Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

$50 Token Packages Update Feedback Thread

  		Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> $50 Token Packages Update Feedback Thread
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
2/9/2023 23:49:25   
Korriban Gaming
Banned


 Since there was one for the donation items, I figured there should be one for the updates to these items as well.

quote:

- Updated the Lord of the Skies / Akriloth's Wrath / Sinmaw Form armours
-- Reworked the "efficient" skill to be a toggle that locks your default attack to (armour element) and boosts damage. The pop-up shows how much damage you deal (131.2% / 170.2% / 136.3%), which isn't much for LotS/Sinmaw because their resistances are so good. It's still a buff for all of them.
-- The "overcharged" skill now gets eleComp to cost instead of damage, because we have concerns about stacking so many damage sources.


I own both LoTS and the Akriloth packages but not the Sinmaw one. No comments for changes to the first skill. I think it's a good change. However, LoTS suffers quite a bit because it's only 2 hits. Can we have it changed to 4 hits instead? It also makes more sense for it to be standardized for those who care about that sorta thing.

My gripe is with the changes to the second skill for Akriloth. People mainly get that package because it's known for having one of the highest elecomps to damage in the game. The reason given for the change seems absurd to me. Why is having more stacking damage a concern when literally every boss nowadays have some form of damage cap?

Someone did point out to me in Discord that this is actually a buff because you are likely to hit the damage cap anyway even with this change but can now do so for almost half the cost. This is a fair point and I do agree. However, it sorta takes away the main attraction of the Akriloth set in particular which is big damage numbers. Practically, this doesn't have much use outside of fancy showcases but it's part of the reason why people who get it, get it.

Seeing as the elecomp numbers are balanced, I would propose changing it back to what it originally was, at least for Akriloth even if not for the other packages.

~Snipped. Please see your pm's. ~Anim

< Message edited by AnimalKing -- 2/10/2023 6:39:15 >
AQ DF AQW  Post #: 1
2/10/2023 4:36:43   
JasCK
Member
 

 If it is just a slight nerf because of the too op dmg then it is fine, but what happens now is the overcharged skill disappeared. I tested it myself the recent Akriloth's 'overcharged' is even weaker then T-rex, of course lower SP cost but like what Korri said, I bought this for the big nuke, 50 bucks each, and since the use of nuke has already been narrowed by bosses dmg caps, I think it is kinda perfectly balanced already, so why doing that on premium non broken items?

If you think the playstyle of nuke is too OP, think of some way to limit it, soft dmg is already a wonderful way to achieve instead of directly nerfing nuke items.

Talking about some that believes it is a buff because of the SP cost reduce, I think they dont really own one because if they do, they ll know the reason of buying this item, and how the change annoyed them right now. From efficient+overchaged, to ele-locked+kinda efficient skill, this is a terrible big nerf from one of the best nuke armour to not even a nuke armour, feel free to test it, compare it to other nuke armour and you ll get what I mean.

< Message edited by JasCK -- 2/10/2023 5:27:55 >
Post #: 2
2/10/2023 8:23:36   
Gateless
Member

I'm usually not one to complain on the forums, but in this case I have to agree.

1. The large ele-comp has always been a major selling point of the armor compression weapons (and this major selling point was still kept after the items were revamped until this recent change).

2. The second skill after the recent change is neither noteworthy nor interesting, because in virtually every scenario you might want to use the second skill you would just use the toggle instead (whereas before the change, players could at the very least use the second skill for memes or flashy showcases).

3. If "big numbers" are genuinely a concern, may I suggest reworking some form of status infliction or damage-reduction utility into the second skill so that it at least does not seem redundant (granted "redundant" skills on armors relative to your playstyle is not uncommon in AQ, however in this case it is not a matter of playstyle because the armors are as FO-oriented as it gets and always have been).

_____________________________

“Thus, because the wise do not find that an illusory horse and elephant are a horse and an elephant, they do not qualify as nonexistent, but because they are found by fools, they qualify as existent.”
Post #: 3
2/10/2023 10:02:18   
  Lorekeeper
And Pun-isher

 

 Rest assured, there isn't any dev pushback against seeing big numbers. However, as feedback and internal evaluation brought up, we'd gone back on a prior concern and validated it in the process. The weapon-based skills getting elecomp to damage instead of cost is effectively a nerf to overcharged weapon skills, which become increasingly not worth it in comparison the more damage boosts one factors in. As those become more accessible over time, and especially when considering the existence of imbues, that overcharged nerf also becomes worse over time -- Every added variable makes overcharged weapon skills worse. That's effectively a very unintended nerf to the armors in question.

That's ultimately the crux of the issue. Elecomp to damage on a spell-based skill makes sense, but on an inherently more efficient weapon-based skill, it's a game-wide nerf to spell-based ones. A lapse in this standard resulting in messing with spell-based weapon skills to the point of comparatively making them not worth it in a way that only gets worse over time. This is why Ianthe made that correction. Now the skill that is meant to be efficient is even more efficient and doesn't beat the inefficient skill in its own niche.

Even if we stick to discussing the value of an item in terms of how big of a number it can produce in one hit, it's only logical not to completely devalue the skills that are putting in extra SP and their elecomp to get damage.
Post #: 4
2/10/2023 13:46:40   
Red Blood
Member

Just chiming in real quick for a +1 to LoTS getting at least another hit if the animations are being reused for the toggle skill as it seems to have drawn the short straw when it comes to any potential bosses geared for multiple hits vs a few good ones. As for for the second skill I always saw it as the solution to burst down a tanky mob that otherwise just slowed down progress/ had no reason of being in the war due to just how large it's hp bar was (more an issue with some older mobs granted) vs a flashy max damage hitting showcase. Needless to say it feels off after needing to relearn a weapon 3 times now so it's understandable that breaking the shoes in again so soon after the general reworks happened.
AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 5
2/10/2023 14:21:55   
Gateless
Member

quote:

That's ultimately the crux of the issue. Elecomp to damage on a spell-based skill makes sense, but on an inherently more efficient weapon-based skill, it's a game-wide nerf to spell-based ones. A lapse in this standard resulting in messing with spell-based weapon skills to the point of comparatively making them not worth it in a way that only gets worse over time. This is why Ianthe made that correction. Now the skill that is meant to be efficient is even more efficient and doesn't beat the inefficient skill in its own niche.


If I'm understanding your explanation correctly, it is essentially a design space issue. Would it be too bold for me to suggest standardizing all future spell-based skills to MP cost and weapon-based skills to SP in order to account for the discrepancy in cost-efficiency?

Mages and INT-hybrids generally prefer MP cost over SP anyways. This would effectively make it such that overcharged weapon-based skills (i.e. SP-cost nukes) can still exist (without destroying design space), due to weapon-based skills and spell-based skills being primarily associated with non-mages and mages, respectively.

I think this has the potential to be a change that people will be happy about while simultaneously addressing the warrior-mage identity issue in some measure. I mentioned my view on Discord a while ago of the warrior-mage issue being more severe than the ranger-warrior identity issue after the recent changes in the past year. To summarize the warrior-mage identity issue (in contrast to the separate warrior-ranger identity issue) for others reading this thread in very concise terms: warrior (STR as mainstat) builds are often better on mage (INT as mainstat) builds.

Currently this issue doesn't extend as much into rangers due to beastrangers still having a strong niche from half of pet BtH from stats being tied to DEX, however once the planned (and overall needed) change of half of pet BtH from stats being changed to being tied to mainstat, I suspect this will easily extend to rangers and progress into a more substantiated mage/non-mage issue, or more precisely a beastmage/non-mage beastmaster issue where the problem is that beastmaster builds are simply better on mage (INT mainstat) builds.

< Message edited by Gateless -- 2/10/2023 14:46:31 >
Post #: 6
2/10/2023 14:28:52   
Sapphire
Banned


 Edit--> @Gateless The design space issue isn't what you're saying. It's what I said below. As noted below, Akriloth's likely would never be beaten in damage ...like ever...meaning no competition. And SP is supposed to be build agnostic. Damage boosts give weapon based skills full boost whereas spell-based give half. A mage can even use the SP weapon based skill to a better result than a spell based one if they wanted. SP cost = a skill. MP cost = a spell.
_______________________________________________________________________________


I also think when you put an overcharged skill with elecomp to damage, it pushes the total damage so high that nothing else can compete. You've set the bar high enough such that it's near impossible to ever top it. The only way to beat it is the same idea with worse resists. That's it. Weapon based skills also get the benefit of better access to boosts as well as 0 proc weapons with effects, and this is even more of an issue when you include imbues or other effects that get higher potency with higher damage. Infinita staff, alchemical unity (although these 2 are separate "issues"), and mason choke imbue and the freeze-like imbues that get greater inflict based on damage all get pretty much maxed using stacking methods.

Zerker pays HP's and hexbound inflicts burn on itself to get more damage, yet both were less than what Akriloth could do. This means if you own Akriloths nothing staff could possibly make will top it, paid for or not. I'd rather be able to have an item that you'd maybe want in the future rather than reflexively ignoring it. Comparative options are a good thing.


Now, having said all that, "MOAR DAMAGE" is highly overrated and damage caps is just 1 constraint.

I could argue the opposite that those who like to bring up damage caps impose. One person might say "Why nerf the skill when damage caps exist" I could just as easily say "why spend way too much resources for damage that will never make it to it's potential due to damage caps"

The armor overall became more useful, and the free elelock w/ elecomp toggle is better than perhaps people understand. That alone is worth it because IMO, resource management is king in AQ, not damage.

In regards to LotS, yeah it could be changed to 4 hit, but may require an animation roll out.

< Message edited by SapphireCatalyst2021 -- 2/10/2023 14:49:56 >
Post #: 7
2/10/2023 15:01:53   
Gateless
Member

quote:

And SP is supposed to be build agnostic.


I understand that SP is supposed to be build agnostic, this is something multiple people have said to me before in opposition to my points on multiple occasions. However, I continue to make points under the broad assumption of SP being associated primarily with non-mages. Why? For the simple reason that in a zero-sum system, the very fact that MP is largely mage-exclusive implies that relatively speaking SP is associated more with non-mages than mages. I simply abbreviate my points under this assumption because it would be too tedious to state this every time I need to make a related point.

The standard change I proposed essentially promises mages dedicated item support aligned with the general spellcaster lean design scheme at the cost of their preferred resource cost (for good reason) being limited to an inherently weaker skill model, while simultaneously allowing SP-cost nukes that are weapon-based to exist in the design space for everyone to use including mages (with the caveat that it won't be available in their preferred resource cost).

Note that all of this is said under the assumption that the crux of the issue is indeed what Lorekeeper has said it is: namely that weapon-based skills are inherently more powerful than spell-based skills. If on the other hand, the issue was simply "big numbers," which in this context means that the specific issue is that weapon-based skills are simply too powerful, then I agree that my entire argument is invalid. However, please understand that the two issues are not the same.

< Message edited by Gateless -- 2/10/2023 15:28:36 >
Post #: 8
2/10/2023 15:49:30   
Sapphire
Banned


 Take it from someone who has made plenty of suggestions outside currently accepted ideas, and then been ganged up on for it...And I say this not necessarily arguing against your points, as I think some fresh ideas and new gameplay mechanics could be implemented, but I have found a more conservative approach and keeping with more of a status quo tends to win the day, unfortunately.

I fully get what you're saying.
Post #: 9
2/10/2023 16:15:22   
Gateless
Member

The standard change I suggested is building off of prior discussion with Lorekeeper on Discord about what the "identity issue" in AQ actually is. Namely that it's a complex issue which should not be reduced to a single issue, and for all purposes should be thought of at the very least as two separate and distinct issues: a warrior-ranger identity issue and a warrior-mage identity issue. I am suggesting that the latter issue also extends to rangers to a lesser extent as a mage/non-mage identity issue.

I see no fault in making suggestions that are not implemented and I make my suggestions very lightly.
Post #: 10
2/10/2023 17:23:18   
Sapphire
Banned


 You're preaching talking to the choir brother

< Message edited by SapphireCatalyst2021 -- 2/11/2023 9:31:29 >
Post #: 11
2/10/2023 17:52:53   
Gateless
Member

quote:

You're talking to the choir brother


Clearly someone has been reading my replies. That said, unless your name is "the choir," I don't know whom you could be referring to.
Post #: 12
2/10/2023 20:41:04   
Dardiel
Member

@Gateless the saying "preaching to the choir" (or in this case "talking to the choir") is a saying that basically means "explaining your point to someone who already agrees with you", Sapphire is saying he's on your side so you don't have to try and convince him.

And since I'm piping up anyway, I'd say that I agree that MP existing for INT only would make SP a proportionally bigger deal to non-INT characters in theory but I also don't know enough about the intricacies of the game to say that there isn't some other factor that gives non-INT characters another "hidden" resource that balances it out. I wouldn't be surprised if weapon damage being 33% higher than magic weapons is the balancing factor, making STR/DEX turns worth more to compensate for MP-use turns being worth more.
Post #: 13
2/10/2023 22:49:02   
Gateless
Member

My apologies, I'm simply too used to people disagreeing with me.
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> $50 Token Packages Update Feedback Thread
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