RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest Worlds] >> AQWorlds General Discussion



Message

Edme MacHeath -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/8/2019 4:04:08)

What’s the point of giving class difficulty to obtain its own Tier.
I mean sure it’s a footnote to be made, but you don’t need to tier itself. It’s not deserving of that much categorization.

What’s the point of tiering everything to be honest.
At a certain point the class is so mediocre or bad, it’s not really worth bringing to a conversation of “tiers”
I don’t think anyone is going to look at defender and be like “Oh yeah that’s a D tier support class”
At a certain point you gotta stop caring because it’s not something you’d find useful or recommended in today’s meta

I just don’t recommend that much below Chaos Slayer for farming or necromancer for soloing.
Nobody wants to spend an extra 20 minutes of nulgath farming or take 5 more minutes to farm legion tokens or take twice as long against a boss

At a certain point believe it or not is a class low tier or simply not useful? Food for thought



Molevolent -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/8/2019 9:53:47)

Man, Cloudflare really doesn't want me to make this post >:C
Therefore, I'm linking it in a google doc!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dt6qRgg00JntbzFIhLXqnUOkQqPAwg48awN1iPiSdsc/edit?usp=sharing
Specifically re: LC and Shaman and EI tiering, and what tiering means in general in the context of our list.

P.S. And hold on, who's the tester of us??



you stop -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/8/2019 23:10:40)

I'm aware of Shiminuki's tester account for that matter (or whatever staff account he owns, if it's not a tester).

I'll just get back on the Shaman issue vs Eternal. I saw some points on LC that I think are valid for it to be A, perhaps, but definitely not S. I will explain that as I explain my points on Shaman.
quote:

Shaman has remained in A, albeit probably the highest A next to Vampire Lord at the moment- its efficiency curve tends to dramatically expand when facing lower hp mobs due to the nature of the mana regen
The issue here being is not its mana regen but I think more for convenience. Shaman 1 shots lower HP which is bad for its regen, sure but youre missing something. Shaman explicitly 1 shots them along with extremely low cooldowns. The point here being is that not that it kills immediately but it has low cooldowns. At some point, it clears too fast that it actually has time to go for rest without lagging behind other classes like Eternal in this case.

quote:

What the lower and higher curve of the class's performance is in the specified role, based on if player X were paying maximum and minimum attention to use + how it feels to use overall,
Again the only issue left to talk about is convenience. But in the forums, we have had an argument here on how to define convenience. Is convenience just being mindless? Or does it include clearing the room/boss (in the case of a solo) faster so you dont have to inconveniently wait for it to die any faster?
Point made by Edme:
quote:

Nobody wants to spend an extra 20 minutes of nulgath farming or take 5 more minutes to farm legion tokens or take twice as long against a boss


quote:

with the release of icestormarena, due to it being an incredibly high weight area.
A single special case does not make it a good class. Better just make a note like you do for undead and the undead slaying classes. It's a niche. Just because it's good in that ONE area does not make it a good class in general. Another issue I would like to point out is if you're farming do you include all the other people around you or just by yourself? Because I'm not sure what metric is faster. For one, you dont get KS-ed if youre alone. The other being others can kill for you. But in any case, I think you should consider both. Even if there are multiple people in the same room, and NSoD equipped, Eternal Inversionist is still objectively a bad class. It has extremely long cooldowns so what if they kill monsters faster than you can press spells? In a solo scenario, EI has extremely bad sustain and I dont think it deserves that title of Tier A. Perhaps, with SSG, this is possible. But most definitely not EI.

quote:

Maybe I'm a bit biased, I've been in the LC sleeper meta camp for several years now.
This and everything above it. Roomhopping pretty much eliminates a lot of respawn issues. While there can be a point to be made with just sitting there, pressing things and watching other things die, I would still want to bring up that point. I believe Shadowhunt already made a point long ago that the best farming classes would still be single target soloing classes due to the respawn timers being a thing but again, moving left and right and/or roomhopping eliminates a bit of that. I'm just bringing a point where if respawn was the only issue, and there was a way to eliminate that issue, how then would LC perform against meta farming classes?

quote:

Then, styx hydras, for a more overarching dps comparison to see advantage generation based on health difference and aoe.
At which point do we stop counting how high is high hp? At which point do we put it out there that farming high hp mobs is more so equivalent to soloing X boss Y times more so than it being actual farming? I think farming high hp bosses as a form of farming metric is just fully absurd.

But all in all, I do in fact do not disagree with those insights you've given. It's just that there are other, too many points to be made which is why I dont think there is a fully reliable metric to say which farming class sits top of what other class. However, there are just simply bad classes which you can separate from good ones. I'll drop the case on LC vs Shaman. I dont think there's any real reliable way to bring LC down as I also do not label it as a bad class in any way. I just dont agree with it having sole possession of S along with Master of Moglins. But that may be a biased opinion coming from myself.



Edme MacHeath -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/8/2019 23:27:54)

I think anybody's tier list should look more or less like this, you can fiddle around the placements to your liking and this is by no means an indepth or perfect list but it should give a general idea
Farming:
Shaman, Abyssal, Vampire Lord, Daimon (Potentially put daimon lower)

Blazebinder, MoM, VHL, Paladin, LC

EI, CS, SSG, Battlemage

Troll Spellsmith, Scarlet Sorceress

Soloing:

Corrupted Chronomancer, SSoT/SwoT, EC/IC

VHL, LC

LDK, Timeless

GB, DMK, UOK, CA, EPL, SC

Necromancer, DSG


Offensive Support:
SC, LC
FB, Aracnomancer, Archfiend

GB, DMK, CS
Maybe EI?


Defensive Support:

AP, Harbringer

SC

DMKOL, Chunin

Maybe Blood Titan, Oracle and Healer? I don't really bother with those three.

Group Boosted Damage:
Any Chrono Class

Elemental Warrior, DMKOL, Cryomancer, CS, LDK, DMK, Harbringer, and various others.


Edit: I totally agree actually with GB being a decent support/DPS. I'll add that



you stop -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/9/2019 2:02:12)

I'm still convinced Glacial Berserker is one powerful support hue



Tyroniter -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/9/2019 10:26:56)

SC for soloing depends too much on Magnitude for efficiency, so I'd put it at a tier below UOK and GB actually, along with the rest. Also Chaos Slayer can still hold it's own pretty well in a solo situation, definitely better than Necromancer, maybe even SC from what I've used so far.



Aura Knight -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/9/2019 12:15:36)

Glacial is an amazing support. Once you get past all the lag its animations cause, (easy to do with the new option allowing us to turn off animations) it's easily one of the top single faction classes we have. GB dishes out high damage and helps boost the defense of yourself and a party by making the enemy have a very high chance to not hit. If people don't have Glacial Berserker, they really should give it a try.

SC depending on magnitude for efficiency is not wrong but that effect happens very often so there shouldn't be much issue with that. I heard what I assume is a rumor about SC. And that is that the luck enhancement helps magnitude happen more often. That can't be right, but if it is true, that would explain why a luck enhanced Stonecrusher does better in a solo than one which is wizard enhanced. There was a time I didn't care to use SC in a solo but now, I find it's not the worst choice. But there are situations where it will fail. Can't expect 100% success when some of your effects are dependent on chance. But, at least it's a high chance.

Now, unrelated to all that's been said here, I'm going to keep waiting for a class that is a fusion of all the starters so we have some kind of Adventurer Class. The name can be changed. [:D]




Molevolent -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/9/2019 12:48:39)

Man, Cloudflare hates me. I don't know why I can't make these long posts
So, google doc again ;-;
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HQECC-opkSJ7AwGUIXr1wnsniI9AFKnVXPYynmMVXe4/edit?usp=sharing
re:Followup from You Stop
Thanks for the feedback on that, though, it did help a lot.
Earnestly, I wouldn't shove a tier list at someone just asking for a recommendation. I'd give them based on their mem status, shortcut status, level, etc. etc.. Again, translating complex datasets into easy to digest portions.
I'll stop making long posts now imsorrypleasedonthurtme

Also, do you guys think people would be interested in complex mechanics guides (e.g. hidden stat caps, secondary stat interactions, skill types, skill damage formulae)? I haven't seen many, but I'm also not on the forums much (correct me if I'm wrong, please, I don't want to steal credit from others.)

Stonecrusher might be a class with hybrid damage calculations, also, which might make luck better. Even without that, it really doesn't need the benefits of wiz enhs, due to its high secondary stats from passives and buffs.



Hardcastle McCormick -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/9/2019 16:13:44)

^Correct. Just as with Infinite/Evolved Dark Caster and Scarlet Sorceress, Lucky provides much higher crit damage for StoneCrusher compared to Wizard.
Also WOW. Honestly it's very common to see long-winded posts on this forum. It's in no way unwelcome, but yours are on a TL;DR level I've never encountered before...

I also think Glacial Berserker is somewhat underrated as an offensive support. While the 60% debuff doesn't have 100% uptime, it's still enough to make a big impact in groups combined with the classes's fairly high DPS. It's also worth noting GB is one of the only ACTUALLY FREE classes that can even come close to that kind of single-target performance, making it all the more valuable IMO.

Vampire Lord and Glacial Berserker are probably the best "bang per buck" classs out there right now, which I guess is balanced out by them being seasonal.



Edme MacHeath -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/9/2019 20:22:56)





quote:

Stonecrusher might be a class with hybrid damage calculations, also, which might make luck better. Even without that, it really doesn't need the benefits of wiz enhs, due to its high secondary stats from passives and buffs.
@molevolent:
quote:

^Correct. Just as with Infinite/Evolved Dark Caster and Scarlet Sorceress, Lucky provides much higher crit damage for StoneCrusher compared to Wizard.

This is because the skills aren't actually magical or hybrid to begin with. The skills are physical but get part of their stat calculations from magical. I'm saying this because this is technically actually different from magical or hybrid, even though it may seem like hybrid, it's not, hybrid is equal from both physical and magical, this is not.
Why they labeled them as magical or don't tell us this ingame, who knows.

First of all I want to preface this with this isn't a sign of disrespect or an attack on your list.

I think you need to be far more clear on tier lists, offhandedly dismissing and stating the tier list is nonlinear makes it not a tier list at all.
You're randomly grading things based on very specific areas of a class. A tier list is entirely linear and that's kinda the point of a tier list to begin with, to create linear categories of receeding quality to determine value.

What you are doing is not tiering but grading off one specific area of classes and doing that for every possible angle of a class. This isn't a great way to tier things.
Just as in one person could get a A+ on a test and another can get A+ on a test, that doesn't actually show the difference in intelligence between the two people, no matter how great.

I think the next big confusion is the fact you are using your own perception on how others will use classes optimally. Trying to determine for your own self how well other people are at using classes only adds unreliability and makes your less useful, it creates a test where it's only useful for one specific group of players who fit that criteria and is completely irrelevant to everyone else.


I think as much as some people thinl shaman is this class that requires precision or little to no mistakes, it's not really. The class is pressing two buttons nearly mindlessly one after another during farming sessions with skills that one or two shot enemies with a class that has 100%+ hit chance. See the thing is shaman isn't really that difficult to use. You can always argue that people aren't good at using it but that doesn't get us very far. The biggest worry is just being unlucky with RNG with crits or landing hits rather than being less than 100% efficient, shaman is fast enough anyways that you don't need to manage it perfectly to still outpace most everything else


You seem to be going and just entering one room, killing all the mobs and waiting for them to respawn and do it again. I would like to point out this just creates an adherent advantage to whatever class has the best short term damage and isn't a very prolonged scenario. This also makes it so that the best class is the one who kills match the cycle the best rather than actually who kills the most fastest.

There are other ways to test farming classes that are just frankly better.


I guess if this is the system you want to use, that's totally fine.
But it's been very awkwardly tailored so you kinda control who it's useful for, the user's own efficiency for them, the specific scenarios used to determine the results and how grading doesn't seem to matter much at all.
I hope you can why I don't think this is very objective if at all. It's cool that you spent time to do this. That's all I have to say for now.



you stop -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/10/2019 0:17:49)

I think it's fair to just give a general idea of how the methodologies are made. No need to explain in depth because as far as I've tried that, people still wouldn't use the classes the way I would. Consequently, neither you nor I will use the same classes the same way as the other.

And also that said, I do have my own tier list as well, with Shaman being above nearly every class (I don't have a reliable way to test certain classes like MoM)

From there, I just had a few general tiers for farming, which looks almost entirely similar to your list so I wouldn't bother explaining things.

But for soloing DPS wise, I pretty much stand with Edme's statements where it should be very linear. Calendar classes in their own tier, followed by the two classes LC and VHL, then the list goes on. While your tier list stated certain controlled variables like no weapon boosts and no awe enhancements, I think you should at least write a one-liner stating that calendar classes scale exponentially with the said boosts, almost unfair to other classes. This weird behaviour is why I think calendar classes should always forever remain in their own tier.

Sidenote: Also if your tierlist does not include weapon boosts/awe, shouldnt Timeless Dark Caster be in the same tier as Void Highlord? I have done tests (specifically high HP like Ultra Akriloth) where Timeless performed almost exactly similar, if not better than VHL. I took roughly 3 min 30s on average on both classes with just Spiral Carve and no weapon boosts. Haven't done tests on lower hp which could be why you rank it as A



Tyroniter -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/10/2019 2:58:47)

@Aura
Even if Luck does not increase Magnitude proc rate, the main reason Luck works better than Wiz for solo is due to the crit rate refreshing mana quicker thus allowing us to keep using skills over and over again, whereas Wiz suffers from mana problems at times.



you stop -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/10/2019 4:30:48)

Nah. The real reason why luck works is neither of the two. Luck, in fact, has a smaller crit damage than wiz except for autos (which is mostly why you regen more mana anyway). Luck works because your magnitude multipliers are higher. Your magnitude crits are stronger, your magnitude HoT and DoT are higher. Not to mention your magnitude + awe enh sync is higher. Luck, all in all, has potential to outperform wiz in any aspect.

Also note that magnitude multiplier is not the same as magnitude chance.



Molevolent -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/10/2019 11:54:42)

I don't take it as an attack or anything, Edme- I agree with the majority of what you've said, actually. However, I think you're also misunderstanding a lot of things I said- you're right, I probably should be clearer.
I don't want to re-address every single point because that'd just be spewing everything I said in the last 2 posts back, but I do want to clear up that I did explain the weighting system as best I could in a paragraph, albeit I didn't give the relative weights. As well, this is supposed to be representative of how the majority of people use classes, sans rule breaking, not just high leveled or high tier players, as well.
Also, I didn't mention this clearly- while the tests do in large part contribute to the data, it's also adjusted based on situation advantage vs how often that situation appears for most people. The styx test has the most adjustment because almost none of that raw data actually affects the rating, since you're literally never in that situation, that's part of what's used to generate the adjusted margin of error.
That said, I agree that my tests are not the end-all-be-all way to evaluate classes, hence the adjustment. What suggestions would you have for high-weight tests? I'll add them to the roster.

Based on your guys' feedback, and what I had said in my last post, I think I will retool S and D to be more linear, so the list is largely linear, but adjusting for several other factors still. There is too much to discuss,as You Stop had said- which is why it's close enough for the majority of people to take away meaningful info. The few outlier situations like this won't be the make-or-break, but I would also like to make them more accurate, if and when applicable. But that aside, this means I'm gonna get rid of D, because that really is entirely a meta comment, and S will be split into S and S+ (maybe, I'll see what fits into it. For farming, MoM would be the only thing I can confidently put into S+, and for soloing DPS, the Chronos fall considerably shorter without awe or boosts, so I'm not entirely sure if they'd even make S+. I might just keep it at S top). Several things may be moved from A up to S then, and maybe an S or two will be moved down.
I did realise over the last few messages that I am adjusting very heavily for a variable that most people don't use nor look for, which is the meta/design comment, which I think is a large part of causing this discrepancy in the first place.
I'll put in a footnote about calendars, though, because that's true, that is a niche-ish case that should warrant a note, since it's a source of deviation from the other classes. Plus, I do agree with the sentiment, and so does Shim. Based on that thought, I don't know if I should denote similar about awe enhs, though.... more thinking on that another time.
Also, good catch about ADC, thanks.

Re: SC
Magni multiplier is a straight +2.75 mag out via the recent PTR. But you're right, I'm seeing a final damage multiplier of x2.92 via the 5 using (almost) full luck, and x2.68 via full wiz. I wonder if it's different on live, or it applies before a potential additive in the damage calculation for the skills.



you stop -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/10/2019 12:11:18)

quote:

the Chronos fall considerably shorter without awe or boosts, so I'm not entirely sure if they'd even make S+. I might just keep it at S top
Fair. Since the footnote is being added then I think that's fair to be said.

quote:

Based on that thought, I don't know if I should denote similar about awe enhs
Not a need. It's mostly just calendars that have almost extreme deviations with the said boosts. Immortal Chrono, for example, cannot even hit past 5 digits without boosts unless you get a lucky crit streak. Spiral Carve + Unarmed already lets the said class barely hit past 100k. Also a good thing to note that not only does spiral carve boost the class's damage by a hell lot, it lets the class have more chances at critting its nuke, which seems to be what makes or breaks the class (which can be said for all chronos practically, except SSoT and Infinity Knight)

I'm not entirely sure about the SC thing, as to why luck somehow increases its magnitude multiplier, or if it's actually not luck but strength (if what edme said was true, that the skills are indeed physical).

Bunch of entirely unsolvable questions unless I get my hands on the actual raw formula for the class's multipliers. One of the few things I'll never know like that DoT bug with the damage boosting abilities applied before or after the DoT is applied



Hardcastle McCormick -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/11/2019 2:35:45)

@Molevolent
I partly agree with Edme that the current balance is in a place where including Mage as C tier is a bit too generous.
But I'm a HUGE sucker for tier lists one way or another, so I'm gonna argue within the context of this one.

So here are my thoughts on the solo DPS category:
(Let's just say, for the sake of having SOME kind of reference points within the list, that I agree completely with Thief of Hours being D tier, Mage being C tier, and Daimon being B tier.)

-Arachnomancer is easily C tier, despite having abysmal mana regeneration on its own.
-Bard is easily C tier, as it slightly out-damages Mage.
-Chronocommander and Chronocorruptor's ratings should be swapped, and I'm not quite sure about Chronomancer.
-Chrono DragonKnight can be in A tier. Even in the scenario where your nuke noncrits, it blows most B tiers out of the water.
-DeathKnight should be knocked down to B tier. It doesn't seem that impressive to me.
-Darkblood StormKing can be promoted to B tier.
-Elemental Dracomancer may have issues, but I'd still say it's at the lower end of B tier...
-Guardian is AT LEAST as strong as Mage, so it can be promoted to C tier.
-Horc Evader with Lucky enhancements is B tier EASILY. I'd even say it's on the upper end of B tier, approaching A tier.
-Necromancer shouldn't be A tier... it's pretty close to the level of DBSK and Daimon, so I'd put it in B tier.
-NOT A MOD is high C tier. If anything it's surprisingly close to the B tier classes, but gets held back a bit by mana.
-Pirate is C tier easily. It doesn't have a lot of base damage but the crit rate is high enough to mostly make up for it.
-Skyguard Grenadier, while it's damage is quite reliable now, still belongs in C tier.
-The Collector is C tier, pretty convincingly.
-Vindicator of They is slightly worse than The Collector, but still does well enough to just barely make C tier I think.

I suppose arguing over stuff that didn't make it into C tier is a bit of a waste of time, but nonetheless there you go.

How depressing is it that Lycan and Thief of Hours, both of which require getting rank 10 in a faction, struggle to compete with Mage, A STARTING CLASS, for solo damage?
Those are high on my "needs buff" list for sure.


As for the farming ratings:

-Archpaladin and Evolved Shaman should be lowered to C tier, as they're both pretty low damage-wise, even considering Archpaladin's nuke.
-Darkside could probably be promoted to B tier...? I'm not sure as its been a long time since I've seen it in action, but I feel like it would at least be a tier above Mage...
-Naval Commander is only B tier I think. It has nice health sustain compared to Chunin, but I wouldn't put it in the same tier as stuff like Blaze Binder and Shaman.
-I can't really say anything for Master of Moglins, but I don't think Lightcaster should be S tier if Void HighLord, Vamp Lord, and Abyssal Angel are only A tier. They should either all be S tier, or all be A tier.

There's also the question of the lower-end single-target classes that have some farming ability:
-Ninja could be D tier(at very low levels it's about on the same level as Mage since the crit and haste boosts make a bigger impact, though at higher levels it's closer to that of DragonLord).
-Chrono Assassin could be moved up to B tier, same as Legion DoomKnight.
-Evolved Pumpkinlord could arguably be B tier. Despite lacking ranged abilities, the consistency of its damage makes it pretty solid for quick beatdowns.
-Elemental Dracomancer, Horc Evader, and Dragonslayer General could make it into C tier.
-Ultra OmniKnight and Glacial Berserker could also arguably work in B tier, although the latter might have issues with the buffs not applying since you need the enemy to still be alive after a hit, and the former could run out of juice if you're fighting weak monsters that die too quickly.

I guess the type of farming (low or high HP enemies) has a big impact on whether weaker single target classes are feasible.
For the most part people won't use anything weaker than Legion DoomKnight for farming, so I can see why you chose to label most of them as non-farmers.



Edme MacHeath -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/11/2019 3:18:17)

quote:

Not a need. It's mostly just calendars that have almost extreme deviations with the said boosts. Immortal Chrono, for example, cannot even hit past 5 digits without boosts unless you get a lucky crit streak. Spiral Carve + Unarmed already lets the said class barely hit past 100k. Also a good thing to note that not only does spiral carve boost the class's damage by a hell lot, it lets the class have more chances at critting its nuke, which seems to be what makes or breaks the class (which can be said for all chronos practically, except SSoT and Infinity Knight)

To be fair even if you're getting like 40-50k nukes you're still passing VHL and LC to be honest. It just becomes that you need to rely on crits to pass them while you can noncrit with awe+boosts and you'd still pass VHL.

I guess it's more possible to get a non lucky crit streak with EC/IC without the help of spiral carve but you also can't use spiral carve with LC which relies on it's nuke, although not to the level of chrono classes but if it non crits, it does affect LC alot.


If it becomes a matter of consistency, I feel like it would open the doors to other tiers, what about GB's hits being dodged a few times? What if LC's nuke doesn't crit often...
Other tiers could be argued to be potentially adjustable.


I think SSoT/SwoT, EC/IC CorruptedC all just have considerably more damage potential, as much as they could possibly fall behind VHL or LC, they also could just bury it by a mile even without awe or boosts.


And once you factor boosts/awe, now VHL and LC can't even dream of keeping up.


Other tiers are only seperated by a couple hundred DPS while S tier is kinda seperated by way more. I think even without awe or boosts, it's about the difference between A and S as lower tiers, maybe with just alittle more inconsistency.

VHL doesn't really reach into 3k+ DPS without awe or boosts the way it does with them, while EC/IC, SSoT and CorruptedC all still atleast have the potential to do so most of the time.



you stop -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/11/2019 8:10:36)

quote:

To be fair even if you're getting like 40-50k nukes you're still passing VHL and LC to be honest
I wasnt on to the class outdamaging VHL or LC for that matter. I was mostly on to the fact that a single Spiral Carve could make or break the class's own dps as opposed to without it. Just comparing IC w/ SCarve vs without. No doubt, really, this class along with other calendars can outdamage LC and VHL which is why I was arguing that they should be in their own tier. But I've said before that I'm dropping that case. If they want to make it so that LC and VHL are in the same tier as Calendars, sure go on. Separating them in different tiers does not undo the fact that they are still on top of every other class in game.

quote:

you also can't use spiral carve with LC which relies on it's nuke, although not to the level of chrono classes
That was my argument from the very beginning. Spiral Carve affects all classes (duh) but they don't produce the same magnitude as when you slap them on Calendars.

quote:

And once you factor boosts/awe, now VHL and LC can't even dream of keeping up.
Another supporting argument as to why writing that one liner note is all the more important.

Anyway that's all I have to say really. I'm dropping most other things I disagree with since I'm thinking that maybe the reason why I mostly disagree is because of the fact that I have different ways of testing as the two authors which is a source of deviation.



Molevolent -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/11/2019 12:30:27)

Thanks for the feedback, @Hardcastle McCormick
I'll retest the lot and rerate them then, based on the suggestions. There are a couple that I don't think will change just because I don't think they'll make the necessary times to, but many probably will change.
The D tier is going gone anyways, they'll probably be converted to N/A. Originally, D tier is there to say "hey, this class seems like a farmer, but isn't even at C."

Actually, I'm gonna have to delay these changes for like a week-2, since I just realised I'm going to be very busy for a bit.

Iirc most of the chronos' dps times are mostly par LC/VHL without awe. They gain advantage at intervals, but I don't remember their times far surpassing those of LC and VHL without awe or boosts- but I'm going to retest it regardless.
Even now taking consistency as a factor, I don't think there'll be significant deviation from the mean, the range deviation usually tends to standardize, and the overwhelming amount of the time, players are using these classes solo to farm bosses for low% drops, or just using the class many, many times in general.

If any of you have suggestions for significant tests that show deviation, or tests that show significant deviation and don't mind sharing, please do, I would love to add them to the roster if it can get meaningful data.



you stop -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/16/2019 23:02:30)

quote:

If any of you have suggestions for significant tests that show deviation, or tests that show significant deviation
I mostly just bothered with unarmed + awe vs unarmed without. Mostly, I really just see an extra 3 digit increase in DPS for most classes. VHL, for example, hits around 3k dps without and 3.5k with spiral carve (test was done back in lvl 85). Main reason for this is adding a weapon boost is just purely linear since that's a fixed boost while Awe is dependent on RNG.

I'd still like to believe, though, that Awe Enh (and weapon boosts for that matter) should be normalized in tests. Reason for this is due to the fact that all awe enh have their own proc chance which would normalize at some point. It's gonna be a long test to be done and honestly I don't think a lot of people have the dedication to even bother trying to normalize it. However, because they still have a fixed chance, I more or less see them as an extra skill on a X second cooldown. Example is Spiral Carve, with its 10% proc chance, should proc in one out of every 10 autoattacks. This essentially means it's on a 20s cooldown (assuming 2s autocd) or so I'd like to believe. This would be the case under normalized circumstances but of course it can proc more than once every 10 autos. But nevertheless, my view of it won't change. It's an extra skill, so to speak.



Rayimika -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/18/2019 11:47:47)

I am satisfied with recommended enchant enforcers boostless dps and cooldowns recharge spred and think all classes at current cap should be balanced accordingly.
Reliability of mitigation demands a healbot to countermeasure heaven tickets where a reliable lockdown for health drain proc buying time to stall as of APs 70% is in lack.
A severe issue is group synergy and there are measures needed to be taken to initiate-invent a way of Jackhammer critting for example R10 allowing auto-land abilities damage enconsecutiviation upon its usage against a foe for a charge or two.



creepy gy -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/18/2019 13:20:54)

Can someone explain how Lightmage can get mana back? Currently I am ranking it up and dont understand why it has more mana problems than Lightcaster. Lightcaster receives mana when they hit enemies and more if they crit, just like Lightmages first point says, but when I hit 6k crit with Lightmages last skill my mana went from 37 to 7 => 0 mana gained WHY?

@down
Thanks for explaining. They really need to update description for warrior model. Have been wondering for years why its so much worse than mage although descriptions are same.



Hardcastle McCormick -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/18/2019 18:41:27)

^
LightCaster has the same mana regen model as the Mage starter class, meaning it subtracts mana from all its abilities' costs based on how much damage they do.
LightMage has the same mana regen model as the Warrior starter class, meaning it ONLY gains mana from auto attacks and damage taken.
Specifically it's 6 mana on noncrit auto attacks, 9 mana on crit auto attacks, and 3 mana for every hit it receives from the opponent.

This makes the "mana regen output" of Warrior-based classes generally FAR lower than Mage-based ones, and this isn't unique to LightMage.
Shaman, Daimon, MindBreaker are also caster classes with the Warrior model, and in turn they all have more mana problems than Mage-based classes...

As for why. I think they just really wanted LightMage to be a half-baked inferior version of LightCaster, to make LightCaster more desirable.
It's a pretty mean thing to do to players who simply weren't around when LightCaster was available for the current price of LightMage,
but there were complaints about LightCaster being way too strong relative to how little it cost to obtain, and they decided this was an alternative to nerfing LightCaster.

The "prices" of classes are more balanced this way, but again, it really punishes players for not playing the game at a certain period of time.

Edit: I want to clarify something: Is there any difference between Infinite Dark Caster and Evolved Dark Caster?
I saw that the former could be acquired via a quest for owners of the original, but I also noticed the original class has been updated to have a ranged auto attack.
Now I heard that the original Dark Caster was not given the update, but Evolved Dark Caster was, right?



you stop -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/26/2019 2:09:36)

^ Yes the classes you mentioned got changed.

Dark Caster (original) was not given a change, to give the OG owners some sort of "OG-ness" so to speak.
Hmm should I buy a 20$ upgrade for MechQuest just for Starlord? I heard a word that in the long list of classes to be updated, verification classes seem to be part of it. I mean I can do it solely for class collection and all but I'm kind of hesitating to do a 20$ payment for a game I have no intentions of playing (MQ)



Veya -> RE: =AQW= Class Discussion Thread (4/26/2019 10:43:46)

Currently Starlord is the worst verification class, Dragonlord was a top tier soloer when it came out(it still kinda holds up but scales poorly at higher levels), Guardian was great at PvP from what I am told(no personal experience there, I don't PvP), Starlord was never good at anything.

Is it worth the money? ...eh, if you are so concerned about it getting a buff, just wait until the buff actually comes out, it's not like it is going anywhere.



Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.15625