|
Ward_Point -> RE: Healing (3/28/2024 12:44:04)
|
quote:
^ So why would the staff consider the implications of guest power adjustments as something that would "feel awful" and increasing cost to be "just as harsh", only for later on to make wholesale changes to the game that would affect the very same players mentioned in the above quote? See, the underpinning issue here is you have a group of people who dislike staff's approach to CHA/Guests, and their ideas they present wholly ignore it in hopes they change course...when there's been evidence (not just above, but if you'd like I will gladly list SEVERAL either here or on discord/DM"s, up to you) that staff are keenly aware of potential backlash caused by major changes to certain aspects of this game. My approach has this in mind, not only because it directly affects me, but also because I believe 10000000000000% that causing a jaded playerbase doesn't justify the outcome in-game when you could actually potentially resolve "the issue" w/o the backlash of most players. This is the major line in the sand that's underpinning this entire discussion.
To be very clear, based on the current proposal that we're discussing, at 250 END & 250 CHA. There is effectively no change to the amount being Healed. For 0 CHA, 250 END Characters, this is an outright buff. You feel that the implementation of new items is sufficient for this plan. I do not agree. I feel that Pets & Guests are versatile and powerful enough that one aspect can be removed from them and there would still be much incentive to train CHA.
quote:
I wrote a GBI saying that SC lean shouldn't boost healing. That lean type was made with MAges in mind, and Warriors and Rangers didn't have an equivalent armor lean type catered to them alone that also boosted healing as a side effect of the design, so I proposed that SC lean no longer boost healing. By the way, I run Mage builds, and I run SC lean armors at times on my BeastMage setup. So this was nerfing myself. Some will claim I am only self servant, but that's just an absurd talking point. It is clear that your original post in GBI had the intention of nerfing Spellcaster Healing, Spellboosters and all.
quote:
The inequality of Healing, in my opinion, has become apparent. While the creation of the spellcaster lean has helped push for more spellcasting, the universal boost to spells has now given Mages an advantage.
While anyone could, in theory, hop into a spellcaster armor and boost anything, like for example, a ranged healing spell, this would still mean using an armor design not actually meant for a Ranger.
Not only has healing now been made to be more advantageous to Mages, who have an entire MP bar to use for healing since they can just use weapon based skills just as good as other archetypes, but they also heal better than Warriors and Rangers.
I think if we are to seriously look at attempting Archetype vs Archetype equality in as many aspects as possible while attempting to create unique dynamics catered to each archetype, I think it would only be fair that at the very least healing be equally powerful regardless of the mainstat trained.
As a result, I propose that spellcaster leans and generalist robes no longer boost healing spells. They only boost outgoing damage to the monster.
This also will curb another aspect to healing that mages are enjoying some supremacy on: Barriers. The ability to boost barriers with several means is also problematic and barrier stacking can essentially trivialize even bosses.
So again, I propose that healing no longer be boosted by spellcaster leans, Poelala (any boosters), sila's staff, etc etc and only allow these things to boost outgoing damage to monsters.
I think healing equality is an essential part of game balance and no one archetype should get supremacy simply by items meant for a single archtype to use.
I also think berserk , at a later time, might need to be looked at too for it's healing ability, but at least for right now it's a universally used status and therefore for now, it's probably OK.
quote:
That GBI post was mostly silent, with very little replies. In that post, I included other things like SIlas staff, Poelala, etc from boosting heals but I have since changed my mind on those items because they're not tied to a lean and are items catered to a build. My position is either make all leans affect healing or none. Also, my position is at baseline, when talking about Warrior v. Mage v. Ranger, access to healing should be equal. Secondaries and what they do are wholly different and are no significance to what I have labeled as Archtype Balance.
There are two ways to think of Spellcaster's effect on Healing.
1a) Healing Spells shouldn't receive a boost because FO & FD lean armours do not receive a boost (This is your reasoning, and it is a somewhat valid one.)
1b) Healing Spells should receive a boost because Spells are a full and proper part of a Mage's arsenal. In exchange for Healing more, the Mage in Spellcaster Lean armour still takes more incoming damage and only deals 1x (0.75) melee. The Spellboost effect is clearly paid for.
You chose to go with (1a), of which I can see the logic.
quote:
The GBI was accepted by staff, and the SC lean at stat revamp time was altered. Later, they found a way to disable berserk's ability to boost healing. Everyone knows berserk's boost was unintended, but I also think SC lean's was also. Lean calcs are never considering healing. They only consider damage out vs damage incoming. Healing has never been apart of the equation. It CAN, but there are no armors with leans that cater to Warriors and Rangers w/ the exception of the newfound warrior lean in FD armors. I'm on board with undoing SC lean if there's a way to also make it fair for warriors and rangers within their armors. But I think this would be rather difficult. To be extremely clear, Healing has never been part of any part of the balance model. It is not relevant if it can be. It is not. As you like to claim, one of the ways to equalize this would be for Warriors and Rangers to use Drain type skills similar to Algern's Carapace.
If your concern was truly 'Archetype Balance' (Which no one else uses such a term) in which you've tried to justify the Spellcaster nerf, you should have considered the modifiers of each of the mainstats:
2a) Armour Lean would have affected Healing on Weapon-based Drain Type Skills, therefore Warriors would have dealt +10% damage with it, and correspondingly, would have received +10% Healing
2b) Ranger's Accuracy ramping would have affected the Weapon-based Drain Skill. Rangers would receive higher or lower healing depending on their accuracy lean.
2c) Spellcaster Lean, as a fully viable part of the Mage's arsenal, should receive their bonus as appropriate.
However, you failed to consider that if Lean does not affect Healing Spells, it would naturally follow that any Spellboosting items cannot affect Healing.
Basically, if any Spell Boost cannot affect Spellcaster Healing, it must logically follow that
3a) Blood Contract cannot have an effect on 'Drain' type skills like Algern's Carapace
3b) Aria's Rattle cannot have an effect on Fairy Godmother's Heal.
3c) Summoning Stone cannot have an effect on Twilly's Heal.
Generalising from the above, the logical conclusion is (3) 'Direct Damage modifiers cannot interact with Healing in any way'.
Now, you have backtracked completely. You are trying to claim that Spellcaster lean was never intended to boost Healing Spells and attempting to limit the entire Healing discussion to Armour Lean only.
You have backtracked on your stand with Sila's Staff and Poelala so that you would not have to deal with the logical conclusion from (3), where all Items & Style Bonuses cannot affect Healing.
quote:
The end result is some seem to think the change means healing needs a complete overhaul, and CHA builds provide an advantage over other non CHA builds in terms of all healing. I don't disagree that CHA builds do currently create a healing discrepancy especially because non CHA buuilds were using SC lean and berserk stacks, but I also believe that's due to a combination of longstanding item support and the SC lean/berserk changes. This is why my position is to 'replace SC lean and berserk' with items actually intended to heal, for non CHA builds. These can be also catered to Warriors/RAngers/Mages. This approach doesn't trample on beast builds (Ya know the backlash and 'feels bad' thing Hollow mentioned?)
So END is being used as a way to boost heals. Most players agree that END provides an unnecessary amount of HP's. I have long argued that training END means there's less of a need to heal. So the idea is to lower HP's some, but give END some power with heals. It's the approach that's up for debate. One group wishes CHA was nerfed more during the stat revamp and are perhaps using this debate as a means to an end (no pun) and others are being more realistic with the approach. You're right....END as-is was deemed OK despite being the most OP stat in the game mathematically. So why completely alter it when staff seems to have deemed it fine? Because maybe some are calling for END nerfs to justify CHA nerfs.
Instead, we should just be replacing what was lost with SC lean/berserk, and not making a brand new game..trampling on many players experience and creating major backlash in the process. I have pointed out how their idea tramples on those who train CHA and Lupul has pointed out how their idea tramples on END. Most players don't wish to see a completely redesigned game. My approach simply makes END more attractive, doesn't tick off the majority of players (both END users and CHA users), and provides a pathway for heal support for non-CHA builds which also includes new items designed for those builds. Their approach is "CHA OP, nerf nerf nerf there's already too much power for players" You can't have a healthy game when nobody plays it. And just because I have a difference in approach, I get told "Nobody will take you serious" and other ad hominem.
Thats a long summary, but we'll see if this post manages to not get altered. Once again, we shall no longer deal with END vs CHA. This has derailed the overall discussion about Healing for 2.5 pages. Regardless of how I feel about CHA & Guests, I have not at any point in this discussion advocated for a change to Guest Standards. Chaotic's proposal which I do support, was to change all Healing items to scale on END, and this would apply to all equipment types, Weapon, Shield, Spell, Armour, Pet, Guest & Misc. The 'Scale on END' issue is something that should be discussed. We will not be engaging in further discussion on END vs CHA
Overall, this summary is incredibly misleading.
You opened Pandora's Box, Sapphire. We're just trying to discuss the implications of the conditions that you've set for us.
@Lupul
I really feel like I should preface all my numbers with a disclaimer 'THESE ARE SAMPLE ONLY'. I'm very open to changing those numbers into something suitable and balanced. If 4500 is a balanced figure, I would fully support it.
I don't think END should affect Passive SP Regeneration...? Yes, we're somewhat talking about END affecting the SP Heal of Haunted Dragonlord Weapons... I'm honestly not sure. Should it?
@Khaljj
Game staff have taken notice of the discussion going on with Healing and are looking for feedback. I am attempting to keep this thread on-topic so that the main points can be summarised at some point in the future (TM),
quote:
I would then lean on this general point to make the further point that other participants have touched on - why are we even discussing this, when the stat revamp just happened? Why was END not better addressed at that point? Most notably, the oft-cited OP too much HP being given. I was less involved in that discussion so maybe I have missed reasons why. If then, it wasn't changed at that point for some reason known only to staff, it seems unlikely it will be changed now. If this is the case, it'd be great to know, so we don't waste time discussing something that isn't being considered. And if there is a reason this didn't occur in the stat revamp that is public knowledge then I'd appreciate being informed also! I'm going to throw Chaotic under the bus here. Why didn't you bring this up during the revamp? *Glares*.
quote:
I'd further note that the stated point of this is to make END more desirable - and this change, perhaps similarly to what others have said, doesn't quite check out in this respect. END becomes the healing STAT, but my actual HP benefit is much less. So I need to switch up and use that boosted healing just to get the equivalent benefits as pre-change - in this specific context, END becomes much less desirable than before, for one of the stated END stat characteristics (tank play). So from a pure tank warrior perspective, I may be put off END. Weird. Whereas, as a mage, END would look fairly essential with proposed changes/MP heal affected. This feels, again, just preference based. Why make such a significant change based on preference?
For the plain HP Value, please read my response to LUPUL above.
I feel like this is an issue of interactivity. The 'Original Tank' Warrior is straightforward. It uses its HP as a pure blunt instrument to take hits and throw down. With this proposal, the Tank Warrior can choose not to build into 'Healing' Items, but still has a significantly higher amount of HP than its 0END counterpart. By creating a situation where END is part of making Healing efficient, players will want to build into Healing gear to assist them in tanking. Consequential player choice is a concept that I think is very underrated in AQ. If a Player really wants to tank, then the player should make conscious choices to build into END, pick some Healing equipment, and maybe 1 Healing Pet (Scaling on END :P) and go ham on their enemy.
I can't speak on the numbers you've pulled. If Staff want to get involved in this, that would be entirely at their discretion, but I'm not sure if they even collect numbers on this kind of stuff.
About Healing specifically, I think we must also be very clear on what we are actively choosing to do if we maintain the status quo or change... anything, considering how heated the debate gets. Regardless of whether anything makes it into the game, I think the passionate debate shows that we love AQ. We may have different ideas on what's best for it, but we ultimately want to see this game improve.
|
|
|
|
