RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (Full Version)

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



Message

Primate Murder -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/12/2023 3:56:19)

I'm presuming we plan to remove the ramp-up mechanic. As such, the proposal above removes the sole thing separating Str and Dex builds while favoring the former by allowing them to use the same weapon in offensive and defensive armors. Again, guys, if you want to play a weapon-based build with support for FO and FD, we already have that. It's called being a ranger.

I would like some support for 20-proc and other proc weapons, though, in this I fully agree. What about revamping ghost constume lean into something like "deal 1x damage, take 1.25x, gain +21 blocking"? It gives the warriors a defensive option and one that favors proc weapons, without impinging on ranger identity (what little of it there exists).



Dreiko Shadrack -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/12/2023 5:39:58)

quote:

I'm presuming we plan to remove the ramp-up mechanic.


You're presuming too much already.

quote:

Remove the minor extra bonuses to STR and DEX: they break the model for little to no reason.


I assume you read this line and took it to mean removing ramp, it doesn't. It means removing the extra MRM DEX gets for no actual justifiable reason.

Ramp is something that is rather set in stone unless a more accurate and viable representation of a Ranged damage identity can be suggested to replace it. If that other suggestion isn't put forth and accepted from a novel approach that doesn't rely on any aspects that have already been rejected prior to this point the initially proposed model in this thread is going through.



CH4OT1C! -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/12/2023 6:14:09)

As @Dreiko Shadrak mentioned, that point is about removing the extra MRM DEX gets, as well as the small boost to weapon damage STR gets. It follows the same reason why I'm against Warriors getting additional SP - it's breaking the model for minimal real benefit.

To clarify, I chose my wording carefully here:
quote:

8). Reduce the Damage Output / Cost ratio of guests. This will help to reduce the overall power of CHA and Mages (who benefit from summon guests)

I want to reduce this ratio because Guests currently provide 60% melee at a cost of ~22% Melee, which is extremely overpowered. Following my own rules above, I can't justify keeping things as they are because it breaks the model to the point where it distorts gameplay. However, this emphatically does not mean I wish to entirely fix it. Reducing it to equal input/output would be ridiculous and is likely to cause major upset within the community. Yes, any nerf to CHA will disproportionately hurt FD builds, but I'd argue that they have problems too (one of them being this!). Since Mages gain an unreasonable advantage due to summons (they get the option to pay with player damage that can much more easily be restored than the SP Warriors and Rangers have to use), any reduction in power will disproportionately affect them.

Regarding the Defensive Warrior idea, this isn't something I would implement immediately (Ranger needs some necessary changes and support first). Like I mentioned, my goal is to give Rangers a defensive specialism, so that they can handle both FD and FO but pull off the former better than anyone else. Our current way of "protecting" FD is just to make Warriors terrible at it. It's not to the point where FD Warrior is unviable, but you'd definitely be questioned your choice to play it - you're severely handicapping yourself for no reason other than "for the theme". Being a BeastWarrior is also heavily discouraged because, unless it's a booster, your pets and guests can only really deal neutral output. I think Warrior deserves to be able to compete with Ranger and Mage in the FD category, and the current setup isn't a healthy compromise. With that said, that's just my suggested fix. If you have a better idea of achieving the same goal, then I'm open to being persuaded.
Point 5 isn't about defining an identity, it's about levelling the playing field. Warriors should be able to compete in FD and FO just as much as Rangers and Mages can. Right now, we're using Ranger FD identity infringements as an excuse to prevent Warrior from competing.



ruleandrew -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/12/2023 7:53:58)

If you try to nerf guest upkeep cost without fixing misc upkeep cost, CHA players would switch to misc.

Maybe you can follow this rule: One misc active or one guest active (not both options at the same time).



Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/12/2023 16:41:13)

I don't disagree with Chaotic in that perhaps there needs to be a push to incentivize mages to spellcast. The weapon-based skills strength for mages is an issue, I agree. IMO, they need to all be dealt with to ensure this is a distinct advantage for warriors.

However, I think there are some other things going on. Spellcasters need item support and maybe even some rethinking of current stuff. Incentivize spellcasting.

Some of the things that can be done would include:

1. As Chaotic said, more gold paid item support in the form of more armors and several shields/miscs/weapons that make spellcasting desirable.
Some random examples could include:
A. Items that reduce spell cost
B. Items that attach status conditions only *when* you cast spells, and considering the 2 casts per 10 round model, the status condition in theory should be strong.
C. More gold support for spellboosting weapons, as this is very lacking
D. This includes updated Sila's staff

2. Wands are lacking desirability. I'm not sure if there's a balanced approach here but I'd maybe use a wand that also has spell boosting capabilities attached.
3. Tomes, IMO, in practical use, most of the time, are simply horrible. While some serve as element compression, and others at times have effects, they're problematic because:
1. There's no attack unless the spell menu is locked
2. There's not many Tomes
3. No overcharged options
4. There are a couple with good effects, but if we get way more we need more effects options, too.

But I think the BIGGEST issue is #1, and since you cannot attack, then I think there should be spell boosting abilities /or wand attacks (either, or) on *all* tomes. If you are expected to attack 8 out of 10 rounds, then why in the heck do they not let you attack, at all? This means you can either only use Tomes as supplemental options or you just have to waste turns with draw mana. BeastMage might not mind since their pet/guest can simply do damage for them, but a regular mage? Thanks, but no thanks. So the Tome idea has to be re-imagined IMO.

I know we just received new tomes, and both have eater effects, but I'm sorry, but eating a stun effect is not desirable. Make one that eats something that can be inflicted on a boss.

Anyhow, the stat revamp, and I think Chaotic alluded to this, isn't going make players want to play as a build with little add ons here and there. It's going to have to be about gear to support the identity. And that also means it's time-consuming to get there, and that obstacle is a problem.



Telcontar Arvedui I -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/12/2023 22:30:02)

quote:

Ramp is something that is rather set in stone unless a more accurate and viable representation of a Ranged damage identity can be suggested to replace it. If that other suggestion isn't put forth and accepted from a novel approach that doesn't rely on any aspects that have already been rejected prior to this point the initially proposed model in this thread is going through.

Well, you did say I might be onto something, Dreiko, so I might as well try posting this, and gauge the reaction from the forum community.
EDIT 21st March, 2023: Came back here to put some finishing touches. Nobody said someone couldn't have 2 different proposals on a topic.... right?
I am here to put forth an alternative Ranged damage identity proposal. Instead of an accuracy-based, damage-ramp mechanic, I propose a (somewhat-accuracy-based) lean-shifting mechanic.

Basically,
(A) Ranged damage gets an additional BtH lean that is independent of equipment, and starts at 0 at Turn 1 of every battle.
(B) If your Ranged (hits/attempt) is lower than 85% this turn, your Ranged damage lean increases. This mean your Ranged hits in the next turn become more accurate, at the cost of lowered damage.
(C) OTOH, if your Ranged (hits/attempt) is higher than 85% this turn, your Ranged damage lean decreases, therefore your Ranged hits in the next turn become less accurate, but more powerful.
(D) This lean has an upper/lower limit. Currently the proposal suggests +/- 12.
(E) Autohit Ranged attacks do not shift the lean, but they are affected by it. (Eg. if you skewed towards a damage-heavy, inaccurate lean, your Autohit Ranged attacks get the damage boost while overwriting the inaccurate part of the lean)
(F) If you spent the turn not using any Ranged attacks, your Ranged damage lean increases. Hopefully this increase is scaled by DEX, to prevent 0-DEX FD builds from benefiting from this.

Here's an example:
You're equipping an armour that hits 3 times with a normal attack, plus a Ranged 0-proc Spear with -5 BtH lean. Assume you face a normal opponent, and all other factors are being controlled.
Turn 1: You got lucky and scored all 3 hits. 3/3 hits/attempt = 100% accuracy this turn, which is higher than 85%. The game gives you a further -5 BtH lean to Ranged attacks next round, to a total of -10.
Turn 2: Your luck still holds. All 3 attacks hit. Hits/attempts = 100% > 85% accuracy. The opponent takes more damage than in Turn 1 - the -10 BtH lean resulted in you dealing more damage, and you get another -5 BtH lean stacked, so now you end up with -15 BtH lean to future Ranged attacks.
Turn 3: Your luck has finally caught up with you, and you only hit 1 attack out of 3. Hits/attempts = 33% < 85% accuracy. Your Ranged BtH lean now shifts by +5, so the next turn your Ranged attacks will have -7 BtH lean.

Why 85% accuracy? Because by game design, players are supposed to have 85% accuracy against monsters. This is why more accurate weapons will end up having less damage than less accurate weapons, all other factors being equal - but I'm sure y'all know this ;)

The proposal above aims to counter whatever potential Ranged damage penalties imposed by missing attacks in an accuracy-based damage-ramp mechanic. It also aims to remove the soft constraints placed on Ranged equipment design and acquisition - there's no need for devs to focus on making Ranged weapons with accurate leans, nor for players to use accurate-lean Ranged gear in order to ramp efficiently, compared to an accuracy-based damage-ramp mechanic. Give us a -20 lean Ranged throwing axe please :D

(Dreiko pointed out to me that having an upper/lower limit to this lean shift will ensure that equipment choices still matter for devs and players - without it, designing or choosing to use Ranged weapons with any specific lean becomes redundant, as all Ranged weapons will eventually end up at effectively 0-lean and 85% accuracy in long fights.)

"But what about FD Rangers?"
"And what if Rangers use Autohit weapons? Will they end up getting free damage ramping?"
I'll admit the proposal above is not fully fleshed out. Among other things, I'm considering additional elements that allow the final version of this proposal to skew Ranged BtH lean towards accuracy if you wear FD armour, so that FD Rangers have a higher chance at inflicting on-hit status effects by ramping accuracy, as well as not allowing Autohit Ranged attacks to skew the lean. But still, here's the basic structure of the proposal - have at it!
Well, we have answers now! Admittedly I could only think of a backdoor mechanic that benefits FD Rangers, giving them an option to either slowly ramp up to a sustained-direct-damage playstyle that "take small hits, dish bigger hits", or to fall back to accurate status-inflictions simply by chugging a potion or doing anything except doling out Ranged attacks. Autohit naturally does not ramp, because it would be free damage boosts that dissuades Rangers from considering non-autohit weapons - but allowing Autohit to lock the lean provides Rangers an option in gearing - there's an opportunity cost present by having to fit autohit weapons into your inventory just to profit after ramping the lean with normal weapons. Theoretically this also means FO Rangers can use YOUR BODY HEALS AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT to lock in their lean while sustaining through low-HP scenarios.



Primate Murder -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/13/2023 1:49:37)

@ Chaotic

In that case, I believe you're running way, way ahead of the train. With the current state of things, mages are superior to other builds both offensively and defensively as "they get the option to pay with player damage that can much more easily be restored than the SP Warriors and Rangers have to use". Before making any changes to warriors, you first have to give mages an offensive specialization and rangers a defensive specialization, and while the former could be, maybe, possibly, pushed through with spellcaster support, I have absolutely no idea how to make the second happen, as any armors used by rangers could also be conceivably used by FD mages.

You're working inside a framework that simply doesn't exist.

Now, with all that said, I do like the idea of giving the warriors an option of playing defensively. Hell, so does the staff - wasn't the entire point of the Frostvale Knightmare set to do this exact thing? All that, of course, comes with the addendum that if mages shouldn't play as better warriors, then warriors shouldn't play as better rangers. I see several ways this could go:

- First, as mentioned in my last post, create a 'heavy armor' lean with neutral damage output. This uses the very same 25% and puts them into blocking instead of damage, emphasizing a more defensive playstyle. It also incentivizes the use of proc weapons, as they get 10% extra damage per round instead of 8%.

- Secondly, play with status effects. FD builds don't benefit nearly as much from statuses like Choke or Blind, or even EleShield and DefBoost. A 50% damage reduction Choke would save an FO build (50*1.4*0.85*1.25) or about 74.4% melee hp, but only (50*1.4*0.85*0.8) or 47.6% melee for an FD build. The discrepancy is highly noticeable, and it only grows more so as the numbers rise. It's a bizarre fact that FD builds benefit very little from defensive statuses, so why not build on that?

- Third, a variation on your proposal. Making all melee attacks deal *1 damage in FD armors would murder 100-procs, but maybe we could try out an mc like 'if used in FD armors, deal *1.25 damage' on a few select weapons. We already have something like that in Frostwalker's Secret (though it's an FSB thing), so it's not entirely groundbreaking.

Would any of those work for you?



Korriban Gaming -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/13/2023 3:46:46)

While I don't have any suggestions of my own, I would like to give feedback on the ideas that have been put forth thus far

quote:

My reservations would come from how punishing it might be for newer players vs. those more experienced. While the new misc mentioned in the post sounds very nice in fixing the issue, newer players will generally have less access to accuracy-boosting items that more experienced and invested end game players do. So, depending on the numbers for the "punishment" for missing, a newer player against a particularly dodgy mob can feel heavily brought down by also having their damage lowered when they do land a hit. Given assumed accuracy is 85% (meaning assumed miss rate is 15%), the penalty for missing could be quite harsh if it's 5.66x as strong for being 5.66x less likely.

Fully agreed with this. Even endgame players have trouble hitting stuff nowadays, I imagine it's much worse for those at the lower levels. Player accuracy overall needs a bump rather than it being reliant on 1 stat.

quote:

Then there's the more minor issue of Moonwalker's Grace being not up to standards since the stat rework (should match Buffalot's Beach Bod and Arcane Amplification in terms of cost:boost ratio), and costing MP so it requires INT for a DEX build to use it.

This is a fair point though I would also argue that both Buffalot and Arcane Amp are premium items whereas Moonwalker is completely free.

quote:

On the topic of initiative, it's still a strange feeling getting outsped by level 110 enemies while in an initiative armour just because they have a double mainstat as a leftover from when DEX was required for all accuracy. Is there any chance that'll be tweaked? Like removing initiative from DEX for monsters, or making the initiative formula use highest mainstat + LUK instead of a sum of all 3 STR/DEX/INT + LUK. Could also be interesting to have other stats negatively/less positively contribute to initiative for extra effects e.g. STR/END being slower but getting a bonus as a result.

Fully agree. My proposal would be to let levels play a part in the initiative bonus as well like bonus initiative for every level higher than the enemy. However, cap this at 150 or mobs which are higher levelled than us will always get the drop on us which shouldn't be the case.

quote:

give rangers a small chance to repeat their attack. Not celerity, but something like Archer's Per My Last Arrow (when it was first released, I actually thought the staff were play-testing the mechanic for use in the stat revamp). It helps FO rangers by giving extra damage, and it helps FD rangers by letting them stack status effects. The chance can even ramp up with accuracy as was first suggested.

This sounds OP at first glance but how small would the chance have to be for it to be balanced? If it's going to be super low, is it even going to be good or worth statting into Ranger just for this? Chance ramp up with accuracy sounds like a nice idea but does that mean Rangers would have to stick to using auto-hit weapons for best results?

quote:

Just tossing an idea -- perhaps instead of making DefLoss items affect MRM, have them be attached to a specific one at triple the value? That would make for better design space IMHO.

Interesting idea, I think this could be good

quote:

That would require any items pertaining to ranger identity to be delayed, there isn't time for that.

While waiting for a long time is a huge pain and I fully understand that (where's my Archmage), I would rather they take time to test stuff and release something better as opposed to having it be underwhelming on release, that would result in a lot of disappointment and backlash.

quote:

With regards to this, I strongly feel that a permanent quick cast BTH boost skill/spelll needs to be made available. Having one set of spells/skills available at new year’s is not enough for new players/characters, imo. If the premium status of the skill is an issue, then perhaps a premium clone could be made (eg a GGB clone, token clone vs a z token package clone), and an alternate version could be made for gold (example suggestions are that it’s turn consuming but more potent; vs a version that is more efficient/less powerful; vs a version that is potent but applies a debuff to player damage, etc).

Agreed, also while we're on the topic of this, I believe NYS spell needs a buff too.

quote:


3. Add the SP idea to Ranged Damage, and forgo the idea from Melee damage
4. Add back in a + potency = to 5% Melee based on Dex (replaces the blocking)

3 just makes Rangers sound like another Warrior, I like the idea for 4 since Rangers use alot of status effects, this can help them find the identity as the go-to status inflicter build for the game.

quote:

Lastly, I still believe bows (damage from a distance) and spears (longer than most weapons) should still provide for the initiative focus as was mentioned a while back

Agree with this.

quote:

Warrior Proposal:
1. Scrap the SP thing for Melee damage, it makes better sense used with Rangers
2. Instead, make FO warriors more defensive by giving them either a HP barrier when they use a Melee attack or they instead get the +5 blocking, or both.

The logical reality is, is A warrior is going to be fighting in close, in hand to hand combat, and they'll NEED to be hardier, and more resistant to being hit. Being able to parry some damage off IMO is a logical step considering there isn't a FD warrior style. So this makes them better defensively. The usage of barriers items in conjunction with the HP barrier based on Melee attacks could make for a very strong style, and it gives a little bit of spice to the warrior build that it needs. If you were to combine the effects that END give and this STR-based proposal you end up with a consistent damaging FO playstyle that can also kind of tank, too, and resist/heal . The STR/END marriage will be a better one than INT/END or DEX/END as Rangers and mages have better Defensive options for build spin-offs, where Warriors do not.

I like this idea!

quote:

One possible idea for player DEX attack.

Player DEX attack bonus
Consider last attempted player DEX hit to monster for current player turn.

When player DEX attack miss monster / start of battle case
- 5 % damage bonus to DEX weapon attack.

When player DEX attack hit monster 1 time in a row
- 3 % damage bonus to DEX weapon attack.

When player DEX attack hit monster 2 times in a row
- 1 % damage bonus to DEX weapon attack.

When player DEX attack hit monster 3 times in a row
+ 1 % damage bonus to DEX weapon attack.

When player DEX attack hit monster 4 times in a row
+ 3 % damage bonus to DEX weapon attack.

When player DEX attack hit monster 5 times or more in a row
+ 5 % damage bonus to DEX weapon attack.

This seems way too low/slow to be good imo, the numbers need to be higher/ramp up faster.

quote:

While I don't know how possible this idea is or if it is even wanted or viable at all, but I might as well suggest it anyways. If the staff really are looking to give something to STR then I suggest giving STR a modifier to make much more stable damage ranges.

For example a weapon has a 16 to 48, it could possibly make the weapon go for 20 to 48 instead.

Why this idea? Well since the identity of warriors are stable consistent high damage per turn, then something that can help alleviate RNG from their attacks or give them much less lows and higher chances to do highs would be good. It won't make them have static damage ranges since I think that would just nullify the static damage range weapons, but something to make the weapons more stable or reach much higher damage ranges. Originally I thought of making the damage ranger much tighter and therefore much more consistent like making a 16 to 48 weapon with a STR modifier become and 20 to 36 damage range weapon. But people didn't seem too keen on the idea cause they said it would make warriors deal much less damage and make people not wanna play it.

Another great idea that I would support but given how complex this is, I'm not sure if it can be implemented.

quote:

The idea was to replace what add-ons END was going to get, because I felt like END by itself was sort of OP. If you count how much HP's is considered to be "100% Melee" and then see how many more HP's, and thus Melee% END gives going from 0 END to 250 END , it's quite high TBH.

I disagree with this for 1 simple reason. All the other stats are using every single point invested for the whole battle (except DEX right now if the battle is too short). The extra HP from END at the end of the battle does nothing to aid you if you don't use them, and essentially they are "wasted". Hence I support the idea of the current add-ons for END and I think it's fine to leave it the way it is. Alot of builds don't even use END for the reason I mentioned.

quote:

For the concept of ranged damage scaling with accuracy, I suggest that it be a lean modifier that applies like this:

At the end of each turn, the player's ranged attack lean (in [Expected Hit Rate]/85 format) is multiplicatively increased if they were inaccurate and decreased if they were accurate. If the direction of the lean change matches the weapon's inherent lean then the change is multiplied by 1 plus double the lean's value, but if it's the opposite direction it'll be multiplied by 1 MINUS the lean's value.

Examples:

A weapon has a +10 lean - on turns where you're accurate your lean will reduce by 0.8*X%, on turns where you miss more than expected your lean will increase by 1.2*X%. The weapon's accurate base lean means it gets more accurate faster, but shifts to damage slower.

A weapon has a -15 lean - on turns where you're accurate your lean will reduce by 1.3*X%, on turns where you're accurate your lean will increase by 0.7*X%.the weapon's inaccurate lean means its damage ramps up faster, but it's slower to gain accuracy when missing.

I feel this suggestion achieves the goal of giving rangers damage as a reward for being accurate, while also allowing lean to have some more nuanced interactions / give some extra design space to ranged weapons.

Interesting idea!

quote:

1. STR: "gets nothing." (Credits to Jeanne for this quote) More precisely, STR does not receive an additional 5% damage boost. This is the most reasonable answer, because the entire game is balanced around "Melee". Strength is intended to have the most stable and consistent damage output, with no additional effect and no penalties.


2. DEX: Ranged damage ramping should be removed. As a largely disliked mechanic, it clearly illustrates the problems with "balancing" the game around a defunct 20-turn model. If it is not too outrageous, DEX investment could modify pet damage from CHA at the cost of Ranged damage from DEX. In essence, at VStat DEX and 0 CHA, Ranged damage is assumed player damage at 100% Melee. However, at VStat DEX and VStat CHA, Pet damage is increased by 10% Melee to a value of 50% Melee per turn, while Ranged player damage is decreased proportionally by 10% Melee to a value of 90% Melee per turn. This effectively functions like a pseudo-damage lean that scales based on DEX and CHA investment (i.e. at VStat/2 DEX and VStat/2 CHA, you receive 10%+2.5% Melee per turn in pet damage from CHA, while Ranged damage from DEX is decreased by 2.5% Melee).


3. INT: Ideally we should move away from the current "balancing" around a defunct 20-turn model, however even under current assumptions Mages still receive an advantage over Warriors and Rangers with respects to versatility in damage output, since Mages are given 4 200% Melee turns that they can choose to use at any time—an option exclusive to Mages.

To address this, I suggest a rework of the way the MP resource functions in battle. Max MP should be subject to a turn-by-turn decay in order to further encourage the niche of burst damage for Mages. The Max MP tied to INT stat investment should decrease by 125% Melee per turn over the course of the first 4 turns. Since it is unreasonable for Mages to become weaker Warriors and Rangers by default after the first 4 turns assuming they do not use their MP, I suggest that Mages should receive an additional 125% Melee in MP that is paid for by a universal reduction in Pet damage by 6.25% Melee (assuming 0 CHA), scaling with INT investment. This makes it such that Max MP never falls below a reasonable threshold for Mages even without the use of INT drive items. A change like this should be accompanied by future changes to encourage mages away from skill-casting.

1. So how exactly does this make STR appealing at all and why would anyone play it over DEX or INT?
2. Doesn't this mean that Rangers HAVE TO be Beastmasters too in order to take full advantage of DEX? While most if not all Ranger builds are already BMs, I don't like to "lock/tie" a main stat to a sub stat to be good
3. So Mages can't be a effective Beastmaster? Again, I dislike this for the same reasons said in 2.

quote:

1. Additional Bonuses: Additional stat bonuses may not be the worst idea. However, I feel that such bonuses should be a secondary consideration, seeing as they not only break assumed models but actually have very little impact on playstyles, as evidenced by the past year of STR's totally free 5% damage bonus simply being peanuts in comparison to the long-standing overperformance of Mages (which should be addressed through changes beyond stats). Below are my proposed suggestions:

1.1. STR: Free 5% Melee in Player BtH.

1.2. DEX: Free 5% Melee in damage reduction.

1.3. INT: Free 5% Melee in Spell BtH.

Decent ideas.

quote:

2. Accuracy Changes: Several players have pointed out that currently dodgelash as a playstyle is problematic in principle, because mechanics which allow the player to achieve 100% probability of blocking and thus eliminating any possibility of being hit, allows the player to completely bypass normal gameplay considerations such as elements. As such, the most reasonable and straightforward solution that addresses this problem at a fundamental level, is to implement a cap to the probability of blocking (i.e. taking the maximum of the accuracy calculation and a certain set probability such as 5%, credits to this simple formula goes to Chaotic). This should ideally be implemented for both players and mobs, especially if high dodge bosses are planned in the future. In the long run, this will actually make dodgelash a more fun and interesting playstyle, since staying in the exact same set of equipment would no longer be optimal.

I hate this because I love my Dodge builds but this sounds reasonable to me if they intend on changing the Dodge playstyle. Just have Dodge capped at 95% or something.

quote:

3. Defensive Warrior: Several players have mentioned that a Warrior in FD armor cannot compete with Mages and Rangers due to the lack of 100-proc Melee weapons. My personal stance on this matter is that item support for 100-proc Melee (i.e. Whips and Flails) would be widely appreciated by players, and is not only thematically compatible but the most straight forward solution to remedying the issue of STR being the only Mainstat fundamentally denied a true FD playstyle.

Agreed.

quote:

i) An overabundance of SP

Every build and almost every item in the game uses this resource. Having an overabundance of it is better than having a shortage.

quote:

The suggestion of SP recovery cannot adequately satisfy these three conditions. Warrior already has access to the most efficient skills, so extra SP regeneration will already be less desirable. Moreover, we can’t provide a significant amount of extra SP because it's a build-agnostic resource. Giving Warriors a large extra chunk would unfairly disadvantage Mages and, more importantly, Rangers (who we’re also trying to provide with an identity). Equally, a small boost (e.g., 5%) isn’t going to provide anywhere near enough persuasive power to make Warrior an attractive-enough option. Too much and we break the model too severely, too little and we don’t achieve the intended effect.

Fair points.

quote:

i). I believe Warrior should also have a distinct defensive identity. Mage and Ranger both have clear FO and FD playstyles, but Warrior lacks this due to the avoidance of 100-proc Melee weapons. Without them, Warrior cannot compete. I have attempted to produce a compromise so that Warriors can play defensively without the need for 100-proc Weapons
ii). I believe that, whilst all builds should be able to play offensively and defensively if they wish, Mages should be more offensive specialised (with their burst damage stored via MP), Rangers should be more defensive specialised (with their range of 100-proc weapons) and Warriors should have unparalleled versatility in switching between the two during combat. In this way, Warriors become a jack of all trades when it comes to playstyle, adding to their distinct identity of consistent damage.
iii). To make room for Warriors, we have to push Mages towards spells. This means solving the Mage identity crisis and pushing them away from the old skillcasting paradigm.
iv). I want spell-based skills to be able to compete with Weapon-based skills

I agree with all these.

quote:

1). Fix Essence Orb: This fix will restrict SP regeneration and, if done correctly, will help to weaken Mage’s ability to fire off boosted skills whilst allowing Warrior and Ranger to continue without issue
2). If possible, remove the *4/3 bonus applied to Weapon-based skills. I however wish to go further than this and also include a /2 modifier on all Weapon-based skills, normalising any boosts applied to them relative to 100% Melee. This would curb the advantage Mages receive when skillcasting and also allow for Spell-based skills to compete. I recognise this is a substantial nerf, but one that should have corrected a long time ago
3). Improve gold-based Spellcaster and Spellcaster-lean support to incentivise mages switching away from weapon-based skills towards spells and spell-based skills.
4). Remove the minor extra bonuses to STR and DEX: they break the model for little to no reason. They don’t make Warrior or Ranger significantly more attractive.
5). Implement a mechanism for Warriors to play defensively: My suggestion for this would be that all Melee weapons deal *1 damage when in MD or FD armours. This allows Melee weapons to approximate the efficiency of 100-procs without taking their niche away. This doesn’t need to be implemented immediately so Ranger support can be better consolidated.
6). Implement the suggested fixes for Ranger as planned
7). Fix pet accuracy by making it independent from stats
8). Reduce the Damage Output / Cost ratio of guests. This will help to reduce the overall power of CHA and Mages (who benefit from summon guests)
9). Provide item support for Warrior and Ranger in these new identities e.g., STR-based healing

1. The game isn't ready for that yet. All builds rely on this resource and many of the best SP healing items currently are either seasonal, premium or a combination of both. We don't have enough good, free and permanently accessible SP healing items for all builds currently. Nerfing EO without providing more alternatives first is just going to make every single player's life more difficult.
3. I think the bonuses can be kept. Bump them up or rework them to make it more attractive (what we're currently doing)
8. No, guests needs to be worth using for their cost as opposed to spending SP on a Skill for example. I think they're in a good place currently because you simply can't do both without a significant amount of resource regeneration (which balances itself out because you're sacrificing damage to achieve that)
Everything else I agree with.

quote:

This will hurt defensive beastbuilds a lot more than just mages. The latter will lose a few % off their boosters, while the former will be crippled in one of their main sources of damage/status/healing. Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge that the current situation is problematic, but I think the solution is slightly more complicated than making them inferior skills that demand an extra stat.

Agreed.

quote:

I want to reduce this ratio because Guests currently provide 60% melee at a cost of ~22% Melee, which is extremely overpowered. Following my own rules above, I can't justify keeping things as they are because it breaks the model to the point where it distorts gameplay. However, this emphatically does not mean I wish to entirely fix it. Reducing it to equal input/output would be ridiculous and is likely to cause major upset within the community. Yes, any nerf to CHA will disproportionately hurt FD builds, but I'd argue that they have problems too (one of them being this!).

This is one of those things that seems overpowered on paper but in an actual gameplay scenario feels balanced. As mentioned in a previous comment from me, if guest cost has to be increased, it can't be increased to be balanced like you said, that would just make guests unattractive to use. I would tread very carefully before changing this. And if there isn't a reasonable enough solution to fix it without greatly taking away the appeal to use guests to begin with, I rather it remain status quo.

quote:

Maybe you can follow this rule: One misc active or one guest active (not both options at the same time).

No, just no. Locking out one entire aspect is silly and greatly limits creativity in item combinations, something that is a lot of fun for AQ.

quote:

Basically,
(A) Ranged damage gets an additional BtH lean that is independent of equipment, and starts at 0 at Turn 1 of every battle.
(B) If your Ranged (hits/attempt) is lower than 85% this turn, your Ranged damage lean increases. This mean your Ranged hits in the next turn become more accurate, at the cost of lowered damage.
(C) OTOH, if your Ranged (hits/attempt) is higher than 85% this turn, your Ranged damage lean decreases, therefore your Ranged hits in the next turn become less accurate, but more powerful.

Here's an example:
You're equipping an armour that hits 3 times with a normal attack, plus a Ranged 0-proc Spear with -5 BtH lean. Assume you face a normal opponent, and all other factors are being controlled.
Turn 1: You got lucky and scored all 3 hits. 3/3 hits/attempt = 100% accuracy this turn, which is higher than 85%. The game gives you a further -5 BtH lean to Ranged attacks next round, to a total of -10.
Turn 2: Your luck still holds. All 3 attacks hit. Hits/attempts = 100% > 85% accuracy. The opponent takes more damage than in Turn 1 - the -10 BtH lean resulted in you dealing more damage, and you get another -5 BtH lean stacked, so now you end up with -15 BtH lean to future Ranged attacks.
Turn 3: Your luck has finally caught up with you, and you only hit 1 attack out of 3. Hits/attempts = 33% < 85% accuracy. Your Ranged BtH lean now shifts by +5, so the next turn your Ranged attacks will have -10 BtH lean.

Similar to Dardiel's idea but I prefer his idea.




Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/13/2023 7:34:29)

quote:

Well, you did say I might be onto something, Dreiko, so I might as well try posting this, and gauge the reaction from the forum community.

I am here to put forth an alternative Ranged damage identity proposal. Instead of an accuracy-based, damage-ramp mechanic, I propose a (somewhat-accuracy-based) lean-shifting mechanic.

Basically,
(A) Ranged damage gets an additional BtH lean that is independent of equipment, and starts at 0 at Turn 1 of every battle.
(B) If your Ranged (hits/attempt) is lower than 85% this turn, your Ranged damage lean increases. This mean your Ranged hits in the next turn become more accurate, at the cost of lowered damage.
(C) OTOH, if your Ranged (hits/attempt) is higher than 85% this turn, your Ranged damage lean decreases, therefore your Ranged hits in the next turn become less accurate, but more powerful.

Here's an example:
You're equipping an armour that hits 3 times with a normal attack, plus a Ranged 0-proc Spear with -5 BtH lean. Assume you face a normal opponent, and all other factors are being controlled.
Turn 1: You got lucky and scored all 3 hits. 3/3 hits/attempt = 100% accuracy this turn, which is higher than 85%. The game gives you a further -5 BtH lean to Ranged attacks next round, to a total of -10.
Turn 2: Your luck still holds. All 3 attacks hit. Hits/attempts = 100% > 85% accuracy. The opponent takes more damage than in Turn 1 - the -10 BtH lean resulted in you dealing more damage, and you get another -5 BtH lean stacked, so now you end up with -15 BtH lean to future Ranged attacks.
Turn 3: Your luck has finally caught up with you, and you only hit 1 attack out of 3. Hits/attempts = 33% < 85% accuracy. Your Ranged BtH lean now shifts by +5, so the next turn your Ranged attacks will have -10 BtH lean.

Why 85% accuracy? Because by game design, players are supposed to have 85% accuracy against monsters. This is why more accurate weapons will end up having less damage than less accurate weapons, all other factors being equal - but I'm sure y'all know this ;)

The proposal above aims to counter whatever potential Ranged damage penalties imposed by missing attacks in an accuracy-based damage-ramp mechanic. It also aims to remove the soft constraints placed on Ranged equipment design and acquisiton - there's no need for devs to focus on making Ranged weapons with accurate leans, nor for players to use accurate-lean Ranged gear in order to ramp efficiently in an accuracy-based damage-ramp mechanic. Give us a -20 lean Ranged throwing axe please :D

"But what about FD Rangers?"
"And what if Rangers use Autohit weapons? Will they end up getting free damage ramping?"
I'll admit the proposal above is not fully fleshed out. Among other things, I'm considering additional elements that allow the final version of this proposal to skew Ranged BtH lean towards accuracy if you wear FD armour, so that FD Rangers have a higher chance at inflicting on-hit status effects by ramping accuracy, as well as not allowing Autohit Ranged attacks to skew the lean. But still, here's the basic structure of the proposal - have at it!


This idea is LIGHT YEARS better. It will normalize damage and prevents front-loading up on BTH boosting strategies to avoid the downside of missing *that's supposed to be there*, and wouldn't under Dreiko's suggestion. It also doesn't completely punish them vs absurdly high MRM monsters also. This idea actually doesn't require any unnecessary bubble wrap to "contain it", which is what the proposed idea would require (and a lot of it) I honestly see ZERO arguments that could be made to justify the proposal over this one.






Edit and diff topic->
Don't hate this, and it isn't rehashing old endless and closed topics. The fact that guests are being migrated to the engine side to be able to globally deal with them begs the question, Is it time to evaluate the idea of guest lucky strikes? Ianthe *did* put the guest hypercrit status in as a future marker of sorts, just in case. I understand overall damage has to come down to pay for it, which is fine. But because their is upkeeps associated with guests , IMO, they should have always had the ability to do it. Skills, spells, etc all have costs and get them. I would rather have that added than a resistance to the random and seldomly used stun from a monster.
I know some would reflexively knock it down, but is it time to do the right thing finally? Food for thought.







Dardiel -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/13/2023 17:22:47)

For clarity and to not feel like a hack I feel the need to mention that my idea (scaling lean) is based largely off of @Telcontar Arvedui I's lean idea, which I had seen in an earlier form and had opinions on so I made my own version with the same logic. We're both proposing that ranged attacks apply a lean to the player that gives a higher damage lean for repeated accurate attacks and a higher accuracy lean for repeated missing - which both support the "ranger is accurate" feel by effectively converting excess accuracy into damage, and by granting bonus accuracy against enemies that have particularly high MRM. For the sake of clarity I figured I would summarize where our proposals align and where they differ for an easier reference.

In terms of similarity, both of our proposals include:

- The currently-proposed ranger damage scaling be converted to a lean scaling that goes down (less accurate, more damage) for having accurate hits and goes up (more accurate, less damage) for missing more than usual.
- The gauge for whether an attack is accurate or inaccurate is based off of the 85% accuracy that players are assumed to have
- The opinion that this version makes high-MRM monsters less multiplicatively punishing to ranged players (fewer attacks are hitting, and when they do hit they're dealing less damage due to the proposed "lose damage for missing" mechanic)
- The opinion that this proposal make it easier to design damage-leaning ranged weapons when they're justified, since the proposed mechanic of damage scaling with accuracy makes low-accuracy ranged weapons nearly objectively worse without additional balancing added purely to compensate for the mechanic

In terms of difference, there's not a ton since my idea was building off of Telcontar's idea (at the time I saw him mentioning it) of having the damage scaling converted to lean scaling. I believe the main difference is:

- Telcontar's proposal uses weapon/skill inherent lean as the "start point" for the player - if your first attack has an accuracy lean of -10, you're more likely to fall under the 85% and will therefore be more likely to have a positive lean bonus.
- My proposal also uses lean as a multiplier to affect how much the lean changes in each direction throughout the fight - an accurate weapon will "pull" the lean up so that it becomes more accurate sooner but gains in damage slower, while a -10 lean weapon will gain damage faster at the cost of gaining less accuracy when missing.

- Telcontar's proposal applies a flat +/- to the lean: If you're somehow missing every attack your lean might go 85->90->95->100, which is very easy to understand and most likely uses existing balancing very easily.
- My proposal applies multiplies the lean: If you're missing every attack your lean might go 85->90->95.3->100.9, which is largely the same but allows the scale to go infinitely in either direction (allowing the scale to exist without an arbitary cap) and scale at a consistent rate (going from accuracy of 5/85 to 10/85 is still +5, but as a multiplier it's +100% while going from 100/85 to 105/85 is only a 5% increase).

I am of course biased toward my own design directions and I can't pretend to know Telcontar's reasoning, but I hope I was able to present both ideas fairly. Telcontar's is likely the easier one to implement and to understand (you get +X lean for missing, -X lean for hitting, the end), while I like to think that mine has some nuance that makes player decisions more impactful (your lean choice will affect how quickly you scale for future turns which could promote having a variety of leans on hand, and allowing infinite scaling of the lean multiplier means players can always feel the effects of the scale regardless of how many miscs/spells/etc they use to modify their accuracy).



CH4OT1C! -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/13/2023 19:27:18)

@Primate Murder: I totally get why you think I'm way ahead of the train. It seems counterintuitive to discuss fixing Mages when Warriors and Rangers are in much worse a position, let alone work within a hypothetical framework where Mage is offensively specialised and Ranger defensively. Allow me to explain my reasoning.

Mage is currently a Master of all Trades. I've already explained why it outcompetes Warriors Offensively, but it's also no secret that it outcompetes Rangers Defensively too. Just like Rangers, Mages have access to 100-procs. However, they also have a number of natural advantages: i). Busted MP Regeneration mechanics, ii). Summon Guests, iii). MP storage for high damage output and iv). an abundance of MP and SP healing options. Thus, as you rightly state, we have to move Mage over not once but twice. The point to all this is: To make it so any Warrior and Ranger identity can flourish at all, we have to make room by chipping away at Mage. Otherwise, it's going to be near impossible to create a Warrior or Ranger identity that can compete any time soon. Trying to work on Warrior and Ranger before this step would only make it harder; it's hard to know whether the identity is desirable enough when it's constantly being overshadowed by Mage.

This is where our second problem arises. Nerfing Skillcaster Mage without providing spellcaster support will cause Mages to shift towards FD spellcasting, where they outcompete FD Rangers (thus overshadowing them even more). Equally, however, nerfing FD Mage's capabilities without limiting skills will cause FD Mages to switch towards skillcaster, where they outcompete Warriors. It's unfortunately a zero-sum game, where at least one build is going to end up suffering. As much as Spellcaster lean can provide an alternative, there's currently nowhere near enough support for it to be desirable. Yet, we must still move, or neither identity will flourish. In the end, I chose to focus on Warrior first. Focusing on Warrior in the shorter term makes sense because i) We already have a feasible solution to open the field (i.e. Spellcaster), ii) we already have an abundance of FO lean armours and Melee weapons to provide sufficient item support and iii) Warrior can't play FD competitively at all, so leaving FO unchanged means leaving Warrior entirely out in the cold. Yes, it's likely Ranger's going to get the short end of the stick in the short term (again...), but unfortunately I don't have a magic solution that would solve everything immediately and for the long run.

Unfortunately, as much as I like your ideas, I don't think they're the solution here:
- "Heavy Armour" essentially capitalises on blocking, which Rangers have more support for and works on based on a build-agnostic mechanic anyhow. Whatever we do needs to be warrior-specific.
- Status would be a great idea... if it were 2012 and Statuses weren't everywhere. The problem with FD builds benefitting less from Choke and Blind is essentially the reverse of the issue of FO builds not getting their money's worth from DOT statuses like poison. Even if we could though, just like Heavy Armour, it's build-agnostic and we couldn't easily work it into a distinctive identity
- We kind of already have a limited version of FD warrior as it is (the few 100-proc Melee weapons we have) so this would only reinforce the current situation.
With that said, I'd love to see some suggestions on these.

Being honest, I don't have all the answers. My action points are an attempt to put together a long-term plan that, if executed in tandem with the ideas of others, could solve our problem in a way that simultaenously sticks to our principles and creates distinctive identities for each build.




@KorribanGaming: First of all, I'm happy to hear that we have some common ground. With that said, I think you might have slightly misinterpreted some of my underlying intentions. To clarify:

quote:

1. The game isn't ready for that yet. All builds rely on this resource and many of the best SP healing items currently are either seasonal, premium or a combination of both. We don't have enough good, free and permanently accessible SP healing items for all builds currently. Nerfing EO without providing more alternatives first is just going to make every single player's life more difficult.

I'm suggesting the Esssence Orb nerf now because I want to explicitly take advantage of current circumstances. Right now, Essence Orb is a keystone for Skillcaster Mage dominance. It enables Mages to regenerate an entire SP bar with ease, removing any disadvantage from additional Magic SP costs. This is also extremely problematic for Warrior/Ranger builds (albeit to a slightly lesser extent) and substantially distorts gameplay.

My aim with Essence Orb is to reduce how much SP it can provide per turn to around 300-350SP (for level 150). This removes the insane regeneration potential, whilst also allowing Warriors/Rangers to regularly produce boosted Weapon-based skills, since (with elecomp) they cost much less than this. Mages, meanwhile, will find it much harder to sustain boosted weapon-based skills since their SP costs are higher. Doing this would disincentivise Mage Skillcasting without making it anywhere near impossible.

Adding a large number of high SP regenerating items to replace Essence Orb would kill the benefit I seek to gain.

quote:

3. I think the bonuses can be kept. Bump them up or rework them to make it more attractive (what we're currently doing)

To reiterate, I take no issue with breaking game assumptions so long as the follow the three criteria I set in my original post. I explicitly wish to remove these bonuses because they break the mathematical balance model for no real reason. Their sole purpose is to provide the player with a minor additional buff that, ultimately, is nowhere near enough to balance the scales between Warrior/Ranger and Mage attractiveness. This doesn't mean I'm against buffing Warrior/Ranger (some of my other points explicitly do this), I just think we should be more careful with how we do it.

quote:

8. No, guests needs to be worth using for their cost as opposed to spending SP on a Skill for example. I think they're in a good place currently because you simply can't do both without a significant amount of resource regeneration (which balances itself out because you're sacrificing damage to achieve that)

I agree that we need to make sure guests are worth using and, in this case, I'm much more open to breaking the mathematical model to solve the problem. Reducing Guests in power down to where they should be mathematically would likely generate a negative reaction. I'm not suggesting anything quite that extreme. That said, with guests, you currently pay 22% melee to deal 60%. This is a massive power gap and one we can't really allow if we want to incentivise players to use the other supporting stats. The ratio needs to come down a bit, one way or another.



@Telcontar Arvedui I: Your idea works and I can't think of anything wrong with it mathematically. I personally prefer @Dreiko Shadrak's idea because I personally don't like missing, but I wouldn't be disappointed if your version were implemented



Korriban Gaming -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/13/2023 21:30:47)

quote:

I'm suggesting the Esssence Orb nerf now because I want to explicitly take advantage of current circumstances. Right now, Essence Orb is a keystone for Skillcaster Mage dominance. It enables Mages to regenerate an entire SP bar with ease, removing any disadvantage from additional Magic SP costs. This is also extremely problematic for Warrior/Ranger builds (albeit to a slightly lesser extent) and substantially distorts gameplay.

My aim with Essence Orb is to reduce how much SP it can provide per turn to around 300-350SP (for level 150). This removes the insane regeneration potential, whilst also allowing Warriors/Rangers to regularly produce boosted Weapon-based skills, since (with elecomp) they cost much less than this. Mages, meanwhile, will find it much harder to sustain boosted weapon-based skills since their SP costs are higher. Doing this would disincentivise Mage Skillcasting without making it anywhere near impossible.

Adding a large number of high SP regenerating items to replace Essence Orb would kill the benefit I seek to gain.

I'm not going to act like EO isn't a problem, it is and your idea of how to fix it is reasonable. But, the fact that every build in the game is so heavily reliant on this resource means that an outright nerf to it will affect every build in the game negatively and warriors and rangers more than mages like you said. Apart from EO itself and the DL set (which is warrior focused), how many other sources of good SP healing are there in the game that aren't seasonal, premium or a combination of both? Builds will be locked to 1-2 standard skill casts per battle if we factor in misc upkeep, toggles etc and that's assuming you start every battle with a full SP bar. Not to mention, this would also heavily nerf every single form of boosting. This puts so many restrictions on gameplay and what one can do in battle and kills alot of creativity and flexibility in the combos that one can pull off which is a huge part of the game. This is why I propose adding more SP healing items first to fill this gap before touching EO to avoid the afore-mentioned problems. No, they don't have to be broken like EO, they can be balanced but they need to be good and more importantly, they need to be there.

On the FO side, I don't want to cast 2 skills and hole up for the rest of the battle (because let's be real, modern bosses don't die in 2 turns), regenerating resources slowly for the next 5 turns before being able to nuke again. This is stupidly slow and boring.
On the FD side, I don't want to only be able to upkeep all my toggles for 5-6 turns then switch to regenerating resources for another 5 turns and switching back again. This playstyle is slower, I get it, but this is surely too slow as well.

quote:

To reiterate, I take no issue with breaking game assumptions so long as the follow the three criteria I set in my original post. I explicitly wish to remove these bonuses because they break the mathematical balance model for no real reason. Their sole purpose is to provide the player with a minor additional buff that, ultimately, is nowhere near enough to balance the scales between Warrior/Ranger and Mage attractiveness. This doesn't mean I'm against buffing Warrior/Ranger (some of my other points explicitly do this), I just think we should be more careful with how we do it.

Oh, those minor buffs certainly don't make warrior and ranger more attractive (well at least not to me) which is why we should either increase them or rework them. I'm not sure how taking them away will make warriors and rangers more appealing either?




Gateless -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/13/2023 22:49:12)

I want to state that while I agree that adjusting EO is a long pending change, it would be wise to make sure whenever it happens, that post-adjustment EO remains a competitive choice in its own right against Soul Gauntlet and not just a strictly worse version of the latter.

Seeing as the latter is not only a seasonal token cost item, but also has other functions aside from HP to SP conversion, whereas the sole function of EO is HP to SP conversion.

Furthermore, players potentially having to wait months on top of spending tokens to get an essential utility item doesn't really sit right with me. Not to mention that the only truly reasonable argument I can think of for delaying long pending changes that are effectively global reductions in player power, is an argument on the basis of the long-standing poor accessibility of AQ for new and returning players. Never even mind that said changes are long pending under the assumption of game balance models that are questionable in the first place.

For these reasons, my stance is that it would be wise for running EO to maintain some advantages over running Soul Gauntlet.

A good analogy here is Blood Contract and QuadMod, (ignoring that they are technically on different standards) while QuadMod is worse purely considering damage boosting due to its damage boost being additive while Blood Contract's is multiplicative, there are many more reasons to use QuadMod over Blood Contract, because it compresses Light elemental damage reduction, a LUK stat boost, and niche skills.

Barring obvious limitations to this comparison, we can compare the ideal state of post-adjustment EO to Blood Contract and Soul Gauntlet to QuadMod.



Primate Murder -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/14/2023 1:54:20)

@ Chaotic

Thank you for responding to my concerns.

I understand and fully agree that mage needs to find its niche and stick to it in order for other builds to flourish. That's why I support a long-needed update to EO, a nerf to boosters in regards to weapon-based skills, and releasing spellcaster armors, shields, or weapons. What I disagree on is your proposed identities for the three stats. Aside from the inherent bias toward offensive builds in turn-based games, as you've noted, all three should be able to play both offensively and defensively. Maybe some would be better, some would be worse, but as more items are released, the lines will inevitably blur. Instead, we should be using what is already present in the game:

- Mage: burst damage identity,

- Warrior: stable damage identity,

- Ranger: no identity.

...I think the problem here is somewhat obvious.

In your first post, you proposed a build that has unparalleled versatility in switching between FO and FD during combat, a jack of all trades that can pull up a necessary solution to any problem. Putting aside hybrids (the intended jack of all trades), ranger seems like a better fit for the archetype. It already has support for FO and FD builds, and it lacks any cohesive identity that could get in the way. Why invent a bicycle when you already have the schematics for one before you?

quote:

Unfortunately, as much as I like your ideas, I don't think they're the solution here:

Would you mind terribly if I focus on the one I personally have grown to like the most?

'Heavy Armor' lean seems like the best solution the more I think about it. You're absolutely right in that my initial suggestion was not a warrior-specific one. How about this, then: in heavy armor lean, you gain blocking based on Str/VStat. It's a nice fit thematically, as the amount of armor you wear and can reasonably fight in depends on how much you can carry, and it gives warriors a sufficiently distinct defensive option.

Blocking is a build-agnostic mechanic, as you've pointed out, but it inherently favors a more offensive build. Defensive rangers would use FD leans with 100-proc weapons, while defensive warriors use Heavy Armor with low-proc weapons. This opens up the field to crafting a clear and distinctive playstyle for each stat, and, well, they'd actually look different?

Because, much as we like to pretend otherwise, FashionQuest still remains a distinct part of AQ.


***

On to other matters, while I applaud the Dardiel/Telcontar model for its innovative approach, I still favor Dreiko's proposal.

The new model could work very well for FO rangers, but it feels overly punishing for those using status weapons which are the core of an FD ranger build. You lose your chance to inflict the status in return for a minor multiplier to damage - one that's even less practical since good status weapons sacrifice a notable portion of their own damage for the effect.

There's also the issue of autohit weapons, but that's part of the larger problem with the Berserk status.

I apologize if that seems overly harsh, but it's my personal take on the idea.



Dardiel -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/14/2023 3:44:33)

I appreciate @Primate Murder reminding me of the cases I either forgot to mention or didn't consider. My updated proposal that accounts for auto-hit and attempts to account for FD strategies would be:

At the end of each turn, the player's inherent BtH lean is increased (made more accurate) if the player had below 85% accuracy. If they had 85% or more accuracy and their attack did not use a 100-proc weapon, the BtH lean is decreased to provide more damage instead. Auto-hit weapons are either considered to have an extremely accurate lean or to be auto-hit, at staff discretion. The amount that the lean changes scales with the lean of the weapon/skill used - for example if lean is multiplied by 3 then added to lean changes that match its lean and subtracted from changes that don't match, +15 means 145% lean increase and 55% lean decrease while a negative lean like -10 means 70% lean increase and 130% lean decrease.

I imagine that this helps to better serve defensive strategies by giving them scaling accuracy, and that it handles auto-hit by either reducing their damage ramping or removing it entirely. Ranger spells may also be worth adding to the list of things that don't decrease lean, though I'm not knowledgeable on what gear exists or gets used and am only going by the logic that FD Ranger would use 100-procs and spells so as to ignore their armor's damage lean.



CH4OT1C! -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/14/2023 5:11:42)

I'm afraid I don't have enough time at the moment to respond fully at the moment, but watch this space

@Primate Murder: You're not the first person to raise this and, yes, it does seem counterintuitive - why do this when Ranger is better prepared for a FD FO switch.

My personal identities for Warrior, Ranger, and Mage are simply extensions of the identity they already possess:
i). Mage burst damage makes them a shoe-in for an offensive specialisation. Nothing we do with Warrior or Ranger identity is going to bridge that gap, even if give Warriors a natural advantage in FO weapon-based skills. My action points do not, and cannot, fix every quirk in the system.
ii). Stable damage for Warrior has always been a bit of a sticking point because it's extremely difficult to make that desirable. We value consistency, but it doesn't have the x factor that spells possess. My solution was to reframe it so that "Stable Damage" means stability regardless of playstyle (FO/FD). This opens up a niche where Warrior can switch between the two using the same weapons and still deal damage consistently.
iii). Rangers (currently) have no identity, but they're pre-disposed for FD specialisation (even if they have more balance than Warriors do right now). For one, the proposed ramping damage mechanic based on accuracy will still take time to truly benefit from, meaning Rangers will need to stay longer in battle (i.e. play more defensively). For two, Ranged weapons are currently split down 100-proc and everything else, and these two groups cater to the different sides of the build. This poses a bit of a problem for adaptability though - we'd need to remove this distinction for Rangers to use the same weapons in FD and FO. That would cause the attractive qualities of 100-proc Ranged weapons to be lost, and I'd rather that not happen.

The elephant in the room then becomes Hybrids. Yes, these truly are the jack of all trades. With that said, I think the problem will solve itself. We're talking about two different kinds of adaptability, Warrior to playstyle and Hybrid to build. Hybrid will be able to take advantage of the specialised options provided to Mages and Rangers, but this comes at the cost of versatility. For example, Hybrids could carry some spellcaster lean armour but this sacrifices weapon damage meaning they can't take advantage of Warrior versatility. The same applies to 100-proc ranged/magic weapons - provided nothing changes, they can't really function in FO so Hybrids wanting to benefit will have to make that sacrifice. They could run Melee weapons to switch between FO and FD better, but at the cost of slots for the specialsed defensive/offensive weapons from Mage/Ranger. Warrior, meanwhile, doesn't get the benefits of playstyle specialisation, but can comfortably switch between the two and has 500 free stat points to spend on support (CHA, END, LUK). They have different options open to them.

I'm not redrawing the plans as much as fleshing them out a bit.


Once again, I don't dislike a Warrior-based blocking armour but, from my perspective at least, the idea really does fall foul of the same problem. Most blocking based gear is focused more on Ranger and Mage than Warrior. There certainly are reasons to "redraw" the plans (as I've just tried to justify above), but the difference here is Blocking isn't already a part of Warrior identity, nor is it a logical extension of it.


@Gateless: I want EO fixed, but I completely agree it needs to stay competitive. My proposals also logically extend to fixing the current conversion provided by Soul Gauntlet





Primate Murder -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/14/2023 8:36:52)

@ Dardiel

That could work!

Thanks for accounting for fringe cases [:)]

@ Chaotic

quote:

Mage burst damage makes them a shoe-in for an offensive specialisation. Nothing we do with Warrior or Ranger identity is going to bridge that gap


That's, uh, a somewhat problematic take, because:

a) nothing proposed thus far has bridged the gap to mage's defensive potential either,

b) saying that mage is better, and will always be better, and there's nothing we can do about it, is pretty much a conversation killer. It does not invite any further discussion or consideration.

quote:

We value consistency, but it doesn't have the x factor that spells possess. My solution was to reframe it so that "Stable Damage" means stability regardless of playstyle (FO/FD). This opens up a niche where Warrior can switch between the two using the same weapons and still deal damage consistently.

Except they'll do 1.25x damage in FO armors and 1x damage in FD. The only way to keep the damage consistent between the two is using 100-proc weapons.

Even dismissing that, there's still the fact that it's exactly the same thing rangers do. Your proposal is meant to compensate for 100-proc ranged weapons and the lack of 100-proc melee ones, right? But to continue that analogy, giving every melee weapon 1x damage in FD armors is equivalent to giving every spear a 100-proc mode - which is a ridiculous amount of work, and removes much of the diversity in weapon inventories in addition to what few differences there remain between investing in Str and Dex.

No "x factor", much less one on the same level as spells.

quote:

Once again, I don't dislike a Warrior-based blocking armour [...] but the difference here is Blocking isn't already a part of Warrior identity

I was under the impression that there's no defensive warrior identity? Isn't that exactly what we're trying to make?

Blocking is not part of any build's identity, but if we're trying to create something new and distinct in defensive warrior, it's one of the few options remaining that are not used by any other build. It'd be a pity not to explore it further.

Abandon fear! Boldly go where no man has gone before!



Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/14/2023 11:09:09)

I agree with PM in that allowing a warrior to do 1x damage while in a .8x armor when a Ranger does .9x damage while in a .8x armor isn't balanced, nor fair.

---------Offense-------Defense
Warrior- 1x -------- .8x
Ranger- .9x -------- .8x


It seems easy to spot.


The only way to balance it is for the warrior to take on more damage than the ranger in the same FD armor, to counterbalance it



I still think a better approach is not to create a FD warrior, but rather to make the FO playstyle more defensive through perks. Replace the +5% damage add-on with a +5% reduced damage mechanic. The marriage of Str + END in this scenario would prove to be a better one than other Mainstats + END



Lorekeeper -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/14/2023 17:19:40)

I'll be drawing attention to the complete proposals for DEX, thank you very much for the feedback!

I'll need Ianthe to have time to go through some internal documentation before I can explain this in full detail, because it involves a part of my proposal that requires her input. However, there's a potential misconception that the stat discussion could benefit from correcting:

The proposed player bonuses to each stat are blatantly powercreep, and I'm keenly aware of this. However, they are meant to be an expansion of the balance framework rather than any breaking thereof. They aren't something I proposed lightly, and certainly not without a very specific reason.

The point of this idea is to add some design room by adding a budget of power to each stat that can be leveraged for further distinction, make plainer stats like END more appealing, and mitigate issues such as guest upkeep. Plainly put, it's taking a minor hit to force open some design space.

This is both to ensure that single mainstat builds actively play differently to each other, having individual reasons to want to play them and to want to pick any hybrid combination. The final value of the player-only bonus is **not** 5%, as that number was only the value of the placeholder bonus for STR in the initial steps of this project. The %melee value of this budget isn't finalized at all, which is why I haven't shared more specific examples of its applications.

If one of the proposed bonuses is irreconcilable with core assumptions, such as by hurting inter-build balance of SP, then it can be adjusted so that there are equivalents for each mainstat or replaced with something else entirely.



CH4OT1C! -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/14/2023 17:20:57)

quote:

That's, uh, a somewhat problematic take, because:
a) nothing proposed thus far has bridged the gap to mage's defensive potential either,
b) saying that mage is better, and will always be better, and there's nothing we can do about it, is pretty much a conversation killer. It does not invite any further discussion or consideration.


There are two gaps that we have to bridge, one with Offensive mage and another with Defensive Mage. Both have Mage in common, but their circumstances differ. We have the power (and opportunity) to coerce Offensive Mages into using spells rather than skills, and this naturally opens up space for FO Warriors and Rangers. However, the characteristic feature of Mage, MP, essentially functions as concentrated burst damage. Warrior and Ranger both have ways to deal burst damage, but neither has this innate feature of Player Damage concentration. This is what I mean when I say it's a shoe-in for Offensive specialisation.

We can't give STR or DEX an equivalent way to provide this kind of burst damage by sacrificing player weapon damage. Aside from STR's own restrictions given it's the basis of our balance model, there isn't another mechanism that can achieve that aim in the same way. We certainly can't use SP - it's build-agnostic and is set up completely different to MP in the balance model. Even we could, doing so would simply turn the recipient build into a functional Mage clone. Moreover, why would we even want to go down such a route? Mage already does offense the best, so characteristising the stat more as an offensive specialist simply makes sense.

In comparison, things are a little bit easier defensively. As a burst class, Mages are supposed to be inefficient. A big reason why they're the Master of all Trades (and why they aren't inefficient) is because of excessive MP regeneration and summon guests. The former isn't one of my action points, but very much fits within my framework, is a necessary step to breaking things down with Ranger. Hitting guests is a necessity regardless given how excessively efficient they are at outputting damage), so but reducing their potency will also help the mage situation. Combining this with much more extensive support for defensive Ranger gear like 100-procs, I think we could tip the scales much more heavily in Ranger's direction. Basically I don't think the MP bar's the problem here as much as the regeneration.

quote:

Except they'll do 1.25x damage in FO armors and 1x damage in FD. The only way to keep the damage consistent between the two is using 100-proc weapons.

Even dismissing that, there's still the fact that it's exactly the same thing rangers do. Your proposal is meant to compensate for 100-proc ranged weapons and the lack of 100-proc melee ones, right? But to continue that analogy, giving every melee weapon 1x damage in FD armors is equivalent to giving every spear a 100-proc mode - which is a ridiculous amount of work, and removes much of the diversity in weapon inventories in addition to what few differences there remain between investing in Str and Dex.

No "x factor", much less one on the same level as spells.

The changes I proposed for Defensive Warrior are actually for two reasons, and I'd be suggesting something like this irrespective of whether it directly interlinked with their identity. The premise is simple: Rangers can compete in FD and FO, Mages can compete (dominate) in FD and FO, so Warriors should as well. This isn't just about identity, it's about making things somewhat fair. It's not the same workload as giving every spear a 100-proc mode either. It's true that suggestions like this can be labour labour intensive (and unfeasible) if you have to change each item individually. Since I'm applying the effect to all melee weapons though, it can be done much more easily. If it weren't, items like Poelala and Dunamis wouldn't be possible either.

There is however an "x factor" here for Warriors. Where Rangers and Mages are can get the damage using 100-procs, these same weapons are awful on the offensive. You don't want a 100-proc in FO. This is where Warriors come in. If they can deal at least *1 even in FD, they don't need 100-proc Melee weapons, or to switch weapons at all. This gives them a massive advantage in battle if you pair them with lean changing armours like Knightmare. Warriors would be able to choose whether they go all out offense, or reduce their damage intake by a relative 36% and play on the Defensive. That's a big deal.

Again, I don't have all the answers yet. As I mentioned, I think we can bridge the defensive gap with more items, but it's not something we could achieve immediately. We also have to define a concrete identity for rangers beyond "Defensive Specialist" (which is what a few other players are doing on Discord right now).

quote:

I was under the impression that there's no defensive warrior identity? Isn't that exactly what we're trying to make?

Blocking is not part of any build's identity, but if we're trying to create something new and distinct in defensive warrior, it's one of the few options remaining that are not used by any other build. It'd be a pity not to explore it further.

Abandon fear! Boldly go where no man has gone before!

Poor phrasing on my part. Blocking isn't part of any build identity because blocking is inherently build agnostic. Both Ranger and Mage have considerably more item support for it than Warrior does. I'm inherently averse to turning any agnostic mechanic into a build specific one to begin with (though I could potentially still be convinced), but this one is particularly impractical. I'm not saying we can't do blocking oriented Warrior gear, but it's in the worst position of any build to turn it into an identity.



legendd -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/14/2023 20:26:56)

Let's be real that Mages having extra bar and as have mentioned many times that it is easier to regenerate MP over SP right now will put Mages in the OP position for quite longer more. Even with the fixing of EO, if I can fill my SP bar on my turn 1 player turn I can buff and nuke unlike the other non-INT builds. It is also fairly certain Devs will accomodate warriors and rangers by introducing more SP regeneration items over time. The only solution is to completely lock out weapon based skills to be used by Mages as I proposed during my return last year and build identity was first brought up.



Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/15/2023 7:05:41)

I think there should be a global weapon check on weapon based skills, if possible, and if a magic weapon is held, the skill either:

A. Changes to spell based
B. If that can't be made possible, damage is modified globally way down
C. If that also can't happen, compile a list of all weapon based skills and manually change the "boost" system (ie 4/3rd boost, etc) to a more normalized amount, if not even at a reduced rate for magic.

I personally think option B is the best.



Primate Murder -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/15/2023 9:41:03)

quote:

Basically I don't think the MP bar's the problem here as much as the regeneration.

Ok? I agree that mages have the potential for the highest DPS, and heavily nerfing summons and mp sustain would naturally weaken their defensive potential, but that's neither here nor there. What I disagree with are the roles you assigned warrior and ranger, and the framework you tried to fit them into.

Though I never thought I'd see the day Chaotic argued for nerfing Siphon. [:D]

quote:

It's not the same workload as giving every spear a 100-proc mode either. It's true that suggestions like this can be labour labour intensive (and unfeasible) if you have to change each item individually. Since I'm applying the effect to all melee weapons though, it can be done much more easily.

Except there's what - four? five? - armors that switch between FD and FO right now? And most of them are rare, premium, or title-locked at that. In order for the versatility you propose to exist, the staff would have to create new armors for pretty much every element, and ones sufficiently powerful to compete with the options already available to a warrior build.

And if we're going to create a fully new set of gear, why do it in a way that undermines an already anemic build?

quote:

Rangers can compete in FD and FO

This, I think, is the crux of our disagreement. FO rangers are somewhat competitive, even if there's little reason to use them over an FO warrior, with the latter having more options and an sp-costing Buffalot, but FD rangers are just... not. I invite any who play pure FD ranger to correct me here if I'm wrong, but at the moment the build lumbers along mostly by using Cha as a crutch. I can't remember the last time I saw somebody playing a 0-Cha bow user outside of a niche thematic character.

Let me reiterate, FD rangers need to invest in a second stat just to remain competitive. If ranged weapons are then also rendered inferior to melee ones, rangers will effectively occupy the same niche as 0-mainstat builds, just less interesting.

quote:

I'm inherently averse to turning any agnostic mechanic into a build specific one to begin with (though I could potentially still be convinced), but this one is particularly impractical.

How so? Not trying to be an ass here, I genuinely can't understand your aversion. At the moment blocking is either effectively useless, with effects paid via MRM penalties considered effectively free, or completely overpowered, rendering you all but invincible, with very little in-between.

Why not actually make the mechanic a practical part of the game, using it to fill an empty niche?

If this still doesn't work for you, then how about this: instead of *1, melee weapons will deal *0.9 damage in FD armors. That way you still get the versatility you wanted, and rangers retain the advantage when playing defensively. We can call it 'Melee Defensive' build.

MD for short. [8D]



Dreiko Shadrack -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/15/2023 10:53:01)

Through discord discussions between @Telcontar Arvedui I and I we've created a new suggestion for a ranged damage identity:

quote:

If Player attack AND attack type == Ranged:
    
damage *= max(min((100 + Attacker Value - Defender Value) /100, 1.25),1)


Explanation: when a player deals a ranged damage attack/spell with a chance to hit above 100% it applies a pseudo all-element elevuln damage multiplier on the monster (capped at *X, 1.25 in this example) based on how much overkill hit-chance you currently have. This is cleared at the start of the player's turn, before an attack is done, because celerity exists and shouldn't stack it. It'd naturally need a conditional to not work with auto-hit sources since that defeats the point of it.
This turns the practice of boosting your accuracy past the point of it being normally beneficial into a damage boost for any damage source the player's side inflicts on the monster (player, pet/guest, statuses, etc...)

EDIT: Potential clarification - this multiplier would work in conjunction with actual elevulns but it wouldn't stack into them since it's not actually an elevuln effect it just functions like one.



Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Stat Updates II (3/15/2023 11:22:46)

Ranged Damage Lean Idea

Rangers should be able to land their first hit. They get a concentrated attempt. So this Lean idea will actually start out as 100% accuracy that lowers with rounds, and gives a bonus if landing successive hits.

Per hit model: This is sort of rewarding landing but it's a bit backwards from other ideas. It will also reward Rangers for using negative lean bows/weapons . The Ranged damage* has the BTH+ lean.


Hit 1: +15% BTH Lean, 85% Damage. (This is 100% accuracy based on standard assumptions) If the hit lands,
Hit 2: +12% BTH Lean, 87.6% Damage. If the hit lands,
Hit 3: +9% BTH Lean, 90.4% Damage. If the hit lands,
Hit 4: +6 BTH Lean, 93.4% Damage. If the hit lands,
Hit 5: +3 BTH Lean, 96.4% Damage.

If at any point you miss, the counter system drops and you get 100% damage at 85% accuracy for the remainder of the battle.

If you land 5 hits in a row, this triggers bonuses that do not go away based on hit/miss.

Hits 6+ you get a +10% BTH additive bonus *and* 110% damage for the remainder of the battle on top of no lean at all.


A. This rewards using negative lean weapons (offsets the lean, at first)
B. This rewards using positive lean weapons (to ensure the counter ->bonus is met
C. They'll likely want BTH enhancers
D. Gives a bonus upon successive landed hits that lasts



The FO playstyles gains boosted damage, and the FD playstyles gains BTH to inflict stuff more often, but also gets some damage rewards for longer battles





Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.234375