RE: Lucky Strikes (Full Version)

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



Message


Sapphire -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/22/2024 7:09:26)

I don't think we should be throwing in costs at the time of a lucky strike. I think the costs would become massive and I think it would start to become a complicated endeavor when rolling in many factors. The cost above is just for grandad, and doesn't account for other items added into the stack. What needs to occur is an evaluation of what a lucky strike is actually worth and making stacking not so simple. This alone will cause a review of every single item that has different interactions with lucky strikes as well as the hypercrit status itself. This re-evaluation item by item once these mathematical standards and hypercrit is likely changed to additive will cause every item to be altered. Grandad I doubt can remain as-is, just like everything else that's dealing with the lucky strike issue.

I honestly think that's mostly all we'll see change. I don't forsee neutering the luck stat by wholesale altering the entire system and nerf it all to the point of making luck undesirable. I believe staff will err on the side of 'fun' but ensure valuations and interactions are mathematically in line. So ideas attempting to re-write and re-invent this to me is a huge waste of time, because it will already cause players to dislike their items being all nerfed , and an alteration to this lucky strike system itself too much will make it worse. This is a delicate balance between adhering to standards but not destroying player's gaming experience.




Korriban Gaming -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/22/2024 10:45:52)

quote:

Would there be any acceptance for restricting lucky strikes to only resource recovery effects? Only regen can do it. This will help resource management while cutting down direct offense.

That would take away the biggest pro of LS and change its playstyle completely so it's a hard no from me

quote:

Make all LS-rate modifiers additive.
LS-damage modifiers should only activate by paying their full cost on a LS, otherwise they don't activate at all.
Please consider other effects that can happen on LS, instead of just boosting LS damage.

I agree with and support this. As for the valuation part I'm gonna have to think about it.

quote:

didnt finish reading, but why always thinking in the way of 'the dmg is too op, lets balance (nerf) the dmg'? Why cant it be 'the dmg is too op, let the player sacrifice more for it'? items provide more then it s intend to? pay more rss for it, it is just pay more gain more. I see someone mentioning Granddad's Greatsword, etc and believes LS is broken, how about just require SP/HP paying for the effect? like how Masamune works, paying a chunk of SP for the big dmg. Chaning the whole LUK mechanism will broke all the LUK-related items. Taking away smthng that a player already paid for is a terrible idea, I still remember how bad i feel when I pay 50 bucks buying the updated Akriloth's Wrath for its OP dmg and suddenly it got nerf because of the OP dmg.

Agree with this.

quote:

Also note that it echoes another of my key points - that this affects the fun ideas they can implement in future:

I would ask for examples but you would probably say there are none since they havent/cant be created yet. Would like to hear what you have in mind that cant be implemented because of the current system. Your claim + what staff says is quite the opposite from reality though. If what was stated was indeed true then all LS and Hypercrit items created past Arms of the Dragonguard would be useless or not fun. That is far from the truth. Staff have continued to make Hypercrit and LS items afterwards and they have all been generally well received. I do not see this arbitrary restriction that keeps getting brought up

quote:

If the initial stages of a fix aren't implemented before this set gets released, it is at significant risk of becoming redundant. This would apply regardless of the initial state that the set is released in. It would also force the staff to be more conservative than they otherwise would be precisely because of the information provided in the quote above. Any subsequent feedback would be subject to the same restriction.

While I agree with this I still think rushing into some band-aid draconian solution is much worse. Given that staff has already stated that this mechanic change will take time and we are also supposed to have the crossover soon on top of all the holiday events, I am fairly confident that the set that comes out will remain relevant for a good amount of time. While it is a very premium set, I also do not expect it to stay on top forever. But a year plus of runtime (or however long it takes to implement the mechanic changes) is ok for me. It's not like any set before Frostwyrm is still useful nowadays anyway

quote:

I don't think these items should function with no limits and, if so, this severely limits how far these items can boost LS damage at base.

The question is, why not? It encourages variety and more thinking in playstyle. Do you want to risk depleting your whole SP bar to hinge on that LS that can hopefully kill the monster? If not, suffer the consequences the next turn? I always prefer having the option to be there and giving players the power to choose if they wanna go big and risk going home or to play more conservatively. I am aware you are a big fan of efficiency but not everyone likes to or has to play that way.

quote:

So ideas attempting to re-write and re-invent this to me is a huge waste of time, because it will already cause players to dislike their items being all nerfed , and an alteration to this lucky strike system itself too much will make it worse. This is a delicate balance between adhering to standards but not destroying player's gaming experience.

Agreed.





KhalJJ -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/22/2024 10:48:26)

I have only a small comment, but just to add my 2 cents:

1) Loosely agree with Grace Xisthrith's points, except for:

2) The LS damage scaling with %chance: "LS damage at 10% crit would be 10x LS damage at 100% crit, for example"

I can accept that the staff feel the need to restrict LS power to an extent, however I would urge some caution in this - with the above example, and using Grandad's Greatsword, with current numbers (+200% LS damage becoming +20%) I see no incentive to use Grandad's Greatsword, and I feel a lot of players would be hugely dissatisfied/misled having spent an UR to get this, and further when it has been replicated as player choice re-skin from the last donation contest with no changes. I feel that this cannot happen, with these numbers.

A lot of Hypercrit gear is premium unfortunately, which means scope for significant changes to be poorly received if handled badly is reasonably large.

I don't particularly know of a perfect solution, but re: gameplay I don't really see it as an issue. Sure, I can stack 100%+ crit and get big numbers, but it usually takes a decent amount of resource investment and isn't all that practical. Most mobs are trivial anyway, and those that aren't have damage caps or are immune to large crit nukes in some way.

3) Maybe it is more relevant from a actual gameplay perspective with respect to player healing, and LS additions could just be soft capped somehow here. Idk.




Aura Knight -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/22/2024 11:45:22)

quote:

That would take away the biggest pro of LS and change its playstyle completely so it's a hard no from me


I can't see how it would be an issue if the limiting factor for high damage is often lack of resources to use skills or spells. More guarantee for them will surely be a benefit.




dizzle -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/22/2024 13:33:02)

Taxing the player for every LS that lands is not how game assumptions work. If we want to tax the player every time a LS lands in order to pay for exactly what they’re getting for that exact turn then you’ll have to call into question stuff like the warcaster staves where you’re paying 10% weapon damage yet you’re yielding massive melee% value via status. It’s not consistent with how game assumptions work. Although I can appreciate and actually agree with the sentiment on paying for what the player receives, this is not only not realistic to charge 1000sp every time a LS lands, it’s just not how game assumptions work and contradicts the very nature of how these mechanics are valued. You can call into question the assumptions made around LS which is partially what this thread is about, but you can’t cherry pick what you do and don’t have to pay for every turn by ignoring how assumptions work in some aspects of the game but not others




Sapphire -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/22/2024 16:32:46)

If valuations in actuality are for every 1% rate increase to lucky strikes, it's worth 1.5% melee ...and items don't actually follow that valuation, then you can either go through every item to make sure that the cost to output ratio matches 1/1.5 or you nerf lucky strikes itself down to be 100% melee. This makes 1% rate=1%melee.

That would likely constitute a change from Luck*3/80 (9.375 stat damage) down to 9.375/1.5=6.25 stat damage, or Luck/40 or some other such formula to get there.

That is a direct nerf to luck at baseline, but that change may result in not having to go through every single LS-based item and altering its code to match LS's valuation.


However, the hypercrit status doesn't just have to be about rates. What if the status itself had a split power budget, where when the status is active, you essentially get the 3.125 stat damage added back in, resulting in a 150% melee valuation again for lucky strikes, ..and then the rest of the power budget is about added rate.

So "hypercrit" adds to damage and rate as a status. Yes, the rate side of the budget would be less, but the status brings power back to current lucky strike damage. This approach (along with additive stacking) deals with stacking issues while not having to touch valuations. (I think) Anyway just an idea




JasCK -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/22/2024 19:22:08)

quote:

Cost = 392 * ( 3 - 0.05) = 1156 SP
or:
Cost = 349 * ( 3 - 0.05) = 1030 HP


Is this the only option? HP OR SP? In this way you make the cost looks big and not implementable, but I dont think this is the only way to pay. Can it be like Haunted dragonlord armour or bloodmage that paying HP & MP/SP at the same time for the additional dmg? 100% Melee HP cost PLUS 200% Melee SP cost smthng like that (roughly)? If the cost of rss are still big then adding up some flavor effect like receiving extra dmg may work? Just like Agony's Embrace.




CH4OT1C! -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/22/2024 20:02:44)

@Korriban Gaming:
quote:

I would ask for examples but you would probably say there are none since they havent/cant be created yet. Would like to hear what you have in mind that cant be implemented because of the current system. Your claim + what staff says is quite the opposite from reality though. If what was stated was indeed true then all LS and Hypercrit items created past Arms of the Dragonguard would be useless or not fun. That is far from the truth. Staff have continued to make Hypercrit and LS items afterwards and they have all been generally well received. I do not see this arbitrary restriction that keeps getting brought up

  • There aren't many existing examples for the reasons you state. However, one possibility is Neo Airenal's Cunning, a weapon that burns on a critical hit. This is extremely difficult to implement right now because, in addition to the *10 hypercrit modifier, it also receives *2 from the save roll. This turns a 5% melee effect into 100% Melee, which can be guaranteed to attempt the status, and then heavily swung in the player's favour with status potency effects.
  • Incorrect. To reiterate my statement:
    quote:

    Also note that it echoes another of my key points - that this affects the fun ideas they can implement in future:

    This does not mean that fun or useful ideas cannot be implemented at all, only that there are restrictions on what can be implemented. The feedback on @GwenMay's set demonstrates this point.

    @KhalJJ: The problem I have with your position is that, while I can absolutely understand the significant nerf being proposed there, the player is not paying 200% melee for those boosts. They're paying 20%. Of course, if you stayed sub-100% crit rate, then that boost could increase. The big issue here is trying to justify a +200% booster when it can be guaranteed.

    @dizzle: This is also one of the reasons I don't like that idea - If we're asking mechanics to pay more when they interact, what about regular attacks?

    @Sapphire: Nerfing the LS damage provided by LUK is similar to asking to reduce the damage provided by STR because Kindred's nukes are too powerful. Essentially, it's a very blunt instrument. While you would be able to correct the valuation issues, it comes at the cost of making LUK itself considerably weaker at a time when CHA is already the dominant support stat. It's far safer to target the items.

    @JasCK: Purely in terms of cost - no, it's definitely possible. A 50:50 or 75:50 HP/SP split is doable. There are however multiple problems. First, these cost far exceed current precedent in terms of how much the player can pay for power. However, even if we did toss precedent to the wind, it also causes mechanical complications. Is this ratio constant? Or is it only over a threshold? How much is the split? Do different items have different ratios? It's far better to keep things simple.

    To reiterate, I am still very much in favour of my preference to modify critical hit rate modifiers (including the hypercritical status) into leans rather than straight boosts.




  • Korriban Gaming -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/22/2024 21:52:49)

    quote:

    There aren't many existing examples for the reasons you state. However, one possibility is Neo Airenal's Cunning, a weapon that burns on a critical hit. This is extremely difficult to implement right now because, in addition to the *10 hypercrit modifier, it also receives *2 from the save roll. This turns a 5% melee effect into 100% Melee, which can be guaranteed to attempt the status, and then heavily swung in the player's favour with status potency effects.

    Maybe I'm unaware but as powerful as that sounds, I don't really hear many people using it if at all? I know it's a big package item but even the whales I know of don't use it. I know you don't agree with this but I personally think usage rate is a good statistic to show how good or bad an item is

    quote:

    First, these cost far exceed current precedent in terms of how much the player can pay for power. However, even if we did toss precedent to the wind, it also causes mechanical complications. Is this ratio constant? Or is it only over a threshold? How much is the split? Do different items have different ratios? It's far better to keep things simple.

    I am in support of the cost split idea and have been for just about anything else for some time now. Precedents shouldn't stay the same forever. I think pushing it to new highs once in a while keeps things fresh and exciting than the same old "oh we already know this item won't exceed this power etc". Your questions regarding the split is valid. Personally I think it would be much better to have different splits and different ratios for each item to encourage diversity but I understand the time taken to do this. A blanket split may cause some items to be great and some to be horrible. It's a solution I support but I know it will take a long time to do if done individually




    Branl -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/22/2024 22:28:30)

    quote:

    Maybe I'm unaware but as powerful as that sounds, I don't really hear many people using it if at all? I know it's a big package item but even the whales I know of don't use it. I know you don't agree with this but I personally think usage rate is a good statistic to show how good or bad an item is


    How good or bad something is doesn't necessarily line up with what's popular.
    FD as a lean is, due to expected monster and player output, the strongest lean in the game. It also sits pretty solidly in being the least popular.

    quote:

    I am in support of the cost split idea and have been for just about anything else for some time now. Precedents shouldn't stay the same forever. I think pushing it to new highs once in a while keeps things fresh and exciting than the same old "oh we already know this item won't exceed this power etc". Your questions regarding the split is valid. Personally I think it would be much better to have different splits and different ratios for each item to encourage diversity but I understand the time taken to do this. A blanket split may cause some items to be great and some to be horrible. It's a solution I support but I know it will take a long time to do if done individually


    They don't, actually. If they did, the most optimal way to play this game would still be Bloodmage. Which should show you how unnecessary just "bigger number" is when it comes to keeping things "fresh and exciting".
    In addition, this perception of "cost split" as some golden bullet is predicated on yet another GBI with resource regeneration. People's current perception of that idea is massively influenced by how easy it is to generate the resources for such a massive resource dump right now. Ultimately, rather than solving this issue at all, it basically kicks the can down the road, and we'll all be having this same exact argument whenever resource looping/healing/EO are adjusted.
    And because the can is kicked rather than issues with LS being holistically fixed, you don't even really open up much design space for Gwen's set (which is part of the reason this thread was opened in the first place). The same issues of viability with various LS interactions will remain, it'll just be under the umbrella of resource generation issues.




    CH4OT1C! -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/23/2024 10:21:21)

    @Korriban Gaming:
    quote:

    I am in support of the cost split idea and have been for just about anything else for some time now. Precedents shouldn't stay the same forever. I think pushing it to new highs once in a while keeps things fresh and exciting than the same old "oh we already know this item won't exceed this power etc".

    Under the increased cost solution (which again, I do not support), the core problem is not a change in precedent. The maximum cost currently paid in HP is 100% Melee / 349 HP (Bloodmage) and the maximum paid in SP is approximately 184% Melee / 722 SP (Drop the B-bomb). The latter is the core skill, damage boosters have a lower cap. In addition, neither of these attacks pay other resources, and both relate to spells/skills (200% melee) rather than regular attacks. Assuming a guaranteed LS, Granddad is offering an additional 300% Melee, breaking the cap by a factor of between 62 and 200% (to reiterate, keep in mind I am comparing to skills, not regular attacks). This would be a bit like changing the +20% cap on damage modifiers on regular attacks to between 32 and 60% in one move. That isn't just exceeding precedent, that is completely blowing it out of the water. Not powercreep, runaway spiralling power bonuses.

    With this in mind, it is important that I caution you: I recognise that you regularly have serious concerns regarding nerfs to just about any part of AQ. I cannot speak for the staff, but nailing your flag to this mast means it is likely that (i) the more powerful LS items currently in existence are at serious risk of being substantially nerfed and (ii) the staff would heavily restrict the LS-related items they released - the core issue of the x10 modifier has not changed.

    I also feel it important to reiterate - cost increases place further emphasis on changes to resource regeneration. This has already been a major focus of discussion this year. What happens if resource regeneration were to change? While it may not be altered in the way suggested by my GBI on scaling healing resources with END, changes are still actively being considered. If your viewpoint is based on regeneration not being modified, are you sure you wish to take that risk?




    ruleandrew -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/23/2024 21:33:47)

    One possible solution to lucky strike rate
    Standard lucky strike rate: 10 %
    Hyper crit status: lucky strike rate is 15 % for object that have this status.

    No item shall affect lucky strike rate other than applying hyper crit status.

    The point of hyper crit status is to stop objects getting a crazy lucky strike rate while allowing sufficient design space for hyper crit status.

    One possible solution to lucky strike random damage
    Lucky strike random damage: (0.5 + 0.5 * ((Object Luck) / (Expected luck))) * (Normal lucky strike ceiling damage)

    The point of lucky strike random damage formula is to guarantee a certain level of bonus damage when a character gets a lucky strike.




    Telcontar Arvedui I -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/24/2024 13:39:58)

    I will attempt to address feedback to my proposal (again, singular, not plural) in #22.
    EDIT @ 25th July: Updated proposal in post #22, check it out again if you've only read the earlier version!

    * * * @Chaotic * * *

    How much should players be allowed to pay for a single item's LS mechanic?
    I'll admit this is the biggest point of contention with my proposal. As of right now, the sole cause to that question is Granddad's Greatsword and its clone, Lazgorath the World Ender. They provide a 300% Melee boost to damage when a LS occurs, so naturally they'll need to pay for that much. However, paying it all at once is conflicting with the conventional cost-cap-per-turn that items adhere to. Therefore, I'm willing to concede a bit of ground, and request for Granddad's ilk to pay a small margin of the cost per-turn instead of paying it all on-LS. This should allow them to retain their 3x LS damage modifier effect, but still be expensive enough to be unable to activate all the time under a proper resource economy. Example numbers will be edited into post #22. Sidenote: it's also worth keeping in mind that, it might be possible for the devs to code something that divides the cost by armour / weapon-proc hitcount, making it much more palatable, especially if the player has non-guaranteed LS (aka <100% LS chances). For example, using Granddad with a 2-hitcount armour means you're only paying 150 %Melee if you LS on one and not both of the hits.

    What happens if they can't pay the cost when a LS occurs?
    Simple! I've mentioned this in post #22 - the LS damage modifier doesn't activate if you can't afford pay the cost. This might, in practice, turn LS-damage-modifiers into a spell-like cost mechanic - if you can't pay, you can't cast the effect.

    Combine the two answers above, and you might see what I'm trying to achieve - 2 distinct niches of LS-damage-boosting playstyles. One uses equipment that offer smaller LS-damage-boosts (1.5x LS damage weapons such as Monolith Mace and Unfortunate Umbrella), combined with longer-termed (2-4 turns) LS-chance-boosts, for a more consistent and sustained LS output by allowing natural resource (namely SP) regeneration to offset the per-turn costs, at the expense of lowered ceiling. The other goes all-in after accumulating enough resources for a big expenditure that results in a LS damage output that completely blows the roof off, brings the house down, etc. etc, at the cost of being nigh impossible to casually repeat that outcome over consecutive turns, again under a reasonable resource economy. Yes, I am fully aware that I pass the ball into the "resource eco GBI" court, meaning the whole LS issue would take longer to fully resolve - but I am willing to endure such a long-pain scenario. Again, I have faith that the devs will do take the correct measures when the resource eco revamp fully comes around, and thus allowing the first of the two aforementioned niches to really step out of the second's shadow. Until then, enjoyers of the second niche (the current LS-Hypercrit-nuke setup) can either learn to wean off of it, or suffer worse withdrawal symptoms when the full resolution comes around :evil_smiles:

    * * * @Sapphire * * *
    I've answered Chaotic w.r.t. my intentions behind proposing a "big on-LS payment to activate" cost mechanic. Now, if we're worried about the difficulty of implementing the cost-calculation code when it comes to stacking LS-damage-modifiers, then I am willing to concede by turning all LS-damage-modifiers additive, which fixes the cost of all such modifiers.

    * * * @dizzle * * *
    I see your use of warcaster staves as examples, and I raise the Heroic Titan's misc and shield as counter-examples of items that pay costs only when the trigger conditions are met, not every turn. Therefore there is precedent, and I honestly do not think this counts as "cherry-picking by ignoring how assumptions work in some aspects of the game". If you still think I missed the point, we can debate further?




    dizzle -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/24/2024 19:03:17)

    Many players and LK himself have exhausted in great detail why, even though they might not be accurate 100% of the time, assumptions are so crucial to both balance and item design. I have been lectured a good many times on this by people with much more game knowledge than I have.

    Just because you are able to use items or set ups to perform/act differently than what is assumed doesn’t mean that those assumptions don’t still apply. There’s a reason that we get elecomp on H series ele lock attack even though it gives us guaranteed celerity. You don’t have to like these reasons or think they might need to be updated but that doesn’t diminish their necessity. The devs can be crafty with how assumptions can be used to create powerful equipment. This is a good thing and makes the game more dynamic. But you have to be consistent or constant with the assumptions used or the foundation of balance crumbles. Suggesting a player who invests 1/3 of their stat points to get taxed 1000sp 10% of the time, while still letting mages reap the rewards from being assumed to cast a 2-hit spell only every 5th turn, or allowing elecomp on turns with guaranteed celerity is not consistent and also would just destroy LUK in general I think. Just because there are items that allow us to gain LS at a rate higher than 10% doesn’t mean we need to be taxed for it. Otherwise, subsequently, the MP bar would be cut in half, resource regeneration would not be possible, hybridizing your char would not be allowed etc etc etc. The core assumptions are the foundation of game balance and item design and they have to stay consistent if you want order instead of chaos




    dizzle -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/24/2024 21:26:37)

    With LUK investment, the player is assumed to LS 10% of the time. This is called the base LS rate. A lucky strike is bonus damage modifier that’s applied to your attacks 10% of the time. You get this bonus *because* of your stat investment. Just like you get MP because of your INT investment. This value is factored into the games core assumptions. This is why you do not pay resources when a LS lands, because you’ve already paid for it via your LUK investment. Granddads sword pays MC + 15% melee in HP every single turn you attack with it. Think of this melee% as a stockpile that eventually goes towards your next LS that procs. This is why you’re not getting “free” melee with it. Just because you can sometimes bypass the turns where you don’t LS doesn’t mean that the core assumption of 10% LS doesn’t apply. This item specifically uses this assumption to justify the 20% melee you’re funneling into it every single turn. This is why I used warcaster staves as an example. Just because you’re assumed to only cast 2 spells every battle, yet you’re actually casting 5 spells during a battle, doesn’t mean that the assumption doesn’t apply.

    Again - this is not free melee you’re getting from the LS, just like it’s not free melee you’re getting every turn when casting spells with warcaster staves. It uses assumptions to justify the melee you get on the proc, assumptions that include a longer duration battle and the procs happening less often. You’re paying for the LS with whatever the resource cost is for whichever LS based item you want to talk about, and the other way you’re paying for it is by your investment in the LUK stat. This is why LUKy strikes are less effective with a lower LUK investment.

    This is why you can’t have cost on LS proc. You can change the value of the damage modifier for LS, you can change the value of hypercrit, but you can’t unnecessarily tax players for a LS proc *when they’re already paying for it.* You gotta come at this from a different angle




    CH4OT1C! -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/25/2024 6:00:38)

    @dizzle:
    quote:

    With LUK investment, the player is assumed to LS 10% of the time. This is called the base LS rate. A lucky strike is bonus damage modifier that’s applied to your attacks 10% of the time. You get this bonus *because* of your stat investment. Just like you get MP because of your INT investment. This value is factored into the games core assumptions. This is why you do not pay resources when a LS lands, because you’ve already paid for it via your LUK investment. Granddads sword pays MC + 15% melee in HP every single turn you attack with it. Think of this melee% as a stockpile that eventually goes towards your next LS that procs. This is why you’re not getting “free” melee with it. Just because you can sometimes bypass the turns where you don’t LS doesn’t mean that the core assumption of 10% LS doesn’t apply. This item specifically uses this assumption to justify the 20% melee you’re funneling into it every single turn.

    As you rightly point out:
  • Assumptions are crucial to balance and item design
  • The player is assumed to LS 10% of the time provided they have some LUK.

    Where your logic falters is that Granddad and other LS items directly assume that your LS rate is 10% in their cost calculation. This means, if you, to put it in your words, 'bypass LS turns', you are, in fact, receiving %Melee that the cost on the LS item was never designed to cover. This is free %Melee, and there's not a convincing way to argue otherwise. To reiterate from my previous post, this does not mean I think the player should be asked to pay for this free %Melee. We don't ask the player to pay resources in a number of similar situations, including the Spellcasting items you mentioned, as well as for Dodgelash. It is also why I can't agree with @Telcontar Arvedui I. Instead, I believe it should be outright impossible for direct LS rate boosters to reach 100% LS chance.




    Based on the feedback generated by this thread, I have slightly modified my position:
  • LS rates should be valued correctly: 1% LS Rate = 1.5% Melee
  • LS Rate modifiers should stack additively with one another.
  • The Hypercritical status should become a lean affecting LS damage modifiers e.g., +40% Rate = /5 Damage (since 50% total chance of LS). This also means it has no %Melee cost to apply it. This I believe should help to address @Dardiel's concerns
  • Direct LS rate items can still exist. However, the LS rate should not be able to exceed 30-40% without hypercritical. This is to ensure that the free %Melee involved does not become uncontrollable. I would prefer to manage this as a hard cap, but am also open to a strong soft cap. Retaining a 30-40% cap is still considerably higher than the spellboosting items you mention @Dizzle. Items like Granddad can increase LS damage by 200%, which is far more than any normal spellbooster. This also incorporates part of @ruleandrew's approach, only with an increased cap (I think a maximum 15% cap would be too low). EDIT: Please note - this can be increased up to 100% through Hypercritical, so long as the necessary damage penalty is still applied.
  • These mechanics should apply regardless of whether it targets the monster or the player (as a healing attack). I vehemently disagree with @Grace Xisthrith that damage caps mean that we can allow more leeway on attacks targeting the monster. Runaway interactions on nuke damage were the main reason damage caps were introduced in the first place. It is therefore circular reasoning to use their existence to justify retaining a runaway interaction like LS damage!




  • dizzle -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/25/2024 11:05:10)

    Just a couple quick points

    quote:

    [Where your logic falters is that Granddad and other LS items directly assume that your LS rate is 10% in their cost calculation. This means, if you, to put it in your words, 'bypass LS turns', you are, in fact, receiving %Melee that the cost on the LS item was never designed to cover.


    Just to be clear, this is not my logic, this is the developers and the item designers logic. It is indeed questionable, but I’m just pointing out the reality. You can say that it’s free melee% but then we’re right back to square one regarding item design around assumptions. As I said in post #33 I believe, our very clever coders are very good at staying within the parameters of general balance while using assumptions to grant the player more power. Again I say this is a good thing. It creates a new dynamic and keeps the 20 year old game fresh, otherwise we’d all still be standard attacking and taking 10 turns per battle.

    Secondly, you say that you’re getting melee% that the cost on the LS item was never designed to cover, to which I say, and this is just speculation, they knew full well what they were doing when designing these items. And they know full well that they’re using old assumptions to grant the player extra power. This was and is almost certainly intentional. Just as a lot of the other modern items that break assumptions were likely intentional. Again this is not a bad thing, it’s very cool and crafty imo, however I do agree that it in some situations it can be slightly problematic. But that is what these GBI’s are for




    Telcontar Arvedui I -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/25/2024 12:44:26)

    @dizzle, you have a fair point about the core assumptions of the game model. However, when said assumptions can be easily deviated, subverted or exploited by players to consistently provide quadrupled-or-more returns, instead of just "sometimes bypass(ed)", I don't believe that it is only "slightly problematic", and I don't believe that a do-nothing approach is a reasonable reaction. (I say quadrupled-or-more returns by referring to the tactic of spending the first 2 turns of every battlecasting a Dragonguard spell, and then attacking with Granddad - this means there are bigger exploits out there).

    Therefore I agree with you that GBIs exists, and I'll use these threads to voice out my opinion that such a flaw in the logic, irrespective of whom said logic came from, requires addressing.

    Also to clarify, if I interpret "unnecessarily tax players for a LS proc when they’re already paying for it" correctly, no I was not getting players to pay on-LS when they already have to pay a proper-tenth of upkeep every turn.
    That said, I am amenable to splitting the cost between per-turn-upkeep and payment-on-LS - as an attempt to allow for both assumption-bypass, and deviation-accountability. This was already added into my proposal in post #22.

    * * * * * * *


    @Chaotic, should my proposal be discarded / discounted, I can support your proposed solution in post #41. One of my personal visions is that we should still allow players to achieve 100 percent LS rate - given your 30 to 40 percent cap exists before Hypercrit, this means we can boost it up to 100 percent with Hypercrit, and I'm happy with that. Sidenote, you really should clarify that in your 4th bullet point, it'll very likely help reduce confusion and draw more supporters.




    Dardiel -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/25/2024 16:32:32)

    I largely support both Telcontar's ideas and Chaotic's ideas. I believe that reaching 100% Lucky Strike chance should be possible but I also believe that getting x10 for "free" due to assumption abuse is too far, however I do support allowing a full-crit setup to get at least a small bonus for being heavily invested into a single mechanic. Getting /0.5 on a 100% LS chance sure to being 50% lean + 50% paid for sounds relatively acceptable.




    Korriban Gaming -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/25/2024 22:31:59)

    quote:

    FD as a lean is, due to expected monster and player output, the strongest lean in the game. It also sits pretty solidly in being the least popular.

    Fair enough. It's not accurate all the time but I'd say it's still mostly accurate.

    quote:

    I recognise that you regularly have serious concerns regarding nerfs to just about any part of AQ. I cannot speak for the staff, but nailing your flag to this mast means it is likely that (i) the more powerful LS items currently in existence are at serious risk of being substantially nerfed and (ii) the staff would heavily restrict the LS-related items they released - the core issue of the x10 modifier has not changed.

    Most LS items are premium. I have faith in the staff that they would not make drastic or substantial nerfs. While I understand some form of a nerf will indeed come, I do not believe it to be as severe as you make it out to be otherwise it would just be a slap in the face for everyone who spent money on said LS items. We all know how the optics would look for that. And there are many examples of other games out there who do this and gets drowned in the backlash following-up.

    quote:

    Therefore, I'm willing to concede a bit of ground, and request for Granddad's ilk to pay a small margin of the cost per-turn instead of paying it all on-LS. This should allow them to retain their 3x LS damage modifier effect, but still be expensive enough to be unable to activate all the time under a proper resource economy. Example numbers will be edited into post #22. Sidenote: it's also worth keeping in mind that, it might be possible for the devs to code something that divides the cost by armour / weapon-proc hitcount, making it much more palatable, especially if the player has non-guaranteed LS (aka <100% LS chances). For example, using Granddad with a 2-hitcount armour means you're only paying 150 %Melee if you LS on one and not both of the hits.

    Simple! I've mentioned this in post #22 - the LS damage modifier doesn't activate if you can't afford pay the cost. This might, in practice, turn LS-damage-modifiers into a spell-like cost mechanic - if you can't pay, you can't cast the effect.

    Combine the two answers above, and you might see what I'm trying to achieve - 2 distinct niches of LS-damage-boosting playstyles. One uses equipment that offer smaller LS-damage-boosts (1.5x LS damage weapons such as Monolith Mace and Unfortunate Umbrella), combined with longer-termed (2-4 turns) LS-chance-boosts, for a more consistent and sustained LS output by allowing natural resource (namely SP) regeneration to offset the per-turn costs, at the expense of lowered ceiling. The other goes all-in after accumulating enough resources for a big expenditure that results in a LS damage output that completely blows the roof off, brings the house down, etc. etc, at the cost of being nigh impossible to casually repeat that outcome over consecutive turns, again under a reasonable resource economy. Yes, I am fully aware that I pass the ball into the "resource eco GBI" court, meaning the whole LS issue would take longer to fully resolve - but I am willing to endure such a long-pain scenario. Again, I have faith that the devs will do take the correct measures when the resource eco revamp fully comes around, and thus allowing the first of the two aforementioned niches to really step out of the second's shadow. Until then, enjoyers of the second niche (the current LS-Hypercrit-nuke setup) can either learn to wean off of it, or suffer worse withdrawal symptoms when the full resolution comes around :evil_smiles:

    I can get behind this.

    quote:

    I believe that reaching 100% Lucky Strike chance should be possible but I also believe that getting x10 for "free" due to assumption abuse is too far, however I do support allowing a full-crit setup to get at least a small for being heavily invested into a single mechanic.

    Agree with this.

    Luck as its name suggests is all about gambling. Go big or go home. I believe giving the player the option to go big fits into the whole luck theme very aptly and see no reason why it needs to be so severely toned down.

    quote:

    LS Rate modifiers should stack additively with one another.

    I can agree with this.

    quote:

    The Hypercritical status should become a lean affecting LS damage modifiers e.g., +40% Rate = /5 Damage (since 50% total chance of LS). This also means it has no %Melee cost to apply it. This I believe should help to address @Dardiel's concerns

    Disagree with this. Far too drastic of a change.

    quote:

    Direct LS rate items can still exist. However, the LS rate should not be able to exceed 30-40% without hypercritical. This is to ensure that the free %Melee involved does not become uncontrollable. I would prefer to manage this as a hard cap, but am also open to a strong soft cap. Retaining a 30-40% cap is still considerably higher than the spellboosting items you mention @Dizzle. Items like Granddad can increase LS damage by 200%, which is far more than any normal spellbooster. This also incorporates part of @ruleandrew's approach, only with an increased cap (I think a maximum 15% cap would be too low). EDIT: Please note - this can be increased up to 100% through Hypercritical, so long as the necessary damage penalty is still applied.

    Since we're throwing out arbitrary numbers then I personally feel 50% would be the sweet spot since it is the halfway mark.





    CH4OT1C! -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/26/2024 19:18:46)

    @Telcontar Arvedui I + @Dardiel: While I recognise there are still some differences in our preferred implementation, it's great to see that we all collectively agree upon a broad path forwards. As it appears @Branl is also broadly on board with a lean solution, it's nice to see a number of us reaching a similar solution.

    @dizzle: Forgive me, but I seem to be a little confused precisely where you stand. It's clear to me that you don't support the increased cost system presented by @Telcontar Arvedui I, as we don't ask the player to pay this kind of additional cost in other situations where item interactions cause extra %Melee to be obtained. I'll put aside whether LS items were designed with this in mind, as (for the moment, at least) it's irrelevant to my question. However, in your original reply to this thread, your (admittedly preliminary) position was:
  • A lean system could be interesting, though a 1:1 rate might be too harsh
  • Re-evaluate the cost of boosting LS rate
    I bold the second point because, albeit approached from a slightly different angle, this is pretty much the same kind of cost system as the one you just rejected. I thought this might be because @Telcontar Arvedui I's approach is simply too harsh, but based on your reasoning, it seems like your position more fundamentally opposes a cost-based solution. With that in mind, does that mean you now reject your original cost proposal? If so, what do you now prefer?




  • Aura Knight -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/26/2024 23:31:22)

    I'll add these thoughts too.

    20% rate to occur if 250 luck.
    Impossible otherwise.
    Non-hypercrit offers the strongest output.
    Hypercrit weakens the hit. This is to keep in check player manipulation of damage.
    Rather than multiplied damage on LS it becomes added varying from +125% to +500%.
    Adjust numbers as needed.
    Add a cooldown period to not allow consecutive LS.
    Consider hp cost equal to a percent of the hit. What good is power without risk?




    dizzle -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/27/2024 1:24:50)

    quote:

    @dizzle: Forgive me, but I seem to be a little confused precisely where you stand. It's clear to me that you don't support the increased cost system presented by @Telcontar Arvedui I, as we don't ask the player to pay this kind of additional cost in other situations where item interactions cause extra %Melee to be obtained. I'll put aside whether LS items were designed with this in mind, as (for the moment, at least) it's irrelevant to my question. However, in your original reply to this thread, your (admittedly preliminary) position was:
    A lean system could be interesting, though a 1:1 rate might be too harsh
    Re-evaluate the cost of boosting LS rate
    I bold the second point because, albeit approached from a slightly different angle, this is pretty much the same kind of cost system as the one you just rejected. I thought this might be because @Telcontar Arvedui I's approach is simply too harsh, but based on your reasoning, it seems like your position more fundamentally opposes a cost-based solution. With that in mind, does that mean you now reject your original cost proposal? If so, what do you now prefer?


    Yea I can clarify what my stance is and kinda go more in depth if you want! Although I believe it could potentially be a fairly simple solution

    In my first post as you referred to I said that I think the value of boosting LS rate should probably go up. In my second post I said that all LS rate boosting items should also be on the same standard. I don’t think the damage needs to be raise or lowered, I don’t think the base rate needs modified and I don’t think we need to pay an additional cost based off the amount of raw melee power we have at our disposal on a turn by turn basis. I think that will spell trouble and create impactful contradictions through the rest of the game. Ones that I will certainly address in the GBI’s if something like that does happen. I think that hypercrit and base LS rate modifying items need to interact properly and be on the same standard so you can’t combine +LS base rate with a multiplicative hypercrit. I’m hesitant to say there shouldn’t be any multiplicative LS rate modifiers because I think that shuts the door on item design and potential fun release in the future, but atm I can see why they’re problematic. I believe this is the biggest issue behind player LS in general. Using Lust/Envy to gain a ~40% boost to LS rate, combined with Timekillers x2 hypercrit in combination with granddads creates a wildly efficient massive nuke machine. I think that a massive nuke machine is perfectly fine and creates its own niche style of glass cannon gameplay that Id hate to see get obliterated. We’re in too deep with all the modern equipment to go back to a game where challenge bosses don’t have mechanics to counter player strategies and what’s more, I don’t think any of us want that game either. Boss boost, freedom, plot armor, damage caps, backlash. These might’ve been intended as bandaid fixes but they don’t bother me personally and I don’t think they should bother anyone else either. They make battles more interesting and make it harder to cheese your way through meaningful fights. This is normal in games for bosses to have counters to player strategy. Damage caps with clawbacks of <=.5 as well as backlash do a great job in general at stopping the player from getting a 1TK from stacking crit on mobs that are meant to be challenging. Plot armor I’m not as big of a fan of but that’s neither here nor there and strays from the point of the thread

    Regarding your point about me contradicting myself: In my later posts in this thread I wasn’t saying that I’m opposed to an increased cost based solution, I was saying that the one proposed that got the most traction is fundamentally not an option unless the devs start contradicting standards and to be honest doesn’t really make sense given how this game works. I think initially I was misunderstood so I had to explain why I believe it is not an option due to how assumptions play into player power.

    To sum up my opinion on the GBI for clarification:
    - The value of modifying LS Rate (both hypercrit and base rate increases) could potentially be due for an arbitrary increase.
    - Hypercrit and LS rate modifying items need to interact properly so as to not create overly efficient stacks and set ups. If this means making everything additive for the time being that’s fine by me.
    - LS damage is fine and LS damage modifying items are generally fine (or they will be anyway if my suggestion gets implemented :p)




    CH4OT1C! -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/27/2024 6:11:40)

    @Dizzle: Ok, it was definitely worthwhile asking for additional info - this does definitely help to clarify your perspective. While I do fundamentally disagree with some of your views (I think LS damage after item interactions needs to go down, and I believe it's circular reasoning to justify high damage with the presence of damage caps on a small subset of monsters), I don't think that position is untenable so long as LS items continue to be heavily restricted in future (maybe moreso, I think Granddad might need looking at...). There are also some similarities in our viewpoints - I support fixing stacking rules (though I do think multiplicative LS rate modifiers should be shown the door) and I'm opposed to @Sapphire's idea to change the base rate.

    It seems that my initial thoughts were on the money - you disagree with @Telcontar Arvedui I's approach rather than the idea of a cost-based solution itself. The issue I have is:
    quote:

    I was saying that the one proposed that got the most traction is fundamentally not an option unless the devs start contradicting standards and to be honest doesn’t really make sense given how this game works. I think initially I was misunderstood so I had to explain why I believe it is not an option due to how assumptions play into player power.

    Now, while I personally disagree with your interpretation of the situation, it is undoubtedly true that we don't ask players to pay for the extra %Melee obtained through item interactions. It would, therefore, be contradicting precedent to start doing so. Where I see an issue is, even under the interpretation most favourable to your position, @Telcontar Arvedui I's approach is essentially applying an arbitrary additional cost to LS mechanics to make them fairer. This is precisely what you support doing: increasing the value of LS rate increases by an arbitrary figure. As of yet, you haven't provided any figures to exemplify how your system would work, but how would you ensure your system isn't subject to the exact same criticism? At the very least, @Telcontar Arvedui I's proposal does have its costs grounded in the game's math. And, even if it breaks precedent to charge for this reason, precedents can sometimes be broken.

    @Aura Knight: Without trying to be blunt, your idea to disable LSs below 250 LUK is completely untenable. Among the many, many problems this would cause, the player wouldn't even be able to LS until they were approaching Level 50 (and that's supposing they somehow had the gold to pay for stat training)!




    Aura Knight -> RE: Lucky Strikes (7/27/2024 11:19:45)

    The stat value can be adjusted if 250 is extreme but to lucky strike from as low as 5 is weird. It's not like the damage is significant when it happens. How about 150-250?

    Lucky strikes should not be part of strategy until the later levels.






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

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
    0.15625