The Full Set and Mini Set Bonus needs a revisit

The Full Set and Mini Set Bonus needs a revisit (Full Version)

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

Message

Sapphire -> The Full Set and Mini Set Bonus needs a revisit (5/11/2023 1:46:32)
I wanted to attempt to facilitate a constructive discussion in regards to the idea of the FSB and Mini SB, as it stands in today's AQ. With the advent of T3 armors and prior, the subrace armors, these armors are the cream of the crop. They will never be competed with, unless some new specifically made very powerful item is made. There are some that exist. I would classify doomlights, dark invader, and even infernal champion as armors that can be so strong that an argument could be made to use them over subraces. They're nowhere near as versatile, but at least an argument could be made. I do think staff are trying to find new and inventive ways at making good stuff. I do see it. However, The old school FSB has honestly never lived up to anything worth mentioning in most cases. The 5% bonus is outdated. The idea of elecomp at some point was finally added, and needed to be. But the FSB, while not "forced", in some regards, especially when we are talking about armor/shield/weapon should be at least partially viewed in the same manner as elecomp. But because it's not forced via the design of the item, I think there should be a new standard set that takes the elecomp idea into consideration, and finds a placeholder for FSB and Mini SB power. This will literally be dependent on the items in question, most of the time. This is power creep, but it kind of isn't, either. It's not going to exceed subrace or T3 class power by any stretch. It simply means if a player wishes to take up more than 1 item slot to gain a good effect of some kind in a set or full set bonus, then the sacrifice of the item slot as well as the likelihood of being in suboptimal situations should represent a rather large increase in power on some FSB's and SB's. There are 2 recent (ish) item(s) that I wanted to call attention to, that I think (hope) staff are at least taking a look at this idea from a 40,000 foot view. A. Void Awakening Armor, pet, guest- These items on paper, all by their lonesome selves, are average to bad (the armor) and average to decent (guest, pet). However, the FSB giving the pet and guest the power boost makes having and using all of them together actually worth it. This is an example I am attempting to push for moving forward. Are these better than using a t3 class armor? Not even. Subrace armor? No, not really. But I sure as heck wouldn't mind taking up 3 item slots for this effect!! Great job here staff. B. The Sweetheart Shield/Spear- This mini bonus , if memory serves me correctly, doubles the power of the effect at hand. You go from a good effect to a great effect simply by having to take up 2 item slots. Energy weapon, energy shield. This means you're fighting an energy monster, yet attacking with energy? This likely isn't ideal, so we end up with a strong mini set bonus. Another great example!. Great job staff. So, expounding on and looking towards the past items, and into the future, I'm sure as with all things a standard would need to be written and implemented. The following is just an example of such a thing, and by no means is what I'm absolutely suggesting . The power of a FSB and mini SB , IMO, should take the Elecomp in question if we are dealing with an armor/shield/weapon, and then one idea is you take 2/3's the elecomp and that should land you to a decent "power" for that specific FSB. If the armor has an elecomp of 1.8, the power for the FSB should be 1.53% or a 53% boost. This 3 item FSB system will take the individual elecomp and so each set will have differing amounts of FSB power. This increase in power can be applied in 1 fell swoop onto one item, or split amongst all of them. This also provides some room for design space. Just like the stat revamp is creating some power creep to open design space, so should this change. Then, if we are talking about a 2 item mini bonus, the amount could be 1/3's the elecomp if dealing between an armor and 1 other item. A 1.8 elecomp then is a 27% boost for the mini set. This can also be split amongst the two items. If the two items doesn't involve an armor, then it should default to something. Perhaps a 30% boost. Some type of system like this should serve to open some design space for staff as well as entice players to actually USE set bonuses and this provides some better desirability for existing and future items, while still not really allowing them to outpace T3 and subrace armors. Because right now, what's the point of these bonus systems if they're so utterly confined to old school ideas of how much the power should be, in an age with t3 and subrace armors? One of the great things about this game is all the viable options. But are players really opting for the FSB set? Probably not. Let's make that an attractive option! Thoughts on the premise as a whole?

ruleandrew -> RE: The Full Set and Mini Set Bonus needs a revisit (5/11/2023 3:51:29)
One method to set full set bonus and mini set bonus Full set bonus (Fire weapon + Fire armour + Fire shield) = (15 % * (elemental compensation) + 2.5 %) extra power that is applied to each item in a set. Mini set bonus (Fire weapon + Fire armour) = (15 % * (elemental compensation) + 2.5 %) extra power that is applied to each item in a set. Mini set bonus (Fire weapon + Fire shield) = (15 % * (elemental compensation) + 2.5 %) extra power that is applied to each item in a set. Mini set bonus (Fire armour + Fire shield) = 2.5 % extra power that is applied to each item in a set.

Bannished Rogue -> RE: The Full Set and Mini Set Bonus needs a revisit (5/14/2023 2:36:18)
From recent conversations, I think there seems to be a dichotomy between what players and staff feel constitutes Balance within leaving room for design space. The first question is do staff feel these things (in this case, full/partial set bonuses) are underpowered? • If so- Then the concern is that of priority. Staff seem to be very aggressive with the stance on simply fazing out most old equipment with new equipment versus having pre-existing content updated for logistical reasons. I doubt there's anything we as the player base can do/say to change that. The best idea I can think of would be a poll, however even if data suggests the playerbase having a difference of opinion, the staff are in no way obligated to actually putting into action changes based on provided data. Otherwise, we'll have to wait quite awhile for them to circle back around to it based on team size and workload. • If not- You compared these to tier 3 class armors and subrace armors that function as class armors. Staff have mentioned that these are in (no pun intended), tier of their own. Thus not conforming to normal balance standards. Thus to suggest a buff to better compete with these is antithetical to their intent. I would however, suggest that maybe there should be multiple different scales (or tiers) of balance, which items within said tiering conform to the balance standards of that tier, versus general balance standards (similar to the aforementioned tier 3 class armors). However, that kind of goes into something that I mentioned not too long ago that staff did not seem to like, so that's probably a dead end. Also, the question is, is do Staff even approve of how powerful the tier 3 armors are, or do they feel they are overpowered even within their own exclusive standards of balance? Which would ultimately bring this back into a round-about of keeping the set bonuses virtually exactly where they are. I for one would like to see the base no drop sets (regular/guardian/ultraguardian/awe) get buffed, which could be executed in multiple ways, one of which could/should be in the full/partial set bonus. Additionally, I believe similar to your statement: quote: if a player wishes to take up more than 1 item slot to gain a good effect of some kind in a set or full set bonus, then the sacrifice of the item slot as well as the likelihood of being in suboptimal situations should represent a rather large increase in power on some FSB's and SB's A good way to justify a buff to the base no drop sets would be the sacrificing of the the subrace no drop armor; or essentially being a pure human. This also gives a benefit to being a pure human that has yet to be accomplished outside of the 1/10000 chance you run into either a shadowslayer/nightstalker, or that paladin zard (that I can't remember the name of) that will be more affective against you (only pertaining to vampire, werewolf, or combination of). The idea would be that the subrace weakens the armor, but in exchange you gain great power (in the form of the subrace no drop class armor without the loss of the base no drop). Since currently, there is virtually no benefit to being a pure human, I doubt there is anybody that is actually one outside of role-playing purposes that have the consequence of not having an optimized build. Therefore introducing this would be even explainable in verse why the set got a sudden buff if/when players actually transition back to pure human. Buff would need to compensate for loss of not only an entire extra armor, but said armor being equivalent to a tier 2 class armor. Just my opinion though.

Lorekeeper -> RE: The Full Set and Mini Set Bonus needs a revisit (5/14/2023 14:49:03)
quote: From recent conversations, I think there seems to be a dichotomy between what players and staff feel constitutes Balance within leaving room for design space. Balance isn't a matter of personal definitions, and forum conversations alone (Even as recent as the Entropy finale) prove that opinions don't boil down to an adversarial dichotomy between staff and a monolithic playerbase with a single opinion. There is one definition of balance as a general game development practice within the industry, and a set of standards within AQ. The rules are the same for all items, although classes benefit from a deliberate stretch of skill compression. Specifically, a class release week involves five skills while normal armors generally don't go higher than three. Three skills is a hefty workload and a stretch reserved for special occasions such as big finale releases. Rather than having their own rules, class armors are on a league of their own because of the resulting amount of skills and sheer increase in possible synergies.

CH4OT1C! -> RE: The Full Set and Mini Set Bonus needs a revisit (5/15/2023 17:57:28)
In the interests of generating a constructive debate, I'd like to propose a method for buffing the Full Set Bonus (FSB) mechanic (as well as formalising it). At the outset, this isn't something that could happen overnight - the stat revamp and other ongoing projects mean such a change would inevitably be pushed down the priority list. This is especially the case with the system I'm proposing, as it requires more than a simple number change. FSBs are in a weird place mathematically. In some ways, they technically shouldn't exist at all. That said, they've been an integral part of the game for over a decade - I don't think they'll disappear anytime soon. Typically, these bonuses are worth ~10% melee, but this value is essentially arbitrary (within reason). From my perspective, their underlying problem is they don't really accomplish their primary aim. If the goal of a FSB is to encourage the player to use multiple pieces of the same set, then 10% melee is nowhere near enough to offset the problems associated with attacking and defending against the same element. For this exact reason, Elemental compensation (elecomp) is given to armour skills if they attack with the same element the armour defends against. This is not an apples to apples comparison of course; you aren't forced to use items from the same set. Nonetheless, the bonus should be considerably higher than 10%. What I'd like to propose is a new system based around providing a full set bonus around half the value of Neutral Elecomp, which is approx. 1.7 or 70% Melee. This means the full set bonus, at maximum power, would be worth 35% Melee, three and a half times its current value. Why maximum? This is elecomp based so, to get the bonus, you need to be using both an offensive and defensive portion of the set. The boost will vary depending upon what components are needed to trigger the FSB on an item. The following modifiers apply: Armour + Shield = 0 Weapon + Armour = 1/2 Weapon + Shield = 1/2 Weapon + Armour + Shield = 1 Pet + Armour = 1/2 Pet + Shield = 1/2 Pet + Armour + Shield = 1 Weapon + Pet + Armour + Shield = 1 Miscs + Guests are technically outlets for SP, and so don't count towards the bonus. This is a simplified schema; a more complex alternative would be to weight the bonuses based upon how much of total damage is expected from the weapon and pet respectively [i.e. Weapon + armour = 1/2 / 1.4, Pet + Armour = * 1/2 * (0.4/1.4) ]. This system ensures, even with a simple Weapon + Shield bonus, the player receives a FSB equal to 35 / 2 = +17.5%. a significant buff on the current system. I would hope the player far more tempted by a bonus worth 35% instead of 10%.

Sapphire -> RE: The Full Set and Mini Set Bonus needs a revisit (5/15/2023 20:50:23)
^ Thanks for that I think something akin to this is reasonable. I would also like to re-mention something that I mentioned originally, but since a FSB/Mini bonus usually goes towards 1 of the items in question in the past, an increase in power would allow for a split between both (mini) and FSB (all 3) although in some cases it might be the best way to go. But in other cases, maybe it could be, depending on synergies. IE..this power increase opens up design space.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition

0.109375