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

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



Message

RobynJoanne -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/26/2024 7:52:29)

This is an analysis of the stat overhaul as proposed. Because this will be a change that strongly impacts the game, it is important that everyone properly understands the nuances of its effects. This analysis is here to help with making well-informed decisions by providing information that may be overlooked or unknown from just the post Hollow made.

I am personally against the style bonuses, as I find Player power to be completely rampant and would heavily favor buffs to Monsters. Players can max out three stats at level 150, so Players are getting 60% Melee extra per turn, which is a substantial increase when we consider how the entire Player turn is only worth 140% Melee. That's my basic opinion out of the way, and the rest explains the stats and the changes, with explanations of stats coming up when relevant to proposed changes.

Str
Base Behavior:
Warrior lean exists to allow Warriors to use FD Armors effectively by emulating the behavior of using a 100-Proc Weapon in an FD Armor. This could be done by multiplying Weapon damage by *1.25 in FD Armors if the Attack is Melee (0.8*1.25=1). For those unaware, while Mages and Rangers both get 100-Proc Weapons regularly, Rangers more so than Mages, Warriors have only a handful of 100-Proc Melee Weapons, and 100-Proc Melee Weapons as a concept have been deprecated. Warrior lean makes all builds equally capable in theory to use both FD and FO Armors at full effectiveness. There is a need for a minor change, however. 0-Proc Weapons are meant to be used in FO Armors. That is why their 0-Proc Bonus is *1.08 while 100-Proc Weapons with no true Weapon Special have a bonus of *1.1. As 100-Proc Weapons bypass the Armor, they deal damage as if they are in a Neutral Armor. The 0.08 of the 0-Proc Bonus becomes 0.1 with the FO *1.25 damage effect. Thus, to be most accurate, Warrior lean should provide a slightly higher multiplicative effect when holding a 0-Proc Weapon: 1.27315.
Warrior lean does let FD Warriors use every Melee Weapon to full effect, unlike Mages and Rangers who can only use 100-Proc Weapons to full effect, which gives FD Warriors a massive advantage in versatility purely in terms of Weapons.
Style Bonus:
+15% damage is +15% Melee per turn. A 4-turn -12.5% damage Choke with no save is worth 70% Melee. Making the Choke once per 10 turns means an average of +7% Melee per turn. Thus, Warrior's Style Bonus is worth 22% Melee per turn, slightly higher than the 20% budget.
It is possible to emulate this damage reduction effect by adding a damage reduction passive when holding a Melee Weapon if tying a build to a particular Status Effect is undesirable. Warriors also have a high number of Backlash items, and Backlash has some anti-synergy with damage reduction effects. A flat spike damage effect can work if the desire is for a style bonus related to taking damage.

Dex
Base Behavior:
To keep all builds equal, all builds must deal 2000% damage over 20 turns in a Neutral Armor. This is the 20-turn Model. Warriors stably deal 100% damage every turn with Weapon Attacks. Mages deal 75% damage on Weapon Attacks and 200% damage on Spells. Mages have enough MP to cast four standard Spells. 200%*4+75%*16 = 2000%.
Under the proposed ramping system, Rangers would deal 80% damage on the 1st turn, increase by 7% each turn for the next 3 turns, and increase by 3.5% each turn for the next 16 turns. 80%+87%+...+101%+104.5%+...+157% = 2454%
In fact, the earlier explanation for the 20-turn Model was incomplete. The 20-turn Model models two 1 Power Monster fights (mobs) or one 2+ Power Monster fight (boss). Each mob battle takes 10 turns, and the boss battle takes 20 turns. Ramping inherently favors longer fights, so it should be overpowered for a 20-turn boss battle. It's more important that it be balanced for 1000% damage over 10 turns. 80%+87%+...+101%+104.5%+...+122% = 1042%. The numbers would ideally be adjusted to be accurate here, but the specifics would be up to the devs and the player base. The most important point to remember is that the builds should deal the same amount of damage over the length of a battle regardless of whether or not ramping becomes/stays Dex's base behavior.
I believe it's worth mentioning that any kind of behavior that doesn't keep at least the default 100% damage for the first turn has anti-synergy with Initiative, which provides a +50% damage boost on the first turn if the Player moves first and only on that turn, and there is one Ranger-focused Armor with Initiative and a couple of others that are Ranger-related.

And, yes, I know the 20-turn Model doesn't reflect reality, but it's here to stay, which is to players' benefit. As explained above, Mages have enough MP to cast four standard Spells because of the model. If the turn count were halved to better reflect reality, MP would similarly need to be halved. That is among the many potential changes necessary, mostly nerfs, to change the turn model. A longer discussion on the matter is here for those interested. For the record, I would support changing the turn model both because of a desire to reflect reality better and because I generally support nerfs.

Style Bonus:
+6 MRM is +10% Melee per turn.

The other bonus requires an explanation of BtH leans first. Expected accuracy in AQ is 85%. This is the accuracy you should have if you have expected Mainstat investment and no BtH bonuses or penalties and are fighting a Monster with the expected amount of MRM. Items can have BtH leans, which are free effects that change BtH. Because BtH leans are free but changing BtH would change the expected amount of damage dealt, BtH leans also come with a damage multiplier to compensate. This multiplier is *85/(85+[BtH lean]). A positive lean reduces damage dealt due to higher accuracy, and a negative lean increases damage dealt due to lower accuracy. The status effect Berserk is a negative BtH lean and has a damage multiplier in its description; that damage multiplier comes from this formula.
At +20 BtH lean, the multiplier is *85/(85+20) = 0.809 or *80.9~81%.
At -20 BtH lean, the multiplier is 85/(85-20) = 1.308 or *130.8~131%.
Dex's style bonus reduces the downside of BtH leans by 25%. For positive BtH leans, this is a reduction in the damage penalty. For negative BtH leans, this is a reduction in the BtH penalty. +20 BtH lean's *81% damage becomes *86% damage, as a quarter of the 19% damage penalty is removed. -20 BtH lean's BtH penalty becomes -15 BtH, as a quarter of the -20 is removed.
It's hard to value this effect, but I believe it helps to not think of these as two separate effects. Instead, let's think of both effects as BtH bonuses.
-20 BtH lean to -15 BtH is obvious. That's +5 BtH.
It's less obvious with a positive BtH lean like +20 BtH lean, but we can use the multiplier formula again. *86% damage can come from *85/(85+14). That's a 14 BtH lean. We can think of the BtH lean as a 14 BtH lean with +6 BtH as the style bonus.
There's a slight discrepancy between the positive and negative BtH leans of the same absolute amount, but it's minor enough. The point is that this helps us value this effect, as BtH bonuses have a definite Melee % value. +5 BtH is 5.88% Melee. That's a bit over half the 10% Melee per turn this should be.
There are other problems as well.
To properly value this effect, we should have an expected amount of BtH lean change as a baseline. That's not easy, as there are no guidelines for BtH leans on Items. BtH leans pay for themselves, so items theoretically have no limit on BtH leans. In practice, there are some limits, but there are no strict rules. The loosey-goosey nature of BtH leans means that any value we put on this style bonus will almost certainly be either underpowered or overpowered. The valuation itself is also an issue. I said earlier that +5 BtH is 5.88% Melee, but that Melee % valuation comes from an expected accuracy of 85% (specifically, 5.88% Melee*0.85 = 5 BtH). BtH leans will change your accuracy, so expected accuracy will no longer be 85%. The valuation is inherently flawed in that regard. Finally, because the style bonus is 25% of the penalty of the BtH lean, the style bonus scales with the absolute amount of the BtH lean, so it rewards extreme behavior. People must decide if they wish for Rangers to be tied to extreme BtH leans.

Int
Base Behavior:
There are no changes, and I have already explained how Mages' damage works (16 75% Melee Weapon Attacks and 4 200% Melee Spells). It is worth mentioning that the MP bar is slightly more than 4 Spell casts' worth. At level 150, a Spell costs 653 MP, and 653*4 = 2612 MP. The MP bar of a level 150 Mage with the expected number of 250 Int is 2632 MP.

Style Bonus:
Wallbreaker is a Spell bonus, so its valuation must account for the limited number of Spells a Mage is expected to use. A Mage is expected to cast a Spell once every five turns on average. Spells deal 200% damage, so a boost to a Spell is worth double in Melee %. 20% Melee per turn on average is thus equal to +20%*5/2 = +50% damage to Spells. Wallbreaker should thus provide +50% damage to Spells on average. As seen in the examples provided, Wallbreaker's current formula increases the amount of damage inversely proportionally to Elemental Resist of the Monster as a pseudo-normalization effect, but even at an extreme 10% Elemental Resist, it's merely +45% damage, still less than the +50% it should be.
The current formula is also not the most accurate to keep the amount of boosting equal. True normalization would do this: +50%/[Elemental Resist].
>> Example: Against 90% resistance, spells deal +55.55% damage. Equivalent of hitting 140% resistance.
>> Example: Against 50% resistance, spells deal +100% damage. Equivalent of hitting 100% resistance.
>> Example: Against 10% resistance, spells deal +500% damage. Equivalent of hitting 60% resistance.
In every case, there's a +50% increase to resistance. Normalization comes with its own issues. The relative change is drastic and can cause break fights where the Monster's Elemental Resists are all low and designed with that in mind. There are Spells that already have normalization baked in, and providing more normalization lets these Spells double-dip, potentially making them far stronger at low resists than higher resists. Finally, hitting for 140% resist at 90% resist but hitting only for 100% resist at 100% resist is a clear example of misaligned incentives. The Player shouldn't desire lower resists on a Monster but would in this case.
Wallbreaker's limitation to only working on Elemental Resists lower than 100% is an arbitrary limitation. There is no mathematical reason for it. That's not to say there's no reasoning behind this decision. Mages exploit numerous limitations with the game's expectations and item design to be far stronger than expected (e.g. 4 Spell casts from the 20-Turn Model as noted earlier), and arbitrary limitations are useful for keeping Mages in check.

End
Base Behavior:
End provides HP. That's all it does at base. Unfortunately, because there are two different valuations for HP, End is simultaneously extremely overpowered and extremely underpowered depending on which you use. The first valuation uses damage intake. Under the 20-Turn Model, the Player's HP bar should last for 20 turns of Monster damage. Thus, 1/20th of the HP bar is equated to 100% Melee. End investment is not assumed for this, so it's 1/20th of the HP bar with 0 End. At level 150, this is 148 HP. The second valuation uses resource conversion. 1 HP = 1.5 MP = 1.125 SP. At level 150 2612 MP is 500% Melee, so 348 HP would be 100% Melee. 148 HP and 348 HP are wildly different numbers relatively speaking, and it causes problems with balancing End. Which should be used? In practice, Players will encounter both kinds of uses for HP, so it's hard to be sure. As long as this discrepancy remains, it will be hard to balance End mathematically.

There's also a practical problem with balancing End. HP exists to keep the Player alive, but one only needs 1 HP to win a battle. Thus, if one wins with any HP more than 1 and is then healed, the remaining HP is "wasted." Of course, one will often want a larger buffer between victory and defeat, if nothing else than peace of mind. Nevertheless, this remains a problem with End as long as its only base effect is to increase HP.

Style Bonus:
The implemented effects are +12.5 Heal Resist for HP and +5 Status Resist when End is fully invested. These are each worth 5% Melee, so End's Style Bonus is worth 10% Melee per turn currently. These bonuses would need to be doubled to reach 20% Melee, but this comes with other concerns. To prevent invincible setups, Heal Resist cannot reach too high a value, and even End's current bonus pushes things quite far. Status Resist is not as egregious a problem but can also neuter some bosses, including some challenge ones, if allowed to reach too high values. Beyond these concerns, however, these Style Bonuses contribute to the primary problem of End where its defensive properties are wasted when they're too much. The primary way to lose a battle in AQ is to reach 0 HP, and these Style Bonuses only further make it harder to reach that number when End already has that problem at base.

Cha
Base Behavior:
Changing Pet/Guest accuracy to use [Mainstat+Cha] instead of [Dex+Cha] finally fixes the longstanding problem of Dex being a secondary accuracy stat for everything.

To understand why Guest costs and output have been nerfed, it's important to understand where the original numbers come from. In AQ, normally, to gain power, an equivalent amount in Melee %, the unit of power in AQ, must be paid as a cost. Guests have always had a disproportionate output compared to their upkeep costs. This is because Beastmasters were meant to use Cha Weapons in addition to Guests. Cha Weapons do 75% damage, the same as Magic Weapons, which is why Cha Weapons deal Magic damage. It's a conflation that can be confusing because Cha Weapons deal 75% damage for something different to the one for Magic Weapons. As explained above, Magic Weapons deal 75% damage because of Spells. Cha Weapons deal 75% damage because of Guests. By paying 25% Weapon damage, Beastmasters now have 25% Melee to allocate to Guests. That 25% alone doesn't explain the 37.875~38% Melee difference between the 22.125% Melee cost and the 60% Melee output. The rest is an erroneous decompression bonus worth 5% Melee and some eldritch logic lost in the annals of AQ history.
There are two major problems with this logic. The first problem is that Cha Weapons barely exist. Hollow's post mentions this. How can game assumptions be made based on something that's not even theoretically reasonable? There aren't even enough Cha Weapons to fill an inventory. The second problem is the existence of Pets. Cha also doubles Pet effectiveness, providing a further 20% Melee there. This logic doesn't explain the increased power of Pets. This logic also implies something about Cha: it treats Cha like a Mainstat. If Cha were to be a Mainstat, then it would have to follow the same rules as the other Mainstats where one only deals 100% damage average base, requiring paying additional costs for additional power. Cha provides 75% from Weapon, 60% - upkeep from Guest, and 20% from Pet. Bringing Guest upkeep to 35% would balance Cha to 100%, excluding Pets, and it would be necessary to change all Pets to scale off Mainstat instead. That's a massive undertaking on par with Ianthe's incredible work with Guests recently.
Ultimately, this is a purely academic thought, useful for explanation but of no practical significance. Cha Weapons are a discontinued concept, and the devs have taken the stance that Cha is not a Mainstat, which means Cha is a supporting stat.
Cha being a supporting stat brings yet another layer to Guests. Simply put, as they are currently, supporting stats provide free unaccounted power to the Player. As noted earlier, the damage intake valuation of HP assumes 0 End while the conversion valuation ignores End completely. Neither assumes End investment, so investing in End is free extra power. The amount of free extra power depends on the valuation, of course. Luk similarly provides free power. Lucky Strikes are *1.5 the normal stat damage, which is half of overall power, and occur 10% of the time, so they're worth 15% Melee for Players and 3% for Pets per turn on average. This extra damage is notably not considered for Player damage normally. Luk also has an Initiative component worth 5% Melee per turn on average, accuracy component, and status roll component. The last two are hard to value but definitely provide some power. Anyway, the point is that supporting stats provide free extra power. In that case, Cha can justifiably provide some free power on its own and doesn't necessarily have to pay the upkeep of Guests entirely. Cha provides the 20% Melee component of Pets and then some nebulous extra amount based on how much End and Luk are worth can pay for partial Guest upkeep.

We're still not done discussing Guests. Ianthe's work on the Guest files needs to be praised as much as possible, but the unfortunate reality is that Guest output should be kept at 60% Melee on average. All items that interact with Guests in any way assume Guest output is 60% Melee, so if Guest output is changed, then all of these items are now unbalanced. Ianthe's work does allow for Guest output to be modified dynamically, and that gives us room to change things if keeping Guest output at exactly 60% Melee since the average is what's important.

Style Bonus:
A 22.22% chance to double Guest output is worth 0.2222*45% = 10% Melee per turn. This would need to be doubled to reach 20%. That would break the 60% Melee average output for Guests that would be ideal, so part of Cha's power would have to be allocated elsewhere. Specifically, a 33.33% chance would make average output reach 60%.

Luk
Base Behavior:
Luk's influence on MRM has been removed. Luk used to provide Luk/50 MRM. At level 150, most Monsters have 225 Luk, so they've lost 4.5 MRM with this change. This is an increase in BtH for Players without investment in Luk. Do note that Monsters without Luk have not lost any MRM.

Luk's accuracy component is now an accuracy floor. Because Luk's influence on MRM has been removed, its influence on BtH must similarly be removed to maintain balance between MRM and BtH. This accuracy floor caps the effectiveness of dodge strategies at 95% effectiveness to combat the general overpoweredness of dodge as a playstyle, which can relatively easily create unbeatable setups that are the same for every fight. In the 20-Turn Model, this effect would only proc once on average, so it doesn't truly fix the problem but could be viewed as a starting point.

Style Bonus:
Flipping a status debuff is the equivalent of removing a status and then providing an equivalent one. Both components should be equal in value because they have the same amount of effect in absolute terms. It costs 50% Melee to remove any status effect, so this is 100% Melee total. 20% chance brings this to 20% Melee per turn.
Flipping status debuffs has some anti-synergy with Luk's natural protection against Status Effects as the Minor Roll of Status Rolls.

The bulk of this analysis has been on the Player side of things, but that's because the stat overhaul primarily focuses on the Player side. After all, style bonuses are Player-exclusive, and most base behavior changes are similarly Player-exclusives. Nevertheless, stat changes still affect Monsters. There's the reduced health scaling nerf in End and the MRM nerf in Luk mentioned earlier. Indirectly, since most Monsters have Dex but Dex has no benefits for Monsters that do not attack with Ranged, most Monsters have effectively lost 250 stat points. This contrasts the 250 stat points Players gained at the same time, though one could argue this is actually 500 stat points now that only Players are only assumed to have Mainstat investment. Losing so many stat points is a substantial nerf to Monsters, and they do need compensation for this. From what I understand, it should be relatively easy for the devs to just change the stat spread of non-Ranged Monsters to shift their Dex to something else. This could also be a solution. There will be niche scenarios in which a Monster attacks with Ranged or has at least one Ranged attack but is not considered a Ranged Monster, but those are relatively rare.

I believe this should be a decently extensive guide to understanding all the nuances worth considering for the stat overhaul. Please let me know if I have missed anything. With that said, I would like to remind that the notes on style bonuses are not suggestions I endorse. They are simply examples based on the proposed style bonuses. Again, I personally dislike style bonuses universally, but I considered it still necessary to explore those avenues for thoroughness.



LUPUL LUNATIC -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/26/2024 9:55:40)

quote:

The other bonus requires an explanation of BtH leans first. Expected accuracy in AQ is 85%. This is the accuracy you should have if you have expected Mainstat investment and no BtH bonuses or penalties and are fighting a Monster with the expected amount of MRM. Items can have BtH leans, which are free effects that change BtH. Because BtH leans are free but changing BtH would change the expected amount of damage dealt, BtH leans also come with a damage multiplier to compensate. This multiplier is *85/(85+[BtH lean]). A positive lean reduces damage dealt due to higher accuracy, and a negative lean increases damage dealt due to lower accuracy. The status effect Berserk is a negative BtH lean and has a damage multiplier in its description; that damage multiplier comes from this formula.
At +20 BtH lean, the multiplier is *85/(85+20) = 0.809 or *80.9~81%.
At -20 BtH lean, the multiplier is 85/(85-20) = 1.308 or *130.8~131%.
Dex's style bonus reduces the downside of BtH leans by 25%. For positive BtH leans, this is a reduction in the damage penalty. For negative BtH leans, this is a reduction in the BtH penalty. +20 BtH lean's *81% damage becomes *86% damage, as a quarter of the 19% damage penalty is removed. -20 BtH lean's BtH penalty becomes -15 BtH, as a quarter of the -20 is removed.
It's hard to value this effect, but I believe it helps to not think of these as two separate effects. Instead, let's think of both effects as BtH bonuses.
-20 BtH lean to -15 BtH is obvious. That's +5 BtH.
It's less obvious with a positive BtH lean like +20 BtH lean, but we can use the multiplier formula again. *86% damage can come from *85/(85+14). That's a 14 BtH lean. We can think of the BtH lean as a 14 BtH lean with +6 BtH as the style bonus.
There's a slight discrepancy between the positive and negative BtH leans of the same absolute amount, but it's minor enough. The point is that this helps us value this effect, as BtH bonuses have a definite Melee % value. +5 BtH is 5.88% Melee. That's a bit over half the 10% Melee per turn this should be.
There are other problems as well.
To properly value this effect, we should have an expected amount of BtH lean change as a baseline. That's not easy, as there are no guidelines for BtH leans on Items. BtH leans pay for themselves, so items theoretically have no limit on BtH leans. In practice, there are some limits, but there are no strict rules. The loosey-goosey nature of BtH leans means that any value we put on this style bonus will almost certainly be either underpowered or overpowered. The valuation itself is also an issue. I said earlier that +5 BtH is 5.88% Melee, but that Melee % valuation comes from an expected accuracy of 85% (specifically, 5.88% Melee*0.85 = 5 BtH). BtH leans will change your accuracy, so expected accuracy will no longer be 85%. The valuation is inherently flawed in that regard. Finally, because the style bonus is 25% of the penalty of the BtH lean, the style bonus scales with the absolute amount of the BtH lean, so it rewards extreme behavior. People must decide if they wish for Rangers to be tied to extreme BtH leans.


And this is where it gets tricky, assuming the style point is worth 10% Melee, there are some caveats here : Are Rangers gonna be only seeking -bth lean effects? Assuming accuracy is 85% there is no point stacking +bth leans past 15 in most situations, this leads to them seeking big -bth lean effects but considering these effects currently work with Auto-hit effects seems like the benefit of the -bth lean in terms of accuracy can be easily mitigated by using auto-hit.

quote:

Int
Base Behavior:
There are no changes, and I have already explained how Mages' damage works (16 75% Melee Weapon Attacks and 4 200% Melee Spells). It is worth mentioning that the MP bar is slightly more than 4 Spell casts' worth. At level 150, a Spell costs 653 MP, and 653*4 = 2612 MP. The MP bar of a level 150 Mage with the expected number of 250 Int is 2632 MP.

Style Bonus:
Wallbreaker is a Spell bonus, so its valuation must account for the limited number of Spells a Mage is expected to use. A Mage is expected to cast a Spell once every five turns on average. Spells deal 200% damage, so a boost to a Spell is worth double in Melee %. 20% Melee per turn on average is thus equal to +20%*5/2 = +50% damage to Spells. Wallbreaker should thus provide +50% damage to Spells on average. As seen in the examples provided, Wallbreaker's current formula increases the amount of damage inversely proportionally to Elemental Resist of the Monster as a pseudo-normalization effect, but even at an extreme 10% Elemental Resist, it's merely +45% damage, still less than the +50% it should be.
The current formula is also not the most accurate to keep the amount of boosting equal. True normalization would do this: +50%/[Elemental Resist].
>> Example: Against 90% resistance, spells deal +55.55% damage. Equivalent of hitting 140% resistance.
>> Example: Against 50% resistance, spells deal +100% damage. Equivalent of hitting 100% resistance.
>> Example: Against 10% resistance, spells deal +500% damage. Equivalent of hitting 60% resistance.
In every case, there's a +50% increase to resistance. Normalization comes with its own issues. The relative change is drastic and can cause break fights where the Monster's Elemental Resists are all low and designed with that in mind. There are Spells that already have normalization baked in, and providing more normalization lets these Spells double-dip, potentially making them far stronger at low resists than higher resists. Finally, hitting for 140% resist at 90% resist but hitting only for 100% resist at 100% resist is a clear example of misaligned incentives. The Player shouldn't desire lower resists on a Monster but would in this case.
Wallbreaker's limitation to only working on Elemental Resists lower than 100% is an arbitrary limitation. There is no mathematical reason for it. That's not to say there's no reasoning behind this decision. Mages exploit numerous limitations with the game's expectations and item design to be far stronger than expected (e.g. 4 Spell casts from the 20-Turn Model as noted earlier), and arbitrary limitations are useful for keeping Mages in check.


This is a good explanation as to why Wallbreaker in its current itteration underperforms,but as well as if it did overperform, would we need to seek the lowest res over the highest res to make it work? This is indeed opposed to normal game mechanics which is why i would want to be changed to a 9th slot Harm spell. Its easyer to use, if you need Harm youd see it easily from Monster's Elemental Ressistances you dont have to do math about monster's lowest ele res and its highest res and so on.



CH4OT1C! -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/26/2024 10:40:56)

At this point, I've heard numerous claims proposing the addition of a base spell as Mage's style bonus.

This idea would set a horrible precedent, as it would be asking Mage to use its style bonus to pay for something it should already be receiving for nothing. Spells are a part of Mage's player damage. A magic weapon plus spell is expected to do the same as a melee or ranged weapon. Making this spell harm would be even worse, given the limited number of situations in which harm is useful to begin, similar to the criticism directed at the wallbreaker concept.

I take no issue with anyone that dislikes the wallbreaker. It has flaws. If style bonuses must exist (I agree with @Dreiko Shadrack and @RobynJoanne on this matter), then we at least shouldn't be expecting Mage to use that power to pay for something it should already have baseline. It's not gaining a slot, it's adding a mediocre spell to the inventory.



Aura Knight -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/26/2024 11:03:53)

The aversion towards the idea of an extra spell slot while trying to force an obviously bad concept with wallbreaker is confusing to me. We're past the point where only the 8 elements matter and harm gets a damage penalty. It could easily be the bonus for intellect as there is a thing as instability with magic.

Wallbreaker as proposed must not be the thing we add to the intellect stat. It has flaws and the biggest is that in all relevant situations, harm will be better. So unless harm resists are lowered to make the wallbreaker effect worth using you're all pushing for a non-existent benefit for reasons I can't understand.




Korriban Gaming -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/26/2024 11:48:24)

quote:

This idea would set a horrible precedent, as it would be asking Mage to use its style bonus to pay for something it should already be receiving for nothing. Spells are a part of Mage's player damage. A magic weapon plus spell is expected to do the same as a melee or ranged weapon. Making this spell harm would be even worse, given the limited number of situations in which harm is useful to begin with given the criticism directed at the wallbreaker concept.

I take no issue with anyone that dislikes the wallbreaker. It has flaws. If style bonuses must exist (I agree with @Dreiko Shadrack and @RobynJoanne on this matter), then we at least shouldn't be expecting Mage to use that power to pay for something it should already have baseline. It's not gaining a slot, it's adding a mediocre spell to the inventory.

If that is the case then I would suggest considering some of these other suggested ideas

1. MP regen
2. Widening the range on the wall breaker mechanic
3. An extra hit of Harm damage after each spellcast
4. A small chance of an extra hit of Void damage after each spellcast (same idea above but RNG for more power since Void)

Also I would like to express my support for style bonuses in general. I'm not sure why this is even discussed, this was slated to happen over a year ago and there's no reason why it shouldn't happen unless another PR disaster is what you want. This game needs something to "spice it up" after 10 years of dealing with the same stat mechanics. We need something fresh and exciting to rejuvenate the game and I think style bonuses will fit in nicely with that assuming it's done well



Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/26/2024 14:31:26)

Just expand case uses for wallbreaker.

1. Expand the range it works with
2. If the effect is left alone players will usually benefit most just using harm, so to give Mages something that'll actually be used, in addition to the wallbreaker allow this mechanic to boost harm element to make it hit as if 95%, ehich happens to be the same cap as single elements at 90%
3. Introduce other caveats that also overlay or are included with wall breaker, such as the trigger effect I outlined in order to present a few more reasons to not use harm. The idea I presented IMO means as you come closer and closer to 90%, more and more arguments can be made to not use harm, but the closer to 0 you get the more harm is the more reasonable choice. I'm sure there may be niche case usgaes with the idea that is maybe "abusable", but in my opinion the trigger conditions reign it waaaaaaaaay back. (All resists sub 90) I called this a 'versatility trigger'. And I feel it's still not really versatile power. Having a condition that changes all spells to eleseek where the condition on paper meaning harm is still better in my mind isn't a massive issue.

Also another random thought: Jeanne said this valuation is worth +50% damage. So why not create a curve such that +50% is the average over that curve. So the very low end isnt 45%, but maybe 100%, where the cap element is 5%. All this does is change 10->14.5 to 10->20%, and harm is still way way way better.



In regards to Jeanne's analysis of CHA, she proposed that upkeep be 35% and to keep overall Melee valuation at 60..and this increased FS to 33.33% rate. I am ok with this as well as staff's proposal. I think the FS haters would prefer Jeanne's numbers because their argument is inconsistent rates isnt attractive.
My personaly concern is I always had hoped for an eventual rolling out of gear support that specifically interacts with CHA's new behavior..ie things similar to Optico for pets or things similar to the upkeep discounts Fallen Angel provided...and a higher rate at base IMO may limit design space. But if these types of items could be made regardless, then overall Im ok with either one.



Weeum -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/26/2024 22:05:29)

So for the wallbreaker mechanic if the originally pitched formula is changed to

quote:

+[(INT/ExpectedINT)*(100-MonsterEleMod)/130]%
(Formula provided by CH4Ot1C!)

Then the resist mods become 

Base Res   Hits Like
100      100
95       98.65
90       96.92
85       94.80
80       92.30
75       89.42
--------------  <- Below here requires 132/109
70       86.15
65       82.5
60       78.46
-------------  <- Below here requires elecomp
55       74.03
50       69.23
45       64.03
40       58.46
35       52.5
-------------   <- Beyond elecomp
30       46.15
25       39.42
20       32.30
15       24.80
10       16.92
5        8.65


So at 75% resist without any sort of elecomp you're already doing on-par-with-harm damage.



Primate Murder -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/27/2024 0:12:52)

On Charisma:

Would it be possible to lower both guest values by 5%? That way guests deal the same damage as pets for easy conversion of values, and the upkeep does not exceed a turn's sp regen - which could be a real issue once Essense Orb and other offenders are nerfed down to reasonable values.

On Dexterity:

What do people think of Extra Attacks as a style bonus? One possible way of implementing them is inflicting a save-based effect (ex: 'On Back Foot') on the monster, and consuming it once it reaches set value to repeat your last attack. Alternatively, the effect could stack like Panic or Bleed and give you a % chance of repeating your attack per each stack.

Note: This is not celerity. You do not get an extra turn, your statuses do not tick down; you literally repeat the last attack you made, like Archer class' last skill.



Korriban Gaming -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/27/2024 2:01:46)

quote:

So at 75% resist without any sort of elecomp you're already doing on-par-with-harm damage

Meh I think the range could still be widened more, according to what you posted I would still default to Harm below 75% unless I have some strong elecomp spell/skill and below 30% this becomes a useless mechanic as opposed to Harm.

quote:

In regards to Jeanne's analysis of CHA, she proposed that upkeep be 35% and to keep overall Melee valuation at 60..and this increased FS to 33.33% rate. I am ok with this as well as staff's proposal. I think the FS haters would prefer Jeanne's numbers because their argument is inconsistent rates isnt attractive.

This is even worse actually because you're devoting more of guaranteed power/cost reduction into RNG aka FS. If anything, I'd rather do the opposite, lower the proc/power of FS and put it back into base output or cost reduction. Either this, scrap FS entirely or make FS guaranteed on the first action of every battle. I don't want my 250 points invested in CHA to only be great 22% of the time and mediocre/bad 78% of the time.

quote:

Would it be possible to lower both guest values by 5%? That way guests deal the same damage as pets for easy conversion of values, and the upkeep does not exceed a turn's sp regen - which could be a real issue once Essense Orb and other offenders are nerfed down to reasonable values.

Or just take some power out of the FS as what I suggested above to lower the cost instead. Guests having the same output as pets is a major feels bad.

quote:

What do people think of Extra Attacks as a style bonus? One possible way of implementing them is inflicting a save-based effect (ex: 'On Back Foot') on the monster, and consuming it once it reaches set value to repeat your last attack. Alternatively, the effect could stack like Panic or Bleed and give you a % chance of repeating your attack per each stack.

Note: This is not celerity. You do not get an extra turn, your statuses do not tick down; you literally repeat the last attack you made, like Archer class' last skill.

I think this is an idea worth exploring further. My question would be how long would it take to build up to said value? Since you don't need it if it takes too long as the monster would be close to dead already. I think I prefer the latter option of a stacking chance to inflict it. Of course, this is something for FD which I've seen many suggestions for, I think we can also start exploring FO abit more for DEX unless we want to relegate Rangers solely to a FD style



Aura Knight -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/27/2024 5:41:51)

If power for your guest will be reduced why not boost ferocious strikes while reducing their power? Have it be 50% at 1.5x power. Should be more reliable this way.

For the change to intellect would it be possible to fire off another cast of the same spell used at a reduced output? Simplest example would be you hit 100 then an additional 25-75% of the original hit. More power to spells and assuming wallbreaker goes in it'll help.

Numbers selected are just random but the concept is what I'll offer for consideration.



bszoke88 -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/27/2024 11:04:47)

Hello!

I would like to point out, that if it weren't for Korriban, I would have never heard of this thread.
While I may only have a very faint idea about the repercussions,
I would use the weekly mail (or at least the Battleon News in the game) to inform the vast majority of the player-base,
and to urge them to participate in this discussion.
(The people already here may or may not represent other players.)
(Also, there are probably thousands of players.)



Shalnark -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/27/2024 11:46:46)

I felt dizzy with your wall of texts here. Hahaha... Can you just simplify it please?



Aura Knight -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/27/2024 13:39:27)

This likely isn't the place for it but have to bring it up as it is a concern. With there being obvious opposition to an idea why does it feel like the disapproval is ignored? This is in regards to the proposed update to the intellect stat and the implementation of the wallbreaker effect. Myself and others don't seem confident in it being the right move forward yet the issues brought up are ignored or toned down to levels of insignificance. Do you all truly think it's the best addition to magic or is the support for it because of who suggested it? For a change as massive as a stat update it's concerning that most of the thoughts put into this come from a group of maybe 10-20 who likely play with a min max mindset.

I've been trying to be fair to ideas and while one day I'm ok with them, the following I go back to my gut feeling that something is the wrong choice. I may not use numbers to back this up, but this doesn't mean my thoughts have less validity. Taking most feedback from people who like to hyper focus on balance and produce subpar ideas is bad for the players who enjoy the power offered by the obvious best gear. One complaint has to do with the charisma update planned. Guests hit lower, cost more to use and we rely on a chance to do more damage if the random effect of ferocious strikes activates in a fight. If you're running any beast build it makes sense a lot of your power will come from the followers you use so why lower their potential?

So far the only helpful change is to the strength skill as we will see more use out of FD armors. I'm worried a lot of the other changes will have the opposite effects where we see certain playstyles hurt. Hope I'm wrong.



VileReptile -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/27/2024 15:00:03)

Could staff consider for dexterity style bonuses that players have the choice to invest in one and ignore the other through FO/FD, </100proc, etc.? As it stands, they seem meager when both are in effect.

Also, has it been considered whether to replace the BtH lean expertise with just an increase in BtH? Ramp-up concerns damage already. Maybe rangers can establish their niche of being able to hit/avoid getting hit. Warriors hit harder than Rangers but have to rely on choke to soften the blows, and their hits may miss. Rangers' hits are weaker but don't get hit in the first place or can land hits more often. If that means rangers never surpass warriors in damage, then oof, but at least rangers can say that they land more hits and the status effects that come with them than the latter.

Sidenote: With a divided power budget in mind, would it be too egregious for the MRM style bonus to take on forms like MRx/MxM/xRM/etc., aka focus on two blocking types, or even one if the values are low enough (18 -> 6 MRM)?



Grace Xisthrith -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/27/2024 15:34:49)

Thanks to everyone for making this thread so interesting, and for staff to be willing to read through almost 3 digit numbers of posts
-sorry about text wall # 14

"What do people think of Extra Attacks as a style bonus?" -- I think this could appeal to both FD and FO builds, potentially. FO for obvious reasons, and FD builds often use status weapons, which would (mostly) benefit from a per my last arrow type effect. If you would spend 20% melee on it, it would have a 20% chance to attack again (or a turn counter / charge up system perhaps), interesting. Potentially abuseable with item mechanics like Sacragon spur. Notably, FD builds with companion boosting weapons would see no benefit (to my knowledge of how pet / guest boosting weapons work), and some status weapons would not inflict further status if it worked like Per My Last arrow does.

"So far the only helpful change is to the strength skill as we will see more use out of FD armors." While I think some of your concerns about proportionally more discussion of ideas with math balance behind are quite reasonable to bring up, I'd actually recommend responding to Lorekeeper's post on the topic, and seeing if you have any disagreements with that particular post, as it outlines exactly that point you're bringing up, and explains what is and isn't true about that perception. I found it very insightful myself.

I'd like to piggyback Jeanne's analysis that lowering guest base output would make a huge variety of items that take guest output as 60% melee into account bugged, and underpowered. It's not just Mogdin my beloved, and the glorious 1:1.5 pet and guest ratio as I was whining discussing in my first post, that's a much larger issue and reason for not changing guest output from 60%. Thank you for pointing that out.

I think some awesome ideas have been put forward to make DEX style bonus appealing (or the stat base behavior), and my opinion is the best ideas use either weapon proc rate, or armor lean to differentiate between FD and FO playstyles, and split the 20% style bonus into 10% each way. I hope the staff will choose between on of the creative ideas here, or come up with their own that doesn't emphasize any damage increase for FD builds and instead offers utility in one way or another, and does emphasize an offensive benefit for FO builds.

I do have three things I'd like to discuss.

For CHA, this has been acknowledged by several other players, but the initial post makes it seem as though guests getting 45% output for 30% upkeep is the base behavior for the stat, and an intended imbalance. Jeanne pointed out a rationale for this, that END gives free power (by my estimates, 90% melee a turn), LUK gives free power (by my estimate, 37% melee a turn + status rolls), and CHA also gives power (by my estimate, 57% melee a turn). The calcs were a bit long and I've already dumped several text walls, and of course the numbers don't really represent what happens in game, LUK with crit item support is far more interesting and powerful than END with teacup misc support. That being said, some free power should be allocated to CHA, so is this 15% gap in upkeep versus output intended to be a part of that free power?
With that in mind, there should be 20% melee worth of style bonus. One could argue that the CHA style bonus, if utilized to make the playerbase stronger, would be to increase guest output by 15%, and decrease upkeep by 5%. That would result in guests giving 60% melee for 25% upkeep, which would be a ~15 SP nerf to guests, but they'd otherwise stay the same. I don't really think that's a good idea necessarily, but I do think guest output should be 60%, and I would love if any staff have a vision for how much power CHA actually will have, since by my estimate from the proposal, guests "could" stay almost identical. So, is that intended? If so, is there a rationale? And if not, what numbers should we be using for any suggestions? From my perspective, the style bonus for CHA being a full 20% melee would be a real detriment to the staff acknowledged goal of weakening CHA's dominance.

For STR, I'm concerned that Warrior lean really is a pretty big buff with no downside, or valuation in the style bonus. While the rationale of allowing STR players to use FD armors was clearly listed in the proposal, I actually hope to argue that this power should come from the style bonus. While FD armors are getting 5/4x more damage, or 20% melee worth, I'd say the condition of needing to use an FD armor means that the full 20% style bonus shouldn't be used on this, perhaps 10% is a more reasonable number (or just handwave the valuation to = 10%), and that would make it so STR builds aren't just getting a huge power increase for free, while INT and DEX have to spend their style bonus on any power increases. This would leave STR with Warrior Lean and + 10% damage, which I think would be very well enjoyed by the playerbase. (side note, if warrior lean stays a base stat behavior for free, which I'd be bummed by but understand I think JhyShy's low roll damage boost idea is very good)

For INT, I've seen various people talk about balancing wallbreaker, not liking wallbreaker, and wallbreaker further weakening use cases of harm items. I think some of these analysis and disagreements have been well debated, and some haven't yet been, but I'm going to list some ideas I've seen other people throw out, that might circumvent the issue.

1: Harm boost: Harm is viewed as generally pretty weak by a variety of players (although I personally disagree, that's not really relevant), with limited situations it can be used. Something like a +15% harm damage steroid (all attacks, not spells so it doesn't get that pesky 2.5x multiplier) could be a style bonus for INT that is not only useable by other builds, but doesn't really impact meta mage strategies using elecomped spells. While this would be a vertical power increase, it would be a pretty niche vertical power increase, and it would have the benefit of giving players more reason to diversify their inventories, rather than dropping harm altogether.

2: Temp / No Drop / Harm / 9th Spell Slot: Basically as written, an extra spell slot. Some suggestions have been to make it element customizeable, some have been to make it harm, some have been to make it arcane amp 2.0 (good times IFYKYK), but it's been brought up a lot. There's been a lot of valid criticism of the idea, I've criticized it as being less appealing to hybrids, others have criticized it as spending a power budget on something players deserve to have for free, saying Mages are missing their no drop spell (wouldn't this nerf mages, a no drop spell? I personally dislike only having seven weapons, armors and shields, and I love having 8 choices for spells) and deserve to have it added in without paying for it with a style bonus. There's a lot of valid critiques, but it's been brought up for a while and discussed by many players so I thought I'd list it.

3: Wand boosting. I can't remember if it was brought up in prior stat revamp threads, but Rimuru Chaos brought up the idea of boosting wands to have an effect. Sapphire has also brought this up although in very separate and unrelated situations, that wands are currently lackluster. Rimuru proposed a few varieties of charging spell boosting charged by attacking with wands. I think this, like the Harm boost idea, is technically a vertical power increase, but since wands are generally extremely suboptimal for mages who have various ways to regenerate tons of mana, much like the harm boost idea, it would be boosting a generally weak set of items, and increase INT players options to diversify their item choice. Notably, this would be mostly inapplicable to hybrids, something I've tried to prioritize in other suggestions. Back to the idea, something like Wand attacks increasing next spellcast damage by 5%, capped at 50% or something, could be pretty interesting. From a balance standpoint, that number is way undervalued, but we're talking about mages here sooooo... : p . Jokes aside, I really think if staff really are ever going to ignore mathematical balance standards for the sake of creating a better, healthier game, finding a way to not buff mages as much as warriors or rangers is the best possible reason to do that.

TLDR:
-Guests really should stay at 60%, and is the full power of CHA + Style bonus really 35% melee (15% + 20%)
-Warrior lean is kinda nuts, maybe limit the style bonus to 10% to pay for it, would solve multiple problems, leaving other FO builds and FD builds more competitive
-DEX is looking better (coping) split the style bonus between FD and FO to make it good for both very different builds
-INT is tricky, shouldn't have a mathematically balanced wallbreaker, wallbreaker probably shouldn't nullify harm items value when they're already weakish, maybe some other options can solve this issue
-Please buff monsters at some point because players are getting so much power and the game is already completeable with just basic attacks and defensive miscs with the occasional skill



CH4OT1C! -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/27/2024 16:11:07)

To avoid yet another text wall on this thread, I'll be resorting to bullet points:

@Primate Murder
  • Regarding extra attacks - my issue is how close this would be to the current warrior style bonus when we already have a hard enough time distinguishing them as is.

    @Grace Xisthrith:
  • You point out that @RobynJoanne has emphasised that two support stats (END, LUK) provide free power, and use this to argue the same should be provided for CHA. To me, this justification is flawed. The whole premise behind this stat update was providing free power in the form of the Style bonus to achieve the goals set by the staff. By arguing for the CHA power, you're suggesting all three of these stats should receive power in addition to the powercreep already being provided by the stat update. Is it not possible simply to bound the boost within the extra power already being provided to the stat? Why can't, following Robyn's logic to limit the damage caused to items it become a 60% Melee output for a 40% Melee cost, with style bonus paying for the difference? This would also remove the problem of Ferocious strikes since we wouldn't have any power to allocate to them.
  • Warrior lean exists as a bandaid to compensate for Warriors lacking access to 100-procs (nor will that change). Following your proposal would therefore punish Warriors because the staff decided Melee 100-procs wouldn't be a thing. I recognise there are complications, but those are more easily solved with the style bonus as opposed to targeting warrior lean.
  • For Mage options: Sure, harm boost is fine. It would be less useful than Wallbreaker but still fits the bill as a boost, so works for me. Wands are lackluster, but not something I'd want to touch with INT directly. Ranger is already having a hard enough time as is without more wand mages being thrown into the mix.

    @Aura Knight:
  • To directly address your "smaller version of a spell" idea, my goal with mage is to make the boost as little associated with vertical power gain as possible. Since your idea would boost the power of all spells, this wouldn't fit my goals and thus I would not support it.

    @bszoke88:
  • I agree, this should have been on the newsletter.

    @Sapphire and @Korriban
  • Expanding the wallbreaker beyond about 100% risks certain spells going above assumed "optimal" limits, which is not a good idea. There is however potential scope to boost it as noted in @Weeum's post with my formula



    • Ogma -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/27/2024 16:56:22)

    For INT, I feel a burst bonus would fit into its burst damage style. A LUKy strike, but mage style. 10% chance of spell empowerment, spell gain +200% Melee. If the spell is pure damage, then the spell does 400% Melee during that turn, if the spell is divided 50% between damage and status effect, then 100% Melee should go in damage and 100% Melee should go into effect (if it's applicable, if not then the damage will get full bonus), etc.

    Warrior build is for consistent damage, Mage build for burst style damage (with MP and spells to accomplish this), what is left for Ranger build? Ranger has two types of ranged weapons, 100% proc basically bow type weapon, and non bow type weapon. IIRC bow type weapon isn't affected by armor lean, so they are paired with FD for maximum efficiency. Non bow weapons can use any lean, but I assume most will go for FO. I've the proposition of STR build doing 100% on FD, then what's so different from a DEX build with FD + Bow? Still feel like a STR build. DEX gives extra BTH that allows Ranged weapons to go for negative BTH lean for more damage, but it feels like an extension of STR build anyway. In essence, Ranger build doesn't play differently than a Warrior build it looks like to me. Not like mage with normal attacks and spells, beastmaster with pets and guests.



    Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/27/2024 18:59:54)

    You know, warriors may get a 4 round choke...although IMO I think it should just be a 5% damage decreaser based on STR that's always there ...so that backlashers dont get the shaft

    Rangers are slated to get some additional blocking


    Ianthe agreed that SC lean and other spell booster options shouldn't boost healing


    So where's The Mage's defensive help?

    Maybe they should be getting a small barrier post-spellcasts that make up some of the style bonus?

    And then the wallbreaker mechanic simply extend a bit above 100-110ish. Are we trying to reward spellcasting or are we just throwing a random bone so to say "at least mages got something"? Extending the range wallbreaker works up to

    A. Slightly increase the frequency of case uses
    B. Ensure the sentiment isn't "just use harm"

    Isn't vertical power. Period. The other builds are getting nearly always useful style bonuses and most of everyone agress Mage doesnt need one thats almost always useful, so just don't make it almost never useful..is all. Not a difficult ask IMO.



    Aura Knight -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/27/2024 20:09:09)

    Wallbreaker could be a wasted opportunity to offer something unique to the mage. How is it that people seemingly against power are favoring it for the already overpowered combat that is magic? Strength gets more damage, dex more dodge and magic will help poor spell choices hit more where they aren't necessary to be used in the first place. The comments of harm being too weak do nothing to ruin the obvious convenience it will keep offering. Forget outside boosts, elevuln and other factors. In a situation where you're fighting a fire enemy with low resists you will use harm over fire every time. The points in support of wallbreaker are done with the assumption you will keep boosting but by that point elemental resists will not matter making wallbreaker an unnecessary addition to the game. You can hype up the idea but it comes with the risk of hurting how elemental advantage works.

    For dex could we go with an effect like the protector set where it would boost mrm to the 100s? Or a dodge buff. Dexterity could be linked with speed so celerity might work too. Multiple hits at lower output can be an option too.



    Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/27/2024 22:50:12)

    ^ Those arguments also are based on faulty assumptions that all Mages are just trying to nuke with spells. The style bonus must be tied to INT, for all Mages, not just catered to a subset. No argument that suggests "You're supposed to be....."gameplay style" are even close to a valid enough argument to shove this incarnation onto players.


    However, I will say that all of those asking for a no drop harm spell arn't seeing the bigger picture. Not only is a no drop harm spell rather boring IMO, it would sort of remove the potential to fix a longstanding issue that exists with the game when a character is brand new.

    Yeah, they hand you a spell when you choose Mage. But shouldn't there be a no drop spell that you can swap elements at Nimrod if you're a Mage just like you can with weapons? I mean, arn't Mages expected to use spells? At some point later, and for free..not some style bonus or some Melee % allocated idea..they should just add that because it makes sense.



    Primate Murder -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/27/2024 23:51:26)

    @ Chaotic

    The way I see it, there are two major ways it differs from the warrior bonus:

    1. Extra attacks provide more support for status weapons than raw damage, as Grace has noted above. This is much more favorable to FD builds, while capable of providing the big numbers FO players like to see.

    2. Depending on how it's implemented, Dexterity damage would either ramp up or fluctuate - which is similar to your and Dreiko's suggestion, except it does not bind Dexterity to bth.


    Edit: I'm not entirely sure what proc mastery means, but if it allows rangers to use bows in FO armors the way warriors can use 0-proc in FD, then I'm all for it. Seems like a very fair counterpoint to warrior lean.



    Aura Knight -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/28/2024 0:36:29)

    Any chance of autohit for magic attacks whether they're weapon, spell or skill being the benefit to the intellect stat? There would be a penalty then we can throw in the effect proposed too. I might be misunderstanding wallbreaker if it isn't for spells only.



    CH4OT1C! -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/28/2024 5:36:14)

    @Primate Murder:
  • The problem with "extra attacks" is that it's just a better version of Warrior's bonus. Extra damage, but comes with hits to subvert damage caps.
  • Regarding "proc-mastery", that's pretty much exactly what I intended with the exploratory mechanic I proposed with @Dreiko Shadrack. To be clear, I'm fully aware there are errors and bubble wrap that need to be added to this formula. For one, it needs to be translated properly to specials. I didn't do that because there are multiple ways it could work.

    @Aura Knight:
  • Put simply, no. As I mentioned here, "chance" and "autohit" shouldn't appear together in the same sentence. Neither is it possible just have all or a certain subset of magic attacks autohit, as it wouldn't fly under balance (has been discussed, and shot down, elsewhere).




    I'm not against the harm bonus for Mage. It's less useful than wallbreaker and equally situational, so fits my goals.



    • Grace Xisthrith -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/28/2024 10:55:22)

    Chaotic + Primate Murder: Extra Attacks
    Extra attacks on a low proc chance are a source of unreliable damage, while warrior's damage boost is a source of reliable damage. As earlier mentioned, it also affects status inflictions differently, and other weapon effects. It is similar to be sure, and that is a potential weakness of the idea. That being said, from my memory a majority of suggestions towards FO rangers seem to be proposing increasing damage directly, and those that aren't seem to be increasing damage indirectly, so this is a shared problem, if it is viewed as a problem. I haven't made up my mind on whether I think its pros outweigh its cons, but it does fit the bill for benefiting FO and FD, not being complicated, and being useable by hybrids.

    Chaotic: CHA:
    You seem to be under the impression I'm arguing to increase CHA's power. You are mistaken. I recommend you read what I said about it again, and note that I outlined how CHA's power seems (from my reading) to be positioned just from how it's written on the proposal, and when I was talking about that level of power, I said "I don't really think that's a good idea," and "From my perspective, the style bonus for CHA being a full 20% melee would be a real detriment to the staff acknowledged goal of weakening CHA's dominance." The main goal of that part of the post is to get staff clarification on what is or isn't happening (like with resource upkeep, and like what I'm hoping to see in an example of LUK's alleged status flipping) with the revamp.
    Warrior Lean:
    You're pretty much right. That being said, warriors having more 0 Proc weapons than rangers have 100 Proc weapons (source? idk probably true lol), along with the current damage proposal makes it seem as though FD Rangers will lose a lot of their value by comparison. Maybe that's not a problem, and maybe the stat identity and DEX style bonus will give them good place to compete. I'm skeptical of that, given the track record on DEX ideas (although I am very hopeful with 100-0 Proc differentiated ideas and FD-FO lean differentiated ideas). You do provide a good counterargument to not do that, I'm just providing my rationale.
    INT:
    Half the idea with INT's style bonus is to not buff meta mages. Less useful to meta strategies (like elecomped spells, which I believe you've cited in this thread), is in my opinion a benefit of the idea. Still not super happy with any of the three I proposed, but I'm probably most into the harm boost.

    Sapphire: INT: Spellcast triggers get a fat multiplier, so barrier on spellcast would probably end up being pretty OP (pretty sure Mana Crystal defender only pays 5% melee, for example). I think we disagree on what INT's style bonus purpose should serve, because you're right to say that current suggestions on the INT bonus end up being rarely useful, while STR and DEX are almost always useful. For me that's not a bad thing, but if staff view that as a problem, they should definitely consider widening wallbreaker's range, or another strategy. About the spell slot, I really don't think we'll ever get a no drop / temp slot spell slot on mages ever, so while it's not wrong to say the style bonus shouldn't be "wasted" on it, "wasting" the style bonus on it would benefit players now rather than in 10 years / never when they get around to adding a no drop spell.

    That being said, I do want to extend my vision on what a no drop / customizeable spell could be like. For animations, I'd say reuse a bunch of wizard robes spellcasts. Each element has ~7 unique animations if I'm recalling correctly (Arcane Dive, Release Magic is 3, Arcane Fist, Level 9, Level 10), so these could be repurposed, and would have the dual bonus of keeping soon to be removed spell animations (once wizard revamp) in game and accessible. For customization, I'd say the ability to choose stat scaling (STR, DEX, or INT), element (including harm and heal), bth lean (+10 to -10, zeroed for healing), and efficient / normal / overcharged. The custom zard or custom weapon quest could be used as a template for this. This would solve lack of healing spell coverage for stats, and it would just be fun. It would be a little bit of powercreep by adding efficient and overcharged to the mix, but if that's viewed as a detriment, they could just cut that out. This would probably also take a good amount of time to implement, realistically



    Korriban Gaming -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/28/2024 11:34:59)

    quote:

    So where's The Mage's defensive help?

    Maybe they should be getting a small barrier post-spellcasts that make up some of the style bonus?

    This is a fair point that mages generally aren't seen in a defensive light even if they do have plenty of options for it. I'm personally against the barrier idea but not because I think it's weak, but because I think we have too many barrier stuff associated with INT already and I'm betting there's a good chance we'll see more with ArchMage if it gets released. While I love power, barriers for mage builds are getting kinda stale for me ngl.

    quote:


    However, I will say that all of those asking for a no drop harm spell arn't seeing the bigger picture. Not only is a no drop harm spell rather boring IMO, it would sort of remove the potential to fix a longstanding issue that exists with the game when a character is brand new.

    Yeah, they hand you a spell when you choose Mage. But shouldn't there be a no drop spell that you can swap elements at Nimrod if you're a Mage just like you can with weapons? I mean, arn't Mages expected to use spells? At some point later, and for free..not some style bonus or some Melee % allocated idea..they should just add that because it makes sense.

    I personally feel a no drop harm spell would be more exciting than another barrier but that's just me :P
    I love the idea of being able to customize the spell just like the custom weapons in the past but I fear that might be pushing it a bit too much for something we're getting for free. Definitely worth exploring in a future separate release though
    Also, this no drop harm spell shouldn't take up 1 of your 8 standard slots, that would be dumb and would be a nerf instead of a buff. It should be its own slot aka the 9th slot

    With regards to DEX, I'm leaning towards the idea of the extra attack suggested by @Primate Murder. I don't think it's a strictly better version of Warrior's bonus because it's RNG and you'll also have to build up sufficient stacks to have a decent chance of triggering it. Now that I think of it, I think this mechanic can benefit both FO and FD equally. FO gets more damage whereas FD gets more inflictions for statuses. I like the stacking status weakness portion from @Dreiko's proposal but not the proc mastery part, I think that's just direct competition with Warrior's bonus



    Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
    0.1875