Various Balance Issues

Various Balance Issues (Full Version)

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

Message

Lv 1000 -> Various Balance Issues (1/23/2022 1:20:57)
Quickcast Effects and Lucky Strike Damage: quote: Quickcast effect should not be able to Lucky Strike as this would mean that the player could potentially receive multiple turns of Lucky Strike damage within the same turn. This is an issue because player is expected to only be able to receive one turn of Lucky Strike damage per turn. There are a few examples of quickcast effects both being able to Lucky Strike and not being able to Lucky Strike. Can Lucky Strike Haunted/Eclipsed Dragonlord Shield: Barrier Skill Gandolphin Spell Insightful Armor of Awe: Shield of Insight Cannot Lucky Strike Spectral Chains Knife to Meat You Other Cases: Necromancer Class: (Aggressive) Anima Ward This falls into an "Other" category because it is currently bugged. These passives are not meant to be able to Lucky Strike (see info subs), yet they currently do. Fear Chance: Undead Reindeer Stampede vs. Looming/Searing Fear (Necromancer Class) quote: Both Undead Reindeer Stampede and Looming/Searing Fear pay 50% damage for a Fear effect. Undead Reindeer Stampede: Pays MC + 50% spell damage (100% melee) for a 42.02% stun rate Fear that lasts 4 turns. Looming/Searing Fear: Pays 50% spell damage (100% melee) and maybe MC (unsure) for a 50% stun rate Fear that lasts 4 turns. Clearly, one of the above is incorrect as both spells are paying a very similar amount for a significant difference in Fear stun rate. From what I understand about stuns, I'm leaning towards Looming/Searing Fear being the correct calculation. Thoughts: The monster's turn is worth 140% melee, we multiply that by 4 because the status lasts that long, so we have 1404 = 560% melee, however the monster has hit rate of 0.85 so we have 5600.85 = 476% melee, then we consider the save for both of these effects which is 50%, so we have 4760.5 = 238% melee, next we consider the player's hit rate, which is 0.85 for both spells, so we have 2380.85 = 202.3% melee. Now that we're at this point we need to decide which stun rate fear of the two spells makes sense given that this effect costs ~200% melee if the stun rate were to be 100%. We can easily see that Looming/Searing Fear applies a 50% stun rate Fear which would line up with the spell's cost (albeit roughly), i.e., 202.30.5 = 101.15% melee, which lines up almost exactly with the spell paying 100% melee, or 50% damage. Dreamweaver Armor: Arbitrary Lockouts and Missing EleComp quote:* Scathing Dreamweaver's "toggle" Overwhelming Insight is has multiple effects, it: 1) Changes the armor's lean to Spellcaster Lean. 2) Boosts the damage of spells by +25%. 3) Changes your basic attack into a spell that is worth 75% melee which is split between damage and MP healing. Additionally, it locks you out of all player actions except for normal attacks (effectively a spell while active), spells and the flee button. Let's go through each of the above and see how these effects are paid for. 1) Changing armor leans has no cost (other than possibly an MC, but this is not important now), see Paladin, Necromancer, etc. 2) This is paid for via SP, +25% spell damage is +50% melee, which is 196 SP 3) This effect is free as the assumed normal attack for mages deals 75% damage, and the spell that replaces the normal attack is also valued at 75% melee, thus they cancel out and the spell has no cost. This leaves us with the last remaining penalty, the lockouts. You could make the claim that they pay for the lean swap, but this is AT MOST worth 5% melee (an MC), however, claiming that this many character lockouts is worth 5% melee is a HUGE stretch. Therefore, I conclude that the character lockouts are entirely arbitrary and serve no purpose in the balancing of this item. While I understand the thematics of having them exist, thematics do not take priority over actual balance and never should. I see two possibilities, either 1) The lockouts are removed, or 2) The lockouts are kept, but beneficial effects are added to compensate for the lockouts existing. As a further note unrelated to this specific issue: Because the armor's normal attacks are locked to a fire spell for the duration of the toggle, it would makes sene for the spell to get EleComp since you are locked to a fire spell while using a fire armor. I can understand why it wouldn't for general balance reasons but I thought I would mention this as it technically should recieve EleComp. Eye of Naab: Effects Are too Weak. quote: Eye of Naab has you skip your turn, on a save roll, at apply a +40 MRM Defence Boost and a +15 BtH Boost, each for 1 turn. However, these effect magnitudes/durations do not match what is paid. The player's turn is worth 100% melee and with a 50% save, this is worth 200% melee. If we assume that 100% melee goes to each effect, this would be a +60 MRM Defence Boost and a +85 BtH Boost, which is definitely not what it currently provides. Additionally, I'm not sure why the shield's effect provides a +BtH Boost that can't be used by the player, it really shouldn't be there if it's intended to only be applied for 1 turn. Big Dictionary (Panoply): Effects Are too Strong. quote: The Panoply spell from the Big Dictionary tome applies +29 MRM Defence Boost for 5 turns and pays 125% melee in MP for this. Let's break down the actual cost of this effect. A +29 MRM Defence Boost is worth 48.33% melee, and over 5 turns this is worth 241.67% melee. As you can see, this cost value is much higher than the current value. Since 241.67% melee would be a massive amount of MP, I suggest calculating the +MRM Boost based on what it currently pays, which would be +15 MRM for 5 turns, or find some middle ground like +25 MRM for 3 turns, or even increasing the cost for more Defence Boost effect, etc. There are a few potential solutions.

Sapphire -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/23/2022 7:11:06)
Agree with all of this. The Dreamweavers has always been a head scratcher. Even without putting the math to paper, it felt off. And as much as that probably doesn't matter to balance standards, I will forever say sometimes that matters. Now that pen to paper sort of shines light here, I would think for thematic reasons keeping it locked and adding something might be the best and most fun way to help it out...and the elecomp of course. I think the elecomp is actually a big deal here. Eye of Naab- You didnt give some suggestions for it but this is another item that is a head scratcher. I think it might have some use if it were given a beastmaster flavor. Make the bth affect assist guest/pet bth, and you might have a bit better justification for skipping the turn. It is hunkering down with the blocking boost and pushing a bth boost to the pet/guest. Another solution is to make it a 1 turn quick cast, but honestly, given that there isn't enough stuff to assist guests/pets I would prefer the former...or even better, quick cast it and give the bth to pets/guests anyway. Fear chance-> Would the Mc and non MC be the reason for the difference? I doubt an in-armor spell is also getting a MC boost. Honestly, if it is, MC would just then be proven to just be thrown around like candy to the point of it being an arbitrary bonus at this point. Since the "guess" is the Necro spells might or might not be MC, I would think it matters..perhaps not enough to justify the inflict rate chance that much, but I'm unsure.

Lv 1000 -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/23/2022 10:13:08)
quote: Fear chance-> Would the Mc and non MC be the reason for the difference? I doubt an in-armor spell is also getting a MC boost. Honestly, if it is, MC would just then be proven to just be thrown around like candy to the point of it being an arbitrary bonus at this point. Since the "guess" is the Necro spells might or might not be MC, I would think it matters..perhaps not enough to justify the inflict rate chance that much, but I'm unsure. The odd part here is that the Undead Reindeer Stampede spell claims to be using an MC, yet has a weaker effect.

CH4OT1C! -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/23/2022 11:30:09)
All of these are important issues to raise, particularly regarding the Quickcast effects and Scathing Dreamweaver. Quickcast are allowing for some incredibly powerful interactions that shouldn't be possible. The combination of factors on Scathing Dreamweaver make the armour's skill seem incredibly underwhelming, especially given the update of other spellcaster armours.

Sapphire -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/23/2022 13:05:18)
Pointing out to ask, as I don't know the answer. Firstly, if the BTH lean of the Necromancer Fear skill is a negative or positive lean, would this affect inflict rate ? I am wondering that maybe it has a negative lean, and thus translates to a higher rate? Since the info subs isn't as detailed as most have and most should be, it doesn't list anything about bth and so I don't know if neutral is assumed...and if that even matters. I feel like it might, as other effects have taken it into account before. Secondly, the base of this is technically considered a "spell-like skill" and on two of the versions, costs SP. I use Spelslinger and so it mimics a spell completely. However, the question I have is would there be a difference if it were a skill, rather than a spell? It feels like probably not, but I wanted to ask.

RobynJoanne -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/23/2022 13:15:20)
I agree with all of these. Of these, I think the first three are the most important since they address more recent items. Quick cast effects that Lucky Strike elevated expectations beyond what is reasonable, especially when used in conjunction with items that increase Lucky Strike rate. Undead Reindeer Stampede providing a weaker Fear meant it felt particularly underwhelming at release, as most Mages willing to use a T3 class use Necromancer. Since Necromancer's Fear skill is not Title-locked, this even extended to those using Paladin for their class title. A fix would help make Undead Reindeer Stampede more relevant. Scathing Dreamweaver has always felt very hard to use due to the lockout. The Protector armors similarly have a lean change skill, but that had no cost resource-wise or in Melee %. The boost is paid for by SP. The attack button change has sufficient penalties to be worth the same as a normal attack. The lockout is a disproportionately high cost for a skill that already paid for everything else in some way. The last two items are far less popular, the latter of which because it is a perma-rare, so they have less of an effect on the game. A fix is nevertheless welcome. Eye of Naab has been incredibly underpowered ever since its effect change. The effect itself is underwhelming even before accounting for part of it being unusable without Celerity, and the save roll makes it even worse. We do not usually have save rolls for buffs. Big Dictionary's Panoply makes all other MRM boosts in the game feel weak by comparison. While the fact that it is perma-rare and a Frostval Guardian Giftbox item make it have a special status, it should still follow balance standards.

Lv 1000 -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/23/2022 13:15:28)
quote: Firstly, if the BTH lean of the Necromancer Fear skill is a negative or positive lean, would this affect inflict rate ? I am wondering that maybe it has a negative lean, and thus translates to a higher rate? Since the info subs isn't as detailed as most have and most should be, it doesn't list anything about bth and so I don't know if neutral is assumed...and if that even matters. I feel like it might, as other effects have taken it into account before. Secondly, the base of this is technically considered a "spell-like skill" and on two of the versions, costs SP. I use Spelslinger and so it mimics a spell completely. However, the question I have is would there be a difference if it were a skill, rather than a spell? It feels like probably not, but I wanted to ask. 1) Both Undead Reindeer Stampede and Looming/Searing Fear have Neutral BtH leans. 2) A spell-type skill/spell is the same regardless of where you find it. So any spell in your spell menu is the same as a spell locked to an armor (with the exception of elecomp, which is not relevant in this circumstance).

LUPUL LUNATIC -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/24/2022 10:04:17)
I agree with the issues because those need to be adressed. There are some issues with Pets and Guests sometimes not having their /0.85 into their effects like Skull Pets versus Abyssal Undead Hydras but i dont know how they fare balance wise. Another example that should be adressed and clarify is wether a misc like Ebil Corp Logo that has no roll on its "Berserk" effect be able to exist alongside a misc like Hairmuffs that has the same effect in the form of Berserk but also has a roll for it. Be it a change upon Ebilcorp or a change upon Hairmuffs waranted.

Sapphire -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/25/2022 8:30:08)
quote: Quickcast effect should not be able to Lucky Strike as this would mean that the player could potentially receive multiple turns of Lucky Strike damage within the same turn. This is an issue because player is expected to only be able to receive one turn of Lucky Strike damage per turn. There are a few examples of quickcast effects both being able to Lucky Strike and not being able to Lucky Strike. Can Lucky Strike Haunted/Eclipsed Dragonlord Shield: Barrier Skill Gandolphin Spell Insightful Armor of Awe: Shield of Insight Cannot Lucky Strike Spectral Chains Knife to Meat You Other Cases: Necromancer Class: (Aggressive) Anima Ward This falls into an "Other" category because it is currently bugged. These passives are not meant to be able to Lucky Strike (see info subs), yet they currently do. When the first set of skills were released for Obsidian Cloak, the original anima barrier at the first of the battle did not lucky strike. The info subs says that lucky strikes were "disabled". Then the class continued to release it's group of skills over a few weeks, and then when the advanced L21 versions came out, all of a sudden this anima barrier had lucky strikes. This suggests not a bug, but rather an enabling of lucky strikes. That might be debatable, and only staff would know. So I wanted to look for anymore clues. But since staff never gave any infi subs for the last skill block, of which includes the post-spell cast anima barrier, it is difficult to ascertain. However, there is another clue to back up this idea that lucky strikes were enabled on the anima barriers.--> If you place your mouse over the anima barrier skill, this is the verbatim description: Bind excess mana to your flesh as a barrier at the start of each battle. Grows stronger with your arcane skill (INT) and sheer luck.* Your barriers are especially resistant to non darkness damage.* The description suggests luck might be allowed. I am not sure if the luck verbiage was added later or it was always there. I suppose only staff would be able to confirm, but if it is a bug, then why the verbiage? Misleading as heck. It shouldn't be there, if lucky strikes were decided to not be there. Makes NO sense. Quick aside-> I wish staff would compile a full, very detailed info subs on Necromancer. There is some things that still seem unknown. Even the anima barrier in this description says the barrier is more potent versus to non darkness elements. What? How? Anyhow, I said all that to say this: I agreed with the notion lucky strikes shouldn't be affecting some of these things, but only as it stands with how there needs to be a fix for red server cap/frostval crown and rate with hypercrit. I do think lucky strikes should be allowed, though. Just the current meta needs nerfed/fixed. This is known The reason is simple. Stats, while we do have mainstat and secondary, need to be balanced to a degree. It can be argued that dexterity is a bit too useful. For many builds, it's a secondary stat but many feel as though it is necessary almost to the point that it's sub-optimal NOT to have it. How does this compare to say, Luck and End? Most say END isn't necessary, and many believe the better Beast Build is with dex over luck. So it seems to me, luck doesn't do enough. And allowing lucky strikes wherever you can only serves to place a feather in it's hat. If you can fix the hypercrit + extra luck damage stack to a proper condition, it would fix the abuse of the items you mentioned. That's the issue, not that they can get lucky strikes. I continue to not understand the constant and continued catering to dexterity in this game, if we are to say these types of things shouldn't have lucky strikes. Part of balance is making each stat useful as equally as possible, where it is understood what that stat will help with versus what you'll lose out by not training something else. While dexterity is not really needed, it certainly is fantastic comparatively. I would argue that how dexterity is used in the game's blocking meta far far far far far far far far far far outpaces luck on this situation...even if it were made to allow for 2X lucky strike damage guaranteed on hypercrit could it not compete with dexterity. I feel this is the quadforce argument all over again, in a way. Quadforce can be overpowered given other aspects that need fixed. Same here with hypercrit and increased lucky strike damage..or damage increasers in general...ie spellcaster universal boosts + barrier add-ons, etc. It's the stacks. Like with other things. So I slightly disagree with the notion that these should not get lucky strikes. I agree they should not get guaranteed 1.5X hypercrit lucky strikes. And again, this is known and planned for a fix. If it were decided that some of these things shouldn't have lucky strikes at all, I vehemently disagree and I would consider it a devaluation of luck and a decision to continue to steer players towards training dexterity instead. And I know dexterity is being looked at, however. So I get it. If that's what the powers that be wish for, fine, but I for one, will never agree on the design decision if that were to end up the case. That's my opinion, and sticking to it irregardless.

arcanum37 -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/25/2022 9:28:55)
Regarding the Anima Ward, it really is supposed to not LS. Something must have gone wrong with the updates to necro leading to this bug where they do. As for the description, then it's just a matter of interpretation. It could easily refer to the variance you get with how strong your barrier is. The resistance to non darkness attacks is 10% less damage taken from them as long as you have a barrier while in necromancer. This was explained by Cray on Discord, though it is not in the info subs. As for the rest of your post, I'll let people with more knowledge of the game answer that.

CH4OT1C! -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/25/2022 11:17:01)
@SapphireCatalyst2021: Info subs have been posted and are official documentation (or the closest thing to it, given the Encyclopedia receives few new entries). Anima ward is not intended to LS. There isn't really a debate about this (unless a staff member says otherwise) in a wider sense, the reasoning presented around lucky strike damage presented by @Lv 1000 is entirely sensible. As with my previous post, I fully support it

Lorekeeper -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/25/2022 11:30:09)
The thread on guests and lucky strikes was resolved and locked. Let's not bring the topic and some of its issues into a topic with minimal overlap with it. Uncompromising, bad faith reinterpretations of staff intent are, at best, thinly veiled repetitions of the same behavior that has been warned against to the point of needing no further elaboration. I'm calling attention to this as a reference of useful feedback. Discussion is more than welcome, but circumvent thread locks and ignoring warnings about bad faith arguments is not. Let's remain on topic past this post, please.

Sapphire -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/25/2022 12:21:23)
Cray, I have to disagree with your false assessment of what I am saying. The issue is only related to the thread you mentioned because both are about lucky strikes, and I did not bring up guests here. I feel as though this is a different topic, and I feel as though my argument is about lucky strikes as it pertains to the items presented in the OP. That is on topic. I have not strayed off topic whatsoever. The only silver lining might be, the differences between dexterity and luck, which I might have pointed out in the other thread (I didn't go back and look, but I know how I feel about it so maybe I did) I feel as though part of the debate has to consider the bigger picture, and not just limit ourselves solely to specific items in this specific area since adding or removing lucky strikes to aspects of the game is directly influencing build decisions by players. It ties into the argument, and I think common sense dictates this. I have not attempted to circumvent any thread locks. I have not ignored warnings. The two threads are completely different. Again, I didn't bring up guests at all. As far as I'm concerned, that specific topic is dead. I also have not given a bad faith, reinterpretation of staff intent either. I question the defensive posture here. All I did was simply ask, or question whether or not lucky strikes on Necromancer anima barrier was meant to be there or not, simply based on the verbiage in the actual skill, and wondered if a different design decision was made afterwards based on that. And I felt as though, if it was, I agreed with it. And I did say "only staff could tell us", and therefore left it open to an answer. Some then said it was confirmed on discord. That's fine. Another interpretation that was said may mean the barrier amount is high random, and maybe that's where the "luck" phraseiology stems from and I'm cool with that. I was simply questioning that notion without all the info. One cannot determine everything if the info provided is incomplete, and the info isn't always complete on these forums. Example Note-> The 10% damage reduction for non darkness attacks that I just learned about in a previous post . In addition, I don't, and likely won't take part on discord. So pardon the questioning without being part of that club. I apologize if words used make it seem as though I come off in an unintended way, to all. @Arcanum-> Appreciate the value-added input about the discussion on discord. Thank You @Ch40tic-> You fully support which position? Sorry for asking, just seeking clarity ;-)

dizzle -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/25/2022 12:38:07)
I don't know what all the numbers mean for Reindeer Stampede, but I think something definitely needs to be touched up because there's no reason at all to use it over necros fear unless you just want to inflict with energy. But IMO that's not worth a spell slot, especially when necros fear is, as you showed, not only stronger, but also has 3 different versions covering fire, dark, and harm. I agree Eye of Naab needs to get relooked at. It makes no sense that you would pay for a BtH boost that you can't even use because you're forced to skip your turn. As for Scathing Dreamweaver... The lockouts almost make it virtually unusable which is unfortunate because it has the potential to be a really fun armor. Hopefully, it gets a second look as well.

Sapphire -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/25/2022 12:47:32)
Fear chance/rate is modified by the element it's attacking against. In theory, one would think reindeer stampede and necromancer's fear should be the same. I would kind of argue necromancer's might even should be lesser since it's contained within the armor, thus giving stand alone's at least some kind of superiority. If anything, if they are to not be equal in potency, any spell contained within an item (like click to cast on Miscs, shields, or within class armors, etc) should actually be weaker due to massive compression. If that design decision isn't to be made, yeah these should be the same. I will say, though, this notion of not to waste a spell slot on reindeer due to the existence of Necromancer I think arises from the existence of PCO. Ideally, one should look at items individually and consider we are supposed to be using things of a variety of elements. I appreciate the existance of reindeer stampede as it provides options.

Digital X -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/25/2022 13:00:24)
Let's please keep this thread on topic. What has happened in the past to another thread is in the past. That thread is now locked and will remain locked. Warnings were given and they did not seem to be understood in the end. This topic is a new discussion and no relevance to the aforementioned thread needs to be spoken about any longer. I really don't want to have to lock this topic as well as the discussion can be usefull for players and Staff alike. Thank you.

Heroes of the Scape -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/25/2022 15:21:05)
quote: Eye of Naab has you skip your turn, on a save roll, at apply a +40 MRM Defence Boost and a +15 BtH Boost, each for 1 turn. However, these effect magnitudes/durations do not match what is paid. The player's turn is worth 100% melee and with a 50% save, this is worth 200% melee. If we assume that 100% melee goes to each effect, this would be a +60 MRM Defence Boost and a +85 BtH Boost, which is definitely not what it currently provides. Additionally, I'm not sure why the shield's effect provides a +BtH Boost that can't be used by the player, it really shouldn't be there if it's intended to only be applied for 1 turn. I agree that this needs to be better explained at minimum. IIRC, when EoN was updated it was stated that it was put at one turn because the MRM boost is for Turn 1 when the monster attacks, and the BTH boost is for Turn 0 when the player attacks. If that is the case, it technically is getting used on status Turn 0. The thread explaining this is long gone so I have no way of proving what I say is true. This also doesn't explain the cost to effect issue.

Sapphire -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/25/2022 16:07:16)
quote: Quickcast effect should not be able to Lucky Strike as this would mean that the player could potentially receive multiple turns of Lucky Strike damage within the same turn. This is an issue because player is expected to only be able to receive one turn of Lucky Strike damage per turn. There are a few examples of quickcast effects both being able to Lucky Strike and not being able to Lucky Strike. The lucky strike part only exacerbates the real issue. Not allowing lucky strike, while still might be viewed as an issue, still leaves the real issue. All quick cast effects need to be changed to only be allowed once per turn. This not only resolves the reason it isnt balanced as explained in the quote in the OP, which is in italics, but it effectively scales back the power of Purple Rain loops all in one fell swoop, which obviously is a separate but related GBI. * ~Post snipped. Please take balance suggestions to the Suggestion Board. This is a reminder to all that GBI is for discussing maths. Please support your arguments with maths. * Likewise those wishing to discuss other items than those already mentioned, or have other tangents to discuss with a mathematical argument please create your own GBI threads. Thanks. Just to reiterate too ALL please keep this thread on topic, and support your arguments with maths.

Legendary Ash -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/25/2022 18:49:53)
Eye of Naab was designed with three penalties non elemental, auto hit and /1.4 for affecting whole player side, 100.6.854.25/(7.5) = 61.92 points that is then rounded down -40 MRM = 21/1.4 = 15 BtH. As resource expenditure to boost output in a manner that do not affect Lucky Strikes is a principle of Quickcasts whose design is to be detached from the normal turn, disabling it for Quickcasts is the most direct solution instead of applying use limits per turn that is indirect solution that doesn't consider the full extent of its consequences: creates unnecessary retroactive workload, restricts the freedom of the player's actions, namely affecting their playstyle in terms of the extent of the quantity of mechanics that can be used per turn, which provides greater incentives for the production of increasingly overcharged resource cost designs to counter it and render this proposal completely ineffective and as equipment are discouraged to be of exact same designs per element to fill niches, it encourages the player to use controversial means to achieve similar results to those lost by this proposal, such as using Prime Chaos Orb to enable one's inventory to be comprised of a single element Quickcasts of different mechanics or scrambling resistances several times per turn to the element of Quickcasts whose mechanics are clones of each other.

Lv 1000 -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/25/2022 20:09:37)
quote: Eye of Naab was designed with a misc standard MRM cost where each blocking point of individual attack types are counted instead of a global boost determines its power cost with an always useful penalty, .5.97(340+15)/4.25 = 100.059% melee, which is inconsistent with modern MRM boosts outside of miscs. Eye of Naab was designed with three penalties non elemental, auto hit and /1.4 for affecting whole player side, 100.6.854.25/(7*.5) = 61.92 points that is then rounded down -40 MRM = 21/1.4 = 15 BtH. Thank you for the insight! Do you think Eye of Naab should be changed to be more consistent with other MRM boosts? Also how do you reconcile the effect providing 15 BtH that can't be used by the player?

Legendary Ash -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/26/2022 3:11:16)
The best and most effective method to retain Eye of Naab's turn cost yet make it practical is to increment a charge for each successful save, if there is a charge present, clicking the shield on the next turn consumes it for a quickcast BtH and MRM boost, afterwards it reverts to its initial function of allowing a turn to be spent for an attempt at a charge. Eye of Naab's blocking should be updated to be consistent with other MRM boosts namely Imanok Edoc through the removal of the .6 non-elemental and .85 auto hit penalty since the charge requires spending a turn with the shield equipped. The exact distribution between BtH and MRM that totals 1004.25/(7.5) = 121.4285 points that deducts a 100 for MRM that is programmed as a 100% auto-block mechanic with the same limitations as Eternal Twilight's Mantle and have auto hit calculated from a combination of the contents in Kusanagi, Perfectly Balanced Blade, Thundersplitter/Lord of Thunder's Spear/Staff to assume accuracy of .75 (Kindred's stat build assumption) or .65 (Melee/Magic weapon auto hit) + 5(121.4285 - 100)/4.25 = 1.0021 or .90021 damage mod applied to player/guest/pet in order to deliver an improvement on the item's flavor of foreseeing an opponent's moves.

Zork Knight -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/26/2022 13:22:55)
Player BtH and player MRM are valued differently. 5% melee = 4.25 player BtH = 3 player MRM.

Legendary Ash -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/26/2022 14:09:18)
When BtH affects the player's whole side it takes a /1.4, which is equivalent to MRM, additionally the 3 MRM is a rounded down value, its exact value is 4.25/1.4.

Sapphire -> RE: Various Balance Issues (1/27/2022 11:19:26)
I might be wrong, and I am in no way saying this changes the fact the Eye of Naab doesn't need an adjustment, but I have a hunch the BTH boost isn't skipped. The line item says +15 bth for 0 turns when you go again, suggesting that it might actually be there until the line-item falls off. The same happens with ele vulns for 1 turn. For example, and I can name SEVERAL, as I use ele vulns all the time, but Troposhield's effect inflicts with 0 rounds and it's there that turn and even though it says 0 turns, the vuln helps your guest and pet. It's there until the line-item isn't there. I think just because it says "0 rounds" doesn't mean it's not there. Maybe staff could confirm this, but even right now in testing on my lucky beastmage the eye of naab's blocking is still there even though it says 0 rounds Against a monster with 275 mainstat 250 dex and 0 luck his attacker's value is 77.375. My stats at 250 int/luck/char gives me a defender's value of 75.25. This results in the monster never missing with a 102.13% chance to hit me. The +40 MRM buff drops this to a 62.13% chance to hit me. With "0 rounds" of MRM boost, I am blocking a few hits. This tells me that as long as the line-item is there, it's in effect. So the BTH boost is actually there next round. So you're losing a turn to get 2 effective rounds of MRM boost and 1 effective round of BTH boost. So now see where you fall on balance Related, so on topic-> In regards to the fear spells, it feels like given other precedents in other item categories with compression that most likely the reindeer spell should have the 50% and the ones contained within necromancer should be a lower fear % simply because of compression. Miscs, when they have a .5 elemental mod gets changed to .4 for all elements like with cyclops eye. The compression reduces the effect's power. Shields get up to -26% to a single element, but this becomes maybe around 21-22% when you have 2 elements. The effect's power is reduced to allow for compression. With class armors, there is no compression penalties, and this contributes to them being exponentially stronger than other armors. Damage, effects, etc , when contained within an armor/class armor (anywhere, like a spell within a shield/misc), should all take compression penalties when compared to single item standards. So the fear really truthfully on the reindeer spell should be stronger than what's contained within the necromancer's skills. That would be the common sense approach. This helps, to a small degree, alleviate the vast overpoweredness of subrace/class armors and might give stand-alones something desirable over these armors, which would still be more powerful even with this change. I do not know if such a standard exists for balance, but it should.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition

0.140625