RE: Healing (Full Version)

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



Message

Sapphire -> RE: Healing (3/22/2024 11:25:59)

If END's HP's at 250 were reduced by a healthy amount..lets say 800-1k, but then you added back in bonuses this does several things in favor of attractiveness to END as well as provide some answers to other aspects of the game (although not total answers)

A. Reducing HP's means you heal more often
B. If you increased the 12.5% heal boost to +30%, healing gets a significant boost.
C. The healing increase listed above, make it such that it can only be boosted if it comes from the player. Heals from pets and guests can not be boosted by this.
D. Also add in something like +10 defboost. It's the defensive stat, right?
E. Keep the 1x per battle cleanse chance
F. Make END reduce the power of status inflictions on the player by x%.
G. Find out a way to make poison siphons , or all siphons from the player, gain a boost via END.

If you did that ^ combined approach, AND followed it up with more item support, you'd have an actual desirable stat.

Issues this help address

A. "HP's are superfluous" By reducing HP's, there's less "waste"
B. Backlash playstyle just got a LOT more risky



I came across a YT video yesterday. I don't play other games. But the title and the video was essentially talking about this other game (I actually don't remember what game it was) where the Dev team was going to alter the game to the point it almost felt like a new game, because the change was utterly so drastic..and the thought was it was going to ruin the game for many players. I feel this is what's going to happen here, even if were decided that this wild suggestion were to be implemented. This is another reason why any approach to this topic needs to be as less intrusive as possible to current gameplay to ensure it doesn't rub players the wrong way who enjoy the game as-is. Even the totality of the stat revamp didn't alter gameplay as bad as this would be. It simply created an actual Ranger instead of a faux Ranger so even in that respect it took an existing thing and tweaked some things and is attempting to provide support. This is a massive reason why any perceived "fix" to whatever issue is here needs to mostly follow suite with a measured approach rather than an overhaul. It's not even necessary, not by a long stretch.



Andlu -> RE: Healing (3/22/2024 11:59:02)

quote:

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.


Completely disagreed, unless you want healing to use nothing that would be build exclusive. Meaning: no healing will ever use MP, as that is mage only. Every MP related heal will have to be converted to SP



Dardiel -> RE: Healing (3/22/2024 13:14:06)

Regarding the soft cap (since that's my only unique contribution to this discussion, all other points have been handled well enough in my opinion):

Context:
- Enemies are able to mitigate player damage by decreasing their resists, by increasing their HP, or by increasing their blocking. Soft/hard caps are also commonly present on bosses to further limit player damage.
- Healing, which is a damage type, is largely able to ignore resists/HP/blocking/caps
- Enemies with defensive leans are expected to create less value per turn than a player, in exchange for living longer

As a result of the context, defensive enemies basically can't exist if healing is available to everyone; you can just outlast them indefinitely via heals and chip away at your leisure. Theoretically enemies could be designed with anti-healing mechanics but I think if the category of monsters needing it is as wide as it is (meaning all past and future defensive enemies) then the solution should be more general than "add another mechanic to the list of mandatory boss features for them to not be hard-countered".

The soft cap I had proposed was just in place to make sure that the player can't consistently outheal enemies, while still allowing for regular regular healing and burst healing to stay viable.

That said, technically some of my justification for soft capped healing falls away if END becomes the healing stat; it stops being a thing that everyone can do, and instead becomes "Endurance builds can outlast defensive enemies" which sounds pretty correct flavor-wise to me.

Oh and for what it's worth I support END getting less HP in exchange for the healing stuff.



Grace Xisthrith -> RE: Healing (3/22/2024 15:13:24)

quote:

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.

-Staff publicly so far: "The Knights of Order acknowledge the existence of the following two threads in GBI " "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."
-Your opinion is that the addition of workload isn't as important as fixing an issue. 1: As of now, there's no public comment on whether or not Healing has issues or not. That's totally fine, since it's an opinion of yours, which staff are looking for. I also suspect they will eventually express their opinion on what issues healing in general, and or END, have. 2: Claiming my talking about workload as an argument "shows really only a narrowed interesting in the short term gains rather than the long term ones," I think is actually not quite right. I think it's quite the opposite. I'm concerned about long term game health, as new players don't seem to be retained well (blue screen frequency since Josh Video / movement on top guardians list) and keeping the playerbase around and the game interesting are directly related. I'm providing my feedback that another long term project which might leave one coder to work on weekly releases, leading to potentially weaker and buggier releases, like what was much more often the case since Ianthe started the guests project, is in my perspective, a bad thing. I think that feedback is useful to the staff, particularly given that they directly asked for feedback. Either way though, it's an opinion, which you're free to disagree with. Discrediting my opinion though as being focused on short term benefit though, I think is less fair, so I wanted to write this out.
-No viable alternatives have been presented: The current system, where healing effects are diverse, has many strengths, some of which I listed. Regardless, the most obvious viable alternative, is to NOT change every healing item in the game. That may be a poor alternative, but it's my opinion, so I'll state it here as feedback. Additionally, other players on this thread have listed direct and alternative methods to change healing, so I recommend you reread the thread if you missed those. The idea of a healing soft cap for example, scaling on a variety of factors, is something I find extremely interesting.

Edit: On a separate topic, that list of healing pet and guests is not extensive. For example, Vampire Bat, Harpy Dragon, Water Drone, Mana Bat, are all not listed. Those are off the top of my head, I'm sure there's a variety of others missing. It's a great start though, but I think the amount of missing information makes it somewhat unreliable as a measure to scale against other item categories. In addition, I'm not sure if you're counting weapons like Devoured Apex, or Stygian Cursed Blade, which heal, but do not scale off any stat, so they'd be unaffected by this policy. Additionally, I'm not sure if you're excluding spells, armors, and shields that scale off END (I can think of 4 END scaling healing shields for example, and two that also don't scale off stats). This also highlights that staff trying to update these items would have to go through an enormous search to really get them all, since AQ is such an extensive game.



Red Blood -> RE: Healing (3/22/2024 16:27:58)

As player that runs End to the fullest amount I think I should chip in here. At present the extra hp is honestly going to likely funnel into my sp as a fair bit of the "resource" otherwise does to waste so I'm all for End having a wider effect on regeneration long as the extra hp given up is worth it. The question of how much hp to lob off and how much extra generation it would provide all healing effects would likely need a decent kickback all around, and frankly I think it might be a case of needing to move the goal posts a bit till we reach a happy value with the trade in. I would love to drop soul stone for another misc to play with for example but it along with EO would both need tackled sooner as with a nerfed hp total Soul Orb flat out will tap out a few clicks sooner making that play-style less viable currently. On the other hand I might not need those extra clicks if something like haunted dragonlord, chrono weapons, or ect provide enough kickback to sustain what that "bloodmage" style strat provided if the trade for more generation is well worth carrying those type of weapons if not promoting creation of gear like them. Honestly I'd love some way to test any changes in game for a change this big to my play-style but I can certainly see the benefit of trading being an outright damage sponge to more of a heal tank setup. Anyway just some thoughts+ concerns of a 250 end player that doesn't use the dreaded backlash builds.



Aura Knight -> RE: Healing (3/22/2024 16:43:57)

Would it be possible to make our heals put us over our existing cap so as to place a buffer similar to the barrier except reflected on our hp itself? The amount you overheal will depend on your endurance but the base hp we get at 250 will be reduced significantly. This offers reason to use healing while making the heals necessary for further resource use and at the same time place a turn cost due to the need to actually heal. A special effect similar to lucky strikes could be added too in which your heal does more.

Another option would be to add extra effects to every heal like barriers, regen, defense boosts which might exist already but unsure if any make use of the endurance stat.

Part of me wants things to not change but more options will help reduce eventual boredom.



dizzle -> RE: Healing (3/22/2024 20:28:08)

If there is any tinkering done with healing I would like to kindly remind the devs (and anyone else concerned really since it seems like this was forgotten by everyone) of words that have echoed in the community’s ears for months and months - “SP is build agnostic and cannot be tied down to any one stat” If END gets a monopoly over healing that intrinsically includes SP healing. I can’t see a scenario where SP remains truly build agnostic if everything SP-healing related starts scaling with END. However, I don’t have a good alternative suggestion other than the one I already mentioned in the GBI thread. But, for the sake of consistency, I don’t think it’s possible to have END and END alone scale with SP heal related effects. Especially given the repeated emphasis on SP scaling with stats in any capacity at all being an absolute No No, and especially because the ideas of tying some sort of SP regen to Dex (as proposed by Ianthe) was also immediately (and somewhat recently) shot down.

Edit: Telling the players something is specifically not possible (this was when they were asking for feedback for the revamp) only to go and implement that very idea elsewhere RIGHT AFTER the revamp seems rather disingenuous. I’m not putting anyone on blast but we need to seriously think about what some of these suggestions are before just jumping off the cliff head first into this.



Andlu -> RE: Healing (3/22/2024 23:06:37)

I've seen a lot of people, even myself, debating on why this change wouldn't be the best one, but I haven't really seem a lot of people debate other options and why they believe those would be better, so I'm gonna do that.


Here's two changes I believe would be better for HP (and SP/MP if it's really required) healing:

Instead of not using END at all or using ONLY END, I'd say a better option is going the booster ways, or even the normal guests way. Make them scale 50/50 with END and the other stat.

So something like FGM would be healing 20% melee, before penalties, at base. At max currently, you can scale it to 40% melee with 250 CHA. Instead, make it scale with both END and CHA. that way it's an equal 10% extra healing from both stats, as it's healing you, therefore if you are have more 'vitality' you'd have more healing, but since it's a pet, your charisma would also make it be more powerful with its healing 'spells', making it so you also heal more.
This would also apply to any other healing that previously used main stat too, halve the scaling to accomodate END.

Then, consider removing a healthy chunk of END's raw HP value increase, which is doubling base HP, to instead increasing the healing resist you get. END as a stat, as mentioned, makes healing less useful as you just have an insane amount of HP, it makes less sense to actively heal. This would make healing a lot more worth with END after all, since you'd have less of a HP value to hide behind from, but your healing values would be higher for that, making healing just more usable.



SP AND MP heals in my opinion are a different breed entirely. One is a build specific while the other is a build-agonostic resource, and I could see logical reasons to make END at least affect MP healing, but NOT SP at all. If anything, SP healing being scalable with anything makes less sense.



Aura Knight -> RE: Healing (3/23/2024 0:37:37)

Maybe it will change with the eventual update of essence orb but sp healing is not an issue. We get it from weapons, guests, shields, pets and plenty of those remain accessible whether permanent or temporary while the shop for them is around. At best we could do with an increase to the amount we recover per turn but to link it to a stat wouldn't be fair. For the sake of simplicity the topic here should be for hp heals and nothing else. If we are to go the route of sp regen discussion it will later enter the thinking of skills being too powerful which would force weakening of the player and this sounds like more trouble.

I agree healing and the endurance stat can get more appeal but to limit every form of recovery to the one stat which makes it unnecessary (yes this is a repeated point but remains true) are we not better off doing nothing at all?




CH4OT1C! -> RE: Healing (3/23/2024 6:29:14)

After reading some more of your comments...

Firstly, in direct response to @KhalJJ's assumption of my intentions, you're half-right. It is partially my intention to buff END. However, equally important is my intention to deal with the unfairness surrounding how healing varies in strength from build to build. Players that invest in INT or CHA in particular have massive advantages in the availability and versatility of healing over others. This occurs despite INT and CHA having no direct association with healing; there's no reason why they should be better at healing than STR or DEX (this is not a claim on mainstat vs support stats, this is where most non-END heals are based). Irrespective of your view around how complex it is to implement (discussed below), the concept is ruthlessly simple: If all heal items scale on a stat explicitly dedicated to healing, then that unfairness mostly disappears. Making that stat END has added benefits, both making it more desirable and allowing us to reverse the excessive amount of HP added by the stat in a failed attempt to keep it competitive. But why MP and SP? As I've mentioned elsewhere, MP is less a distinct resource, and more a separated component of an existing resource that is allocated to every player (player damage). While Warriors/Rangers get all of their player damage from Melee/Ranged weapons respectively, Mages get 75% from Magic weapons, and the remaining 25% goes into MP and spells. Thus, if END became the healing stat but MP were left to scale on INT (no matter how intuitive this may be to you), it provides Mages with a massive advantage. It would severely undermine one of the main goals, it wouldn't properly deal with the unfairness. SP too has imbalances, with more options available for STR/DEX/CHA. If I want to prevent fairness, I can't eliminate the problems tied to one build and then retain the imbalances elsewhere, even if those build are disadvantaged overall right now. I want to correct the imbalance, not tip the scales entirely into the other direction. Intuition and game mechanics are not entirely aligned, and this is one of those situations.

This brings me onto another point that @KhalJJ considered underappreciated, that being @Grace Xisthrith's consideration of logistical difficulties. The reason I didn't engage with this initially is because there's not much to say. It's a conversation killer rather than a conversation starter. This thread is about feedback and discussion on feedback with the GBI's in mind, and there's little discussion that can be generated around feasibility. It's either doable, or not doable. The only people qualified enough to make that call are the staff themselves.

In a similar fashion, @Grace Xisthrith also lists the status quo as a viable alternative (and I single this out as they mention its their opinion). It's certainly an alternative, but there's little to discuss about it. It retains all the problems my GBIs are trying to solve. Problems that are clearly important, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with. Once again, a conversation killer rather than a conversation starter. I'd rather focus on trying to fix the issues being raised.

With that in mind, the points raised by @Dardiel are very important. To be clear, it doesn't solve the problems I intend to target either, but a soft cap would go a long way to deal with some of the existing interactions that make absurdly strong heals possible. His soft cap idea is one I've raised myself in the past, and I would support one being implemented alongside the other changes I propose.

To reiterate the criticism made in relation to @Aura Knight's point, END receives an unfair amount of HP because the staff knew END was unappealing and tried to solve it by adding more of something players didn't desire. It didn't work, and my aim would be to remove this excess HP, and this healing system provides the justification to do so. I believe this would resolve your concern that "it would be unnecessary", particularly given it applies to MP and SP too.



Sapphire -> RE: Healing (3/23/2024 7:12:13)

There's this idea that I find an outright falsety, and very hyperbolic in nature. Tying sp healing to any stat will somehow break the game. There's no actual proof of that, and I find people who seem to comment that it would be problematic to just say that for the sake of it since that was the intent in the beginning. I am even more less inclined to give the idea any semblance of credibility when it comes to maneuvering it to be affected by a secondary stat.

I see zero issues with allowing END's bonuses to also affect MP and SP. However, because that's not a likely scenario (because of said dogma), I would like to propose a test just to see player reaction and feedback in real life practice.

Why not run a monthlong or two test where we reduce top side HP's by approx 800-1k, but then add back in a rather sizable heal boost. And also disable these boosts to be allowed to come from a pet and guest. It must be player derived.

And let's see how existing item support works with it, and obtain some feedback. I suspect the old "wasted" amount of HP's that's no longer there being funneled into much better healing will result in some rather favorable gameplay. END isn't even assumed . So why would 1. you even need the extra HP's and 2. Why then make END required to heal?



Ogma -> RE: Healing (3/23/2024 8:40:43)

Take for example this combo : Creature 72 (Guest) + Fae Wanderer (Pet) + Optico (Misc). Strong combo where 72 inflict Panic, Fae eat it for strong MP/SP heal and Optico grants pet hypercritical. Currently this combo use CHA and LUK for its maximum MP/SP heal potential (minus END's style bonus). If we are to make END the healing exclusive domain, then this combo would require CHA (and LUK) for 72 to inflict Panic, END for Fae Wanderer to heal MP/SP and LUK for Luky heal damage. 3 different stats, all of which are considered support stats. Assuming you have one main stat raised, you only have other stats to max out, leaving out the 3rd, so it's a decent nerf in this case.

A variation of this combo for mage is Jaania's Orb of Power + Fae Wanderer + Optico. Under the END change, I only need INT/END/LUK to reach maximum MP/SP heal.



dizzle -> RE: Healing (3/23/2024 11:16:48)

quote:

There's this idea that I find an outright falsety, and very hyperbolic in nature. Tying sp healing to any stat will somehow break the game. There's no actual proof of that, and I find people who seem to comment that it would be problematic to just say that for the sake of it since that was the intent in the beginning. I am even more less inclined to give the idea any semblance of credibility when it comes to maneuvering it to be affected by a secondary stat.


Although I actually do agree with you here (I also advocated for some flavor of SP healing getting tied to not only DEX, but also LUK) this is actually irrelevant. Whether or not we think its possible or a good idea is irrelevant to the matter given the staff have already dug their heels in with this idea. Its just like changing the turn model. It doesn't matter whether we think it would be good or bad, possible or impossible. The developers literally asked us for suggestions regarding the stat revamp and LK gave the Caveat (as has Chaotic, Dreiko etc) that tying SP in any capacity whatsoever to a stat is not possible.

My question is WTF changed? Giving DEX or LUK a 5% boost to SP regen just 2 months ago was absolutely ridiculous. Now Giving END a monopoly over SP healing is fair game? Unless I'm misremembering, the argument made was that SP is the only build and stat independent resource, and this is intentional given the heels that were dug in. How could SP possibly remain build and stat independent if everything SP heal related gets tied to END?

Make it make sense.



CH4OT1C! -> RE: Healing (3/24/2024 19:35:56)

quote:

Make it make sense.

@dizzle: happily.

The circumstances described in your previous two posts refer to decisions made during the stat revamp, a set of changes that explicitly pertain to the baseline mechanics of the stats themselves. Meanwhile the changes I'm proposing are item-based. This distinction is really important, particularly in relation to the DEX example you raised. For the moment, I'm just going to outline that microcosm of discussion because whilst it's relevant to your question, the purpose of this thread isn't to discuss each and every case where SP was suggested to slot directly into a stat.

The primary goal of the stat revamp for DEX was to provide it with an identity to distinguish it from its peers. Adding SP wouldn't have achieved this goal because of the player turn model:
quote:

100% Melee [Player Damage] + 20% Melee [SP] + 20% Melee [Pet] = 140% Melee

The whole point of a stat is to provide an exclusive benefit, something that other stats can't access. In this regard, the mainstats (STR, DEX, and INT) explicitly work within the jurisdiction of the player damage part of the player turn formula. Although adding SP regeneration to DEX would certainly have fit the bill for an exclusive bonus (i.e. it would have shattered the concept of SP regeneration being build agnostic), it would have violated the aforementioned basic principle of how mainstats work. Some might argue that breaking this rule would be worthwhile if it meant we could achieve our aim, and the staff kept the option on the table for that very reason.The problem is... it doesn't. Not remotely, under any implementation. On the one hand, turning DEX into a full skillcaster build (as was proposed) would effectively create an inferior version of Mage. Rangers would have gained preferential access to a non-exclusive resource bar (anyone can use it) that you need to charge over time, rather than having access to everything from turn one. They'd also be competing with the 12 years of exclusive spells available to Mages. That's not even mentioning the potential danger associated with Rangers potentially becoming a better version of Warrior. On the other, say if you just threw in 5% Melee's worth of SP regeneration, the result would be even worse because you fail to spend your power to effectively provide a distinct identity (all the aforementioned points), as well as 1) failing to commit to that identity and therefore 2) breaking a major design rule for no gain whatsoever. It would have been an unmitigated disaster for Rangers. To make any of that remotely work in a way that properly gave Ranger a distinct identity would have required essentially rewriting the player turn model, something that the staff simply cannot do at this stage of AQ's life. We haven't even begun to discuss other potential ramifications (what if you fully or mostly regenerate the amount of SP needed to fire weapon-based skills. Infinite skills?).

Hopefully the above provides some insight into how and why having SP interplay with base stats can be such a problem. But this doesn't explain why my idea is any different.

Item-based inequalities are a completely different story. They're at the heart of the very unfairness I'm currently trying to fix. I could raise numerous examples relating to SP here, but here are just a few:
  • CHA users currently hold a massive advantage in the ways that they can heal SP. This most notably includes Plushie Mort, the only item in the game with a healing attack that devotes all damage to regenerating SP.
  • Guests. Guests are an SP-costing item type that is currently exclusively CHA-based. This is a unique outlet for SP resources which most setups cannot access.
  • The staff have held a policy for years now around explicitly offering Warriors and Rangers more SP related options to help keep them competitive with Mage.
    My goal here is not to highlight all of the above examples as inherently problematic and therefore must be changed (though we do need an honest conversation about some of them). Instead, I'm trying to highlight that SP being build agnostic doesn't necessarily mean that the items which interact with SP are evenly spread across the different build types. Neither is that even necessarily a desirable outcome. I've heard plenty of criticism around another of my GBI's about discussing whether Guests shouldn't be CHA exclusive. If nothing else, it seems that some believe that this item-based type of unfairness can sometimes be perfectly acceptable.

    Yes, the proposition of scaling all healing items (including SP) on END is inherently unfair. Just like Guests being scaled exclusively on CHA is unfair. Neither is it meant to be fair. What it does do though is take the unfairness spread across the rest of the system and make it all scale on one stat. A stat we don't like or use very often and has effectively no item-based support of its own outside of healing. I'm suggesting neither that we change the mechanics of END itself, nor that we can add SP regeneration into the player turn model just fine. Indeed, it would be hypocritical of me to propose changing base SP regeneration to scale on END. But I'm not doing that; my focus is on the items.

    Of course, you may still disagree with me. Perhaps the above isn't convincing for you. That's a fair conclusion to reach as well. In which case, I have a second solution which both achieves my goal and avoiding this sore point entirely too. In all honesty, I hadn't originally intended to raise my nuclear option, but I feel this question warrants the idea being tabled:
    You could solve the problem by shifting SP from being build agnostic to build independent
    What I mean by that is SP gets no bonuses from stats at all. SP healing pets get cut to 20% Melee. Ferocious strikes and Lucky Strikes would be entirely disabled. SP regenerating Spells can no longer exist. All SP healing weapons normalise relative to Melee attacks. The full works. By cutting all ties to stats, no one build has any ability to capitalise on SP healing above another. It's not really the way I want to go, but I can get behind it if this is preferable. We would still need to expand the range of SP healing item types though, just to eradicate any remaining unfairness.

    @Aura Knight below: No, I'm afraid you're objectively incorrect on this one. In AQ, you pay resources equivalent to the power they provide... except for Guests. Currently, Guests provide 45% Melee output in exchange for 30% Melee intake. In other words, CHA-based users, with their Pet + Guest focus, enjoy the exact opposite of what you describe. They are more efficient than every other setup (NB: this doesn't mean the least costly). No, elecomp doesn't cover this gap (due to how it works, you're capped out at around *1.857 damage despite potentially taking *3-4 as much damage). Of course, there's a kernel of truth mixed in too - they do often spend more SP than a number of other setups. It's because they have more spending options and higher expectations than other builds. Although Guests effectively function as skills, it's common for CHA users to expect to be able to run their Guest, other standard items/toggles/etc. and possibly use a skill too. And they often expect to do this while maintaining a defensive approach, where other builds employ cost management strategies like elecomp. It's not exactly reasonable to expect to have your cake and eat it too.



    • Aura Knight -> RE: Healing (3/24/2024 19:48:10)

    When it comes to sp regen there is an advantage in regards to pets and guests but if you consider the rates at which the resource is consumed, you're mostly just keeping up except where hypercit is involved. In an ideal situation there would be resource gain equality irrelevant to build type. Percentage based heals could be the answer. It works for the werepyre guest.



    Sapphire -> RE: Healing (3/25/2024 7:11:35)

    Instead of ruining a subset of player's gaming experience, just support the other "builds" a bit better in regards to all healing. MP isn't in a bad place, really, but especially for HP and SP item support it's not as well fleshed out. It would also lessen the shock of any impending EO nerf.

    You just need to make items who's intent in the design is healing or to boost healing, instead of the reliance on SC lean and berserk for their unintended benefits to healing. It should be done on a concerted level. Typically, gapfilling and item support is painfully slow. It just needs to move faster . Not only for this topic, but to gapfill in a few diff areas needs to move much, much faster.



    CH4OT1C! -> RE: Healing (3/25/2024 19:54:50)

    @Sapphire: I already addressed this argument in a prior post, but to reiterate the key points:
  • It's been 12 years since the sweep and healing is still unfair. When is the gap going to narrow?
  • Let's suppose the staff commit to narrow the gap by releasing new items. You do realise this would mean intentionally neglecting healing items on builds that have an advantage, right? INT and CHA will still take a nerf, it'll just be an indirect one. It would also take an extended period of time to resolve, on the order of months to years.
  • It would also mean condemning END. A minority of voices like @Grace Xisthrith have argued that END is already good, and perhaps it is more popular among the silent majority (who can say? They are silent after all). With that said, END is clearly unfavourable amongst those with a voice. The staff wouldn't have intentionally broken the model and increased the HP provided by END otherwise. Extra HP just isn't that valuable outside of niche strategies like backlash. We'd be wasting an opportunity to change that.

    I'd like to throw in a couple of other things into the mix too. First, you previously argued that workload is an important factor to consider when making a decision. You're currently arguing for the staff to buff all disadvantaged builds by adding new healing items to close the gap. My proposal certainly requires an investment of labour, but I struggle to see how yours is any different in that regard. Closing the gap by adding new items represents a large and extended project no matter the approach. At least with my proposal, you deal with multiple issues at the same time.

    Secondly, we've been ignoring a really simple concept throughout this discussion: Resources are meant to be restricted. The reason to have a HP, MP, and SP bar is because those resources are meant to be finite. Sure, they can be regenerated, but they exist because it's intended for players to have to make choices around how those points are spent. You're not meant to be able to run your SP-costing effects indefinitely, otherwise why bother having an SP bar at all. In AQ's current state, healing items are incredibly powerful. Essence of Carnage and Siphon can heal incredible amounts of MP. Cometoid Jelly and Plushie Mort can exceed SP heals of 1000 with the right setup. The Wishweaver armour has an SP heal cap of 784 at level 150. That's half a bar in one attack, and I haven't even yet mentioned Essence Orb and its associated problems! We're undermining the fundamental point of having resource bars in the first place. I'm not remotely suggesting that my proposal is going to solve that problem, but I do know it's considerably better than contributing to it by accelerating the number of powerful healing items we create. This is also a great segue into the conversation started by @Dardiel earlier in the thread - are healing items too powerful in general?

    Just as a minor correction, it's perfectly acceptable to argue that it was never intended for Berserk to affect healing. Healing autohits, and the downside of Berserk reduces accuracy. But Spellcaster lean was always originally intended to boost healing. It still pays weapon damage for the spell boost, regardless of whether the spell is heal element or not. Of course, you can argue that it shouldn't, but then that needs to apply across the board to all armour leans (as I argued in my other GBI).


    Just to clarify, my point here is to also nerf the extra HP provided by END back down to the level it should mathematically be providing. It wouldn't be necessary any longer, after all.



    • Sapphire -> RE: Healing (3/26/2024 8:23:58)

    A few points:

    quote:

    @Sapphire: I already addressed this argument in a prior post, but to reiterate the key points:


    Well aware. It did zero to facilitate whatever you had hoped it would the first time, so unsure what linking back to it does the second time. My opinion on the matter just doesn't align with yours. I see zero point in referencing something I've already read. *Snip* Don't be nasty ~Ward

    quote:


    I'd like to throw in a couple of other things into the mix too. First, you previously argued that workload is an important factor to consider when making a decision. You're currently arguing for the staff to buff all disadvantaged builds by adding new healing items to close the gap. My proposal certainly requires an investment of labor, but I struggle to see how yours is any different in that regard. Closing the gap by adding new items represents a large and extended project no matter the approach. At least with my proposal, you deal with multiple issues at the same time.


    When I referenced the workload it would take, I do not look at the workload aspect in a vacuum and then solely make those statements based on some baseline workload issue. There are other directions this topic could take that also would require some workload, and maybe even perhaps more overall if we're talking long term. Some work has to be squeezed into the existing production schedule, where as other workload can be in the normal day in and day out production schedule. To me, it would be easier on workload to gapfill with new items as we go rather than putting pressure on the production schedule via a new project. However, regardless, I make the workload argument based on the perceived return on investment. Part of the return on Investment includes more than what would be some perceived "fix" on paper vs other better alternatives. It includes a huge facet that you either choose to ignore, or do not care about. Either way, I see it as an untenable position for you to be in with much of these topics. And I believe staff is hyper-aware where you, again, choose to ignore or do not care. And that's simply this: Your proposed changes trample on many players current gaming experience. Most of the GBI's that've been proposed by you seemingly do this. The optics look as though, the approach is to nerf CHA/Beastmasters come heck or high water. It almost feels as though since the stat revamp for CHA/Beastmasters didn't turn out as you would have hoped, that this is a pivot to find ways to 'fix' the issue that you perceive. Arguments suggesting some of this isn't "just" targeting Beast builds comes off as dishonest considering many statements made not only here, but on other AQ outlets. Many players see it this way. Many comments suggest as much. This is why much of the positions I read are untenable. Aggravating a large swath of players doesn't really sound like a positive return on investment when whatever labor would need to be exhasturbated to implement your proposals only serves to result in a lower playerbase or a jaded community. This is where I draw some distinctions, as well as where it seems as though for you, you might not care if it ticks off players..so as long as your goals are met. If this isn't your position, I assure you it comes off that way. You may think this change is best for the long-term health of the game. I believe losing players and continuing to alter items that player covet to work in a different manner than they originally did shows bad faith from the Devs in the event these suggestions you make were to actually happen. This is why I don't think the Devs will implement your suggestion. Because I don't think for a second they're out to ruin people's AQ experience.

    Now because I agree with you that pets and guests provide more options to healing (and a lot more than that), I agree that non CHA builds may need something. Here's where you prove my points :

    quote:

    Secondly, we've been ignoring a really simple concept throughout this discussion: Resources are meant to be restricted. The reason to have a HP, MP, and SP bar is because those resources are meant to be finite. Sure, they can be regenerated, but they exist because it's intended for players to have to make choices around how those points are spent. You're not meant to be able to run your SP-costing effects indefinitely, otherwise why bother having an SP bar at all. In AQ's current state, healing items are incredibly powerful. Essence of Carnage and Siphon can heal incredible amounts of MP. Cometoid Jelly and Plushie Mort can exceed SP heals of 1000 with the right setup. The Wishweaver armour has an SP heal cap of 784 at level 150. That's half a bar in one attack, and I haven't even yet mentioned Essence Orb and its associated problems! We're undermining the fundamental point of having resource bars in the first place. I'm not remotely suggesting that my proposal is going to solve that problem, but I do know it's considerably better than contributing to it by accelerating the number of powerful healing items we create. This is also a great segue into the conversation started by @Dardiel earlier in the thread - are healing items too powerful in general?


    I have maintained that the reason CHA builds currently have an advantage in terms of healing is due to item support. While on one hand you seem to disagree and claim it's bigger than that, you then provide examples of item support in the paragraph quoted above. Look, there are some pets and guests with some designs that maybe in hindsight staff shouldn't have done. I'm honestly on the fence with that take, though. Every example you gave except maybe EoC are not problematic on paper. EoC when CHA is trained is bonkers for MP heal, admittedly. But Wishweaver's SP heal skill costs HP's and is therefore not some type of infinite risk. But that risk can be mitigated when used with other items. Jelly/mosquito on paper isn't all that strong, but when used with a certain set of items it becomes very, very strong. So are we going to start attempting to police every stack and strong synergy with pets and guests , or will we not also turn a blind eye to the hundreds of strong stacks and synergies with many non-CHA-related items? Where do we draw the line? Why item A but not item B? Why stack A but not stack B? Why Synergy A but not synergy B?
    Are we to be consistent and tackle it all, regardless of CHA's affiliation or not, or do we just make sure the item on paper is fine and if players have fun finding the stack/synergy/buff interaction just let them have fun? See, untenable position.



    Finally, because CHA based healing has an item support head start, then the best approach in terms of workload is for staff to provide item support for healing for non CHA builds. The return on investment going this route would add to existing non CHA players gaming experience. I get that SC lean and berserk no longer working for heals ended up becoming a hit to heals, but I still maintain they were unintended. LEans do not take healing into account. If we want SC lean's affect to be undone, then all leans will need to. I am personally OK with either approach, so as long as baseline healing between the foundational INT=STR=DEX Archtypes are considered equal. Either way, I still maintain rather than making all items require END, instead, make more healing-focused gear for non-CHA builds that all cater to the Archtypes.

    While I share the concern that item support may mean taking the long road,

    It doesn't trample on a subset of players gaming experience. If you don't care about that, or wish to try and somehow lessen the impact that your proposal would have in this area, then I guess continue to press with that position. I don't think it looks great. Just saying.

    I'll end with this, and it's something I said in another post: I propose a 1-2 month long test---> Reduce top end HP's at 250 END by an amount mathematically deemed sufficient, and insert non-style bonus base behavior heal boost attachment to END. If END had something like +25% base heal boost, with the +12.5% style bonus, you'd have +37.5% bonus at 250 END. Make this only work for player-derived heals, where pet and guest heals cannot have access to END's bonuses. And let's see how that one change can effect existing item support. I propose for it to work on all resource bars, but if that fallacy of SP agnosticism from 2014 or earlier still has to be Dogmatized, then make it HP only. Regardless, non-CHA builds will need more access to gear with SP heals, which will lighten the shock of whatever EO becomes. I have a hunch in practice, once players test it with existing items, they're actually going to like that change.



    Ward_Point -> RE: Healing (3/26/2024 11:58:08)

    @Sapphire
    I do have empirical evidence about items that are affected by Chaotic's proposed change which can (hopefully) also assist in providing a more objective view on the amount of work that needs to be done.
    My initial filters didn't a number of Drains or Regen on Hit... etc gear. While I am most definitely missing out on some sources of Healing, you are free to peruse the Filters.

    46 Weapons
    58 Armours
    5 Spells
    13 Shields
    18 Pets
    13 Guests

    As you can clearly see, there are less Companions that Heal compared to other pieces of equipment. I've missed some guests, definitely, but they still fall short compared to Weapons & Armours.

    I have always been extremely clear in my position on Guests. They stand so far outside the balance standards of the game that if a Guest and Skill/Spell ever had the same function and competed for the same Spell slot, the Guest will always win. That is an untenable position and extremely undesirable position for the game in general. This is the entire reason why balance Standards exist in the first place. The Staff want to make it such that there is no clear 'Best in Slot' gear for certain items. As a general rule, Non-Beastmasters already run utility Pets that either Heal or have some other function than damage.

    The point of this thread is not entirely to convince the AQ Team to do anything. The AQ Team has not promised anything and are here to observe.

    quote:

    I have maintained that the reason CHA builds currently have an advantage in terms of healing is due to item support. While on one hand you seem to disagree and claim it's bigger than that, you then provide examples of item support in the paragraph quoted above. Look, there are some pets and guests with some designs that maybe in hindsight staff shouldn't have done. I'm honestly on the fence with that take, though. Every example you gave except maybe EoC are not problematic on paper. EoC when CHA is trained is bonkers for MP heal, admittedly. But Wishweaver's SP heal skill costs HP's and is therefore not some type of infinite risk. But that risk can be mitigated when used with other items. Jelly/mosquito on paper isn't all that strong, but when used with a certain set of items it becomes very, very strong. So are we going to start attempting to police every stack and strong synergy with pets and guests , or will we not also turn a blind eye to the hundreds of strong stacks and synergies with many non-CHA-related items? Where do we draw the line? Why item A but not item B? Why stack A but not stack B? Why Synergy A but not synergy B?
    Are we to be consistent and tackle it all, regardless of CHA's affiliation or not, or do we just make sure the item on paper is fine and if players have fun finding the stack/synergy/buff interaction just let them have fun? See, untenable position.

    It is extremely clear that some item synergies need to be nerfed. The AQ Team has taken the stance that if a piece of equipment provides both Potency and is a source of the Status, it's Potency is reduced to half its value. This is entirely arbitrary (Putting aside that +20 Potency is worth more than a 5% MC), but is extremely targeted at reducing synergy across different items. There is clear precedent that some interactions can and should be curbed. Purple Rain is a prime example of something that needed a nerf for the health of the game due to its utterly insane interactions with Status. If there is any combination of items that result in any long-term invulnerability fo the Player, that combination should be curbed. You are literally dangling a red herring in front of us and going "What about this? Where will it end? Since we can't fix it, let's not bother." Again, we SHOULD police overpowered combination of items for the sake of the game.

    quote:

    I'll end with this, and it's something I said in another post: I propose a 1-2 month long test---> Reduce top end HP's at 250 END by an amount mathematically deemed sufficient, and insert non-style bonus base behavior heal boost attachment to END. If END had something like +25% base heal boost, with the +12.5% style bonus, you'd have +37.5% bonus at 250 END. Make this only work for player-derived heals, where pet and guest heals cannot have access to END's bonuses. And let's see how that one change can effect existing item support. I propose for it to work on all resource bars, but if that fallacy of SP agnosticism from 2014 or earlier still has to be Dogmatized, then make it HP only. Regardless, non-CHA builds will need more access to gear with SP heals, which will lighten the shock of whatever EO becomes. I have a hunch in practice, once players test it with existing items, they're actually going to like that change.

    Paraphrasing one of my favourite stand-up comedians, Jim Jefferies, your argument boils down to 'I like my Companions that Heal, don't take away Healing from my Companions, ' To be clear, there's nothing wrong with that. But your suggestions to improve END is baffling. Your proposal throws all semblance of balance out the window to make END a ridiculously overpowered stat in an attempt to match CHA's versatility. To be extremely clear: You've put forward a proposal that buffs END to utterly ridiculous levels in order to keep Heal on your Companions. This runs completely opposite of Chaotic's goal, which is to ultimately Balance END while giving it a niche of its own.


    @Andlu
    quote:

    SP AND MP heals in my opinion are a different breed entirely. One is a build specific while the other is a build-agonostic resource, and I could see logical reasons to make END at least affect MP healing, but NOT SP at all. If anything, SP healing being scalable with anything makes less sense.

    @Chaotic
    quote:

    Of course, you may still disagree with me. Perhaps the above isn't convincing for you. That's a fair conclusion to reach as well. In which case, I have a second solution which both achieves my goal and avoiding this sore point entirely too. In all honesty, I hadn't originally intended to raise my nuclear option, but I feel this question warrants the idea being tabled:
    You could solve the problem by shifting SP from being build agnostic to build independent
    What I mean by that is SP gets no bonuses from stats at all. SP healing pets get cut to 20% Melee. Ferocious strikes and Lucky Strikes would be entirely disabled. SP regenerating Spells can no longer exist. All SP healing weapons normalise relative to Melee attacks. The full works. By cutting all ties to stats, no one build has any ability to capitalise on SP healing above another. It's not really the way I want to go, but I can get behind it if this is preferable. We would still need to expand the range of SP healing item types though, just to eradicate any remaining unfairness.


    These are interesting takes and conversation starters which tie well together, yet have not received enough attention. I'd like to try and pull away from CHA for a bit so that the conversation can actually be brought back to the other 100+ items that also Heal but are not Companions.



    Dardiel -> RE: Healing (3/26/2024 12:38:28)

    Regarding "the optics look as though [Chaotic has an ulterior motive]" - I'm not sure how notable it is if the connection between the GBIs is so thin that they don't even look like an ulterior motive, but they look like they look like an ulterior motive. I'm also unsure whether ulterior motives really matter in the discussion about proposed changes, since a bad idea would get rejected regardless of motive and a good idea probably shouldn't get rejected just because the person proposing it might want other things to also happen (which would require additional suggestions to be individually considered and approved). If a suggestion is bad it should be rejected for being bad, it shouldn't be rejected because Chaotic was wiggling his fingers in a dastardly way when he typed it up.

    For what it's worth I also technically disagree with Chaotic's paraphrasing of my own soft cap proposal, in that my stance wasn't so much "healing effects are too strong" as it is more specifically "the combined power+repeatability of healing synergies can be too strong, and defensive enemies are particularly easy to wall via healing synergies".

    Regarding which resources should be affected by healing modifiers I'm pretty all-or-nothing; I think it feels intuitive that boosting heals should apply to all three of the bars that hang out at the bottom left, rather than only one or two.



    Sapphire -> RE: Healing (3/26/2024 12:51:43)

    Actually, replacing END with every iteration of a healing item regardless of slot is what actually pushes an already OP stat into madness. END isn't even required in this game. It's perceived OPdness is given a thumbs up because extra HP's are often wasted. The reality is, is having END means you don't need to heal nearly as often as not having it. Having END is already tied to healing in that way. Making items require to be slotted to have END as a stat requirement by virtue of rule of thumb, doesn't;t make any sense to me. In fact, END boosting healing doesn't, but I totally get that it might need something. This change would transform a stat many are calling undesirable into something everyone would want.

    If I wanted to use pets and guests that heal as an exclusive setup, I may then forgo CHA in favor of END and not only get a boost to my HP's, but the ability to heal them back even better. It's a double dip, and it's a badly proposed change.


    I know you like to harp on the input/output ratio of guests, but I'm sorry, IMO that's not justification enough for wholesale changing people's items.

    This all started with this perception that beastmasters are an at advantage, to which I don't disagree, but that doesn't mean trampling on a lot of players gaming experience to resolve the issue. Maybe the better issue is a review of END itself, and the existing item support since it seemingly far outnumbers beastmaster item support in terms of sheer number, albeit maybe not in terms of how good the items are in reliable gameplay. Thats what needs to change.

    There's zero argument that can be made in my mind to justify trampling on a rather large swath of AQ player's experience when there are alternate ways to attempt at rectifying the situation just as equally well which would actually enhance the gaming experience of Non Beast builds.


    @Dardiel

    quote:

    Regarding "the optics look as though [Chaotic has an ulterior motive]" - I'm not sure how notable it is if the connection between the GBIs is so thin that they don't even look like an ulterior motive, but they look like they look like an ulterior motive. I'm also unsure whether ulterior motives really matter in the discussion about proposed changes, since a bad idea would get rejected regardless of motive and a good idea probably shouldn't get rejected just because the person proposing it might want other things to also happen (which would require additional suggestions to be individually considered and approved). If a suggestion is bad it should be rejected for being bad, it shouldn't be rejected because Chaotic was wiggling his fingers in a dastardly way when he typed it up.


    Looking at the GBI's alone may tell a different story than comments read elsewhere along with them. On the surface, you may be right with your over-arching point. But it doesn't mean someone can't take issue with a proposal given what else one reads and knowing how it might directly affect their own (and others based on comments) gaming experience. I don't use "trample on" lightly, because that's what it is. If an alternate set of ideas can be fleshed out and implemented w/o trampling on players experience in AQ, regardless of the topic, then IMO it's the most delicate way to tackle an issue. But if people wish to think "screw them, we wish to go about it like this anyway" I would just reference the optics not only from the player suggesting it but also from a game support standpoint afterwards.

    Also, yeah I agree with you on the all 3 resource bars thing. I see zero reason continue making the SP resource bar some extra special thing when we've had EO for 6 years.



    Aura Knight -> RE: Healing (3/26/2024 13:41:32)

    Can there be consideration for a reverse benefit between healing and endurance where we heal more if 0 END and less at 250? SP passive regen can work on your and opponent's turn too while getting no stat benefits. Followers which heal resources will not be affected by stats for the heals as they could be percentage based set to amounts to be determined. If we remove stat benefit from heals it would help every build but with that we should see a boost benefit return for them though not spellcaster.



    Dreiko Shadrack -> RE: Healing (3/26/2024 14:15:33)

    Why would you be advantaged for not investing in a stat? I'd say that's not really something that could be a consideration as it runs counter to all purposes of investing in stats to begin with.



    Aura Knight -> RE: Healing (3/26/2024 14:35:38)

    It's an idea so weird it might just work. No harm can come from it as in the end it's not up to us to choose how things change. Reason I brought it up is it makes sense. If you're at 250 endurance you'll need fewer heals and with lower you could use more. If we allow the heal to be more powerful at low endurance and worse at high this keeps the advantage of high endurance relevant with the hp value being maxed. There's little necessity to tie heals to the one stat which keeps them irrelevant.



    Sapphire -> RE: Healing (3/26/2024 14:57:10)

    Alright, lets do a good faith comparison here between two builds.

    Build 1--> Mainstat+END+LUK

    Build 2--> Mainstat+CHA+LUK


    Build 1 in terms of using a pet or a guest, generally prefers a damage booster. This only serves as a distraction when comparing apples to apples...ie it's a bad faith argument, so what we will do instead, is use a direct healing pet and guest to HP's. Direct healing HP's gets a .85 penalty for autohitting and a .9 penalty for always useful.

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Build one's decisions to train Endurance provided an increase to that player's HP's to 5853. 0 END has 2958. This is an increase of 2895 HP's 100% Melee in HP's is 348 HP's.

    By training END, the player receives 2895/348=831.89% Melee in HP's.


    Player 2 chose CHA instead of END. If that player used a pet and guest to heal direct HP's, w/o taking the penalties they are given, this is worth 60% and 40%. With the .85 auto-hit and .9 always useful, these drop to 45.9% and 30.6%

    However, one could make an argument that a guest with a direct heal isn't striking the monster, and is then therefore a form of booster. So it shouldn't be gaining FS. It should start at 50% melee before penalties.This drops us to 38.25% heal for guests.

    Combined , we have 38.25% melee for the guest and 30.6% melee for the pet for a grand total of 68.85%

    To match what Endurance is providing, we have to take 831.89%/68.85=12.04 turns to catch up to what Endurance provides just from training it.

    But non CHA players can use the same guest and pet. For the Mainstat/END/LUK build, the guest is worth 22.5% melee and the pet is worth 20% melee. After the penalties these are 17.21% and 15.3%. Or 32.51% melee combined for pet and guest.

    If they also used the same pet and guest, that's 348*32.51%=113.13 HP heal per turn on average.

    Training END is already 2895 more, and then add in 113.13*20 turns =2262.6 more Hp's for an effective add-on of 2895+2262=5157. 5157 (END training + heals)+2958 (starter HP at 0 END)=8,115 HP's to work with before dying.

    The CHA trained player is healing an average of 68.85%*348=239.59 HP's/turn 239.59*20=4791.8. 4791 (healing from pet/guest, which is boosted by CHA) +2958 (starter HP's)=7,749 HP's to work with before dying.


    Using the same healing pet and guest combos, the END trained player has 8,115 effective HP's to use whereas the CHA trained player has 7,749 HP's to work with.

    Problem is, the END trained player wants to not use the healing pet/guest and so then these arguments aren't apples to apples and skew real results.

    Conclusion: Training END and using healing pets and guests is superior within the model compared to training CHA in terms of "usable HP's" after 20 turns.

    I don't think CHA is that big of an issue. Maybe it's non CHA player's gear decisions that's really the issue.



    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    BTW, I didn't even add in END's heal resist help nor the fact the CHA player needs upkeep to catch up (and never actually does), and upkeep costs are now high enough that w/o outside help this is no longer possible to do for 20 turns.

    This is all overblown.



    Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
    0.1398926