I find said argument moreso an excuse to let it be. Ignoring the fact for a moment, what Wrath does. Silas at this point in time does not do anything remotely close to that to my understanding. In addition to that, AQ has a ever growing backlog that we all know about and is becoming more and more... longer. We have no guarantee that Silas will be updated, or if it will be updated to replicate Wrath in it's entirely.

Wrath is undeniably a custom weapon created by the AQ team, for one reason or another. This flies in the face of their own rules for the Donation Drive as well as in the face of their own standards and plethora of posts on balance - especially with how premium items are not exempt from balance standards nor do they run on their own standards.

In addition to that, it's an insult to past and current top donators who've received a clone of an item when apparently a pure custom weapon was on the cards despite the rules stating otherwise.

Regardless of how this ends, this ruins the staff's integrity on their word. No doubt about it, unless you're somehow kidding yourself that it's fine, it's their game etc etc. Speaking for myself, this just adds more reason to quit AQ altogether - if I can not trust the developers word, then who can I trust? Why should I trust a team when they say one thing and do a complete other thing altogether? I've also seen others echo similar sentiment.

I really do want to emphasis that I don't hold any grudge or annoyance with Gwen. The fault lies with the team for not putting their foot down and saying no. There's also the whole debacle with Charr's Warcaster clone which caused many issues months ago to the point of being refunded to players (who wanted it) and told it was an exception. But it returned as a clone - banned or otherwise, you'd assume the item would be a problematic thing to accept as a clone. There's also a small group of the community wanting them to be re-released which I find equally silly personally.

The Star Sword clone is also a tad silly since it apparently has a M/R/M toggle despite (yet again) that being a no on the rules to my understanding. However compared to Wrath and the cloned Warcaster, it's a minor kick in the face.

-----

At the end of the day, as I've said. I'm really disappointed in the AQ team. It has not been a good week for AE communication in the slightest. That being said though, I hope the team stays safe during 2026 and the plethora of things going on in the world (such as some large snow storm in America).
Post #: 28
1/25/2026 21:54:49   
ming shuen
Member

Oof. Such depressive takes on things. Rejoined all AQ Discords upon the release of the unofficial info-subs, backread thousands of messages, and the vibes then was more along the lines of “wait-and-see” and cautious optimism with a few dissenters. Seems like things has spiralled into something quite gloomy.

Cataclysm - It's not AI
Read another several thousand message just now (which was exhausting), and TBH, I think y’all are overthinking it too much. Regarding the war caster clone, well everyone seems to have accepted the patch back then and was okay with it. Now, some of y’all are no longer okay with it, because of a nuanced reason that wouldn’t have occurred to a creator that isn’t chronically online. Also, if it was drawn by the developers themselves, then it’s not considered an AI artwork.

Wraith - No rules were broken
As for Wraith, it fits the criteria of a clone quite perfectly. There’s no change in animation, though there exist variances in the elemental effects. The rules explicitly allow for it. The rules did not say anything about the conversion of magic to melee, so there’s nothing forbidding that. Then what remains is the artwork. Might as well make the artwork swing. And there we have it, a mechanical clone that swings, and is balanced slightly differently due to it being melee. Maybe it has some teething issues with the mana regen thing, but eh, it’s a small issue that can be tweaked upon the official release of Sila’s staff.

Wrapping Up
From my perspective, no rules were broken, and it’s a good clone of an existing item that will soon be brought up to modern standards. The fact that y’all can spend an entire weekend arguing whether rules were broken or not, with plenty of people on both sides of the fence (though one side seem to have gotten . . . tired . . . near the end) implies that this is more likely a gap in the rules, rather than an explicit rule break. Gwen’s profession has her pretty adept at navigating within the rules, while simultaneously coming up with something outrageous, which I think was what happened. Many of us try to give good arguments to the developers on why something should be done, and we end up influencing the game in some way. This time, Gwen was just, once again, very valid (or sufficiently convincing) with her propositions

Probably don’t need to think about it too much. No need to rewrite new standard for tomes, or give apologies or have staff claim that it was a mistake. Everything is fine and above board. Not the end of the world, tomes can continue being released using existing standards, like they always have, and this is a one-time thing. And wow. I was somehow expecting positivity (since we are near the end of summer donation contest related releases) but controversy always rears its head.
AQ DF MQ  Post #: 29
1/26/2026 0:29:32   
Zeldax
Member
 
quote:

  • If an item's mechanics operate on outdated standards, or are bugged, they will be updated accordingly.
  • If we cannot commit to cloning a requested item, the Golden Ticket holder can choose another.
  • The reskin is purely cosmetic and limited to existing weapons or shields. Any of the eight standard elements may be selected for your prize.


    • The rules above are very clear. If a winner chooses an outdated item to reskin/clone, then both the original and the reskin will be updated accordingly. The reskin is purely cosmetic and limited to existing weapons (and shields). Wrath has mechanics that were NOT in the original Sila's Staff, to note: (1) It is a melee weapon while Sila's Staff is a magic weapon; (2) Being a melee weapon, you are able to do regular attacks with it, unlike a tome such as Sila's Staff; (3) It has a hybrid bonus while Sila's staff does not; (4) It has a Harm spell which Sila's Staff does not have; (5) It has an auto-hit Energy spell while Sila's staff has neither an auto-hit spell nor a single element spell; (6) The same auto-hit Energy spell can consume Panic to boost its damage which Sila's staff also does not have. Even if Sila's Staff were to be updated in the future to match Wrath, Sila's Staff would be the clone, NOT Wrath. It is undeniably a custom weapon, loosely based on an outdated weapon. It is NOT a case of an item being updated to match modern standards because the 6 mechanics I enumerated above are not mere updates but additions.

    Luminous Edge is less of an issue but still an issue, given that the rules state that if a weapon has multiple forms (damage type, i.e. Melee, Ranged, Magic), then the winner must only choose one. Luminous Edge kept the Melee/Magic toggle that the original Star Sword had. For reference, last year's reward included a Ranged Energy reskin of Exalted Unity, which has a MRM toggle.

    With regard to Cataclysm, while the Warcaster Staves were not on the ban list, it is questionable move to create a clone (not even an exact clone, as I've been told that Cataclysm's burn is actually better than the Warcaster Staves) of an item that created much controversy in the past and was explicitly stated to be exceptions to the balance standard, as @CH4OT1C! has already mentioned.

    You can express that you are fine with how the weapon turned out, but you cannot deny that Wrath and Luminous Edge broke the rules that the staff themselves set for both themselves and the players, while Cataclysm added another exception to the balance standard (which should not be common, much less requested by players). While the rules did state that the staff has the right to make final decisions regarding the eligibility of selected prizes, their own game decisions can compromise their integrity and competence, which have been quite questionable as of late. The summer donation events have been causing major drama and insane backlog for the staff for many years now. They actively did their best to avoid any drama during last year's summer donation event, which they more or less succeeded in. However, their own game decisions with regard to the Golden Developer Ticket rewards in regard to the same summer donation event ultimately led them back to the same result as previous summer donation events, half a year after the latest one had already ended.
    Post #: 30
    1/26/2026 1:18:47   
    Aura Knight
    Member

    		Gwen potentially introduced ideas for bettering future tomes and several of you are upset over rules which were never stated to be unchangeable. The saddest thing is there's a possibility that your complaining changes things for the worst.

    We got some great items. Be happy.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 31
    1/26/2026 5:32:30   
    Dardiel
    Member

    		I don't have a ton new to add to the discussion, although I will be I guess the 6th person out of the "2 or 3" to grumble

    I won't reiterate any major points (as per John Einstein, you don't need 100 critics; 1 person being correct is enough) but the ones I'd like to draw attention to would be:

    - Aside from Chaotic's points on what a "melee hybrid tome" does for balance standards, and in line with Zeldax, I would say that Wrath is not a clone of Sila's Staff unless the staff does indeed get updated to work the same way (ie if it just turns out that the Staff update is coming behind the Wrath release, and the Staff also has spellboosting + energy autohit panic eater). I could go either way on whether the Staff needs to be melee; there was no rule covering requests for the cloned item to be a different type. I personally would be okay if the official stance on it is "changing weapon type is fine, but the 'clone' will be rebalanced to match the new type" (eg changing magic to melee gives the weapon another 25% melee of stuff, or changing to ranged gives the adaptation modifier to its effects, or changing only part of an item to a new type makes it hybrid and therefore comes with hybrid buffs).

    - Since my clone (Arcrender) was mentioned as an example of "alterations to underlying mechanics" I just figured it was important to note that on my end, all of the updates were under the rules-provided "if an item is on outdated standards, it will be updated": Its autohit cost was reduced because there was an outdated autohit standard, its charges were made to not carry over because charge carryover is an outdated balance standard, and the eleEmpower mode was made to allow more payment diversity because (in my eyes) it's an outdated standard to assume that the player can always spend the exact number of charges they've gained. There were additional suggestions, one of which I remember still pertained to balance and another being more of a stylistic adjustment to one of the skill options, and those both went un-implemented. I am totally fine with staff discretion on which changes went through, I only reference it because I feel that "change a spell from 6 hits of 6 different elements, to 6 hits of energy that pay HP to gain autohit and eat Panic for bonus damage" is more than my clone was granted and it makes me wonder if my other suggested changes would've gone through if I had won this year instead of last year - or if the name attached to the request was what made the difference, with a hidden leeway factor based on financial contribution.

    However to be clear, I'm not opposing staff discretion applying to choices made; this is intended to be purely my own curiosity spoken out loud, about potential reasons why this year has 3 weapons under scrutiny for potential rule-breaking and why the item from the top donator (who has been top donator for a long time) has the most changes of any giftmaster item. If staff are experimenting with looser restrictions then cool, if staff are rewarding a dedicated player for consistent donations then cool, basically want reason is cool and I'm looking at this entirely through the lens of "how might next year be for giftmaster items" and whether I could've/should've done things differently if I wanted extra room for creativity with Arcrender.

    < Message edited by Dardiel -- 1/26/2026 8:28:46 >
    Post #: 32
    1/26/2026 14:53:28   
    CH4OT1C!
    Member

    		Goodness, lots to respond to. I'll do my best to address everything, but first I need to clarify something with respect to:
    quote:

    Separate from any balance concerns, @CH40T1C and @Maxtrigon both raise concerns that Wrath, Cataclysm, and Fran's Luminous Edge were examples of staff violating contest rules. While I will address each of their specific concerns individually...

    Source

    This is correct in relation to Wrath and Luminous Edge, but I only mentioned Cataclysm damages balance rules and staff integrity. That is because I don't think the act of selecting Cataclysm breaks contest rules, only that the way it was implemented breaks balance rules and the staff's word. As such, I'm not going to address that part of the post (it's not really for me to answer). I'm also making no claims on the subject of AI, so I won't be discussing any of that either.

    To begin, with respect to the contest rules:
    quote:

    I must preface my comments with what I feel to be the fundamental point missed by their posts: the rules are for the Giftmasters, not staff. The rules state what Giftmasters can expect to happen and what they can expect not to happen. A Giftmaster has absolutely no right to demand or receive anything beyond what the rules provide, and staff can reject Giftmaster requests beyond the scope of the rules for any reason or no reason at all.

    Source

    I agree with @Gateless insofar as that this is a correct and defensible interpretation of the contest rules. I personally disagree with your interpretation, but I nonetheless respect it. However, I also concur that this position is potentially quite concerning. A degree of flexibility in staff decision-making is, frankly, necessary; unusual situations may arise that require a bit of intervention beyond the stated limit. That particularly goes for unusual item designs like Wrath. However, I don't think that's really the problem here. It's not the act of going beyond the stated obligation, but rather the degree to which it has been exceeded. Part of the reason Wrath is controversial is because, optically, it goes beyond the staff's original commitment to such a degree that it it's difficult to associate it with the stated prize. Several contributors to this thread make that point clear. Doing this ultimately damages the staff's credibility, even though I'm sure their intentions were noble. How can the staff's word be trusted if it can be bent to such a degree and still be considered ok? And, as I said in my original post, this isn't a zero-sum game. Players would most likely have donated differently if the rules could be bent/broken (whichever you prefer) to this extent.

    That brings me onto the next point: sure, optically it looks bad, but is it?:
    quote:

    While it does represent a first for AQ by creating a melee tome, the balance logic behind it is defensible for the reasons I previously stated, and is a permissible change under the rules. The concerns about the changes to the spellboost and the spell list are also unfounded. Sila's Staff is a very old weapon, and the rules explicitly state that clones of outdated items will be brought up to modern standards. While this means that old overpowered gear can be nerfed, it also means that underpowered gear can be buffed. Staff did so with Wrath by adding another spell with new effects to its spell list (modern tomes allow 3 spells and draw mana) and by modifying the original's spellboost in the manner staff felt appropriate to modernize it. Changing the elements of the original's Sila's Wrath spell to Harm and Energy, respectively, in my clone's Gwen's Wrath and Gwen's Judgment spells is also permissible, as the rules permit and staff have previously allowed cloned tome spells to have their elements changed so long as the spell animations remain the same (which they did). As for the hybrid bonus charge system, that is an addition, but not a major one, and not one I view as much different from the FSB changes to Vanity last year and (I believe) Aegon's Nogalacna shield this year, i.e., a small bonus staff gave to compensate for fulfilling a specific set of circumstances (using multiple pieces of the same gear, or using 2 stats by attacking and then spellcasting). If those items aren't completely new customs, then Wrath is not either.

    Source

    I'm personally not a fan of the argument that this can all be explained through "updating to modern standards". Sure, you're absolutely right to say that some of these interventions have been made for other items, but it's unheard of for all of these individual things to happen for a single item. Nonetheless, I don't think us debating the minutiae of whether Wrath is different enough relative to the original Sila's Staff to be a custom item will help - it's currently only something one can form an opinion on with scant evidence (though given the responses on the thread, I'd argue it's at best, mixed). What we can do is discuss whether it's balanced. And that... well that's hard to justify. Wrath is the first tome that's also an omni-elemental spellbooster that's also a serviceable standard weapon. Even ignoring the balancing of these individual aspects (I'll discuss Cataclysm below...), it goes far beyond the normal limits of what's considered to be compression. But the more crucial point for me is:

    quote:

    It's not that all tomes now should have access to a baseline weapon attack. Instead, the standard Wrath embodies is that non-Magic tomes with INT-scaling MP-cost spells can have a non-Magic baseline attack while still compressing Magic spells. This is because a Melee weapon that compresses MP-cost INT spells is, for all intents and purposes, a tome for 0 STR pure mages. A mage attacking with a melee weapon with 0 STR will do far less than a baseline melee attack (assuming it even connects, which is unlikely), and indeed far less than the resources they'd gain with Draw Mana. Mages, in effect, have no reasonable or effective baseline attack when attacking with Wrath or any future non-Magic tomes, and so weapons like Wrath are neither unbalanced nor require that all tomes be updated to include a baseline attack. Rather, traditional tomes should remain the same, and staff can create future non-Magic tomes like Wrath when they feel appropriate. The key, for both me and (I believe) staff, is whether the tome allows a mage to both effectively attack and compress spells: Wrath does not, so it does not violate tome standards. The effectiveness of the ability to perform a baseline attack, not the technical ability to perform one at all, should control what is or is not a tome.

    Source

    I'm going to disagree with that interpretation. Mages do in fact have a baseline attack with Wrath; it's "Draw Mana". The "Draw Mana" option of a Tome is intended to represent a Mage's baseline attack. That's why "Draw Mana" is worth 75% Melee. A regular Tome only allows its intended audience to use one baseline attack, this "Draw Mana" option. By contrast, your hybrid tome provides two. The intended audience can use both "Draw Mana" and a damaging Melee attack. Mechanically, this creates a discrepancy that can be corrected in two possible ways. Either we remove "Draw Mana" (or the Melee attack...) from Wrath, or all tomes must now have a damaging attack and "Draw Mana"*. Based on that logic, I think that Wrath, at the very least, breaks the precedent on Tomes. Either Wrath needs nerfing (which I don't think is going to happen), or the standards of Tomes need to be altered to create a consistent baseline.

    This could all easily be resolved by updating Sila's Staff. Heck, even just a statement describing how an updated Sila's Staff would function is sufficient (I believe this also addresses another of your points). It's just that doing so would force the staff to make a decision. If the staff consider Wrath to be unbalanced or don't want to alter tome standards, then it exactly wouldn't be a great idea to contribute to the mess by claiming Sila's Staff is (or would be) designed in the same way. It would damage their integrity (and commitment to balance standards) by knowingly releasing (or claiming they would release) a weapon they know would be unbalanced. So, another option would be to release Sila's staff in a balanced format. The problem is this would only damage their integrity in a different way though; it would contribute to the claims that Wrath is a custom item. The only way that avoids both of these problems is to release (or describe) an updated Sila's Staff that is (or would be) almost exactly the same as Wrath, and then double down that this is the new tome standard (see my original post for that commentary). This simultaneously maintains their commitment to balance and eliminates any claim that Wrath could be a custom weapon. However, it means introducing significant powercreep. I'll let them decide how to handle that.

    Of course, the other problem here concerns Cataclysm and omni-elemental spellboosts. Thankfully, this one is much easier to resolve:

    quote:

    ...I did not participate in the Warcaster GBI and am only vaguely aware of the drama surrounding it, it seems to me that spellboosters that work with spells of all elements have been created several times, and that warcaster (and now Cataclysm and Wrath) are nothing new. Sila's Staff, of course, has been an omni-spellbooster for over a decade, and both Adventurer Figure and its recently released clone Frosty Adventurer Figure also included omni-spellboosts without any complaints from the playerbase. As @KhalJJ points out, we also have several spellboosters that inflict status conditions with spells of any element by paying SP like Warcasters/Cataclysm, including Chaotic Lacerta, Classic Carnax Carnage Cneeboard, Glory/Dominion's Brilliance, and Ebbing Fortune.

    Source

    Happy to clarify on this. Firstly, Sila's Staff has been untouched for well over a decade (it's pre-sweep, in fact). It therefore doesn't reflect modern standards and can be immediately ruled out. As for the others: I already pointed out that bothone of @Khaljj's examples areis irrelevant. Carnax Cneeboard and Chaotic Lacerta staff were bothwas released prior to the Warcaster discussion, when the staff highlighted this kind of omni-elemental effect would not fly. The new examples you include, Glory's Brilliance and Ebbing Fortune also fall into this category. The same cannot be said for Frosty Adventurer Figure, which was released in September. Personally, I think a single contradiction to the policy as is currently understood isn't exactly convincing, but I cannot assume their intentions. However, it should be noted that they released multiple other spellboosters around this time that only apply to a single element, before and after adventurer figure. These include Shadowcaster, Silver Xalkos Thrax Athame, the Doom Lily equipment, and Ghost Gourd. I certainly wouldn't bet on the policy having changed.

    Yes, this also has some balance implications for Wrath. I'll look forward to seeing how it's resolved!

    EDIT: It's been made aware to me that Carnax Cneedboard was updated since the Warcaster discussion while retaining this ability, making two items exceptions to that rule. I will however highlight that there are a variety of further items to support my point above. These include the Bardic Weapons, the Gingerbrute Weapon, the Darkheart Herald, the Protean Predator Weapons, as well as the recent Frostval Guardian Giftboxes. This is not a 50/50 split. Items over the last 12 months overwhelmingly support my interpretation above, which is also the only interpretation to have had official staff support.

    *Separately, yes, Hybrids should be getting more %Melee value than the 75% Melee "Draw Mana" provides, and we can also discuss ways to fix that. One option is to have the mana restored be equivalent to 75+(25*STR/expected STR)% Melee. Doesn't change its status as an optional baseline attack though.


    < Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 1/26/2026 17:53:38 >
    AQ  Post #: 33
    1/26/2026 17:09:49   
    KhalJJ
    Member
     

    		 Personally I find it very strange that there is so much effort to re-open a box that the staff closed due to drama, as well as Chaotic's confidence in his own inferred understanding of what the standards are.

    You dismiss 4 relevant examples based on date, assuming that the 1 most recent example is the correct one... Oh no, but not the most recent example actually as you state, but Frosty adventurer figure is just a single contradiction so it "isn't exactly convincing"??

    You are just wrong anyway, given that Carnax Cneeboard has been updated since (Control effect SP cost increased for non-energy spells). (In fairness, this doesn't appear to be officially documented anywhere, but I did point it out, to you, in Discord). Are 2 examples post-warcaster change convincing?

    The only honest, agenda-free interpretation is that there are highly variable standards, (or alternatively, no set standard?) for warcaster-style weapons as yet.

    If it is re-opened for discussion, (and I do think there are cool interesting discussions to be had) it might be worth its own thread or forum post to facilitate the discussion away from the rest of the Donation contest points. I probably wouldn't advocate for this however given the history, and the current context.




    Post #: 34
    1/26/2026 18:35:19   
    Aura Knight
    Member

    		Aside from it being a design anomaly why can't draw mana remain on wrath if it becomes an inaccessible option when making the choice to attack for turn?
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 35
    1/26/2026 19:50:20   
    Anointed One
    Member
     

    		 Amazing items both in terms of art and effects. Thank you to the generous giftmasters and staff for making this happen!

    But as usual, we have the typical dance-off between the 2 factions yet again.

    Something OP gets released
    - side A complains, side B rejoices

    Something gets nerfed
    - side B complains, side A rejoices

    At this point I think we can all agree that staff does what they want and they take turns pissing off 1 side regardless of what they do.

    First off, all this could have been avoided if the giftmasters chose to keep the items to themselves without sharing them to the public. This is obviously a negative for everyone. Players except the top few don't get new items and the game doesn't get people spending more tokens on cool new items. This back-and-forth every year is extremely demoralizing and has already led to many whales quitting. While I'm in no position to speak on how the staff feels, I'm sure they don't feel good about it either. I personally think it is an overall positive for us, the players, when staff decides to go above and beyond. This could mean giving out more golden tickets than the top 5, doing more than simply cloning items and giving them a new art etc. I am baffled sometimes why people would be unhappy when staff is willing to do more for us especially when these players have generated thousands of dollars of revenue for the game and have graciously decided to give it all back to the players in 2 ways. Tokens and new items.

    All this talk about morality, staff integrity etc etc is moot. Staff has always done things by their own discretion. Premium items gets nerfed all the time. That is already the biggest breach of player trust. Most of the people here using integrity as a talking point are also the same people who supported staff breaking the rules to award golden tickets to players outside of the top 5 last year, and this was before it was officially announced or stated anywhere that staff had the discretion to give out more tickets to whoever they please. It is incredibly hypocritical to only support staff breaking some rules but not others. Why did this same group of people not bring up staff integrity back then?

    I agree with Gwen and Gateless that the rules are more of guidelines for the players rather than things that are set in stone for the staff.

    I have nothing to say with regards to Luminous Edge having 2 modes instead of 1 since it was very clearly stated that items could only have 1 mode (though I personally find this to be a bit silly considering the original item had 3, what's the point of reskinning an item to make it worse than the original version? That's an argument for another day).

    For Cataclysm, it was never stated that Warcaster Staves were a banned item in the rules so I see no issue with it. Back then, it was already decided that Warcaster could keep the spell boost for different elements with a (imo) siginificant SP cost. The exception was made for Warcaster, would it then not make sense for this exception to be extended to a clone of Warcaster? With regards to the art, it is nothing like the originally generated AI art. That statement would be an insult to the artist. Sure, you can see that it was definitely referenced, but as Gateless pointed out, it is basically impossible to enforce the rule that staff cannot even take inspiration from AI art. Artists take inspiration from many things. To police it to such a degree is outright impossible. This game has taken many "inspirations" from pop culture be it in terms of art or story, is that a copyright infringement or does that mean the staff lacks creativity? Furthermore, I think it is much easier for giftmasters to provide a reference image of what they want, this would be a lot more helpful as opposed to just pure text. Not everyone is an artist, so generating the basic idea using AI and then letting the staff use it as a reference point seems fine to me.

    For Wrath, it is clear as day that the original weapon (Sila's Staff) has been outdated for over a decade at this point (close to 2 decades tbh) and the rules did state that outdated items will be updated accordingly. I understand that this goes both ways and the original item could be buffed or nerfed. The keyword here is "update". I think this was kept ambiguous on purpose. Update could mean alot of things. It could most definitely mean changing the item enough to fit with modern standards. If I understand correctly, there are 3 issues that people have with this item.

    1) It is a "tome" but it can be used for a regular attack
    I see this question asked in one of the discords and I know Chaotic already provided a somewhat mathematical explanation for it but I really don't think this is a balance issue at all. If anything, I don't see a problem with updating all tomes going forward and giving them a regular attack option too (bonking the monster over the head with a magic book works). What exactly is game-breaking or OP here simply apart from the fact that it's never been done before?

    2) The updated spells are not like the original
    There isn't a updated level 150 version of Elemental Doom or Sila's Wrath so they would have to create 2 "new" spells either way. The math on both of the updated spells checks out and aren't anything game-breaking compared to the other eater spells and Harm damage options we have nowadays.

    3) The amount of compression it has
    Compressions don't cost anything. It has also been a not-so-secret trend that premium items have more compressions (rightfully so). Look at Forevermore Blades, Exalted Unity/Arcrender, Shieldcakes, Royal Cake, El Muchacho, Bag of Mixed Nuts, Warwolf Set etc. I could go on but you get the point. Whack to School Locker is the closest comparison we have with Wrath currently. It is not "somewhat like a tome". It basically IS a tome disguised as a Ranged weapon. A weapon that can use the regular attack with 3 compressed skills. Honestly, what difference is it from Wrath? I don't see any complains on the Forums for Whack to School Locker when it came out over a year ago, why the uproar now for an almost similar item?

    A game cannot have completely no powercreep. That would be unsustainable. The last "powercreepy" magic weapon/tome that we have was Tome of Oulbara and that was at the beggining of August 2025. If we're talking about spell boosters then that would be Warcaster/Magus staves. Those were in mid May 2024. Going off this timeline, that would be 5/20 months ago depending on what you want to use for comparison. I think this frequency of powercreep is ok.

    I know alot of people are concerned over how much "power" the donors have. But these are their items at the end of the day. Items that they have spent thousands of dollars to get and these thousands of dollars also goes back to us, the community. They have no obligation to share it with us and avoid this yearly drama. If no one knows what it does except them, then there would be no complains. But they have chosen to graciously share it with us. Staff has also went above and beyond to make more than 5 items and do more than just a simple copy and pasting of existing item code. These are all positives that everyone should be GRATEFUL for. What good does it do everybody to keep telling the most generous donors no to everything? It discourages them from donating, it discourages them from sharing their items and it also discourages staff for going above and beyond for the players. Why does the generosity from players and staff have to undergo such public scrutiny from the playerbase and require an "unofficial" approval from people who complain but aren't part of the top donors to proceed? If exceptions can be made for mathematically less deserving donors outside of the stated band to receive rewards then why can't exceptions be made for mathematically more deserving donors who donate more than usual, who constantly place top etc? Either you are fine with all exceptions or you are fine with none.
    Post #: 36
    1/26/2026 21:01:42   
      Lorekeeper
    And Pun-isher

     
    Official Response
    Early on Saturday, the confirmation that the gifting contest items were ready for release was erroneously sent out early, while discussion about balance concerns and other errors in the WIP versions was still actively in progress. As a result, the release was pushed to live while its implementation was still being discussed internally. Rewards released in a state that is not representative of what a deliberate finished product would have looked like, nor compliant with the rules we ourselves posted for how this contest would be carried out.

    The errors in question were:

  • An old version of the information submission post for the Warcaster staff, left over from before the correction of the original miscommunication on the item, was used as the base for the information provided during the feedback process. When this information was released to players, it lacked the off-element cost implemented in the latest revision of the original item. This is strictly an information error and not reflected in the code: Players can verify that the off-element SP cost has been there all along by not resetting game cache before taking the item into battle. We have also moved away from using weapon damage as a cost for spell boosts in magic weapons, but this was not recorded clearly internally and thus not applied to the item.

  • One rule was excessively ambiguous, leading to erroneously leaving Star Sword with multiple damage modes.

    quote:

    For weapons with multiple forms (Melee/Ranged/Magic), only one form may be selected for reskinning.


    This rule was supposed to restrict the cloning of weapons that had different art for each mode, or completely different behavior for different modes, so that the production scope of one golden ticket couldn't be multiplied proportionately.

  • Changes to Sila's Staff were still in deliberation. In their current state, the item contradicts the standards we've employed for spellbooster weapons and creates a platform that tomes and spellboosters can't individually compete with. Lastly, Sila's Staff was an item so old that it would have to be redesigned, and the extent of the changes going beyond a reimplementation of the concept by modern standards led to discussions of a disparity in the latitude offered to Giftmasters.

    Added together, these issues left us looking as if we had misrepresented the contest rules to all of our players, neglected to represent the possibilities available to participants to the point of retroactively invalidating the information they based their purchases on, and extensively contradicted our stance on balance at a time when we are already overburdened with redesign work.





    We apologize for the breakdown in communication. These issues would all have been avoided if iteration had concluded before release. Unfortunately, we are now in the difficult position of having to try to do right by everyone in a situation with no unambiguous fix.

    At this stage in production, we are completely unable to turn back and clear the slate with the contest winners so that they can have proper input in an implementation that isn't compromised by the above errors. We are at the limit of our capacity for emergency reschedules due to the size of pending rescheduled releases, and this wouldn't allow us to resolve the situation quickly in the first place.

    If we alter the items now, we will be punishing the Giftmasters for our error. If we let them stand entirely, we'll be severely increasing our future workload in item and enemy complexity to keep up with the level of powercreep, when monster difficulty is already backlogged. If we only change the public versions, we have only what benefit of the doubt our players are willing to give us when we say we have not implemented paid exceptions to our word and integrity.

    As a result, we will be keeping the Giftmaster version of the items in their current state while the public versions (Along with updates to the original items) will be redrafted to comply with balance standards. Further, changes to the rules will be made to remove ambiguity leading up to the next contest. Although this is the only option we can afford to choose, we understand that it's far from ideal, and that it will stand as a mark against our integrity until such a time as we have successfully taken steps to maintain consistency in the eyes of our players.

    As compensation, players who have purchased the public versions of the contest rewards are offered a refund, and can reach out via direct message to The Hollow to have their purchases reversed.





    P.S.: It must be stressed that the AdventureQuest team does not use generative AI in any step of its production. We do not and will not replace our creative work with controversially sourced algorithmic imitation.
    • Post #: 37
    1/26/2026 21:42:44   
    dizzle
    Member
     

    		 I am disappointed
    AQ  Post #: 38
    1/26/2026 21:52:14   
    Lee
    Member
     

    		 It's good to hear some word from an official source. I had worried this thread would've been locked either beforehand or by now due to some of the evident insulting remarks left by other users. To my understanding though, suck remarks are the norm in the community, especially in the forums. Regardless, onto what I wish to say.

    I fully understand the backlog and emergency rescheduled releases that the team has had to make over the past.... year or two now. Or at least I understand it as well as a player can, not a dev. Difference between seeing something from the outside and being caught in the middle of it - especially when problems arise amidst the emergencies.

    To keep it brief and short to the point.

    I personally disagree with the team changing the public versions but keeping the owner/perma rare versions of the Giftmaster weapons untouched. I understand AdventureQuest is a for profit business at the end of the day, with bills and (I assume) quotas to meet at the end of the day, but said decision comes across as the age old "the lives of a few, to save the many". Not the best phrase, but in other words - making the (wider) community lose trust in the AQ team and their reputation only to appease a few. Said few evidently showing that you can break the rules by throwing enough money at the team especially when they're overworked and juggling enough in the background.

    The (Personal) Giftmaster items will be perma rare and unobtainable in any sense (to my understanding), outside of the owners. However brushing something underneath the blankets yet again as an exception and pretending that it didn't happen does not feel the way to go. Yes the top donors will very likely be unhappy with this but realistically, this change would be giving them custom items, not clones. Which if it's not obvious, goes against the previous years and is understandably a kick in the face to previous top donors.

    One thing I guess I can agree on is the compensation of the public versions offering a refund. I'm not keen on it myself, but I understand it's a difficult situation and likely the best course of action in regards to said public Giftmaster items.

    I hope I conveyed my opinion on this matter clearly and respectively. This is my own opinion evidently and not something influenced by others or small groups of the community. If something does not make sense or needs clearing up, I'll be reading this thread occasionally. Regards.
    Post #: 39
    1/26/2026 22:03:04   
    Aura Knight
    Member

    		Since there's plans to rework these items could a few past ones be among the process too? We've long heard mention of a change to the devoured earth shield of a past event only to see no such thing. It's one of the few items I regret going for as it remains in a state of non-use due to a disproportionate cost to effect ratio.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 40
    1/26/2026 22:25:29   
    RobynJoanne
    Member
     

    		 I had been hoping for official info-subs before saying anything, but my waiting has already made it so that I could not affect the developer statement on their decisions. I had wanted to provide another perspective before an official decision. I did not want to be making a post on the Forums again, as I have come to consistently regret the poor quality of my writing; but it seems that the Donation Contest is just cursed to end in controversy, and I feel compelled to comment on it every time. So, with that quality warning made, here are some of my observations, which should be taken with a grain of salt.

    Almost all top donators over the past 3 years have chosen relatively modern items, but thankfully, due to Teryle's generous choice to gift Spellcasters with much-needed options for gaps, we do have an existing example of the precedent and thus implied meaning of "update" to an existing item and its clone. In its original iteration, Glacial Short Staff had 4 options: a 6-hit standard Spell, a 1-hit chance-based Freeze Spell, a 2-hit efficient Spell, and Draw Mana. The updated Glacial Short Staff, and its Dark clone Reaper of the Sunless Winter, has 4 options: a 6-hit standard Spell, a 3-hit save-based Freeze (Eclipse for Dark) Spell changed to EleVuln when the Monster is a Boss or has immunity, a 2-hit efficient Spell, and Draw Mana. It also got a bonus for every Ice spell in the active inventory. In other words, the only changes made to Glacial Short Staff were to the Freeze Spell and the damage bonus. The former needed changes because Freeze had been changed multiple times since the original release. The same is true of the application where standards have similarly changed. The EleVuln effect was the new standard for stun effects at the time; ironically, this would be changed within a week after the release, as Status System v137 would change immunity to no longer block the status effects' existence but instead merely the effect. The Ice spell bonus is a standard bonus effect to all modern Elemental Tomes. Notably, the effects of the item were kept as close to the original as possible, with the only updates being based on the modern standards for the effect (Freeze application) and item category (Tome).
    Wrath is not that. It has a normal attack, unlike Tomes, and indeed, Kamui even admits that it is more a "regular weapon that has 3 spells compressed into it than an actual tome." It has a Harm Spell. It has an Auto-Hit Weapon Element Spell that Eats Panic. These are not updates, because frankly, many of these effects did not exist at the time of Sila's Staff's creation. Harm's predecessor, Weapon X, did exist at the time, but Sila's Staff did not have this effect. Even, the Auto-Hit Spell's name is a reference to another item from which it is based on, Vidrir's Judgment, making it clear that Wrath is not merely a clone of Sila's Staff.
    With all that said, Sila's Staff was likely always going to need actually different effects. 3 6+ Element Spells in the same Tome would almost certainly have never been the developers' choice for a modern Tome. It is also unlikely that Wrath's effects are what the developers would have chosen on their own if the item had been revamped with no player input. Some degree of customization seems inevitable for a donator reskin of Sila's Staff, so I do not think anyone can be blamed for the result. It is easy for necessary feedback to snowball to full customization.

    With that said, I am not necessarily opposed to the notion of custom items for top donators. They have certainly proven sufficient generosity to arguably deserve it. It was not, however, the stated reasoning for the past 3 Summer Donation Contests. I do not think it overly onerous to offer the same thing moving forward, with the caveat that the mechanics are, like Wrath, clones of existing code. This is the easiest way to create custom items for the devs, and by the very nature of the reskin conversational process, the top donators can have immediate feedback on the difficulty of their mechanic cloning request. Mechanic creep, especially the introduction of new code, has been the bane of every custom design (I will admit complete fault with Spore, which was far harder to create than I had anticipated. I was part of the problem, and it has been part of the reason for my reduced participation on the Forums), but continued feedback with primarily code copy-pasting as the restriction allows for much faster coding. I do think it feels unfair for previous and existing winners that certain items can be so "custom," but I am not one and cannot speak for them. At the same time, it would seem unfair to avoid providing the same opportunity moving forward.

    Now, regarding Hybrid items, it is indeed not a new standard for some items to get something that would normally cost an MC for free. Since Wrath gets skill compression, I believe we should look at another item that similarly gets skill compression for free: Terror Raiment. Terror Raiment's skill is "considered free because the skill uses 4 stats." That was 2 mainstats, Cha, and Luk back when Dex was the universal accuracy stat and Ranged required Str for damage. Of course, this is no longer directly applicable, but we can simply reduce the logic to needing 3 stats instead. What exactly do Wrath's spells do that requires 3 stats at the same time? Now, that does not mean that the Weapon does not use 3 stats (Str, Int, and Luk). Instead, the problem is more so, "What does a Mage lose from using Wrath as just a Tome?" The answer is basically just Draw Mana after the most recent change, and the loss of Draw Mana is minor because every other Tome has it. So, there is nothing effectively mandating Hybridization, making it practically erroneous to call Wrath a Hybrid Weapon in its current state. The extra Hybridization bonus beyond the free skill compression is beyond me. If we consider that Hybridization gets a bonus, how far do we let it continue? It is not a major concern, regardless, being a mere 5% Melee effect anyway that can be paid for.

    It is unconstructive to merely criticize, so instead, I wish to consider fixing this. My proposal is to make the Spells use at least Str for scaling and preferably Str/Int scaling. Both involve enforced Hybridization, but the former only "requires" enough Int to have enough MP to cast a Spell, while the latter requires full investment in both stats to be a "true" Hybrid. As for Str/Int scaling, the goal is simply to ensure Hybridization but not to penalize stat boosts. Thus, this should be within an IF statement: if Str & Int >= ExpectedStat, then switch to max(Str, Int) instead of Str/Int. This ensures that boosts beyond ExpectedStat do not get their effects halved as they do currently. This method also provides a solution to our current Hybrid Stats problem by providing an alternative. Instead of completely getting rid of Hybrid stats, simply provide an MC-level boost to each effect. This is a buff for Hybrids while ensuring that they get their own equipment exclusivity, whereas simply removing Hybrid stats would allow for Mage encroachment. For Wrath specifically, this is a change that keeps its free Spell compression without affecting Hybrids, which seems to have been the design intent.
    As for the Omni-Elemental effect, as always, the easy solution is to make it Elemental in another way. Given the maintained Elemental Rage Spell, I believe that it better suits the intended design to maintain the Omni-Elemental Spell boost, which means it simply needs to scale off Energy Resist to be allowed.

    As for Warcaster, I think it has been disproportionately criticized. It was not on the banlist (as a reminder of the items banned for this Golden Ticket selection: Book of Burns, Fathershed Moment, Pumpkin Spice weapons, Celestial Voidforged Gear, Voidpact Gear, Shieldcakes, Shield of Plenty, Troposhield.). It is also not the first time that a winner has chosen and been given a mechanic that is deprecated. Incarnation was released after Cha Weapons were considered a balance problem not to be repeated. I believe, with that precedent, a donator could reasonably expect the same treatment of sorts. Granted, this does go against the written rules for this instance of "outdated standards... will be updated accordingly," but it is fair for a donator to have wanted similar treatment to a past donator. I will not comment on the AI debate, as it is not relevant to my focus on AQ balancing, though I will acknowledge my personal negative opinion on generative AI art.

    Finally, all this seems to be yet another symptom of the developer team's overloaded workload, and I believe we truly need to acknowledge that. On top of the ongoing personnel shortage with Ianthe's Lucky Strike revamp project, Kamui was sick just last week, and we had the East Coast snowstorm this weekend. This is a difficult time. Mistakes should be expected and treated with grace. Given that the developers have been so rushed and not been working at their best, I do think it is preemptive to simply give up and make two versions of the items for donators and the public, but even if that is the case, I hope that this helps with minimizing the discrepancy between design intent and the ultimate available option.

    < Message edited by RobynJoanne -- 1/26/2026 22:55:05 >
    Post #: 41
    1/26/2026 23:04:46   
    Maxtrigon
    Member

    		I was in the midst of writing a response to Gwen's post when this dropped and to say I'm, at least, very relieved to hear the changes to the public version of the weapons. The fear of having future weapons essentially overload and define balance, is at least, relieved for the moment. I do wish it came with better news because, as with what Lee said, it is still allowing the unbalanced variants in game, just functionally rare'd out. Ultimately though, considering it was an internal staff error, it still was not on the fault of the Giftmasters and to add to that, they can't do anything to get changes done or approved at this point so I am actually okay with them keeping their personal variants as is and just going on to adjust and fix the already public ones.

    This doesn't change how I feel about how this was handled although I do hope that the trust does crawl back swiftly and that nothing disastrous happens during this year's Summer donation contest.

    Hopefully the adjustments to the weapons are satisfactory and they don't absorb too much of the staff's time.
    Post #: 42
    1/27/2026 0:07:12   
    Andlu
    Member

    		Look, I gotta congratulate you guys on one thing. You somehow made a bad situation even worse. At this point it was just better to remove wrath's mana draw and remove the warcaster's fire clone off-element effects. But what you guys did was just make the 'overpowered' items be avaliable only to the original account, while just sweeping the problem under the rug? At this point, might aswell as make the custom items actually be a custom, non clone item, only avaliable for the winners.

    Seriously, this is probably the worst thing you guys could have done.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 43
    1/27/2026 0:30:32   
    Gateless
    Member

    		I empathize with Gwen, insofar as regardless of Wrath's balance or any possible rule-breaking on the part of staff, it is self-evident that the controversy this time has spurred the staff to nerf donor items without due consideration for donor input.

    Let's be clear—regardless of the existent loop hole around community scrutiny via private "reskins", if donors are sharing their items, their item's mechanics should be identical to the public versions.

    I know this game's development team lacks manpower, and I know this game wants to give the impression, year after year, that it's on it's last legs. However, despite all that, I simply do not understand the apparent laziness displayed here.

    The staff reserves every right to make statements and delay changes, asking for donor input before proceeding with any possible item adjustments. However, that's not what they did.

    In light of this, my only conclusion is the staff made the only possible choices that would make top 5 summer donor "reskins" seem even more desirable—at the cost of everything else.

    This is, again, although it frankly hurts me to say, a lack of integrity and commitment to anything resembling a consistent game or gameplay experience on the part of AQ staff.

    I have no further comment.
    Post #: 44
    1/27/2026 0:59:03   
    icetears
    Member

    		I feel that this is a new low for aq and it is not fair to the top donors. If devs are good with the release then it should be done. Not to back track when a small woke group complains.
    Post #: 45
    1/27/2026 1:27:14   
    GwenMay
    Member

    		I appreciate the clarification from @Lorekeeper, and staff more generally. For my part, I apologize to staff for unwittingly causing additional work through my pick. That was never my intention, and I would have gladly picked a different item to reskin, or accepted such limitations as staff felt necessary, were any provided pre-release. My only desire with my choice of reskin was to update a beloved classic weapon and perhaps experiment with a potential new type of tome. While I have gone through many emotions tonight following the Official Response, I am ultimately prepared to accept any alteration to the public version of Wrath that staff deem necessary. As I said earlier, staff get the final say, and I would be a hypocrite to abandon that principle now. My only request is that staff keep my weapon as close as possible to my vision of a melee version of Sila's Staff as feasible under the circumstances, and I invite other players to share their thoughts on how to do so as @RobynJoanne has done.

    Beyond that, I ask that my fellow players show the staff grace and understanding with this situation. Mistakes happen, miscommunications happen, and staff are only human. When these things happen, we can choose to respond with scorn, or we can forgive and move on. I genuinely believe that this situation is simply the product of unintentional happenstance and miscommunication, likely exacerbated by factors like America's winter storm and other personal issues. Once this happened, there was no solution the staff could provide that would satisfy everyone. They are trying their best to do right by the players, and they are trying their best to do right by this game we all love given the resources they have. For that I think they deserve a break, even if we dislike this situation and disagree with some or all of their solution. I donate because I want to give back to the AQ community, and I share my custom items for the same reason. In the spirit of the season, let's give back to the staff by showing them some grace, and providing them the benefit of the doubt @Lorekeeper requested and I believe they deserve.
    AQ DF AQW Epic  Post #: 46
    1/27/2026 4:37:38   
    Anointed One
    Member
     

    		 I am conflicted on the current decision. On one hand, I am glad that the top donors were not penalized. Their interests should be prioritized above all else and this was thankfully recognized by the staff. On the other hand, I am not a fan of going back to change the public items because of a few complainers. There are just as many, if not more, players who are satisfied with the items in their current state. This being said, offering them a refund is nice show of goodwill.

    Many previous donors have already been kicked in the face when they missed the cutoff for rewards by a slim margin. Yet donors in the same predicament in recent years do not suffer the same fate. I hope to see an equivalent amount of support from the same people to retroactively add past rewards for donors that narrowly missed out on them in the past to ensure fairness across the board.

    New items and new exceptions are made all the time. Just because you made a decision to buy or clone an item in the past with whatever information was available at that time does not justify that you should be able to do over that decision when new information becomes available. If this would be the case then everyone should be able to ask for refunds on old items that are no longer in meta because better items get released or because they get nerfed after.

    It's also contradictory to suggest staff to go back and redo the items/effects while saying they are overloaded and overworked in the very next paragraph.

    The amount of entitlement is outright revolting despite the massive show of generosity from the giftmasters and staff. Neither of these 2 groups need to be answerable to the rest of the playerbase for the choices they make regarding the items they make using their own time and money. As I mentioned earlier, they can simply avoid all of this by not sharing their items publicly. This does no one any good.

    While player feedback is definitely important for general releases and changes, this is not one of them. Staff needs to stop indulging in the wants of those who have no skin in the game to begin with. Because no matter what they do, it is bound to leave 1 group unhappy. I would fully support staff just going ahead to do whatever the giftmasters want in the future without being beholden to the opinions of everyone else that don't qualify for said rewards. The public rewards are a result of the giftmasters' generosity, they have no obligation to share it with us and can avoid all of this. Please keep that in mind before throwing out complaint #9472 about how you think their items should be. These are their prizes, not yours. If you want to decide how the prizes should be then go and win a spot in the next contest.

    < Message edited by Anointed One -- 1/27/2026 4:46:40 >
    Post #: 47
    1/27/2026 5:56:49   
    Aura Knight
    Member

    		It really boggles the mind how quick to act the AQ team is in response to complaints from players who seem to be in a perpetual state of dissatisfaction. It's almost like any praise falls on deaf ears. A lot of changes are championed by the same few people who upon getting what they want will quickly move on to be upset about something else. Is the game made for them only? Why do the rest of us play if fun is only determined by ones who were given an unacceptable monopoly over feedback on game standards?

    Maybe these events really are cursed as suggested by another comment.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 48
    1/27/2026 7:10:58   
    Jakau Ryuu
    Member

    		@icetears Dude c'mon, leave the random political buzzwords out of this; this is the AQ General Discussion forum, not twitter or reddit or whatever, and things are heated enough without bringing those vibes in.
    [also, weeeird call using that term in a pejorative manner on a forum for a game that has an annual Pride event, but whatever]

    But uh. Yeah wow, thirding the "these events feel kinda cursed" thing. Like, I get it, small team means more work means more fatigue means more miscommunications and slip-ups, nnnot an enviable position in the best of times... and considering the weather and whatnot, the best of times these ain't. Given all the details it really doesn't feel like there's a good call here at all, but the refund at least makes sense to soften the blow.

    I'd be lying if I said this thread didn't make me wanna step away from the game for a few weeks or so though, if this is the current state of the community and of the game.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 49
    1/27/2026 8:27:43   
    Shalnark
    Member

    		SO SAD that they need to nerf an item again, and again, and again, and again due to some Quality Assurance Specialist-wannabe complainers! I don't know why the AQ Team is terrified knowing they are just less than 10 of them babbling about their so-called "balance" against the super majority of players.

    _____________________________

    Try not to become a man of success
    but rather try to become a man of value.

    ~Albert Einstein
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 50
    Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
    All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= Grand Giftmaster Prizes
    Page 2 of 3<123>
    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