Do weapons need a rebalance? (Full Version)

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



Message

Sapphire -> Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/2/2021 12:11:12)

I'm not sure if they do or don't, but I think there is an issue at hand.

The game's become so over the top in many player's minds that you must maximize everything you do, that's it's made many items obsolete.

You see discussions of suggesting things like: Maximizing resistance, maximizing damage, maximizing blocking, maximizing everthing.

This has led to things like the disappearance of mid offensive and mid defensive armors.

Now, in addition, I saw on discord that someone recommends only 100 Proc for defensive builds or 0 proc for offensive builds. So anything else is now somehow obsolete?

Now, I'm not by any means saying there arn't players who use or prefer weapons with say, 20% specials. That's their choice. But the echo chamber sure would have you think you've made a bad decision if that's what you use.

I think the AQ wiki stuff even suggests mostly, if not all, 0 proc for offensive builds.

So while the math suggests you're better off this way for sure, I kind of think maybe there needs to be a discussion as to rebalancing weapons with specials.

So I was thinking maybe armor lean should affect weapon specials.

If the lean made a mathematical adjustment to weapon specials (not counting 100 proc), each build (FD, or FO) would be able to use any weapon and get the same output. The difference is simply in consistency... 0 proc yields more consistency due to the 9% buff and a 20 proc weapon would do the same average, but 80% of the time it's less than 0 proc but 20% of the time it's much, much greater to balance the average exactly.

This would lead to the creation of a wide swath of weapons with a much wider swath of spec rates, too. I believe for the future of balance, a well as content creation, something like this might be necessary.

And no more of this min-mod nonsense . It would just become a preference.

Those that are into trying to find the best of the best and want only that may object because they feel like what's the point if everything comes out the same? To a degree, I get that. I would also argue the different flavors, effects, etc then should come into play.

But if I were involved in creating new content for the game, as a game balancer, artist, etc... it would almost feel pointless to make a 20 proc weapon knowing it likely would disappoint the player base since supposedly all that's desired is things that maxes your character to the utmost possible way...



Thoughts?



ruleandrew -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/2/2021 22:52:03)

0% weapon special rate case
Fully defensive armour: 1.08 * 0.8 = 0.864 melee units
Neutral armour: 1.08 * 1 = 1.08 melee units.
Fully offensive armour: 1.08 * 1.25 = 1.35 melee units

20% weapon special rate case
Fully defensive armour: 0.8 * 0.8 + 1.5 * 0.2 = 0.94 melee units
Neutral armour: 1 * 0.8 + 1.5 * 0.2 = 1.1 melee units.
Fully offensive armour: 1.25 * 0.8 + 1.5 * 0.2 = 1.3 melee units

100% weapon special rate case
Fully defensive armour: 1 * 1 = 1 melee unit
Neutral armour: 1 * 1 = 1 melee unit
Fully offensive armour: 1 * 1 = 1 melee unit

The weapons are well balanced.



Aura Knight -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/2/2021 23:37:06)

Isn't there an entire section for game balance? Kinda already answers your initial question.

As the game progresses and difficulty of challenges changes there should be changes to the gear we use.

There are obvious benefits in using certain weapon types with each build. FD has the advantage of lower incoming damage but can make use of bows which aren't bound by armor lean allowing for more outgoing damage. Then FO gear has no need to play defense because the harder you hit the faster you win a fight and less time a fight takes, less damage you take.

Not surprising characters at the max levels use the best gear suited for their builds. Wouldn't say that's an issue of balance but more so an unspoken desire for variety. Even having multiple characters I find quite a bit of overlap in the gear.



Sapphire -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/3/2021 7:11:00)

I really wasn't implying it needed to be done. My very first sentence alluded to it. I also intended for this to be a discussion, hence why I posted here.

The numbers ruleanddrew posted show they're close. Maybe some see it as "close enough", maybe some see it as "not balanced".

I am on the fence because of the issue of "optimization" making it so some weapons become a bit of a waste of time and space.

In my opinion, although small, if a FO armor is giving you 1.35 melee units in a 0 proc weapon, it should be giving you 1.35 units in a 20 proc weapon,and should be giving you 1.35 units in a 30 proc...40 proc...50 proc....15 proc...10 proc....5 proc, etc


This would create an environment where staff can create a 20 proc, 30 proc, 15 proc, etc etc etc it be just as good as 0 proc...and they're not wasting their time since the echo chamber is just going to look at the .05 difference and go for optimization and make sure everything they use is 0 proc...making anything else obsolete.

But I do understand the notion that it's "close enough' And that's why I wanted to bring it up for discussion.



Novyx -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/3/2021 7:43:12)

Not trying to detract from the goal of your original post, but I felt there were a couple things you've said that warrant a response:
What part of doing the math to calculate which combinations of items does the most damage (or is the most effective in another way) in a specific scenario can be described as an echo chamber, as you seem to often state? Mathematics isn't about opinion, so the closest doing math to figure out which items are ideal comes to an echo chamber would be if players were then told they had to run said items. This brings me to the other subject I was going to touch on: Just because an item is optimal, doesn't mean you have to run it. For places like the wiki, or when guiding a player over discord or on the forums it's generally safer to recommend more optimal items (to make up for a potential lack of player knowledge/skill, or to not overload said players with choices so early), but once players are more familiar with the game picking out less-optimal but more enjoyable flavour options, whether for visuals or gameplay reasons, is perfectly acceptable. Don't feel that just because your favourite weapon does 20% less damage than others you can't use it, the game isn't so hard that you need to optimize to clear content.



Sapphire -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/3/2021 8:46:54)

First off, nobody is arguing that you can't get by without the absolute most optimal build, gear, strategy, etc.
But the game over time has become hyper over-analyzed.
Thus,
The math *is* the echo chamber. The math shows what to use in FD, FO, etc. The *point* is, should there be a rebalancing, albeit very small, such that the math allows for the following scenario?:

In all armor types, it doesn't matter if you choose a weapon with 0, 5, 10, 15, ----->80 proc etc etc etc that the math will come out *the same*, thus no longer nullifying HUGE SWATHS of game content simply because *THE MATH* directs you to specific equipment?


IDK if that's too difficult to understand,or if I explained it less clearly before.


Since the game has become about Uber optimization because....the math..... the reality is large swaths of items are never desired.

A 20 proc weapon is less desireable in FO and FD armors. It's only better in a neutral armor.

What percentage of the game do you think prefers a neutral armor over a FO or FD ? Probably not many. So..THEREFORE,

For content creation...if staff decided to make a 20 proc, or 30 proc, or 40 proc weapon...etc it would be by in large, kind of pointless..because the math (echochamber) says it's only beneficial in neutral armors.

So I'd bet if it didn't matter if the weapon was 0 proc, 20 proc, or 80 proc..if the damage outcome was exactly the same...this would open up many more possibilities in terms of "desired weapons"

I'd bet, and get, if people like it the way it is. I'm not even arguing that I don't. I do still see it as an issue. Maybe it's a small one, but if the math is eliminating huge swaths of items from being desireable, that's not good.



Novyx -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/3/2021 9:24:26)

That wouldn't be an echo chamber then, because echo chambers are about opinions that don't see rebuttals due to being made within closed circles, and math isn't really about opinions. The game being analyzed to said degree also naturally happens; this occurs in every game, especially ones that have been around for a long time and are slow moving like AQ.

On the point of proc weapons (and more relevant to the original discussion), it's not necessarily the case that 20-procs and co. are dead on arrival; while they may not have the consistency and higher average damage of 0-proc weapons, they can be designed to make use of their weapon specials to offer gameplay dynamics that 0-procs do not, e.g. a niche for high-proc weapons is that their specials don't use stats for accuracy, so 0 DEX builds can use a proc weapon to hit more frequently than if they used a 0-proc. There's also room for fitting effects that you may not want every turn on the weapons, but the RNG nature of proc weapons makes that very unreliable, which deducts from its desirability.



Sapphire -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/3/2021 10:45:43)

Proposal: Have a couple ideas to flesh out here. This is going to see if we should buff specials to 1.75 from 1.5, or nerf 0 proc to 1.04 and see what we come up with.

Full Offensive Now

No Special->1.08 * 1.25 = 1.35 melee units
20% Special->1.25 * 0.8 + 1.5 * 0.2 = 1.3 melee units
100% Special->1 * 1 = 1 melee unit

If you buff the damage on 20% specials to 1.75, then on FO you have a balance of

No Special->1.08 * 1.25 = 1.35 melee units
20% Special->1.25 * 0.8 + 1.75 * 0.2 = 1.35 melee units

If you nerf the damage on 0 proc weapons to 1.04, then on FO you have a balance of

No Special->1.04 * 1.25 = 1.3 melee units
20% Special->1.25 * 0.8 + 1.5 * 0.2 = 1.3 melee units

Let's see how this affects Fully defensive if we try both of these:

Full Defensive Now

No Special->1.08 * 0.8 = 0.864 melee units
20% Special->0.8 * 0.8 + 1.5 * 0.2 = 0.94 melee units
100% Special->1 * 1 = 1 melee unit

If you buff special damage to 1.75, you now get:

20% Special->0.8 * 0.8 + 1.75 * 0.2 = 0.99 melee units

If you nerf 0 proc to 1.04, you now get:

No Special-> 1.04 * 0.8 = 0.832 melee units

It looks like the better choice is buffing weapon specials.


For both FO and FD, if you buff special damage to 1.75 @ 20%, the damage for FO and FD is approx the same as an alternative weapon choice. In one case it's 20 proc vs 0 proc (FO) and the other case it's 20 proc vs 100% Proc (FD)

Now let's see how this effects Neutral:

Neutral Now

No Special->1.08 * 1 = 1.08 melee units.
20% Special->1 * 0.8 + 1.5 * 0.2 = 1.1 melee units.
100% Special->1 * 1 = 1 melee unit

If you buff special damage to 1.75 you now get:

20% Special->1 * 0.8 + 1.75 * 0.2 = 1.15 melee units.

If you nerf 0 proc to 1.04, you now get:

No Special->1.04 * 1 = 1.04 melee units.



Given the two ideas, while I by no means just want to play in continued power creep, I think if staff would buff special damage @ 20% proc from 1.5 to 1.75, this does the following:


Full Offensive armor:
20 proc-> 1.35 melee units
0 proc-> 1.35 melee units

Full Defensive Armor:
20 Proc-> 0.99 melee units
100 proc-> 1.00 melee units

Neutral Armor:
20 Proc-> 1.15 Melee units
0 Proc-> 1.08 Melee Units
100 Proc-> 1.00 Melee Units


1. FO armors choose between 0 proc and a weapon with a special (damage equal now)
2. FD armors choose between 100 proc ans weapon with a special (damage equal now)
3. Neutral armors likely chooses one choice, weapons with a special, unless they wish for more consistency then they could go with 0 proc. There are a few 0 proc weapons with additional buffs (zerker stuff, at HP cost) that could catch up and probably still surpass a weapon with a special.

Even though this change still might limit neutral armors to one choice, it is the least used armor type, and now we have only one armor type, the least desired, that doesn't have equal footing, and that armor still actually just received a buff!


Now, as long as there's a table that if you go below 20% or above 20%, the damage always comes out the same...now we may have something worth looking at!

Spec Table

Special Value =0.35
Rate------- Damage Value
5%-------------7.000
10%------------3.500
15%------------2.333
20%------------1.750
25%------------1.400
30%------------1.170
35%------------1.000
40%------------0.875
45%------------0.777
50%------------0.700

Now, no matter the rate, you have a damage value to get to .35 special value so that damage is always the same long term.



Legendary Ash -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/3/2021 19:04:16)

The above numbers are incorrect as players take /1.1 to account for the fact for a build with expected stats with any weapon special proc in Neutral lean produces 110% melee.
100% procs have been changed to deal 110% since Game Engine 44.

Neutral to (Mid)Offensive leans are unable to have greater damage output than their damage intakes through standard weapons, only (Mid)Defensive at a certain proc cutoff point can achieve a greater damage output to intake ratio.

Specials are currently valued at 10% melee/proc, 35% melee is a large jump, and this controversial suggestion brings tremendous problems of its own, as it will require recalculating Weapon/Skills/Spells/EleVul/EleEmpow/Immobility/Damage reduction/Monster balance standards and instantaneously reclassify all such modern equipment as outdated once a single piece of equipment on the proposed standards is released, one will question whether a proposed minor power creep of 115/1.1 compared to 110/1.1 is necessary with consideration of all these consequences.



Sapphire -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/4/2021 9:36:36)

Interesting.

I figured something like I put out there would be insane work, so I never thought it would be something to actually be considered even if it all seemingly looked good on paper.

And it did dawn on me how it would maybe affect a 10 turn model, which also suggests damage taken.


At the end of the day, today's gameplay means nobody would choose a weapon with a normal special over other types because 100 proc is best for defensive and 0 proc is best for offensive, and almost nobody is going to go with neutral leans. You're either trying to knock out as many HP' as fast as possible in FO, or trying to survive with FD, potentially using pets or trying to out tank some monsters.

If updates to game engine 44 means the numbers can't work, then I really don't know how one would be able to make weapons with normal specials on par with others. If the answer is a shrug of the shoulders and "it is what it is", then yeah it is what it is.



ruleandrew -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/4/2021 10:24:37)

100% special rate weapon average damage output shall not exceed 1.08 melee unit. This change should give X% special rate weapon have a role in neutral armour lean. X is 5 to 40.



Sapphire -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/4/2021 10:46:59)

Yes, weapons with specials are best in neutral armors.

But the point is, who uses neutral armors..and therefore, using weapons with specials ...



.*. .*. .*. -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/13/2021 17:45:34)

This is just my humble opinion, the special rate is not the issue but what the special can do for you.
It is of course not easy for the staff to make every special in a "special way", but a dream scenario would be that if a special occurs, then it should have a chance of inflicting something positive for you.
Maybe depending on which clan, alignment, subrace and even class you belong to, could be a factor to make weapons with high rate specials more desirable.

I am sure there are still some old players around and they most likely remember the times when they prayed for the special from Onyxx Wartexx combined with the old standard of IronThorn + misc boosting item and Dunamis pet/guest equipped , just sheer raw damage that in most cases ended the battle right away. Well it is true that Onyxx Wartexx may have not been the best example to use, since its rate is only 5%, but you catch my drift. [8D]

I still use some weapons with 20% specials, but only specials that could benefit the upcoming turn(s) for me, paralysis and freeze are among my favourites. It is a risk I am willing to take to get one extra turn in return, and it does not matter to me that average damage output is less because of the special going off. This is my preference, but it does not mean it is the most effective one.

However I admit that there are a lot of beautiful weapons created with amazing special animations which is not in your favour if the special goes off. The special just hits the enemy and your expected average damage output is not met, and therefore the weapon itself becomes less desirable, at least to me.

These kind of weapons is a loss of valuable time that the staff has put in to create a beautiful weapon + special animation + coding and balancing it.

At the same time if I am scanning through my inventory, I have enjoyed a lot of weapons during my years playing AQ which I am not using any longer, items eventually get replaced by something better, it is a natural progression.

I am sure there are many players out there that still enjoy weapons with high rate specials, it can be due to the design of the weapon, the special animation can be breathtaking and you simply don't get tired of seeing it over and over, or you are playing by some specific theme.
Celestia and Wicked Breaker comes to mind, which I would have loved to see a level 150 version, the specials of these weapons are beautiful and especially Celestia has an interesting special based on the amount of INT you have.

The most important is that you have fun when you play and I believe that AQ has never been as good as it is right now,
because there are so many ways to play AQ, especially if you compare it to the old days.

Anyhow, thank you for the topic. [:)]



Zennistrad -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/13/2021 18:26:32)

The main issue with Weapon Specials, for me, is that almost every weapon-based skill in the game respects your special — meaning that if you perform a weapon-based skill, you'll have a chance of triggering your weapon special instead of performing the skill you selected.

This, to me, is entirely backwards and defeats the point of having skills at all. The reason why armors with skills are generally much more powerful than armors with only passive bonuses is that they allow you to have control over when and how their effects trigger.

This is also why the only no-drop armor in the game worth using is the Insightful Armor of Awe, and why I have advocated for revamping the Ultraguardian and Awe armors to have simple but broadly-useful active skills.



.*. .*. .*. -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/13/2021 19:58:28)

@Zennistrad

I totally agree with you, though I do wonder how weapons like bows with 100% specials are coded compared to a weapon with 20% special rate? Or are they simply coded different?
Not sure if bow users are using for example the Bloodzerker armours or not?

I assume a game engine update would be needed to solve this.



Sapphire -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/13/2021 20:16:08)

quote:

These kind of weapons is a loss of valuable time that the staff has put in to create a beautiful weapon + special animation + coding and balancing it.


This is where I am mostly coming from.

If a 0 proc is always most useful for FO and 100 proc is always most useful for FD and nobody uses neutral armors, where standard 20 proc, etc weapons are always most useful...then standard weapons with a special are not used..and then you have ...read the quote


THAT'S the point



Zennistrad -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/13/2021 20:24:59)

quote:

I totally agree with you, though I do wonder how weapons like bows with 100% specials are coded compared to a weapon with 20% special rate? Or are they simply coded different?
Not sure if bow users are using for example the Bloodzerker armours or not?

I assume a game engine update would be needed to solve this.


For what it's worth, there already appears to be a designated in-engine tag for 100-proc weapons, judging by how the Luna Neko has passives that only trigger if you're wielding a 100-proc

("Appears" being the operative word since I don't think it's been explained exactly how that trigger works from a coding standpoint, but it seems reasonable enough to assume until proven otherwise)



Veleqwii_Fox -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/13/2021 21:10:54)

Well maybe it's not the weapons that need rebalance? If there are more Neutral armors with desirable effects (that may or may not sync well with 20-procs) then maybe 20-proc weapons would get some love



ruleandrew -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/13/2021 23:09:02)

When player use weapon-based skill while holding a weapon that has a special rate between 5% and 40%:
Disable weapon specials. Boost weapon damage by * 1.1 (weapon special cannot occur while weapon-based skill is in use).



Sapphire -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/15/2021 12:42:03)

quote:

This is just my humble opinion, the special rate is not the issue but what the special can do for you.


I am in agreement here, but my idea of boosting a 20% proc from 1.5 to 1.75 to me fits here. It moves average damage to on par with a 0 proc weapon in a FO armor, and it does the same as a 100 proc weapon in a FD armor.

And just like with how statuses get implimented with a decrease in damage to "pay for" the effect, if damage was on par then a paid for effect would be *more* worth it, especially if the effect was a good one. I still think, despite some of the rebuttals presented, something should be done with a normal weapon.

I also like the idea that attempting a damaging skill should disable weapon specials. Or, maybe the special is an add-on to the skill. You'd have your skill damage plus special damage and special status infliction...




Legendary Ash -> RE: Do weapons need a rebalance? (8/15/2021 19:59:55)

Modern skills are either weapon-based that inherits weapon effects or spell-type that do not proc weapon specials, the former offers an advantage of a special overriding the eventual resource consumption of a skill, which delays being in the situation of lower normal weapon attack and weapon special that the latter is in when choosing not to or unable to cast skills.

This is a non-issue for Guardian characters who have forged the Awe weapons as Weapon-based skills currently have synergy with Powerworddie aligned specials that in standard situations results in higher damage than a skill.
For Adventurers, there exists Frankenglaive and Sacragon Talon to apply a pure damage boost on its special.

There is balance in having benefits unique for each type of skill and shouldn't let greed drive a demand to have the best of both worlds.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.125