Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/4/2023 9:09:35)
|
I want to first address something that I think needs a change of plans before putting my personal thoughts on the specifics. Given how life can throw obstacles at us, I would like to recommend the following: A. Change plans to implement the stat revamp in phases rather than waiting for all work to be complete. This will provide some excitement and give more reasons for players to play the game rather than waiting potentially forever. For example, if the warrior identity changes are finalized, roll them out now. This can help provide feedback as other aspects get tended to and planned for and help perhaps reveal the need for tweaks. These rollouts will provide more fun and excitement for the player base than most normal weekly releases. Maybe this has to happen during very very light weeks, as I likely continue to not grasp the sheer amount of work staff does week in and week out, but if you can manage to piece-meal the changes I think it will be better than waiting and rolling everything out at once for the players. B. Since the guest migration is the largest undertaking, and as a part of "A" above, I request that the BTH plan for pets/guests get implemented as we wait on the guest migration to finalize later. It's simply time already. As for the specifics of the plan: Warriors/STR: I'm personally fine with the increase in warrior damage based on STR. The one thing to me that seems out of place is the Warrior Lean idea. This isn't about the stat revamp itself, rather it's a new lean meant for warriors. I think the idea can be tested and an armor made and see where it goes, but I think it would need to be a separate plan outside of, and in addition to the other things that are on the table and not something that's considered as an "or". I personally think the SP heal mechanic needs to go towards Rangers, and not Warriors. I like the idea of a HP barrier post-melee attack. Making warriors "hardier" due to in-close combat action seems like the most logical thing to me. We already have a bonus to healing from END and having END on a warrior is a more logical training step even compared to the other two foundational builds. HOWEVER, much like I have suggested in the past, and maybe this is viewed as a non-starter, but why not reward STR/DEX/INT with a bonus *if* you partner it with END? So in this case, warriors can only receive the HP barrier if they also have END and the barrier amount is maybe half scaling from STR and half from END? But is 0 if STR or END is 0. While we are attempting to incentivize hybridization, I also think incentivizing mainstat+END is a cool idea, too. Mages/INT: 10% Melee in MP regen is 65 MP per spell cast. Battle #1 is assumed to cast 2 spells, so we have 130 MP regained. Battle #2 is the same, for 260 MP regained. This MP gained back I feel will not serve to do much. They only have 20 MP left anyway, so 280 MP left is something that I don't think will serve Mages at all. This almost feels like "let's throw something random onto the INT identity because they've received nothing thus far". I'm not advocating for more MP for a 5th cast, but I don't see how this helps. In addition, each stat gaining approx 20% worth of bonuses then giving INT 10% instead seems inconsistent. Maybe there needs to be some clarity in that INT doesn't need 20%, but if not, then give INT 20% as it says. I don't have a solution for Mages. Or any ideas, other than maybe a HP barrier post spell cast *if* they also have END. Because while I want to incentivize spellcasting, I also think MP regen is a tad bit too easy as it is and at the end of the day, I think there needs to be things happening with items to manage this. Chaotic has discussed it but Mages being skill-casters just as good as warriors due to the 4/3'ds bonus is an issue and it sounds like won't be tackled. SO maybe instead there just needs to be something else, or a lot of something else's. Creative item design might need to happen, which sort of is cringe because that means it's going to take forever to do as new items can only happen so much and who they're catered-for is spread out over time. But spell Imbues that add effects need to happen. I think we need an entire quest similar to warriors tower or Wizard games, etc to release many. They also need a generic updated Sila's staff-like spell booster item. They need rejuv necklace-like items but maybe work for casting spells. They need more items like seraph calamity, et al. And I think wands need a relook. IMO, wands should be generic spell-boosters even if it's paid for within the attack side of the wand. These are what Mages/INT need. CHA/Beast Builds: As mentioned above, I think the BTH thing needs an immediate change. And continue the guest migration after the fact. I also think it makes the most sense to keep guest BTH CHA only. If guest upkeep is increased by a huge amount, you've effectively disincentivized their use if you don't have CHA, so why even bother making it mainstat+CHA? It'd be pointless in practice. The guest upkeep being between 20-30% is actually a rather large range, and 20% Sp is 78 and 30% is 118. For MP that's 131 and 196. For boosters, if it's 40% we're talking 157 Sp and 261 MP per turn to use them. If you make them cost 30% Melee w/o CHA and 20% Melee with 250 CHA, I could go for this. For SP, that's actually lower than now. (From 86 to 78) For MP, it's higher. (From 114 to 131) But 131 makes sense. 131*20 turns=2620MP. 4 mage spell casts are 653*4=2612. So it's close. This is CHA's 10% bonus. I think the 20%-30% ranged needs to mean 30% w/o CHA and 20% w/ CHA. Now, for boosters... you're going to kill boosters for non-beast builds. Not only will they get the FULL damage with 250 CHA but gain also gain a smaller cost to boot? Something has to give. I propose a complete change to how boosters work if you can't find a happy middle ground on booster cost..ie maybe using mainstat for some cost help. But here's the booster idea: If booster cost is to remain so high, yet still get lowered cost from CHA training, then the following IMO should happen: (A complete redesign) A. Change boosters to be two-fold. All of them should cost in SP/MP per turn in Melee% the exact amount of damage bonus they provide. So lower the bonus to +30% damage for 30% Melee upkeep. B. This means if you have CHA and the upkeep cost is lowered to 20% Melee, the damage bonus is also lowered to +20% Melee. So BM's cannot use them better than non-BM's for damage (on this toggle), but get the benefit of lower upkeep. C. Give boosters a toggle, to change them to pet/guest boost mode. Here's how this works: 1. If you have a booster guest, the toggle charges the upkeep to provide the pet with the same boost. So for a BM, it's 20% Melee cost to increase pet damage by +20%. For a non BM it's charges 30% cost for +30% pet damage. For a pet that's a booster, it's a straight +40% added to your guest. (damage is transferred to the guest) and no upkeep. Booster pets on non-BM mode is +20% damage across the board. In other words, boosters guests need changed to be worth HALF the normal value of guests due to it boosting player damage. There are already a crazy amount of sources to boost player damage as it stands. This nerf to damage probably needs to happen anyway to disincentivize CHA builds from outperforming non CHA build's use of them. Dex/Rangers: I'm a proponent of skillcasting here. You can still have some type of lean identity, as skillcasting will be effect-focused and landing hits is necessary for most effects. However, I would rather simply see a 20% bonus to SP heal per turn if you used a Ranged weapon, and no regen or discount to skills post-cast. The 20% bonus IMO is easier to manage this way rather than trying to figure out what that looks like post skill-cast. But I'm rather OK if that's the direction they want. Skill-casting will actually provide far more unique identity away from warriors than anything and everything else proposed. And the naysayers worried about build agnosticism due to a not-so realistic 20 turn model are going to overstate the "implications" of going this route while providing no actual scenario or data backing it up. (Unless someone actually does but I haven't seen it yet in all these discussions going on for months/years thus far) It will prove to be more beneficial to fun than hurtful to balance, I believe. Also, I'm still a bit biased on my Dex/25% auto-hit "precision hit" mechanic that's an effective 10% accuracy boost and this should be implemented on monsters, too. No damage penalty. This also provides for item support creation in that you can have armors/weapons with things like +5% Precision hit rate, etc.
|
|
|
|