Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

RE: =DF= DragonFable 14.1.0 Discussion & Feedback

  		Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [DragonFable] >> DragonFable General Discussion >> RE: =DF= DragonFable 14.1.0 Discussion & Feedback
Page 8 of 13«<678910>»
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
9/2/2017 22:53:00   
LouisCyphere
Member

quote:

1st attack roll is vs MPM and is out of 150 now.
2nd attack roll is vs BPD and is also out of 150.
Same number


Shouldn't rolls against BPD be slightly lower since we're taking 20% of incoming damage instead of full negation with MPM?
Say, MPM is out of 150 but BPD is 130 or 120?
AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 176
9/2/2017 23:10:41   
Baron Dante
Member

quote:

Shouldn't rolls against BPD be slightly lower since we're taking 20% of incoming damage instead of full negation with MPM?
Say, MPM is out of 150 but BPD is 130 or 120?

I feel the point is that you can get more BPD than MPM to compensate for that.
AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 177
9/2/2017 23:13:46   
LouisCyphere
Member

So we're going to treat MPM and BPD equally despite MPM fully negating damage?
Unless of course future items will have higher BPD than MPM.
AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 178
9/2/2017 23:33:33   
Pedrofire
Member

As it stands if you compare most items that give only MPM vs those that give only BDP, BDP > MPM. So BDP is less effective but there already are plenty of items out there that give enough BDP to make such a build comparable to an MPM one.
Post #: 179
9/2/2017 23:37:16   
LouisCyphere
Member

Right now, I can already build with ~77 BPD compared to a ~50ish MPM.

Well, that's just a suggestion. Receiving 20% of damage is quite high already imo.
AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 180
9/2/2017 23:48:10   
Andlu
Member

I think he means that items will probably reflect on that

so BPD in items are gonna have an increased rate compared to MPM
AQ DF AQW  Post #: 181
9/2/2017 23:49:57   
Lineolata
Member
 

 Somewhat tangential, but MPM is only 25% better than BPD, given that both block applied effects. BPD reduces 80% of damage, while MPM reduces 100%. So, for example, ~77 BPD is much better than ~50 MPM.
AQ DF  Post #: 182
9/2/2017 23:51:46   
Pedrofire
Member

And that BDP build is more effective than the MPM build at mitigating damage:

Percent damage received for PDB build: (77/150)*(0.2) + (73/150)*(1) = 58.9%
Percent damage received for MPM build: (100/150) * (1) = 66.7%

This ignores the fact that regardless of the build you will still have some, however small, of the other defense but it illustrates the point that at 20%, BDP builds can go toe to toe with MPM builds.

< Message edited by Pedrofire -- 9/2/2017 23:55:05 >
Post #: 183
9/3/2017 0:37:37   
Tr4pD00r
Member

quote:


While the new engine removed the redundancy between MPM and BDP, there's the problem of which stats are better.

MPM fully negates damage, while BDP reduces 80% of the damage and negates debuffs such as stun.
Since we don't know the cap of BDP, I'll just assume that they both have a cap of 100. (and we also don't know the proper formula for it)
This means that MPM is the better defense stat compared to BDP since you'll still take damage.

If I would suggest changes, make shields be MPM and have BDP act as "secondary defense" stat where we mostly gain BDP through items.
So MPM comes from skills and BDP comes from items (which I feel is appropriate since newer items tend to give BDP instead of MPM)

As for Critical and Luck stat, it's in the right place right now. The nerf to damage is compensated by being able to bypass BDP.


I second this

All else being equal, MPM is BPD but better. Taking 20% damage is worse than not taking the enemy's hit at all. Even if current items give more BPD, we need to take into account every enemy's innate chance of dealing a crit to us. And if an enemy suddenly boosts their crit, those building BPD instead of MPM will regret it.

I agree that shield skills should (generally) be MPM. BPD shields are in every way inferior and are ineffective because of crits. (The Ascendant shield reflecting damage being BPD is cool though, that makes sense)
All other armors with shields that previously used to reliably negate hits now being BPD have been inadvertently nerfed after this update
Post #: 184
9/3/2017 2:01:26   
Caststarter
Member

Verlyrus.... there are a plethora of reasons why I suggested 120 in the first place. Let us just use Pedro's numbers as a base here:

quote:

Percent damage received for PDB build: (77/150)*(0.2) + (73/150)*(1) = 58.9%
Percent damage received for MPM build: (100/150) * (1) = 66.7%


One of those numbers is a straight up max MPM build. And it is simply 66.6% damage reduced. A max MPM build is so out of the way to actually obtain that it is basically just an end-game possibility. Under no normal circumstance can a player just blindly receive such a set of equipment and items. This isn't even considering possible enemy BtH that it basically forces these builds to be extremely specialize to even be worth it. The issue comes in when the specialization is basically only viable at around the 80s in terms of levels. Around level 70, I got, what, at best 50 MPM? Despite focusing on MPM? With maybe a casual -30 from BtH, that was still a fine enough 1/5th chance to avoid attacks. With this update though, it causes it to be a 13.33 repeating chance to even happen. That is.... pathetic despite actually trying to specialize. And it all just gets worst when you get to lower levels. I know that part of the idea is to release to perhaps circumvent this issue... but that is really instead making a lot more work than what possibly would be worth it. This update, overall, is only able to be used by excessively high level players.

This is practically tunnel-vision here. When balancing essentially anything, one must think of a multitude of situations such as player level, normal BtH numbers, and regular equipment numbers. To be honest, extreme examples may be a bad idea to bring to mind the concept of balancing as a extremely low percent of the playerbase is even going to be using such extremes.
DF  Post #: 185
9/3/2017 4:09:08   
Siedgrief
Member

Again i do suggest and agree with Solanaceae that Darkness dragon spirit should stay with MPM, it makes no sense that the only defensive class that actually has a shield (guardian is hybrid as far as i know) have its main shield skill with BDP, and even more since Earth Dragon Spirit already does a very similar effect.


And yet again how is that no one has tested Ranger and as seen that is way too op now? D:
in a game thats based on turns the ability of gaining extra turns needs to be balanced carefully, Verly did an amazing job whe he revamped ranger, its really unique and has its own mechanics, he even did manage to balance the way it can gain extra turns, but with the new buff (this one specifically : -2 focus for using right side skills, up from -5.) it just feels way too OP now.

AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 186
9/3/2017 4:22:11   
Greldracion
Member

@Caststarter

Think you might be a bit off on your numbers there.

First, I would like to mention that I in no way believe I have the best gear for level 20 or 30, so these thoughts are more estimates than anything else. For level 20, I'm assuming that 12-14 MPM is the max that a player can feasably attain (12 from gear and 2 from a trinket). Most average mobs have 2-4 bonus (tested in two seperate war waves). With a base 12 MPM, the percentage difference between 120 (10%) and 150 (8%) is -2%, meaning in a 20 turn boss fight, it could be expected to lose at most, 1 guaranteed block. with enemy bonus added, this ratio becomes 1/15 at 120, and 1/18 at 150, which is about a 1.3% difference. Level 30 could potentially hit 20-22 MPM and average mob Bonus only increases by 2. This means that on the low end, a level 30 char will have a base block chance of 1/6 (120) or 1/7.5 (150), which means that again, you lose out on 1 block in a battle. with enemy bonus this would change to about 1/8.57 (120) or 1/10.71 (150). As you can see by these rough numbers, there really isn't to much of a difference in guaranteed damage negation at lower levels, that being 1 to 2 turns of difference.

If I specialized my lev 76 char, I could probably get 45 MPM with very little issue. This would put my lev 76 at a base block rate of 1/2.66 (120) or 1/3.33 (150) and a monster with a 15 bonus rate of 1/4 (120) or 1/5 (150).


Don't see to much of an issue here.
AQ  Post #: 187
9/3/2017 6:49:05   
LouisCyphere
Member

@Cas:
Aren't MPM and other stats also scaled with level? So the formula won't be undermining low level characters. However, it would be troubling for bosses that use buffs which adds a flat increase.

In fact, having attacks roll out of 120 makes bosses harder to hit. As seen with a level 85 Vayle that has 88 MPM in the previous version of the engine (14.1.01?)
But, when attacks roll out of 150, I can constantly hit Vayle with the same setup.

So it would be a double-edge sword if we lower it to 120 instead of 150. This makes 150 the sweet spot for attack rolls.
And as Verly said, while it might look good in test, it's all about the engine being put in practice.

< Message edited by LouisCyphere -- 9/3/2017 7:10:56 >
AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 188
9/3/2017 10:15:18   
Pedrofire
Member

Seems like my numbers might have been misinterpreted somewhat:

The percentages are damage received NOT reduced. For the PDB build the damage reduced would have been 41.1% and for MPM that would've been 33.3%.

Also, the max MPM isn't anywhere near 50 MPM, it's ~70. While it makes less of a difference now it would still give you 46.7% damage reduction (compared to 33.3% at 50). Conversely, the max BDP is ~100- A damage reduction of 53.3%.

I'd like to address the argument more practically, like Greldracion did, but somewhat differently:

Let's take the Elemental fight. A rough estimate is that fight will take about 40 turns to complete. The average damage of each boss is ~80 at level 85. Due to the fact that they use multi hit attacks (Siofra has a 5-hit and 2-hit attack, Theano has a 2-hit and 3-hit attack) their average damage per turn will be higher, let's be somewhat conservative and say it's 150 for both. So with no defenses you would be hit for ~300 per turn. Because you'd strive to use defensive moves and stuns, and at some point in the fight on of the two will die, let's reduce that 150 on average. So with absolutely no gear, using only your defensive moves and stuns to defend yourself you would take 150 * 40 =6000 damage over the course of the fight.

Now, let's take a pre-update defensive build with 70 MPM: Damage reduction = 6000 * 0.7 = 4200 (1800 damage taken)
And a post-update defensive build with 70 MPM: Damage reduction = 6000 * (70/150) = 2800 (3200 damage taken)

That amounts to a difference of 1400 damage. That ~70% of your health at level 80. This also doesn't take into account the fact that because you're taking more damage, you'd need to spend more turns healing, extending the battle further, and taking even more damage in the long run. So that extra 70% could easily creep towards 80%. I'm also certain that these numbers are conservative because I was definitely dealt more than an entire health bar's worth of damage in the fight using the pre-nerf max defense build.

Now you can argue that now that BDP does something the numbers won't be nearly as skewed. Unfortunately, a max MPM build will usually not have much in the way of BDP, 30 at most. working through the math, in the example above the new damage reduction would be = 6000 * 0.55 = 3300 (2700 damage taken). So you're still taking 900 more damage than pre-nerf, which is ~40% of your health at level 85.
The issue is that in this game there are very limited sources of healing. The more damage you take the harder it is to recover from it.

So in challenge fights (where defensive builds shine) the defensive differences are very significant. If you're going for maximum damage absorption you're better off going for an elemental build.
Post #: 189
9/3/2017 10:45:17   
liger98
Member
 

 Not really sure where everyone gets these high BDP builds from but my MPM is about 6x higher than my BDP. The type of weapons and accessories I go for is primarily for high crit ... Therefore, it appears that if you go for a BDP build you lose out on offensive capabilities but defensively, YOU STILL TAKE DAMAGE. Not saying that MPM needs to be nerfed but I am an advocate for changing the defense move to MPM. (Sorry Verylus, you said something about how difficult that is)
Post #: 190
9/3/2017 10:50:25   
  Verlyrus
DragonFable Boxcat
quote:

And yet again how is that no one has tested Ranger and as seen that is way too op now? D:
in a game thats based on turns the ability of gaining extra turns needs to be balanced carefully, Verly did an amazing job whe he revamped ranger, its really unique and has its own mechanics, he even did manage to balance the way it can gain extra turns, but with the new buff (this one specifically : -2 focus for using right side skills, up from -5.) it just feels way too OP now.


I agree. It was mostly an attempt to make it less punishing to use defensive skills- since each time you use one from full focus, that's 4 turns of set up that you have to recover from. But -2 focus isn't working- it ends up being only 1 turn of downtime.

quote:

Now you can argue that now that BDP does something the numbers won't be nearly as skewed. Unfortunately, a max MPM build will usually not have much in the way of BDP, 30 at most. working through the math, in the example above the new damage reduction would be = 6000 * 0.55 = 3300 (2700 damage taken). So you're still taking 900 more damage than pre-nerf, which is ~40% of your health at level 85.
The issue is that in this game there are very limited sources of healing. The more damage you take the harder it is to recover from it.


Yeah, but you're also building fairly glass cannon if 900 damage is ~40% of your health.
Just as how offensive builds are good taking more LUK now, defensive builds may need to specialize more as well (perhaps into END/LUK mix).

And yes, in BDP builds you still take damage. But it's 20%. 1/5th of the damage you'd normally take. 5 turns of glancing blows = 1 normal turn. It's heavily reduced by far. There's nothing in the game that procs off of having over a certain amount of HP (yet).

Something that I'm looking into is maybe having END slightly affect glancing blow damage. Going to set that up and test for a bit later.

< Message edited by Verlyrus -- 9/3/2017 10:54:57 >
AQ MQ  Post #: 191
9/3/2017 11:13:23   
LouisCyphere
Member

@Verly:
Oh wow, stats having secondary effects is a game changer. We should be at Engine 15 if that happens.

I'm assuming future items will have higher BPD stat points compared to MPM in items.
AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 192
9/3/2017 11:15:31   
Pedrofire
Member

quote:

Yeah, but you're also building fairly glass cannon if 900 damage is ~40% of your health.
Just as how offensive builds are good taking more LUK now, defensive builds may need to specialize more as well (perhaps into END/LUK mix).


I'm all for a more diversified stat distribution according to what build you're running; not that END was underrepresented but it certainly makes it a more appealing choice. Regarding the 40% though, at level 85 with no END and using my defensive items I have ~2200 health (So 900 is ~40% of that). If I had removed all my points from STR and invested them into END I would then have ~3200 health, so 900 is ~30% of that, a 10% difference. By sacrificing my STR I'm also dealing 20 fewer damage, which if we say that's around a 20% damage reduction, will increase the fight duration by a similar amount. So by investing in END I'm actually taking more damage (i.e. I may have 1000 more health, but will have been dealt over 1000 damage by sacrificing offense) in the long run. This is offset by %healing skills, but not by your main source of healing, potions.

I don't know why I went off on that tangent, but it does seem like potions could do with a rework (i.e. % based healing rather than being fixed) if END based builds are to actually have a significant benefit in defensive fights over their offensive counterparts? It always felt odd how you're at such a big advantage when you're a low level regarding healing since a potion will heal half your health, and mobs deal less damage. It's a bit too early to tell for sure, this was a very superficial analysis, but just some thoughts on the matter.

Edit: Just read your comment on having END affect GB damage, guess we're sort of on the same page here haha

< Message edited by Pedrofire -- 9/3/2017 11:16:39 >
Post #: 193
9/3/2017 11:17:53   
Solanaceae
Legendary Nightshade


 Ranger is incredibly fun to use. Amazingly strong DoT, extra turns that let you get the most out of (de)buffs like Mirror Eye Trinket and Not-So-Tiny Bubbles, making up to 3 skills crit, and the ability to recover 80% HP in a single turn. The only problem was that I found it better to burst down an enemy than to blow all of my focus on, say, Cripple (which only lasts for 1 turn). The new change, I agree, was a bit too strong when considering things like Quick Reflexes. Actually, just Quick Reflexes. It outstrips all the other defensive moves in Ranger's kit (besides the stun and maybe the HP recovery) and has a relatively low downtime when you have 2 attacks per turn. I wouldn't want to nerf the duration of Quick Reflexes, though, since you need it at the beginning of a fight to build up stacks. Maybe increase the cooldown of QR, increase the duration of Cripple, and bump up (or is it bump down?) focus loss from -2 to -3?

quote:

Yeah, but you're also building fairly glass cannon if 900 damage is ~40% of your health.

I have 60 base END and 78 from accessories (notably defensive Aventail and Nicky's Toasty Cap VIII), and that puts me at 2470 HP, only 220 above what you would call glass cannon. My stat distribution both before and after 14.1.0 is 200 LUK/60 END/160 WIS, which I guess is a bit heavy on the WIS side of things, but wouldn't that be more of a defensive build?

I should probably start keeping notes on the effects of each stat now, since it looks like it's going to get a bit more complicated soon. Looking forward to that!
DF  Post #: 194
9/3/2017 11:21:52   
  Verlyrus
DragonFable Boxcat


 Currently doing some testing with END and WIS.
(Testing END reducing glancing blow damage by 1% per 20 points- that is to say at 300 END glancing blows would do 5% damage instead of 20%- would be capped at 5%.
Also testing WIS increasing healing done by similar numbers.)

Will take a look at healing potions too.
It's kinda odd how they heal a set amount instead of % based. Although % based would seriously skew towards END builds.
Going to consider basing it off of player level and potion level. i.e. healing % of base HP instead of % total HP.

These are all just things I'm exploring though, not necessarily going to happen.
AQ MQ  Post #: 195
9/3/2017 11:28:15   
Pedrofire
Member

Making stats less one-dimensional is always good in my books, and those changes at least on paper sound pretty good. Making pots heal based off of a base % would also be great, getting "punished" for levelling up never struck me as very fun with regards to potions.

Appreciate you taking time out on the weekend to look over these things Verly, while I've been vocal about some of the details I think overall the changes have been a step in the right direction.
Post #: 196
9/3/2017 11:38:53   
liger98
Member
 

 Maybe for potions just raise the cap limit? The % heal sounds difficult and I'm guessing it'll be annoying to implement since it'll change the whole system
Post #: 197
9/3/2017 11:43:24   
Lineolata
Member
 

 Sounds tempting, Verly. Is the END reduction 1% per full 20 points or will, for example, 30 END equate to a 1.5% reduction?
AQ DF  Post #: 198
9/3/2017 11:59:58   
Pedrofire
Member

@liger98

Did a mock up with some figures, and using a formula of the form:

Healing = Base_potion_heal x Player_base_health x (Alchemy_level - 4) x 1.5%

Seems to give some good preliminary results. The Alchemy - 4 variable is due to the fact that alchemy starts at level 5. In this form you're getting an extra 1.5% base health worth of healing per level. At level 85 this comes to 1035 health per potion (Base health 1780). If you went for 1% you'd heal 723 per potion. Lower levels still get more healing as a fraction of their base health, but the difference is much, much less significant.
Post #: 199
9/3/2017 13:50:26   
The_element
Member

@Verlyrus

I know that most people have forgotten about the GPS class, but can you please update its 'Shield' skill? It still does +80 block for 2 turns, could it be updated to something like +180 M/P/M def?
Also another thing that I've noticed is that as Overdrive gives you +100 crit points, this gives you a +50% chance to crit, whereas before it gave you a +100% chance to crit. Could this by chance be updated to give +200 crit to guarantee crits like it did before?

Also instead of changing M/P/M def, couldn't the same results have been achieved by increasing the default bonus to hit on monsters? For example, right now most monsters have bth=1/5 *level, so at lv85 they have a bth of 17, couldn't you have just increased the default bth to say 1/4 or 1/3 of player level?

< Message edited by The_element -- 9/3/2017 13:55:34 >
Post #: 200
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [DragonFable] >> DragonFable General Discussion >> RE: =DF= DragonFable 14.1.0 Discussion & Feedback
Page 8 of 13«<678910>»
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