Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

RE: Bludgeon Balance

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel Balance >> RE: Bludgeon Balance
Page 2 of 3<123>
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
9/30/2013 19:37:07   
lionblades
Member

@ Exploding P.
quote:

Actually no, it is not fine. If you take the raw skill and find the damage-energy cost ratio...

Thats not the point of my post. My post refers to the fact that in the beginning of Omega bludgeon was fine since all the other skills were on par or stronger. For example, there was the str merc, caster mage, focus build etc. but they all got nerfed due to suggestive balance changes. Since there are no longer many strong viable build options BM bludgeon is taking all the blame. If you look at it BM was the only one not significantly nerfed. Instead of nerfing I would rather buff some other classes such as the TLM to be on par and balanced.

< Message edited by lionblades -- 9/30/2013 19:38:54 >
AQW  Post #: 26
9/30/2013 21:52:27   
ur going to fail
Member

I think bludgeon shouldn't be locked to P attacks, its dmg type should reflect that of the primary weapons the BM/TM is using. With metor/plasma shower, bot, guns, aux's.. Its almost like it doesn't matter if your weapons are E or P, it all just blends and is a huge problem. This will be a bonus to classes with shields because they actually might help outside of just using as debuffs.
Epic  Post #: 27
9/30/2013 22:54:16   
toopygoo
Member

@ dual thrusters:

lets do some math shall we?

you have 16-21 strength (most frequent i tend to see) + 36 with sword

you deal 52-57 damage
@ level 1

52*1.23=63.96

57*1.23=70.11
there has already been a one point increase due to percentage, and no data has been changed yet (note the ranged has increased from 6 to 8
if we take the average skill level (about 6) we got
38% increase
52*1.38= 71.6
a 15% increase game an 8 point difference
52*1.38=78.66

so yes. even a 3-5 percent makes a big difference
especially when they pair it with rage, and because it has a lower cost to begin with.

@ ur going to fail:
no. just no... that would give mages a lot more freedom in how strong they can make their attacks. especially with their support based malfunction

< Message edited by toopygoo -- 9/30/2013 22:55:41 >
AQW Epic  Post #: 28
10/1/2013 2:58:41   
Ranloth
Banned


@ur going to fail
By being Physical, you know what to expect when it's gonna be used - so if you rely on Shields, you know it'll definitely be Physical attack. Furthermore, do you know why its EP cost is low? Because it's locked to Physical. Non-locked? Look at Double Strike and its EP cost.
AQ Epic  Post #: 29
10/1/2013 15:03:10   
toopygoo
Member

@ trans

to be fair though, what if you'd prefer to have it locked? do you think we should half the excess energy cost (relative from double strike to bludgeon) if we were to lock it in before a battle started?

id much prefer to have a strong attack, at a lower cost regardless of what type of damage it deals, because it is a GREAT enhancer of rage, regardless at a cheaper price regardless of hitting or not.

i still think bludgeon is much stronger than double strike, but i dont agree that it alone makes a class OP.
AQW Epic  Post #: 30
10/1/2013 15:08:52   
Ranloth
Banned


At the same time, you may stumble upon an enemy who has higher Dex than Tech (thus higher Defence) and you're forced to attack with Physical. Not mentioning Shielding at the right time - for some people - which makes it predictable.

All I've said is why the EP cost is lower, and that is due to locking. DS doesn't have the lock and freedom comes at a cost.
AQ Epic  Post #: 31
10/1/2013 15:16:40   
toopygoo
Member

but see once youre in a battle, your choice is locked, so regardless of you having a energy weapon or a physical, once youre in a battle, your choice is locked in, so do you see my point about that?

suer you cant tell if someone with energy weapon or phyiscal WILL have double strike in use, but with that token, same applies to bludgeon, and in which case, you should always have an energy weapon with bludgeon so you can use malfunction and lower their stats, in case their dex is high ...
mercs dont have that option. youre stuck with a single type of strong attack, and you cant even lower defences to help one or the other (except by azraels sword, which is no longer available.
AQW Epic  Post #: 32
10/1/2013 15:22:43   
Ranloth
Banned


Actually, we're lucky in this case because neither can BMs nor TMs empower Bludgeon, due to being locked to Physical and one lacking an offensive debuff and other lowering Resistance.

Instead of sorta going on about it, why not bump it's requirement from 2 Dex per level to 2.5 Dex per level, for up to +5 difference at Lvl 10 & minimally bump its EP cost? It's only a problem due to synergy, and it won't fix TMs "abusing" it because they have Reroute, so it's not a problem. For BMs, it would due to limited EP, but it's only "overpowered" for BMs due to synergy with Strength + BL + DA, not the skill alone.

The skill is seriously fine. It's the synergy for BMs, and TMs (glass cannons) who rely on Bludgeon have terrible ratios and rely on luck, which averages out. Synergy will be broken once passives are changed. There will not be any small fixes before then, so I don't see why this needs to be discussed at the current state of balance. It will be all pointless once passives are changed, because synergy will be gone and our points are made during the "passive era".
AQ Epic  Post #: 33
10/1/2013 15:32:51   
toopygoo
Member

i could deal with that, yes, but i would even consider support being the minimum stat, so it has not effect on the effectivity on the skill, such as in bounty hunters with tech. and change the support minimum from malfunction to dex. and change the upgrade on supercharge from tech to strength.
any idea why that wouldnt work in a better+harder defined mage build?

also, i want to hear an opinion on changing bludgeon to staff requirements, and making assimilation sword based (will help mages with reroute against mercs)
and removing the weapon limitation from fire bolt in BM's

AQW Epic  Post #: 34
10/1/2013 15:38:41   
Ranloth
Banned


Assimilation was always Staff-only and it should stay this way. With Swords, you'd get massive abuse of Assimilation. And Bludgeon was Staff-only but TMs lack non-Staff skills hence why it got changed & likewise with BMs. In fact, it was already brought up here: http://forums2.battleon.com/f/fb.asp?m=21462332
AQ Epic  Post #: 35
10/1/2013 15:41:24   
toopygoo
Member

no, i remember that thread. thats why i suggested exchanging something else to staff<=>sword.

and assimilation is strength based, not regular damage based, therefore, the extra stat, and 1 damage point should play a factor in altering the build too much. however it would prevernt the single skill that IS relevant to damage, from being usable with a stronger weapon.
AQW Epic  Post #: 36
10/1/2013 15:45:09   
Scyze
Member

Are you simply saying this: "Bludgeon has now got a problem because we now see a lot of Strength Blood Mages?" Yes or no?
If it isn't the case, I think that this is the worst time for this balance post to surface.

I honestly think that it is fair right now.
AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 37
10/1/2013 15:51:59   
toopygoo
Member

alright, ill be frank:

i have a 23 mage. strength build. 45 support is plenty with a level 2 malfunction, take 18 tech, and ill win 3 battles, fro every loss. easy. you say that not high? i have a 600-200 win loss at level 23.

my bludgeon deals aroud 22 damage against DEX BUILDS, 37 against tech builds, and above 40 for rage 90% of the time.
if you dont think average 40 damage for a skill that costs 18 energy, at level 23, and deals 40+ damage isnt OP, then i must admit, your point of view is REALLY off.
level 23's
doing 40
for 18 energy?!?!?!
NOT OK!!

so to answer your question: pairing bludgeon with a sword is not the brightest idea because even without that advantage it can be really strong. i have not said a single point about seeing a lot of strength BM's in my last few posts, so i dont want you to try to turn my words inside out. i was talking strictly about the skill in general and its minimum requirements.
AQW Epic  Post #: 38
10/1/2013 20:50:12   
  Exploding Penguin
Moderator


Bludgeon with a staff would actually not be a bad idea (for BM, idk about TM). It might actually promote use of fireball as well which would make some fights more interesting.

But yea, I think most of us here can agree a slight energy cost increase is pretty necessary.
Epic  Post #: 39
10/2/2013 13:21:20   
ED Divine Darkness
Member

on bm they shud replace bludg with assim to make it less op with str but more useful atogether. then maybe give them a sword viable move that cost the energy of zerker but at max it ignores 42% defence/res? might make them more fun but less op.
AQ AQW Epic  Post #: 40
10/2/2013 15:02:02   
Ranloth
Banned


No, they should not. Strength-based EP drain that deals damage on top of it, and returns the EP to you would just overpower BMs. Having a stable EP drain and EP return skill, as well as dealing quite an amount of damage and stacking with BL would get overpowered. On the new active system, we could think about it.
AQ Epic  Post #: 41
10/3/2013 3:52:45   
dfo99
Member
 

blood mages not have mana drainers, and the amor skill is useful all turns, and the deadly aim is useful per 2 turn.
Post #: 42
10/3/2013 3:55:00   
Ranloth
Banned


Deadly Aim uses your Gun. Gun uses Strength. Strength empowers all your Melee attacks. Strike is active at all times. Bludgeon is Melee. BloodLust stacks with everything that's offensive.

Don't compare Armors (primary passive) to DA (secondary passive). They are at a whole different level. Compare BL to Armors, instead. Of Reroute and BL. Or DA and SA/Adrenaline.
AQ Epic  Post #: 43
10/3/2013 14:50:12   
martinsen5
Member

I just skimmed through all the comments here so I might be slightly off-topic when I say that it's not just Blood Mages that can spam Bludgeon, Tech Mages use it a gazillion times as well at an unreasonably low cost.

I've lost count of how many times I've been at 50 HP, while my opponent was down to around 5-10 health, and guess what! They rage their Bludgeon and hit a massive 55 damage and I'm dead, what a surprise! Love this game.

Could definitely need some changes as far as energy cost goes.
AQW Epic  Post #: 44
10/6/2013 14:13:26   
Stabilis
Member

quote:

I feel bludgeon, a move used by the mage classes is a bit too strong of a skill for its cost.


This is your claim.

quote:

My reasoning behind this is as following. The other classes pay a lot more energy for a % damage increase than the mages have to.
For a Hunter class, to get a 31% damage increase, it costs 33 energy. The move is Massacre, level 1. (Note this move can not be blocked)
For a merc class, to get a 33% damage increase, it costs 27 energy. This move is Double Strike, level 7. (Can be blocked)
Also for a merc class, to get a 35% damage increase, it costs 27 energy. This move is Berserker, level 1. (Can be blocked)
For a mage class, to get a 32% damage increase, it costs 16 energy. This move is Bludgeon, level 4. (Can be blocked)


OMG! Finally we have some authentic evidence for balancing skills! I will help you clean these unfinished numerical expressions. You should have compared them all at the same skill level though. At level 10, their maximum. We need to see how they function when at their limits, or else scaling is not represented properly, that is bias.

Massacre:
Max Damage: +120% (Weapon Damage) (220%)
Max Energy Cost: 60
Weapon Damage Bonus Per 1 Energy Cost: 2%

Double Strike:
Max Damage: +42% (Weapon Damage) (142%)
Max Energy Cost: 33
Weapon Damage Bonus Per 1 Energy Cost: 1.27%

Berzerker:
Max Damage: +80% (Weapon Damage) (180%)
Max Energy Cost: 45
Weapon Damage Bonus Per 1 Energy Cost: 1.78%

Bludgeon:
Max Damage +50% (Weapon Damage) (150%)
Max Energy Cost: 28
Weapon Damage Bonus Per 1 Energy Cost: 1.79%



Oh. How awkward. Bludgeon does not even provide the highest damage per energy cost. Massacre does. It even ties with Berzerker if not for the 0.01% deviation. Well, no matter, let us see how these same skills do in terms of damage over time.




Massacre: Max Damage: +120% (Weapon Damage) (220%)
Warmup: 3
Cooldown: 3
Weapon Damage Bonus Per Turn (no Warmup): 30% Weapon Damage
Weapon Damage Bonus Per Turn (with Warmup) (x represents the turn value, or time): 30%x - 90%

Double Strike:
Max Damage: +42% (Weapon Damage) (142%)
Warmup: 0
Cooldown: 1
Weapon Damage Bonus Per Turn (no Warmup): 21% Weapon Damage
Weapon Damage Bonus Per Turn (with Warmup): 21%x

Berzerker:
Max Damage: +80% (Weapon Damage) (180%)
Warmup: 1
Cooldown: 2
Weapon Damage Bonus Per Turn (no Warmup): 26.67% Weapon Damage
Weapon Damage Bonus Per Turn (with Warmup): 26.67%x - 26.67%

Bludgeon:
Max Damage +50% (Weapon Damage) (150%)
Warmup: 0
Cooldown: 2
Weapon Damage Bonus Per Turn (no Warmup): 16.67% Weapon Damage
Weapon Damage Bonus Per Turn (with Warmup): 16.67%x

GearHeadz, I am afraid that the evidence for Bludgeon having an imbalanced damage to cost ratio is not true. It nearly ties with Berzerker in that respect, and is beaten by Massacre.

Even in terms of damage output per turn, it still loses out to Double Strike, and over time, it also loses out to Berzerker AND Massacre, though initially it beats Berzerker and Massacre by not having a warmup. I am afraid that the evidence is not in your favour.

< Message edited by Depressed Void -- 10/6/2013 19:10:33 >
AQ Epic  Post #: 45
10/6/2013 14:25:27   
Ranloth
Banned


I will just add something to your post, Void. Massacre has highest damage boost per EP because its two effects go into pure damage boost. All other Ultimates have two effects whilst Massacre has none but receives a damage boost instead.
AQ Epic  Post #: 46
10/6/2013 15:43:44   
Stabilis
Member

I am doubting why Massacre needed to be included in the first place, having more efficiency than normal skills, being classed as ultimate. Also, I updated the second set of calculations to remove weapon damage (100%) from weapon damage bonus. My mistake. Instead of seeing "55%x - 165%" in Massacre, it should now read "30%x - 90%", and the same fix was applied to the other 3.
AQ Epic  Post #: 47
10/6/2013 23:17:29   
GearzHeadz
Member

Well depressed void you're right. You win the post, you had all the numbers and proved your point. I didn't appreciate the sarcasm though.
DF AQW Epic  Post #: 48
10/7/2013 0:56:37   
  Exploding Penguin
Moderator


Sorry Depressed, but I find slightly flawed logic in your analysis of the situation. You only use the max level of skill point investment, whereas Bludgeon is entirely more effective at 1 skill point, while zerker and massacre are all most effective at max skill point investments.

If you really wanted to prove which one had a cumulative better damage-energy ratio then I would suggest finding the average ratio for the skills given the different ratio for every skill point investment. Basically, I believe the best way would just be to find the average of 10 numbers (each of these 10 numbers is the ratio for each skill point investment from 1-10).

Also, I find it hard to do a raw ratio comparison considering the different warm-up and cooldown periods of each skill. The truly best and most accurate way to compare them fairly is through experimental and/or hypothetical tests on real battles to find damage output sums for energy used, and we'll still probably need some bias and opinion as well because of the fact that doing more damage in a single turn can definitely be more beneficial in 2v2 for pulling out quick kills on a targeted individual.
Epic  Post #: 49
10/7/2013 7:16:16   
Stabilis
Member

quote:

Well depressed void you're right. You win the post, you had all the numbers and proved your point. I didn't appreciate the sarcasm though.


I was not sarcastic, I was surprised myself that the outcome was different.

quote:

If you really wanted to prove which one had a cumulative better damage-energy ratio then I would suggest finding the average ratio for the skills given the different ratio for every skill point investment. Basically, I believe the best way would just be to find the average of 10 numbers (each of these 10numbers is the ratio for each skill point investment from 1-10).


I do not believe that the average is the best way to show the ratio, I know that the average itself is not even a representative number of anything that exists. It represents distribution, as obvious as that is. Nobody applies average to their skills. When was the last time someone's skill's level was average? All averaging does, is make a Frankenstein of various pieces of information that is not even regressively graphable. If you took data, made an average, then graphed the average, you would get a straight line every time. No curves, no limits. An average simply allows people to look at a set of data as 1 comprehensible number. Assuming the data is even perfectly symmetrical on both sides of the center! If you do not want my authority on this, Yule and Kendall state the role of the mean, or average: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewness

I dropped representative numbers of sets a while back because they did not properly represent change over time. For my case here, level 1 through 9 in skills does not represent scaling without bias, and level 10 has to be a part of this? I do not think so.

Post edited to remove unnecessary content. Check inbox for more details. ~Therril Oreb

< Message edited by Therril Oreb -- 10/8/2013 3:58:31 >
AQ Epic  Post #: 50
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel Balance >> RE: Bludgeon Balance
Page 2 of 3<123>
Jump to:






Icon Legend
New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Content Copyright © 2018 Artix Entertainment, LLC.

"AdventureQuest", "DragonFable", "MechQuest", "EpicDuel", "BattleOn.com", "AdventureQuest Worlds", "Artix Entertainment"
and all game character names are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Artix Entertainment, LLC. All rights are reserved.
PRIVACY POLICY


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition