RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (Full Version)

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



Message

Jue Viole Grace -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 0:35:42)

Was wondering if ranger scope can be updated with a addition of bth would help rangers greatly considering the low miscs bow rangers have if not maybe in the future of a different misc



Broccoli -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 1:55:03)

Hitting some 600-800s with a 545.5% ranged modifier (turn 125) against 150 resists.
Not ideal.



ruleandrew -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 2:03:54)

Warrior lean
Warrior lean need to apply the following bonuses:
Neutral armour deal 106.06 % outdoing damage and take 100 % incoming damage.
Fully defensive armour deal 90 % outdoing damage and take 80 % incoming damage.



ArchNero -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 3:33:23)

quote:

Hitting some 600-800s with a 545.5% ranged modifier (turn 125) against 150 resists.
Not ideal.


Do you mean not ideal because you're not doing enough damage at 545.5% or not ideal because it's not worth it?

I kinda like it though, if anything I'm not really expecting rangers to outdamage a spellcaster mage using spellcaster lean armours.



CH4OT1C! -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 6:03:21)

@ArchNero: I believe it's because 545.5% is absurdly overpowered, even with respect to the number of turns it takes to get there. For context:
1). 545.5 is the equivalent of 53 PCO stacks (without increased damage intake).
2). Spells cast in spellcaster lean deal 200*1.375 = 275% Melee. 545.5 is approximately double this, only the ranger isn't paying any resources. Rangers would start to deal more base damage than spellcaster lean spells at approximately turn 47.
... If you turtle enough, you essentially activate God mode.


After considering the new ramp, I've come to the conclusion it destroys Warriors. There is no scenario in which they are the best. Assuming 8 turns:
quote:

Mage: 2 * 200 + 6 * 75 = 850% Melee.
Warrior = 100 * 8 = 800% Melee
Ranger = 80 + 87 + 94 + 101 + 108 + 115 + 122 + 129 = 836% Melee


This is the point at which Warrior best performs. Below 8 turns, Mage advantages become more distinct because there are fewer turns for their frontloaded damage to dissipate. Beyond it, Ranger based bonuses are more consistently strong than Warriors. Warriors would perpetually play second fiddle to at least one build and, where the gap is narrowest, they are objectively the worst.

In short, this new ramp causes more problems than provides solutions.




Korriban Gaming -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 6:20:22)

quote:

@ArchNero: I believe it's because 545.5% is absurdly overpowered, even with respect to the number of turns it takes to get there. For context:
1). 545.5 is the equivalent of 53 PCO stacks (without increased damage intake).
2). Spells cast in spellcaster lean deal 200*1.375 = 275% Melee. 545.5 is approximately double this, only the ranger isn't paying any resources. Rangers would start to deal more base damage than spellcaster lean spells at approximately turn 47.
... If you turtle enough, you essentially activate God mode.

This is an absolutely ridiculous example. No one would be turtling 47 or 53 turns in any practical scenario other than for the sole purpose to achieve whatever you said. Just like how no one would be stacking PCO 53 times in any legitimate battle.

quote:

This is the point at which Warrior best performs. Below 8 turns, Mage advantages become more distinct because there are fewer turns for their frontloaded damage to dissipate. Beyond it, Ranger based bonuses are more consistently strong than Warriors. Warriors would perpetually play second fiddle to at least one build and, where the gap is narrowest, they are objectively the worst.

Let's go off your assumption of 8 turns. If you were to take a look at my suggestion with regards to the Warrior lean, toning it down to 103% outgoing damage while keeping the 80% damage intake would make Warrior to be an attractive option. Since all this is entirely new, we don't need to be too restricted by old formulas. Making all builds attractive seems to be the bigger priority.



Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 7:10:49)

quote:

Mage: 2 * 200 + 6 * 75 = 850% Melee.
Warrior = 100 * 8 = 800% Melee
Ranger = 80 + 87 + 94 + 101 + 108 + 115 + 122 + 129 = 836% Melee


Is the current added damage bonus that strength gives included in warrior's damage model in this example?



Dreiko Shadrack -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 7:41:11)

quote:

Quick clarification, as it's been brought to my attention that we didn't explicitly state this: The improved version of ramping damage is currently live so that everyone can experience it and let us know if it actually feels good now. If you actually like it now, please let us know!


It feels better but it doesn't feel good.



CH4OT1C! -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 7:51:43)

To clarify: My response to @ArchNero also references the post by @Broccoli on the previous page, who waited out 125 turns to observe the results. It is not my own example.

With that said, I remind everyone that this example refers to waiting 50 turns so that your standard Ranged attacks do the same damage as a Spellcaster Lean boosted spell. Anything that comes remotely close to that amount of power is absurd without paying for it. It shouldn't even be approaching a regular spell, let alone a boosted one (for reference, you could achieve this by waiting ~26 turns, which is well within the realms of possibility for a drawn out conflict). There is no way to defend it.


@SapphireCatalyst: No, this doesn't account for 'style bonus' on any of the main three builds. That said, the %Melee value here is referring to the value of their turn, rather than damage output specifically. Adding the 20% is therefore a net neutral even if you took the 20% Melee added to warriors via the 'Style bonus' and put it into damage. It'd more open the playing field, but Warriors would remain the weakest overall.

@KorribanGaming: I don't really want to get into a debate on specific ideas because this thread looks to be an opportunity to spitball ideas rather than as a space specifically to debate around which is best. With that said, put bluntly, your idea for Warrior lean breaks so many mathematical assumptions that I doubt our current balance model would be remotely feasible if implemented. The style bonus alone is already considerable powercreep, and what you're suggesting leaves even that in the dust. I could never support such a suggestion.



Korriban Gaming -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 9:41:31)

quote:

With that said, I remind everyone that this example refers to waiting 50 turns so that your standard Ranged attacks do the same damage as a Spellcaster Lean boosted spell. Anything that comes remotely close to that amount of power is absurd without paying for it. It shouldn't even be approaching a regular spell, let alone a boosted one (for reference, you could achieve this by waiting ~26 turns, which is well within the realms of possibility for a drawn out conflict). There is no way to defend it.

No one is going to wait 50 turns in a battle just so they can achieve that amount of damage, it's simply not practical. Even waiting 26 turns is pushing it by alot for FD builds. If someone wants to go out of their way to showcase how broken this is they absolutely can but the probability of anyone actually doing that as an optimal play is literally zero. It's like how I can stack PCO 50 times to hit the damage cap every time but there's no good reason to do so in a practical situation.

You support the idea of the Warrior lean and damage increase yet still claim that Warrior will be unattractive to play as compared to the other builds after the change which I agree with. So the most straightforward solution to fix this problem without coming up with an entirely new idea that will possibly set the staff back more for this already very delayed release is to go with one of their proposed ideas and tweak the numbers to make it better, which is what I have done. You don't always get to have your cake and eat it too. If I had to choose between making Warrior an equally attractive build to play after the changes or making all builds mathematically balanced, the choice is clear for me on which to choose. We are getting a new set of standards for player power anyway, so your old assumptions are already broken to begin with. Pushing it a little bit further (extra 3% I mentioned from the originally proposed idea) is a small sacrifice to me. I do not think asking for an extra 3% is an unreasonable amount. Power creep is part of natural game progression, you need to stop fearing it like the plague.



ruleandrew -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 10:11:39)

quote:

The second is "the nuclear option" of turning Rangers into skillcasters.


You could create a new resource bar called FP (designed for DEX players).

Maximum FP bar at 250 DEX: 150 % melee

Player regenerate 7.5 % melee (FP) at start of player turn.

FP skills will be similar to MP spells.



Lorekeeper -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 11:12:06)

The purpose of this thread is to discuss proposals for the stat revamp, not to make personal attacks and fall back to misrepresenting the points of other users. Disagreement does not require attacks on others' credibility, especially ones so brazen as to entirely ignore what they've posted in the thread to paint them in an uncharitable light. This exact behavior has been extensively warned against, and ignoring it has led to having to close multiple threads. Given the sheer importance of this one, this is the line past which we can no longer let discussions on balance keep getting derailed into hostility by ignoring mod warnings. Be on your best behavior past this point.

As a clarification for everyone's benefit: We are not abruptly abandoning all prior balance standards to create entirely new ones at a higher power level. That would be incredibly time consuming at a time when we're trying to be mindful of Ianthe's health and keep this project within an achievable scope. This post explains the nature of the jump in power we're aiming for, as well as summarizing our goals for the revamp. Players are free to have concerns that a proposal may fall short of those goals or break them outright.



Corvid -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 11:54:52)

I am very concerned about infinite ramping on ranger. 200+% dmg on turn 26 *for no cost* is too much, and makes tanking warrior play styles obsolete (competitively speaking). I’m concerned there is no upper limit and no explanation.

My concerns aside, thank you for implementing something so quickly and for players to test and give feedback.



Dreiko Shadrack -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 12:21:04)

quote:

You could create a new resource bar called FP (designed for DEX players).

Maximum FP bar at 250 DEX: 150 % melee

Player regenerate 7.5 % melee (FP) at start of player turn.

FP skills will be similar to MP spells.


I can't speak for others but I don't think creating a whole new resource which necessitates re-balancing the entire game to account for it is something that's on the table. This would be a colossal undertaking even if it were to be considered, which we have no time for if we want to have the update done by summer's end.



Ward_Point -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 12:50:28)

Here's a reminder to everyone to engage in good faith debates. Misrepresenting another's statements does constitute trolling. The AQ Team wants your feedback. This can be done in an honourable manner without descending into personal attacks.

Please continue to discuss possible proposals respectfully.



CH4OT1C! -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 14:59:11)

quote:

You could create a new resource bar called FP (designed for DEX players).

Maximum FP bar at 250 DEX: 150 % melee

Player regenerate 7.5 % melee (FP) at start of player turn.

FP skills will be similar to MP spells.


I would point out that this idea shares a problem with the 'nuclear option' of introducing a skillcaster-oriented Ranger - It would essentially turn the build into a Mage that uses a different resource bar. Given one of our main goals is to bring unique identities to each stat, I feel like implementing either of these ideas would do the opposite.



Dreiko Shadrack -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 20:24:32)

The following are a collection of suggestions for changes to the stats and other relevant matters inside the scope of the stat revamp, as discussed with a variety of players on discord which have agreed with most or all of these concepts. The values presented are what we believe said concepts are best implemented with and are as justified within the confines of the balance standards of AQ as we could achieve:

EDIT: From the information posted in [Here], I have edited in our original settled on idea for CHA. I have kept the idea posted first as an alternative just in case.

quote:

§ Specials - These are stylized benefits or paid-for effects that a given Stat may have. There is no concrete associated cost with "Special" effects.
§ Greater Aspect - These are worth 15% melee.
§ Major Aspect - These are worth 10% melee.
§ Minor Aspect - These are worth 5% melee.


General:
* Style bonus is 15% melee instead of 20% melee for Mainstats.
* Style bonus is 10% melee instead of 20% melee for Secondary stats.


Strength:
* Special: Warrior Lean. Melee weapon-based effects in FD armors deal x1 damage instead of x0.8 damage.
* Major Aspect: Player takes -([STR/25]/1.4)% damage from all incoming damage. (10% melee)
* Minor Aspect: Additive damage bonuses for Melee attacks are 5% stronger. (5% melee)


Dexterity:
* Special: Accuracy-Damage Counter. Counter starts at +0% damage. Successful Ranged hits increase this by +1.5% damage per hit. Missing any hit lowers the counter by -8.5% damage. Counter range is -30% to +30%. Damage increases/decreases are halved for spells/skills.
* Major Aspect: Ranged attacks gain +[DEX*17/500] BtH. (10% melee)
* Minor Aspect: BtH Lean Expertise system as proposed by staff. (5% melee)


Intelligence:
* Special: Mana Bar. Sacrifices 25% of normal attack damage to gain MP equivalent to 4 level-appropriate standard spells (unchanged from how it currently exists in-game).
* Greater Aspect: "Wallbreaker" effect on damage. This works as a pseudo-penetration effect. (15% melee) See link for details: [Link]


Endurance:
* Minor Aspect: Player takes [END/10]% less damage from DoT effects (Burn, Bleed, Poison, Prismatic Burn, generic DoTs like from Control). (5% melee)
* Minor Aspect: HP healing effects are [END/20]% stronger on the player (unchanged from how it currently exists in-game). (5% melee)


Charisma:
* Special: Guest upkeep is (45-[CHA*3/50])% melee. This means 30% melee with expected CHA investment and 45% melee with no investment
* Base guest damage is lowered to 45% Melee with expected CHA investment and 22.5% melee with no investment
* Greater Aspect: enable guests to have a 22.2% chance to deal +[CHA*2/5]% damage as a Ferocious Strike, effectively a purely CHA scaling version of Lucky Strike (10% melee)

OR

* Special: Guest base upkeep cost is 45% melee.
* Minor Aspect: Reduces the upkeep cost of guests by -[CHA/50]%. This means 40% melee with expected CHA investment and 45% melee with no investment. (5% melee)
* Minor Aspect: Guests have a 12.5% chance to deal +[CHA*4/15]% damage per hit. (5% melee).


Luck
* Minor Aspect: [LUK/25]% chance to automatically cleanse any one status inflicted on the player each turn. (5% melee)
* Minor Aspect: [LUK/50]% or ([LUK/50]/1.4)% chance to automatically dodge any one hit attempted against the player each turn. (5% melee)





PD -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 21:32:54)

Looking forward to seeing where this all ends up. Especially looking forward to seeing how this affects early game AQ. Better stat design early will go along ways to keeping people around and making the game interesting.

While we're on the subject of stats: I think we should talk about how stats still cost too much gold early on, and how they really should be free to train. In most RPG's stat training is free. Could also make it so that we don't have to untrain to move your stats around (current training only allows increasing, not complete stat transfers).

Just some food for thought.



Korriban Gaming -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 22:15:18)

quote:

The following are a collection of suggestions for changes to the stats and other relevant matters inside the scope of the stat revamp, as discussed with a variety of players on discord which have agreed with most or all of these concepts. The values presented are what we believe said concepts are best implemented with and are as justified within the confines of the balance standards of AQ as we could achieve:

Not sure why you are putting out numbers for 15% when 20% is clearly better and it already has been stated by the devs that it will be 20%

quote:

Strength:
* Special: Warrior Lean. Melee weapon-based effects in FD armors deal x1 damage instead of x0.8 damage.
* Major Aspect: Player takes -([STR/25]/1.4)% damage from all incoming damage. (10% melee)
* Minor Aspect: Additive damage bonuses for Melee attacks are 5% stronger. (5% melee)

Somehow doesn't seem very appealing to me still compared to the other 2 builds. I don't think higher numbers is the answer but something like the originally proposed SP regen idea might make this better if added on

quote:

Dexterity:
* Special: Accuracy-Damage Counter. Counter starts at +0% damage. Successful Ranged hits increase this by +1.5% damage per hit. Missing any hit lowers the counter by -8.5% damage. Counter range is -30% to +30%. Damage increases/decreases are halved for spells/skills.
* Major Aspect: Ranged attacks gain +[DEXx17/500] BtH. (10% melee)
* Minor Aspect: BtH Lean Expertise system as proposed by staff. (5% melee)

No issue for this except the special. The penalty for missing should be removed entirely but you can lower the overall cap of the damage increase to compensate

quote:

Intelligence:
* Special: Mana Bar. Sacrifices 25% of normal attack damage to gain MP equivalent to 4 level-appropriate standard spells (unchanged from how it currently exists in-game).
* Greater Aspect: "Wallbreaker" effect on damage. This works as a pseudo-penetration effect. (15% melee) See link for details: [Link]

So this is essentially built-in elevuln? Not sure how I feel about that. Seems appropriately strong though

quote:

Charisma
* Special: Guest base upkeep cost is 45% melee.
* Minor Aspect: Reduces the upkeep cost of guests by -[CHA/50]%. This means 40% melee with expected CHA investment and 45% melee with no investment. (5% melee)
* Minor Aspect: Guests have a 12.5% chance to deal +[CHAx4/15]% damage per hit. (5% melee).

The worst idea out of the lot. These proposed upkeep costs will kill Guests entirely.

Overall some decent ideas but not supporting them at 15% power when we should be getting them at 20%



Dardiel -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/6/2023 22:57:07)

Regarding @Dreiko's post of the compiled suggestions, I agree with almost all of it so I'd like to support it myself except for concerns/suggestions I have regarding Ranged Identity and Dexterity

I worry that giving mitigation for extreme leans and damage that ramps up/down based on being above/below expected hit rate would cause a weird DEX build identity of "use weapons with the most extreme lean you can without going below normal BtH or above 100% accuracy" - going too far into a damage lean means you're missing more than 85% of the time which causes you to lose damage, while going above 100% accuracy also results in damage loss via wasted stats. That means accurate weapons would feel like wasted stats, really inaccurate weapons would lose their damage as the fight goes on, and neutral weapons would feel bad for having no lean to mitigate with the Lean Expertise system.

My proposal is:

Ranged Identity:
- Concept: Similar to the counter system above, but accounting for a weapon's inherent lean while also modifying the "real" lean.
- Mathless: The player has a multiplier - when the player hits the multiplier goes up, when they miss it goes down. The amount it moves up/down is based on the weapon's lean, such that damage-lean weapons raise the multiplier faster while accuracy-lean weapons lower it faster. Player ranged accuracy is divided by the multiplier, and the damage is multiplied by that same number.
- Mathy: Multiplier starts at 1. On a hit with a ranged attack, multiplier *= 1+0.015*(1-lean*3/100) and on a miss multiplier /= 1+0.085*(1+lean*3/100). Player ranged accuracy /= multiplier, and player ranged damage *= multiplier.
- Example: A -20 lean weapon raises the multiplier by *1.024 on a hit, but lowers it by /1.034 on a miss (given that players hit much more often than they miss, this mean a damage lean weapon will trade accuracy for damage very quickly but be slow about becoming more accurate)
- Example 2: A +10 lean weapon only raises the multiplier by *1.0105 on a hit, but lowers it by /1.1105 (meaning this one gains accuracy quickly at the cost of being very slow to ramp up against barn-like enemies)
- Theory: This setup is theoretically power neutral (all damage/accuracy increases are directly counteracted by the decrease to the other), but rewards players for having high accuracy while still allowing the wide array of items to each be strategically viable. This would give the ranger a unique wavelike damage curve, with the exact shape of the wave depending on the leans of the weapons used.
- Extra info: Multiplier would not change on attacks with autohit weapons or 100-proc weapons, and I propose that the system be uncapped because I dislike "arbitrary" caps (plus it's power neutral and slow)

Dexterity:
- To tie it into its identity as proposed, I suggest that (as a variant of Lean Expertise that works with the proposed ranger identity) Dexterity give 0.425*DEX/250 permanent BtH on hit and +0.5*0.85/0.15 = ~2.833*DEX/250 permanent additive damage to ranged attacks on miss
- Theory: This is a version of Lean Expertise that ties directly into the ranger identity - when you hit and your lean shifts more offensive, Dexterity recoups some of that accuracy; when you miss and you shift toward damage, your Dexterity lets you keep a bit of that damage. The value of the style bonus comes from the fact that these bonuses stack permanently, letting Dexterity Rangers improve their shots every turn rather than "only" adjusting their lean.
- Extra info: As with my lean proposal, I suggest that this system be uncapped so that rangers don't have their style bonus "turned off" in a long fight. If one of these two has to be capped then I imagine it would be this Dexterity style bonus given that it's purely positive while the other is power neutral. This current valuation is what I believe the numbers would be at 5% melee per turn (0.5% melee in permanent buffs per turn) but could of course be adjusted as needed.



CH4OT1C! -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/7/2023 4:28:58)

I was one of the individuals involved in developing the collective model posted by @Dreiko Shadrack. To address some initial concerns:

1). Yes, the staff did state that the power budget would be ideally ~20%. That's a huge amount of power to allocate and so, one of the things we collectively decided when trying to allocate it, was that 15% was a much nicer number to work with. It's still objectively a buff, and still close to the 20% figure.
2). The allocated power bonus for each build was discussed extensively and we considered everything. One of the first things collectively decided was that SP regen was an absolute no-go for any stat. Of all the suggested ideas, it's probably the one that causes most harm to the underlying game mechanics. Yes, the numbers for Warrior are a little more plain and this is essentially because we can't mess with them as much. Warrior's damage output is the output upon which the model is based.
3). We cannot remove the penalty for missing. As stated in @Dreiko Shadrack's post, specials are mathematically neutral. Doing this would essentially be proposing we retain the buff and remove the compensating nerf. At a baseline 10-turn system this would be a bonus of 10% melee, taking our total allocated power out of line with our other proposals and outside the budget proposed by the staff.
4). The 'Wallbreaker' effect on Mage is technically like an elevun, but it increases in potency the lower the enemy resistance. It's best to see a demonstration of this on the link to best explain how it works. It was a really interesting idea that came out of left-field from another one of the participants.
5). With regards to CHA - this is a massive compromise. We wanted to do something else with CHA, involving reducing Guest damage output to 45% in order to reduce the associated SP cost and essentially makes something that approximates the current system as best as possible using the style bonus. We couldn't do it; We can't change the power output of guests without needing to have @Ianthe rework the entire guest system again so that we could reduce the power of in-built statuses. While theoretically superior, it was practically impossible to implement. This is our next best solution, and we really don't have a lot of room to play. Guests were always going to be nerfed substantially, but we decided that using half the bonus to reduce cost and the other to provide a "Ferocious strike" power bonus, we can at least provide an extra benefit. I should note that, this suggestion still significantly breaks mathematical principles on balance. We're essentially handwaving the cost of 25% of guest attack damage. We really can't reasonably wave any more.
There's another sting in the tail - we also need to discourage non-bm's for using equipment meant for CHA users, so we can't justify that overpowered cost reduction applying to them either. They'd be paying the correct cost (60% Melee)
6). Indeed, extreme leans would be penalised on DEX characters if this went through. That's a quirk of the agreed system, not much can be done about that. The good thing is there are always alternative potential implementations!



Korriban Gaming -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/7/2023 5:16:08)

quote:

1). Yes, the staff did state that the power budget would be ideally ~20%. That's a huge amount of power to allocate and so, one of the things we collectively decided when trying to allocate it, was that 15% was a much nicer number to work with. It's still objectively a buff, and still close to the 20% figure.

You consider the extra 3% to the Warrior lean I suggested to be huge and for that same reason, I consider a 5% reduction to the power budget huge as well

quote:

2). The allocated power bonus for each build was discussed extensively and we considered everything. One of the first things collectively decided was that SP regen was an absolute no-go for any stat. Of all the suggested ideas, it's probably the one that causes most harm to the underlying game mechanics. Yes, the numbers for Warrior are a little more plain and this is essentially because we can't mess with them as much. Warrior's damage output is the output upon which the model is based.

I believe making Warriors attractive to play as is one of your main priorities as well. Does the proposed solution make them attractive to you? Because it doesn't for me. There's still a noticeable amount of support for the SP regen mechanic and since this was proposed by the staff themselves, I'd be interested to see what we eventually end up with

quote:

5). With regards to CHA - this is a massive compromise. We wanted to do something else with CHA, involving reducing Guest damage output to 45% in order to reduce the associated SP cost and essentially makes something that approximates the current system as best as possible using the style bonus. We couldn't do it; We can't change the power output of guests without needing to have @Ianthe rework the entire guest system again so that we could reduce the power of in-built statuses. While theoretically superior, it was practically impossible to implement. This is our next best solution, and we really don't have a lot of room to play. Guests were always going to be nerfed substantially, but we decided that using half the bonus to reduce cost and the other to provide a "Ferocious strike" power bonus, we can at least provide an extra benefit. I should note that, this suggestion still significantly breaks mathematical principles on balance. We're essentially handwaving the cost of 25% of guest attack damage. We really can't reasonably wave any more.
There's another sting in the tail - we also need to discourage non-bm's for using equipment meant for CHA users, so we can't justify that overpowered cost reduction applying to them either. They'd be paying the correct cost (60% Melee)

Staff are already willing to compromise for the cost to be increased to only 20-30%. I cannot fathom why players would be the ones who'd want them to go any higher than that. I strongly feel that non BMs should still be able to use guests after the changes but such a huge increase in cost would remove any attractiveness for guests at all. Heck with those costs, I think even BMs would be struggling with that decision. No one's asking for guest output power to decrease. I have seen the Ferocious Strike idea and frankly I don't mind it but not at the absurd upkeep costs proposed. Staff are already willing to handwave more, it's only a simple matter of unwillingness on your end. Guests needs to be nerfed but not into oblivion. If we go along with your proposed upkeep costs, no one would be using them anymore



CH4OT1C! -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/7/2023 5:48:02)

@Korriban Gaming: The only fleshed-out idea I can find of yours regarding Warrior lean on this thread thus far is:
quote:

Personally I'm still in full support of the SP regen idea out of the 3 proposed and I relooked at the idea for Warrior lean. I feel like it would be better for the Warrior lean to apply to all armors and make them deal 125% outgoing damage and take 80% incoming damage. This seems more appealing to me as opposed to limiting the benefits to only FD armors on top of having only 100% damage (which is base damage). Thematicallly I think it also makes sense in the sense that Warriors are stereotyped to be wearing big, bulky armors that provide an insane amount of protection. Proficiency with said heavy armor not only allows them to reap the benefits of extra protection but also make use of this added protection for extra offensive purposes by taking risks that normally wouldn't be possible without armor. I do think that my version of Warrior lean would still make Warrior an attractive option even if the Nuclear option of Ranger is selected (more below). This way, warriors can play both FO and FD equally well without being limited to the armors themselves.

This is what I presume you're referring to and, if so, this would be a lot more than 3% Melee. I'm avoiding going into details but, put simply, your intention for Warrior Lean is very different from what it was designed to accomplish. That change in goal (and the restrictions associated with it) has a massive impact on its valuation.

I don't want to get into a debate around subjective frames of reference (i.e. do you think this is an attractive build proposal), but the base mechanics of Warrior lean (see the last stat revamp thread) and the damage reduction effect are both ideas I contributed to this model. It enables Warriors in FD armours to deal Neutral damage whilst intaking the equivalent of x0.72, with the potential of itemisation for armours that switch between FD and FO. I do find that an attractive prospect.

We, too, were a bit confused with the wording of the original post regarding Guest costs. Currently, Guest costs are ~21.875% Melee so, if the numbers quoted by the Staff were absolute final values, that would potentially suggest a buff to Guests (i.e. have them cost less than they do now). That would clearly be ridiculous. After clarification, the 20-30% should be taken as an increase on what is currently being paid, rather than a flat value. In this context, the 40% value we suggest is on the lower end.



Korriban Gaming -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/7/2023 6:20:03)

quote:

This is what I presume you're referring to and, if so, this would be a lot more than 3% Melee. I'm avoiding going into details but, put simply, your intention for Warrior Lean is very different from what it was designed to accomplish. That change in goal (and the restrictions associated with it) has a massive impact on its valuation.

I think I wasn't very clear so I will reiterate here. Yes, my original idea was what you quoted but I suggested a change based off these set of values you provided in the scenario of a battle lasting 8 turns
quote:

Mage: 2 * 200 + 6 * 75 = 850% Melee.
Warrior = 100 * 8 = 800% Melee
Ranger = 80 + 87 + 94 + 101 + 108 + 115 + 122 + 129 = 836% Melee

So instead of the 125% I originally proposed, I suggested changing it to 103% instead. That way, Warriors will deal
103*8= 824%
over the course of 8 turns. Which is still lower than Ranger and Mage but if we add on the fact that they are also taking reduced damage compared to the other 2 builds, I think it's fair and balanced.

quote:

if the numbers quoted by the Staff were absolute final values, that would potentially suggest a buff to Guests (i.e. have them cost less than they do now)

Staff quoted 20-30%, you'd have to be assuming that they're taking the lowest end (20%) for it to be a buff which I think is highly unlikely. That was why I suggested 23% maximum, taking into account the actual value which is 93 SP per turn rather than just looking at Melee % by itself. I find it more practical to look at the actual value rather than the % numbers as that gives me a clearer idea for an upkeep cost that is reasonable with regards to the maximum amount of SP we have (1470). Keep in mind, there are upkeep costs for other items too apart from Guests as well as Skills that cost SP. With a cost like 45% Melee we'll be looking at 175 SP per turn which is ridiculous and leaves almost no room for any of the other items or skills, you'd run out of SP in 2-3 turns. This hurts FD BMs alot. And this is not even considering that you don't always start off a battle with a full SP bar. Even with your proposed discounts (which is a mere 5%), it would still be an extremely high cost.



CH4OT1C! -> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update (6/7/2023 6:40:59)

@Korriban Gaming: Ok that changes a lot with regards to the Warrior Lean idea. Your new case doesn't break things anywhere near as much, which is great. Unfortunately, it doesn't really solve the problem, just makes it a little less bad. There's still no case where Warrior is outright best.

With regards to the CHA bonus - 23% Melee is 1.125% Melee more than currently, or an increase of 4 SP. While this technically follows @Ianthe's brief by definition, it doesn't achieve anything in spirit. As I mentioned, after clarification, they want to increase Guests costs by 20-30% Melee. With a guest cost of 40-50% Melee, we get 157-196 SP. It's a lot more than now, but it's perfectly possible to infinitely sustain.

Ultimately, everyone will be making some sort of compromise for the workable model. The compromise in this case is Guest costs have to significantly increase. On the flipside, Guest costs will still be overpowered. This is still only about half the cost increase they should be getting mathematically. When making this model, we discussed in excruciating detail how to make this work in a way that doesn't hurt Beastmasters too much, and this is about the best case scenario we came up with. As I mentioned, we had one better, but it would require reworking every single Guest in the game. For the sake of completeness, that plan was:

1). Reduce Guest Value to 45% Melee
2). Increase Guest Cost to 30% Melee
3). Implement Ferocious strikes so that Guests had a 22.2% chance to deal double damage.

These numbers would approximate guest damage at 55% Melee for 30% Melee cost. Unfortunately, we can't change Guest Damage output without also changing the value of every single Guest related status, hence why it's too impractical to implement.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.140625