|
Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Stat and Training Overhaul (3/21/2022 20:05:43)
|
If Legendary says the math shows BM's over-performing comparatively, it likely is...AT BASE ASSUMPTIONS. The game is FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more than base assumptions, which quite frankly, aren't realistic. Base is never optimal, and meta optimization will *always* rule the day. Base is just a starting point to compare, and should never dictate the entire picture. At the end of the day, I GUARANTEE you it's FAR easier to surpass this with items/buffs/quick casts. 95% of stuff help player attacks and almost nothing boosts BM guest/pet attacks and what does exist, 98% of that is locked behind seasonal quests, LTS yearly rares, etc etc etc.
Might be a lot of work, and not entirely against Legendary's "fix", but a bit of a piggyback with a twist on Legendary's suggestion...
Pets attack with Melee, Ranged, and Magic Attacks.
Perhaps... if Charisma is = to Mainstat (Int/Str/Dex), pet damage comes from charisma. Then make Mainstat dictate pet damage *if* the pet attacks with your trained Mainstat. (like non BM builds)
So a Mage's INT provides the stat damage (the +20% Legendary is referencing) for pets that *only* attack with magic attacks. The same for Dext-> Ranged attacks, and Str-> Melee attacks.
This makes a BM use Char for all pets but makes a non-BM have to use their mainstat to buff their pets, but only pets attacking with the mainstat they trained. This limits what pets pure characters use, but doesn't what BM's use.
A Warrior will gain the 20% legendary is speaking of *only* using pets who attack with Melee attacks. A Mage will gain the 20% legendary is speaking of *only* using pets who attack with Magic attacks. A Ranger will gain the 20% legendary is speaking of *only* using pets who attack with Ranged attacks.
This solution, while more work and has higher difficulty in implementing, IMO keeps BM exclusivity for all pets, and makes specific builds have limits on what is best for them. This also allows staff to design pets that might be made FOR pure builds, too, and not just BM's, in a similar fashion as to how regular stuff gets changed to "charisma" based like some weapons and spells. You could have a pet specifically for "warriors" or "rangers" . The charisma add-on idea, but reverse. This would provide more variety in what staff can do, and keeps stuff becoming so repetitive and stale. (the weapon special argument, kind of)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two more points, and a question:
quote:
- Ranged weapons no longer use STR for damage, just DEX/8
Pure Mages just became Ranged weapon users, so this now pushes mages ahead in damage over time
quote:
- Melee no longer uses DEX for BTH, just STR*3/20 + LUK/40. Ditto for Magic and INT.
I would honestly recommend scaling BTH for mainstat back to 31.25, and double luck's from 6.25 to 12.5. (Like you did with blocking) You just indirectly buffed END builds by no longer sacrificing large swaths of BTH in favor of HP's, such as backlash. Backlash just got massive buffs.
Secondary and Tertiary stat decisions should have ~ Equal trade-offs. I don't see leaving HP formulas the same with END, adding a regen factor, and buffing BTH for them as balanced, especially now that Dex now plays a role in status infliction and initiative, lowering luck's old "role". Luck just got the biggest nerfbat out of this, not Dex. It's simply somewhat indirect.
If you increase luck's role in BTH, which just lost initiative potency, and status inflict potency to Dex indirectly, luck may very well be viewed as the weakest stat, and not even close. At least give it the BTH helper (and a slight scale-back of Mainstat) to move it more in line with Dex's and End's newfound direct and indirect features.
quote:
Charisma
As it pertains to BTH, with pets/guests, and charisma weapons, is DEX removed from these also and is purely from Charisma like the other stats?
I just don't like open and assumed interpretations and when things aren't explicitly said. Just making sure.
|
|
|
|
