Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (Full Version)

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



Message

RobynJoanne -> Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/12/2023 4:29:56)

I've been sitting out of the recent stat balancing discussions partly because I'm burned out from my previous experience with the earlier changes to stats but also partly because I believe all this effort has been ignoring a major elephant in the room: the turn model. As Lorekeeper notes in the Spring Balance Project thread, changing the turn model is impossible.
quote:

Changing the turn model. To be absolutely clear, it's not a statement of how long we want battles to take, but an essential framework of what happens under minimal conditions, as a reference for virtually all game calculations. This is a stat revamp, after all, not the creation of a whole new mechanical framework for a new game. That's about what the workload of changing the turn model would be like -- EVERYTHING would have to be reworked to fit it.


For those unaware, the turn model refers to the current assumption that a battle against a typical mob takes 10 turns and one against a boss takes 20 turns. This is the reason that we generally heal every two battles against mobs and also after every boss battle (barring specific challenge gauntlets that waive this heal for extra difficulty). Monsters are defined by an invisible attribute called the monster power. Your typical mob has power 1, and your typical boss has power 2. "Elite" bosses have power 3. Void bosses have power 4-5. The infamous Shadow Maelstrom has power 10. The "half-power" mobs in wars and certain quests have power 0.5, which is why there are four battles between heals in those.

Monster power gives monsters a bit of leeway in balance in terms of how strong they can be, and it affects the amount of rewards one gets upon winning a battle. It is what items like those of the recent Silver Savior set refer to when they mention power 2. Note that monster power correlates with difficulty but isn't a true indicator of it. Think of it like a currency monsters can use. Smart use of that currency can let a monster go much further than one with more of it.

The 20-turn model is rightly criticized for being an inaccurate representation of AQ. Mob battles almost never take 10 turns, and bosses also rarely take 20 turns (disregarding tanky mobs and bosses). AQ questing would be an utterly banal experience that would drive many to quit if battles actually took that long. Imagine doing the at least 20 battles to get the Kindred set if each battle took that many turns. The 20-turn model wasn't accurate when it was made (Indeed, players who were active at the time have said many times that the only reason 20 turns was chosen was so that players could cast four spells with their MP bar. It was a desire for more player power that drove this decision, not logical reasoning.) let alone now after years of powercreep with balance standards changes and item releases that continue to push the enveloped of what is possible in AQ, for better or worse.

Yet, Lorekeeper and some players also claim that changing the model is impossible because it's the entire framework upon which the game is built, so changing it would mean changing everything, a gargantuan task to an absurd degree for obvious reasons. We might as well make AQ in an engine that isn't Flash if we're going that far. The game would be far better maintained and with far less jank. Such a thing is completely impossible for our developers' time and resources, and frankly, the players wouldn't stay even if this endeavor were undertaken.

However, this is supposing that this premise is true, that the turn model truly is so fundamental to AQ. I don't think that's the case. When Kaelin was still around four years ago, halving the turn model was part of the Stat Balance Project. That implies that changing the turn model was on the table at that point, and while much about AQ has changed since then, I believe the fundamentals haven't changed so much that changing the turn model is no longer possible. So, instead of taking the sentiment that changing the turn model is impossible at face value, I'd like to explore the idea and the consequences to provide the developers with a potential framework to implement. I believe that changing the flawed turn model (specifically, halving it as Kaelin and the KoO had planned back then) to better reflect the realities of AQ today is even more important than back then and just as necessary for balancing the stats as ever.

I will start with the things that are most obviously affected by the turn model: player resources.

HP
1) Inconsistency Between the Turn Model and the Conversion Model and Changing the HP Bar to Fix This
HP should last for all the turns of the turn model. However, since February 2020, when the Blood items were updated, we've been using the conversion model for HP, which makes your HP for actual survival far lower than it should be. Specifically, 100% Melee for HP is simultaneously 1/20th of your HP bar at 0 End and /1.125 of the value in SP. At level 150, 100% Melee HP is both 148 HP and 348 HP, a substantial difference. With a lowered turn count, we can justify using the same numbers for both with much less of an issue. If we reduce the model to 10 turns, that lets us raise 0 End HP to 3480 HP to keep everything correct. This had the slight added benefit of making certain HP costs less painful at 0 End. While technically not necessary as part of the turn model change, this fixes an inconsistency that has been bugging me for years. This will also affect some niche items like Limit Buster, but those are rare and just add to the list of items that must be fixed for using old HP costs in some way.
2) End's Effect on HP
Since that changes HP at 0 End, End itself deserves a look. End currently basically doubles your HP at 250 End. That's giving you 100% extra Melee per turn in general since it effectively doubles the turn count. That's far more power than any other stat. It also makes 250 End overkill for most things. Mainstats give you half of your damage, so End should provide closer to 50% of your 0 End HP. That gives you 5220 HP at 250 End. I think that's much more reasonable and honestly still a lot. Reducing End's power like this does have the problem of further disincentivizing End, which has been a conundrum the devs have been facing. However, this also encourages players who do invest in End to do so a bit more. Outside of a certain playstyle and niche builds, players usually get by with only partial investment in End, which should change with End providing less HP per point. Kaelin's original work made End provide 60% of one's 0 End HP, but that was using a, by Kaelin's own admission, skewed assumption. This doesn't fix the problem with End being a junk stat that has wasted utility for providing unuseful resources. That leads into my last point for HP.
3) Increasing Monster Damage
It's no secret that monster damage is insufficient with many tools. This is especially true with particularly broken stuff like resistance miscs and Panic stacking. If even 0 stat players can take 0 damage from bosses, something needs to change. With a reduced turn count, monsters should get a buff to damage. Doubling monster damage can be a starting point. Logically, if battles take half the time, monsters should deal double damage to actually hasten battles that much. This can be discussed depending on how excessive such a change is, but until monsters can indeed overcome player defenses and healing, extra HP will always be viewed unfavorably by most. Players should also take more damage from DoTs while monsters should heal more from Regen since monsters usually pay damage for both effects. Doubling may be excessive here because certain DoTs are already oppressive enough (looking at you War-Torn Dragon). Increasing monster damage also affects the playstyle that shall not be named, but that playstyle is something to be tackled at another time.

MP
1) The Fundamentally Incorrect MP Bar
As I alluded to earlier, the MP bar is fundamentally based upon the turn model. Talks about the stats have discussed this ad nauseam, so I'll be brief. Magic weapons deal 25% Melee less damage than Melee/Ranged weapons. That 25% Melee is summed up over 20 turns to give 20*25%=500% Melee. Spells are worth 200% Melee, so a Mage must pay an additional 125% Melee in resources to cast a spell. 500%/125%=4 spells. Thus, we get the equivalent of 4 spells' worth of MP in the MP bar. At level 150, this is 2632 MP (which is technically slightly off. Spells cost 653 MP, so you should really have 653*4=2612 MP). Halving the turn model has an obvious effect on the MP bar; it halves it. At level 150, one would have 1316 MP (or 1306 MP if we're finally fixing that anomaly that gives players extra MP for some reason). Now, Mages will surely rage at the notion of such a massive nerf, but we are fixing something that's been wrong for a decade (i.e. MP was never correct, and Mages have been taking advantage of a fundamentally flawed assumption that's unfair to other builds), and even Mages should recognize how absurd the MP bar is currently. In normal fights, you can just nuke everything with your MP bar even if you're being inefficient. In boss battles, you can combine the amount with the crazy regen such that even balanced regen items let you cast practically endlessly. That's ignoring the sheer versatility another resource bar provides.

SP
1) The Weirdly Justified SP bar
Since the other bars have been tackled, I also want to deal with SP. The SP bar has a max amount of 375% Melee. As Kaelin explains, this is based on a 15-turn model (yes, you read that right. AQ standards are a mess). The player gains 25% Melee in SP every turn, so over 15 turns, that's 25%*15=375% Melee SP. I'd prefer if this were a more normal amount reflecting the actual turn model. If we use the same idea currently used, then we'd reduce max SP to 25%*10=250% Melee SP. However, this is where one of the changes since Kaelin left affects things. Players now start battles with 100% Melee SP. Thus, over 10 turns, players actually have 350% Melee SP. This is a minor change overall but should make more sense. It also assumes SP regen doesn't change, which leads into my next point
2) SP Regen and Correcting the Player Turn Value
We currently have 25% Melee SP regen every turn. However, the player turn value is 140% Melee, with 100% Melee from player damage, 20% Melee from pet damage, and 20% Melee from SP regen. If SP regen is supposed to be 20% Melee in the turn value, then 25% Melee makes no sense. However, it's not as simple as this. Monsters deal 140% Melee damage (as shown in how Chokes and EleShields use 140% Melee * 0.85 accuracy for valuation) to equal the player turn value, but monsters no longer just do damage. Monsters also have SP regen and actually use SP for something, so monsters actually get more value than just 140% Melee. As Ianthe showed when she made Pinata Pummel, there is code to determine if a monster is a skillcaster (i.e. a monster that uses SP). Thus, I propose that passive SP regen should be 20% with an additional bonus regen when facing skillcaster monsters to "balance the scales." Since SP regen becomes 20% Melee per turn, the SP bar would also become 20%*10+100%=300% Melee SP.
As a side note, there's no need to change stun's valuation because monsters still get SP when stunned. They do not lose the value of passive SP regen.

With the player resources addressed, it's time to look at items and their effects.

Contrary to popular belief, most items are unaffected by changing the turn model because most items are based on the amount of Melee you have per turn. For example, dealing +20% damage on a weapon for 15% Melee in resources and MC doesn't change with reducing the number of turns a battle lasts. Even spellcaster stuff is based on the ratio of spells cast to weapon attacks, which remains the same if we halve the turn model. The only effects that should change are once per battle effects, permanent effects, and turn delay effects.

The former two are both quite rare. Once per battle effects would have their bonuses halved. Permanent effects would have their effects doubled (probably with cost reduction to avoid being ridiculous). They should also probably scale with monster power to be completely accurate, but that's not been implemented recently regardless of the hypothetical changes I'm discussing. The effect that would be most prominently affected by this change is Initiative. It's no secret that +50% damage for the entire player side, including on both turns with Celerity, has been a very powerful buff to Initiative, and this would bring it down to more reasonable amounts, especially for H-Series that has been taking advantage of design choices that were unforeseen at the time of its design.

Turn delay effects would also be buffed. *1.01 is awful and always needed to be buffed. This is the perfect opportunity to fix this.
If once per battle effects are using 5 turns in this standard, then we should similarly use 5 turns for turn delays. That means delaying a turn should be worth 20% since you're extending a battle by an assumed 20%. Thus, I'd buff turn waits to *(1+0.2x) where x is the number of turns waited. This affects Spiritual Seed and certain items that skip a turn. This might also affect DoTs. I'm unsure if they still get the turn delay bonus. If they do, I'd also add that turn delay bonuses should be capped.

Finally, with player stuff addressed, I want to discuss monsters.

Monsters are similar to players in the kinds of effects that need to be changed, but it's also not the same. That's because monsters don't assume the number of turns in a battle like items and player mechanics do. Instead, monsters usually vary the expected duration of a battle based on End, monster power, and lean. If it's possible to affect monster lean on a global scale to make all monsters more of a glass cannon to reflect the reduced turn duration, that should account for these kinds of effects.

Conclusion:
I may have missed things that are governed by the turn model. I'm only a single person, and this is why I'm posting this for discussion. However, I hope that this can tackle the notion that the turn model is an immutable part of AQ by this point and that I've made a decent case that it's not as daunting as it may appear. Player resources can be addressed on a global scale as can monster damage. Most items are unaffected. Those that are are either relatively uncommon or have an effect that always needed a buff regardless.



CH4OT1C! -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/12/2023 5:34:34)

I'd like to preface this with a disclaimer that, when I have stated Player turn model cannot changed (both recently and in the past), I have deliberately omitted that there is certain leeway and scope for change, such as the ones that @RobynJoanne has brought up here. The reason I have done so is out of simplicity: It is already complicated enough to outline a system that isn't explained well anywhere and only really discussed at all within extremely niche chats where the participants are assumed to be 'in the know' like it's some sort of eldritchian magic that must be kept secret by a select chosen few. A clear, outlined, official post on this topic is something I think we desperately need.

I prefer to think of these (perfectly accurate) criticisms not as 'changing the model' but rather 'grey areas' where there's scope for interpretation. They're areas where the model isn't even consistent with itself (yep, it's that kind of incorrect), and that inevitably opens up room to make alterations. With that said though, they aren't openings to bend and break it beyond all reason. We still can't break the model in its entirety for the reasons @RobynJoanne has listed non-exhaustively. I'll demonstrate that in some of the responses below.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to everything here immediately, so watch this space:

quote:

1) The Fundamentally Incorrect MP Bar
As I alluded to earlier, the MP bar is fundamentally based upon the turn model. Talks about the stats have discussed this ad nauseam, so I'll be brief. Magic weapons deal 25% Melee less damage than Melee/Ranged weapons. That 25% Melee is summed up over 20 turns to give 20*25%=500% Melee. Spells are worth 200% Melee, so a Mage must pay an additional 125% Melee in resources to cast a spell. 500%/125%=4 spells. Thus, we get the equivalent of 4 spells' worth of MP in the MP bar. At level 150, this is 2632 MP (which is technically slightly off. Spells cost 653 MP, so you should really have 653*4=2612 MP). Halving the turn model has an obvious effect on the MP bar; it halves it. At level 150, one would have 1316 MP (or 1306 MP if we're finally fixing that anomaly that gives players extra MP for some reason). Now, Mages will surely rage at the notion of such a massive nerf, but we are fixing something that's been wrong for a decade (i.e. MP was never correct, and Mages have been taking advantage of a fundamentally flawed assumption that's unfair to other builds), and even Mages should recognize how absurd the MP bar is currently. In normal fights, you can just nuke everything with your MP bar even if you're being inefficient. In boss battles, you can combine the amount with the crazy regen such that even balanced regen items let you cast practically endlessly. That's ignoring the sheer versatility another resource bar provides.

You are right: We can halve the formula and assume two battles take the player 10 turns (5 turns each). It's achievable, and it would halve the MP bar for Mages with minimal impact to other builds (the calculations are still the same, just the final store of resources is assumed to be 10 rather than 20). It's also something I've avoided bringing up because I cannot fathom the level of backlash such a change would cause. It would surely be welcomed by the anti-Mage crowd, but potentially at the cost of opening up even deeper community divisions. Choose your battles carefully, so to speak. In addition, there is a caveat to that can be found in HP...

quote:

1) Inconsistency Between the Turn Model and the Conversion Model and Changing the HP Bar to Fix This
HP should last for all the turns of the turn model. However, since February 2020, when the Blood items were updated, we've been using the conversion model for HP, which makes your HP for actual survival far lower than it should be. Specifically, 100% Melee for HP is simultaneously 1/20th of your HP bar at 0 End and /1.125 of the value in SP. At level 150, 100% Melee HP is both 148 HP and 348 HP, a substantial difference. With a lowered turn count, we can justify using the same numbers for both with much less of an issue. If we reduce the model to 10 turns, that lets us raise 0 End HP to 3480 HP to keep everything correct. This had the slight added benefit of making certain HP costs less painful at 0 End. While technically not necessary as part of the turn model change, this fixes an inconsistency that has been bugging me for years. This will also affect some niche items like Limit Buster, but those are rare and just add to the list of items that must be fixed for using old HP costs in some way.

At one point around a decade ago now as part of the Sweep, Player HP drastically increased. Back then, this was considered an extremely poor decision as there was a similar drastic decrease in the potency of Healing equipment (monster damage increased to account for the increased HP). As a compromise, the staff lowered HP (and monster damage) back down a little, so that healing equipment was improved (though still not as strong as the heal-looping of ~2010). The reason I bring this up is because we can, in theory, change this balance again. Raising the base HP would essentially reverse the decision from a decade ago. You would reduce the HP costs, but at the expense of healing effects. It's an inevitable tradeoff. There are compounding issues though...

quote:

2) End's Effect on HP
Since that changes HP at 0 End, End itself deserves a look. End currently basically doubles your HP at 250 End. That's giving you 100% extra Melee per turn in general since it effectively doubles the turn count. That's far more power than any other stat. It also makes 250 End overkill for most things. Mainstats give you half of your damage, so End should provide closer to 50% of your 0 End HP. That gives you 5220 HP at 250 End. I think that's much more reasonable and honestly still a lot. Reducing End's power like this does have the problem of further disincentivizing End, which has been a conundrum the devs have been facing. However, this also encourages players who do invest in End to do so a bit more. Outside of a certain playstyle and niche builds, players usually get by with only partial investment in End, which should change with End providing less HP per point. Kaelin's original work made End provide 60% of one's 0 End HP, but that was using a, by Kaelin's own admission, skewed assumption. This doesn't fix the problem with End being a junk stat that has wasted utility for providing unuseful resources. That leads into my last point for HP.

To place this in context, END's power was increased beyond mathematical standards a few years ago in a well-meaning, but ultimately failed, attempt to increase the theoretical value of the stat to the player. It failed because it didn't provide the right kind of power. Extra HP is only valuable if i). Your enemies are sufficiently strong to threaten you and ii). You have reason and the means to spend your HP for other benefits i.e. HP costs. That brings me onto...

quote:

3) Increasing Monster Damage
It's no secret that monster damage is insufficient with many tools. This is especially true with particularly broken stuff like resistance miscs and Panic stacking. If even 0 stat players can take 0 damage from bosses, something needs to change. With a reduced turn count, monsters should get a buff to damage. Doubling monster damage can be a starting point. Logically, if battles take half the time, monsters should deal double damage to actually hasten battles that much. This can be discussed depending on how excessive such a change is, but until monsters can indeed overcome player defenses and healing, extra HP will always be viewed unfavorably by most. Players should also take more damage from DoTs while monsters should heal more from Regen since monsters usually pay damage for both effects. Doubling may be excessive here because certain DoTs are already oppressive enough (looking at you War-Torn Dragon). Increasing monster damage also affects the playstyle that shall not be named, but that playstyle is something to be tackled at another time.

If the monster can't threaten your HP, then there's no reason to value getting additional HP. This is where we bring in the caveat to reducing the turn model to 10 rather than 20 turns. You can, indeed, reduce MP by doing this. The side effect is you either need to double Monster damage or halve player HP. The player HP bar is expected to last 20 turns, so you only need to store half of that if your HP is only expected to last 10. This would be a drastic nerf to every player, but it would certainly make HP and END more valuable.

quote:

2) SP Regen and Correcting the Player Turn Value
We currently have 25% Melee SP regen every turn. However, the player turn value is 140% Melee, with 100% Melee from player damage, 20% Melee from pet damage, and 20% Melee from SP regen. If SP regen is supposed to be 20% Melee in the turn value, then 25% Melee makes no sense. However, it's not as simple as this. Monsters deal 140% Melee damage (as shown in how Chokes and EleShields use 140% Melee * 0.85 accuracy for valuation) to equal the player turn value, but monsters no longer just do damage. Monsters also have SP regen and actually use SP for something, so monsters actually get more value than just 140% Melee. As Ianthe showed when she made Pinata Pummel, there is code to determine if a monster is a skillcaster (i.e. a monster that uses SP). Thus, I propose that passive SP regen should be 20% with an additional bonus regen when facing skillcaster monsters to "balance the scales." Since SP regen becomes 20% Melee per turn, the SP bar would also become 20%*10+100%=300% Melee SP.

Again, absolutely right. That said, we should note the caveats:
  • This would be a net Nerf, not a Buff. A large chunk of monsters don't have skills. The player will lose ~20 SP regeneration (at Lvl150) per turn in many situations
  • The cap would also take a net reduction (Jeanne's calculations here suggest the player should have 1176 SP at Lvl150). In an age where we're trying to reduce the deficit between Warrior/Ranger and Mage, this would inevitably be travelling in the opposite direction
  • In situations where the enemy does have a skill, SP regeneration is still a build-agnostic resource. This means you couldn't have one build specifically increase their SP regeneration while the others get nothing. It's all or nothing - either everyone gets it or none of them do.

    I recognise that might be difficult to follow, so a tl;dr. The mechanical inconsistencies @RobynJoanne displays could be solved by:
  • Reducing the turn model to assume 10 turns
  • Adjusting HP to account for the value of HP costs. The end result should be that monster's deal about 10% of your HP every turn and that this aligns with outgoing HP costs - 100% melee is ~347 HP at Lvl150 so monsters would be doing on average ~490 HP a turn at optimal resistances and the player would have ~4900 HP at 0 END. Healing effects would remain the same power.
  • Halving MP
  • Reducing the SP cap to 300% Melee (1176 SP at Lvl150) and reducing regeneration to 20% Melee (78 SP at Lvl150), except in circumstances where Monsters have skills
  • Reducing the power of END
    I daresay these would be 'divisive' changes



    • ruleandrew -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/12/2023 9:05:00)

    If monster is able to survive 5 player turns, basic monster will have just 5 attack patterns.
    Basic monster attack pattern 1: attack 1
    Basic monster attack pattern 2: attack 1 -> attack 2
    Basic monster attack pattern 3: attack 1 -> attack 2 -> attack 3
    Basic monster attack pattern 4: attack 1 -> attack 2 -> attack 3 -> attack 4
    Basic monster attack pattern 5: attack 1 -> attack 2 -> attack 1 -> attack 3

    If monster is able to survive 10 player turns, basic monster will have several more attack patterns.
    Basic monster attack pattern 6: attack 1 -> attack 2 -> attack 3 -> attack 1 -> attack 4
    Basic monster attack pattern 7: attack 1 -> attack 2 -> attack 1 -> attack 3 -> attack 1 -> attack 4
    Basic monster attack pattern 8: attack 1 -> attack 2 -> attack 3 -> attack 1 -> attack 2 -> attack 4





    RobynJoanne -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/12/2023 10:43:28)

    As Chaotic pointed out, if we're using the HP bar should really be 140% Melee HP * 10 turns. That gives us ~4900 HP at level 150 (4878 HP to be exact since 100% Melee HP is 348.44, so we'd multiply that by 14).

    I'd also like to take this opportunity to address another inconsistency. Ever since the stat revamp removed Dex as a requirement for BtH (partly, which will be rectified with the rest of the revamp), we've had an extra 250 stats to use, but assumptions have yet to reflect this. Thus, the assumed player build is 250 mainstat/250 Luk at level 150, which leaves 250 stats unaccounted for. Having the assumed player build be one that completely neglects one-third of the potential stats is absurd.

    We can rectify this by assuming End as the final stat. Thus, 4878 HP will be the amount of HP provided with 250 End at level 150. The 0 End max HP will instead be 4878/1.5=3252 HP.

    I will further add that the SP bar as Chaotic summarized is tentative because I have yet to figure out a good number for the amount of extra SP regen the player should get when facing skillcasters. The max SP bar should include that SP regen as well. Assuming this extra regen is remotely reasonable, players should have more max SP than they do right now.

    Ultimately, these changes should ideally make AQ fights more dangerous and end more quickly, but players will have more SP during the fights that matter (modern bosses universally use SP in some way and are thus skillcasters). This will give all players more SP to deal with the increased dangers of this model, thus providing the tools necessary to play more defensively or deal more damage as necessary. Since this is independent of items or builds, this will be particularly useful once Essence Orb has been nerfed and the Zfinity Gauntlets have been changed and even more useful for F2P Adventurers without access to either item.



    Lorekeeper -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/12/2023 11:24:47)

    I appreciate the constructive criticism. I certainly didn't intend to be so hyperbolic as to present this as asymptotically approaching an impossibility. It would be more reasonable to explain that the hard dependencies are not all that would need to be changed, and the workload of making the game fun while correcting the inconsistencies would be a major revamp all to itself. While it necessarily overlaps with the revamp by impacting all resources and the assumed stats, this would put us in the position of needing to merge the project with quality of life revamps and sufficient early game adjustments to avoid making the game too harsh. Altering the turn model by specific multipliers isn't impossible, but the additional workload of managing its ripples would require such a thorough redesign as to make the original estimation hold.

    To correct my statement, then (I'll amend my post in the stat revamp accordingly): It's not fundamentally impossible, but it's not practically doable within the scope of a revamp that has already been significantly delayed. It would vastly increase the pressure for tutorial and early game adjustments that require feature/UI work, and managing its ripples to keep the game fun would be a massive redesign task.



    CH4OT1C! -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/12/2023 12:41:18)

    I think this thread is a really nice demonstration of the concept that, while the model is outdated, it heavily works in the Player's favour. Notions to change the turn assumptions of the Player Turn model would constitute the single biggest nerf AQ has ever (or would likely ever) see.



    Lorekeeper -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/12/2023 12:49:21)

    The thread is an example of what would happen if we shortened the turn model, and how it would have the opposite of the effect that is often expected when stating that it needs to change. There are no two ways around the fact that halving values would result in having half of the original number. It COULD be done while keeping the game fun, if we could set aside the time to do it alongside a large number of other changes ranging between fixes and concessions going beyond one huge consistency pass.

    If anything, the discussion can stand as a way to close the debate on what would happen if the turn model were to change, and that the workload involved in adjusting for the consequences of such a change to keep the game fun (While not impossible as I originally said) is not remotely practical as part of current projects. Using the original post, players can extrapolate what would happen through shortening or extending the model. Using it as information, a discussion on how the turn model could change, and how the consequences could be adjusted for to keep the game fun if it were to change in any way could be sustainable if we are willing to keep it civil. It should not require any hostility to discuss how the rest of the game would have to change to retain or improve appeal if the turn model changed, and what it could theoretically change to.

    As this has not been a common outcome of balance discussions, I would not suggest taking a commitment to good faith discussion lightly.



    Edit:

    I'd like to take this as a moment to suggest that we all take on a challenge together. This can be a chance to come together as a community and ask:

    - Should the turn model change? If so, how and why?
    - We have an example of the consequences of changing it. What else would need to change to adjust for these and keep the game fun IF it changes?

    Balance discussions have devolved into uncompromising doubling down, sooner or later doing so even in spite of the rules. If we can take ONE chance to put hostilities aside and examine the situation, everyone can come out of this better informed and a number of misconceptions can finally be overcome.

    All it takes is one thread of not treating one another as having the worst of intentions. Just discussing a hypothetical scenario and asking, for the sake of finally having some common ground, what we could do to keep things fun IF we could take on the massive workload of doing a consistency pass of the turn model. If we can't imagine a way this could be wrangled into an improvement through complementary changes, then we can ome out of this with a collective understanding of the concession it represents. If we can, even if it's a tall order to implement, we'll have actually come together to solve a problem.

    I'm not asking for any number of external conflicts to be simply waved away, nor aiming to impose on the personal lives of any of our players. Let's take on the exercise of treating each other player as if they had the best of intentions, and disagreement as something to be resolved through information and respect rather than reframing and rewriting.

    Is it a tall order to ask a divided community to come together so abruptly on an inherently divisive topic? Yes. But it would feel criminal to shut down the chance to find common ground, no matter the odds. Because if it can be achieved here, all future discussions can improve.


    Mod Anim: This is a GBI discussion. *Moves*
    Dev Anim: This thread has merit, and could be fun to discuss hypothetical.
    Mod Anim: Anyone is welcome to post as always. Remember the AQGD and forum rules apply. Disparaging remarks at other player's or their ideas will not be tolerated.



    CH4OT1C! -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/12/2023 19:18:20)

    Ok, let's explore...

    In a break from my usual spiel (in the spirit of the thread), I'm actually going to suggest we should change the model. I don't think that change should be large - As @RobynJeanne has eloquently demonstrated, reducing the number of assumed turns in the model would, to put it mildly, be just a tad controversial. This especially applies to the halving of MP, but not simply because it would represent a drastic nerf. No, in this case, I think it's because it would even really work. Certainly, there's no question around whether such a change would narrow the gap between Mage and the other main builds - it evidently would. However, the real power of Spellcaster Mage comes not from the size of its MP bar, but access to extensive MP regeneration. Changing the Player Turn model would do nothing to address this, nor would it really tackle the root cause of the problem. We'd be risking major backlash for a change that probably won't even work!

    However, I do think there are a couple of changes that could help us in the long run, namely:
  • Increasing monster damage
  • Aligning HP with the cost formula
    Rather predictably for me, implementing both will result in a net nerf. That's ok though. We often discuss how buffs serve to widen the design space, but rarely do we discuss nerfs and how they can achieve a similar effect. In evolutionary terms, a buff can be thought of as an adaptive radiation, where a niche opens up the playing field to new forms. However, this same radiation can lead to obsolescence. If a bunch of items cover the same broad niche with few notable differences between them, the majority become obsolete as compared to the one thing offering a little more. In other words, it might expand potential design space, but that space may never become fully actualised. Nerfs, on the other hand, are closer to selective pressure. They provide stress conditions to essentially cut out the clutter. When done right, they can cut out obsolete areas of the design space, retain areas that are actualised, and lead to the actualisation of a space that wasn't really used before.

    All that sounds a bit wordy, so putting that into context...

    END is a great example of a stat that's almost entirely obsolete. Unless you're a backlasher, there's really no reason to invest in END. Under normal gameplay circumstances, HP never becomes a limited enough resource for END to become necessary. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the staff have already tried to buff it, no little change. Why? It's not because the potential design space is non-existent. Indeed, END is mathematically the strongest stat! No, it's because the power it provides is obsolete, there's never a reason for that potential space to be actualised. What we need is a nerf.

    This is where my two supported changes come in. Monster damage is pretty self explanatory. The second though, that's more subtle. As I mentioned, the strength of healing effects won't change if you increase HP. This means that, overall, they'll be less potent if you increase monster damage and player HP in kind. That means, not only will the player be put under more stress from the additional damage, but won't be able to recover from it as easily either. Both of these play fantastically into END as a valuable stat - it provides additional HP to cushion the damage, and it also provide healing resistance to make your regeneration more reliable. In other words, there's suddenly a reason to want more HP, making it way more likely that that potential space will be actualised.

    My point with all this? Nerfs never feel good, but they can still do good.



    • dizzle -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/12/2023 20:41:07)

    I appreciate the effort that went into this post and I’m glad it came from someone articulate enough to make it simple to understand. I’ve been thinking about this for a while and had a long post typed out but i think formatting it a way that answers LK’s questions is a better idea.

    Disclaimer: Everything I’m getting ready to say is completely subjective and my opinion based on my own experiences.

    Should the turn model change and why?

    I do believe some change is warranted. To what extent? I’m not sure but I’m open to discussing more about it. There a few reasons why I think the turn model needs changed. The game needs a rough set of assumptions as a baseline to operate on a basic level, as well as to continue to evolve. This is the problem. The game has evolved. The turn model has not. As standards change and the boundaries of balance are experimented with, one thing remains constant: That ancient 20-turn model your grandmother used to tell you about when you were a kid. As power creep continues to happen and warp the game (as it should) the turn model remains. It relies on severely outdated assumptions (some of which were questionable to begin with tbqh).

    END is all but pointless unless you’re a backlasher, a casual, or new/returning player. As Jeanne said, it’s just wasted utility to anyone who has an average grasp of the game. As we continue to see powercreep with insane items (see the T3s, Entropy, H series etc) we need to see at least some type of powercreep on the monster side as well, no? If every single monster in the game is trivialized with one armor.. is that fun? A surge in player power should also result in some sort of surge in monster power as well. Remember completely subjective, just my opinion. I don’t see this as a nerf to the player, but rather a buff to the competition, which I welcome.

    Edit: I should probably note that I know this change below will clearly never happen due to threats of player backlash. I’m speaking my opinion purely and just giving my 2 cents on the impact INT has in the game currently from my perspective.

    As the proud leader of the “anti-mage crowd” I stand tall behind the MP bar getting chopped in half. I think that it seems like a bigger nerf than what it really is though. The MP bar itself is in my opinion invaluable. You can’t place a numerical value on something so versatile and with so much support. Having 1300+ mp still allows for pretty much any shenanigans you want to get into, albeit with the price of having to regen MP more often which is reasonable I think. The entire framework for INT is wrong imo. “Frontload damage with a spell or two and then attack with your weapon after” lol.. it’s a cute assumption, but wildly abusable. This would at least help bridge the gap between INT and the other mainstats while not really cutting into the identity or versatility.

    All that being said, It’s completely understandable why I would assume nearly everyone would disagree. It’s been like this for years and it seems like a pretty big change. Mage has been the dominant archetype for over a decade I think, and while I don’t think it’s serious enough to start an anti mage cult, I do think it warps the game.

    I don’t have much to say regarding the SP bar. Again, to me, it seems like a bigger nerf than it really is and still allows for endless shenanigans with the right SP regen items.

    What else would need to change to adjust for these and keep the game fun IF it changes?

    Korriban already mentioned a no brainer to me, players under max level and casuals can’t be destroyed by this. I’m nowhere near clever enough to recognize every issue that we would run into, but this would undoubtedly have to be a top priority. Another thing which is almost certainly impossible, is that I believe it’s gotta be the right time to do it. If it was scheduled in and provided time for foresight adjustments I think it could be a game changing project. I know I’m only staying the obvious, but this is something as big the stat revamp and shouldn’t be rushed.

    One thing I would like to touch on is also what I think should *not* change, or at least not change much. Resource regen items. This might be a cold take for some, and it also depends on the direction the staff want to go with this. If they want to promote and encourage a playstyle that somewhat lines up with the 10-turn model, then players are going to need strong resource regeneration, specifically from items so as not to mess up the player turn formula. We’ve got some pretty questionable resource regen methods right now, but I don’t think we should demonize resource regen as a whole . I still think it’s important and to me it’s one of the most fun aspects of the game. I also don’t think this is a problem as long as it’s kept in check, old over-performing items are adjusted, and everything is in line with whatever standards are present at the time.

    That’s all I want to get into here on the forums, very interesting idea and I welcome more discussion on it because I’m sure there’s plenty of potentially problematic situations I haven’t thought of.



    RobynJoanne -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/12/2023 21:35:51)

    As noted above by others, this would be a series of game-warping changes. While my post was intended to show that the mechanical difficulty of the changes is not as high as presumed, this doesn't mean that this would be easy. Even if the code were easy to change, there are balancing concerns to acknowledge.

    It's no secret that the low-level player experience is difficult. Increasing monster damage then when monsters already often outlevel players due to terrible scaling is a dangerous idea. That's why doubling monster damage was a starting point. It would be the starting point of future discussions about the best path to implementing this idea. I'm not an expert on the low-level character experience. When I leveled up my characters to max level, I had done so back when overcapping was still available and combined my general knowledge of the game with the Shared Vault, two things new and returning players presumably would not have to the same level as me. There are people more qualified for bringing up a way to scale damage based on level until it reaches something like *2 at level 135 and beyond.

    To clarify regarding SP, it would be largely buffed. 300% Melee SP for the SP bar is because I do not yet have concrete numbers for how much SP to provide against skillcasters. The 100% + 10 * Regen formula should use the increased regen against skillcasters for it. Assuming a decently reasonable 20% Melee SP extra against skillcasters, that would give 40% Melee SP per turn and an SP bar of 500% Melee SP. At level 150, this would be 157 SP per turn and 1960 SP in total. Remember that skillcasters include virtually all remotely recent bosses. Again, the goal is not to just give monsters more damage merely for increased challenge. The goal is to change AQ to play more dynamically. Increased danger means we need the tools to survive. More SP and more base HP should help with that. More danger also gives more reason to invest more heavily in End.

    Furthermore, and I realize that player resources and monster changes have dominated discussions, but item effects are also something to explore. Turn delay effects need to be buffed regardless of the turn model. The pitiful 1% increase every turn has been useless ever since inception. Changing once per battle effects and permanent effects could also help make the former more reasonable and the latter more popular. Furthermore, there could be item effects that I missed. There are so many items in AQ, and I definitely do not have the memory to recall all the effects that use the turn model. I opened up a discussion not just to gauge reactions, which I had expected to be negative because there are nerfs that are ostensibly massive, but also to ask for suggestions on anything I missed.



    Grace Xisthrith -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/12/2023 21:59:17)

    Definitely a bad idea to drop these changes for the overall game, but I do think some interesting ideas were brought up, which is sounds like the goal was.

    I want to also agree that low level players and returning players without wide game knowledge struggle a ton against modern bosses and quests, even with basic heal looping stuff, so as Jeanne suggested, perhaps scaling changes with level bracket, for example, every 15 levels monster power is multiplied by 1.1 and player HP / MP is multiplied by .9. Total example numbers, but something like that could be implemented. Overall though, I'd say in my ideal version of AQ, any large scale base nerfs to player power should be lessened at lower levels, when possible. There's definitely arguments against that, but that's my general feeling.

    As for specific changes though, cutting the MP bar in half is super drastic, I can't really imagine non tryhards enjoying mage after that, but it would be interesting. HP, I actually think the old Annihilator model of having like 1k total HP without any END could work in the modern day, having 1450 HP at 250 at 0 END, and 2950 HP at 250 END. Crazy take, and completely different numbers than the math suggests, as shown by Chaotic and Jeanne, but I'd be interested.

    I'd also be down for generally doubling or multiplying monster damage by a number, since I've found monster damage to be really, really low in general. Again with the caveat of being pretty experienced and using generally OP gear, but I think due to some of my youtube videos, I may be the most experienced player at clicking attack with a healing pet and guest out, and it's really quite surprising how little HP you lose, even against challenging bosses, like Virophage for example, or even parts of the moderator gauntlet.

    What I think is more interesting though, is how many of these changes could be applied as a status effect? Let me explain, monster damage caps are generally calculated off boss HP live, since monster HP has slight fluctuations. Monster HP is another thing calculated live. Could other factors be calculated live? Overall player MP, HP, or general monster damage? So, could a player switch on a toggle at Nimrod for example, and then apply a temporary 2x multiplier to monster damage until they turned the toggle off? How difficult would this be to implement?

    I think a toggle for game difficulty would be really cool, and depending on how many parts of all these balance formulas and equations are calculated live / in game, making a challenge mode AQ might be totally doable. I also imagine some things might not be applicable to all monsters, but may be applicable to modern monsters which are base coded at level 150 and scale with level depending on the player. Either way, I wonder what people feel about this, and if anyone has knowledge on what might be able to be changed with a toggle like this, and what is hard coded / built in.



    Dardiel -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/13/2023 2:12:26)

    Very well written, and very easy to agree with all the points laid out and most of the opinions - the closest I get to disagreeing with any premise is at the statement that battles almost always end earlier than the system expects, but even then it's only really untrue for my own playstyle that seeks to play extremely defensive.

    To that end, my answers to Lorekeeper's questions are:

    Should the turn model change?
    - Yes, if...

    Why? (Or in the case of how I'm writing, in what situation)
    - If the model causes dev and/or player problems and can be fixed such that the effort to fix it results in a net positive
    AND
    - If the game doesn't become punishing to new players that now have much less room for mistakes (taking 2x the damage that a player used to take, with half the mana to use)

    How?
    - I'm not confident enough in my knowledge of the game systems to give any answer beyond "most of what Robyn said". The only exception for me would be that I'm not huge on SP regeneration being dependant on the situation (I prefer for the things on the player side to stay consistent, while the enemy side is what has to be adapted to).

    Other changes that would need to be made?
    - I'll follow the experts on this one. If the math checks out and a player can enjoy the game without needing to know the math, it's got a good start in my eyes.



    CH4OT1C! -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/13/2023 5:50:13)

    Let's deep dive down the road of halving MP regeneration and the possible scenarios that could result:

    Prerequisites:
  • Reducing the assumed model from 20 to 10 turns is a prerequisite to justify the MP change. As a result, you pretty much have to halve player HP or double monster damage at the same time, or at least not without an exceptionally good reason to the contrary. Without it, you wouldn't be changing the model as much as arbitrarily nerfing a build because they deserved it.
  • Contrastingly, you wouldn't need to unify HP costs because they aren't associated with the turn cost. Not doing so would have some pretty significant consequences for HP (not sure how many people would enjoy a 347 HP cost if they only have 1500 HP to begin with!). The alternative is having enough HP but severely impacting any and all regeneration (even the current potion would only really buy you two turns).

    What might be the initial implications for Mages?:
  • The first thing that comes to mind is the approximate eradication of overcharged spells. Since spells all take elecomp to damage rather than cost, every spell with more than the standard cost would essentially force you to regenerate MP if you wanted to cast another spell within the next couple of fights. This firstly reduces the actualised design space - spells like Unravelling Nightmare couldn't be made because they would cost more than your entire MP bar to fire! It would also heavily disincentivise any overcharged spell more generally because, even if the player possessed MP regeneration, they wouldn't be able to cast a spell immediately afterwards (unless it was efficient), putting them at substantial risk.
  • Something more subtle - it's very likely that a large proportion of Mages would revert back to skillcasting. Unlike MP, SP regeneration wouldn't be affected nearly as significantly (i.e. we aren't halving the bar). Also, Weapon-based skills are elecomped to cost and so, even though MP regeneration options are more versatile, it's not unreasonable to suppose Mages would prefer skills because of their immediate efficiency. The results would depend on the additional changes implemented...

    Scenarios (in increasing order of Mage discrimination):
  • Assuming we change nothing else, Mage would likely continue to subsume FO playstyles because their skills are better, SP regeneration equally affects everyone, and they still receive the *4/3 bonus
  • Assuming we removed the *4/3, Mages would still likely be pushed towards FO because, even though they're now identical in terms of damage output to Warrior and Ranger, Weapon-based skills are cheaper and thus more reliable.
  • Assuming we removed the *4/3 and then replaced it with a /2 on all Weapon-based skills, this scenario would still play out, because Spell-based skills are still less efficient.
  • Assuming we did all of the above and then also capped EO, I would assume that you hated Mages [;)] Mages would start to have trouble deciding which way to go. Their main niche would be heavily curbed and they would be deliberately discriminated against outside of it.
  • The truly "Nuclear option" - everything above, but in addition we also nerf Mage MP regeneration items. In truth, I'm not sure how Mage would be able to survive that one. At that point, both other builds would be better at damage output (since they have elecomp to cost on their skills, they can sustain 200% Melee output for longer than Mages could spells). On their terms, Mage would be discriminated against. The only thing that might keep them afloat are the utility spells available to them

    Why did I mention "discriminate" and not "fix"? The situation around Mages and SP is complicated. Mages deal base 75% Melee damage on their Weapon attacks, but their skills are quirky in that they bring damage up to 200% Melee like Warriors and Rangers for an additional cost. This is technically fair within the turn model because Mages still get as much SP allocated to them as everyone else - they just pay it in bigger chunks. Right now, this system directly benefits Mages because SP regeneration is no problem - I can regenerate every and cast skills every turn no problem as a Mage, getting comparatively more damage (hence why, in the past, I've argued nerfing SP regeneration actually benefits non-Mages). This situation completely reverses when you essentially eradicate SP regeneration. Warriors and Rangers could sustainably output far more Damage than Mages due to the quirky combination of cheaper initial skills and elecomp to cost. Under the "Nuclear Option" scenario above, Mages could output up to two turns of Spells before having to fall back on regeneration. Warriors, meanwhile, could sustain the same output for far longer due to the initial 392 SP and cost elecomp. Why is elecomp so important here? Remember, Mage elecomp goes to damage so, while they would output a lot more on the initial attack, they wouldn't be able to sustain it. Further compound everything above with i). Boss damage caps and ii).Mage items (outside of bloodblade) don't cater simultaneously to Spellcasting and Weapon-based skills, and you start to see just how drastic the "Nuclear Option" becomes.

    Finally, perhaps the most important one:
  • Halving Mage MP, curbing their regeneration, and discriminating against them SP-wise is likely to incite a riot!





    • RobynJoanne -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/13/2023 21:51:31)

    One of the benefits of changing monster damage is that EleComp becomes much more dangerous to rely upon. Players will then have to decide between the safe but slower option of efficiently casting spells and regenerating MP or the more powerful but dangerous option of using EleComped skills. Especially with the proliferation of Freedom, bosses are far less susceptible to the standard way to mitigate the downside of EleComped skills. The main problem remains Celerity, which subverts the expected damage intake from using an EleComped skill without paying the appropriate amount for it. This is especially true if SP regen against bosses increases as expected while Celerity still mainly costs SP. However, that also shows why we need the Essence Orb nerf. It's much harder to justify using both Celerity and an SP-costing skill when SP is a more limited resource.

    However, it is true that Warriors and Rangers will benefit more from these changes. The only "nerf" they get is the increased monster damage, which is more a buff to monsters. On the one hand, I find that a fine trade-off because people have noted the sheer versatility the MP bar provides that isn't reflected in pure damage. On the other hand, we do need to discuss the potential ramifications of this shift. I may be underestimating how drastically these changes will favor Warriors and Rangers. We certainly don't want the opposite problem of most players choosing to avoid playing Mage, turning Mage into the Ranger of the past.

    Another thing worth considering is how turn delay changes should affect how we view the ramping ideas that have been discussed for Ranger. Nothing has been confirmed for the rest of the stat changes, so this is yet another example of the devs will need more time to implement such drastic changes to the game even if the code is simple enough.



    ming shuen -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/14/2023 4:49:39)

    I think most of the players here are maxed out in both levels, and items, and thus, forget what it was like to be a casual. Here, I offer a different perspective, that of a new / returning player

    4 spell-casts are actually a good thing, currently.
    Currently
    It takes a normal player – without stat boosts, damage increasing miscs, bursts, regenerative items, approximately 4 casts to defeat a monster. Each spell does approximately 20% to 33% of monster HP.

    Full heals are given, once every 2 battles.

    This means that the current rationing strategy is to either use 2 spells to remove 50% of Monster HP, before utilizing the attack button for the remaining 50%. Or. . . a player uses up all 4 spells, and is left out of MP, to face the second monster.

    If MP is reduced in half
    The player is forced to utilize one spell per monster, leaving the opponent at 75% HP, and then utilizing weapons for the rest, which takes forever.

    Or he could utilize two spells on the first monster, leaving the opponent at 50% HP, and then facing the second monster, without an MP bar. Which also takes forever.

    Do keep in mind that magic weapons are typically weaker than warriors. . .

    Consequences
    Battles become extremely long, and difficult for the casual player. They do not access the forums, so as to optimize their builds. Knowledge that we take for granted, such as the existence of elecomp, they are unaware of. Their potions are VERY limited – and while it can be increased, having them prep before every quest – an extremely restrictive sensation arises.

    Balancing the power of MP
    Game balance should not revolve around elites – forum users are more the exception, rather than the rule. Sure, elite mages can nuke down a mob, eliminating 50% + monster HP per cast.

    However, a casual player, does not have seasonal items, golden giftboxes, or perhaps even guardian equipment. They do not have a nice selection of void gear available for their usage. They utilize class armours, Warlic and Yulgar shops, and the occasional master craft quest item. For them, 4 spell casts provides them a sufficient challenge for the game. I recall sometimes wishing for a fifth or sixth cast, because certain mobs are so tanky, or the full heals were particularly sparse, in some quests.

    Spellcasting is fun
    What’s the point of being a mage if one could only cast 1 spell per battle? Sure – regen items exist, but they are given as obscure quest rewards, instead of it readily accessible via a shop. For the average, uninformed player, where is the magic identity? Some quests can have a person face 16 to 20 monsters, and it is long enough as it is, without halving the number of spells they can practically cast.



    CH4OT1C! -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/14/2023 6:41:35)

    @ming shuen: Thank you for doing this, because it's a really great example of how the player turn model isn't explained well at all!

    Like I mentioned earlier, the Player Turn model is a bit like eldritchian magic kept secret by a select chosen few. The model looks like this:

    quote:

    100% [Player Damage] + 20% [Pet] + 20% SP = 140% Melee per turn


    Mages are a bit special. They do less damage on their weapon attacks and compensate with spells and MP. Over a single battle (which is assumed to take 10 turns), it looks like this:

    quote:

    (2 * 200)% [Spell]+ (8 * 75)% [Magic Weapon] + (10 * 20)% [Pet] + (10 * 20)% [SP] = 1400% Melee over 10 turns

    As you can see, of the 1400 Melee% value you get out of 10 turns, only 400 of it (~28%) is actually coming from Spells. Of course, not all of this has to be spent on dealing damage (Pets can heal you, for example) and battles don't usually last 10 turns, but my point here is that what you're experiencing currently is pretty much exactly what the model accounts for. If anything, you're going faster than what the model expects!

    Why am I saying this? It's because veteran players often point out battles are, in fact, very short. That's precisely because, as you point out, they're using combinations and items that optimise their build in a way that make 20 turns look like an absurd assumption, even though that same provides them the very resource pool that allows them to break it so flagrantly! It's always a reality check to see just how abnormal some of the strategies we use are.

    Also watch this space - I plan to explore another inconsistency with the player turn model



    dizzle -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/14/2023 13:31:57)

    I feel as though I should clarify my position here so as to not spread more Anti mage rhetoric. It’s not that I dislike mage, I dislike inconsistencies. Let me explain by responding to a few comments made earlier in the thread:

    EDIT: READ THIS BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE. I know good and well that my view of mage does not in anyway line up with the developers view of mage. The disclaimer from my first post applies to this one ad well.

    quote:

    it's very likely that a large proportion of Mages would revert back to skillcasting.


    I take no issue with this. I don’t see any reason a mage should not be allowed to cast skills, and I see no reason this idea should be incentivized so long as Warriors and Rangers continue to use skills more efficiently and effectively. Mages pay a huge chunk of weapon damage for the “Utility” bar. Spell caster lean and the spell boosting weapons we’ve gotten as of late haven’t magically stopped mages from being able to use armor skills effectively? It’s simply given them another way to play the game. This is good. If you’re paying a massive amount of weapon damage to get extra resource bar for shenanigans, why would you push people away from being creative with their mana and pigeon hole them into a spell caster identity? I believe we are years, and thousands of items too late to see this as realistic. I feel as though we’re desperately trying to cling onto Mages original identity instead of embracing what they have evolved into. Mages aren’t just spell casters. They are versatility.

    quote:

    Mages would start to have trouble deciding which way to go.


    Is this not the case already? Why is having options a bad thing?

    quote:

    In truth, I'm not sure how Mage would be able to survive that one.


    Having to rely on blatant abuse of severely flawed and outdated assumptions just proves the point that something is messed up.

    quote:

    Mage elecomp goes to damage so, while they would output a lot more on the initial attack, they wouldn’t be able to sustain it..


    Yes… that is quite literally the point. I do not believe you should be allowed to just spam spells like haunting, dburst and co, timekiller etc. In my eyes that’s no better than spamming armor skills with EO.

    My whole point behind backing this idea (even though it obviously will never happen) is to reign in the power creep that is mage, and embrace its identity for what it is, not what a 10 year old flawed turn model wants it to be. Having the MP bar for utility is quite literally priceless in my eyes given all of the item support it has which we absolutely cannot ignore when discussing the power of it. I don’t hate mage, I don’t want to see them stripped of their unique and incredibly fun identity since it promotes creativity and more dynamic gameplay. I just want to see them reigned in a bit to bridge the gap of appeal between the mainstats, and to slow down the power creep

    Also, please understand I’m not being combative or argumentative here. Responding to these points helps me clarify my position on the subject because I can’t help but feel like my initial post came off the wrong way



    CH4OT1C! -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/14/2023 16:28:33)

    @Dizzle: Let's explore it!

    I went ahead and put together a little battle scenario to demonstrate why reducing the size of the MP bar isn't going to solve your problem. It'll also demonstrate why we need to nerf SP regeneration for everyone for the gap to close. A few assumptions
  • If the player has enough MP/SP, they will use it on a skill
  • I'm basing the skill costs below on Bloodzerker
  • I'm assuming a generic high elecomp to damage of *1.8. However, in reality this has little impact on the result (as you'll see).
  • Level 150 Guardian, so 98 SP regen per turn.
  • No other forms of MP/SP regen around. They'll only prolong the cycle anyway 

       Turn:                      0       1       2       3       4       5       6       7     
     SP:     Warrior:       395     394     393     392     391     390     389     388          
                Mage:       395     493     394     295     196      97     198     293 
     MP:                    653       0       0       0       0       0       0       0
 Output:     Warrior:         0     200     400     600     800    1000    1200    1400
                Mage:         0     360     560     760     960    1160    1235    1310


    As you can see here, SP essentially lengthens the turn-count over which Mages deal more damage. This is because Mage and non-Mage skills are equal in power. Mages spend more SP but, due to low costing weapon-based skills (even if they cost more for mages), they're still able to maintain dominance until turn 8 of an assumed 5 turn battle!

    My point? Halving the MP bar doesn't matter if Mages can still sustain their damage output. Halving MP just reduces the initial extra power in the bank. It doesn't have anywhere near as much of an effect on how long the disparity lasts. That happens in two ways: SP and MP regeneration. This can be overcome, but only if we accept that it's the combination of MP and SP that allows Mages to produce more damage output over longer periods of time.

    The solution? To nerf Mages, we have to nerf both MP regeneration, as well as SP for everyone. SP is build agnostic and, even in the absence of regeneration items, Mage would still output more for the first 7-8 turns. The only real way around this is nerfing SP directly. At the very least, this means a reversion of the "start every battle with 395SP" - that alone enables Mages to sustain weapon-based skills for several turns. Really, though, you'd also want significant nerfs to EO and other items like it. It's the only way you can differentially drain enough SP from Mages to make it matter on short timescales.


    On another note, I think you might have misunderstood i). my intentions and ii).a few of my comments. Concerning the former, these scenarios are all hypothetical. I'm simply exploring what such a change would entail (or, indeed, whether a change would work!). Concerning the latter:
    quote:

    Is this not the case already? Why is having options a bad thing?

    This would be a very different scenario to the current one. Right now, it would be considered closer to adaptive radiation (as I spoke about earlier) - lots of methods, all of which are sufficiently effective. The scenario I described would be closer to stress conditions. Both have significant perceived drawbacks, and so it would more fall to the setup with the stronger ratio of pull to push factors, which isn't immediately obvious. Nonetheless, there is a pretty important thing to consider: For warriors and rangers, their skills and attacks align. For mages, skills and spells are often supported and boosted by different things. They wouldn't have room in their inventory to properly account for both, which either leads to specialising in one or suboptimal use of both.

    quote:

    Having to rely on blatant abuse of severely flawed and outdated assumptions just proves the point that something is messed up.

    I mean, Warriors, Rangers, and Beast builds all do this too, to greater or lesser extents. For one, the model doesn't assume Warriors and Rangers cast skills every turn. It doesn't assume Guests deal ~3x as much damage as they cost, or that the player even has CHA. The model is inherently wrong and, well, everyone breaks it pretty severely. You even demonstrate this really well with your next comment:

    quote:

    Yes… that is quite literally the point. I do not believe you should be allowed to just spam spells like haunting, dburst and co, timekiller etc. In my eyes that’s no better than spamming armor skills with EO.

    I certainly don't begrudge you for saying this (like I said, I'm just exploring hypotheticals here. I'm not producing a manifesto for change). With that said, I must inform you that the model is broken just as significantly if Mages use too many spells as if Warriors and Rangers repeatedly spam skills using EO (or, indeed, without it!).

    What I would say, with all this, is @ming shuen may have a point. Would Mage still be as unique or interesting if it wasn't allowed to break the model in this way? That we only let them use 1 spell per battle (the model doesn't account for MP regeneration, after all). Would it still be fair to allow Warriors and Rangers to continue to break SP related resource regeneration rules if we don't allow mages to break them like this?



    EDIT: After having a think about it, the real culprit (and problem child) of all of this is elecomp. It flagrantly breaks the model. Limiting regeneration items like EO and Essence of Carnage is a necessity for this process but, if you really wanted to fix things properly, you'd need to go for elecomp too. I'll demonstrate this with an additional exercise. Let's say we made mage skills do what they're supposed to and boost damage by 100% Melee for the same costs as Warrior/Ranger. This would mean mage skills cost 100% Melee in SP and deal 175% Melee damage: 

       Turn:                      0       1       2       3       4       5       6       7     
     SP:     Warrior:       395     394     393     392     391     390     389     388          
                Mage:       395     493     492     491     490     489     488     487 
     MP:                    653       0       0       0       0       0       0       0
 Output:     Warrior:         0     200     400     600     800    1000    1200    1400
                Mage:         0     360     535     710     885    1060    1235    1410


    This should be closer to an accurate model, and yet the system is somehow even worse! We don't even converge by the 7th turn in this scenario, where we were doing more damage with Warrior and Ranger by that point. That's because of elecomp - the elecomp to damage provides a bigger cushion for Mages that Warrior/Ranger need to eat into. Elecomp also affects the weapon-based skills - we may have lowered Mage damage output, but we also lowered the cost. Mage can sustain more skills here, dragging out the process even further!

    The best solution for all? Make elecomp weaker. I'll demonstrate. I've been using a 1.8 elecomp and the numbers for bloodzerker but, for argument's sake, let's now reduce it to 1.5 and increase costs to 150 and 250 SP respectively: 

       Turn:                      0       1       2       3       4       5       6       7     
     SP:     Warrior:       395     340     288     236     184     132      80      28          
                Mage:       395     493     341     189      37     135     233     331 
     MP:                    653       0       0       0       0       0       0       0
 Output:     Warrior:         0     200     400     600     800    1000    1200    1400
                Mage:         0     300     500     700     900     975    1050    1125


    The difference is stark. In our first model, Mages were only surpassed at Turn 7. In the second, it would have taken 8 turns. Here, just by lowering elecomp, they're already outstripped by turn 5. By turn 7, Warriors have already done 20% more damage over the course of the whole fight. This is still with a cost reduction of ~50%. Elecomp makes a major difference.

    These scenarios show that, if you want to really nerf Mage damage output, you have to:
  • Sacrifice item-based regeneration across the board (MP and SP)
  • Elecomp needs to be significantly reduced.

    Only under those conditions would you be able to break the model as flagrantly as all builds do and still get the same effect of Mages losing power over time. Bear in mind, we're only supposed to cast skills every 4-5 turns and Warriors in all three scenarios I present are able to sustain skills every turn. In the first, they could continue another 388 turns! That brings up another interesting point. @dizzle, earlier you mentioned:

    quote:

    I do not believe you should be allowed to just spam spells like haunting, dburst and co, timekiller etc. In my eyes that’s no better than spamming armor skills with EO.


    With that in mind, doesn't all this show that the problem is far worse than that? Warriors don't need EO to spam armour skills, they can essentially do that at a baseline! Mage MP has huge regenerative potential and I don't want to diminish that - clearly there's a difference between elecomp to cost and to damage. But MP runs out. You do have to regenerate. With Weapon-based skills, particularly Warrior/Ranger ones, I can't in good conscience say the same. It's true on paper, less so in practice.

    Also, on a completely different note - we should also consider merging HP and MP potions. Warrior/Rangers get 100% of their damage value back by regaining HP. Mages don't get this because their MP is condensed weapon damage and they don't regain MP by quaffing a HP potion. They lose out on approximately 40% of their power this way.



    • RobynJoanne -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/15/2023 13:22:37)

    Making EleComp weaker isn't really possible now. If EleComp were controllable globally, I'm sure the devs would have fixed the old-lean armor skills by now. Since that's not possible, all the devs could do would be to apply a global multiplier to EleComp to weaken it, but that wouldn't be correct. The multiplier would need to somehow vary based on EleComp. For example, a global /1.25 to all skills with EleComp would disproportionately affect skills with low EleComp; in fact, with EleComp less than 1.25, the skill would be penalized for being locked to an element, obviously an absurd concept. The same would be true for the costs of skills with EleComp to cost.

    Since that's not possible, I believe we should return to the idea of punishing players for using EleComped skills indirectly. Increasing monster damage does just that, but again, Celerity (usually) bypasses this (barring DoTs that deal damage in-between player turns and Backlash, which hurts the player during the player's turn). Dodge also bypasses monster damage. I don't have an answer here. The silver lining is that rolling for Celerity is affected by Boss Boost, but that will eventually be irrelevant when Celerity items get updated to be automatically successful at a higher cost.

    Ultimately, the problem with EleComp is that its intended purpose of compensating the player for being in an undesirable position has been subsumed. Having EleComp is the norm now, which means a model that completely neglects it is a flawed model for accurately describing the player experience. Unfortunately, because EleComp is not assumed, effects that mitigate the downsides do not have accurate valuations and are disproportionately rewarding. There are many strategies in AQ that involve maximizing the upsides and minimizing the downsides of effects within the constraints of a balance system in which both are balanced according to assumed scenarios (i.e. using an assumed build, fighting a monster of assumed stats, using standard equipment, etc.). This alone is not an issue. It's when something is inherently completely foreign to the model that there's a problem.



    Sapphire -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/15/2023 13:58:41)

    10 turn model is not realistic and hasn't been for years and years. However, it is a foundational basis for many balance standards. While the turn model isn't realistic, and the balance standards are based on that, you would have to revisit every item in the game to adjust to it. It's such an unfeasible project, it almost either needs to be thrown out as an idea and end the discussion or a pivot should be made to take a look at what else could be looked into.

    I, for one, am of the opinion that a huge issue currently is the average monster in AQ is extraordinarily weak...especially older monsters. Before the stat revamp, most monsters , like many players, outfitted themselves with dexterity to mostly serve as a BTH helper more than a damage type. The decoupling has served to make dexterity a useless stat once the battle begins. Something needs to be given to them.

    My hope is that once the stat revamp comes to a conclusion for players, that monsters can be globally buffed somehow.
    This is actually partially the basis for my Dex/25% rate no penalty "precision hit" idea. (Renamed auto hit). This one idea serves multiple purposes:
    1. New mechanic that helps make that Ranger build unique
    2. It's a feature that Dex +other main stat hybrids can utilize as the feature works for all hits player side.
    3. Provides an effective 10% BTH boost
    4. Slightly counters the OP dodge play styles that is some of the most OP things in the game
    5 New mechanic= new ideas for items


    Power creep has been player side only, and monsters need something . I think a pivot to "what can we give monsters" will ultimately serve to be of higher R.O.I than a circular discussion in something that will never happen.

    The foundation of the idea of reducing the model is that monsters aren't challenging.
    So make them more challenging with some global "help".

    A dex based special skill "boost" could work, too. I also wouldn't be against some of the player side style bonuses being implement for monsters too.

    Ultimately, nobody will want fights to be some sort of 50/50 chance to win with some crazy buffs or some over the top remake of the turn model which won't happen even if someone came up with some sort of perfect mathematical theorized system. So let's just make adjustments where needed.



    ruleandrew -> RE: Discussion Regarding Changing the Turn Model (6/16/2023 4:40:32)

    Standard monster (power: 1) health need at least 1200 % melee.

    (([standard player melee attack] + [standard pet attack]) * [number of player turns needed to kill monster] + [standard melee skill extra power] * [number of skills needed to kill monster]) * [monster is using fully offensive lean] = 1200

    ((100 + 20) * 10 + 100 * 3) * 0.8 = 1200

    Assumption
    Player is running 250 STR, 250 LUCK and 250 END.





    Page: [1]

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
    0.21875