Stat Balance Project - With Spreadsheets


	Home \| Login \| Register \| Help \| Play

Stat Balance Project - With Spreadsheets

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Game Balance Issues >> Stat Balance Project - With Spreadsheets

Page 1 of 4

Forum Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

2/15/2019 0:57:45

Kaelin
Member

Before posting, please read this entire post.

There are lots of concerns about how builds should work post-sweep, so this thread is dedicated to showing how I am scoring the value of each build and the assumptions we're making. We don't expect to have complete agreement with everyone, but we hope the system will (1) more or less makes sense, (2) show more attention to detail that prior attempts at stat balance, and (3) is transparent.

To streamline the process of evaluating stats and builds, I have created a spreadsheet file that you can download that shows how build power is calculated. We'll have to change the way formulas work to bring these changes to fruition, but we'll handle those details after we lock in this stage.

First, I've presented four possible systems of stat caps:

* 250/250/250
* 275/250/225 (MP cap: 250)
* 275/275/200
* 300/300/150

We will also have monsters follow whichever caps are used for players.

On each sheet, on the left, there are numbers in bold that you can edit so you, too, can try to balance the game. However, changing other numbers will probably break things. Heck, changing the numbers in bold can break things.

* Accuracy Base: This is the accuracy you'll get with "pure build" versus "pure build" under neutral circumstances. For our purposes, we're assuming that the primary stat is STR (or INT if that's your jam), the secondary stat is LUK (this is new), and the third stat is DEX. Balance would be easier if we can move this number even down to 80%, but we know you all hate missing, so we're trying to make 85% work.

* Enemy (Accuracy) Base: This is the accuracy enemies will get against you under default circumstances. If we're using 15% as the accuracy effect from the main stat, I'm prepared to handicap enemy accuracy by 15% * 0.2/1.2 = 2.5%, because that's effectively the overall accuracy dropoff that comes from a pet not benefitting from CHA being trained, and making enemies pay that penalty is probably agreeable to everyone.

* STR Accuracy: The amount of accuracy a Melee weapon gets from VStat STR. Ranged, Magic, and Pet/Guest attacks benefit the same way from their respective main stats. Currently 15%.

* DEX Accuracy: The amount of secondary accuracy all attacks get from VStat DEX. This is set to 0%, and I hope we can keep it this way.

* LUK Accuracy: An additional amount of accuracy all attacks get from VStat LUK. In the spirit of having LUK help lots of different things by a little bit, this is 5%.

* DEX Dodge: The amount of blocking VStat DEX gives. This better be equal to STR Accuracy + DEX Accuracy, or you'll break things.

* LUK Dodge: The amount of blocking VStat LUK gives. Use the same value as LUK Accuracy.

* Core: How much weapon damage comes from the listed base/random instead of stat damage. 0.4 means 40% of damage will come from Base/Random, and 60% is be determined by stats. Lucky Strike damage is applied separately. "STR Melee", "STR Range", "DEX Range", and "INT Magic" are recalculated automatically.

* LUK Lucky Strikes: How much extra damage (in terms of Melee damage) Lucky Strikes do (on average) to a weapon / spell attack. Pets will use 0.4 times this amount. By default, this value is 0.1 or 0.12, depending on the sheet you use.

* DEX Initiative: How much VStat DEX improves your ability to win Initiative. The current 0.2 (20%) treats DEX as "Major" for a status roll.

* LUK Initiative: How much VStat LUK improves your ability to win Initiative. The current 0.1 (10%) treats LUK as "Minor" for a status roll.

* Turns per battle: How many turns battles are expected to last. We've set this number to 5 by default, because we're hoping to cut battle length in half(!!!)

* Pet: How much damage in Melee a pet does. Still 0.4.

* Guest: How much damage in Melee a guest does. Still 0.6.

* Guest SP: How much Melee SP that guest upkeep requires. This is set at 0.3 Melee SP, up from 0.21875.

* END Stat: How much VStat END increases your HP. Currently set to 0.5 or 0.6 depending on the sheet, which represents a 50% or 60% increase, which is much less than now.

Finally, we respect that you probably don't want us to rely on generic damage calculations to determine stat power, because players can leverage certain stats more effectively than others, and monsters have tricks that can exploit certain builds, so there are extra modifiers built with that in mind.

Pet Comp: If you're playing in FO armors, then the relative value of your pets will drop accordingly. Roughly speaking, a pet would only be about 80% as useful in a FO armor than it would in a neutral armor. Moreover, there are other tricks (especially misc items and eleComp) built to enhance weapon/spell power that are rare or absent with pets. So, use a number like 0.8 (default) if you'd like to value pets less strongly, which gives you more permission to change other parameters to enhance CHA. Using "1" would create no compensation at all.

Guest Comp: Like with pets, but maybe moreso. Guests are slow to deliver damage, whereas SP Skills/SPells have an advantage of rushing/timing damage. This amount is set to 0.67 (67%) by default, as it's like pets but moreso. Using 1 will remove this effect.

END Comp: Same, but for the HP increase from END. This effect may not be needed, especially when using the two last effects below, but it's there. It's 0.67 (67%) by default. Using 1 will remove this effect.

HP Regen: This variable assumes monsters regenerate HP equal to the given fraction times the damage a conventional warrior does per turn. So 0.2 means 20% damage regeneration. Set to 0.1 (10%) by default. This effect will score both DEX (for blocking purposes) and END lower, and slow-damaging builds in general. "0" will remove the effect. Inspired by werewolves.

HP Drain: This variable assumes monsters regenerate HP equal to the given fraction times the damage a conventional warrior does per turn, further scaled by enemy accuracy. So 0.2 means 20% damage regeneration, scaled by enemy accuracy. This factor scores low-blocking + slow-damaging builds lower. 0.1 (10%) by default. "0" will remove the effect. Inspired by vampires.

Finally, the main things you want to look at when you're done are the "rank" and "value" for each build. To read what each build is, treat "1" as the maximum for that particular sheet (so on the 275/275/200 sheet, "1" means it's a stat with 275, and "0.73" means it's a stat with 200). There are "averages" at the end of the table, but these are less important. Goals we have are is to (1) minimize the gap between the top builds and bottom builds, and (2) have the builds at each extreme not be too similar.

So, having read all this, here are the spreadsheets: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lbNvZ5zzg2BSMagmvfEBiIfU6WMljtGLyvS0uLoURig/edit?usp=sharing

Post #: 1

2/15/2019 0:58:11

Kaelin
Member

I'm including this part as a separate post, because I want to express opinions here that don't fully agree with the rest of the team, and neither IMR or Kamui should be held accountable for them.

250/250/250: It's what you've got now. A maximally focused build chooses three out of the six stats, yielding 6! / (3! * 3!) = 20 maximal builds, where 19 of them have proficiency with at least one weapon (STR for Melee, DEX for Ranged, INT for Magic). Unless you're a player who is married to a trifecta of three out of four from STR, DEX, INT, and CHA to be able to use three of the attacks with full primary stat support, you're probably going to find 250/250/250 pretty boring. Moreover, this setup makes it the hardest to avoid accuracy overflow situations.

275/250/225: It's what monsters have now. There are 6!/(1! * 1! * 1! * 3!) = 120 different maximal builds, but with the way stat power works, you're almost certainly going to choose to maximize STR and INT ahead of other stats, and I would personally argue we're really closer to 20 (since the stat differences are so small). If one treats this as having 20 builds, then 19 will have proficiency with at least one weapon. Because the three stats are all different, you can't have VStat in two stats at once. On the plus side, you still have weak mastery of a third stat (if you're into that).

275/275/200: It's close to what monsters have, but it assumes we're not forcing your second stat below the first. There are 6!/(2! * 1! * 3!) = 60 maximal builds, but there are lots of builds where putting 200 in a particular stat doesn't make much sense (like 200 in STR if you have 275 INT and 275 LUK, or frankly 200 INT in any build at all), so there are only 44 that arguably make sense. I'm more fond of this variant than 275/250/225, because I think the choice between which is first and which is second is usually automatic, so it's more interesting to to look at the choice between second and third and to have enough of a stat difference to make the choice meaningful. So it means you can get a better second stat, but your third won't be as hot.

300/300/150: Like 275/275/200, but moreso. I'm super into the 2:2:1 ratio, and it means you see the exact same drop-off between the second and third stat as the third and fourth (untrained) stats. It'll do the most to draw out your strengths and weaknesses, and it'll be the same with monsters.

Again, we will set monsters to use whichever set of caps that players get.

Post #: 2

2/15/2019 1:50:21

Primate Murder
Member

Seems like a major (and pretty interesting!) update. Any ideas on what the ETA would be (month or even a season)?

quote:

* Turns per battle: How many turns battles are expected to last. We've set this number to 5 by default, because we're hoping to cut battle length in half(!!!)

This. Please and thank you very much for moving from the 20 turn model!

Edit: Do we really need a nerf to End?

Post #: 3

2/15/2019 1:59:18

Deaf of Destiny
Member

what about all stats need rework, and thanks?

Post #: 4

2/15/2019 2:40:52

Kaelin
Member

@Primate Murder: Regarding END, here's what I've tried to do to give it the best chance to minimize a nerf:

* Pretend that 1/3 of the END's effect on HP doesn't even exist.
* Assume monsters regenerate 10% of the damage a pure warrior does per turn, which will be more punitive against lower offense builds (which high END builds tend to be).
* Assume monsters drain an additional 10% of damage that a pure warrior does per turn (which will usually be higher against a high END because there are less stat points available for blocking, so enemies will hit and drain more often)

Even with these assumptions, bringing full END down to +60% HP is still roughly the break-even point with other builds. This is less an issue of personal belief (aside from choosing the assumptions above) and more what the math says. Unless there's a issue with the assumptions or the calculations, this is what balance dictates we should do. On the flip side, it'll also means monsters will play by the same rules, so if you're training up END so you can put up a fight against high-END monsters (250 END is giving them +125% HP at the moment), you're not going to run into that problem in the future.

While the +60% HP (or +30% if you're training END halfway up) may be less satisfying, the extra HP will give valuable breathing room. With 5 turns per battle instead of 10, monsters that "get lucky" with a stretch of blocks or lucky strikes will put players in the danger zone more quickly, whereas now you have more time to ride out the ups and downs. I'll account for this idea by giving players a larger percentage of breathing room by scaling enemy damage and HP accordingly, but that HP from END will give you peace of mind that you haven't needed to the same extent yet.

ETA: I'm busy IRL until late June, and Kam/IMR are busy with the heavy lifting with the game and their own lives, and we have differences of opinions to resolve, but I'm trying to push things forward when I can. The best we can do is show you what we're planned so far (and why) and what we still need to figure out.

@Broccoli: We'll probably cut the MP pool in half, as weakening spells instead would hurt STR + INT hybrids (and these are among the worst builds as it is). For players who prefer the weaker spell route, we can showcase more "efficient" spells that deliver the same effect.

Post #: 5

2/15/2019 7:02:54

Andlu
Member

Since we're now reworking a lot of stuff, and guests are getting higher cost, may I suggest that we make it so guests can lucky strike?

AQW

Post #: 6

2/15/2019 11:28:47

Kaelin
Member

When players spend MP or SP on Spells or Skills, they don't result in extra Lucky Strike damage, so we're disinclined to let players gain extra Lucky Strike damage with guests. If we were to change course with this practice and give extra Lucky Strike damage on spells and skills (to balance the new Lucky Strikes on guests), we'd (1) probably have to lower Lucky Strike damage overall to balance things out, (2) Magic weapons would get even weaker because they're only 75% Melee power, and (3) we'd have to constrain DEX's contribution on Ranged weapons so INT + DEX + LUK builds aren't getting more damage with Ranged weapons than with Magic weapons (which would have to take a -25% Lucky Strike penalty to offset the +100% Lucky Strikes on spells).

To clarify, the increased SP cost for guests is there because that's the balance point dictated by the calculations. So giving them Lucky Strikes may mean having to drive the SP upkeep cost on guests even higher.

[EDIT] To further clarify, the modifiers on the spreadsheet aren't locked in stone, but we don't want certain stats to be generally superior to others. I've outlined five different factors I've used to sort of handicap my scoring of CHA and defensive stats: the Pet compensation, the Guest compensation, the HP compensation, the HP regen, and the HP drain. If you believe CHA, END, or LUK are supposed to be more useful that these modifiers do for you, I need a compelling argument for why these modifiers need to be different (probably more powerful) than I've set them to be so far. Otherwise I don't have a good balance argument to justify improving CHA, END, or LUK.

< Message edited by Kaelin -- 2/15/2019 11:51:45 >

Post #: 7

2/15/2019 13:16:28

battlesiege15
Member

Would this change in assumed battle turns have an effect on the SP pool or SP Regen at all?

Also wouldn't assuming half the battle length mean current OP nukes will still be prominent?

And because it will probably be brought up eventually, how does this effect booster pet/guests?

AQW

Post #: 8

2/15/2019 14:49:56

Aura Knight
Member

This is going to be completely random but kind of related to this stat update. It seems as though dexterity will no longer be a necessary stat but is also one that should have some uses. Similarly to how luck offers us Lucky Strikes, what if Dexterity had a chance to make certain attacks be Auto-Hit? This could give another reason to have dexterity after the change. While it's true we have other means of getting autohit attacks, why not throw in a random chance too? You never know when it could come in handy.

AQW

Post #: 9

2/15/2019 15:43:14

Kaelin
Member

SP supply: SP regen is being held constant at the moment, but we'd probably drop maximum SP from 15 turns (3.75 Melee's worth) to 10 turns (2.5 Melee's worth). So if you're the type to use Magic SPells, your "buffer" will drop from 2.5 Melee SP to 1.25 Melee SP.

Monster SP: Monster SP at the start of battle may warrant changes, but it'll likely be set so monsters start with 0.4 - 0.5 Melee's worth of SP (not counting the SP from the monster's first turn). If the enemy survives a number of turns closer to 1 Skill's worth or Melee SP, we'd like for the enemy to only use a Skill once, but if it's closer to 2, then we want to see it come twice. We will take a closer look at short-lived enemies so that if they're able to get 1 Skill off that it doesn't go too far to swing the battle one way.

Booster pets: If we move to Core damage being responsible for just 40% of damage, ordinary booster pets will use 0.16 + 0.24*CHA instead of 0.2 + 0.2*CHA. Booster pets that use non-standard stats (STR, DEX, INT) fall outside of the scope of this resweep, but my attitude towards them has always been "kill them with pointy things, blunt things, slashing things, and all the elements (yes, including fire)."

DEX uses: Under the model in the spreadsheet, Dexterity will give +15 blocking (which not only reduces damage, but provides protection against most status effects and drain attacks) and +20% to Initiative (basically an extra 4% damage). While DEX will really shine in the absense of STR of INT when paired CHA, players who use STR or INT and also fully-train DEX will be "hybrids" capable of Ranged attacks in addition to either Melee or Magic attacks. We know DEX + INT in the past hasn't supported Ranged attacks very well, especially after the cap raise, but we plan to make 0 STR Ranged weapons truly on par with Magic weapons, so DEX + INT builds can utilize Ranged skills and boosters just as well as with Magic. We can look to make DEX even stronger, but under the assumptions made within the spreadsheets, it's already powered appropriately (more or less).

AQ	Post #: 10

2/15/2019 16:04:30

Andlu
Member

@Kaelin Don't you think that it would be a hard hit on every beastmaster though? not only the MP cap is getting decreased, but the amount of MP needed for guests just went up either, and possibly the same would be happening to SP guests

The only issue I see is booster guests being able to boost LS, but not normal guests, do the boosters have an appropriate penalty for boosting lucky stikes when they cost the same as normal guests? If not, I guess having both of them actually proper lucky strike, but have higher SP cost would be the best option

< Message edited by Andlu -- 2/15/2019 16:38:01 >

AQW

Post #: 11

2/15/2019 16:25:19

AliceShiki
Helpful!

Mmmmmmmmmm... Do you care to explain the reasoning behind changing the 20 turns model to a 10 turns model? I mean... Nuking is already the most optimal strategy in the game by a large margin, and changing the model to 10 turns will basically make it even better than it already is, wouldn't it?

I don't honestly see much point in buffing the already best strategies of the game... Rather, I feel like it would hurt the slower strategies a lot, which feels... Very weird to say the least? I'm not quite sure I follow on why you want to do that...

AQ	Post #: 12

2/15/2019 16:48:11

Deaf of Destiny
Member

i asked you, and do not reject my question, kaelin. what about all stats need rework?

Post #: 13

2/15/2019 17:30:34

LUPUL LUNATIC
Member

quote:

Mmmmmmmmmm... Do you care to explain the reasoning behind changing the 20 turns model to a 10 turns model? I mean... Nuking is already the most optimal strategy in the game by a large margin, and changing the model to 10 turns will basically make it even better than it already is, wouldn't it?

It means they want to acknowledge that 20 turn model wasnt actually 20 turns (sort of) and they want to make the turns more viable as it is in practice which means now they can expect <as a dev> that fights are shorther and can make better balance changes accordingly. It is quite the opposite of what you think.

quote:

300/300/150: Like 275/275/200, but moreso. I'm super into the 2:2:1 ratio, and it means you see the exact same drop-off between the second and third stat as the third and fourth (untrained) stats. It'll do the most to draw out your strengths and weaknesses, and it'll be the same with monsters.

This monster model i think is the best. I always preferred min-maxed stats on monsters and after i got the feeling of how a 300 DEX neberon fight shapes out i think this is the only challenging model for monsters and players alike. If we assume players want to min-max then monsters want that too,it is an all-or nothing with clear weaknesses which imo makes the game fun. However i am not sure about Boss Boost changes , i want to say that i am not exactly sold on it and i just think is more of a Freedom as it was before.

However i am not sure how this model would fit Hybrids very well as already shown in the spreadsheets it was in Red.
I was looking at how 300 STR/END 150 LUK is rated better than 300 STR/300LUK/150 END ,well it is just the 2nd best build and i can see why.I assume 300 END would perform better as FD and 300 LUK as FO which brings out the next question.

I know this model assumes standard armors which has its upsides and downsides depending on whether you use FO or FD but.... for a Warrior that is only dealing armor attacks pretty much (really known as the Attack spam button build) is it fair to assume is using standard armors ? I get Mages have spells assumed that are independent of armor leans but warrior is all out on armor usage.

But if we assume we use this min-maxed specialised model then maybe is room to assume some form of FO or FD leans in there ? It will be too hard to balance this but ... armor leans should be considered at some point.

How much exactly is END valued? The reason i say 300 STR/LUK/150 END is nr1 is the fact that END tends to get wasted a lot by having extra HP at the end of a fight i cant help but think that 300 END surely must have some diminishing returns because of the length of battles. Which kinda means END is only viewed when compared to a standard monster .... things get complicated when you are trying to make it based on some monster power balancing and i know its actually really hard if not impossible to do it. Healing spells suffer from this too.

Another question is if monsters assume 0 END or are tuned to assume that in the near future since END is soo unidimensional it just means END would legit be useless to train when monsters assume it 0 it means you are not expected to train or you dont need to train END at all unlike CHA which can give you some damage, END is the only stat that gets wasted entirely when is assumed 0 by monsters.

< Message edited by LUPUL LUNATIC -- 2/15/2019 17:33:46 >

AQ	Post #: 14

2/15/2019 19:56:07

Kaelin
Member

@Andlu: The math in the spreadsheet bears out that BMs will perform well. Keep in mind that players aren't choosing between an overpowered and "required" Dexterity and Charisma as it appears now, but some non-main stat and Charisma, with guests able to add much more damage (0.6 Melee damage per 0.3 Melee SP, or 2 Melee per Melee SP) than weapon skills (which add just 1 Melee damage per 1 Melee SP).

Regarding booster guests, they do NOT boost Lucky Strike damage.

@AliceShiki: We're scaling down all the appropriate effects by a factor of 2, so the changes should be build-neutral and favor neither defensive builds nor annihilators. In practice, annihilators may even be in greater danger, because while they will be able to win battles in half the time, they'll also die in half the time, and it just takes a few things to go wrong to turn the battle against them.

As for *why* we're shortening battles, it's not a balance decision but a stylistic one. We (the Knights) think that battles are too long.

@Deaf of Destiny: I don't understand the question you are asking.

@LUPUL LUNATIC: Regarding FO armors, I don't think there's much we can do regarding warrior versus mage, because while warriors have the advantage of being able to use FO all the time, mages have their own tricks, such as spellcasting armors or being able to cast spells in defensive armors without taking a penalty on offense. Particularly with a build like INT + CHA + LUK (where your spells and guests both ignore armor lean), you're getting a ridiculous amount of mileage from FD armors should you choose to use them, and with us shortening battles, you're not going to be "punished" for playing slow. It may not be fully-satisfying, but we're trying to preserve this mage = warrior axiom (so much that every stat cap tab has pure mage and pure warrior perfectly equal), and each path has tricks available to them.

However, I have held no such reservations for BMs. This is why I'm running "Pet Comp" at 0.8, because this basically compares all builds as if they're using FO armors for the purpose of pet versus weapon damage. Morever, I take things even further with "Guest Comp," as I'm running calculations as if Guests are only doing 67% of their actual damage (for a Neutral armor, or 83% for the purpose of a FO armor), because using guests is less convenient than just dumping SP into skills.

Regarding END, "END Comp" says I'm pretending END only adds 2/3 of the actual HP you get. So if the Vstat END contribution to HP is +60%, the spreadsheet acts as if you're only carrying +40% HP. Regarding diminishing returns, END has always had this problem, and you're most likely only going to use it as a partway stat (so if the stat cap is 300, you might use 150 END but never 300 END). However, the extent of this problem will be less severe than before, because max END will only add 60% instead of something like 100% - 150% HP. Moreover, because we're bringing battle length from 10 turns to 5 turns, we're talking about 60% HP on top of 5 turn battles (so 8 turns, or more like 7 if the opponent has low DEX), and tanky monsters just won't be the chore some of them are now (which can run 20+ turns if they carry DEX + END, even without us giving the monster a "defensive HP lean" on top of it.)

If you take nothing else away from this thread, the most important goal of this sweep is for players to choose the stats they want to train, not the stats they need to take. For example, if your attitude towards END is "if I don't need to train this stat to survive, what is the point of training it?", then we don't want you to train it. If tearing enemies to pieces with magic is all you want, then pour 300 into INT and 300 into LUK, and throw 150 into whichever stat is the most attractive (maybe CHA if we change all our booster pets to CHA, or into DEX if you want the Initiative bonus and some indirect status protection, or into END if you want to utilize Essence Orb's HP --> SP conversion or some mechanic that'll make you eat a lot of damage). I mean, I am throwing a few sweeteners in the direction of CHA and END, but I don't want players to see them as bribes or something you're forced to use. This is the purpose of balance. Even if it means every single player trains 0 END, the Knights will be satisfied with the changes.

< Message edited by Kaelin -- 2/15/2019 20:00:10 >

AQ	Post #: 15

2/15/2019 21:11:30

Deaf of Destiny
Member

@kaelin ok you dont know the question i asked. all i want to know about those stats needs rework, just -bam-ing answer yes or no.

Post #: 16

2/15/2019 21:14:27

AliceShiki
Helpful!

quote:

@AliceShiki: We're scaling down all the appropriate effects by a factor of 2, so the changes should be build-neutral and favor neither defensive builds nor annihilators. In practice, annihilators may even be in greater danger, because while they will be able to win battles in half the time, they'll also die in half the time, and it just takes a few things to go wrong to turn the battle against them.

As for *why* we're shortening battles, it's not a balance decision but a stylistic one. We (the Knights) think that battles are too long.

Mmmmmmmmm, it honestly just feels like it will become very easy to use celerity + Purple Rain to nuke anything to oblivion even without counting boosters or outdated gear like CIT... >.>

Well, still looking forward to how it goes though! If the changes are build-neutral overall, then I'm happy enough with it~

Ah, right, what about tomes? Would their mana regeneration also get cut by a factor of 2 or would they still regenerate 392 MP per turn that you use Draw Mana?

AQ	Post #: 17

2/15/2019 22:02:02

Kaelin
Member

@Deaf of Destiny: We are reworking stats, and they will probably change a little from what the spreadsheets currently show.

@AliceShiki: That's a good point about once-per-battle effects becoming stronger. The Knights will discuss what we want to do about them (and it may depend on the item).

Draw Mana will keep the same strength, because players will only have half the turns.

AQ	Post #: 18

2/15/2019 22:07:52

Vaulen
Member

Could I ask how healing may be affected by this?

Post #: 19

2/15/2019 22:13:11

ruleandrew
Member

Value of the first turn
The staff is planning to reduce the number of turns required to kill one standard monster (affect Adventure Quest battle system) from 10 turns to 5 turns.

If one standard monster take 10 turns to kill, then the relative value of the first turn is worth x%.
If one standard monster take 5 turns to kill, then the relative value of the first turn is worth 2x%.

In what ways, can the staff fix the roll for the first turn?

------

The system of stat caps: 250/250/250/0/0/0 will bring the maximum number of logical player builds.
The system of stat caps: 300/300/150/0/0/0 will bring the maximum number of logical monster builds (most monster pick from 5 stats not 6 stats).

I do not mind either system.

< Message edited by ruleandrew -- 2/15/2019 22:26:57 >

AQ	Post #: 20

2/15/2019 22:17:45

Deaf of Destiny
Member

@kaeilin Thank you! thats all i need to hear from you. Bless ya and good job to do your damn work

Post #: 21

2/16/2019 0:39:58

Kaelin
Member

@ruleandrew: Regarding who gets the first turn, we're planning to change from the current system to a "status roll," with DEX versus DEX as Major and LUK versus LUK as Minor. Moreover, we'll scale this so it takes the difference of VStat to produce a full shift of 20% on Minor (and likewise on Minor), so if we were to use 300/300/150 builds, a L150 player with 300 DEX would have no advantage (50% initiative chance) against a 300 DEX monster, a 10% advantage (60% initiative chance) against a 150 DEX monster, and a +20% advantage (70% initiative chance) against a 0 DEX monster, assuming LUK is equal for both characters. Since we're planning to remove DEX off as a secondary accuracy stat, this gives DEX a new (albeit smaller) effect that the Knights agree makes mechanical sense (agile characters will surprise or land the first blow against their opponents more often than not), but it's small enough as a bonus to not decide the battle.

@Vaulen: Regarding the change from 10 turns to 5 turns, we will cut player HP in half, so monsters will still do about the same amount of damage, and healing won't change. We may have to change healing for other reasons, but it won't be from shortening battles.

AQ	Post #: 22

2/16/2019 0:54:46

Legendary Ash
Member

Reviewing the stat system with 200 Stat calculated from PLv 153's armor BRS% composition.

Melee: Core .5, Primary .385, Luk .115, Skill Core 1, Skill Primary .77
Ranged: Core is .5, Str .308, Dex .077, Luk .115, Skill Core 1, Skill Str .616, Skill Dex .154
Magic: Weapon Core .375, Weapon Primary .28875, Luk .115, Spell Core 1, Spell Primary .77
Beastmaster: Weapon Core .375, Weapon Primary .28875, Luk .115, Pet Core .2, Pet Cha .154, Pet Luk .046, Guest Core .3, Guest Cha .231
200 End = Base Hp+.77, which is twice a Primary's .385

As of the 250 Stat, it effectively increased everything by 25% assuming a 3 stat build, there should be an adjustment of Stat damage, blocking, BtH formulas by /1.25 to bring it back down to where they were in a 200 Stat setting and revert the updated weapon special damage back to those before Engine 44 to prevent all weapons before 2018 with specials from being underpowered.

This should undo the increase in damage that monsters have been dealing to players for years and the players to the monsters just slightly more than a month in existence, which all played a role in dismantling the 20 turn model.

As to an overhaul of End for both players and monsters, I think having a +50% Hp scaled to 250 Stat is appropriate since it may comprise of Primary's 15% Accuracy and 38.5% stat damage adds to 50%.

Continuing off the assumption of a suboptimal 150 in Str/Dex/Int/Cha/Luk build for the player as the standard should bring into the discussion of weapon specials, which 20% proc is the most common special proc in the game.

150 Stat build: Core .5, Melee/Ranged together .231, Spell Core 1, Spell Primary .462, Luk .069, Pet Cha .0924, Pet Luk .0276, Guest Cha .1386

Average per turn:
((Accuracy base + .6 of Stat Accuracy)(Turns of normal attack/20 Turns)(Core+Stat Damage+Luk Damage))+SpecialAccuracy*Proc(Special Core+SpecialVStat Damage+Luk)/1.1 +(Turns with Spell/20 Turns)SpellAccuracy(Spell Core+Spell Stat Damage+Luk)+PetAccuracy(Pet Core+Pet Stat Damage)

6*4 = 2.4 spell casts: (17.6/20)((.5+.6*.35)*.8(.5+.231+.069)+ .85*.2*1.5(.885+.069))+(2.4/20)(.5+.6*.35)*(1+.462+.069)+(.5+.6*.35)*((.2+.0924+.0276)+(.3+.1386)) = 1.2271832
50 proc: (17.6/20)((.5+.6*.35)*.5(.5+.231+.069)+ .85*.5*1.2(.885+.069))/1.1+(2.4/20)(.5+.6*.35)*(1+.462+.069)+(.5+.6*.35)*((.2+.0924+.0276)+(.3+.1386)) = 1.2854792
Offensive lean with 50 proc: (17.6/20)((.5+.6*.35)*1.25*.5(.5+.231+.069)+ .85*.5*1.2(.885+.069))/1.1+(2.4/20)(.5+.6*.35)*(1+.462+.069)+(.5+.6*.35)*((.2+.0924+.0276)+(.3+.1386)) = 1.3423502

(Turns of normal attack/20 Turns)(Core+Stat Damage+Luk Damage))+SpecialAccuracy*Proc(Special Core+SpecialVStat Damage+Luk)/1.1 +(Turns with Skill/20 Turns)SkillAccuracy(Skill Core+Skill Stat Damage+Luk)+PetAccuracy(Pet Core+Pet Stat Damage)

250 Stat build Neutral lean: (15/20)((.5+.35)*.8(.5+.385+.115)+.85*.2*1.5(.885+.115))+(5/20)((.5+.35)*(1+.77+.115)+(.5+.2)(.2+.046) = 1.22102625
Offensive lean with *1.08 no proc: 1.25*.85(1.08/1.1*15/20+(1+.77+.15)*5/20)+(.5+.2)(.2+.046) = 1.455289

As shown the current stat system makes sure that in standard settings, a 150 Stat build is competitive with a 250 Stat build at least in Neutral lean.
In Offensive lean, the 150 build achieves 1.3423502/1.455289 = .92239 of the maximum output, or presented the other way the 250 build is stronger by 1.455289/1.3423502 = 1.084135.

About the Beastmaster damage scheme, I like to think that Guests are comprised of a skill's 25% melee and another 25% melee from Magic/Cha weapon penalty, with .885*10% = 8.85% as a decompression compensation, 5% for skill and another 5% for weapon to shift damage over to a spell slot reserved for skills, and a 1-(.25-.21875) = *.96875 compensation to upkeep.
If there is really a practical need to increase Guest upkeep, I think 25% of a standard skill is appropriate, that would remove the cost compensation and leave the damage compensation intact.

I believe that minimal adjustments to conserve the earlier Game Engine's established power are in the best interest to avoid powercreep, which makes a very significant amount of equipment outdated.

AQ	Post #: 23

2/16/2019 10:18:58

AliceShiki
Helpful!

Ah ah, another question! How would those changes in how initiative work affect Ambush Potion, Whispering Raiment and Abyssal Hydrocampus? I mean... From what I understood, the maximum chance of starting the fight you can get if you have 300 DEX/LUK would be 80%? Which pretty much makes stuff like Ambush potion always guarantee your start regardless of your stats? Feels weird...

Nice to know Tomes would keep the same! \(^^)/

AQ	Post #: 24

2/16/2019 11:52:48

Kaelin
Member

Your chance of going first will depends on your enemy's stats. Let's assume you do have 300 DEX/LUK. If the enemy also has 300/300 in DEX/LUK, then you'd have a 50% chance. If the enemy has 0/0 in DEX/LUK, then your chance increases to 80% (+20 from DEX, +10 from LUK).

I'm not sure about what these Initiative-boosting items will do, but weapon/armor MC power (0.05 MC power * 5 / 1.4 Melee per turn) would be worth +18% Initiative. If we wanted to stay on the 10 turn model, we'd double this. If we want Lucretia's potions to be stronger than this (and Dead-Eye Straight as designed definitely is), we can go higher than just MC in that case.

AQ	Post #: 25

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

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> Game Balance Issues >> Stat Balance Project - With Spreadsheets

Page 1 of 4

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