Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

Panoply [feat. Big Dictionary] [and now Lepre-Chan]

Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Game Balance Issues >> Panoply [feat. Big Dictionary] [and now Lepre-Chan]
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
1/28/2016 21:28:58   
Luster Bladewarrior

So, now that the GBI forum has calmed down a bit and there's a quiet moment, decided to finally make a thread on Panoply.

Current state: 5 rounds of 29 MRM. Level-locked with losing 1/12 of the boost past the 4th one for each level.

I shall hereby argue that both are unbalanced.

MRM boost:

Currently, it prevents (5*29/85=) 170,6% of monster damage, or alternatively gives 145 MRM. I cannot make sense of this:

A healing spell heals 200% of standard monster, or 140% of boss monster's damage.
A SP version, like logos, would give 120 MRM for 784 SP (2 Melee). This divides perfectly into 24.
Even using 1,15 for extra turns since magic (which no previous gear piece of gear does, so it'd be nice to confirm), you'd get 200*0,85/1,15= 147,8 MRM. This divides to 29,6, which would generally be rounded up or srounded.

Thus, following proposal:

Panoply gives sround([1+turns since casting/100]*0,9*200(*0,85?)*0,2/1,4) MRM, for
.....Damage Over Time (applicable since healing Seeds),
.....Always Useful? Given you don't need to keep weapon equipped, but more typically would weapon-lock it.
.....200% melee of spell,
.....hit rate,
.....split into five turns,
..... /1,4 for affecting monster damage.

This would result in 24,28; 24,53; 24,77; 25,01; 25,26 MRM across 5 turns (*0,9 if applying Always useful too). Or more simply could go with the middle option.

Level lock, part 1:

In essence an absolutely necessary feature. Were it'd be against player level, I'd say current implementation leaves it doing more for first four at down to 95% of cost and by replacement time doing two thirds of the bonus at 91% of the cost.

For belowI do use player deprecation for monster standards are unknown.

Issue is that this doesn't compare how a normal spell scales.

Without level any level penalty, a reasonable benefit explanation would be (0,75+1,25*PaidSpellCost/PlayerLevelSpellCost)/2.
PaidSpellCost/PlayerLevelSpellCost hereby defined as CostRatio.

For relatively static stat bonus area, the deprecation rate of a standard spell, derived from (ActualStat%/ExpectedStat%)*(85+ActualBTH-ExpectedBTH)/85 closely matches CostRatio:
	Scaling	CostRatio	BTH&Stat% ratio
130	1stVal	532		958
131	0,994	0,991		0,993
132	0,987	0,980		0,975
133	0,982	0,971		0,968
134	0,976	0,962		0,962
135	0,970	0,952		0,955
136	0,965	0,943		0,937
137	0,959	0,935		0,932
138	0,953	0,925		0,925
139	0,948	0,917		0,920
140	0,942	0,908		0,903
141	0,938	0,900		0,896
142	0,932	0,891		0,891
143	0,927	0,884		0,885
144	0,922	0,875		0,869
145	0,917	0,866		0,864
146	0,912	0,859		0,858
147	0,907	0,851		0,853
148	0,903	0,844		0,837
149	0,898	0,836		0,833
150	0,893	0,829		0,827

As you can see, dropping 8,33% per level is unreasonable expectation for a standard spell, even if one were to square the deprecation.

Thus, I hereby propose that Panoply should deprecate at either the same rate of standard's spell's damage or MP Cost.

Level lock, part 2:

Currently, it is compared against monster level rather than player level.
Assuming monsters scale at same rate as players, the above ratios are still fitting.
Obviously, for a SP version, scaling with monster is worse for player, for you'd expect them to use it when facing the occasional monster 20 levels above them.
MP refreshes each battle, however.

If Panoply is intended to be healing spell, then scaling versus monster can make sense - on one hand, healing spell heals ##% of player's HP, but on the other hand, how much of monster damage it heals drops as the monster level increases.

However, for lower level monsters, if compared against that same monster damage, the healing spell does more.

To match this, I suggest Panoply scaling shouldn't be limited to levels above it.

Sure, a level 10 frogzard won't hit a level 150 player under Panoply. However, a level 10 frogzard will never outdamage level 150 healing spell in five turns, so said 150 player is worse off when they do this anyway.

< Message edited by Luster Bladewarrior -- 1/28/2016 23:51:55 >
AQ  Post #: 1
1/29/2016 1:25:28   
Legendary Ash

Panoply should be treated similarly to Wall of Wind of Fujin's no Kiyousa which is 200*.6*.85/1.4/3 turns which is missing over time compensation. .6 for all element coverage and .85 for Auto hit. Analyzing Dictionary's version 29*5*1.4/.85/.6 = 398% which is much too powerful. It should be nearly half of what it currently is being in line with Wall of Wind.
AQ  Post #: 2
1/29/2016 19:22:05   

Panoply pays 2 melee for its effect. Going by 3 MRM = 5% melee, that's (2/.05)*3=120 MRM. But that number needs *.9 for always useful, *.85 for auto-hit, and over-time compensation -- I'm not sure how that's calculated. 120*.9*.85=91.8 MRM, split over 5 turns is 18.36 MRM/turn. As far as I can see, all that needs is over-time compensation and it should be balanced.

From what I understand of the level scaling aspect, Luster's formula seems like an improvement from the item's current state.

Ash's comparison to Fujin no Kiyousa also raises a potential balance issue with that armor. Since Panoply has a turn cost and since you can change weapons while keeping the effect active, you can freely use it while wearing any armor+shield -- so it's an option against monsters of any element. Fujin's skill, on the other hand, has no turn cost but requires you to remain in the armor for the duration. Given its resists, it's generally not viable to use the skill against non-wind monsters, so perhaps Fujin's skill should be given a second look from a balance perspective.

< Message edited by Jdilla -- 1/29/2016 21:28:06 >
AQ  Post #: 3
1/29/2016 23:27:14   

According to Comparison Requests Standards

A standard spell at level 130 deal (assume 85% hit rate, 200 INT, 200 DEX and 200 LUCK): {283.5+[(200/4+200*3/80)*9.58]/2}*0.85=475.08625
A standard spell at level 140 deal (assume 85% hit rate, 200 INT, 200 DEX and 200 LUCK): {315+[(200/4+200*3/80)*10.24]/2}*0.85=517.99
A standard spell at level 150 deal (assume 85% hit rate, 200 INT, 200 DEX and 200 LUCK): {348+[(200/4+200*3/80)*10.90]/2}*0.85=562.16875

At player level 150, a level 130 spell will deal (assume 80% hit rate, 200 INT, 200 DEX and 200 LUCK): 447.14 (~0.7954 of a level 150 spell)
At player level 150, a level 140 spell will deal (assume 82.5% hit rate, 200 INT, 200 DEX and 200 LUCK): 502.755 (~0.8943 of a level 150 spell)
At player level 150, a level 150 spell will deal (assume 85% hit rate, 200 INT, 200 DEX and 200 LUCK): 562.16875 (~1 of a level 150 spell)

Therefore when a player gain 1 level, a normal spell will lose 0.0123 of its power. This should be the deprecation rate (flat rate) of a standard spell.

But this skill can be abuse by using a weaker version of that skill, the deprecation rate (flat) of that spell should be 0.0246 per level.

Off topic: This logic also apply to mastercraft items, items that are suppose to be 5% more powerful. If a mastercraft bonus is used, then that item should cost 50% more than a equivalent non mastercraft item. But these items are not so easy to obtain, a player must complete a quest to gain access to these items.

This formula is based on the equipment price standard.

A standard spell at level 130 cost: 3.5*1.11^130+26.5*1*1=2729351
A standard spell at level 131 cost: 3.5*1.11^131+26.5*1*1=3029577
A standard spell at level 132 cost: 3.5*1.11^132+26.5*1*1=3362828
A standard spell at level 133 cost: 3.5*1.11^133+26.5*1*1=3732736
A standard spell at level 134 cost: 3.5*1.11^134+26.5*1*1=4143334
A standard spell at level 135 cost: 3.5*1.11^135+26.5*1*1=4599098

< Message edited by ruleandrew -- 1/30/2016 2:20:50 >
AQ  Post #: 4
1/30/2016 5:26:00   
Luster Bladewarrior

@Legendary Ash:
Since it costs MP, an eleseek penalty would be *0,8 with *1,2 cost. However, since it merely helps deal with monster damage it is a healing spell and would take Always Useful *0,9.
You're applying auto-hit penalty twice, it is in-built in the 5% melee = 3 MRM thing. 5%*0,85/1,4 = 3,03 MRM.
If you took it from, say, Wyrm Knight's Hide, then you can see it doesn't take *0,85 to the +3 MRM boost armor gets as MC, despite you not needing to hit the monster with the armor for the boost.
@Fujin no Kiyousa:
*Looks up Encyclopedia*.
It pays 1 melee for the healing skill. 100% melee * 0,8 for hitting value (Fujin has 55 MRM) * 1,01 average DoT bonus /1,4 for affecting monster damage /0,8 for being healing cast upon FD for 72,1428...block, which rounds to 24, especially when divided to 3 as it currently is. Works out perfectly.
Thanks for these numbers.

It seems the actual damage deprecation rate is slightly faster than Stat%&BTH or CostRatio.

However, I don't think this skill can be abused by using weaker version of that skill with standard deprecation ratio any more than standard spell:
With *0.7954 to both, a standard (healing spell) will do 1,5908 melee while Panoply will block 1,5908 Melee worth of monster damage, so both are equal under ordinary circumstances.

When boosted, a damage spell strengthens linearly, but because of the lim→0 nature of blocking, a blocking one would strengthen faster the more concentrated it is in one place, which means for any 'abuse' purposes highest level spell is best. Thus extra penalty due that would be unnecessary.

PS: I agree that there's gold standard issue with power for gold items, but that is another thread.
AQ  Post #: 5
1/30/2016 6:59:14   

Luster Blade warrior, you need to also consider damage/mp ratio as well.

At player level 150, a level 130 spell, the spell damage/mp ratio: 447.14/532=0.84045
At player level 150, a level 140 spell, the spell damage/mp ratio: 502.755 /586=0.85794
At player level 150, a level 150 spell, the spell damage/mp ratio: 562.16875 /642=0.87565

Data observation notes:
The damage/mp ratio increase at a decreasing rate, as the level of the spell gets higher. That rate is really tiny.
The penalties that is associated with casting a relatively weak spell is so small, a player may chose to cast a relative weak spell instead of casting a relative strong spell.

Hence the spell deprecation rate (flat) should be 0.0246 per level.
AQ  Post #: 6
1/30/2016 8:24:18   


You're applying auto-hit penalty twice, it is in-built in the 5% melee = 3 MRM thing. 5%*0,85/1,4 = 3,03 MRM.

Oh, okay -- I didn't know that's where the 5% melee = 3 MRM conversion came from. In that case, divide my result by .85 and apply the over-time compensation -- so 120*.9*.2=21.6 MRM/turn + over-time compensation.
AQ  Post #: 7
1/31/2016 4:54:40   
  In Media Res
 Chillin' Forme

MRM boost: Yeah, I messed up. Sorry for pestering you on IRC about it.

We can't have the status boost adjusting dynamically, so I'm probably just going to round up.


Level lock, part 1: I'd prefer to have something that I can use for all things. Like, I use the ~same lock formula for Dunamis/Poelala, and they...

...actually, why can't I just adjust Dunamis/Poelala too? *goes to ponder*


Ash: Fujin is actually 100/1.4/3. I'm gonna have to fix that too.

Thanks for the feedback, everyone.

< Message edited by In Media Res -- 1/31/2016 4:57:29 >
AQ  Post #: 8
1/31/2016 5:12:59   
Luster Bladewarrior

Heh, no problem with pestering - if I am posting there, it is nice to get replies.


Level lock 1: Well, no reason to not use the same deprecation ratio for Dunamis/Poelala anyway (though they deprecate currently twice as slowly = at same speed as Healing Wings). Though pet damage, normal attack damage, spell damage and spell cost don't quiiite scale in lockstep.


ORIGINAL: ruleandrew
Luster Blade warrior, you need to also consider damage/mp ratio as well.

The penalties that is associated with casting a relatively weak spell is so small, a player may chose to cast a relative weak spell instead of casting a relative strong spell.

Hence the spell deprecation rate (flat) should be 0.0246 per level.

No. What you should perhaps use is damage/cost, but if damage and cost depreciate at same rate for both normal (healing) spell and Panoply, then there is no difference.
There is no need to punish something that behaves as standard healing spell against standard monster for behaving like a standard spell.

Cost: Player gives up 0,75 melee + ActualMPCost/ExpectedMPCost to cast a spell. Not merely MP.
As such, it's ratio with damage indicates how much you actually lose by using weaker gear, scaling at sweep-intended standards.
As a player, damage/MP ratio isn't really relevant unless MP overwhelmingly dictates the damage player does before dying.
It isn't 2006 anymore, mage damage is determined mostly by weapon attacks.

Besides, the argument you used applies better to a damage spell, since they scale better with other boosts when weakened than MRM boost.
However, to apply that deprecation rate for standard spell would require adjusting all spells in game, incl. Panoply, and then releasing new spells for 76-150.

< Message edited by Luster Bladewarrior -- 1/31/2016 5:28:58 >
AQ  Post #: 9
2/3/2016 18:36:28   
  In Media Res
 Chillin' Forme

Making this as a FAQ so that it doesn't get deleted while we figure out what to do.
AQ  Post #: 10
3/31/2016 6:54:34   
  In Media Res
 Chillin' Forme

Bump, to discuss Lepre-Chan's version of the level lock. Ideally, Poe/Dun/Thern/Panolpy will all use the same level lock, so I wanted to see what you guys think before we update all those items.
AQ  Post #: 11
3/31/2016 7:10:02   
Dreiko Shadrack

I love it, good jorb guys. *paps everyone on the head*
AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 12
3/31/2016 13:37:10   

i think it's the best way to make this type of scaling gear, way to go IMR!

oh, and will this also solve poe/dun/thernda turn delay? just saw the answer to that on GD, nice

< Message edited by Brasca123 -- 3/31/2016 13:45:28 >
AQ DF  Post #: 13
3/31/2016 20:09:53   

This new method of level lock seems like the way to go.

Being based on player level is nice considering how mobs encounters can have wide level variance especially at wars. The part about bigger boost if item lvl > player lvl means items actually makes sense. It means that items with +3 Plvl(due to being guardian/promo) won't be having it just for show anymore.

Will give 200 thumbs up if I could, but I only have two thumbs. A job well done!
AQ  Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Game Balance Issues >> Panoply [feat. Big Dictionary] [and now Lepre-Chan]
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.

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition