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

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



Message

KhalJJ -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 11:02:56)

Never posted here before but this topic feels worthwhile.

Thanks to the staff for keeping this game going, and the work put into this interesting stat revamp.

I don't understand the "Ferocious Strike" aspect of CHA/guests. This feels completely wrong as the behaviour of a stat, it feels like something that should be a fun flavour effect or toggle of an item or a class.

What this feels comparable to is a "lucky strike" or Crit chance for guests, (they can't currently do this I think?) and to do this makes some sense to me, but maybe make that its own thing;
Could be tied to CHA, or LUK, but I don't think it is something that is necessarily needed.

I think 9/10 times a player would choose a higher baseline consistency vs this overcomplicated 20% chance to double, especially with regards to status inflicting guests.

I say overcomplicated, because again this is a base stat effect, and this effect feels perfect for some item or gear where there is scope to play with the flavour/add complexity to base stats.

Maybe i'm wrong here, and will only know how it feels by actually play testing, but gut feeling is not good.

The rest of the stats look cool. Excited to see how it goes.




Korriban Gaming -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 11:09:30)

quote:

Even if people disagree with style penalties, style bonuses are not the answer.

This is such an absurd suggestion that I would not even begin trying to debate it. There are 0 grounds for this and it's basically counter intuitive to this entire stat revamp.

quote:

While I'm fully aware thatnerfing Guests is unpopular, allowing Guests to maintain 30% SP Upkeep / 60% Melee output is not conducive to build diversity. For this alone, it is likely the players will almost-always build into CHA as opposed to choosing END or LUK.

This is false. I'd like to think that with the already pretty heavy-handed round of nerfs to CHA this time, we will start to see more people shift away from it and start investing in END, LUK or even a secondary main stat. All other stats got a buff this time whereas CHA got a nerf. The goal isn't to make CHA completely useless to have, it should still be an attractive substat to spec into. Whatever you proposed is the direct opposite of that.

For END, you can claim that unused additional HP is being wasted. I say the very same thing for the FS idea which is why I'm so against it. Any battle that doesn't have a FS proc at least once, is a waste of investment into CHA. LS is different because we have item support that can guarantee LS, on top of boosts that can make LS better. Currently, no such items exist for FS yet.

quote:

Factoring a 15% style bonus, 250 CHA investment results in 30% melee in SP for 0.6 melee in Damage. This is still a little too efficient.

This seems perfectly fine to me. Keep in mind that guests are but 1 part of a beastmaster's build. BMs use stat drive shields, skills and miscs just like any other build. You are assuming that BMs use all their resources on guests and nothing else, in which case, yes, it would be too efficient. In a practical sense, this is not the case. Factor in the upkeep of everything else and if we go off your suggestion, there would be absolutely 0 reason to train CHA at all. One of the biggest reasons CHA is used today is because we can use guests alongside everything else, getting enough power out of them for their cost (even if it is a little suffocating unless you use a resource regen setup and nothing else). Remove this aspect and players would much rather spend their resources on other stuff that provides more value.



Branl -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 11:36:31)

I would prefer the 3 MRM on Dex be spent on 4.25 BTH. The blocking kind of sticks out like a sore thumb.



LUPUL LUNATIC -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 11:37:12)

quote:

STRENGTH

Base Behavior Changes:
Enable "Warrior Lean": FD armours deal 100% outdoing damage and take 80% incoming damage.

Style Bonus:
+10% to all weapon damage.
Counterattack: inflict damage when attacked, hit or miss, for each hit. Worth [2.5% Melee of an expected player attack] per hit, follows weapon type+element but doesn't get weapon effects


I dont think Counterattack is good at all, if the attack is unboostable (as in being "other" attack) then it would be way better that 5% Melee be added to weapon damage and call it a day, it can be boosted by FO lean and Elecomp meanwhile Counterattack is likely worse than just a 5% actual Harm Backlash effect. Its really not good mechanical wise,would be better as actual Backlash status effect or just +5% more weapon damage. Or even the once per battle Choke was better than Counterattack.

quote:

I would prefer the 3 MRM on Dex be spent on 4.25 BTH. The blocking kind of sticks out like a sore thumb.


I too would prefer that if possible,+ synergy with bth lean Adaptation!



Lorekeeper -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 11:54:22)

The update explains why STR's style bonus had its damage element dialed back and the Choke aspect was removed. Furthermore, Counterattack (Which one may note has per-hit and hit-or-miss wording) is very deliberatey not Backlash because we could hardly tie a status effect with double dipping issues to the stat revamp -- That kind of approach would mean a forced need to eventually revise the revamp itself later on, which we cannot afford to be stuck with.



Aura Knight -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 12:06:38)

Counterattack is similar to it. I see it as a bonus to the strategy. The choke removal is fine as it would have been a free effect offering more power to fd which would be neat even if too useful.

Strength giving power to every attack feels like a mistake as if you're using strength your choice of weapon will be melee. If this is to help armor skills which convert to other styles excuse my ignorance.




VileReptile -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 12:16:49)

I'm a bit iffy on DEX's first style bonus applying only to 100procs and doing more damage, especially now that the 80% ramp-up doesn't exist to reduce ranger's damage. I'd instead commit to the idea of long-range (bows/spears/etc.), making it a hassle for monsters to attack, as the MRM style bonus suggests.

For my suggestion: remove both proposed style bonuses for DEX and, in its place, allow something along the lines of: attacking with a ranged weapon/skill (hit/miss doesn't matter) to apply a small mainstat nerf on the monster (decrease damage, BtH, and save against effects checking it). The equivalent of -3 BtH or akin to 3 MRM would be a -18.75 for starters.

FD and FO rangers can get more breathing room compared to their warrior counterparts, who do more damage. In the future, maybe more weapons/effects can look into making checks versus the Monster's Mainstat/LUK rather than END/LUK.

At worst, this is food for thought to consider something else in place of DEX's style bonus that only considers 100procs, although the proposed idea applies to all weapons that can do so, and mine would limit the scope to ranged weapons/skills. Hopefully, my suggestion can lead to someone else finding another way to consider another idea.



Lorekeeper -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 12:19:54)

DEX's style bonus isn't exclusive to 100 procs; it's stronger the higher the proc rate and thus has the biggest effect on them.



dizzle -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 12:53:03)

With most of the stats finally rounding out I think we should take a relook at END. With this being said:

quote:

After that point, barring any extreme circumstances, concepts will be frozen and we will not have time left to make major changes. This is the last chance to present general suggestions for stat behaviors.


I feel like it would be a disservice to finish up the stat revamp without seriously looking at END. It’s absurdly overpowered both in practice and mathematically. I will most likely come back this after brainstorming more but I wanted to get this out there before the deadline. If CHA and guests cannot remain as they are for the sake of balance then neither can END and the 6k hp bar I don’t think. I haven’t been much help on this either but I feel like most have brushed past END since most of the focus has been on the mainstats and CHA. I do like the counter to player stuns but I’m mostly wondering if 250 END is going to continue to give 6k hp



Novyx -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 12:58:02)

Figure I should throw my thoughts here even if they don't really achieve anything. Mostly going to focus on the DEX changes as those are what I'd been following the closest, and there's a decent amount of discussion around the other stats that might want changes (STR having an odd style bonus, CHA providing too much value still (maybe you can leverage the requirement for having another stat into it to eek out some value?)).

The currently proposed iteration of DEX's identity has a few things I personally am not a fan of:
- The style bonus of giving bonus ranged damage based on the proc rate of your weapon is heavily skewed toward 100-proc ranged weapons, with the boost being non-existent for the entire set of 0-proc ranged weapons
- +3 MRM feels like it's tacked on just to take away from DEX's power budget
- DEX, being generally known as the accuracy stat, having its Adaptation passive potentially remove up to 20 BtH from the player

With regards to the +3 MRM, I can understand if it is actually there to subtract from the power budget so there isn't too big of a damage creep happening here. Personally I'd prefer something like +4.25 BtH or for that power to be put into what I'm about to suggest next, but I'd made peace with having a random small amount of MRM act as a selling point for the stat a long while ago. As for the other points, a solution that I briefly thought of is the following: Taking the 10% melee in value from the proc weapon-only passive, you can give the Adaptation passive a base value instead of purely being a BtH lean so that the BtH loss from Adaptation doesn't lower the players' chance to hit that much lower than their base hit rate. Just as an example, if the passive were to only use the 10% melee gained from style bonus, it could start as +5% damage and +4.25 BtH for the player, with every successful hit pushing the split toward +10% damage and +0 BtH, while a miss could reset the bonus down to +0% damage and +8.5 BtH. Unfortunately, I can't think of the best way to incorporate this bonus 10% melee into a system with a maximum of +- 20 BtH, if those kind of extreme highs/lows are what's desired.

Brief thoughts on other stats while I'm here: LUK not giving more lucky strike rate has always struck me as odd, and if guests could cost 25% melee I think that'd fit nicer into the new/returning player experience, as players won't have their guests drain SP faster than it can recover. With how many enemies you end up fighting in this game, even small annoyances like that stack up if they're happening every fight.



Dardiel -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 13:19:43)

Look out, the zards are on the loose again! Same deal as last time, first is major rating and second is a lean. Only commenting on this that have changed as of LK's update.

15% STYLE BONUS
[sm=frogzard.gif][sm=frogzard.gif] No issues here, and no meaningful comments from me.

STRENGTH STYLE BONUS
[sm=frogzard.gif][sm=frogzard.gif] No issues, no meaningful comments.

Ranged identity skipped for now

DEXTERITY STYLE BONUS
[sm=energyzard.gif][sm=frogzard.gif] I like the idea of letting rangers get a bonus to proc weapons, I'm only hesitant because it means 0-proc ranger gets nothing from this and it doesn't really do much for sub-100-proc weapons; I also feel that STR and DEX may not be as unique as they could be if both of their main style bonuses are damage increases.

ENDURANCE STYLE BONUS
[sm=frogzard.gif][sm=frogzard.gif] I think it's a great QoL bonus. I could be missing something though - if style bonuses scale with your stats, how does a binary ability fit in?

RANGER IDENTITY
The opinions have changed slightly, as I learned more about leans and also learned that autohit is less of a big deal than I thought. I'll leave these thoughts here (with the incorrect ones crossed out), but I have further thoughts that I'll post later in this thread.
[sm=energyzard.gif][sm=energyzard.gif] I have very strong opinions about this, I hope that I can make a reasonable case for what I consider to be improvements to this system. In order from smallest to largest factors:

My personal bias against caps: I should include this factor for clarity; I find that in a system that is designed to have advantages be balanced out by cost (eg damage balanced by accuracy and vice versa), any cap is inherently arbitrary and I do oppose arbitrary rules. This cap seems particularly arbitrary at 20 since it would take 28 consecutive hits to reach that number, which is an assumed 14 turns at the absolute earliest - clearly existing outside of a balance model.

Caps will very slightly trend the ranger damage curve toward looking like warrior's flat line: This is a very tiny point; caps mean outliers are removed, and removed outliers mean the average is some measurable amount closer to average which is the warrior identity.

BtH Lean being directly modified by a flat number creates increasingly extreme changes: For the sake of making the point quickly: going from 85/85 to 85/84 is an increase of about 1%, and an equally small jump from 85/2 to 85/1 is an increase of 4250% - then of course the next step is infinite. The more the player can stack leans in a direction, the more extreme player output can become until it reaches the point of either crashing the game or running into some form of wall implemented in the code.

Autohit being removed from the system makes it worse, and it's already suboptimal: On paper they're balanced of course, but any stat booster or BtH booster that the player uses will inherently give a larger benefit to non-autohit (eg +100 Mainstat via misc/shield/etc is raising an autohit weapon from 85% damage to 102%, but it raises a normal weapon from 85% (85% chance of 100% damage) to 120% (100% chance of 120%) which is a +17% buff vs a +35% buff. Not to mention that removing autohit from the system means ranger identity is "the accuracy-based archetype that can't use the most accurate weapons any better than a warrior can"

I do of course have a proposal for fixing those problems, and I'm sure it'll sound familiar:
- Make the "lean" be a multiplier of damage and accuracy, where damage has a multiplier of X and accuracy has a multiplier of 1/x.
- Have the "lean" multiplier be itself multiplied rather than changed by a flat amount; eg *1.0075 on hit and /1.0425 on miss.
(both of these points combined give the lean consistent growth/decline rather than approaching infinity/0)
- Remove the cap, now that extreme numbers are not reaching infinity. Diminishing returns could be put on the multiplier if there's concerns about the multiplier somehow getting too high too quickly and it can't just be reduced in speed.
- Make autohit weapons benefit from the ranged identity, by giving them the multiplier and letting them raise the multiplier from landing hits (which would still notably be at a slow rate, I believe they're virtually +15 lean weapons which means the multiplier is a whopping *1.006375).

I really hope my points and proposal make sense, as I've said I am very attached to these changes which would further differentiate ranger identity via a more variable damage curve and a niche for autohit weapons.

Oh and I would like to second the suggestion made by ArchNero for a tracker for the ranger identity; being able to know the damage/accuracy multipliers would be fantastic quality of life.



Branl -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 13:28:40)

quote:

The style bonus of giving bonus ranged damage based on the proc rate of your weapon is heavily skewed toward 100-proc ranged weapons, with the boost being non-existent for the entire set of 0-proc ranged weapons

That's sort of the point.FD Rangers are no longer on an island in terms of weapon damage. You would need to consider how they compare to FD Warriors. FD Rangers not numerically outdoing FD Warriors when FD Warriors can also just shift to an FO lean would basically kill FD Ranger. The original proposal got killed exactly because of that, turns out, taking 7 turns to match FD Warrior who can also shift to FO was really bad.

quote:

it could start as +5% damage and +4.25 BtH for the player, with every successful hit pushing the split toward +10% damage and +0 BtH, while a miss could reset the bonus down to +0% damage and +8.5 BtH. Unfortunately, I can't think of the best way to incorporate this bonus 10% melee into a system with a maximum of +- 20 BtH, if those kind of extreme highs/lows are what's desired.


They are, the high's/lows are what distinguishes Dex from Strength.
You also need to consider that 100 procs are typically 2 hits maximum. While 0 procs get 3-4 hits with easier celerity access. 0 Proc disproportionately benefits from lean change (that's on top of lean change being impacted by armor lean iirc).
That's why I don't think it's inherently an issue the style bonus benefits 100 procs more. Dex's proposed functionally already inherently favors 0 procs.

Whatever solution we ultimately come across, I feel like if it results in FD Ranger not outdoing FD Warrior in output, it just crowds out FD Ranger from the design space given they also need to compete with Warrior's flexibility on top of it all.



Red Blood -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 13:50:27)

Might as well get my thoughts, and a few questions out while feedback is still up, and running so here goes nothing.



LUCK

I'm going to assume Luck isn't going to counter the lvl drain mechanic? Otherwise I do very much like turn around bonus for said stat, and can understand why Lvl nerfing isn't countered given it's too broad of an effect for mere luck to overturn if that is the intent. The global hit rate of 5% is mostly a nerf to the dodge playstyle I feel but I can't say I feel bad about there being a chance to overturn even the highest mrm when it's on both sides. And the nerf will actually give reason for more elemental dodge gear to exist given you will be expected to eat an occasional auto hit rather than live in Ghost.

END

End getting a single use of freedom to break out of any stun sounds great but I question how this will work with the weapons/ werepyre that provide a similar benefit. Assuming they don't step on the toes of the other too much I can see both effects existing long as there is something done to code in a preservation of the other stun lock effect so you aren't using 2 of your get out of jail free cards at once so you aren't paying sp before you should

STR

Counterattack I'm not super fond of but the idea of active parrying/ meeting the enemy's attack in a contest of strength works for flavor but I also felt the choke from reeling back from a brutal hit also worked fine for that. Up front the former choke seemed more useful but depending on the foe I can see Counterattack's chip damage being more useful tagging a multihit foe multiple times giving Warriors what accounts to extra hits eventually. The overall weapon buff I'll enjoy on normal mobs but against bosses it's more or less just insuring you can hit a cap with less effort outside generous clawback.
CHA
Changes seem mostly fine to me given you are trading some up front damage for a flat chance to get double on every hit ( i assume), and we do at least have a fair few mutihit guests out there. The move to Main Stat+ Cha I do think opens up pet/guests farm more as you can leverage them fairly well with miscs or other sources of temp cha without a stat dip.

DEX

As for Dex I don't use the stat enough to really get a feel on how the change will effect it to lean one way or the other.



INT

Wallbreaker in general seems like a real weak effect in general as stated but I get why mages don't really need much more to their tool box.



Sapphire -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 15:23:03)

If I were staff, I'd take a very hard look at the DEX proposal and just ask some questions as it pertains to hyper optimizations, or abuses. I just wonder if it honestly makes a lot of sense for bow use in a FO armor to outperform 0 proc use , even if slightly (this is what I've heard)... And while this isn't a massively big deal if left alone, the other end is the amount of damage Bows will be doing in a FD armor. I do think rangers need something to be King at, and maybe thats simply whats going on here. But in practice I just want this to be combed through before implementation.

But in saying this and rereading what I have said here, it also just feels like since the MP bar for Mages is so utterly versatile and helps provide power in ways that can't be calculated, that all this extreme power creep is being viewed as perfectly Ok in order to bring Warriors and Rangers up enough to be viewed as just as good as Mages..and this is why there is a complete and total lack of budging on the pathetic implementation of wallbreaker.

Wallbreaker is a faux style bonus, through and through. The argument I see being made is "when you use elecomp" and to me that's a complete and total terrible argument to make to make this thing seem worthy of the work to implement.

I saw someone say using elecomp + boosting techniques that any resist above 30 it will outperform harm's assumed 90% damage. And then "if you simply refuse to use anything other than a standard spell" then this number ends up closer to 75%, but even that to me doesn;t even seem accurate. Also I saw a comment in LK's post that said "INT is the nuking stat, not CHA". I agree that CHA isnt, but INT tbh isn't either because of the half-boost that occurs with all of the damage boosting items. Actually Warriors and maybe now Rangers will be the nuking build, while INT's nuking is boxed in to having MP. I'm not arguing that Mages need any boosts, but again let's not all pretend that what mages did get is anything other than "here's a cookie" and nothing more. It will prove to be a massive waste of code 98% of the time. Mark my words. And people are fine with this. Hilarious. I just asked for an increase of frequency of case uses that ISN'T tied to elecomp because being tied to elecomp actually means wallbreaker then is even more hyper-focused on a smaller and smaller subset of situations and it assumes players that train INT will be using an armor with a built in elelocked spell. I just don't get the complete lack of even 1 iota of compromise.

I do want to ask someone a favor, whether it be staff or a player: Both the wallbreaker mechanic and the proc mastery bonus system isn't really laid out for all to bear. It's just 2-3 examples at most and doesn't really provide a big picture outlook for everyone to understand and be able to think about. Rather than being vague and not provide a detailed outlook which only serves to not sell the ideas..where people will see reasons to not like them....Maybe it would be beneficial to actually provide a detailed breakdown for both.

Wallbreaker--> 10, 20, 30, 40..all the way up to 90..and also provide "break points" where specific scenarios are better than harm.

Proc Mastery--> Before/after numbers for damage with 10 proc, 20 proc, 30, and 40 (since magestaves exist) and then 100 proc. So that people actually will understand what it's doing to the most commonly used procs.

Anyway, that's it. I know wallbreaker is likely standing as-is, and I just think why bother . Save the workload for more important things that players will actually use. Like bugfixing something or updates to the backlog of semi-promised items (mermazon, devoured shield, infernal angel shield, etc)



Grace Xisthrith -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 16:54:54)

This post is responding to Ward Point's analysis on stats, CHA, and guests.

I don't mean this as an attack, but I was reading through your post, and I was concerned with a majority of the numbers you posted, and assumptions you've made, so I wanted to show how I've calculated the value of these stats, and I end up with very different results from you. I don't think this invalidates your goal about guests outputting 30% melee at 0 CHA, but I think your calculations could be misleading to other players (that is of course, if my own calculations are correct, which they may well not be, and I'd be happy to receive criticism and correction on them if that's the case), so I wanted to put some calculations here, with their rationale of what actually happens in game.

Calculations for mainstat valuation:

Basic attack = 100 % melee, half base and rand, half stat. BTH = 85% w/ stat, 250 stat = 40 bth.
Basic attack with mainstat: 100x .85 = 85% melee
Basic attack without mainstat: 50 x .45 = 22.5% melee
Difference: 62.5% melee, Mainstat outputs 62.5% melee compared to no mainstat on basic attacks

Counting Pet: Same but accuracy from mainstat is 20 instead of 40, numbers are the same with or without CHA.
Basic pet attack with mainstat: 40 x .85 = 34
Basic pet attack without mainstat: 40 x .65 = 26
Difference: 8% melee Mainstat outputs 8% melee compared to no mainstat on pet attacks

This puts mainstat at 70.5% melee. I'm not sure where you got your numbers from, nor where you got .05% melee for pet accuracy from.
(If you want to include guests, simply multiply the pet value by 1.5, you'd get 12%, taking mainstat up to 82.5)

LUK: Ignoring Initiative and status infliction and resistance is extremely misleading here, in my opinion, and values LUK far lower than it is, even before item support, which is of course the main reason most players choose to invest in LUK. When I've calculated stats previously, I've tried to state clearly that the raw numbers are misleading, because they don't represent item support.

END: END doubles the player's HP pool, letting them live and attack for twice as many turns, having twice as many turns to benefit from that ~70% per turn output their mainstat gives. If we're going by the model (IE, not assuming the battle ends in 2 turns), it's a massive thing to handwave with in my opinion poor rationale.

CHA: Again, 20 Pet accuracy from stats is not .05% melee, nor is it 5% melee. I recommend you check your numbers. As for shifting all pet accuracy to play via mainstat, probably bad idea due to decades of pet based CHA item support. They'd all suddenly be providing significantly less value than intended. Wouldn't be the end of the world though.

What is the difference in guest power with and without CHA assuming 250 mainstat?
With CHA: 60% x .85 = 51 output. -30% melee cost = 21% melee. -15% melee style bonus = 6% melee. (not sure if taking accuracy into account is ideal here, without it, you instead get 15% melee)
Without CHA: 22.5% x .65 = 14.625 output. -30% melee cost = -15.375% melee.
If you include accuracy, CHA is only giving guests ~21% melee after the style bonus is subtracted from calculations. Or, 30% melee, if you ignore accuracy, which I don't think is fair, given it's so important in dealing damage.
All in all, your number of 56% of a guest's value is way way off if it's in %melee, and significantly off if it's in relation to the total percentage of guest output.

Finally: "CHA still does too much. It not only adds ~0.25 melee to a Pet, it adds ~56% of Guest Value in Melee via Damage & Accuracy to the Guest"
The following assumes mainstat
Basic pet attack with CHA: 40 x .85 = 34
Basic pet attack without CHA: 20 x .65 = 13
CHA increases pet output by 21% melee, so your number is slightly off here as well. As I showed earlier, your number is way off for guests, if you account for the upkeep cost (which happens regardless of CHA investment) and for the style bonus. If you don't account for the style bonus, it does make up about 50% of guest output.

I aimed for this to be a respectful critique, and if it didn't come across that way, I do apologize, I'd be happy to remove it at your request. Especially when AQ math is presented, I think it's very important to fact check it, given how complicated AQ's systems can get.





Grace Xisthrith -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 17:10:05)

DEX giving raw damage to 100 Procs is in my opinion, a very bad plan.

If the staff goal is to have DEX and STR have unique identities, why give both of them flat damage boosts? To me, this is a very simple reason to do exactly not this, giving 100 Procs a 15% damage amp.

If the staff goal is to maintain balance between builds, what possible motivation could an FO ranger have to deal 1.25x output and intake 1.25x damage when they could output 1.15x and intake 0.8x damage? There is a very clear, very obvious winner here. (This ignores weapon based skills, which is a large factor in FO damage. Notably, so does the turn model. As well, the damage would be very slightly more favorable than I've written because off the 1.1x multiplier on 100 Procs compared to the 1.08x multiplier on 0 Procs)

Finally, this raw damage amp could be stacked with STR's damage boost, giving FD Rangers 1.25x output, and 0.8x intake. Almost like an FO armor, with FD defenses. Probably a bad idea.

A valid counterpoint to this view is that FD warriors are getting 1.1x output and 0.8x intake, and that's almost the same. I did aim to challenge that in a previous post on this thread, I see that as an issue too, but view it as less changeable than this DEX style bonus, so I'm focusing my efforts here instead.

Finally 2: Why use a random equation for this proc damage valuation? Why not use say, pre existing valuation for the mechanic that already exists for limiting yourself to a certain weapon type, which is valued as a player controlled trigger (countless armors have this mechanic, Matchmaker, Rider Armors, Dwarf Armor, Blacksmith), and give whatever input %melee an output 1.5x that? This would also have the benefit of not randomly being the strongest for weapons that are already optimal for various builds, 100 Procs, and being randomly weaker for items that could use love (10-20-50 procs). This equation seems completely arbitrary, and like a bad idea to use when the valuation for an effect like this already exists. A keen reader may notice that 10% melee with a player controlled trigger comes out to a 15% damage boost. That's totally fine it comes out to the same number, I just don't understand the rationale (much like I don't understand the rationale for the wallbreaker equation, but I'm fine with that because limiting powercreep is good) in using a random logarithmic equation.

What else instead?
Many potential options could be loaded into this style bonus: (all shown as 5% melee input)
3 MRM
4.25 BTH
Lean Mitigation as previously proposed (worth 5% melee)
Lean mitigation built to synergize with the stat base identity (If bth lean is 0, +2.25 bth + 2.5% damage. If bth lean is -20, +4.25 bth, If bth lean is +20, +10% damage (accounting for multiplier). This idea could have it's numbers adjusted, boosted by a player controlled trigger, or otherwise, but I think the idea of capping it at the limits of the stat identity's range is good)
Various On Miss effects as previously suggested (I'm biased of course) (would provide interesting uses with stat identity)
A player controlled trigger of any variety for 0 Proc weapons as well so FO rangers aren't left with nothing for no reason
Chance at autododge
DEX / 2 initiative instead of DEX / 4 (as you become expertly agile you are able to get the drop on your foes)
There are so many things that are not raw damage, and do not try to compete directly with STR. I would be crushed to learn arbitrarily valued (although it lines up with the right trigger coincidentally) raw damage boost was viewed as different enough from STR's raw damage boost.



Dardiel -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 17:43:18)

I've learned reasons why my previous suggestion has issues, so I've tried to refine it for a better one. I will no longer insist that autohit be included in the lean system, and will use the lean system itself instead of creating a new multiplier. That said, the main issues I'm trying to solve are:
- The rate of change is very slow, especially in the early turns and especially for gaining damage. While hitting -20 isn't a requirement for the identity to be worth using, it's still a very long time to reach a noticeable damage increase or to compensate for an unlucky miss.
- I will strongly maintain my stance that a cap is arbitrary, since the benefit is paid for with a perfectly balanced detriment and especially if autohit is not factored in to be able to ignore that detriment.

My proposal is: have a Hits variable that starts at 0. On a successful hit it goes up by 1, on a miss it goes down by 1 - affected by the weapon lean like the current system. The player is given a lean equal to (85*[Hits]^2)/([Hits] ^2+26[Hits]).
Example numbers and their associated lean:
-4 hits: +15.45
-2 hits: +7.08
-1 hits: +3.4
1 hit: -3.14
2 hits: -6.07
4 hits: -11.33
8 hits: -20
20 hits: -36.96

In my opinion, the main advantage is that it moves faster when it's closer to 0, which makes the impact more quickly noticeable without being abusable. The diminishing returns mean that getting a big advantage requires huge investment; you could get 177% damage from the identity, but to do so you first have to land 20 hits plus compensate for any misses with additional hits while dealing with an accuracy that is constantly decreasing - which in my opinion falls within the ranger identity of adaptability (changing lean) and opportunism (you can leverage circumstances and preparation to take greater advantage of the boost).

A different equation can be used to get the same goals, especially if we have time for a GBI discussing it.



Branl -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 17:43:54)

quote:

If the staff goal is to have DEX and STR have unique identities, why give both of them flat damage boosts? To me, this is a very simple reason to do exactly not this, giving 100 Procs a 15% damage amp.


The style bonus isn't being used to give them unique identities on it's own. 15% value isn't enough to sufficiently do that, it's going to be the behavior of Dex's dynamic BTH Lean that distinguishes it.

quote:

If the staff goal is to maintain balance between builds, what possible motivation could an FO ranger have to deal 1.25x output and intake 1.25x damage when they could output 1.15x and intake 0.8x damage? There is a very clear, very obvious winner here. (This ignores weapon based skills, which is a large factor in FO damage. Notably, so does the turn model. As well, the damage would be very slightly more favorable than I've written because off the 1.1x multiplier on 100 Procs compared to the 1.08x multiplier on 0 Procs)


There technically isn't any motivation to use FO over FD, it was always less efficient. Nothing's really changed in that regard. Despite that, FO builds make up the vast majority of what players actually use. Same reason that there's no reason to not have End despite End being an unpopular and overvalued stat.

quote:

Finally, this raw damage amp could be stacked with STR's damage boost, giving FD Rangers 1.25x output, and 0.8x intake. Almost like an FO armor, with FD defenses. Probably a bad idea.



Spending 250 strength for 10% Melee is.... a choice I guess. It's actively weaker than investing in literally any other stat though so I don't know what your problem with that is.

quote:

What else instead?
Many potential options could be loaded into this style bonus: (all shown as 5% melee input)
3 MRM
4.25 BTH
Lean Mitigation as previously proposed (worth 5% melee)
Lean mitigation built to synergize with the stat base identity (If bth lean is 0, +2.25 bth + 2.5% damage. If bth lean is -20, +4.25 bth, If bth lean is +20, +10% damage (accounting for multiplier). This idea could have it's numbers adjusted, boosted by a player controlled trigger, or otherwise, but I think the idea of capping it at the limits of the stat identity's range is good)
Various On Miss effects as previously suggested (I'm biased of course) (would provide interesting uses with stat identity)
A player controlled trigger of any variety for 0 Proc weapons as well so FO rangers aren't left with nothing for no reason
Chance at autododge
DEX / 2 initiative instead of DEX / 4 (as you become expertly agile you are able to get the drop on your foes)
There are so many things that are not raw damage, and do not try to compete directly with STR. I would be crushed to learn arbitrarily valued (although it lines up with the right trigger coincidentally) raw damage boost was viewed as different enough from STR's raw damage boost.


Most of these are just ideas that were rejected months ago. Dex being (the init stat) is just mage without setup turns or versatility, on top of the fact that init boosts are build agnostic. Dex being the block stat was determined to be insufficient to make up an identity. Lean mitigation has no active component, meaning you still play exactly like a Warrior.

There were only two options for Dex. The first one was rejected because 7 turns to reach FD Warrior output sucked. So you can adjust numbers for the current suggestion, but the time to debate what dex should do was months ago.



CH4OT1C! -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 18:23:33)

I'll make this quick, since there's not a lot of time now:

STRENGTH
  • Happy with Warrior lean and reduction to 10% damage
  • The 'backlash' bonus feels somewhat of a sink, but it's fine as is

    DEXTERITY
  • Happy with the lean adaptation and weapon style bonus
  • I agree and fully support @Novyx and @Branl in calling for the +3 MRM to switch to +4.25 bth to give Rangers a leg up on the lean system

    INTELLECT
  • No base changes necessary
  • Fully second @Weeum in raising the Wallbreaker formula I worked on with him.

    ENDURANCE
  • Happy with the existing bonuses plus the stun break

    CHARISMA
  • This where I have the biggest problem. We're never going to have a chance to deal with stats again, and I don't remotely want Guests to be relatively OP as a result.
  • Therefore, I propose Guests cost 30% Melee and deal 30% Melee, with style bonus upping this to 45% Melee. This removes Ferocious strikes. Somewhat similar to @Ward_Point, I suggest that, since Guests are being treated as skills, we start introducing Guests which scale on more that CHA. CHA still gets the efficiency bonus, but it loses Guest exclusivity more generally. Probably a controversial take, but one I think for the best

    LUCK
  • Happy with the base behaviour
  • Happy with the style bonus

    OTHER
  • I love @RobynJoanne's idea of style penalties to counteract the bonuses, though I also respect this is impossible to achieve with time so short.

    Finally, taking a page from @Dardiel's book, thank you to all the staff for so much hard work. Two full green forgzards for the effort!
    [sm=frogzard.gif][sm=frogzard.gif]



    • Aura Knight -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 18:43:17)

    It's better to scrap wallbreaker as it has no benefit and leave intellect alone if it was in an ideal spot with what it had.

    Dexterity going with varying accuracy is actually a poor choice and I question the thinking done to end up there. Make the damage vary. The more often you hit, the lower your hit and the less often the higher your hit. This high accuracy, lower damage idea will offer range an autohit-like effect while in the opposite, the higher damage will make up for the misses whenever they occur.






    candy.man -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 18:51:29)

    I really like the proposed changes on page 7 of this thread.

    One small suggested tweak to Dexterity. The sliding damage bonus to ranged weapons based on proc rate should be tweaked so that it still provides a small bonus when using 0% proc ranged weapons (eg spears). For example you get a small accuracy bonus instead of a damage bonus when using a 0% proc ranged weapon.



    Branl -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 19:57:45)

    Last minute chip in, but the ramp itself seems like it applies to -bth too slowly. With an average hit of 2 (which is the standard for most armors and 100 procs), it takes 7 turns to reach -20 bth. If possible, a faster ramp with a harsher penalty would be preferred.



    Ward_Point -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 20:37:25)

    @Grace: Core Assumption assume that you have 85% accuracy. 1 Melee assumes that you hit only 85% of the time. Accounting for Block rate throws your numbers off. 15% Block rate is baked into the Core Assumptions.

    There is a simple reason to shift all Pet accuracy to Mainstat. Pets need to hit at 85% accuracy without any CHA investment in order to comply to Core Assumptions.

    END is extremely overpowered and yet underpowered at the same time. It's being severely handwaved as 15% HP per turn. Based on resource conversion effects, 1 melee = 348HP. But actual monster damage should only average around ~150Hp per turn (Factoring the Player's 15% Block Rate)

    It was expected that full investment into a Stat doubled output. With respect to the Core Assumptions, END currently provides 20 melee by doubling Player HP. Any HP above 1 at the end of the battle is 'Wasted', which is the argument for undervaluing it, and yet being able to literally DOUBLE survivability should only be in the realm of Mainstat power. END is both overpowered and Underpowered at the same time. Is there a solution? Nerf END to actual 15% melee based on 100% somewhere between 150 and 348 HP. This results in 450 to 1044 Bonus HP upon fully training END. Is this too little for the actual investment? Maybe?

    You are correct in that I've missed the initiative bonus and Minor roll to Status provided by LUK.
    For the most part, the initiative roll avoids a turn of extra damage. Best you can say I that I probably undervalued Luk by 5% across the battle via Initiative (Keeping in mind that Initiative is also contributed to by Mainstat). Being generous, 0.0025 melee.
    For most status rolls, the Player is also assumed to be trained in LUK vs FoeLuk to get an even 50% which status assumptions are based off. If you can LS, you can inflict Status. Since Statuses are balanced via the Engine (When you attempt Status, Lucky Strike damage is correspondingly reduced), Status and Lucky Strikes could be valued interchangeably.

    @Korriban:
    CHA is not intended to be useless. As stated, Guests should simply conform to Skill Standards. As I've noted above, END, depending on the calculation applied, is both overpowered and underpowered at the same time. You're taking a part of my logic that states that END is underpowered and applying it to CHA, which is not representative of the entire argument as a whole.

    It's fine to say that 'I LIKE GUESTS AS THEY ARE'. You are perfectly within your rights to state this opinion. However, let's not mince words, Guests are overpowered. Every other skill in the game is worth what you pay. Guests are the one exception to this.

    When you use a Guest, there should be a tradeoff. 98 SP is 20% melee, which is built into Core Assumptions. A player should not be able to sustain Guests & a Misc for the entire duration of a battle. This has been the direct result of essentially 'unlimited' SP via itemisation which is a separate issue.

    Edit for below: Guests nerfed =/= CHA useless.
    CHA will retain the following behaviour and Style Bonus
    Base Behaviour: CHA adds 0.2 melee to Pet damage to bring it up to 0.4 melee since accuracy is fully taken over by Mainstat.
    Style Bonus: +15% damage via a Guest. This creates the situation where Guests are intended for Beastmaster use by being more efficient compared to being used by their Non-CHA counterparts.

    In other issues...
    Switching the +3 MRM to +4.25 BtH will synergize the Accuracy Ramp system with the Style Bonus for Armour Lean. Supported.



    Korriban Gaming -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 20:41:40)

    Since the Rangers are already out in full force discussing ways to improve DEX, I will gladly relinquish this fight to them.

    So instead I'm going to be focusing on what matters most to me, INT and CHA. First up is INT, which I'm sure almost everyone agrees that the Wallbreaker proposal does almost nothing. In reality, I see almost 0 cases for this. While everyone also agrees Mages don't need more power, other builds are getting some very nice things, this is a major feels bad for Mages when we're basically given nothing under the pretext that something is given to us. Since staff are open to other suggestions, I would like to compile a list of stuff I have suggested, feel free to adjust the numbers as appropriate but I think all of these ideas are much better and more useful than Wallbreaker.

    I looked through Weeum's proposed number for Wallbreaker and sorry to say, those don't cut it either. It does absolutely nothing to make me use anything other than Harm against mobs with low resist.

    Here are some of my suggestions and other suggestions I've seen that makes sense to me
    1. Regenerate 15% of the spell's original cost in MP per spell cast (% scales off INT). Rather than a flat value, the value would scale based off how much the spell costs so efficient spells would regenrate less, overcharged spells would regenerate more etc. This is to prevent abuse with efficient spells
    2. Give all INT users a 9th no-drop Harm spell. Standard spell with standard costs but the spell starts off with -15% power, only getting the full 100% at 250 INT. Not sure if it's possible to make it overcap with other INT boosts
    3. Guaranteed extra hit of Harm damage per spell cast worth 15% Melee when casting spells vs an enemy with <90% resist to the element (damage scales off INT). This makes it only usable against mobs with low resist so it's not exactly vertical power creep
    4. Small chance of extra hit of Void damage per spell cast worth 15% Melee when casting spells vs an enemy with <90% resist to the element (damage scales off INT, proc chance is static). Same reasoning as 3
    5. 30% chance of damaging your HP worth 15% Melee or 70% chance of inflicting a random status effect on the enemy (burn, bleed, afraid, choke, blind, elevuln etc) worth 15% Melee for 0 turns (to prevent stacking abuse) after each spellcast (% of debuff scales off INT but damage to HP is flat 15% to encourage 250 points). Yes, this is powerful which is why it's RNG and not guaranteed. Even has a small chance to screw you over if you're unlucky so this power comes with a cost. I acknowledge that it's ironic for me to suggest something RNG when I've shown my disdain for it but at this point I'm willing to take anything other than Wallbreaker (which IMO is even less useful than FS for CHA)
    6. Gain 15% Melee worth of Barrier after each spellcast (% scales off INT). While I did express disinterest for this idea before as well, it's not beacuse it's weak but because it's boring since we have so many Barriers already for Mages. If I had to choose between something that's boring but good or something that's interesting but bad, I'll pick the former any day

    For CHA, I am in heavy disagreement with making cost and melee output 30%. This is waaaayyyy too heavy handed of a nerf and this is sure to incur the wrath of a huge angry mob. That aside, it would also make CHA a completely worthless stat to invest in. This is not something to take lightly unless completely killing off CHA is the goal here. Again, I will raise my request for a "on demand" button for FS with a cooldown attached to it. If that is too difficult to code then I would fallback on my suggestion of a guaranteed FS on the first turn of the battle

    Edit: @Ward, I don't mince my words and never have. They are overpowered merely on paper. This game goes far beyond that. In a practical battle situation, guests are performing perfectly fine with regards to the costs incurred. Again, I feel like many players love to math it out on paper but fail to see the big picture that math on paper and how it plays out in game are 2 very different things. Other skills have other benefits brought about by training their respective stats even if they dont use skills. CHA doesn't have this. If you don't use a guest, you're training CHA for nothing. I believe that if one chooses to train CHA, then they should minimally be able to sustain a standard cost guest and a misc for the whole battle with minimal additional regen needed. Anything more and there'd be no reason to use a guest over a skill

    Another thing that is left out by many is that skills are a 1 time huge cost whereas guests are a sustained small cost with delayed effects that takes many turns to build up. There are of course, exceptions to this but let's use the norm so it's easier to deal with (impossible to account for every single specific exception). We see delay bonuses for status effects amongst other things, why don't guests have this?



    Aura Knight -> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback! (2/5/2024 20:53:49)

    No damage from any guest I've used ever comes close to the hits I do myself. Doesn't seem they're overpowered at all. They do less damage than us while having their upkeep costs. Increasing the upkeep cost while lowering the damage to fix an issue I can't accept exists while throwing on the random chance to make them overpowered is weird to me. Why not make every guest cost some hp per turn for the power they should have? It'll be like Mogsterio just not random. This will make endurance worth training too.



    Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
    0.1875