Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

RE: =AQ= UpdateQuest Ideas

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= UpdateQuest Ideas
Page 4 of 6«<23456>»
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
8/25/2020 14:55:07   
FlySkyHigh
Member

Oh man I would looooooooove to see Dracomancer get updated. That was my favorite class back in the day.

Honestly I'm just glad classes are getting updated and would love to see more tier 3 classes that are "Viable" as opposed to simply relying on FD/FO armor. The game is a lot of fun as it is but I kind of miss being lower level where I could actually regularly use a class. Back in the day Dracomancer and Necromancer were my go-to classes and would use them all the time, now I can't even remember the last time I used a class armor outside of just looking at the new paladin.

I would also second the suggestion to remove the no-drops to storage? I understand the basic concept but I'd really like to be able to fully dictate what 8 armors/weapons I have access to instead of constantly relying on the no-drop slots to cover one element. I absolutely loved when the bonus armor slot was added for the race.

Also after Archmage and Necromancer,would still love to see Dracopyre get the full treatment as well alongside Dracomancer.

I like dragons.

Also since we have Paladin (a Str/Int hybrid), and Necromancer and Archmage (both likely heavily INT based), I would also second the idea of making a proper tier 3 Dex-based class like assassin.

Just spitballing and I know that's a lot of classes but I think it'd be cool to have a proper Tier 3 class for each of the main stats and then one for each 'Hybrid' blend.
AQ DF MQ  Post #: 76
8/25/2020 15:16:41   
battlesiege15
Member

No love for Beastmasters lol

Tier 3 Beastmaster: Beast Tamer.
AQ AQW  Post #: 77
8/25/2020 16:46:13   
Mr. Roguish
Member

@CH4OT1C!

You are correct, which means that Paladin is an extension of both warrior and mage, so my point still stands. Knights had already been updated, Wizard class was updated, and not only are mages getting archmage, but they and warriors got an updated paladin. I think its only fair rogues get some much needed love.


@battlesiege15

beastmasters got the everything done with the nekos:
* no drop transformation extra armor
*all inclusive compression armors for all elements
* each armor can access entire skill list
* armors are feasible for general use in combat and current meta
* their own houses

Beastmasters got plenty of love.. Rogues really need some love.

< Message edited by Mr. Popo -- 8/25/2020 17:20:10 >
Post #: 78
8/25/2020 17:52:11   
Mr. Uber
Member

Miss Fixit - Thoru the Weather Master! quest, specifically the Boreal Bolt Plate


Also rogue classes are the only one's out of the main trio that aren't usable in the current meta.

>Warriors have the Knight class that has enough armors to cover practically all elements, as well as the werewolf subrace with all its armors, and bloodzerker armors, all of which are actually viable in general combat
> Mages have the Wizard class armors that cover all elements, as well as the vampire subrace and all its armors, and bloodmage armors, all of which are actually viable in general combat and are getting the archmage class
> Beastmaster has neko armors that not only cover all elements but come compression and come with a no drop extra armor, and they also have the Bard of War armor (and another armor just like it if I'm not mistaken), all of which are viable in general combat.
> Hybrids have the newly updated Paladin class as well as the werepyre subrace and all its armors which are all viable in general combat.
> Rouges have 2 unusable class armors and one class armor only useful for its initiative bonus and a lvl 10 skill that completely useless for 3/5th of the game????????????

Yall are selfish, dracomancer is the only one else with rogues that should be anywhere first.
AQ DF AQW  Post #: 79
8/25/2020 18:26:00   
CH4OT1C!
Member

quote:

You are correct, which means that Paladin is an extension of both warrior and mage, so my point still stands. Knights had already been updated, Wizard class was updated, and not only are mages getting archmage, but they and warriors got an updated paladin. I think its only fair rogues get some much needed love.

Just before I respond: I believe both rangers and warriors deserve a Tier 3 class update of their own. It just so happens that, with Paladin and Necromancer, Hybrids and Mages will be the first to benefit. I won't comment on Archmage. It wouldn't be right for any of us to complain about that being released after the amount of attention it's received over the past decade (plus). With all of that said:

1). Hybrid is a build unto itself. It's a jack of all trades, master of none. By that definition, it certainly includes the traits of both a mage and warrior, but that doesn't mean it was specifically designed for one build over another. However, the premise that Paladin kept in mind was for it to be usable (and useful) for all builds. For any future classes, I'd like to see something similar upheld (though, I can understand that would be to a varying extent given some classes are much more easily broadened than others).
2). Whilst wizard was updated, it doesn't conform to standards in any way, shape or form. The way it's currently designed falls in their favour (it's overpowered, to put it mildly), but will (hopefully) be corrected in due time. It's incredibly overpowered.
3). Knight is not a tier 3 class, and doesn't scale to level 150. I'm not sure we should be lumping it into the same boat. The same goes for wizard, which is also a tier 2 class.
4). Before dealing with any new ranger class updates, I think it would be wise to redefine DEX within the overdue stat rework. It makes things difficult when you design a class for a specific build, then redefine that very build. A certain amount of forward thinking is necessary on that front.

quote:

Also rogue classes are the only one's out of the main trio that aren't usable in the current meta.

>Warriors have the Knight class that has enough armors to cover practically all elements, as well as the werewolf subrace with all its armors, and bloodzerker armors, all of which are actually viable in general combat
> Mages have the Wizard class armors that cover all elements, as well as the vampire subrace and all its armors, and bloodmage armors, all of which are actually viable in general combat and are getting the archmage class
> Beastmaster has neko armors that not only cover all elements but come compression and come with a no drop extra armor, and they also have the Bard of War armor (and another armor just like it if I'm not mistaken), all of which are viable in general combat.
> Hybrids have the newly updated Paladin class as well as the werepyre subrace and all its armors which are all viable in general combat.
> Rouges have 2 unusable class armors and one class armor only useful for its initiative bonus and a lvl 10 skill that completely useless for 3/5th of the game????????????


1). As I said above, Knight isn't a tier 3 class. I will also point out that the armours you mention here can also be used by rangers as easily as a warrior (though, I'd probably advise you use them as an FO ranger for better results...). The current stat spread of a ranger also makes Werewolf very helpful to them.
2). See above for my point on Wizard armours. Bloodmage is more niche, focusing on spells rather than skills.
3). Beastmaster isn't a true build, but more of a sub-build. We talk about BeastWarriors, BeastRangers and BeastMages, and pure beast builds with no investment in a main stat are only used by a minority. Even so, a beastranger (and particularly one that uses 100-proc ranged weapons and plays defensively) could make use of these FD armours you mentioned above.
4). The main draw of a hybrid is to be able to take advantage of the benefits of multiple dedicated builds, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here?
5). Assassin is probably the best candidate for a tier 3 ranger class we have, and I'm in favour of it being revamped (subject to the condition of redefining the ranger build above). With that said, I think it's worth mentioning that every class but paladin, knight, shadowslayer and wizard are neither updated nor very helpful, so it's hardly like Rangers are being singled out here. Of the remaining classes, I'd say assassins end up one of the best off.

< Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 8/25/2020 18:30:57 >
AQ  Post #: 80
8/25/2020 22:59:37   
battlesiege15
Member

Not saying rogues aren't getting missed out on. It would be nice if the Beastmaster class got updated soon too along with a higher tier one is all I'm saying.

As per the Neko armor, it's a subrace armor which I agree is nice but it's similar to the other 3 subraces so not saying beastmaster get all the love. Furthermore, there are not much options when it comes to guests so any updates to older guests would be appreciated.
I can think of one main one that would be beneficial right away: Aria's Endangered Species! quest. They're small guests but some of them are kinda cute and would be nice if they got updated stats and toggles too along with a way to summon them similar to the Koofu Caller.
Oh and maybe some Random Adventure surprises too? Animal Boxes, Hybee Camp infiltration, etc. Those are always fun.
How about the Quest for the Elemental Orbs? Or will that be done with the rest of the Devourer Saga?
AQ AQW  Post #: 81
8/26/2020 10:43:55   
Mr. Roguish
Member

quote:

Just before I respond: I believe both rangers and warriors deserve a Tier 3 class update of their own.

Before dealing with any new ranger class updates, I think it would be wise to redefine DEX within the overdue stat rework. It makes things difficult when you design a class for a specific build, then redefine that very build. A certain amount of forward thinking is necessary on that front.

Not Rangers, rogues; rangers aren't real based off the current meta of DEX
Post #: 82
8/26/2020 11:02:11   
Mr. Uber
Member

quote:

1). As I said above, Knight isn't a tier 3 class. I will also point out that the armours you mention here can also be used by rangers as easily as a warrior (though, I'd probably advise you use them as an FO ranger for better results...). The current stat spread of a ranger also makes Werewolf very helpful to them.
2). See above for my point on Wizard armours. Bloodmage is more niche, focusing on spells rather than skills.
3). Beastmaster isn't a true build, but more of a sub-build. We talk about BeastWarriors, BeastRangers and BeastMages, and pure beast builds with no investment in a main stat are only used by a minority. Even so, a beastranger (and particularly one that uses 100-proc ranged weapons and plays defensively) could make use of these FD armours you mentioned above.
4). The main draw of a hybrid is to be able to take advantage of the benefits of multiple dedicated builds, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here?
5). Assassin is probably the best candidate for a tier 3 ranger class we have, and I'm in favour of it being revamped (subject to the condition of redefining the ranger build above). With that said, I think it's worth mentioning that every class but paladin, knight, shadowslayer and wizard are neither updated nor very helpful, so it's hardly like Rangers are being singled out here. Of the remaining classes, I'd say assassins end up one of the best off.

1. I never said that Knight was a tier 3 class. And as Mr. Popo said, rangers don't exist within the current meta (they can, but not feasible really); we're talking about rogues, and those armors do not work for rogues.
2. Yes.. mages focus on spells instead of skills (sometimes both, but will always use spells otherwise they would just be weaker warriors); your point?
3. Only used by a minority, but still used, so therefore still a true build.
4. Hybrids are only useful for the builds that it is a hybrid of (more often than not, warrior and mage), there aren't too many armors that are hybrids of a rogue so therefore rogues wouldn't find any feasible use out of them.
5. Shadowslayer was updated and is relative to this new paladin class if we're only counting the first 10 skills and you even admitted in you message to Mr. Popo that Wizard was updated AND overpowered which would make it very helpful, so yes "Rogues" are being singled out and are the worst off based off the points I made in my first comment.
AQ DF AQW  Post #: 83
8/26/2020 14:23:19   
RobynJoanne
Member
 

What do people mean when they say ranger and rogue? By my understanding, rangers are any build that primarily use ranged weapons, and rogue is one of the basic classes that focuses on dex. The two are not mutually exclusive, and that which applies to one often applies to the other. Please enlighten me if there are further differences.
Post #: 84
8/26/2020 16:23:28   
CH4OT1C!
Member

I believe that we all agree that Ranger/Rogue deserves a updated tier 3 class in some shape or form. Where we disagree is on the priority of such an update. Responding to @RobynJoanne, there is a difference between Ranger and Rogue (though the terms are often used interchangeably). I believe the distinction does matter to the discussion, but we should primarily ignore it because STR/DEX is needed in both in order to deal damage with ranged weapons. Since it's out of scope for this thread, I'll leave the discussion for whether a Ranger can exist for another time (though I disagree with you).

As I've already stated, the main issue with bringing Rangers/Rogues to the fore is the need for a stat update. This is because, a little like beast builds, they fall into a category where they don't rely on a main stat. I mean this in the context of how the stats are viewed, not in any other. Only STR and INT are viewed as main stats, with DEX being relegated to a secondary role (though still ahead of the tertiary END, LUK and CHA). This means that Rangers and Rogues lack a certain amount of build identity, often having stats similar to that of a warrior in order to deal the maximum amount of damage with their Ranged weapons. I think this is probably where your idea that Rangers cannot exist may stem from; they'd be indistinct from Warriors. That's why a stat update is so important at the moment: it could give them that identity and freedom.
There's another benefit to prioritising a stat update, one that is raised by a number of comments both @Mr Uber and Mr Popo have raised:

quote:

Not Rangers, rogues; rangers aren't real based off the current meta of DEX.

quote:

And as Mr. Popo said, rangers don't exist within the current meta (they can, but not feasible really); we're talking about rogues, and those armors do not work for rogues.


Both concern this idea of the "current meta". By that, I assume you refer to stunlocking and nuking your opponents. My point here is: Is that really what we want from a new Ranger class? Mage is the classic nuke build, designed to deal huge amounts of damage at the start of a fight with Spells, then with weaker hits for the duration. Do we want Ranger to play the same? I believe that would conflict with this sense of unique build identity that we're trying to achieve. Don't get me wrong, I believe that making Rangers/Rogues competitive with the current meta is important, but I don't believe having them conform to it is the answer. Unfortunately, that isn't something that can be solved with a simple updated class. Moreover, if we were to update a Ranger/Rogue class and then suddenly redefine the build under those lines, there's a risk of making the class defunct without clear forward planning.
Broadening the context, we have other updates to consider as well. The point I try to raise in reference to:

quote:

... warriors got an updated paladin.

quote:

have the Knight class that has enough armors to cover...

quote:

Knights had already been updated...


... is not that warriors don't have options, it's that those options are more limited than you might realise. Paladin was not designed inherently for warriors, but hybrids. They don't have a specific tier 3 class on the horizon. Knight is not a tier 3 class, which means it becomes defunct at higher levels. It cannot cover that base in the end-game. In reference to...

quote:

as well as the werewolf subrace with all its armors, and bloodzerker armors, all of which are actually viable in general combat


... the STR and DEX benefits of werewolf also benefit a Ranger/Rogue with reference to Ranged Weapon damage. If you believe Rangers/Rogues should get damage/accuracy from DEX, that's another reason to prioritise a stat update than a class update.

Another point of contention seems to be around the Wizard class. I believe this should, at the very least, receive some sort of bandaid patch prior to any Ranger/Rogue class update. The reason for this is twofold:

1). It's relatively simple to achieve
2). It now constitutes one of the most overpowered items left in the game.

Yes, as you both state:

quote:

Wizard class was updated...

quote:

Mages have the Wizard class armors that cover all elements...

quote:

...that Wizard was updated AND overpowered which would make it very helpful...


Yes, they were updated in a way which makes them incredibly overpowered and highly effective at level 150. I invite you to take a look at the skill power ranking page. This alone shows how strong they are in reference to the other options available. This would be fine if they were mathematically balanced. They aren't, and the effect is pretty significant, which is why I believe it's important to address as soon as possible.

Finally, in reference to:

quote:

everything done with the nekos:...

quote:

Beastmaster has neko armors that not only cover all elements but come compression and come with a no drop extra armor, and they also have the Bard of War armor (and another armor just like it if I'm not mistaken), all of which are viable in general combat.


Beastmasters have been receiving some well-deserved attention recently, but the assertion that they are a true build:

quote:

Only used by a minority, but still used, so therefore still a true build.


...is debatable since they also don't require a main stat. I believe the difference is that, unlike Ranger/Rogue, Beastmaster was never a fundamental choice (although this does raise questions around Hybrid). Nevertheless, both Rangers AND Beast builds are still underrepresented and I value any future update that caters to both. I don't think future updates should exclusively prioritise one or the other, since both are still in need of options.
AQ  Post #: 85
8/26/2020 17:12:04   
Mr. Roguish
Member

quote:

What do people mean when they say ranger and rogue? By my understanding, rangers are any build that primarily use ranged weapons, and rogue is one of the basic classes that focuses on dex. The two are not mutually exclusive, and that which applies to one often applies to the other. Please enlighten me if there are further differences.

You are mostly correct! The answer to that is quite simple actually (though lengthy) and in my opinion, best explained by comparing it to the other builds. The key points defining the build being:
1. How much damage is taken
2. How much damage is given
3. How the character survives until a full heal
Ultimately, the weapon is not important because all builds usually take advantage of the accuracy boost from DEX and therefore could all feasibly use ranged weapons however unlikely due to the current meta which is why I say rangers don't exist.

Mage:
As CH4OT1C briefly explained:
quote:

Mage is the classic nuke build, designed to deal huge amounts of damage at the start of a fight with Spells, then with weaker hits for the duration

1. Takes a lot of damage and very squishy because armors usually do not provide great resistances.
2. Deals a ton of damage due to being able to fully utilize spells in which MP is a limited resource. Therefore to make spells even viable, they need to be worth the sacrifice of MP.
3. Survives in the sense of a glass cannon. dealing insane amounts of damage before they take too much damage.

Warrior:
1. Takes minimal damage due to high resistances.
2. Deals decent and consistent damage.
3. Survives by being able to absorb a lot of punishment and dealing consistent damage. Basically winning a war of attrition.

Rogues:
1. Very squishy, but not as much as a mage.
2. Deals a lot of damage consistently and extreme amounts of damage on lucky strikes.
3. Survives by having high MRM, being able to consistently dodge/block hits. But the ability to do this is also a limited resource and potential items that would boost damage or absorb damage will have to be sacrificed to dodge temporarily. Essentially deal as much damage as you can before the monster can catch you.

So simply put:
A rogue, along with warrior and mage are one of the three starting character choices when you first crate your character; IT JUST SO HAPPENS that there are trainable classes with the same name for rogue and mage at least.

The same situation can be said for the current armors. Yes, TECHNICALLY any build could use any armor, however this is an over-generalization and is unrealistic.

It is true that the armors outside of class armors don't have specific class designations, however it is clear that certain armors are more optimal for certain builds than others considering:
there are plenty of armors that boost spell damage and therefore would benefit builds that utilize magic over ones that didn't; that being mages
The piratechaun armor boosts MRM based on LUK; which would support a rogue
Neko armors heavily benefit from CHA; which would be the beastmaster
etc.

Then that leads ultimately to the stats of the character and not the armor's full-defense to full-offense because all that does for the build realistically is dictate which weapon would be best to use with the armor via 100% proc/spells for defensive armors or realistically anything under 50% proc for offensive armors. Which is why beastmaster is a true build.

The tank and glass cannon are sub-builds to the main three and are based on multiple factors:
stats placed into either doing more damage or more health
armor with defensive or offensive leans
misc that deal more damage or reduce incoming damage
guests/spells/pets that either heal or do damage
etc.

Yes you can have a mage in big plated armor, but the most turn efficient and effective items (being able to defeat both enemies and boss quickly) that support a specific build usually fall under the mage taking the most damage and dealing the most, warrior taking the least and dealing the least, and the rogue supposed to be being in between however not just taking more damage than a warrior and less than a mage, but it's own thing.
That being taking almost as much damage as mages when hit but having high MRM to avoid being hit creating the gap of damage received compared to mages, however the dodging cannot be indefinitely maintained and therefore taking more damage than the warrior when they start getting hit.

All in all it's not the armor that defines the build it's how the character is played; but there are armors that decently benefit a specific build more than another and thus for simplicity sake is easier to classify them as such for identification purposes. However, there seems to be a lack of items and armors specifically that benefit the rogue playstyle that is clearly being given to mages and warriors.
And if there is something that could come out for rogues and it doesn't have the aesthetics, then it breaks immersion and makes the game lacking for people who like to play that playstyle.


quote:

there is a difference between Ranger and Rogue (though the terms are often used interchangeably). I believe the distinction does matter to the discussion, but we should primarily ignore it because STR/DEX is needed in both in order to deal damage with ranged weapons.

As I've already stated, the main issue with bringing Rangers/Rogues to the fore is the need for a stat update. This is because, a little like beast builds, they fall into a category where they don't rely on a main stat. I mean this in the context of how the stats are viewed, not in any other. Only STR and INT are viewed as main stats, with DEX being relegated to a secondary role (though still ahead of the tertiary END, LUK and CHA).
That's the issue, you're equating a build off of the compunction of a "main stat" in regards to just one aspect of the game which is only surface level playing and completely unimaginative and uninspired to something much more complex than that. What if a character maxes INT, uses big bulky armor, uses magic weapons, but doesn't cast any spells or use any skills (just normal attack); are they a mage because their main stat is INT or are they a warrior that just so happens to use magic weapons? I explained the issue with going solely off of what weapon or armor or stat used and "use vs feasibility" in my comment to RobynJoanne's comment. While stats are important, they are not necessarily indicative of the play style.

quote:

This means that Rangers and Rogues lack a certain amount of build identity, often having stats similar to that of a warrior in order to deal the maximum amount of damage with their Ranged weapons.
Our lack of identity has more to do with the lack of gear and false association to rangers because of our high DEX builds, people ASSUME we all just use ranged weapons. Which is why an updated assassin is so important, people don't even recognize your playstyle and just throw ranged weapons at us like it will fix the problem.

quote:

Both concern this idea of the "current meta". By that, I assume you refer to stunlocking and nuking your opponents.
Depends on what you're referring to. If you're talking about DEX and ranged weapons, then its referring to what you also pointed out. That because of DEX's functionality and nigh necessity for all builds, technically any build "could use ranged weapons (although not feasible given it's not a "main stat"), therefore making it not a true build.
If you're talking about the armors, then mostly yes, more directed to "rogues" not "rangers". And more referring to generally how much damage most armors provide for warriors and mages. Mages will always be the OG when it comes to nukes because they can both fully utilize MP and SP consuming spells and skills, but because of how squishy they are (or should be), it requires them to stunlock and nuke just to survive while optimizing MP and turns. Warriors have nukes now but because of their resistances, they don't need to stunlock or anything like that unless going up against a challenge boss; in every game, warrior is usually the casual, don't put too much thought into it hack and slash playstyle.

quote:

Do we want Ranger to play the same? I believe that would conflict with this sense of unique build identity that we're trying to achieve. Don't get me wrong, I believe that making Rangers/Rogues competitive with the current meta is important, but I don't believe having them conform to it is the answer. Unfortunately, that isn't something that can be solved with a simple updated class. Moreover, if we were to update a Ranger/Rogue class and then suddenly redefine the build under those lines, there's a risk of making the class defunct without clear forward planning.
Broadening the context, we have other updates to consider as well.
Absolutely not, as I explained in my comment to RobynJoanne's comment:
"Yes you can have a mage in big plated armor, but the most turn efficient and effective items (being able to defeat both enemies and boss quickly) that support a specific build usually fall under the mage taking the most damage and dealing the most, warrior taking the least and dealing the least, and the rogue supposed to be being in between however not just taking more damage than a warrior and less than a mage, but it's own thing.
That being taking almost as much damage as mages when hit but having high MRM to avoid being hit creating the gap of damage received compared to mages, however the dodging cannot be indefinitely maintained and therefore taking more damage than the warrior when they start getting hit."

I have a whole suggestion thread that no one seems to comment on with suggestions to this issue; I've already come up with multiple ways to achieve the same thing without pulling a vegeta and getting the same thing, its not hard, I can literally run stuff off the top of my head.

The rest of what you mentioned still is off of that premise of "main stat" that I already debunked.

quote:

is not that warriors don't have options, it's that those options are more limited than you might realise.

Yes, they were updated in a way which makes them incredibly overpowered and highly effective at level 150. I invite you to take a look at the skill power ranking page. This alone shows how strong they are in reference to the other options available. This would be fine if they were mathematically balanced. They aren't, and the effect is pretty significant, which is why I believe it's important to address as soon as possible.

Beastmaster was never a fundamental choice (although this does raise questions around Hybrid). Nevertheless, both Rangers AND Beast builds are still underrepresented and I value any future update that caters to both. I don't think future updates should exclusively prioritize one or the other, since both are still in need of options.
The issue is, is that, at this point in time, rogues DON'T EVEN really have options. Instead of improving the quality of something people already have plenty off or nerfing something for being too useful that can simply be avoided because they also have plenty of options, lets try to give something to the people who don't have much of anything in the first place. This extends further past just the actual classes, but the least we can do is give us an actual feasible class outside of an imitative buff. You're worried about a class that doesn't make it to 150 against a class that doesn't even make it past 100 that is SUPPOSED to a higher tier..

< Message edited by Mr. Popo -- 8/26/2020 18:33:19 >
Post #: 86
8/27/2020 7:25:07   
J9408
Member

From what I see here, a Assassin class update is wanted more than ever.
Post #: 87
8/27/2020 9:27:24   
CH4OT1C!
Member

quote:

1. Takes a lot of damage and very squishy because armors usually do not provide great resistances.
2. Deals a ton of damage due to being able to fully utilize spells in which MP is a limited resource. Therefore to make spells even viable, they need to be worth the sacrifice of MP.
3. Survives in the sense of a glass cannon. dealing insane amounts of damage before they take too much damage.
... etc.


I'm not entirely sure what you're using to base these assumptions on, since there isn't a description of these builds at the start of the game. A number of these assumptions aren't even right. For example, the comments about armour resistances are completely false. If mage armours were designed around this concept, we would have items like High communicant's Zeal. We even have no-drops that fall against it (see Insightful Armour of Awe. Part of the problem is definitely displayed here:

quote:

Yes you can have a mage in big plated armor, but the most turn efficient and effective items (being able to defeat both enemies and boss quickly) that support a specific build usually fall under the mage taking the most damage and dealing the most, warrior taking the least and dealing the least, and the rogue supposed to be being in between however not just taking more damage than a warrior and less than a mage, but it's own thing.


FO is preferred by many vocal players, and so we've saw a large number of FO armours released over the years. However, that doesn't define the build, only gives that particular direction more options. We have more armours that benefit FO mages, but it doesn't mean I couldn't play a FD Tome mage if I wanted, which would completely fly in the face of your definition of Mage as a build. You can also have a FD mage-centred around dodging (see this character), blurring the concept of Mage and Ranger/Rogue somewhat. You can also see these assumptions in:

quote:

Yes, TECHNICALLY any build could use any armor, however this is an over-generalization and is unrealistic.
It is true that the armors outside of class armors don't have specific class designations, however it is clear that certain armors are more optimal for certain builds than others...


There's a couple points I want to make here:
1). It's not technically possible, it outright is. Any build can use any armour. The question is whether they see a significant benefit from using it (as you have pointed out). For example, it's fairly obvious a spellbooster is going to be more useful for a mage. However, it can still prove useful for warriors and rangers because they also boost the power of spell-type skills (like Chaos Tendrils from the Chaos Slayer Cleric Armour).
2). Feeding into this, Armours don't have specific class designations at all. There are armours that clearly are more beneficial for a Ranger, Mage etc., but there's nothing on any Armour stating that this is specifically designed for a certain build. In the case of werewolf, Warriors clearly get a lot of use out of the STR/DEX boosts, alongside the other skills like Beast Form and Snarl. However, those abilities are just as useful for rangers, who may want to inflict fear, or use the STR/DEX toggles to boost the power of their ranged weapons as well. Armours aren't designated to a specific build, they have a pool of accumulated points to invest in their MRM/Elemental defences, and have a specific Armour lean/Damage output. It just so happens that modifying these traits, alongside extra effects like spell boosts and MRM toggles, makes them more attractive for a certain playstyle.

However, I think the problem runs even deeper than that. At this point, it's not just Ranger/Rogue, but a fundamental difference in our definitions of a build:

quote:

The tank and glass cannon are sub-builds to the main three and are based on multiple factors:
stats placed into either doing more damage or more health
armor with defensive or offensive leans
misc that deal more damage or reduce incoming damage
guests/spells/pets that either heal or do damage
etc.


I've never heard anyone call Tank or Glass cannon a sub-build. This discrepancy only adds to the confusion of build identity for Ranger/Rogue. All in all, the comments you've made do a great job of illustrating a major point in my last post: Ranger/Rogue lack a clearly defined identity. We all have slightly different perception of what a Ranger/Rogue should be beyond the math (I won't go into that given the scope of this thread, but feel free to PM me about them). However, that definition has either been lost in the midst of time, or was never clearly defined to begin with. Now, I'm not for a second suggesting that...

quote:

However, there seems to be a lack of items and armors specifically that benefit the rogue playstyle...


Is something that we shouldn't address, it clearly should be. However, we need a stat update in order to clearly define what a Ranger/Rogue is in the current system according to the game, and not your perceptions. After all, people have conflicting definitions and perceptions on this matter, that much is obvious. I'm not attempting to...

quote:

main stat" in regards to just one aspect of the game which is only surface level playing and completely unimaginative and uninspired to something much more complex than that


... simplify or define the game as something superficial, but we need some form of standardised definition in order to move forward. That's why a stat update is so important; It allows us to define and redefine what a Rogue/Ranger is and should be. (In response to your question directly after this, a user of magic weapons with INT is a mage, unless they also have STR in which case they're a hybrid. You can choose to disagree with me if you wish). Additionally, as far as I'm concerned, a Ranger build should be focusing upon ranged weapons, as should Rogues. Once again, feel free to disagree.

This thread isn't about debunking an argument, it's about deciding what we want updated and how we want that to be done. My point here is that we should be redefining what a Ranger/Rogue through a stat update, first and foremost. Any updates that we do see on Ranger Weaponry/Items and such should bear this update in mind, because they risk becoming defunct once it hits.


AQ  Post #: 88
8/27/2020 11:39:50   
Mr. Roguish
Member

quote:

I'm not entirely sure what you're using to base these assumptions on, since there isn't a description of these builds at the start of the game. A number of these assumptions aren't even right. For example, the comments about armour resistances are completely false. If mage armours were designed around this concept, we would have items like High communicant's Zeal. We even have no-drops that fall against it (see Insightful Armour of Awe.
Literally explained in the next comment you quoted me on between both words "most". And of course you'll have (should have) a variety of armors that will suit a variety of different sub builds like I explained. But as you explained yourself, the current meta is stunlock and nuke, so these armors will not be commonly used and far few in between.

quote:

FO is preferred by many vocal players, and so we've saw a large number of FO armours released over the years. However, that doesn't define the build, only gives that particular direction more options. We have more armours that benefit FO mages, but it doesn't mean I couldn't play a FD Tome mage if I wanted, which would completely fly in the face of your definition of Mage as a build. You can also have a FD mage-centred around dodging (see this character), blurring the concept of Mage and Ranger/Rogue somewhat.
I never said it defines the build, in fact I SPECIFICALLY mentioned how it doesn't when I said:
quote:

and not the armor's full-defense to full-offense because all that does for the build realistically is dictate which weapon would be best to use with the armor via 100% proc/spells for defensive armors or realistically anything under 50% proc for offensive armors.
Also, when you're comparing armor leans to builds, you need to keep the leans consistent in which case yes, a defensive warrior and rogue would normally take less damage than a defensive mage unless they used the same exact armor and misc and dedicated spells to being even more defensive than normal and intentionally giving up effective means to deal damage comparable to the other builds. So no it doesn't fly in the face of my definition because that kind of build goes against efficiency and effectiveness of MP and the current meta. That doesn't mean you can't play as a FD mage that uses tomes, but most players strive to end the fight as quickly as possible and optimal minimization of usage of resources (HP, MP, SP, potions).

quote:

1). It's not technically possible, it outright is. Any build can use any armour. The question is whether they see a significant benefit from using it (as you have pointed out). For example, it's fairly obvious a spellbooster is going to be more useful for a mage. However, it can still prove useful for warriors and rangers because they also boost the power of spell-type skills (like Chaos Tendrils from the Chaos Slayer Cleric Armour).
A redundant statement as you literally mentioned how I addressed the real stipulation. And this comment has been focused on armors so how are you supposed to utilize an armor's spellboost effect for another build's armor's spell based skill?

quote:

2). Feeding into this, Armours don't have specific class designations at all. There are armours that clearly are more beneficial for a Ranger, Mage etc., but there's nothing on any Armour stating that this is specifically designed for a certain build. In the case of werewolf, Warriors clearly get a lot of use out of the STR/DEX boosts, alongside the other skills like Beast Form and Snarl. However, those abilities are just as useful for rangers, who may want to inflict fear, or use the STR/DEX toggles to boost the power of their ranged weapons as well. Armours aren't designated to a specific build, they have a pool of accumulated points to invest in their MRM/Elemental defences, and have a specific Armour lean/Damage output. It just so happens that modifying these traits, alongside extra effects like spell boosts and MRM toggles, makes them more attractive for a certain playstyle
This is also redundant, the whole statement is just repeating what you quoted me saying; the first 2 sentences are almost verbatim what I said. They might also benefit "Rangers" but rangers aren't the issue, "Rogues" are, and they do not benefit rogues.

quote:

I've never heard anyone call Tank or Glass cannon a sub-build. This discrepancy only adds to the confusion of build identity for Ranger/Rogue. All in all, the comments you've made do a great job of illustrating a major point in my last post: Ranger/Rogue lack a clearly defined identity. We all have slightly different perception of what a Ranger/Rogue should be beyond the math (I won't go into that given the scope of this thread, but feel free to PM me about them). However, that definition has either been lost in the midst of time, or was never clearly defined to begin with.
They are sub builds because they can be implemented into any build without degrading the integrity of the build. A warrior is not a mage or a rogue, a mage is not a warrior or a rogue, and a rogue is not a warrior or mage, no matter what; any deviation with thhe exception of beast master is a hybrid. All of them can be tanks if they invest in all the things that I mentioned in the fourth comment you quoted me in. They can all be rangers if they use ranged weapons considering how integral DEX is to almost every build. Its not confusing or difficult, you all make it hard for yourselves because you do stuff like refuse to let go of the false compunction that rogues and rangers are the same even or that all rogues use ranged weapons when someone who plays a rogue is telling you they're not. You all don't even play rogues and are trying to set the standard, that doesn't even make any sense.
Me: *Plays rogue*, "this is how rogues are".
You: *plays some hybrid that has a few rogue like qualities*, "nah, no its not, we don't know how it is"

We don't lack identity, we know what we are, what we're doing, and what we strive for; what we lack is representation and incentive. Because rogues only have scraps (mostly in regards to armors), there's no incentive for people to make the build, and since most people don't make the build, most people don't play it and therefore don't understand our struggles and don't talk about them. One squeaky wheel can get lost in the ocean of thousands of slightly squeaky wheels.

quote:

However, we need a stat update in order to clearly define what a Ranger/Rogue is in the current system according to the game, and not your perceptions. After all, people have conflicting definitions and perceptions on this matter, that much is obvious.

... simplify or define the game as something superficial, but we need some form of standardised definition in order to move forward. That's why a stat update is so important; It allows us to define and redefine what a Rogue/Ranger is and should be.

(In response to your question directly after this, a user of magic weapons with INT is a mage, unless they also have STR in which case they're a hybrid. You can choose to disagree with me if you wish)
If a true definition doesn't exist like you claim, then the perceptions of a subject matter expert should matter more than people completely ignorant to our situation. The answer to the question is that they are a warrior. Maybe they just like the specific effects that said magic weapons provide in combination with their strategy and/or theme, that doesn't make them a mage. You even admitted yourself, any build can use any item, what matters is how much they will benefit from it versus a different item that may or may not align better or worse with the kind of playstyle they strive for.

quote:

Additionally, as far as I'm concerned, a Ranger build should be focusing upon ranged weapons, as should Rogues. Once again, feel free to disagree.
At the end of the day, you're not one of us and you won't have to live with the decisions made for us. Stats are not the issue for us no matter how much you think they are for some reason.

quote:

My point here is that we should be redefining what a Ranger/Rogue through a stat update, first and foremost. Any updates that we do see on Ranger Weaponry/Items and such should bear this update in mind, because they risk becoming defunct once it hits.
My point is that doing said thing doesn't actually benefit rogues because all that does is MAYBE change the weapons we use not the effectiveness of the build itself. But what do I know, I have just been playing a rogue since 2006..

< Message edited by Mr. Popo -- 8/27/2020 13:52:50 >
Post #: 89
8/27/2020 14:34:56   
Lineolata
Member
 

I don't have much to add to the conversation about builds, but for an extra opinion I agree that DEX builds have enough options available to them to mess around with, but nothing that really feels specifically keyed for them. Assassin seems like a great choice for a DEX class- I try to avoid using DEX in general but it'd be nice to see Assassin get some love after Paladin and Necro are done.

quote:

But what do I know, I have just been playing a rogue since 2006..

I'm impressed that you've kept going in the face of all available evidence! I don't think everyone could do that, congratulations.
AQ DF  Post #: 90
8/27/2020 15:27:57   
zippinbolts
Member

Sounds like you guys think a special LUK based build should be created..
AQ MQ AQW  Post #: 91
8/27/2020 16:38:54   
battlesiege15
Member

^Leprechaun Subrace confirmed :D

(Honestly though that would be fun. Useless 90% of the battle but beyond amazing 10% of the time with LS)
AQ AQW  Post #: 92
8/28/2020 10:40:15   
J9408
Member

I know your joking but that would be a interesting subrace! High mrm, weak elemetnal resistances, but extremely powerful Lucky hits!

Every single battle would be a gamble.
Post #: 93
8/28/2020 12:18:58   
Hymnsicality
Member

I'd second assassin as a class but seems highly unlikely to see the light of time anytime soon. What with 2021 blocked off for necro, 2022 presumably blocked off for archmage and hints of Dracomancer coming after that.

As for quests, I'd like to see quests around Battleon given a fresh coat of paint and maybe some degree of replayability to give us an excuse to visit them more often.

Warlic has his mirror of colors so we see the interior of his shop fairly regularly (the vain amongst us anyway).

Yulgar you'll go into at low level fairly early on for fighter and knight training and some good quests so not a priority. Perhaps resting at the inn can give you a short term buff of some sort? just spitballing

But man, I barely step inside Aria's or Robina's or the House shop, or the Frogzard Hunter or interact with Miss Fixit which is a bit of shame. It would be cool if there were more excuses to interact with them more often and make the town feel more like a base of operations.
AQ  Post #: 94
8/28/2020 12:30:56   
battlesiege15
Member

quote:

We really do need a ranged-focused class. I'll see what we can do about it in 2021.
The Hollow posted this in another thread /thumbsup
AQ AQW  Post #: 95
8/29/2020 17:17:55   
MetalKnight
Member
 

that'll be awesome if the old guardian starter armors need revamped/redesign, and the outdated guardian customization need be updated like just the mirror faces.
AQ AQW  Post #: 96
8/30/2020 22:24:30   
Shirou Archer
Member

Would love to see rework on Beastmaster class to make the best class for whoever build beastmaster
Post #: 97
9/10/2020 8:46:33   
1997p3
Member

Just remembered the existence of dragon forms, really miss them; those from law of the dragons
AQ MQ  Post #: 98
9/10/2020 13:22:04   
Zork Knight
Member

So, why should Rogues use Ranged Weapons if daggers are Melee?
AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 99
9/10/2020 13:57:45   
Legendary Ash
Member

There is nothing in AQ that dictates Rogues should only use Ranged weapons.

Daggers can be wielded like a sword to be Melee, thrown as 100% proc to be Ranged or imbued with a magical aura to be Magic that is either wielded in the same fashion as Melee or as a thrown 100% proc Wand.

We have Warsmith Dagger, (Flaming/Blazing/Vorpal) Throwing Knives, Shivuriken, Silent Stars, Kaze/Tsuchi/Hikari Shamrock Shuriken as 100% proc daggers and VampSpear as the only 100% proc spear.
AQ  Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= UpdateQuest Ideas
Page 4 of 6«<23456>»
Jump to:



Advertisement




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