Healing (Full Version)

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



Message

Ward_Point -> Healing (3/19/2024 21:29:25)

The Knights of Order acknowledge the existence of the following two threads in GBI
Healing
END-Scaled Healing

And are currently looking at the implications of tinkering with Healing. They are in the middle of discussions & are looking for feedback.

1) Healing remaining unaffected by Berserk is here to stay
2) Devs are considering the further implications of whether Leans should or should not affect healing.

Notes:
1) Healing Spells were coded to have a -15 BtH Lean instead of a hardcoded *0.85 to damage. Now that Berserk no longer interacts with AutoHit, this issue is resolved.



Dardiel -> RE: Healing (3/20/2024 0:44:34)

Hurray for "devs are considering changes and want feedback", my favorite holiday! My thoughts aren't too deep but hopefully that just means they're easier to understand.

In a general sense, I believe healing should be treated as damage. It's already an element, it deals with the same resource as non-heal damage does, and I think it makes intuitive sense that healing and damage are both ways to create a difference between your health and the enemy's.

The notable difference is that both outgoing and incoming damage are based on the player's lean; that's inherently a double-dip, plus that double dip greatly favors offensive lean which seems counterintuitive so for that reason I support either removing heal element from any interactions with lean or normalizing heals via outgoing multiplier and incoming divisor (eg Full Defense is x0.8/0.8, but things like Bard of War with pet celerity are x0.8/1 and Spellcaster Lean gives heal spells x1.375/1.25 while giving non-spell heals x1/1.25).

Regarding Endurance, I half-support END becoming the dominant healing stat but I believe that it comes with the additional note that the END style bonus should boost heals of ALL elements to match its identity being expanded to healing of all resources. I think it gives END a niche that matters but I have trouble fully supporting it purely because I can't be certain that it wouldn't cause problems.

My additional personal note is that I think the player should have a per-turn soft cap on healing, so as to limit abuse cases and (if implemented to factor in enemy details) ensure that it's not reasonable to assume you can outheal boss damage from turn 1. I propose a cap of:
140% * [Always Useful] * [Autohit] * HealResist * [Assumed Max HP] / [Enemy Max HP], clawback 0.75

Which would cover HP/MP/SP combined and would include the passive 25% SP generation as healing done for the turn. Factoring Always Useful and Autohit are to make sure the reliable heal effects can't sneak their way past the amount they're expected to do, multiplying by the ratio between player max HP and enemy max HP makes it so that low-damage tanks can't be easily outhealed just by virtue of their existence, and the notable absence of factoring MRM in the same way is so that design space for monsters does still allow for tanky (ie high blocking) monsters that don't inhibit healing.

As a mostly-related aside, I feel that a similar soft cap should be applied to all effects that scale with damage; removing [Always Useful * Autohit * HealResist] from the equation in favor of a multiplier that matches how much % melee the effect is valued at (also swapping the 140% for 100%, 75% for magic). It's the exact same logic as above where dealing the same damage that's proportionally lower to a high-HP enemy than a low-HP enemy should come with a proportionally weaker effect, and I believe it would be a strong force in allowing for damage-scaling effects to feel fair and not flip between being useless and broken - theoretically (with no knowledge ofthe system) it could be applied within the code rather than per-item so as to retroactively fix older items, such as if there's a chance to apply the soft cap to the damage dealt after it's been actually applied as damage but before the damage-scaling effects actually use the number.



Ward_Point -> RE: Healing (3/20/2024 4:52:26)

I differ from Dardiel in that I'm not convinced that removing Healing from interactions with Lean is a solution.

1) I cannot say for certain that I support Spellcaster's non-interaction with Healing Spells, as I feel that this creates a series of limitations around damage boosting effects that, for the sake of consistency, cannot affect Healing. The removal of Spellcaster affecting Heal Spells creates a precedent that Heals should not be influenced by anything barring items that specifically modify the Player's Heal Resistance.

On one hand, there is an argument to be made for opening design space for Equipment that specifically modify the Player's Heal Resistance. In other words, this creates a situation where MinMaxing of Healing gear is a viable option. I would support such variety of gear. I would however, question the need to drastically removing Heal's interactions with Spells/Skills to create this same design space.

2) When a Mage casts a Heal Wounds spell, I believe that the damage of the spell should be boosted because if a Mage uses some form of Weapon-Based attack that Heals, which they are inherently weaker with, they don't regain as much HP.
On the other hand, when a Warrior or Ranger uses a Weapon-based attack that Heals, care should be taken that the Lean doesn't double dip.

Algern's Carapace is ancient, but an appropriate example to use here.
If Algern's Carapace was FO, and the player used Life Drain, since Life Drain already receives the 1.25x damage, the HP healed should no longer be modified.
There are a number of issues with Damage-scaled Healing, which I won't address here for now, but I'm sure there are some of us who have lived through the Algern's / Chieftain Ironthorn days where the player was practically unkillable because of Life Drain. Keeping this in mind, I acknowledge that some form of cap should be in place for Healing. However, I would note that having the dynamic of damage-based scaling is admittedly kind of fun.

If Player healing was Static with a Skill, for example [Skill gives up 100% melee to heal 100% Melee in HP (Static 148HP)] That would be somewhat boring, even if one could create specific items to increase this amount.

quote:

We must not go to such extreme thoughts such as only x stat can have y effect because this threatens the balance which a lot of you seem so determined to keep. There isn't even enough stat allocation permitted for the idea where heal effects requiring endurance would hold any sensible validity. It would only work if we're allowed 1000 points to use.
Original post here

I think this statement shows how much players dislike END because it does little but add HP. END is an afterthought. It's consistently looked down upon, and I really think we should change that.
Whether or not we should do it by removing the ability of other Stats to affect healing is a different matter altogether.

Chaotic raises a fair point that multiple Stats encroach upon END's territory.

For the Heal Wounds series of Spells, it makes sense conceptually because it's a Spell and should be powered by INT.
This is, however, problematic. By tying Healing to a Mainstat, it disadvantages other mainstats. Only a Mage can use Cure Wounds (Let's put aside that it costs MP), but the Stat bonus comes from INT.

To solve the Cure Wounds being a 'Mage Exclusive' issue, should a solution be to create Healing Skills that are based on STR or DEX? I'm not quite sure this is the answer either. MainStats already determine the Player identity. I'm not certain that having Heal Spell/Skills reliant on Mainstat is a solution either.

With respect to Chaotic's initial post on END being the 'definitive' Healing Stat, it makes a lot of sense conceptually. However, as mentioned above, I am extremely reluctant to support outright removing the ability of other Stats to affect Healing. Then again, this could simply be my kneejerk reaction to having something taken away from me, which never feels good. I do, however, support the spirit of the idea, which is an attempt to give players a reason to actively place points into END at the expense of LUK or CHA.

In my opinion, it would be ideal if players are given actual, proper, difficult decisions to make revolving their Stat Build and gearing to support those choices.

Guests & Healing
Guests are an easy target to go after. 30% Melee in SP for 60% Output is ridiculously efficient.
Simply put, PikaTwilly and Twilly Guests are just effective at Healing HP. Even if we discounted Ferocious Strikes (Just for simplicity in comparison), (Pika)Twilly needs 4 turns to Heal the same amount as a Mage casting Cure Wounds (50% melee x 4 = 200% Melee), and only at 60% of the cost. This is ridiculous.



Aura Knight -> RE: Healing (3/20/2024 5:30:40)

One safe move is to add endurance focused items, effects, or skills/spells which help with recovery to keep it as an option. If the other stats have their own recovery methods why can't endurance too?

The more fun answer for us is 1000 stat points but not likely to happen.

Maybe the focus needs to be on heal resist where you get a base benefit with 0 end then it gets stronger if there's more points to the stat obviously capped somehow. This keeps recovery effects useful but reduces the amount of times you use them due to bigger benefit per use if you max out your endurance. This would make endurance useful but not required.

Exclusivity is a questionable choice and one we're better off avoiding it.




Ogma -> RE: Healing (3/20/2024 6:23:52)

quote:

Guests & Healing
Guests are an easy target to go after. 30% Melee in SP for 60% Output is ridiculously efficient.
Simply put, PikaTwilly and Twilly Guests are just effective at Healing HP. Even if we discounted Ferocious Strikes (Just for simplicity in comparison), (Pika)Twilly needs 4 turns to Heal the same amount as a Mage casting Cure Wounds (50% melee x 4 = 200% Melee), and only at 60% of the cost. This is ridiculous.


Am I missing something? I thought guests are now 45% output (+5% for style bonus for a total of 50%) for 30% Melee cost. 4 turns of this would be a total 120% Melee cost for a total of 200% output, during which player can do whatever since guest doesn't take player's turn. For healing however, it uses up a turn, 100% Melee cost and 200% output and leaving player 3 turns to do whatever in a 4 turns case.



Sapphire -> RE: Healing (3/20/2024 7:36:12)

I believe access to healing from a foundational Archtype v. Archtype (Warrior v Ranger v Mage) should be equal. I believe the additional benefits from secondaries and all the things they provide are a separate discussion and should only be reviewed as a comparative analysis between the secondaries only, and not some grander attempt to tie them into the first point of Archtype v Archtype balance since any Warrior, Ranger, or Mage can freely choose what secondaries to train. In addition, if one secondary seems to have a certain advantage over another in any one area, it doesn't automatically mean anything because the total picture must be also considered.


I only suggested the spellcaster lean change to healing because SC lean armors, being meant for mages, were boosting healing as a side effect of the lean. Armors leans, in the past, prior to SC lean, were created only with the input-output damage variables for balance sake, but SC lean changed that in that it also boosted healing. IMO, it was a buff to Mage in ways that were likely unintended.

However, I am also not opposed to finding a way to re-allow SC lean to boost healing provided other leans are also tinkered with to do the same. As long as the foundational Archtypes both have equal footing in terms of healing ability as well as access to items that heal, IMO it should be fine.

That would be a simpler, easier way to go. Regardless of the direction from a foundational Warrior v. Ranger v. Mage aspect this goes, I believe all of these other GBI's to uphend longstanding interactions with how secondaries play roles with healing is simply going to be problematic in a number of ways. First, it would require a rather large project where many, many, many items get reviewed and altered. We already have a backlog of things that need updating or bugfixing. Secondly, those GBI's have a purposeful anti-CHA/anti-beast build slant that optically speaking, comes off very much like a purposeful agenda in lieu of the stat revamp's finalization to CHA/Guests and how some players may be heckate bent on curbing it further, completely stomping on every player's gaming experience who runs BM characters. I admit that those who train CHA have an advantage to access to heals, but those who train CHA also have the highest amount of access to everything. Since pets and guests design direction provided toggles to 99%+ of them going forward from the initial application of the idea, all that's done is provide an inordinate amount of versatility, and thus, CHA trained players are swimming in item support. CHA trained players have access to damage boosters, mob nerfs in a thousand ways, resource heals, etc and when they run both a pet and a guest, it can create synergistic combinations more easily than non CHA players have access to that at times, can result in very strong interactions.

The MP bar provides an incalculatable about of versatility for the Mage, just like Beast builds having access to so many options with their pets and guests is incalculatable. But here we are.

Now that the stat revamp is finished, and the dust has settled, the answers to not only healing but other issues in regards to this push by some to find ways to nerf CHA isn't really to nerf CHA, it's to provide more item support for foundational builds.

See, the SC lean change and berserk change were often used alongside heal resist stacking and healing was trivial. I once saw Dizzle provide a GIF of an 18k heal. Now I'm not entirely opposed to resorting SC lean back provided Rangers/Warriors get something that matches it, but I do think reducing those interactions has actually provided design space for heal booster items that ISN'T heal resist. So instead of using items not actually intended to boost heals, you make items with the intent to boost heals.

For example,

Staff could create miscs/shield, have effects on armors, even weapons that are something like +25% to all SP heals or HP heals or MP heals. If heal resist mod items are typically 12.5%, then single resource items don't alter heal element, but rather boost a specific targeted resource. The result here is a shield, for example, that maybe gets -25% to it's element instead of -26%, to boost SP heals by +25%. Or there could be a Ranger-focused armor that has a toggle built in that pays sp to boost HP heals. These can be used WITH heal resist mods. You could make a melee weapon that boosts HP heals in the same manner.
Since pets and guests typically get toggles for specific resources, then non CHA players should have items that can boost heals.

Another example of item support would be in the form of a heal booster guest or pet that entirely scale on main stat. You could have a STR-Scaling heal booster moglin guest that increases HP heals . Another for Ranger. Another for Mage.

Another issue is there is higher item support for CHA trained players for healing MP and SP, not just HP. So there should be way more access to ideas that heal especially SP for both Rangers and Warriors who do not train CHA. This will also soften the blow and backlash that will inevitably come from Essence Orb's looming nerf. I would not nerf EO without several more items that can provide SP . It can be hit based similar to trickster or nickelclad, or it can be even ideas such that what Wishweaver does. A skill that takes a damage penalty or even costs HP to convert damage to SP.

Ultimately, I think these issues are best resolved through exciting new items that try and bridge the item support gap in a focused and concerted effort rather than overhaul the entire thing and risking upsetting your players simply because some people are heckate bent on it. It is by far, the best route. And again, I have no qualms with the resorting of SC lean, as long as the other leans have something added to make these equal at baseline. But either way, the answer isn't a project that involves altering many, many things while ticking people off on top of the weekly production schedule. It's just gapfilling and providing item support to bring more access to healing.


Also, one final suggestion: I would go the hypercrit route for healing with all this item support. Meaning, any heals that come from a pet or guest cannot be boosted with an item who's intent is to be used for non CHA builds. So what I'm saying is, if there is an armor intended for a Warrior and it has a toggle that pays SP when a heal skill/spell is made that boosts HP heals by 25%, and it has a heal booster guest that boosts HP heals...then these only work for heals that come from the player. So this same player cant use these to boost a pet's heal, too. Keep CHA based healing unboostable by things that intended for non CHA players. BM's already have their methods to boost this.



KhalJJ -> RE: Healing (3/20/2024 11:55:28)

Foe the sake of ease I'm condensing the most worthwhile points in one post:

1) Fundamentally having END being the sole stat influencing all healing, including MP and SP, makes no sense thematically. I recognise this isn't enough but it's a good starting point for how stats should work, and how players, especially new players, might expect things to work.
It would also lead to strange interactions such Grace pointed out in the other thread: Gandolphin and other mana shields becoming meta for all END builds - essentially mana shields being best in slot if you use END, because of mana heal efficiency. It wouldn't be great if as a mage you felt like Gandolphin or similar were not worth using without END.
I feel like this change would have a large area of effect and will impact many existing builds and strategies in a big way, such that the response would be largely negative. The time for this was probably pre-stat revamp. I would strongly argue against it.

2) I feel spellcaster lean could affect healing and this would be fine. Spellcaster lean + healing spell, makes sense to boost, no? Why would it have to be more complex than this.
On this, I don't see how it is inevitable that if spellcaster lean did not affect healing, somehow this means that all healing should be END only. I get that it is along the same lines, but it's not like one necessitates the other.

3) Double-dipping, eg Ward's algern carapace point, seems obviously something that is unintended/should not be a thing.

4) Loosely echoing Sapphire, I would say that some stats are just inherently imbalanced to a degree, and this seems to be acknowledged by most; it's hard to balance against the extra resource bar that INT gives you, and the consequent versatility of having whole item classes built for this resource bar. I feel like staff have made positive attempts to do this via excellent non-mage gear (Trickster, H-series) with interesting/powerful effects and that this is generally the way that this makes sense to do. These items themselves make the build/stat choices harder, rather than just the underlying stats.

I would say roughly the same of CHA - it's hard to balance against the versatility that having a stat for multiple item categories (pets+guests) will give you. Contrast both of these with END - there is no specific item category for this, hence the versatility is not there. Even if END was the "healing" stat, the versatility isn't there, which is what I'm arguing gives INT and CHA their appeal here. Spells can do many things (heal, damage, status), and Pets and guests can do these too, and it makes thematic sense for it to be so. Even if you gave END domain all healing it would not solve this issue, as it is a different issue. You would just be making a seismic change for the sake of a different perspective.
Ultimately I think this is completely fine as is. Not all stats are created equal.
END still very much has its uses, (not getting OHKO'd is nice, and providing robustness if for whatever reason you don't want to cover all 8 elemental defences fully is a really nice aspect of player versatility that END enables), but it is never going to be a stat that can compete with INT or CHA in terms of overall versatility, and I think that's completely fine.

5) I fully agree on an item support point made by many others. END focused items would be a step towards addressing this point.



CH4OT1C! -> RE: Healing (3/20/2024 20:41:14)

It's great to see that my GBI posts are generating interest among both the staff and the community!

I chose to make these posts to emphasise a number of somewhat uncomfortable truths. It goes without saying but... the current state of healing is grossly unfair. INT and CHA users are able to access healing far more easily, far more effectively, and in far greater variety, than other builds. This is no secret; it was the primary reason underpinning @Sapphire's now accepted GBI on Spellcaster Lean. Whether we're dealing with a "main stat" or a "support stat" is entirely irrelevant within this context, for the problem being discussed revolves around fairness across the board. For example, while CHA is most definitely not a main stat, it's still unfair for CHA users to retain the preferential access to healing that they currently enjoy. Instead, we should really be discriminating based upon whether one (or multiple) stats explicitly incorporate healing within their scope. Healing intuitively falls within the domain of END, and certain legacy items (e.g. Pumpkin Patch) kept to that precedent. However, over time, almost every other stat (with the exception of LUK) has undermined this exclusivity. This first came with INT and CHA (e.g., Cure Wounds and Moglord Warboar) and then more recently STR and DEX (e.g., YBHatSoL and Rising Knightmare). The expansion not only meant that END-based healing items were often outcompeted, but also END itself. The healing items from other stats directly conflicted with a key benefit of END, to provide additional HP. Why bother having a higher HP pool if you can just heal using another stat instead? By asserting END as the stat for healing, we solve both of these problems at the same time. We drastically improve the aforementioned unfairness in builds; Mages may have access to a greater number of healing spells, but they'll still need END to use them effectively. The only discrimination here is END-based, which is ok because we're explicitly defining it as the stat for healing. Furthermore, we're providing a key, reason why players should invest in END. Including MP is outright necessary as it represents a portion of player damage and would therefore be unfair otherwise. Adding SP healing to the mix further strengthens that benefit and helps to enforce consistency across the board -> Go to END if you want better healing.

This idea is radical. Although healing isn't assumed as part of the player turn model, meaning players aren't going to be missing a vital component of their build, this change constitutes a pretty significant nerf for many players (especially INT and CHA users). I do not suggest this lightly, but I consider it worth sacrifice. To address some of the countarguments made on this thread thus far:
  • As pointed out by @Ward_Point, some players are worried because of the limited number of stat points one can invest. But the player should have to forego certain benefits due to the limited number of stat points available, otherwise what's the point in having build diversity to begin with? And what do players currently forego for not investing in END? Nothing noteworthy unless they're a backlasher. There's an inherent circularity to this criticism. They don't want healing to be attached to END because they don't want to invest in END. This is because END doesn't have many benefits. Yet, by explicitly attaching all healing to END, we help to provide a reason for why players should invest in END. It's not a bad thing for there to be an opportunity cost.
  • In response to "but it doesn't make sense for [x] to scale on END": The Fairy Godmother pet heals MP, should it scale on CHA because it's a Pet or INT because MP is INT-exclusive? The answer is both are appropriate. Grey areas exist where multiple stats could potentially be considered acceptable. They may not feel immediately intuitive due to preconceived notions, but can still be logically justified. Healing being END-scaling can be justified in a similar manner.
  • @Aura Knight suggests simply adding more END-based heal items. How many of the END-based healing items currently in existence are competitive with their non-END counterparts? And if those other stats received a similar healing item, would you still use the END-based version? The obvious answer is no, because END is currently considered bad. A key point of my proposal is to ensure that competition is outright impossible. The only alternative would be to prevent any non-END based equivalent existing, but this would effectively amount to the very thing Aura is trying to avoid - meaningful heals being attached only to END.
  • @Sapphire invokes the aforementioned "main stat" argument to suggest that CHA shouldn't really be a part of this discussion, the main builds can choose to train. Yet, in the same post, they also point out:
    quote:

    I admit that those who train CHA have an advantage to access to heals, but those who train CHA also have the highest amount of access to everything. Since pets and guests design direction provided toggles to 99%+ of them going forward from the initial application of the idea, all that's done is provide an inordinate amount of versatility, and thus, CHA trained players are swimming in item support. CHA trained players have access to damage boosters, mob nerfs in a thousand ways, resource heals, etc and when they run both a pet and a guest, it can create synergistic combinations more easily than non CHA players have access to that at times, can result in very strong interactions.

    This statement not only demonstrates why the main stat-support stat argument doesn't really apply here, but further reinforces why such a drastic fix is necessary in the first place. If CHA does indeed have the highest amount of access to "everything", then this only provides further evidence for why we need the nerf!
  • A number of people have also argued "just make more items". It's been 12 years since the sweep, and there's no sign of this unfairness disappearing any time soon. However, let's assume that the pace did start to accelerate. It would require the staff to systematically neglect Mage/Beastmaster healing in favour of the other builds, which would amount to prolonging the pain for these builds. It's also a major project, something that has been used to criticise my own proposal. Moreover, it requires us to effectively sacrifice END for the benefit of other stats, since there'd be little reason to use END based healing attacks over a non-END equivalent when those stats also provide other benefits. It's a key benefit of my proposals; solving both problems at the same time.

    I'm fully aware that this suggested fix is going to be controversial. With that said, I do think it's worth the effort and short term pain because of the long-term benefits. I also want to note that this change is not reliant on the recent nerfing of spellcaster lean. That is a separate issue. The current state of healing is unfair regardless of whether spellcaster lean is able to boost healing spells. Reverting course, trying to undo the nerf to spellcaster lean, it won't change the need to seriously consider this proposal.



    • Aura Knight -> RE: Healing (3/20/2024 20:58:30)

    Even if we put more focus on endurance for heals there's little chance people will give up the benefit of the points being on luck and charisma. There's one way it could work and that is lowering the point threshold at which we can get stat style bonuses to activate. Right now it's 150. Drop it to 50 then this can free up points to use on a neglected stat.




    Ward_Point -> RE: Healing (3/20/2024 22:53:10)

    quote:

    Exclusivity is a questionable choice and one we're better off avoiding it.

    I do not agree with this statement. Exclusivity is exactly what creates builds.
    Spellcasting defines the Mage. Accuracy Ramping defines the Ranger. Damage stability defines the Warrior.
    With respect to the Minor Stats, CHA defines a Beastmaster, enabling Pet & Guest use. LUK enables Lucky Strike strategies & enables better Status Rolls. END enables the tank. There are very clear opportunity costs by investing in each stat. However, the current state of the game simply does not give enough reason for a Player to be more tanky

    quote:

    As pointed out by @Ward_Point, some players are worried because of the limited number of stat points one can invest. But the player should have to forego certain benefits due to the limited number of stat points available, otherwise what's the point in having build diversity to begin with? And what do players currently forego for not investing in END? Nothing noteworthy unless they're a backlasher. There's an inherent circularity to this criticism. They don't want healing to be attached to END because they don't want to invest in END. This is because END doesn't have many benefits. Yet, by explicitly attaching all healing to END, we help to provide a reason for why players should invest in END. It's not a bad thing for there to be an opportunity cost.

    This statement is something I fully agree with. It's not a bad thing to have an opportunity cost. A Character that can do everything is boring. Original Final Fantasy XII had no depth. Everyone could do everything and it was boring. It was the Zodiac Age that made the game really interesting by creating an opportunity cost. For further comments about END, see below.

    Due to strong Item support & the existence of Companions, CHA is powerful. The sheer versatility of Beastmasters to have an entire item Category unto themselves increases the variety of strategies.
    The Lovestruck Scope Misc is a prime example of an item that is fully enabled by Item Support
    Pure Builds are limited by their Weapon. Ideally, to not 'lose' any damage, the Weapon should be of appropriate Element and inflict Bleed. Companions throw this out of the window and enable full Bleed eating for 'Free' Celerity.
    The above is only one of many situations where Companions enable strategies.

    END is supposed to be the Defensive stat. One needs reason to invest into it. Despite its obvious numerical imbalance, few choose to invest in it. The reason to invest in it should be contained within the power of the Stat itself. This implies two things. END is too weak and/or CHA is too strong. There is no real, discernable opportunity cost in choosing NOT to invest in END. This is clearly a problem.

    Two 'big picture' solutions present themselves
    1) Buff END: A further buff to an already numerically overpowered stat.
    2) Nerf CHA: An easy solution considering that Guests are already numerically overpowered.

    To expand upon (1), the solution presented by multiple members above have been to increase Item support. However, this would necessitate a Standard that only END would have.
    Should Nickelclad Iron Defender have its Healing bonus scaled to END? 0 at 0 END and -12.5% at 250 END? Should it go up to -20% due because we should hold END to a different standard?
    I think this is a slippery slope to go down. Item standards shouldn't change to make a Stat viable.

    The more I thought about it, the more I'm reaching a similar conclusion to Chaotic, and to be extremely clear, I hate it. I absolutely detest the fact that his proposed solution makes sense and actively fulfills both big picture goals in a undeniably straightfoward manner that does not mess with existing Standards. The proposed solution is a paradigm shift that all Healing be governed by END. While I actively dislike this proposed solution, there are no other proposed solutions that would generate enough power for END without creating new mathematical standards entirely for END.

    To be clear, this paradigm shift is something that, based on precedent the KoOs are consistently unwilling to do.
    One of the clearest cases is Pumpkin Patch. A Mage can use Heal Wounds or Pumpkin Patch, but instead, Pumpkin Patch's current MC is 'Non-typical stat' because it's supposed to be a Spell and uses INT. I would argue that since Mages can choose between spending SP or MP, Healing Spells / Skills should not have their MC 'consumed' by the reason of 'Non-typical' stat.
    Similarly to Guests, with the standard set at 30% Upkeep for 45% output (Non-CHA), this enables the design and creation of Non-CHA Guests that scale in power based on anything but CHA. Their respective MCs should not be consumed by 'Non-typical Stat'



    Andlu -> RE: Healing (3/20/2024 23:15:12)

    ^ you just said exclusivity is a good idea, how beastmasters has cha as an exclusive way to use pets and guests, then you proceed to say guests should now have a version using main stat too? That's contradictory, isn't it?



    Aura Knight -> RE: Healing (3/21/2024 0:22:50)

    It's not right to ruin existing builds in the attempt to create a new one. I agree endurance needs more appeal but it's wrong to narrow this to heal benefits. It's the tank stat, go with something more fitting to that. Healing must keep its options available or it becomes as useless as the stat we're hoping to fix.



    Ward_Point -> RE: Healing (3/21/2024 3:38:36)

    quote:

    ^ you just said exclusivity is a good idea, how beastmasters has cha as an exclusive way to use pets and guests, then you proceed to say guests should now have a version using main stat too? That's contradictory, isn't it?

    Perhaps I should rephrase: Beastmasters have the exclusive ability to use Guests at 60% Melee. If a 0-CHA user wants to use a Guest, they are limited by the Standard and should have their power capped at 45% Melee. Simply put, the lack of the Style Bonus is the opportunity cost for using a Guest without CHA. Alternatively, create an intentional design such that only CHA Guests are offensive while Non-CHA Guests act in primarily a support manner (Which Beastmasters would still get full benefit from due to the Style Bonus)
    quote:

    It's not right to ruin existing builds in the attempt to create a new one. I agree endurance needs more appeal but it's wrong to narrow this to heal benefits. It's the tank stat, go with something more fitting to that. Healing must keep its options available or it becomes as useless as the stat we're hoping to fix.

    I would not go so far to say that existing builds are 'ruined' by the proposed change. Beastmasters still get full use out of Damage or Status Guests (At 60% melee power on average). The only thing that Beastmasters will lose in the proposed change is access to Healing. Beastmasters are still incredibly versatile. There is still great incentive to train CHA. Healing would just not be one of them. Again, see my opinions on opportunity cost and exclusivity.
    Again, I am very reluctant to support Chaotic's idea in this situation. If there could be another solution that gives an incentive to actively use END over LUK or CHA without breaking existing standards, I would fully support it.



    CH4OT1C! -> RE: Healing (3/21/2024 6:02:02)

    quote:

    you just said exclusivity is a good idea, how beastmasters has cha as an exclusive way to use pets and guests, then you proceed to say guests should now have a version using main stat too? That's contradictory, isn't it?

    My response to this criticism stems from another uncomfortable truth I raised within a different recent GBI on CHA-scaling Skills; Guests are now mathematically treated as if they are skills. Of course, it goes without saying that up until last month, it'd be unquestionably correct to argue that Guests exclusively fell within the domain of CHA. But skills are able to scale on any stat. Reiterating some examples from my GBI post: Blazing Phoenix [STR], Warmaster Burst [DEX], there are countless examples but 'Woe upon Abaddon' from Infernal Angel's Liberation [INT], The Recovery Series [END], and Drop the MOAP [CHA]. Guest mechanics (and their unreasonable efficiency) stem from the original intention to make CHA into a mainstat, a plan that died years ago. With the new way Guests are balanced, we need to make a choice around whether the Guest exclusivity of CHA refers to:
    1) The Guest itself i.e. that Guests are CHA's version of skills. In which case, other stats should be able to access them freely, but neither should CHA have the freedom to scale on normal skills either (looking at skills like Sisters of Mercy, for example). We should also consider whether, being effectively quickcast since they don't consume a player action, some sort of additional penalty is warranted.
    2). The ability to use Guests as efficiently as CHA can. This is what @Ward_Point is referring to, and it has a number of potential benefits. For one, it means any build can potentially access the unfair 45/30 ratio that Guests enjoy over other skills. While Guests in general have this efficiency, only CHA users can access it since effectively all skills scale on CHA. Allowing all builds to access it reduces the unfairness (though CHA-users would still have an unfair advantage given the number of CHA scaling Guests). Neither is it necessarily a bad thing. There's more than one way to create diversity; both widening and restricting different parts of the parameter space can be beneficial so long as they're implemented correctly.

    This has implications for healing too. I'm making a somewhat bold call by suggesting we make a mechanic exclusive (healing) rather than an item type like Melee Weapons for STR or Spells for INT. It falls more closely to the second of the two approaches described above, where we focus on the exclusive benefit rather than the item type. It's a difference in perspective, and one that some understandably consider difficult to conceptually distinguish. With that said, I consider this perspective worthwhile because of the numerous benefits I've described above. Lay before us is an opportunity to help remedy some of the biggest inequalities among the modern builds, while simultaneously making the single worst stat far more useful. Of course, there's no guarantee (or even a high likelihood) that any of this will go through. However, I feel it important that at the very least we're all aware of the choice before us, the potential benefits and drawbacks of going ahead, and the consequences of doing nothing. If we do nothing, we accept that certain builds will most probably retain a permanent and substantial unfair advantage in healing (it's not like the gap has closed in the last 12 years). We also consign END to being a choice that simply makes up the numbers. It's fine to take that direction, but we should be aware of what we're doing.



    Ogma -> RE: Healing (3/21/2024 6:02:06)

    LUK contribute to damage (and has several items to make use of it), status infliction/defense and initiative roll I believe. CHA has a whole arsenal of pet/guests to offer. END... well...

    The game needs you to consider 2 things in battle : 1) Don't die and 2) Kill the enemies. Once you satisfy 1), you only need to think of 2), as it is the winning condition (you're not rewarded for living forever beyond not losing), and so it's normal to think stats in how you can use them offensively. END has few options to this effect, namely the backlash (there are several free options), and EO which use HP as another SP bar. I do think END will get more attractive the more equipment released use HP as a resource (for example a magic weapon toggle effect that add a damage boost/status infliction to (specific element) spell cast EDIT: Bloodblade weapons, or the Autumn ztoken contest weapons).



    Andlu -> RE: Healing (3/21/2024 9:09:07)

    If you guys want to draw similarities between main stat guests being possible now, with END affecting healing to the max, then this assumes END wouldn't scale healing directly, or rather, the style bonus would be responsible to make healing spells only work at their maximum potential with END being at least 155, to 250 so it actually hits the highest point


    I am very very against this because as chaotic said, this isn't a category of items or something like that. This is a whole damn mechanic that is REALLY common amongst items, being locked to a secondary stat. Best case scenario, END becomes a must have (which is still a bad scenario)



    Sapphire -> RE: Healing (3/21/2024 10:06:52)

    Yep, this shifts END as being a must have in order to heal. I find the idea to be too wild and there'd be far too many items to alter. This would go over about as favorable as kicking a puppy.

    There's literally no reason to uphend this aging game , ticking off many, in order to implement something that lacks common sense and you can simply make new items that provide support?

    Here's a bit of common sense, that IMO can't be refuted: If you train END, it provides you with double the HP's compared to not. By having more HP's, there is a much smaller need to heal. Those that didn't train END, have a much higher need to heal. So why in the world would it be a good idea to not only increase heals based on END training, but also require it when training it means you don't need to heal?

    Logic, folks. Simple. Logic.




    Edit--> I have said this for a while now. When you take the above common sense logic, END should have been reviewed and altered. IMO, it makes literally zero sense to have END be the stat that boosts healing if training it means there's a less of a need to actually heal, especially considering END isn't assumed. The entire premise is fallacy to the infinity degree. However, I get it. END is just there. END would be far more attractive if it had better boosts. Style bonus aside, it could use some rethinking a tad.

    For example, if you reformulated the HP formula to lower max HP's down by roughly 1k...You would have some power to add back in several ideas:

    A. Add back in some blocking boosts, similar to how they wanted to give DEX for it's partial style bonus. I think +10 MRM at 250 END would suffice.
    B. Boost the +12.5% bonus to heals up to +25-30%. By reducing HP's you increase the need to heal, but this is countered with stronger heals. This makes more sense.
    C. END's heal bonus to only be applied to player derived healing, not pets and guests.
    D. There'd probably be more room for some additional defensive bonus ideas, such as maybe an ability to weaken all status effects by a %. To me that's better than the 1 time/battle cleanse, although this can be kept.
    E. Find a way that poison siphons can be bootable via END.

    Then just make items that heal , cater them to pure builds. Something like trickster and nickelclad weapons would then get some nice boosts. They can make a heal booster guest that boosts only player derived heals, and not from a pet. There are ideas that can be had. IMO, this is a better approach by a metric ton.



    Grace Xisthrith -> RE: Healing (3/21/2024 16:43:35)

    IDK if anyone said already (dizzle did?) but-
    From an overall game health standpoint - chasing down every healing item to change stat scaling is presumably a huge time expense. I often think about the backlog of promised updates (2 years since fighter, 2 years? since void update scheduled, Celerity update september, Devoured earth (dunno why that was promised ever but pretty sure it was lol hope they recant that though), mermazon, --here we get into the updates I want lol-- patching all the remaining 1/2x power and 2x power items released in the last two months, and all the incorrectly balanced items released recently (buff and nerf Heroic Titan hehe). I think one way to start addressing this is to make another clone items thread, to save dev time on weekly updates (unless they're still using the old one idk, they don't seem to be though as of the last 3+ months). Adding a rework of all healing items would of course, slow this down. And, as has been proven true with the guest update, many, many items would fall through the cracks, and take up more time in the future even after the update, regardless of whether you think updating healing to END scaling is a good idea or not. Personally I'd struggle to value almost any project being started before weekly releases aren't plagued by 2x power items, game soft locking items, missing quests -Blarney War- , and all those hosts of issues.

    -I also think many people should consider how much they've used 250 END in the last 3 months. I went through the numbers another time, but END's impact is objectively massive. Its raw HP is greater than 15+ turns of pure pet and guest healing, it's not like the CHA stat is some magic way to get the most HP, END gives 3k raw. (1.5x and 2x undervalued items like hypercrit and cr72 shrink this gap admittedly. Probably a problem with bugged items though). INT is a different story, because it's 2.6k of a resource lol. Away from the other stats though, I find when I play through gauntlets, even with very suboptimal gear, it's a rare occasion you need significant healing (obviously not Gwen's gauntlet or something, I'm talking Chessmaster / Enthusiasts / Fenris). From a playtesting perspective, I'd say END very successfully fulfills its goal of being the tank stat, and if you haven't played through any challenging quests lately with END, I recommend trying it out.

    -Logically, if a policy of "all healing effects need END" is adopted, why would that prioritize over "all pets scale with CHA" or "all MP cost spells scale with INT." Yes, there are like two exceptions to both of those rules, not really relevant though.

    -Finally, variety is the spice of life gaming. Items working differently and doing similar but slightly different things is part of why AQ is so fun. As an example, usually for a defensive fire shield I want Duke's Dontapedalogy, because it's free damage reduction. But then I see Dragonstrike guard which is very rarely (against dragons) MORE free damage reduction, but then I can make it less rarely useful by carrying around the dracomorph spell, but then I need to be running an INT build, or running hella potency and accuracy steroids, both of which come with tradeoffs. That's a fun decision to make. If I REALLY want fire defense and I'm willing to pay for it, I can swap over to Cozy Mogloo Shield, and pay a boatload of SP each turn for defense. But maybe I don't actually want that, because it's a tiny bit too expensive, I want Dreamweaver shield, where I can pay a smaller amount of SP for better defenses and some MP regen, but only for a few turns each battle. These items that all have the same goal (reducing fire damage) with slight differences are part of what makes the game so fun. Having 8 Pure healing spells that all scale with the same stat and 4 half healing half eleshield spells that all scale with the same stat, in my opinion, would greatly reduce my decision making for healing strategies as a player.



    Dreiko Shadrack -> RE: Healing (3/21/2024 17:21:52)

    The purported addition of workload to resolve an issue such as this (and it very much is an issue or it would not have garnered official staff attention in this manner) does not matter as much as resolving it does, attempting to use such an argument as to why this shouldn't be resolved in the ways proposed so far shows really only a narrowed interest in the short term gains rather than the long term ones with a veneer of concern over the length of time that it would take to reach said long term benefits and potentially delaying others, especially as no actually viable alternative solutions have been presented as of yet.



    Aura Knight -> RE: Healing (3/21/2024 18:03:12)

    Heals should get their stat bonuses split between endurance and whatever other stat they use. This will make them half effective without endurance and full effect with. It would slightly hurt healing while not fully destroying it for those who prefer 0 END. And because the stat is supposed to help with status effects too maybe move part of luck's lucky break to it where you can resist effects if your endurance is high.

    We can't just go with moving every heal to the one stat which makes them unnecessary.




    Ward_Point -> RE: Healing (3/22/2024 2:52:22)

    The issue is, by the logic of multiple posters in this thread, since END is so useless that players can get by with 0 END, the logical extension of that is that the default state of the game is that you don't need any form of extra HP, and this includes Healing.

    Chaotic's proposal takes Healing (Something that is apparently unnecessary) away from all other Stats [Keeping in mind that this also removes it from Heal Wounds (INT) & Body Moves at the Speed of Light (DEX)] and pushes it towards END. The one, apparently useless stat in an attempt to make it useful.
    quote:

    Here's a bit of common sense, that IMO can't be refuted: If you train END, it provides you with double the HP's compared to not. By having more HP's, there is a much smaller need to heal. Those that didn't train END, have a much higher need to heal. So why in the world would it be a good idea to not only increase heals based on END training, but also require it when training it means you don't need to heal?

    Logic, folks. Simple. Logic.
    I fully agree with you, Sapphire. By having more HP, there's a much smaller need to Heal. The logical solution would be to nerf the amount END added to HP. Let's do this by 60%.

    *Gasps*, is END numerically balanced now? What sorcery is this?
    quote:

    Heals should get their stat bonuses split between endurance and whatever other stat they use. This will make them half effective without endurance and full effect with. It would slightly hurt healing while not fully destroying it for those who prefer 0 END. And because the stat is supposed to help with status effects too maybe move part of luck's lucky break to it where you can resist effects if your endurance is high.
    There is definitely potentially some middle ground to find here, but the very nature of Guests means that we have to bend some rules.

    If we want to take Sapphire's stance and normalize Healing across the board, the following should probably also happen.

    1) Guests that Heal should not receive CHA's Style Bonus. Guests already have 30:45 of Cost to Output at base, allowing a Guest to Heal at 30:60 efficiency is absolutely ridiculous. A Healing Spell or Healing Skill will never ever be able to keep up.
    2) Healing in general should not scale based on Monster Resistances. Mosquito and Jelly divide by Monster Resist to normalize healing. Again, I'm going to point out Algern's Carapace and skill interactions that makes this a really bad idea. Lunar Wood Dragon probably should be changed to be normalized.

    It's also odd that players seem to think that CHA is the target.

    A) There exist 12 Pets that Heal.
    1) Tree Troll (Earth / Heal) (GGB)
    2) Plush Twilly (Earth / Heal) (Premium Item)
    3) Plush Mort (Heal (SP) / Dark) (Premium Item)
    4) Frosty Godmother
    5) Umbral Godmother
    6) Fairy Godmother
    7) Northern River Dragon (Rare, Heals 20% of the time)
    8) Cometoid Jelly (Rare)
    9) Meteoid Jelly (Rare)
    10) Mosquito (GGB)
    11) Lunar Wood Dragon (Seasonal)
    12) Retro Twilly
    13) Nickelclad Storm Owl (Drain)

    Out of the available 9, 4 are F2P. 4 are GGB, 1 is Seasonal.

    There are 8 Guests that Heal
    1) Twilly
    2) PikaTwilly
    3) Gaiden
    4) Essence of Carnage
    5) Mogru
    6) Void Awakening Skull
    7) Nightbane
    8) Nickelclad Storm Owl (Drain)

    11 Weapons Heal (Definitely more since my spreadsheet only goes back to 2018), 9 Weapons Drain (Damage based, Awe weapon variants are included here), 16 Armours Heal, 5 Spells, 8 Shields.

    Since these are the actual numbers surrounding gear changes, it's odd that all the focus seems to be on CHA. 48 other pieces of gear, which are powered by STR/DEX/INT have not received such attention or such passionate debate about retaining Healing.



    CH4OT1C! -> RE: Healing (3/22/2024 5:32:11)

    @Ward_Point has just raised a really important reason for doing this. My proposal intends to take something that players want, but crucially do not need, and ties it to END. Multiple players here have raised that they wouldn't want their healing items to scale because it's a ' useless' stat, but this only highlights to me why it's such a good idea to begin with. It proves that players care about healing, that it's desirable. That means it's going to make END more desirable too.

    Of course, I also agree with @Sapphire, it's completely logical to consider that if you have more HP, there's less of a need to heal. They're just missing a couple very important bits of information:
  • My proposal deals with MP and SP healing too.
  • END offers more than the mathematically appropriate amount of HP. The staff did this because they too made the reasonable deduction that END wasn't very good. The flaw in that previous approach was they added more power to a mechanic that players don't care about, so the extra HP didn't have much of an effect. My proposal, meanwhile, has a far better chance of working. Nothing has been officially confirmed, and yet we've already seen pretty clear evidence that players care about healing. Providing something useful to END therefore removes the need to have END provide a mathematically unjustified amount of HP. This outcome was planned; I suggested this change knowing it would mean we no longer need that extra HP. We can remove the extra HP and solve that problem too.



    • Sapphire -> RE: Healing (3/22/2024 7:13:45)

    The purported amount of workload to resolve this does matter when the perceived problem to resolve might not actually be a problem, or a different, better, easier resolution could be had w/o the workload it would take to implement the suggested route.... assuming there even is something to resolve. I still find this to be an item support issue in my opinion.

    Inserting matter-of-fact rhetoric doesn't and shouldn't be conflated with opinion, so using it as debate fodder only serves to be a tactic. Nothing more.


    I am on board with reducing some of the extra HP, and replace it with other boosts such as what I outlined. And making those boosts player-side only (not assisting what comes from pets/guests) would be more in line with what CHA provides via pets/guests and be a more consistent application while also simultaneously creating a situation (in terms of healing) where you'd actually USE the bonuses. Being on board with that isn't an opportunity for others to further justify or argue for the original proposal, either. It simply would really accent item support.



    Dreiko Shadrack -> RE: Healing (3/22/2024 8:33:56)

    quote:

    I still find this to be an item support issue in my opinion.


    You are partly correct on that as necessarily this measure would need to give item support to END, it however is not something that can simply be fixed overall with just item support as baseline END has been consistently shown to be something that no one actually needs or even wants to invest in unless they're also going heavy into a mechanic like Backlash which turns END from a defensive stat into an offensive one, more defensive item support for END wouldn't likely improve any matters as the stat currently stands.



    KhalJJ -> RE: Healing (3/22/2024 8:45:49)

    This is a general reply, which aims to amplify points that I think have the most value, and address some other small points.


    1) On Ward's point on CHA is the perceived target: I would say this is a relevant point, but do see my earlier post mentioning non-CHA impacts. CHA is in no way the sole focus here, but these changes obviously would affect CHA users in a significant way, given those examples given are powerful, often premium or GGB items that people will likely care more about being nerfed. That said, agreed in that other things will be affected and important to not get lost in a a CHA-centric discussion.

    2) On Dardiel's point on a soft cap on player healing.. my immediate kneejerk to this was that it was un-fun and anti player agency. After thinking it through more, I am more firm in this view, depending on the actual size of cap. Sufficiently strict, and you would simply limit player freedom in a severe way and un-fun way. If I want to gear up and prep such that I can heal large amounts HP/MP or SP or all three per turn I should be able to do so. Presumably this would come at the cost of not dealing as much damage - which is the case for modern healing items. If the cap was so high I never reached it then it's pointless. If I do hit it, I imagine it will feel restrictive. Can't see this being a positive inclusion. I could see a fun boss mechanic doing this however. I guess disease already does this kind of?

    3) On Grace's point on the feasibility: I think this is a really legitimate point that has been under appreciated. This seems like it would be a huge task (correct me if wrong) and I haven't seen the justification for such a seismic change (just in my opinion), especially when there are many backlogged known issues etc. I'd just like to overall support this point.

    4) On the current END mathematical OP state, and the overall suggested changes in Chaotic's GBI: END is currently overpowered, as has been mentioned here, and it is still not seen as "desirable" enough (in the view of Chaotic in his GBI). This possibly shows that something being OP doesn't equal desirability. END would presumably outcompete LUK if this was the case? (Perhaps LUK is more OP than END currently, I do not know.)
    I agree that giving END a whole domain, at the cost of other stats, would make it more desirable, but indeed so would something ludicrous like making all weapon damage scale off END solely. There are many ways to make END more desirable that would not have such a huge negative impact on multiple other stats, and the current gear/builds that people have put time and possibly money into building. From this, I think the proposed tying of all healing, including MP and SP to END, is also ludicrous. It doesn't make thematic sense and would be a massive impact, being proposed to make an opinion based change on how the game should function. To re-iterate Grace's point - this does seem like it would be massive amount of work, and to achieve what? An opinion based change. Which some people will disagree with. And we will be in the same position, just from the other side. It does not seem at all worthwhile based on the points I've seen.

    5) On the balance of stat usage: The point of this is to increase END desirability - Are there actual usage statistics for how players use stats? I'm not saying this would make or break or points made, I'm just interested in what a lot of this is based on. Maybe lots of players use END? I don't know. This seems foundational to actually addressing any perceived imbalance though. I personally think it would be fine if the stats aren't completely equally used - mechanically to create a system where there is equal investment in all six stats across a player base would be ridiculous - people have preferences and maybe most people prefer running Mage builds, or Warrior builds. This is ok.

    6) On the ease of changing build, and touching on Grace's other point on END usefulness: Changing Stats is (nowadays) extremely easy. This is great (from a player perspective) and I'd use it to also echo Grace's point on END usefulness, and re-iterate my own previous - END is really effective if you want to be a tank, it fulfils it's stated goal as a stat, and comes with a lot of positives. I'd also consider that maybe players want to have one stat for normal usage, but change for specific boss fights etc, and END may fall into this category, which seems fine to me - it might be less fun/desirable for daily use due to its inherent flavour, but still very much has use cases.

    7) Teapot example - player hard choices, through itemisation: I'd like to add my own anecdotal example to re-iterate itemisation as an option, and also address a point that has come up about wanting players to make "hard choices". In my own playing I stumbled upon the bone china teapot/necromancer combo and was excited to try this out. Finding out that the item then scaled with END forced me into that "hard decision" space - do I change build for this? Should I make a new character to utilise this? This answer was no, because this was ONE item interaction and hence not worth it. But if there were many more such attractive options that would tip the scale - and even so, I really did consider doing it, and will likely on occasion utilise it in future. The point here is that the itemisation fulfils both a) desirability of END and b) makes the player make a harder choice in stat distribution. If I want 0 END, I have to go without this v cool combo. (Which is very cool - necromancer + teapot + any dark augmentation staff eg. Eye of Underworld is super fun) The point stands even if an item here is rare - there are potential items such that would solve this END issue, of desirability.

    8) On pet/guest usage with 0 CHA: I may be missing something, but what is stopping me from using pets and guests as a 0 CHA character, to use with items as per Ward's Lovestruck scope example? Yes the infliction rate will take a decent hit, but my pay off for this as a player is a massive healthbar, or whatever other bonus comes from the stat I'm taking instead of CHA. Seems fair. I can still make use of the pet/guest status, hypothetically, and I can even build around this to help with the inflict - coming up with stuff like this is fun/build diversity encouraging.

    I think overall my focus for suggested changes is from an input vs output perspective - what is the input, and what will the outcome be? I don't as yet see the output for entirely END based healing being anything near worth the input.



    Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
    0.203125