RE: CHA vs. END needs further discussion. (Full Version)

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



Message

Aura Knight -> RE: CHA vs. END needs further discussion. (4/2/2024 15:58:59)

Items on their own wouldn't fix much. Endurance will need its interaction with the game reworked. Maybe something could be done related to armor leans where it either boosts power or defenses. The proposed impact on healing is too simplistic a thought for how much more we could go with. And shared benefit for healing being a common feature for multiple stats prevents resource management gatekeeping too.

Our hp can get a much more significant role within combat to then allow for true tank-like strategies.



Sapphire -> RE: CHA vs. END needs further discussion. (4/2/2024 19:09:08)

Item support does take too long, for sure. But it doesn't mean it's not the best path forward. It just means that staff can make a concerted effort at **both** new items and updating old unused items and implementing new ideas on both.

Other "fixes" rubs folks the wrong way, whereas this approach enhances things going forward.

The entire point here was to enhance END's attractiveness. In a vacuum, that's it. Stomping on items or making wholesale game-changing alterations to existing gameplay with these proposals TBH, is a larger change than even the entirety of the stat revamp I'd argue. Staff didn't trample on almost anyone with the stat revamp. (I guess some minor gripes could be made)

I will say I've seen only THREE bullet points that I'd personally consider compromise on, but only based on the specifics.

1. Healing soft caps. It'd have to be in-line with damage caps implementation, not be "plot armor" draconian, and depend on the amount (and count celerity turns as their own turn), and not be based on turn, but per heal.
2. I would not disable lucky strikes. Why cherry pick only specific stacks but not others? Let players stack stuff and enjoy the game. I would entertain altering all lucky strike rates at base to 20% and halving all lucky strike damage, if luck was given something else for compensation.
3. It does not make sense to have 2 different HP valuations. Monster damage needs a buff to coincide with the large player buffs via the stat revamp

The rest is a hard line in the sand



Branl -> RE: CHA vs. END needs further discussion. (4/2/2024 19:54:50)

quote:

Item support does take too long, for sure. But it doesn't mean it's not the best path forward. It just means that staff can make a concerted effort at **both** new items and updating old unused items and implementing new ideas on both.


You don't seem to get it. "Itemization" in the way you want it is just flat out not a solution. We've had over a decade of End being consistently under-performing as a stat and the item gap between End and Cha hasn't gotten any better. If anything, it's actually gotten worse since Cha gets exceptionally greater item support than End by virtue of having two item slots dedicated almost exclusively to them.
You aren't proposing a solution, you're just wanting to maintain the status quo. The only way "releasing new items" can possibly be a solution is if Cha based items, such as pets/guests and even items in general, were to freeze entirely and we dedicated that time to create years of End based item support.

Mind you, this still wouldn't address the inherent problem with End as a stat. It'll just be shifting the burden of making it a desirable stat to item design, a solution that more or less calls for End based items to be numerically superior to any other kind of item, to compensate for the fact that end is innately unappealing.

Believe it or not, End scaled healing IS an itemization solution. It's just one you don't like.



dizzle -> RE: CHA vs. END needs further discussion. (4/2/2024 20:55:32)

It’s fascinating that when the proposal to reduce the turn model, and as a result, half the MP bar was first proposed the exact argument that is being made in defense of CHA was used in defense of INT. The EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS, ALMOST VER BATIM. How is this any different?

The only difference is instead of tripling down and patronizing people for not agreeing with my perspective, I just accepted that maybe item support could actually bridge the gap between the mainstats. And I also acknowledged that maybe trampling over other players experience through nerfs is not the best way to support a completely different stat. It’s incredible that the very people who claim to donate out of the goodness of their hearts and through pursuit of pure altruism will 180 at the drop of a hat as soon as the dono contest ends and not give a fork about how others are affected by their proposals.

It’d be so incredibly easy to balance this game if we were in a vacuum. But we’re not, and your perspective is not the only one that matters. I’m saying that the arguments “this just needs to happen whether you like it or not” and “you can whine about this if you want to” and “those of us who know the numbers will try to fit your feelings into the system” first and foremost need to be exposed as about the farthest thing from altruism as you can get. It’s comical and hypocritical in the most vibrant shades of black, but not really relevant so I’ll digress.

My point is that I proposed we handle this situation the exact same way that I was told INT should be handled. We’ve seen countless comparisons between the 2, so what’s the difference ? Besides I’m even willing to work with you on other ways to beef END or add a completely new dynamic such as the one dardiel suggested if it receives good feedback.

Here I’ll make it even easier than that - You are the ones who are unhappy, do whatever you want with END I couldn’t care less at this point so long as END doesn’t starting out performing CHA with pets/guests out consistently . You’re the ones who “know the actual numbers” see if you can translate those bad feelings about END into the system and see if you can make it work within the confines of AQ system [;)] oh but wait, depending on who you are and the stance you take, you don’t have to adhere to the confines of AQ’s system! You can just propose to change the system completely ! What do I know tho I’m just being emotional about my favorite stat getting nerfed right? That’s what it is [:D]

I’m just going to be brutally honest here and then I’m bowing out of the conversation: the double standards and hypocrisy in when and where logic is applied is turning this entire proposal into a joke. If there’s not even an attempt at compromise then the discussion is really just over. Anyone else getting Deja Vu? Eerily similar to the Wingweaver disaster.



Sapphire -> RE: CHA vs. END needs further discussion. (4/3/2024 11:29:48)

Well said.

And all accurate.

Gatekeeping isn't a great look. Telling people they don't understand their own proposals isn't ok. Massaging the discussion to a desired outcome is noticed.

Changing the argument to fit the current situation doesn't exactly come off great.


I hope Dizzle's post isn't altered just because he spoke the truth.


Ultimately, I've said it a few times now. This issue's "fix" is burn bridges v. enhancing the stat itself. You have folks trying to alter other's gameplay experience, and you have others trying to provide ideas to enhance the stat and the stat alone.

Part of this problem is we like to compare STR and DEx and INT and ensure they're balanced, but then we also treat CHA as a main stat for argument's sake, while claiming in other arguments that CHA isn't a main stat. Bump END to CHA's placement with changes to END. It's actually not difficult. Mainstats received a MASSIVE buff with the stat revamp. Luck and CHA IMO got nerfed. (Luck lost BTH to players, pets, and guests and blocking, and the new Init formula made it less effective; Lucky break is crazy situational, and only has very very very few occasions where it's strong, but normally it's unnoticed) END got buffed but it just needs some adjustments for attractiveness's sake. Healing can be part of that. Not alter several items. It just makes one wonder if there's something else afoot.



Aura Knight -> RE: CHA vs. END needs further discussion. (4/3/2024 12:29:05)

I hope not because such a thing is concerning. I'm unable to understand why it would ever be ok to tie something as broadly used as healing to a stat most don't currently play around.

Why can't we keep it simple? Have charisma function as before and offer endurance the option to boost existing heals. This removes the awkwardness of the ideas while helping endurance matter.

Locked for an intermission/review. Please PM directly if you have dire new perspectives not raised already. ~Anim



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.09375