RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (Full Version)

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



Message

Ward_Point -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/6/2024 1:58:37)

Fair warning: The AQ Team had requested that forum mods be stricter in moderation with respect to the GBI threads.
Lorekeeper has requested that the threads be opened in ~10 hours. I will be unlocking them in around 9 hours as that's midnight for me and I've got a day job.

Discussion & Opinions belongs in this GD Thread.
Debate & Logic are imperative in the GBI Thread. Deletions will occur for any posts that aren't more concrete than just a feeling.



Branl -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/6/2024 2:08:11)

quote:

This raises the floor for INT spell damage rather than the ceiling. I think the concept is somewhat similar to Wallbreaker in trying to raise the floor so I personally see it as viable. No one has commented yet on this so would love to hear feedback for it. This is way more useful than Wallbreaker and doesn't affect anything if you're hitting above this amount to begin with (which Im sure most Mages do anyway)


Lifting from someone more engaged with AQ's systems than me:
This would technically be a workable solution, but the floor itself would need to be adjusted to account for damage caps. Else you're adding to Int's power in some of the hardest fights in the game (very hard damage caps).



Aura Knight -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/6/2024 2:20:12)

Can the intellect change allow for more than 4 spellcasts where once our mp runs out we pay hp or sp or is this impossible to try? I know there's times where you're using celtic wheel and your int drive upkeep damages your hp. Limit it to one extra cast to get 5 rather than 4.

In a completely unrelated topic can we have the terror zard show up again?



Thegreenmoglin -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/6/2024 3:34:42)

Stat revamp thoughts

Str: mostly fine still a bit worried about warrior lean allowing warriors to have more versatility thanks to lean change armors becoming more prevalent and old FD armors with weapon based skills that 100 proc rangers/mages can't really take advantage of


Dex: new damage identity seems to be better then ramping but doesn't really feel like it sufficiently distinguishes ranged damage identity from warriors that much which I guess is fine ultimately, I do like the style bonus boosting proc weapon damage and changing the extra 3 mrm to 4.25 bth instead seems to be a good call


Int: wallbreaker style bonus is mostly ok as understandably they don't want to give int more vertical power, an alternative idea though since a fair amount of people don't seem big on it.

Expanded Spell Bar/List basically use the style bonus to increase the number of accessible spells in a battle ie the spells in your inventory at 9th/10th/11th place would now be useable in battle not completely sure on how to value this the closest I can think is how compression on/of weapons and spells is usually 5% melee so that's what I'll go with so will unlock your 9th spell slot at 150 points and 11th at 250 points (if anyone has a better way to value/calculate this type of style bonus then feel free to correct me) this imo would give mages more versatility/utility without giving them more direct power since they'll still have to pay the spells' costs to actually to use them

potential issues

1. not really sure how feasible this would able to implement especially with the remaining time

2. this does potentially break/bend assumptions a bit and would probably devalue/disincentives elemental compression spells

3. tomes like BoB, BoL, and Underworld get a decompression bonus for spells of their element and would probably need to be tweaked to at the least not count these extra spells

4. furthers the gap between beastmages and normal beastmasters since beastmages would get 3 extra slots to use for spells/guests


End: mostly fine and can't really think of good alternatives that don't risk making End too OP


Cha: Still unsure about ferocious strikes and think the style bonus is probably best spent on either mitigating the increased upkeep as much possible or just boosting their damage


Luk: the status flipping thing is fine but a bit situational



Barghest -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/6/2024 4:01:41)

My thoughts:

STR - Strong changes. I am, like some others, a bit concerned about the player-side powercreep, but I feel like that can be dealt with later on without too much issue if needed.

DEX - I was iffy on the BTH lean adjustment idea this time around, but @Ward_Point’s comments that it specifically incentivizes accuracy (I had kinda thought of it as a modifier that happened in the background and just passively affected your damage) makes it feel very Ranger-y to me. Glad the devs are going with the BTH boost over the MRM, because that synergizes a lot better with the core mechanic.

On a kinda secondary note, I’ve been thinking about how one issue with the DEX identity is that Ranged weapons are a lot like Melee weapons, but with a lot more 100-procs. The problem that creates is that to lean into Ranger’s identity, we’d naturally think about 100-procs first, because that’s the main item distinction between from Warrior; but that leaves out FO Rangers. Since 0-proc Melee and Ranged weapons are so similar, it almost makes sense to give STR the offensive weapons and DEX the defensive weapons, but this is way too restrictive, a huge change from the current stats, and probably require a ton of work. Or give both stats access to both weapon types and alter their core behaviors to supplement different playstyles, but this is way harder to balance for.

While I do think the proposed changes carve out a very fitting accuracy-focused niche for Rangers, I think there’s still a lot of discussion to be had (someday) about how to distinguish playstyles using the core behavior of the items themselves. Mages get spells and weaker weapons, while 0-proc Melee and Ranged weapons are basically identical. While Mages have a distinct “damage curve”, to me this is a natural byproduct of their core, flavor-based mechanic, which is powerful spells; they don’t have to shoot off spells first, but they tend to. Mage’s identity influenced their damage curve, and the previous iteration of DEX having ramping damage was going the other way around.

So while I’m glad ramping damage is out in favor of something less restrictive, I wish I had a better idea of how FO Rangers’ and FO Warriors’ equipment sets would look meaningfully different, which could more clearly define their identities, and hopefully this change is enough to accomplish that instead. Given more time, I might’ve pitched some ideas for DEX that gave different bonuses to FO and FD armors, or depending on the kind of proc-rate your weapon had, because I think with Rangers’ variety of weapon types we could supplement different playstyles in interesting ways. But hopefully this can be fleshed out with new equipment in the future (maybe more Initiative bonus armors? or DEX-scaling MRM buffs? maybe this is just what I’d like to see lol).

Ultimately, I like this change, and look forward to playing with it.

INT - I’m kinda on the side of…wallbreaker doesn’t need to be implemented. I’m not as adamant as others that it’s useless, but if it’s any amount of extra work for the staff just to make it feel like INT isn’t getting ignored while other stats are buffed, I don’t think it’s worth it.

CHA - I understand the impetus for keeping guest output at 60%, but I commiserate more with people’s concerns about guest upkeep being unsustainable. I understand that some guests are based on that assumed output, and I have no idea how much more work it would take to standardize those (probably way too much), but I feel like it would be a hassle to dismiss and re-summon your guest every few turns because you’re running out of SP (pretend Essence Orb doesn’t exist for a sec). I don’t have a proposal to fix this, but I hope it’s open to more discussion/change in the future

Despite all my ramblings about what could be done for stat updates, I do really like the changes as they are proposed. While I’m iffy on style bonuses in general (both on how convoluted they can be and on how they’re providing even more player power), I see a lot of fun new stuff to play with, and it doesn’t seem terribly broken to me. If I were The’Galin, I would not Uncreate these stat changes.



Grace Xisthrith -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/6/2024 7:19:01)

Please feel free to go back and consider implementing one of the DEX style bonus suggestions that is NOT a raw damage amp so it doesn't play exactly the same as STR! That would be so dope

Please if you're not gonna do that don't use a random logarithm equation that has no basis in AQ balance and instead use the player controlled trigger valuation so low proc weapons that are already borderline dogwater aren't made even worse by comparison! Maybe players could actually use them optimally in beastform or something then! That would be sweet!

I'd say please don't implement an INT style bonus built to only be good when used with elecomp, but to be honest it's the weakest thing suggested so keep it I guess, thank goodness it isn't actually valued properly and uses another random equation

Please buff monsters before 2026 teehee



Magmamax1818 -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/6/2024 7:21:52)

quote:

Barring any extreme circumstances and/or abrupt findings of fully viable alternatives before or around noon EST on Tuesday the 6th, this is the final iteration of the actual features and we will soon move on to only discussing the balance of their implementation.


Wouldn't it be in best interest to postphone this date by perhaps a few days more? The mail notifying of the Stat Overhaul was only sent out last Sunday. As changes like these affect pretty much most players, I think there are still a lot of players who don't check the design notes / forums regularly that have some feedback, and havn't had the chance to really post it. Besides, the fact that even the regulars are divided (yet leaning towards negative) regarding some changes such as Wallbreaker, would indicate to me that some extra time to discuss alternatives would be beneficial.

EDIT:
As for my own two-ish cents:

I’m not that well-versed in the maths behind AQ, but I do hold a probably completely useless university degree on game design, so hopefully I can say something useful regarding how flavourful the new stat-identities are. Feedback on this feedback is highly appreciated for learning purposes, so feel free to.

1. STR and DEX identities are a bit blurred now
Previously, STR’s identity was straightforward ungabunga damage, while DEX was the go-to defensive stat. This overhaul gives STR some defensive capabilities as well, which I think is fine. Defensive Melee gear exists, after all.
However, a main reason for the stat overhaul was, If I remember correctly, to distinguish STR and DEX a bit more. The current overhaul makes the difference as follows: STR is focused on straightforward damage, while DEX gets an accuracy minigame (and is overall a bit better in blocking / hitting). Being defensive isn’t only DEX’s speciality anymore now.

Thus, I think DEX needs just a bit more to make it more distinguished from STR.
quote:

Weapon special attacks gain bonus output increasing logarithmically with their proc rate. With a power budget of 10%, this means 100 proc weapons will get a boost of 15% before being affected by DEX's adaptive behavior.


I don’t feel like this adds more enjoyable gameplay to DEX. It just slaps some stats on 100procs, even though FO-rangers don’t focus on 100procs too much. And why does the damage increase the higher the proc chance is? Shouldn’t it feel good to hit the low-chance weapon special jackpot? Even if you’d keep this idea, why not increase the output the lower the proc chance is?
Personally, I would change it to something like the following...
Style bonus: Planned Approach - At the start of combat, you get an increase in weapon special chance, until you hit a weapon special (not counting 100procs).

This I think would open up a plethora of new strategies for DEX builds and make it more dissimilar to STR. It also focusses on the established identity of DEX of using bows (to save your more guaranteed proc for when the time is ripe), and the new identity of timing your attacks with your current BTH-minigame state.
Possible downsides: might overlap with the more bursty-nature of INT, and it might be annoying in cases where you want to trigger use a weapon skill’s element instead of the special’s one (maybe make the effect not consumed on weapon-skill?)

2. I think Wallbreaker is actually really cool…
…ONLY if it still works after increasing an opponent’s resistances with EleVuln / Frozen-like effects. Like imagine looking at an enemy’s resistance sheet and going: “Hey, if I can do more damage if I pull out an EleVuln + Petrify, instead of simply targeting the intended weakest element”. Being rewarded for more complicated setups seems like a pretty INTelligent flavour for the stat. And as INT is already in a pretty solid state, this approach doesn’t further increase its general strength, yet creates a new tool to play with so it doesn’t feel left behind.

3. CHA: Shift around some of the power so the Guest cost doesn’t become too much.
quote:

Base guest Cost increased to 30% Melee from 21%

I think most casual players still keep a Guest by their side, even if they don’t have the CHA to really make it worthwhile. A left-over habit from the good old days of being young, innocent, and going to Dracomancer saga Part 3 on every login to pick your guest, perhaps. Game just looks cooler with Warlic next to you.
I think the Guest cost is already quite punishing right now for 0-Cha builds. Further increasing it would feel really bad for them IMO. Like Zoby and Korriban said, basically. Heck, I even put INT points on my Beastmaster-Ranger to make the costs more bearable. If you really intend to keep it this way for balance’s sake, maybe change the kind-of-useless “Don’t let pets attack in battle”-toggle in the options to “Make Guests go all out”. This would toggle whether or not Guests use CHA and resources.
When we’re on the topic, it’s about time we got a no-drop slot for guests to preven this haha. Every time a quest pairs you with a guest I’m stuck between ruining my build or ruining my childhood.

4. Why do Style bonusses have scaling from 150 – 250? Why not give them full effects at 150?
quote:

The Style Bonus is unlocked upon reaching 150 in a stat, beginning at a quarter of its power, and scales up to its full value with every 5 points until reaching its full 20% melee value at 250.

If the intended effect is to increase build and stat-spread diversity, why not let them go into full effect at 150 points into the stat? Right now it isn’t much different from the other scaling benefits of each stat. Some of these effects will likely feel pretty insignificant at 150 points, if they’re only at a quarter of their effect.
Most people still go 3x 250 for stats right now. If the Styles activate fully at 150, we might get some funky 5x 150 point builds, perhaps. Or people mixing a little bit of their stats to boost it up using toggles / buffs to activate a Style. Seems like it would provide some interesting gameplay choices (pumping up END just in time to block a stun-effect, for instance), but please inform me if it would cause too much mathematical imbalance.



quote:

Grace Xisthrith: Please buff monsters before 2026 teehee

I unironically think it would be fun if all these changes affected monsters as well lol.
Like STR monsters get countattack, DEX gives the BTH swings so you have to time your blockboosts better, INT gives them Wallbreaker so you have to rethink about what you equip, END makes them break out of X amount of stuns, CHA makes them sometimes do double output, and LUK gives them Lucky Break as well (imaging a boss turning your stun into a celerity. Would create some design space to stop slapping Freedom on most bosses too).
Wolfwing with his 400 in every stat eating good [:-]

Also, currently taking some Fragile with you feels really good due to the chunk it eats from the opponent's HP bar. Sad to see that go, hope they'll actually keep the monster HP increase. Sometimes normal mobs have a ton of HP, but at least it breaks the "I'mma oneshot this"-flow the game is in most of the time when not fighting bosses.



Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/6/2024 9:47:38)

A few of quick things.

Very minor, but why is guest BTH also including main stat like the pet when supposedly it's a CHA exclusive thing? Would it be better just scaling via CHA?

Secondly, pet BTH as was recently discussed by Dreiko via Tavern may just need to be something like half it's BTH hardcoded and the other half scale via only main stat since pets are assumed in the model and only main stats are assumed. It may not make complete sense to remove CHA from BTH but in order to ensure pets account for 20% damage for non BM's it needs to have 85% accuracy.

Thirdly, the initiative formula IMO should be altered so that level plays a role and to increase luck's "power" and decrease main-stats "power" inside the formula while keeping main stat involved. There's too many instances a low level monster with old style dex based stats win init vs a L150 char. It shows the formula doesnt really make any sense, and also luck isnt as lucky.


Lastly, LK's last post says:

Wallbreaker was buffed-->
quote:

Style Bonus:
Wallbreaker: Value adjusted to a 15% melee style bonus. Formula buffed to +[(INT/ExpectedINT)*(100-MonsterEleMod)/130]%


Was this included in the previous LK post or is this a new revelation?

Thanks.

Edit---> Yeah just plugged in some resists and yeah this is a cap raise a little bit. This is sufficient IMO, and while not as high as I'd hoped Im glad there was some compromise. At least this increases cases frequency where the prevailing approach isn't "just use harm". It feels like less of a meme now. Slightly. Thank You

I'd still love to see a breakdown of that and proc bonus system



Taros The Archmage -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/6/2024 11:01:45)

As an INT wizard player I'm looking forward to the implementation of Wallbreaker using the revised formula in the most recent Lorekeeper post. A number of spells have quite useful crowd control / debuff effects, and Wallbreaker will allow wizards to cast them against enemies with sub-100% resists while losing less damage than we otherwise would. It also makes carrying Harm spells less mandatory, which could be useful sometimes (even if the end result won't be entirely optimal damage wise). It might not effect wizard's gameplay in optimal nuking strategies (and according to Lorekeeper's post on page 7 that's very much the point), but it's absolutely a neat bit of extra utility while playing more defensively.



Lorekeeper -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/6/2024 12:17:51)

The GBI threads are now active, marking the point at which we move from discussing alternatives to discussing the nitty-gritty how to balance the current iteration in the respective threads.

While we would have loved to develop an alternative whereby each stat had multiple playstyles that are completely and very noticeable different to the others, we've exhausted our time and alternatives. We genuinely can't just keep delaying the concept phase -- As I explained before, while this is the last round of feedback, this is not the sum of the time we've spent on it. We've been preparing and looking for alternatives for a long time. Lots of consecutive late nights on my part alone, and that's just for feedback processing. Ianthe has been doing prep work for over a year. Hollow's been in a nightmare world of scheduling and rescheduling; which is NOT a quick or easy task, and it only gets more time consuming over time because the time for prep work always has to come out of something else. Kam has been overburdened.

We can't delay any further because, while there's only so much that can get done during work hours compared to what can be figured out when players get together and help us get a feel for better directions, we've hit a critical mass of delayed dependencies and how much the necessary preparations add to the work of our regular releases.

There will be time to make adjustments; this won't be a one and done release. However, figuring out entirely new concepts and stat identities this late is a more difficult notion. The closer we are to the release and adjustment phase, the more important it'd be for something to both seem like it'll play well and fit the revamp's goals. That's why the discussion gets more focused on balance as we approach the deadline: Because once we're at the point of making adjustments to a final version, we can only make major changes if we can be sure that there won't be a need to extend the adjustment period.

Moving on to balance release work with our current iteration isn't the result of rushing or settling for meeting our goal of extricating overlapping stats from each other. It's the result of genuinely running out of time. As it is, we're only making it to release with these extra features thanks to all of you getting together to provide ideas, and in some cases even working out the formula for the concepts. Thank you all so much for your help and consideration.



Aura Knight -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/6/2024 13:00:47)

Maybe I'm alone here but I hate looking at the various formulas used for this game. I prefer simplicity and can understand better from example. Why aren't true values representing the changes included for the people who can't bother to do the math? It would then be easier to know if the change is good or not. Some people likely see lower power, higher cost and conclude it's bad. The discussion doesn't invite the more casual player to participate because there's too much focus on the technical aspect while the practical one needs to be figured out. I dislike math, don't make me do it.



Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/6/2024 13:39:31)

I am currently happy with everything in this final proposal. I would just simply ensure there's no super broken things with the dex proposal, and outside of that I'm personally good with everything.

Thank you to the compromise on wallbreaker.

And I think the CHA approach is sound. Because I understand the potential backlash if the envelope was pushed too hard. Some may not like it, but it has to be considered.

CHA is the only secondary stat that requires an upkeep/cost to gain it's full benefit. This doesnt exist with END and LUK. That fact matters.

Also, this idea that input/output has to be the same is absurd. If an efficient and overcharged spell/skill can exist, then it sets a precedent for not always following that model.

The common sense logical conclusion is that guests are a per turn spell/skill. Because the Summons Guest replaces a spell, it must be viewed this way. And because it's a per turn damage add-on, you may never actually end up getting full bonus..so it being the ultimate in efficiency actually makes sense. It's sort of a damage bump over time. In addition, guests still require 2 stats. Everything else in the game has been 100% decoupled.

The ultimate result should be a change in mindset..a change in how to view guests away from "2014-brain" and moving it into the future, or here and now.

It's a per turn damage bonus that uses a secondary stat and mainstat to perform optimally, whereas no other secondary's benefits requires this. The end result is a bonus to efficiency. It's simple, really.



candy.man -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/6/2024 19:12:19)

In regard to future changes, after the current changes are implemented, I wouldn’t support any dramatic changes to the pet/guest damage formula. I’m pretty happy with the proposed changes to charisma.

Seen a few suggestions to rework the pet/guest damage formula to also use main stat (or a hidden stat based on player level or item level). I think if this was implemented, it would cause more harm than good in terms of build diversity. For example, if main stat contributed towards 50% of pet/guest damage, you could theoretically make a build that could do everything (spells + lucky strike + backlash + pet/guest damage).

Whatever happens in the future, I recommend that the Charisma stat contributes towards the bulk of pet/guest performance. Regarding guests specifically, it’s important to remember that they occupy a spell slot and must be balanced as such. 0 charisma builds ideally should be balanced around using support pets/guests (e.g. healing pets benefit from endurance which are perfect for backlash builds).

Regarding elecomp, I think that’s a separate balance discussion. Personally, I think elecomp is probably overdue for a rework and I don’t want to see future pets/guests balance to factor in elecomp.



Ward_Point -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/7/2024 1:24:05)

quote:

Whatever happens in the future, I recommend that the Charisma stat contributes towards the bulk of pet/guest performance. Regarding guests specifically, it’s important to remember that they occupy a spell slot and must be balanced as such. 0 charisma builds ideally should be balanced around using support pets/guests (e.g. healing pets benefit from endurance which are perfect for backlash builds).


@Candy.man: This is a very interesting statement, which won't turn out the way you think

Let's explain Spells.

A Warrior is assumed to deal 1 melee a turn.
A Mage's Attack is worth 0.75 melee
A Mage's Spell is worth 2 melee.

AQ's system works as such.
Since a Mage's 'Default Action' (Attack) is worth 0.75 melee, the MP cost of a Spell is valued at 125% melee, being 653 MP. In SP, this value is 490. Since the difference between a Spell (2 melee) and a Mage's Attack (0.75) is 1.25. You therefore pay 125% in MP to pay for the additional damage.
If a Warrior seeks to cast a Skill that takes up a Spell slot, the Warrior thus deals 'Spell Level' Damage, valued at 2 melee. To reach 2 melee, since the Warrior's default action (Attack) is worth 1 melee, the Warrior pays 100% melee in SP (Being 392).

This logic applies to Efficient and Overcharged spells/skills. More SP/MP needs to be spent to 'bring up' the value of the 'Default Action'.

Since Guests exist outside of the Player's 'Default Action'. They should pay for what they do. Since Spells pay 1:1 for parity, it is only logical that Guests should pay for what they do.

If you came up with a Guest that 'Took over' the Player's Default Action, (Say a theoretical Guest has a function that replaced the Player Attack with one that was 20% stronger). The upkeep of that Guest would be valued at 20% melee, being 98 SP per turn, as it deals your basic attack + 20% damage.



candy.man -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/7/2024 16:41:07)

Ward_Point

If anything, it sounds like the balance standards for pets/guests need revising. In the 2000s, builds standards were based around Dex/End being mandatory but that was eventually changed.



Ward_Point -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/7/2024 18:50:53)

This is exactly the point.

A buff to Pets is needed for Players at 0 CHA. Base Pet accuracy needs to be raised. This is stated very clearly.

Guests should be treated like any other skill, which is what I'm advocating for. Since they are treated like SPells, they should pay for damage like SPells. Currently, Guests are 1:3 Efficient. This Stat Revamp seeks to bring it to 1:2 Efficiency, which is so called 'SPell Level' for a Warrior/Ranger but does not factor taking up the Player's turn.

DEX was assumed in the past, yes, however, END was never assumed. LB tried to make LUK assumed when he screwed around with Monsters getting the jump on Players, but that was nerfed when Players were given the ability to change armours before the Start of the Battle. I am fully aware of AQ's history.

The point is twofold. If CHA is going to be a secondary Stat, it should give a bonus similar to other Secondary Stats.

As stated for Base Behaviour.
LUK provides slightly more than 15% melee in damage
END provides a little too much HP (Doubled HP at max investment). Probably needs a nerf, not directly down to 15% due to how HP works, but requires an adjustment nevertheless.
CHA provides 20% melee to Pet damage and the 'majority of Guest bonuses'. As stated, to make any SPell even worth considering to compete within a Beastmaster's Spell Slots, Guests need to be scaled back.



candy.man -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/7/2024 20:43:45)

The primary vs secondary stat balance thing is something the dev team will need to work out. Charisma has always had identity and balance issues.

The one thing the dev team need to factor is game design as well as game balance. I have 10+ years in software development and I've learnt that you can't balance the numbers in isolation of the design of the software. They'll need to give Charisma a clear identity from a game design perspective and then balance it from a numbers perspective.

Regarding endurance, in the late 2000s balance revamp it was assumed players had endurance. Before, endurance was a non mandatory stat. Kalanyr really didn't like Annihilator builds, particularly Annihilator Beast Mage builds. I think Kalanyr saw zero endurance builds as "bad min maxing".

After the revamp, at max level (which was probably around 125 in those days) it was assumed from a KoO perspective that players had around 100 endurance (based on old forum posts from Kalanyr). It was also assumed players had close to max dexterity regardless of build. Enemies has hp, blocking and damage increased to further encourage the use of Dex/End.

The problem with the 2000s revamp is the old team made Dex/End mandatory without giving them a clear identity from a game design perspective. Years later, the current dev team are still picking up the pieces.




Magmamax1818 -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/8/2024 15:08:31)

I have nothing to add to the historynut battle, but I wondered what the opinions are regarding some Quality-of-Life stuff with the DEX changes.
I'd post this in the GBI thread but it seems to be locked, idk if you need special permission for it or anything [&:]

Currently, other players have vowed towards an implementation where the -BtH cap of -20 is removed, and the decrease function is lessened.
While I think that this would be a good (and balancable, as argumented in the GBI thread) change, I can see some clunkyness that would arise from this. Heck, even if the cap stays at -20, I still think there are some issues to discuss.

Issue 1. Overdosing on Adaptability
If you happen to spend a lot of +BtH resources to build up your adaptability stacks, and end up running out of gas halfway a bossfight, you'll end up in ~-50BtH eternal-miss limbo for X amount of turns. Which IMO sounds hilarious, but is probably not an intended side effect. Of course you could make the stack decrease function exponentional or even polynomial, but that would probably lead to some frustration where an unlucky miss wastes all the time and resources spent on attaining your stacks.
I think this downside is fine: if you go for an equip build with ~10 different sources of +BtH and defloss, you have to reap what you sow someday. Yet, the clunkiness of being stuck with an unwanted BtH lean isn't just exclusive to extreme BtH focussed builds. I'm certain that it's even more frustrating for non-BtH focussed equipment builds, as shown below.

Issue 2. Maybe I don't want to adapt
In a normal bossfight, when following the (pretty common) defensive strat of hitting a boss with status effects until it gets into burst range, it's very likely that the extra damage from the -BtH lean is unwanted. This makes it the only mechanic out of the other stats that can actively work against you, and as far as I'm concerned even in very common use cases.
Let's say I really need to keep a berserked boss blinded with weapon attacks. Eventually, I'll have to miss my attack due to this new mechanic. The cost of missing a hit and getting slapped by a berserked boss's SP attack while in non-resistant FO armor will far outweight the extra like 10% damage I would have gotten from the mechanic.
Now let's say I have the boss into burst range at the end of a fight. Due to having an average DEX build, and not taking BtH boosters, it would be safe to assume that my Adaptability lean is now around the point where I more consistently start to miss. Normally I'd be quite sure of a hit with just full DEX+ DEXmisc + Moonwalkers + pretty accurate weapon, but now, I always need to take BtH or Defloss with me to reliably burst the boss. The cost of missing my double Eleboosted, imbued, pet&guest boosted, Moonwalkered, triplehypercriticalized + whatever extra toppings you personally have FAR outweights the like 15% damage I would have gotten for that burst.


It has been stated multiple times that the 6 stats are now mathematically proven to provide exactly as much value as each other. Yet I havn't really seen a discussion regarding how this value translates to actual gameplay. Like, I'm not against the idea of having to say: "oh, I'll just wait until I miss my attack until I go for the burst", or "oh, I'll just imanoc edoc because I think I will miss my blind hit this turn". It provides different gameplay from the rest of the statbuilds. But as all stats now give 'mathematically similiar value', yet DEX is the only one that can actively harm your gameplan, shouldn't this be at least taken into account?

I think DEX should either give more value than the other stats for this reason, OR there should be sufficient Quality of Life changes regarding this.
Like a toggle option to switch between an Adaptability-attack or normal 0-stack BtH attack. Would be more thematic too.

quote:

Ward_Point, regarding Adaptability: What's my current accuracy? Is my accuracy lean high enough that Fixed Damage now probably outweighs the damage penalty? Is my accuracy high enough that I can toggle off the Status effect and get a bit more damage?... ...This actually emulates the archetype of the typical Warrior/Mage/Rogue quite well. Warriors hit things. Mages cast Spells. Rogues are careful and opportunistic. As far as the limitation of turn-based games go, within the context of AQ, I believe that this is as thoughtful & deliberate as you can get.

There's 0.01% reason why a 250DEX master of precision can't decide themselves when they aim [sm=frogzard.gif]

Or if the UI changes are too much to implement for the release deadline, just make it easier to play around Adaptability. For instance, I see no reason why Autohits can't take benefit from Adaptability. Sure, stacking with autohit is a no-no, but damage wise, they already balance themselves right? I feel like Autohit, BtH boosting and Defloss are all part of the same family. In the current game, it's very probable to just don't take defloss or BtH boosts with you if your equip build contains an autohit. With the new changes, you'd still have to take BtH boosters or defloss besides your autohit. I see no reason to limit equip build creation with an unnecessary restriction. Making autohits get boosted by Adaptability won't really fix the described issues, but it will act as a bandaid at the very least.


Issue 3: low-procs still in shambles
As I side note, I still don't understand DEX's logaritmically-calculated boost to specials either. Both how it's exactly calculated, and why higher proc chances are benefitted more than lower proc chances. Like players have been open about low-proc weapon specials feeling unrewarding in the past ( this 2021 post). Now there's finally a mechanic implemented to change that, and they don't use it to buff low-procs. Half of the DEX arsenal are spears with procs, is there a good reason why they don't get the full buff?



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 9 [10]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.140625