Value of a guest turn (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Game Balance Issues



Message

Grace Xisthrith -> Value of a guest turn (6/10/2024 21:29:45)

Thinking about the value of a guest's turn, and or skipping or weakening it. Totally not related to the suggestion sets.

0: A guest outputs 45% melee for 30% resource cost. Or, with CHA, it outputs 60% melee for 30% resource cost. Or, with CHA, it outputs 50% melee for 30% resource cost if for whatever reason it doesn't receive FS.

1: Should accuracy be included in the value of a guest's turn? Without CHA, a guest has greatly reduced accuracy below 85%. Should this be taken into account when CHA is not assumed? (250 CHA is 20 bth, so guest would be 20% hitrate less than expected, so .65 instead of .85, so like, 65/85x %melee output so 65/85x45=34.4% melee?

2: Should guest output be included in the value of a guest's turn? Without CHA, a guest has half the output. Should items in theory check player CHA before evaluating a guest's turn (ignore the complication of adding this back to old items, let's just pretend they add it to new items only). If so, guests could drop down to 22.5% melee output. Add the accuracy thing on top, 17.2% melee output.

3: Should the value of a guest's turn include the resource cost used to pay for them? This would make base guests 15% melee or 30% melee or 20% melee respectively with the situations described in line 0. Line 1, 4.4% melee. Line 2, -7.5% melee or -12.8% melee.

4: Should an item "meant" for beastmasters assume expected charisma, and therefore, 60% melee guest and 40% melee pet? For example, an item that boosts pet and guest damage by 25% should assume 100% melee output from pet and guest combined?

5: If you give a guest celerity, should you take into account the SP cost? Should the celerity cost the full potential output of the guest (example, 60% melee) or should it take into account the cost of the guest and go with net output (example, 30% melee) instead? Same for skipping a guest's turn, do you gain 60% melee, or 30% melee?

For an example, let's say guest turn is valued at 60% melee and pet is 40% melee. If you boost pet and guest damage by 25%, that's now 25% melee. If instead you think a guest's turn is only 30% melee, because you have to pay 30% melee in SP to make it work, you instead only pay for 70% melee worth of +25% damage so 17.5% melee. In this other situations described above, you'd have even more drastic decreases in cost of boosts. If you take my most dramatic guest turn valuation circumstance of -12.8% melee, you'd only pay (.4-.128)x.25=6.8% melee for a 25% pet and guest damage boost. Obviously, that's a little silly, but I think there's a serious case to be made for taking into account how much power a guest actually nets the player.

One question I'm not investigating here is whether pet turn valuation should have the same policy applied depending on player CHA investment, because that seems like a very similar, but separate issue, given pets are free.

Overall, I still think there's an issue when it comes to evaluating the value of a guest turn, so I wanted to bring it up. Please feel free to let me know about any mistakes I've made in calculations, or if I haven't explained my assumptions well enough.




CH4OT1C! -> RE: Value of a guest turn (6/11/2024 5:05:36)

quote:

1: Should accuracy be included in the value of a guest's turn? Without CHA, a guest has greatly reduced accuracy below 85%. Should this be taken into account when CHA is not assumed? (250 CHA is 20 bth, so guest would be 20% hitrate less than expected, so .65 instead of .85, so like, 65/85x %melee output so 65/85x45=34.4% melee?

My answer to this question touches upon a discussion I raised in GBI earlier this year. In my view, Guests currently function as CHA-scaling skills, but may not need to be CHA-exclusive. If true, skills can scale on any stat, and will still cost the same quantity of resources regardless of whether you have the necessary stat or not. In other words, no - I think it's perfectly reasonable that Guests have reduced accuracy without CHA. I also struggle to think of a situation where you could justify changing that expectation and then not apply it in the various other similar in-game scenarios where less-than expected accuracy is currently ignored e.g., Using a STR-based skill without STR.

quote:

2: Should guest output be included in the value of a guest's turn? Without CHA, a guest has half the output. Should items in theory check player CHA before evaluating a guest's turn (ignore the complication of adding this back to old items, let's just pretend they add it to new items only). If so, guests could drop down to 22.5% melee output. Add the accuracy thing on top, 17.2% melee output.

Essentially the same answer. If Guests are currently CHA-scaling skills, then the assumption would be only CHA users can hope to use them efficiently. You wouldn't use an END-scaling heal skill with 0 END and expect it to perform well, after all. As above, why would we do that for Guests, but not the numerous similar cases with other item types?

quote:

3: Should the value of a guest's turn include the resource cost used to pay for them? This would make base guests 15% melee or 30% melee or 20% melee respectively with the situations described in line 0. Line 1, 4.4% melee. Line 2, -7.5% melee or -12.8% melee.

I think I understand what you're getting at, but please let me know if I'm wrong. You're taking the 45% Melee output of Guests vs their 30% Melee resource cost, considering the latter investment as resource power, and the remaining 15% as the inherent value of a Guest turn? If so, no, Guests aren't considered in the player turn model at all. This logic requires essentially reformulating the player turn model to incorporate Guests as a unique item type. It's not possible to legitimise the 'turn value' of a Guest in the player turn model without reformulating it, which is obviously off the table (otherwise, why would the staff have come up with style bonuses to dance around changing the model during the stat revamp?). Guests are just OP, they don't have a turn value.

quote:

4: Should an item "meant" for beastmasters assume expected charisma, and therefore, 60% melee guest and 40% melee pet? For example, an item that boosts pet and guest damage by 25% should assume 100% melee output from pet and guest combined?

First of all, style bonuses are added extras, so it would be 45% for Guests, not 60% (for the same reason Spells are still valued at 200% melee and not 200 + Wallbreaker% Melee). As for whether they should assume expected CHA, that depends on your answer to my GBI. Are they CHA-exclusive skills, skills more generally, or something else entirely. The last option is by far the most nebulous and difficult to implement. The second option means Guests aren't inherently beastmaster oriented and would follow whatever stat they scale on. If they're CHA-exclusive, then they are meant for beastmasters.

quote:

5: If you give a guest celerity, should you take into account the SP cost? Should the celerity cost the full potential output of the guest (example, 60% melee) or should it take into account the cost of the guest and go with net output (example, 30% melee) instead? Same for skipping a guest's turn, do you gain 60% melee, or 30% melee?

Yes, the full potential of the Guest. Same answer as 1 + 2. Otherwise we start running into all the other similar cases where we don't account for it.

In my opinion, most of the answers to your questions can be answered through my earlier GBI. The answer to whether Guests should be treated as CHA-exclusive skills, skills more generally, or a completely unique item type, will determine your responses. At present, I don't think it's feasible to argue Guests are for them being unique, as there's no real way to legitimise them within the player turn model. That ship sailed 10 years ago. It's also by far the longest and most arduous option to take. It would be much easier to treat them either as either being Beastmaster exclusive, or as a type of skill that any stat can use.



Sapphire -> RE: Value of a guest turn (6/11/2024 11:38:03)

The only thing that needs figured out is the proper valuation of guest celerity, and even that once done will require going back and adjusting old items 'costs' for it.

But I think there is something to be said for what guests should actually be. IMO, and I'm using actual logic here and not some mathematical nonsense that only serves to be a distraction from logic, but guests are not actually CHA skills. That only serves to justify the current implementation.

Pets at full CHA are worth 40% melee. Before the stat revamp, guests were worth 60% melee but costed approx 20% cost. In reality, a guest is a 2nd pet that is summoned/called from the spell slot. While we all can probably agree that the implementation of guests coming from the spell slot was a huge oversight, as back then when AQ had a plethora of coders they could have altered the menu and just added in a guest slot, part of me also thinks that the original coders future outlook actually may have had things right.

Look, if a guest is a 2nd pet with higher melee% valuation, it then kind of makes sense that if a pet is free and the guest is then 20% more than a pet for 20% over free cost. And if the original idea was to attempt to make CHA a worthwhile stat (back before all of this implementation it was worthless) then it stands to reason that maybe according to their original plans that 60% melee for 20% cost actually makes sense. A guest is a stronger pet that is paid for being stronger with an equivalent cost. The problem is standards were never updated to implement this. And still haven't...

We've simply altered what guests are from a 2nd pet that has 20% more power but a 20% added cost to pay for it compared to a pet (which is free) to "CHA based skills" Leaving it at "CHA based skills" IMO is what leaves the idea of guests in a odd spot.

IMO, first of all, CHA and guests was always, is, and should be the domain of "beastmasters". Attempting to alter that IMO only creates a departure from what it's always been and makes zero sense whatsoever. Secondly, I think we should actually backtrack to the past and find a better way to think about this entire thing.

If that means changing the outlook of CHA to actually make it a psuedo main-stat, then that's what it should be. Especially since for Mage variant of beastmaster they must use the spell slot, which was and is actually intended for INT-based spells, to perhaps choose a guest summons/call instead.

What should actually happen, is assumed standards should change in the turn model to include CHA and make it a psuedo main-stat of sorts. But it should be handled in such a way that when CHA is trained in addition to a normal mainstat, then assumptions change to expect the player to use guests in the spell slot. Guest valuations should be part of the turn model when CHA is trained. The same should be said for END, honestly. Getting 2x the HP's should carry with it a value in the turn model, but it doesn't. IMO, if you did, it might help provide clarity for total turn valuation depending on what actual stats you trained. Now, I am not saying cha/end/luk should get full stats, accuracy, etc. I am saying that when CHA is trained in addition to a main stat then there should be some shifted assumptions. Currently, it feels like we still aren't using logic with this. This should also mean CHA weapons not get discontinued, but re-evaluated to need main stat somehow, but CHA training simply opens up CHA weapons as options.

There'd be 2 major ways to handle this. First, should training CHA provide more damage than not training it in the model? That's currently the case, yet CHA isn't assumed. CHA pushes damage above and beyond on paper. The argument for allowing it to remain this way is that the alternate stat that likely gets trained is END. So it's more offense vs more defense. This does seem to make sense. However, CHA also provides defense with pet/guest status toggles and ends up being super versatile. I think most players actually don't go for pure damage from pets/guests. The other option is to ensure than damage over 20 turns is the same for non CHA builds vs CHA builds. That's rather an easy calc to manage for Mages, since they replace spells with guests. That should mean that guest cost should be 4 spellcasts/20=130.6 MP and guest power is 4 spells /20=40% melee.

This would actually ensure that int/end/luk = int/cha/luk in damage over 20 turns on paper using the model. Same damage, same costs. The problem with this, though, is int/end/luk would have twice the HP's for the same damage. IS this enough justification to offset CHA's utility? Also, it feels odd that a pet is free at 40% but a guest costs you at 40%. It's probably not worth it.

Then we have how to handle SP guests with rangers and warriors, which IMO should either mean a reduced weapon damage to offset guest damage to even this out or re-evaluating 100 proc base damage entirely or reduce sp guests as a separate number than MP guests altogether. To me, that actually makes the most sense. But I doubt Ianthe added code when she went through all those guests to allow for a different standard for calls and summons , so going back through isn't going to happen.

Ultimately, I think attempting to alter any of this is a project and if they were going to do anything drastic, the stat revamp would have been the time to do it. This is why I think just figuring out the value of guest celerity is the only real thing that needs pinned down and the rest of these other ideas are a huge waste of everyone's time. I just think there's nothing wrong with allowing CHA weapons to exist if they're done right. Like making 100% of the BTH be mainstat but the stat damage be CHA. It would require 2 stats still to perform optimally, and that design direction would allow for ranged and melee CHA weapons. I dislike killing off design space for the sake of dogmatic allegiance to some false utopian idea of balance. Killing CHA weapons = less fun for the game. This is why I'm not opposed to some guests not being based on CHA, just that it shouldn't be some global new direction and "guests are not the domain of CHA". It should just be random one offs in the name of design space. And they should have the same or similar caveats such as my CHA weapon idea. /rant




Grace Xisthrith -> RE: Value of a guest turn (6/11/2024 19:16:16)

I will answer the stuff I find most interesting, no real rationale as I'm going fast.

I pretty much feel the same that accuracy should be assumed. That being said, if that's the case, a player using a mechanic that skips guest turn to provide extra value would not be motivated to actually train CHA. The same applies to outgoing power / damage, if accuracy and damage are assumed, a guest turn skip ignoring CHA investment would provide the same value for 250 CHA as for 0 CHA, but actually skipping the guest turn would be no detriment to the 0 CHA player, while a notable detriment to the 250 CHA player. This is one of the reasons I brought this up for why I think it might be intricate. In theory, an item that skipped or gave celerity to a guest could check player CHA at the time of activation and then scale its output (from a skip) or cost (from celerity) based on that, and that would prevent the issue I'm describing. Whether a moderately complicated solution like that is worth the hassle, I don't know.

I'm not sure I fully understand your logic, but basically -guests profit power because staff decided it was so, so they don't have a real turn value the way other effects do.- My bad if I got that wrong. I don't really agree personally, but either way, that assumption isn't helpful to my goal of figuring out how to value skipping or gaining extra or limiting guest turns / output, so I'm going to selfishly ignore it. (a very rough approximation to the situation is armor leans. Armor leans situationally provide extra benefit to the player that isn't accounted for in say, skipping your turn, or granting celerity. Turn skip in FD = no downside HP profit. Celerity in FO = no downside damage profit. If I could balance a new effect on that, I'd have it take into account armor lean. The goal is to do the same thing for guests. Not an identical situation, but I hope you can see the similarities)

I don't really think most of the topics were explored in depth in your GBI. There also wasn't staff comment, although realistically there likely won't be here either, but I think the result of deciding yes guest turns for skips or celerity count as 15% melee or 60% melee or even -%12melee (going from one extreme to the other from my assumptions, which could totally be flawed to be fair) would be notable for item design, that's why I've brought it up. I personally do think guests celerity shouldn't be 60% melee, it should be 15% or 30%, for the reasons I went into above vaguely about paying double, but I do appreciate your different opinion, particularly if staff do take interest, varied opinions are more likely to be interesting for them.


I won't try too much to guess about the origins of guest and designer mentality, but I do think it's not unlikely they were meant as an update / extension / exploration of pets, given that initial guests were free, and also?? (fact check required) had training difficulty. Then again, the game isn't the same now as it was then, so I don't think it's all too relevant. You do trail into some stuff I'm less interested in this GBI, so I hope future discussion can stay focused on guest turns, but you also draw on some stuff I am interested in. I generally agree that figuring out the value of guest celerity / turn skipping is probably the only thing worth spending the time on (which is my goal [sm=frogzard.gif] ). Separate from the GBI solely laser focused on guest turns, I do think more CHA scaling gear could be interesting for the game, I think that done well making items and gear wouldn't pose a balance issue for the game, and even done poorly CHA "mainstat" builds using older, in my opinion, poorly balanced CHA scaling items don't break the game in any massive way. Of course, that's a super slippery argument to make, but I do hope that in the future, the staff try out more modern CHA and END scaling effects to spice up unusual playstyles. I'm quite confident it could be done in a balanced manner.




CarrionSpike -> RE: Value of a guest turn (6/11/2024 20:01:56)

quote:

1: Should accuracy be included in the value of a guest's turn? Without CHA, a guest has greatly reduced accuracy below 85%. Should this be taken into account when CHA is not assumed? (250 CHA is 20 bth, so guest would be 20% hitrate less than expected, so .65 instead of .85, so like, 65/85x %melee output so 65/85x45=34.4% melee?

No. Accuracy is not considered for the assumed (average) melee value of a Player or Pet turn (100% and 40% respectively). Why should it be considered for guests?

quote:

2: Should guest output be included in the value of a guest's turn? Without CHA, a guest has half the output. Should items in theory check player CHA before evaluating a guest's turn (ignore the complication of adding this back to old items, let's just pretend they add it to new items only). If so, guests could drop down to 22.5% melee output. Add the accuracy thing on top, 17.2% melee output.

No. Response to 1 applies here as well (but output instead of accuracy). Imagine of a +50% damage boost on a ranged weapon had a reduced cost if the PC had 0 DEX. With effects meant for specific builds (e.g., a ranged-specific damage boost) it's fair to assume that DEX will be appropriately trained.

quote:

3: Should the value of a guest's turn include the resource cost used to pay for them? This would make base guests 15% melee or 30% melee or 20% melee respectively with the situations described in line 0. Line 1, 4.4% melee. Line 2, -7.5% melee or -12.8% melee.

No. Guests aren't separate entities like Pets, they're weird and extremely efficient spells. They are treated as being worth their base output (45% melee).

quote:

4: Should an item "meant" for beastmasters assume expected charisma, and therefore, 45% melee guest and 40% melee pet? For example, an item that boosts pet and guest damage by 25% should assume 100% melee output from pet and guest combined?

As @CH4OT1C! mentions, guests are worth 45% melee, not 60% melee (I have edited+bolded this change from here on). There are a few items that currently exist that are definitely intended for beastmasters as they scale their effects with CHA. However, in none of these cases do the items directly affect Guests. Regardless, consider a +25% damage (not melee) boost to Guests. The effectiveness of said boost automatically relies on CHA being trained in the first place which is the same as attaching a *(playerCHA/expectedCHA) modifier to the damage boost. I think I need a better example to understand what you're trying to get at here.

quote:

5: If you give a guest celerity, should you take into account the SP cost? Should the celerity cost the full potential output of the guest (example, 45% melee) or should it take into account the cost of the guest and go with net output (example, 30% melee) instead? Same for skipping a guest's turn, do you gain 45% melee, or 30% melee?

This is a tricky one. Celerity causes all sorts of problems and honestly a lot of headaches could be avoided if Guest Celerity simply didn't exist. However, given that it does, it's easier to treat Guest Celerity is +100% damage/effectiveness, so 45% melee. As for skipping a Guest's turn, that's just worth 45% melee.



CH4OT1C! -> RE: Value of a guest turn (6/12/2024 6:32:02)

@Grace Xisthrith
quote:

I pretty much feel the same that accuracy should be assumed.

Accuracy is treated a little oddly, but consider it this way: In the Player Turn model, Melee attacks are treated as being worth 100% Melee while having a 15% chance to miss. Magic weapon attacks are valued at 75% Melee, Spells at 200% Melee. It doesn't matter whether you have the appropriate invested stats, they're still valued the same. With that being so, I think you need a way to justify why Guests should function differently from these other item types. Following the logic of @CarrionSpike and I, Guests are a type of CHA skill, and skills also follow this structure (valued at 200% Melee). However, even if you were to entirely reject the balance model as @Sapphire does on this topic, with the preferred outcome being to make CHA a pseudo-mainstat (though, as they point out, this is unrealistic), you still need to justify why Guests should be treated differently than the Melee/Magic weapons etc. items tied to the mainstats. As for:
quote:

That being said, if that's the case, a player using a mechanic that skips guest turn to provide extra value would not be motivated to actually train CHA.

This isn't even a problem if Guests are supposed to be CHA-exclusive to begin with. This is part of why I brought up my prior GBI. You're right, we didn't get to explore this topic in sufficient detail because a number of my threads were locked and momentum was lost. However, the questions I raised are still relevant to this discussion, and they need to be properly answered.

quote:

I'm not sure I fully understand your logic, but basically -guests profit power because staff decided it was so, so they don't have a real turn value the way other effects do.- My bad if I got that wrong. I don't really agree personally, but either way, that assumption isn't helpful to my goal of figuring out how to value skipping or gaining extra or limiting guest turns / output, so I'm going to selfishly ignore it.

You're right, I believe the additional 15% Melee power attached to Guests exists because the staff decided to make Guests overpowered because they could, and that they don't have a real turn value. Guests have an item power value (45% Melee), but they don't provide inherent turn value because they aren't an explicit part of the player turn model. In the 100% [Player] + 20% [Pet] + 20% [SP], there is no 'Guest' variable. Guests either fall under the 'SP' or 'Player' components, depending on whether it costs SP or MP to use (For those that aren't following, see this post), and this is why I consider them CHA-exclusive spells/skills. Providing Guests an inherent turn value would require rearranging the Player Turn model to include one. This would also require making numerous decisions about how Guests function:
  • If Guests provide inherent value, then players are now assumed to explicitly use them, rather than potentially having them instead of skills etc.
  • You now need to provide Guests with sufficient stats to output the selected turn value without needing CHA, which will probably require reworking most Guests in the game.
  • Questions are raised around whether Guests are CHA-exclusive. To be clear, Guests could still be CHA-exclusive, but you'd inevitably need to address this question when making such changes
  • At the moment, the additional %Melee power boost to the player is dependent on whether they have CHA or not. 15% Melee at full CHA investment, considerably less than this without. This would need to become fixed.
    Guests are not like armour leans, and they have their own problems (explained in the linked post).

    To reiterate, you're right that the discussion around my previous GBI never resolved how Guests should function. However, I don't think you can reasonably resolve your GBI without deciding where Guests stand. The answer affects pretty much everything you're trying to discuss. It's not about dragging the conversation offtopic, deciding how Guests should be treated is a necessary prerequisite.

    However, since you are insistent on the 'laser focused' nature of your GBI, I can provide one answer around Guest celerity. It's very similar to @CarrionSpike's:
    quote:

    This is a tricky one. Celerity causes all sorts of problems and honestly a lot of headaches could be avoided if Guest Celerity simply didn't exist. However, given that it does, it's easier to treat Guest Celerity is +100% damage/effectiveness, so 45% melee. As for skipping a Guest's turn, that's just worth 45% melee.

    Guests have no turn value, and when you apply Guest celerity, you pay the resource cost twice. By that logic, Guest celerity should have no value, given it's all bought and paid for. It would be far easier if Guest celerity didn't exist at all. However, in keeping with previous celerity effects, it should cost nothing. When you apply Player Celerity, it costs approximately 100% Melee, not 200% even if you choose to use a skill. It would make Guests relatively underpowered to start charging them resources for power they already pay for.



    • Sapphire -> RE: Value of a guest turn (6/12/2024 10:14:08)

    Accuracy is an assumed aspect of everything. I don't think trying to calc guest accuracy as some additional valuation makes sense.



    Grace Xisthrith -> RE: Value of a guest turn (6/15/2024 13:28:09)

    Thanks for the responses and discussion, it's fun to go so in depth on this stuff. I'll just say a few more things.

    I'm very much in agreement that calculating accuracy and damage based off stat investment for guests, for the purpose of putting a value on how much a guest turn is worth, and therefore how much celerity and guest turn skips should be worth, is weird and doesn't make much sense compared to how everything else with celerity and turn skips are calculated.

    That being said, I want to make an item suggestion that skips your guest turn, but I don't want it to be randomly better for 0 CHA players. That's why I'm stuck on it. Guest celerity costing *guest output* makes sense, but if skipping a guest turn gives *guest output,* then that gives "extra" value to 0 CHA players that they "shouldn't" be getting. I think realistically it's probably not worth the hassle and complexity, and there should just be a basic: guest turn = 45% or 60% or 15% or 30% melee, which you guys have discussed the rationales for and against significantly, I'm just listing all the options, and leave it at that.

    As for this part:
    quote:

    You're right, I believe the additional 15% Melee power attached to Guests exists because the staff decided to make Guests overpowered because they could, and that they don't have a real turn value. Guests have an item power value (45% Melee), but they don't provide inherent turn value because they aren't an explicit part of the player turn model. In the 100% [Player] + 20% [Pet] + 20% [SP], there is no 'Guest' variable. Guests either fall under the 'SP' or 'Player' components, depending on whether it costs SP or MP to use (For those that aren't following, see this post), and this is why I consider them CHA-exclusive spells/skills. Providing Guests an inherent turn value would require rearranging the Player Turn model to include one. This would also require making numerous decisions about how Guests function:

    I don't see why figuring out how much a guest turn is worth for purposes of celerity and stuns would mean they'd have to be part of the 20 turn formula. That seems like a leap. I believe you're saying: guests are outside the turn model, so figuring out valuation for an item that interacts with their "turn" would need them to be part of the turn model. I'm saying: guests are outside of the turn model, that's fine, items that interact with their "turn" should have a standard that's based on assuming CHA or not assuming CHA or all the other factors that I listed initially (and you guys have brought up), that is totally adjacent from the 20 turn formula.

    Side topic:
    quote:

    This is a tricky one. Celerity causes all sorts of problems and honestly a lot of headaches could be avoided if Guest Celerity simply didn't exist. However, given that it does, it's easier to treat Guest Celerity is +100% damage/effectiveness, so 45% melee. As for skipping a Guest's turn, that's just worth 45% melee.

    One reason I advocated quite hard for guest output to remain at 60% was various items from pre stat revamp all assume pet + guest output per turn = 100% melee. (pet and guest damage boosters for example, 25% melee = +25% pet guest damage) Setting guest turn to 45% melee would once again break these, and require changes on a boatload of items from the last half decade. Yes, the style bonus is staff confirmed outside the 20 turn model, so yes, theoretical guest maximum output ignoring resource cost is 45% melee, but I think the detriments of following that rather than just saying it's 60% melee are significant, and would make a ton of old items over or underpowered.



    CH4OT1C! -> RE: Value of a guest turn (6/15/2024 15:42:14)

    quote:

    I don't see why figuring out how much a guest turn is worth for purposes of celerity and stuns would mean they'd have to be part of the 20 turn formula. That seems like a leap. I believe you're saying: guests are outside the turn model, so figuring out valuation for an item that interacts with their "turn" would need them to be part of the turn model. I'm saying: guests are outside of the turn model, that's fine, items that interact with their "turn" should have a standard that's based on assuming CHA or not assuming CHA or all the other factors that I listed initially (and you guys have brought up), that is totally adjacent from the 20 turn formula.

  • The 20-turn model dictates the %Melee value provided per turn on the player side from different resources (e.g., Weapon attacks). This makes it directly relevant to this discussion
  • No, Guests aren't outside the player turn model. They are, however, not explicitly represented within it. There's no 'Guest' component stating that Guests explicitly provide e.g., 20% Melee to the player side. Instead, they're treated as part of the 'SP component of the formula (or Player damage, if they cost MP. I again direct people to this post for further details).
  • This means the %Melee value of a Guest solely comes from the resources invested into it. Their 'turn' itself is worth nothing. When you have Guest celerity, you pay the Guest upkeep twice, so you still get exactly what you pay for. Guest celerity is therefore also worthless.
  • This is why I keep saying they're a type of skill. Their value comes from SP, not by virtue of being Guests, or from being totally outside the player turn model. Even if they were completely outside the model, the only turn value anyone could provide would be completely arbitrary. The underlying standards simply aren't designed to treat Guests like that currently.

    The closest thing I can provide you with under current standards is as follows: Assume a mechanic where Guests skipped their turn but still charged their turn SP/MP cost. On this basis, you could store a value of 22.5+22.5*[CHA]/[ExpectedCHA]% Melee. No, it's not 60%, because style bonuses are outside of the model.



    • CarrionSpike -> RE: Value of a guest turn (6/15/2024 17:43:53)

    quote:

    One reason I advocated quite hard for guest output to remain at 60% was various items from pre stat revamp all assume pet + guest output per turn = 100% melee. (pet and guest damage boosters for example, 25% melee = +25% pet guest damage) Setting guest turn to 45% melee would once again break these, and require changes on a boatload of items from the last half decade. Yes, the style bonus is staff confirmed outside the 20 turn model, so yes, theoretical guest maximum output ignoring resource cost is 45% melee, but I think the detriments of following that rather than just saying it's 60% melee are significant, and would make a ton of old items over or underpowered.

    I'm fairly certain that the only items affected by this are items that boost Guest damage or BtH, and I can't think of more than a handful of these items that affect guests specifically (there are more that affect Pets specifically). As for items that add statuses to guest attacks, these are calculated based on the power of the status rather than being based on the power of the guest (so they would be unaffected).
    As for your other concerns, @CH4OT1C! summarizes things nicely.



    Page: [1]

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
    0.125