Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

RE: On Nerfing Premium Items

  		Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: On Nerfing Premium Items
Page 2 of 2<12
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
9/17/2022 20:02:52   
Mananite
Member

quote:

I'm not happy with the second change. I know how the staff doesn't cater to specific people and that's not my point.

My primary issue is with the "penalty". I understand that it is a disadvantage against bosses/challenges, but that is the only time. 99.9% of the time the reduced weapon damage makes no difference whatsoever. How does that constitute a penalty? A penalty is something that would have an effect the majority of the time. Status effects cost damage, berserk costs bth. Somehow spell boosting only costs something the almost never happens. This to me feels like pandering. Just my two cents.


Echoing this sentiment. Cutlasses were bugged and overperforming, and the bugfix was... making them stronger? The penalty might as well not exist; cutlasses are paying something that doesn't actually matter, in the same way Doomlight pays for Backlash by making it easier to facilitate Backlash.
Post #: 26
9/17/2022 20:19:49   
thhappycanoeist
Member

Personally I think the change to cutlasses is good. The penalty is fine. It is also completely fine for certain items to be more powerful (but not broken).

I’m quite sure the vast majority of the player base agree to the recent changes, so why be concerned about something that is not an issue?

From a business perspective, it makes sense to make doomlight and cutlasses better than most other items. I myself included have spent more than $1000 so I can get the stuff I want. Would making the items more “balanced” encourage purchases? I doubt so.
Post #: 27
9/17/2022 20:26:09   
Heroes of the Scape
Member

For me it shows more mage bias. Warriors and rangers get penalties that actually hurt. My main focuses on DoT equipment. The penalty, - 50% damage for an attempt at infliction. There's no guarantee it even goes through. That is a penalty. It's not the +30% boost to spells that's the problem. They could have given them a BTH penalty instead which would be a true penalty.
AQ  Post #: 28
9/17/2022 20:51:22   
PD
Member
 

 I have to say after taking the time to read what happened, I dislike what happened too on both fronts.

The first front being that in essence they have gotten even stronger as other people have pointed out that the penalties don't really matter much when spellcasting, and the second front perhaps even more egregious than the firstl that the staff caved so quickly that the change didn't even have a day to live. Such a great reaction should be telling about what kind of fraught path AQ is in while relying more and more on premium releases to keep itself alive. No less what that means for developing items and having to be ever more sensitive to outrage.

Reconsidering the first argument; In essence, it is reducible to "premiums deserve exceptions because we paid for them, otherwise we won't support AQ going forward". Which is a sound argument. We like AQ and nothing works for free, AQ no exception of course.

But if you really think about what this means, isn't the flip side of the argument also true? If premiums deserve exception, then free items also deserve exception so they do not cause conflict. I don't think anyone is mean-spirited enough to ask for nerfs to free items when they out-perform or even give the semblance of a threat, but is this not a reasonable argument to make from the first stated reason? This will invoke the "you're playing the slippery slope argument", except that this has been true for a very long time. Power creep has largely meant that a lot of premium items are losing relevance (which is why people have asked for refreshes on packages/premiums). Now you could argue on the one hand that this isn't necessarily an issue because power is just going straight up and never down, but have past purchases not lost value and/or been pushed out in favor of stronger and more recent items? I spend $35 on Decimator 10 years ago ($45 adjusted for inflation!) and I hardly use it anymore. I'd even say most purchases have aged poorly until around 5 years ago. But do I not have the right to express outrage over 10 years of gradual power creep amking most of my purchases now irrelevant? I won't of course because I've already enjoyed using that and other items for a long time and I consider the money well spent in terms of my overall satisfaction, but you have to wonder about where the argument goes and what its natural limits are.

< Message edited by PD -- 9/17/2022 20:58:15 >
Post #: 29
9/17/2022 22:05:52   
Korriban Gaming
Banned


 I simply cannot wrap my head around why people would be unhappy with making gear better, especially if said gear is something that many people have paid for. There are 1000s of weaker options in the game if you don't like to use what is best.

quote:

For me it shows more mage bias.

To be fair, most who are in support of the change are running mage builds but that's not a fair statement to make. I think most, if not all of us would be happy with gear buffs to equipment for other builds, warriors and rangers included. It's just in this specific instance whereby mage equipment got buffed. A while back, H-Series, which was the strongest warrior armor in the game got a change to its first skill. That was a buff if you ask me, I don't remember anyone being unhappy about that or claiming warrior bias? We've also had plenty of warrior and ranger equipment releases in recent months, a lot more than mage releases. Don't see any complains from fellow mage users (even if there were, it's probably more in jest/as a joke), I don't think anyone was genuinely angry. Personally, I would be very happy if warriors and/or rangers got the same treatment for their equipment and I would be more than happy to push for that. If you have any suggestions for warrior or ranger equipment you want improvements to, make a post about it and I'm sure you will garner the same amount of support.

quote:

Personally I think the change to cutlasses is good. The penalty is fine. It is also completely fine for certain items to be more powerful (but not broken).

I’m quite sure the vast majority of the player base agree to the recent changes, so why be concerned about something that is not an issue?

From a business perspective, it makes sense to make doomlight and cutlasses better than most other items. I myself included have spent more than $1000 so I can get the stuff I want. Would making the items more “balanced” encourage purchases? I doubt so.

Fully agreed. Cutlasses aren't game breaking, the change made them better, what exactly is the issue here?

quote:

Such a great reaction should be telling about what kind of fraught path AQ is in while relying more and more on premium releases to keep itself alive.

The game is 20 years old. Not many games can last that long. I believe it was you (?) who pointed out the increased frequency of premium releases and I agree. The game has to do what it has to do to keep itself alive or to free up time for staff to make bigger releases. More premium releases are better than the game dying and not having any release at all (RIP MQ). As a paying player, I am more than happy to support the game if premium content released are good. I don't think anyone makes the conscious decision to buy weaker premium items unless they either already have everything else or are simply unaware of what the items do.

quote:

If premiums deserve exception, then free items also deserve exception so they do not cause conflict.

I think many players were equally outraged with the PR nerf even though it was a completely free item. To say that we are ONLY concerned with premium items is not true at all. There may be a priority, but it doesn't mean we completely don't care about the F2Ps. That being said, PR was indeed a game-breaking item and NEEDED a nerf, it's not an apples to apples comparison if compared to the Cutlasses. However, in its current form, it's definitely too weak to be worth using (Don't think there's any disputing this, no one uses it anymore). People definitely did try to push for another change to PR after its nerf, so no, our concerns aren't limited to only premium items even if they do take priority over free items.

quote:

Power creep has largely meant that a lot of premium items are losing relevance (which is why people have asked for refreshes on packages/premiums). Now you could argue on the one hand that this isn't necessarily an issue because power is just going straight up and never down, but have past purchases not lost value and/or been pushed out in favor of stronger and more recent items? I spend $35 on Decimator 10 years ago ($45 adjusted for inflation!) and I hardly use it anymore. I'd even say most purchases have aged poorly until around 5 years ago. But do I not have the right to express outrage over 10 years of gradual power creep amking most of my purchases now irrelevant? I won't of course because I've already enjoyed using that and other items for a long time and I consider the money well spent in terms of my overall satisfaction, but you have to wonder about where the argument goes and what its natural limits are.

I think there's a big difference between natural power creep and purposely toning down the power of premium items. Don't think anyone is unhappy with natural power creep, it's part of game progression. For Decimator specifically, it has indeed been power crept but if I'm not mistaken, is still deemed OP by today's standards because it is using the old lean formula. So do we balance the item and make it even worse? I certainly don't think that's the answer. I echo the same thoughts as you here, I have enjoyed the use of Decimator very much in the past and it has long outlived its usefulness, but I am still satisfied with my purchase because it was exactly what I had paid for. I'm not going to be unhappy with my iPhone 13 purchase when iPhone 14 comes out because my iPhone 13 is still an iPhone 13. I will be unhappy however if Apple comes to take back my iPhone 13 and gives me an iPhone 12 instead after 2 years. When you introduce a better item as part of natural power creep, people are GIVEN another option. But when you tone down a power of an item, something is TAKEN AWAY from players. Naturally, people are more happy to be given something than to have something taken away. Again, I'll reiterate that I'm not against changing premium items but they need to retain their original identity and value as well as being done in a timely fashion.


< Message edited by Korriban Gaming -- 9/18/2022 0:14:38 >
AQ DF AQW  Post #: 30
9/17/2022 23:26:38   
Sapphire
Member

Everyone against what happened hasn't made a single sound argument to bolster their case.

Nobody has said the premium (pay to play) should be off limits to "adjustments", ie a nerf. Anyone making the argument that players are saying premium items are always off limits clearly needs to go back and read what I and others have said.

The issue is there are multiple copies of the same item (elemental differences) and the originals were made YEARS ago and the error in the math due to a faulty assumption was now in the hands of likely hundreds or thousands of players. This isn't a new UR GGB item in essence, and it wasn't something staff just introduced recently.


Secondly, The item ended up nerfed under standard assumptions. Why are those who think this was a bad decision seemingly ignoring this fact? Staff could have put the spell boost back at the 28.some-odd % and lowered the attack damage appropriately and those who are upset would still be upset so please save the "but they put it even further ahead to +30%" argument. I'd wager a bet that the numbers ended up where they are because they're simply cleaner right there. Doesn't matter though, it's *the same* under standard assumptions.


And because you have a finite number of weapon slots, the reduction in attack damage matters. If you wish to carry a better attacking weapon that means you're not carrying an element and so that's a conscious decision all players make every single day.


At the end of the day, squashing bugs/errors/other oversights sooner rather later will help greatly reduce any future occurrences that may cause a ground swell. That's easier said than done due to time constraints, promises of weekly releases, and a limited staff. I do think some priority shifting could occur but that's not their fault and maybe that too is easier said than done.

At it's core, the players are the game's customers and based on the specifics of this, staff actually did the right thing by it's customers whether others recognize it or not.


@ Broccoli,
Pre stat revamp a +105 Dex buff in the same vein as buffalot/arcane amp I believe would have made it more powerful than buffalot/arcane amp. Now that the stat revamp is here, I agree it needs to happen. Some may disagree, but IMO they all need MP versions too
Post #: 31
9/18/2022 0:32:21   
GwenMay
Member

I have a few observations.

First, the reason staff updated cutlasses so quick is because they really only edit items right before or right after a release or rerelease --- that's the norm. That's why we got the initial cutlass rebalancing and the cutlass rebalancing so quickly. There's nothing sinister here.

Also, as I made clear in my initial post, nobody's saying premium items should be immune from balance or anything like that. The whole idea is that if AQ sells an item for years saying it does "x" and then changes the item, whether to balance it or for any other reason, AQ should make reasonable efforts to keep the item in line with the what purchasers were expecting insofar as that complies with balance requirements. It's more about *how* AQ should balance, not whether AQ should balance.

So, for that reason, old package items don't *need* to be brought up to modern power levels under this argument, although I always appreciate when staff does so. The idea is about ensuring purchasers get what they paid for, i.e. the item that was advertised, not saying it should be stay on par with modern power levels. In other words, the potential problems come from nerfing items, not keeping them the same or increasing their power.

The argument I made in my initial post really only applies to premium items. There may, of course, be other reasons that non premiums should be balanced carefully. Those reasons probably deserve their own thread, and I encourage anyone with ideas about that to make a post.

There's no "mage bias" going on here. I play basically all builds on my account, and many here have multiple characters with different builds. The argument I made applies with full force to years old premium items of all types. This post has sort of been swirling around in the back of my head for a while, and this change provided a good opportunity to make the argument.

Finally, I sympathize with the concern that the cutlass penalties are "fake." Of course, that has always been true with cutlasses, and frankly many penalties. AQ is entering an era where items commonly get penalties to pay for extra effects, which is AQ's answer to the limit of having only one mc and so only one effect per item. Frankly, most of these penalties are fake, and if not they can be made fake - NYS and stat boosters take care of any bth penalties, for example. I think the penalties discussion is more just disagreement with the general direction the game is heading in and less about the cutlasses in particular.

EDIT: As for the point of Thrale's Scorn not getting this sort of reaction, I would have made a post exactly like this back then if I (1) had the idea and (2) was paying close attention to AQ at the moment. Unfortunately neither were true.

< Message edited by GwenMay -- 9/18/2022 11:02:27 >
AQ DF AQW Epic  Post #: 32
9/18/2022 0:50:34   
dr jo
Member

+1 for @Broccoli DEX buffalot idea really needed and great idea
AQ  Post #: 33
9/18/2022 1:13:22   
Heroes of the Scape
Member

quote:

Everyone against what happened hasn't made a single sound argument to bolster their case.

Just because you don't want to see the other side of the argument, doesn't mean sound arguments haven't been made. I'm not arguing against the change being made, I'm arguing about the way it was done. Reducing damage on something that doesn't happen 99.9% of the time is not a true penalty. I gave the argument that a BTH reduction is a penalty and would have been viable in this case. Damage penalties have far more effect on Rangers and Warriors than mages as that is their ONLY way of reducing HP to 0.

quote:

Secondly, The item ended up nerfed under standard assumptions. Why are those who think this was a bad decision seemingly ignoring this fact? Staff could have put the spell boost back at the 28.some-odd % and lowered the attack damage appropriately and those who are upset would still be upset so please save the "but they put it even further ahead to +30%" argument.

Nerf by assumptions and nerf by practicality are not the same thing. It is a balanced change math-wise, but the penalty has very little chance of ever actually having an impact. That is my argument. Not that it isn't balanced, just that the penalty doesn't have an impact on the player the vast majority of the time. Even you can't deny this.

quote:

A while back, H-Series, which was the strongest warrior armor in the game got a change to its first skill. That was a buff if you ask me, I don't remember anyone being unhappy about that or claiming warrior bias?

Warriors and Rangers cannot fully use the armor, so it is a bad example. No one uses H-Series for the missile barrage skill. Plus, it is a skill locked to Range damage. That is worthless to a warrior now. Rangers don't use STR so locking attacks to Melee for the overdrive ability is worthless there. If anything, recent releases are plugging in holes caused by an unintentional nerf to warriors as a whole. More about this below. If you refer to the +50% damage when winning initiative, yes, there was plenty of upset mages about that.

quote:

I think there's a big difference between natural power creep and purposely toning down the power of premium items. Don't think anyone is unhappy with natural power creep, it's part of game progression.

You're right, power creep is inevitable. However, not every issue with Warrior equipment is due to natural power creep. The stat update did a lot more to nerf warriors than you would think. Warriors can't use Horo-Show, WKZ, WHEEL, or many other skills out there due to them being either Ranged or Magic based on your stats. Outside of H-Series and T-Rex all Warrior nuke equipment is Premium.
It also hurt Rangers badly as monsters that reduce DEX cripple Rangers. It is impossible to beat Void Dragon Queen as a ranger because the DEX reduction stacks. Rangers also have their stat boost skill locked behind an MP spell. No other build has that problem.


quote:

Finally, I sympathize with the concern that the cutlass penalties are "fake." Of course, that has always been true with cutlasses, and frankly many penalties.

Thank you for seeing the primary point of my dislike of the change. It just seems like these fake penalties favor mages a lot more than they favor other builds.

There is more I could say, but can you understand why it upsets me when people complain about one minor nerf to mage equipment when warriors have recently been decimated by recent game changes?

< Message edited by Heroes of the Scape -- 9/18/2022 1:16:54 >
AQ  Post #: 34
9/18/2022 1:45:40   
Korriban Gaming
Banned
quote:

No one uses H-Series for the missile barrage skill. Plus, it is a skill locked to Range damage. That is worthless to a warrior now.

It's not completely unusable, you just can't use it to it's full potential. 98 SP for around 300-500 damage with 0 DEX seems pretty good to me, though of course that can be a lot better with DEX trained.

quote:

If you refer to the +50% damage when winning initiative, yes, there was plenty of upset mages about that.

Interesting, I was genuinely not aware of this. Thanks for pointing it out. Personally I am happy for Warriors and any other people who uses the armor because it's a very good to have passive effect.

quote:

The stat update did a lot more to nerf warriors than you would think.

Well, we have all been eargerly awaiting for a stat revamp since April so I hope that it will come soon and fix that problem.

quote:

It also hurt Rangers badly as monsters that reduce DEX cripple Rangers. It is impossible to beat Void Dragon Queen as a ranger because the DEX reduction stacks.

Ohhh, interesting point, I had never thought about that before. It does seem that only rangers get the short end of the stick when facing such monsters. I can't remember off the top of my head if there's any STR reduction statuses, but Mindlock kinda works the same way for Mages. Though DEX reduction is a lot more common than Mindlock.

quote:

Thank you for seeing the primary point of my dislike of the change. It just seems like these fake penalties favor mages a lot more than they favor other builds.

I would propose for changes to Warrior and Ranger equipment to be done the same way, with "fake" penalties to balance them out on paper. It just so happened that we have a Cutlass rerelease, hence Mages got the change first.

AQ DF AQW  Post #: 35
9/18/2022 8:06:13   
Macho Man
Member

I also agree that it is okay to have these "min-max" penalties if they're applied to everyone fairly. I was ok with the changes until someone (I believe Brocolli) had brought up Thrales Scrorn and how it got nerfed. It was as balanced as any other item, yet the staff thought that the min-maxing of its effect was too big so they reduced it 3 years after it was introduced in the GGB. We did less damage but we also were penalized less. So it is sketchy that the cutlasses got "nerfed" by doing the very same thing that the staff said they were against.

I also think it is pretty insane that a 6% nerf resulted in such a backlash that the staff had decided to change their stance on the nerf, meanwhile there is another thread talking about Dex in Pets and Guests and it only has 3 replies and no one else is talking about it (on the forums at least). I know people keep saying that there is no mage bias but come on.
AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 36
9/18/2022 9:28:43   
  Lorekeeper
And Pun-isher

 

 The stat revamp was not disrupted by any sort of mage bias, a pointless stance that would not have permitted most of the game's current direction (Beginning said revamp at all, restructuring class revamps, SP regen availability being skewed away from magic weapons at the time being, a far heavier slant towards warrior gear in rewards for the past several years). It was delayed to its current degree by prolonged health issues. Contrary to any notion of this, Imry did not instantly recover in time to make the BtH bug fix; she is currently recovering. A medical delay of one week's work inevitably bleeds into the workload of the following weeks when maintaining a live production schedule, and she was neither mildly nor briefly infirm. I understand how disruptive it is when a major project is staggered like this; believe me when I say that we feel that frustration as intensely as we do, but I again ask that folks kindly show her some patience in this regard. Otherwise, the only one left to accuse of bias is COVID-19, and... Er, I don't want to open that can of worms.

This was a complex situation with inherently conflicted options from the start. There was no avoiding the appearance of a double standard regardless of how we acted, but it was no manner of build bias that informed the decision. Please refer to my prior posts in this thread for the actual motivation.
Post #: 37
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: On Nerfing Premium Items
Page 2 of 2<12
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