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

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



Message

Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/31/2024 15:38:17)

quote:

On a 20 turns standard, if set MP guest to always attack during these 20 turns, then the guest power should amount to (2000 - 75*20)/20 = 25% Melee, and MP cost would be 653*4/20 = 130 MP per turn.
If we set MP guest at 60% Melee, the guest will attack less than 20 times : (2000 - 75*20)/60 = 8.33..., rounding down you deal 1980% Melee in 20 turns or rounding up for 2040% Melee in 20 turns. And MP cost would be 653*4/8 = 326 MP per turn or 653*4/9 = 290 MP per turn if we allow that 40% free.

Since we have "efficient spell", can we make distinctions for guest too? Efficient guest, standard guest, even overcharged guest.



Guests by design are the embodiment of efficiency. You literally replaced a normal spell with them and you need them to act every single turn to replace the spell's worth. AND you needed a 2nd stat investment to make it happen...The result should be some gains somewhere due to the nature of needing the upkeep and it being a per-turn mini spell/skill. Logic exists to justify it. It's simply a matter of whether one wishes to accept it or not.


Every secondary and even hybridization via a 2nd main stat training means you're choosing X features instead of Y features. END literally has the highest % melee gain yet nobody bats an eye because there's potential waste. However, it fuels EO and also can be chosen to fuel a variety of boosts via HP costs and other % increase damage intake items.

So all 3 secondaries fuel more offense. Big big picture matters, just just CHA in a vaccuum. I think Jeanne's post somewhat alluded to this



Dardiel -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/31/2024 19:16:49)

Well I tried to have my Frogzard rating post be my last, but I wanted to field an idea that's potentially possible depending on how the system works.

Premise: Treat MP guests as being spells within the mage's burst identity, and treat SP guests as being the low-cost long-term companions.

How it would look:
For MP guests, there's two options and one feels a bit more reasonable to me. The reasonable option is to treat an MP guest as half a spell per turn, so 125/2 = 62.5% melee output for 62.5% melee cost, for 4 turns out of every 10. The extreme option is to just treat them as a spell; 125/125, for 2 turns. I'll stick with the reasonable one for this post.
For SP guests, you just translate the MP idea of 250% per combat and spread it across the whole 10 turns per battle - that's an easy 25/25 split.
For style bonus, presumably you follow the lead of eleComp; for MP it increases damage and for SP it reduces cost. MP gets x2.5 since it's only 4 turns, that's 50% melee.

End Result:
- At baseline, MP guests cost 62.5% melee in MP to deal 62.5% melee output. Style bonus increases output to 112.5% melee; with Ferocious Strike that could mean either an 80% chance of doubled (125) output, or a 40% chance of tripled (187.5) output.
- At baseline, SP guests cost 25% melee in SP to deal 25% melee output. Style bonus reduces cost to 5% melee; with Ferocious Strike instead of cost reduction, that could mean an 80% chance of doubled (50) output or a 40% chance of tripled (75) output.

I welcome any corrections, I'll update this post accordingly to keep it accurate.



Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/31/2024 19:29:33)

^ I have always said MP guests and Sp guests should be treated differently. But idk if that's the answer. Lemme think. Glad to see someone else realizing that though



Primate Murder -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (1/31/2024 23:17:56)

@ Dardiel

Yeah, that sounds pretty interesting. Treating guests as spells is certainly an idea I'd like to explore more.

One caveat is, guests shouldn't deal less damage than pets. I'd suggest leaving sp guests at 40% melee output and 20% cost.



Ward_Point -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/1/2024 10:09:14)

I am personally of the opinion that Guests need to be brought in line.

However, I don't think taking Guests away entirely from Non-BM builds is fun. Without CHA, Guests should minimally perform 1:1 with any SP expenditure.

Using the initial 30% Melee in SP as cost, Guests should minimally begin with 30% melee power. With CHA investment, a Guest could possibly be allowed to scale up to 45% Melee in damage.

If we took this 15% as the 'Style Bonus' of CHA, perhaps we could work with a power budget of 15% instead. 5% as proposed was too little for a Warrior initially in the last revamp, yet 20% seems overtuned. Perhaps a value at 10 -15% might work for all Mainstats.

Boosters should not be allowed to Ferocious Strike. Fully invested, currently, a Booster Guest increases player damage by +66% before multipliers. Allowing it to double on occasion would result in a ridiculous level of damage. However, I understand the spirit of the FS. It's intended to not let Beastmasters feel like their Status Guests are 'losing out' due to some effects. Unpopular opinion: Maybe exclude Boosters from this?



Korriban Gaming -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/1/2024 11:29:01)

quote:

END literally has the highest % melee gain yet nobody bats an eye because there's potential waste.

And that is exactly what will happen with FS, alot of potential waste when it doesn't proc.

quote:

- At baseline, MP guests cost 62.5% melee in MP to deal 62.5% melee output. Style bonus increases output to 112.5% melee; with Ferocious Strike that could mean either an 80% chance of doubled (125) output, or a 40% chance of tripled (187.5) output.

This sounds alright to me considering the chance is much higher which means there'll be less waste

quote:

- At baseline, SP guests cost 25% melee in SP to deal 25% melee output. Style bonus reduces cost to 5% melee; with Ferocious Strike instead of cost reduction, that could mean an 80% chance of doubled (50) output or a 40% chance of tripled (75) output.

25% melee output is way too weak so this is a huge no from me

quote:

Using the initial 30% Melee in SP as cost, Guests should minimally begin with 30% melee power. With CHA investment, a Guest could possibly be allowed to scale up to 45% Melee in damage.

Same as above, this is just too weak considering we're playing with 60% now, these numbers are literally begging for people to come and riot

quote:

If we took this 15% as the 'Style Bonus' of CHA, perhaps we could work with a power budget of 15% instead. 5% as proposed was too little for a Warrior initially in the last revamp, yet 20% seems overtuned. Perhaps a value at 10 -15% might work for all Mainstats.

Nah, I say we stick with the proposed 20%. This once-a-decade stat revamp should be explosive and exciting. A small increase does nothing to bring that excitement to players

quote:

Boosters should not be allowed to Ferocious Strike. Fully invested, currently, a Booster Guest increases player damage by +66% before multipliers. Allowing it to double on occasion would result in a ridiculous level of damage. However, I understand the spirit of the FS. It's intended to not let Beastmasters feel like their Status Guests are 'losing out' due to some effects. Unpopular opinion: Maybe exclude Boosters from this?

And this is why I'm extremely against this whole FS idea. We haven't even got it yet and people are finding ABC XYZ to exclude from it rather than discussing about possible FS item support. I'm even more convinced now that adding FS would simply be a detriment and bring no actual benefit to CHA. Every stat is getting something extra whereas CHA is getting alot taken away from it. I'm not saying don't take anything away, but control how much is being taken away, make good use of that 20% to soften the blow as much as possible



Aura Knight -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/1/2024 11:45:24)

quote:

Allowing it to double on occasion would result in a ridiculous level of damage.


Compared to the item usage allowing for full control for empowerment to get damage cap nukes I'd say the occasional assist from your booster is hardly problematic. Exclusion from the thing meant to help guests is not the route to be considering. If anything make varying durations. Boosters get 1 turn benefits and others get 2 or 3.




Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/1/2024 13:04:43)

Well, what Ward said is potentially true but it's not entirely accurate.

Booster guest RN might be +66%, but the change to BASE. CHA will actually NERF the damage boost 78% of the time to closer to +45-50% and then 22% closer to +90-95%. This averages to 55 like everything else.

While I too find this potentially concerning, I think the charisma portion of the stat revamp needs to come with some asterisks that simply say that some aspects of it will be an ongoing evaluation and could change... Particularly the booster aspect.

I have long said that I believe that booster guests and pets are going to need a reevaluation anyway and I still maintain that that needs to happen. Booster guests are essentially taking something that is supposed to be used when you train charisma, but it's being used by players that are not training charisma. So the fact that it scales with main stats so much more than charisma to me is a problem. It's like reverse charisma weapons. Somehow it's okay to use a guest to boost the damage of the players who are using mainstat to fuel damage, but it's not okay to use charisma weapons that use charisma to fuel their damage. The inconsistency of it all I find to be high comedy. No I'm not really saying to completely disable boosters from doing what they're supposed to do, but I think there should be a penalty to the valuation because of " stat replacement" aspect. A standard that lowers the power of anything that's using non-standard stats in any capacity IMO should help prevent abuse, regardless of the item category



CH4OT1C! -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/1/2024 17:02:40)

Just to elaborate upon the premise posted by @Dardiel:

Treating MP guests as a spell paying 62.5% melee would cost 522 * 0.625 = 326 MP per turn. This would, as stated, provide 62.5% Melee in return. You could sustain such a guest for 2632 / 326 = 8.07 turns in a 20 turn battle, averaging out to 4 turns in 10, again as stated. The 25% input/output would also be possible for SP guests, though it would be a lot weaker to what most people would be used to.

Style bonus is a bit trickier, but the numbers that @Dardiel states are accurate if you wanted to concentrate all that power purely into Guests. A word of caution though: I think it would be extremely problematic to have MP guests dealing 112.5% Melee when it's so easy to heal MP. It would be more reasonably invested reducing cost to 42.5% (221 MP). In a similar manner, you could up SP guest damage without too much trouble.


@Ward_Point:
  • It wouldn't be reasonable to expect guests to have a minimal 1:1 ratio when every other item type in the game (spell, skill, regular attack etc.) scales up to 1:1 assuming stat investment.
  • There are two ways to go from here. The first, Guests become CHA exclusives. The second, and a potential solution to your problem, is that Guests don't have to be CHA exclusive. For obvious reasons, guests function differently to spells and skills. However, it is true they come from the same damage component (SP. MP guests are messy). Guests functioned with CHA in the old model because of the intention for them to make CHA into a mainstat. But, if treated as a skill, one could make the case for other stats to be utilised. The main argument against it would be whether the staff would want to produce them (for example, there's no mathematical consideration against producing 100-proc melee weapons, they aren't produced for thematic reasons).



    • Dardiel -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/2/2024 11:29:48)

    I keep trying to make each post my last, and then I think something new - this time it's about the secondary stats (END/CHA/LUK).

    Like Jeanne said, END valuation is crazy. For sanity I'll use 348 HP = 100% melee, putting 250 END = 2895 HP = 832% melee, or 41.6% per turn.
    CHA is easy, it's 20% per turn via pets.
    LUK is 15% from player lucky strikes, 8% from pet lucky strikes, and arguably 3% from initiative, making 26% per turn.

    My conclusions from this are hopefully not crazy:
    - Reduce END from 41.6% melee per turn to 40%, which is 2784 across 20 turns (down from 2895, so a loss of 111).
    - Give CHA 20% value per turn - this would almost definitely manifest as a guest cost reduction.
    - Give LUK 14% value per turn.
    - Reduce the style bonuses of these stats from 20% to 10%, resulting in 50% value per turn for all three secondary stats.



    Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/2/2024 15:16:40)

    ^ Keep in mind that END and LUK provides a per turn benefit simply via training them. CHA requires guests have a cost associated with it so guest power valuation honestly is the difference between power output and cost input.



    Lorekeeper -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/2/2024 20:13:45)

    We're currently refining plans based on everyone's feedback! We ran out of time for the day with only the very last part of the plans left to double check. As soon as we can bounce back to that, I'll work on an update to the discussion with some good news and fun developments.

    As a tease and line of feedback for the very last thing we're working on for the next draft:

    Should we give DEX builds some lean modifiers of their own, with one having the conditions of being in a FD armor and holding a 100% proc ranged weapon, what feature would FD Rangers want for it?



    Aura Knight -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/2/2024 21:19:21)

    More variety to leans wouldn't hurt. With the introduction of warrior lean, range makes sense to get one too. Rough idea would be initiative bonus, maybe autohit if you're turn 1 while using 100 proc with fd armor or maybe player celerity with the drawback your hit is low. 70% for example.



    Korriban Gaming -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/3/2024 1:59:02)

    quote:

    Should we give DEX builds some lean modifiers of their own, with one having the conditions of being in a FD armor and holding a 100% proc ranged weapon, what feature would FD Rangers want for it?

    Personally I think that's fine though I hope the FO part of DEX doesn't get neglected as well



    ruleandrew -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/3/2024 7:09:21)

    I am concerned about the design space for neutral armour lean due to the idea of warrior lean.



    Grace Xisthrith -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/3/2024 11:55:37)

    I'd like to echo the above concern about neutral lean being pretty much powercrept out of existence with Warrior lean's implementation



    CH4OT1C! -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/3/2024 12:32:33)

    I disagree with both @ruleandrew and @Grace Xisthrith. Neutral lean won't be powercrept out of existence due to Warrior lean. It has already been powercrept out of existence due to the presence of 100-proc weapons. There is no reason whatsoever to use a neutral armour as a Mage or Ranger. The only reason for this being brought up with Warrior lean is because Warriors are (currently) outright denied the same efficiencies enjoyed by the other two builds. Even with this minute niche created from unfairness, there is little clamour for Neutral armours. No neutral armour has been released in years (the last I can remember is Fiend of Vergill).

    Neither is this situation practically fixable. Neutral Lean is the baseline: x1 intake, x1 output. All other armour leans are designed relative to Neutral. To buff Neutral directly would inherently buff every other lean, and therefore be entirely ineffective. There are only two ways to truly tackle the problem:
  • Scale back Warrior Lean and then nerf every single proc special in the entire game to the same level. This would make warrior competitive and potentially provide space. This would also be a nightmare to practically implement and I daresay extremely controversial among the community.
  • Create an entirely new lean to cover the Neutral space. However, this is less a solution and more sacking Neutral and creating a brand new lean in its place. One that is still unlikely to see use.
    ...and on top of that, both ideas are superfluous to the stat revamp itself.


    Regarding DEX builds, I maintain my support for the idea I proposed with @Dreiko Shadrack. Particularly regarding my mechanic: One of the few areas where differentiation can clearly be made is in the realm of weapon specials. Warrior lean ensures that 100-proc melee weapons are no longer necessary, which leaves Ranger competing only with Mage. Providing a direct benefit to 100-proc weapons therefore gives Ranger not only a key advantage on the defensive but, if calculated right, can also be used on the offensive. A boost in power to 100-proc ranged weapons would, inevitably, benefit more defensively, but, like the proposed wallbreaker for Mages, it provides an offensive versatility to the Ranger arsenal that Warriors would not be able to replicate. In this way, you can differentiate in FO and FD through proc rate.



    • Lorekeeper -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/3/2024 12:37:34)

    I'm afraid that ship has long since sailed due to leans becoming the norm rather than the exception. It's not Warrior Lean narrowing that design space.

    When full leans proliferated to the point of being in nearly every armor (Putting aside the issue of medium leans), both due to and as a cause of armors not in FO or FD lean becoming heavily disfavored, the default Neutral was slowly blotted out by this self-fulfilling scenario. This stretch of time adds up to a very difficult trend to overturn due to the time it would take to fill out enough interesting neutral armors -- And specifically designing armors that are better off being neutral than any other lean already has a very specific design space. One wrapped up in a bit of a catch-22 of interest and development. This is compounded by the fact that Neutral Lean itself can't be changed without altering the others too, as their modifiers are relative to it.

    So, do we want to have more interesting neutral armors out there? Absolutely. Not every armor needs to cater to the meta, even if armors rarely don't get feedback about what lean they'd be better off in. Armors with both spell and weapon attacks that don't get lean toggles (As those are typically for T3 classes and special occasions), or ones with a design that wouldn't want to have a penalty to outgoing or incoming damage, are possible even if tricky.

    Is it being powercrept now? Powercrept further for STR builds, yes. Primarily powercrept now, though, not quite.



    Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/3/2024 12:42:59)

    quote:

    We're currently refining plans based on everyone's feedback! We ran out of time for the day with only the very last part of the plans left to double check. As soon as we can bounce back to that, I'll work on an update to the discussion with some good news and fun developments.

    As a tease and line of feedback for the very last thing we're working on for the next draft:

    Should we give DEX builds some lean modifiers of their own, with one having the conditions of being in a FD armor and holding a 100% proc ranged weapon, what feature would FD Rangers want for it?


    Yeah something definitely needs to be done for FD Ranger to help it be a distinguishable thing compared to Warrior Lean. Warrior Lean will be able to utilize weapon based skills with Winter Warden-like armors, and that elecomp may assist them unless these always also are attached to bows somehow.

    I put forth 2 ideas for FD RAnger:

    A. The RAnger LEan "Sniper Mode" that gets enacted when you 1. Win init 2. Are in a FD Armor and 3. Use a Bow And so this is a first turn damage boost AND defensive boost.

    B. If Ramp stays, make turn 1 super strong, then turn two drops drastically and then ramp begins turn 3. The #1 Argument about the ramp is players just want turn 1 nuke capability.

    Both of these can work together.


    The proc bonus idea ..is interesting. As long as we arn't rewarding landing hits with more damage ...so that the meta will just be sure to not miss via BTH boosting..then It could be nice.



    Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/3/2024 12:57:12)

    quote:

    I'd like to echo the above concern about neutral lean being pretty much powercrept out of existence with Warrior lean's implementation


    They can revitalize the neutral lean if they wanted to. Players may not be too keen on it, which may drive their desirability to do so. But what if some weapons with the old school 20 proc special are made who's features are specifically designed to get boosted damage when in neutral lean armors? What about neutral lean armors that specifically boost weapon specials that aren't 100 proc? An armor that pays SP to boost just special damage. What about miscs that increases just special damage? A booster pet/guest that just boosts special damage?

    They could revitalize the neutral lean, with items.



    Aura Knight -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/3/2024 13:21:05)

    Neutral is tough to improve on. Maybe give the armors more mrm and some passive but the x1 damage in and out should stay. Increased special rate? Maybe initiative?



    Ogma -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/3/2024 13:39:31)

    Why not make warrior lean give +10% damage to every armor lean instead of just making FD deal neutral damage? FD deals x0.9 receives x0.8, neutral deals x1.1 receives x1, FO deals x1.35 receives x1.25.



    Dardiel -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/3/2024 13:44:33)

    I feel that FD 100-proc ranger lean theoretically shouldn't need anything special - rangers are getting a unique damage curve as well as a unique style bonus, and hopefully those are unique enough to give FD 100-proc ranger a niche that's different from FD 0-proc warrior. The only case I can think of off the top of my head where FD 100-proc ranger falls behind is when the weapon special overrides some other effect like an armor skill; aside from that and assuming a successful Ranger/DEX update I wouldn't think people would be complaining about STR being strictly optional or anything.



    CH4OT1C! -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/3/2024 13:48:04)

    @Ogma: Again, from my previous post, doing this still wouldn't resolve the underlying problem. Weapon specials deal neutral damage even in FD. You'd only undo all Warrior lean with nothing to show for it. The only way this could work is by also nerfing every single weapon special in the game. For obvious reasons, this isn't exactly practical.




    Ogma -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/3/2024 14:33:08)

    @CH4OT1C!: Makes sense. Funny thing, I looked into an AQ wiki to look some equipment, on that weapon section something stood out to me:

    Ranger:
    - Ranged weapons
    - 100-proc ranged weapons

    Mage:
    - Magic weapons
    - 100-proc magic weapons
    - Tomes

    Warrior:
    - Melee weapons

    Even beastmaster have their own weapons.

    You'd think that warriors who rely heavily on weapons could have more categories of weapons. A type of weapon that synergizes with FD armors, a type of weapon that synergizes with neutral armors, and a type of weapon that synergizes with FO (which is 0-proc weapons).



    Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
    0.125