|
Luster Bladewarrior -> Panoply [feat. Big Dictionary] [and now Lepre-Chan] (1/28/2016 21:28:58)
|
So, now that the GBI forum has calmed down a bit and there's a quiet moment, decided to finally make a thread on Panoply.
Current state: 5 rounds of 29 MRM. Level-locked with losing 1/12 of the boost past the 4th one for each level.
I shall hereby argue that both are unbalanced.
MRM boost:
Currently, it prevents (5*29/85=) 170,6% of monster damage, or alternatively gives 145 MRM. I cannot make sense of this:
• A healing spell heals 200% of standard monster, or 140% of boss monster's damage.
• A SP version, like logos, would give 120 MRM for 784 SP (2 Melee). This divides perfectly into 24.
• Even using 1,15 for extra turns since magic (which no previous gear piece of gear does, so it'd be nice to confirm), you'd get 200*0,85/1,15= 147,8 MRM. This divides to 29,6, which would generally be rounded up or srounded.
Thus, following proposal:
Panoply gives sround([1+turns since casting/100]*0,9*200(*0,85?)*0,2/1,4) MRM, for
.....Damage Over Time (applicable since healing Seeds),
.....Always Useful? Given you don't need to keep weapon equipped, but more typically would weapon-lock it.
.....200% melee of spell,
.....hit rate,
.....split into five turns,
..... /1,4 for affecting monster damage.
This would result in 24,28; 24,53; 24,77; 25,01; 25,26 MRM across 5 turns (*0,9 if applying Always useful too). Or more simply could go with the middle option.
Level lock, part 1:
In essence an absolutely necessary feature. Were it'd be against player level, I'd say current implementation leaves it doing more for first four at down to 95% of cost and by replacement time doing two thirds of the bonus at 91% of the cost.
For belowI do use player deprecation for monster standards are unknown.
Issue is that this doesn't compare how a normal spell scales.
Without level any level penalty, a reasonable benefit explanation would be (0,75+1,25*PaidSpellCost/PlayerLevelSpellCost)/2.
PaidSpellCost/PlayerLevelSpellCost hereby defined as CostRatio.
For relatively static stat bonus area, the deprecation rate of a standard spell, derived from (ActualStat%/ExpectedStat%)*(85+ActualBTH-ExpectedBTH)/85 closely matches CostRatio:
Scaling CostRatio BTH&Stat% ratio
130 1stVal 532 958
131 0,994 0,991 0,993
132 0,987 0,980 0,975
133 0,982 0,971 0,968
134 0,976 0,962 0,962
135 0,970 0,952 0,955
136 0,965 0,943 0,937
137 0,959 0,935 0,932
138 0,953 0,925 0,925
139 0,948 0,917 0,920
140 0,942 0,908 0,903
141 0,938 0,900 0,896
142 0,932 0,891 0,891
143 0,927 0,884 0,885
144 0,922 0,875 0,869
145 0,917 0,866 0,864
146 0,912 0,859 0,858
147 0,907 0,851 0,853
148 0,903 0,844 0,837
149 0,898 0,836 0,833
150 0,893 0,829 0,827
As you can see, dropping 8,33% per level is unreasonable expectation for a standard spell, even if one were to square the deprecation.
Thus, I hereby propose that Panoply should deprecate at either the same rate of standard's spell's damage or MP Cost.
Level lock, part 2:
Currently, it is compared against monster level rather than player level.
Assuming monsters scale at same rate as players, the above ratios are still fitting.
Obviously, for a SP version, scaling with monster is worse for player, for you'd expect them to use it when facing the occasional monster 20 levels above them.
MP refreshes each battle, however.
If Panoply is intended to be healing spell, then scaling versus monster can make sense - on one hand, healing spell heals ##% of player's HP, but on the other hand, how much of monster damage it heals drops as the monster level increases.
However, for lower level monsters, if compared against that same monster damage, the healing spell does more.
To match this, I suggest Panoply scaling shouldn't be limited to levels above it.
Sure, a level 10 frogzard won't hit a level 150 player under Panoply. However, a level 10 frogzard will never outdamage level 150 healing spell in five turns, so said 150 player is worse off when they do this anyway.
|
|
|
|
