Inconsistent penalties associated with Omni-elemental Effects

Inconsistent penalties associated with Omni-elemental Effects (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Game Balance Issues

Message

Lv 1000 -> Inconsistent penalties associated with Omni-elemental Effects (1/4/2022 23:09:19)
Multiple effects in AQ can apply to attacks of a single element, multiple elements, and even every element at the same time. The effects most relevant to this GBI include, but are not limited to: BtH Boost Defense Boost Defense Loss Elemental Shields Elemental Vulnerability. These effects are found on variety of items, especially more recently released ones. However, the application of penalties when these effects apply to more than one element is highly inconsistent. AQ has several penalties that are applied to effects in these situations: The always-useful penalty, which is applied to effects use non-standard elements, such as Harm or Heal. This penalty either reduces effect power by x0.9 effect power or increase effect cost by x1.1. The omni-elemental penalty, which is applied to effects that apply to all elements. This penalty either reduces effect power by x0.6, or reduces effect power by x0.8 and increases effect cost by x1.2. When applied correctly, this provides the player with a trade-off: You must choose between more potent single-element effects or less potent effects that apply to a wider range of situations. The problem is that, in practice, these penalties are almost never properly applied, examples include: Bag of Mixed Nuts, Runic Binding, Z-Finity Gauntlet: Space, (Twisted) Pig Drake, Invincible Star, and Geocastellum Robes’ skill. These items’ effects often have a form of the always-useful penalty (or other incorrectly applied penalties) rather than a form of the omni-elemental penalty. There have been some “recent” items that have the correct penalties applied to their omni-elemental effects: Bun-Banneret Pet/Guest, Edoc Imanok, and New Year’s Surprise, however, these items are unfortunately in the minority. This absence of proper penalties disincentivizes the use of single-element effects. Let us look at an example: Why would anyone practically use Epoch Slice instead of Runic Binding? There really is no good reason as Runic Binding only receives a x1.1 cost increase for its omni-elemental effects rather than a proper penalty. In short, the incorrect application of penalties to omni-elemental effects has created an environment in which single-element effects have no chance to be competitive with omni-elemental effects. To address this problem, I propose that: Only truly non-elemental effects (Harm, Heal, etc.) should receive the x0.9 power or x1.1 cost always-useful penalty. All effects which apply to all elements should receive an equivalent of the omni-elemental penalty. This could could take a number of forms: x0.6 to power, x0.8 to power/x1.2 to cost, or even x1.4 to cost. A more consistent application of these penalties will allow for single-element effects to be more competitive, encouraging their use. Credits - Special thanks to @CH4OT1C! for assisting in the writing/brainstorming of this GBI.

Dreiko Shadrack -> RE: Inconsistent penalties associated with Omni-elemental Effects (1/4/2022 23:21:49)
Yes please, if there's one thing I can't stand it's this type of inconsistency in boosts/penalties.

ruleandrew -> RE: Inconsistent penalties associated with Omni-elemental Effects (1/5/2022 0:25:17)
Assumption on monster resistance Monster energy resistance is 130 % and monster harm resistance is 100 %. Current outcome Runic Binding general EleVul cost: 40 * 1.1 = 44 % melee Runic Binding general EleVul boost on monster: + (80 / 0.85 / 4 / 1.4 = ~16.81) % damage taken for <Hits> turns Epoch Slice energy EleVul cost: 50 % melee Epoch Slice energy EleVul boost on monster: + (100 / 0.85 / 5 / 1.4 = ~16.81) % damage taken for <Hits> turns Ideal outcome Runic Binding general EleVul cost: 40 % melee Runic Binding general EleVul boost on monster: + ( 80 * 0.6 / 0.85 / 4 / 1.4 = ~10.08) % damage taken for <Hits> turns Epoch Slice energy EleVul cost: 50 % melee Epoch Slice energy EleVul boost on monster: + (100 / 0.85 / 5 / 1.4 = ~16.81) % damage taken for <Hits> turns

Sapphire -> RE: Inconsistent penalties associated with Omni-elemental Effects (1/5/2022 1:09:07)
I'm not sure I would agree runics should do smaller ele vuln considering game assumptions is 130% to 1 element. Perhaps it costs less because you arn't assumed to be doing an attack/spell next round of every element. It kind of feels like the omni elemental argument might actually be made by staff for the opposite reason from the logic exhibited, due to assumed 100% harm. The boost to energy is the same as epoch slice, but is the actual damage on the casted round feels like it's less considering 130% vs 100%? So I am curious what is...assuming 130% to Energy and 100% Harm. 1. Average damage per turn for both spells. I have a hunch epoch slice wins here anyway, but doesn't this start to grow in epoch slice's favor the more you cast it? I'm unsure so someone plz throw that down here for comparison. If epoch slice's damage is higher versus an assumed 130% energy compared to runic binding's 100%, despite higher "cost" for the effect, then shouldn't it then be fine? Again, nobody is casting an 8 hit spell with all elements afterwards. You all might be looking at cost-> for effect only and forgetting damage on the cast itself vs assumptions. But I am not a numbers guy when it comes to this, so maybe what I am asking for will change my mind. Edit-> Runics loses -10% then MC bring it back to -5%, then a further 44% is taken, for 49%. It's more even than you think.

ruleandrew -> RE: Inconsistent penalties associated with Omni-elemental Effects (1/5/2022 4:05:41)
10 % elemental vulnerability boost to monster note Melee weapon deal 100 % melee on monster case: melee weapon deal 110 % melee on monster under 10 % elemental vulnerability boost to monster. Magic weapon deal 75 % melee on monster case: magic weapon deal 85 % melee on monster under 10 % elemental vulnerability boost to monster. Pet deal 40 % melee on monster case: pet deal 44 % melee on monster under 10 % elemental vulnerability boost to monster. Overcharge pet deal 60 % melee on monster case: overcharge pet deal 64 % melee on monster under 10 % Elemental vulnerability boost to monster. Guest deal 60 % melee on monster case: guest deal 66 % melee on monster under 10 % elemental vulnerability boost to monster. Overcharge guest deal 90 % melee on monster case: overcharge guest deal 96 % melee on monster under 10 % elemental vulnerability boost to monster. Efficient spell deal 150 % melee on monster case: efficient spell deal 160 % melee on monster under 10 % elemental vulnerability boost to monster. Spell deal 200 % melee on monster case: spell deal 210 % melee on monster under 10 % elemental vulnerability boost to monster. Epoch Slice starting value 200 * 29 / 24 * 1.05 = 253.75 % melee Epoch Slice raw damage (monster energy resistance is 130 %) (253.75 - 50) * 1.3 = 264.875 % melee Runic Binding starting value 200 * 29 / 24 * 0.95 = ~229.5833 % melee Runic Binding raw damage (monster energy resistance is 130 %) 200 * 29 / 24 * 0.95 - 88 = ~141.5833 % melee

Lv 1000 -> RE: Inconsistent penalties associated with Omni-elemental Effects (1/5/2022 14:13:41)
quote: Assumption on monster resistance Monster energy resistance is 130 % and monster harm resistance is 100 %. Monster resistances have nothing to do with the specific comparison between Runic Binding and Epoch Slice, and more generally have nothing to do with this GBI as a whole. quote: Current outcome Runic Binding general EleVul cost: 40 * 1.1 = 44 % melee Runic Binding general EleVul boost on monster: + (80 / 0.85 / 4 / 1.4 = ~16.81) % damage taken for <Hits> turns Epoch Slice energy EleVul cost: 50 % melee Epoch Slice energy EleVul boost on monster: + (100 / 0.85 / 5 / 1.4 = ~16.81) % damage taken for <Hits> turns Ideal outcome Runic Binding general EleVul cost: 40 % melee Runic Binding general EleVul boost on monster: + ( 80 * 0.6 / 0.85 / 4 / 1.4 = ~10.08) % damage taken for <Hits> turns Epoch Slice energy EleVul cost: 50 % melee Epoch Slice energy EleVul boost on monster: + (100 / 0.85 / 5 / 1.4 = ~16.81) % damage taken for <Hits> turns Yeah this is a good way to show a potential way to adjust Runic Binding to use correct penalties. quote: I'm not sure I would agree runics should do smaller ele vuln considering game assumptions is 130% to 1 element. Perhaps it costs less because you arn't assumed to be doing an attack/spell next round of every element. It kind of feels like the omni elemental argument might actually be made by staff for the opposite reason from the logic exhibited, due to assumed 100% harm. The boost to energy is the same as epoch slice, but is the actual damage on the casted round feels like it's less considering 130% vs 100%? So I am curious what is...assuming 130% to Energy and 100% Harm. 1. Average damage per turn for both spells. I have a hunch epoch slice wins here anyway, but doesn't this start to grow in epoch slice's favor the more you cast it? I'm unsure so someone plz throw that down here for comparison. If epoch slice's damage is higher versus an assumed 130% energy compared to runic binding's 100%, despite higher "cost" for the effect, then shouldn't it then be fine? Again, nobody is casting an 8 hit spell with all elements afterwards. You all might be looking at cost-> for effect only and forgetting damage on the cast itself vs assumptions. But I am not a numbers guy when it comes to this, so maybe what I am asking for will change my mind. Again, monster resistances are not an important factor here. I am specifically talking about the penalties that should be applied to effects based on the number of elements that any given effect applies to. The comparison I was making is focused on Epoch Slice is not being worth a spell slot when you can use Runic Binding for all elements. I know that they are slightly different items (different turn counts, etc.) but it is difficult to find items to compare for this GBI without talking about hypothetical items which I want to avoid. quote: Edit-> Runics loses -10% then MC bring it back to -5%, then a further 44% is taken, for 49%. It's more even than you think. The always-useful penalty that Runic Binding has for dealing Harm damage is not at all related to the penalties that should be applied to the EleVuln and EleEmpower effects applied by the spell/skill. Also, your bit about 40% --> 44% --> 49% is incorrect as the always-useful penalty for harm damage does not interact with how much the EleVuln and EleEmpower cost or the potency of their effects. Regardless, an always-useful/non-elemental penalty is not sufficient nor appropriate when an effect applies all elements. As such, the current penalties are not enough. quote: 10 % elemental vulnerability boost to monster note Melee weapon deal 100 % melee on monster case: melee weapon deal 110 % melee on monster under 10 % elemental vulnerability boost to monster. Magic weapon deal 75 % melee on monster case: magic weapon deal 85 % melee on monster under 10 % elemental vulnerability boost to monster. Pet deal 40 % melee on monster case: pet deal 44 % melee on monster under 10 % elemental vulnerability boost to monster. Overcharge pet deal 60 % melee on monster case: overcharge pet deal 64 % melee on monster under 10 % Elemental vulnerability boost to monster. Guest deal 60 % melee on monster case: guest deal 66 % melee on monster under 10 % elemental vulnerability boost to monster. Overcharge guest deal 90 % melee on monster case: overcharge guest deal 96 % melee on monster under 10 % elemental vulnerability boost to monster. Efficient spell deal 150 % melee on monster case: efficient spell deal 160 % melee on monster under 10 % elemental vulnerability boost to monster. Spell deal 200 % melee on monster case: spell deal 210 % melee on monster under 10 % elemental vulnerability boost to monster. Epoch Slice starting value 200 * 29 / 24 * 1.05 = 253.75 % melee Epoch Slice raw damage (monster energy resistance is 130 %) (253.75 - 50) * 1.3 = 264.875 % melee Runic Binding starting value 200 * 29 / 24 * 0.95 = ~229.5833 % melee Runic Binding raw damage (monster energy resistance is 130 %) 200 * 29 / 24 * 0.95 - 88 = ~141.5833 % melee I'm not really sure why you're talking damage here? The damage Runic Binding/Epoch Slice isn't at all related to the content of this GBI, which is about the penalties applied to EleVuln and other effects when they apply to all elements, i.e., their damage has no bearing on the penalties that should be applied.

Sapphire -> RE: Inconsistent penalties associated with Omni-elemental Effects (1/6/2022 20:40:24)
I disagree it's not enough because I believe there is an assumption that's simply being discounted altogether. That is, if you have a standard...and that standard says the average "worst" resistance is 130%, and if we happen to be talking about energy, then you have to assume 130% vs 100% (or less) because the standards of this game will always assume you will attack versus the monster's worse resistance. Every item's balance starts with assumed average standards. That has to be included. And on the flip side, runics being harm assumes you will be using Harm versus resistances below 100% as only in that instance will it become favorable, and, the ele vuln, being multiplicative, is less effective under assumed standards. That is to say, 116% ele vuln bonus is less helpful versus 50% resistances than epoch slice's versus energy's assumed average of 130%. Lowering the ele vuln not only doesn't make sense to me, especially considering the spell will do less damage on average, saying that because it affects all elements as the reason it should be lowered I feel is the reason it shouldnt...because you're still doing LESS DPT using it, and nobody is using an 8 element (and thus boosted) spell/attack afterwards. I really do feel like the argument thats being made to lower it is the same argument that needs to be made to justify it. I think real life game play justifies it. It's a trade off. Boost all elements for lower damage, or boost a specific element for more damage. It's the same tradeoff that's argued across multiple facets of AQ.

CH4OT1C! -> RE: Inconsistent penalties associated with Omni-elemental Effects (1/7/2022 17:39:01)
@SapphireCatalyst2021: Your argument is that a lesser penalty can be waived because harm spells are hitting at 100% resistance, whereas standard spells are hitting based upon an assumption of 130%. This statement is inherently flawed. It assumes you have waive that lesser penalty because of another perceived inconsistency. That is not how balance works; your assumption is wrong. Regarding the inconsistency you raise: Harm damage has never been designed to hit against monsters with standard assumed resistances. If it were, it would never be used in the first place because it almost always hits at 100% (except in a few cases, where it normally deals less). Harm is deliberately intended for situations in which standard monster resistances are all <100% (or, rather, <90% when accounting for the always useful penalty). There are two different assumptions at play. You are correct in saying that a 116% elevun at a lower base resistance is going to add less additional damage than a 116% elevun at a higher resistance e.g. 130%. However, monsters have a set amount of points to allocate to their health, their resistances, blocking ability etc. When monsters have lower resistances, they have lower health and blocking to compensate. As such, you don't need as much extra power at lower resistance because the game already accounts for it. Your argument does not hold water because it selectively accounts for the mechanics at play and assumptions made. There are counterbalances.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition

0.125