Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update

  		Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update
Page 3 of 5<12345>
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
6/7/2023 10:24:23   
Sapphire
Member

I am in agreement with a few of the stated proposals coming from the post Dreiko put forth. But I wanted to separate some things here and there and put forth mine.


First and foremost, it has been said that "we need to get this right" as "revisiting this will not happen". With that in mind, staff requested 20% budgets. If we only run 15% for mainstats and 10% for secondaries and realize later on we should have gone with 20% across the board, this will cause them to have to go back in and rework some numbers to add in more power or add new ideas to add more power. As such, all of my personal suggestions are with the staff-requested budgets to land at 20% Melee:


quote:

Strength:
* Special: Warrior Lean. Melee weapon-based effects in FD armors deal x1 damage instead of x0.8 damage.
* Style bonus 1: Player takes -([STR/25]/1.4)% damage from all incoming damage. (10% melee)
* Style Bonus 2: Additive damage bonuses for Melee attacks are 10% stronger. (10% melee)


^ Everything idealistically I'm 100% in agreement with. However, the damage bonus I am suggesting is moved to 10% Melee to boost the overall allotted budget to 20% melee.

I still feel as though warrior may lack Sparkle. It may need something outside the style bonus that's more of a gameplay "feature" that's not adding to power. I personally think the warrior lean is nice to create the FD warrior, and some will play that way and this is a positive. However, some may not. For those that will continue to just be the FO warrior they always were, they'll see more dam age and more defense. This may not be shiny enough. I personally think if those who have strength could have access to a toggle to turn on/off a berserk feature (which technically isn't a power bonus because the +damage and -BTH cancel each other out on paper... but it may provide for situational boosts and thus, provide some further sparkle on occasion.

So I'm calling on staff to implement a berserk *feature* added that is an on/off switch somehow. This should be scaled based on STR. Like maybe at 250 STR we see +121% damage and -15 bth.

The combination of the warrior lean to create the FD playstyle, and this berserk feature along with the damage reduction on intake I think should fully shape the warrior nicely.


quote:

Dexterity:
* Special: Keep the current newfound ramp model. But get rid of the excess (the forever boost) and further refine the numbers to ensure it either = warriors or ensure warriors are sliiiightly ahead.
* Special: In addition to the ramp model, add a Lean model overlay on top. They'll start at no lean . With each landed hit, they gain +3.75% damage and incur a -3.75% BTH hit. For each miss, they gain +3.75% BTH and incur -3.75% damage. These will be capped at 4 hits...meaning 4 misses moves base BTH from 85% to 100%. (and appropriate damage reduction) 4 successful hits is -15% BTH. (and appropriate damage)
* Special: Add a Dex/25% Rate "Precision Hit" mechanic that is essentially a Damage Loss-less auto hit, with an outleveler to 300 Dex. This means 10% of the time @ 250 DEX, all attacks auto-hit. This is per hit. This is an effective 10% bonus to BTH and so starting Melee% for Dex players will be lower to account for this feature. **This mechanic should be given to monsters**
****Ramp mode+Lean changer+auto-hit mechanic are damage identity features that should in total, make up the Ranger****
* Special: Promise of concentrated effort (maybe even a warrior tower-like quest) "Ranger Specific Efficient Imbues" created that cost 40% Melee (157sp) to imbue all weapons attacks with a 40% melee power add-on.
* Style Bonus 1: Dex/5 (caps here) Initiative bonus. 250/5=+50% damage on first round. This is the same feature as the initiative on H series, but scales with dex on both the initiative side and the +% damage side. +50% on turn 1 averaged over 10 turns = +5% Melee. Cannot stack with the same feature on armor!! (5% Melee)
* Style Bonus 2: 15% of the skill cost in SP refunded after a damaging Ranged damage skill is performed. This is 15% Melee, and goes for all damaging skills. Weapon based, spell based, etc. Overcharged skills refund more, weapons based elecomp to cost refund less, etc. The imbue "system" mentioned above do not count. Only damaging skills from armors/weapons/miscs, etc. This feature "goes live" as long as you have at least 5 stats in Dexterity. Because you're doing ranged damage, there are no shenanigans with 5 DEX as you're just losing damage to gain SP. (15% Melee)



So my ranger model differs from there's quite a bit and has more to it to help better create the Ranger. I feel it needs many many things to take shape and make it *truly* unique. And this is revised from my earlier one I put forth. Rangers will need the SP help. Trust me. They're going to become so SP strapped that FDBR will be forced to resort to SP heals from their pets/guests. The total package I put forth will:
A. Provide 2 damage identities in 1 that take both ramp and BTH lean into 1 system, and make their damage very very inconsistent, but not "random". The lean system can make use of both accurate and inaccurate spears and bows.
B. Provides a new mechanic (Precision hit) that staff can build items around (like armors/weapons that can do +5% precision hit, or w/e. This is an effective 10% BTH boost that's free to create identity. This also applies to *all* attacks and is on a per hit basis, so this carries over to hybridization.
C. Provides the much needed SP help that I predict they'll need. It's nuclear-option-ish
D. Provides initiative instead of the damage boost in Dreiko's post. Init damage goes for pets/guests and so provides something over BeastMages (their pet/guest BTH advantage will be gone) and the near guarantee of going first over others can allow for FD Ranger variants to set up statuses up front which will be a very mainstream playing style.
E. The creation of several Ranger-specific efficient status-based imbues will help emphasize skill-casting (imbues from the spell slot) These can range from any number of status monster debuffs, self buffs, damage enhancers, etc etc etc to help shape playstyles of both FO and FD Rangers. Status effects will be Dex major inflict.


This multi-faceted approach will provide a TON of sparkle for both FO and FD Rangers, as well as provide requested incentives to hybridize.


quote:

Intelligence:
* Special: (Already Implemented)Mana Bar. Sacrifices 25% of normal attack damage to gain MP equivalent to 4 level-appropriate standard spells (unchanged from how it currently exists in-game).
* Style Bonus 1: "Wallbreaker" effect on damage. This works as a pseudo-penetration effect. (15% melee) See link for details: [Link]


On board here, but 2 things different. 1. This should be 20% Melee instead. So the entire style bonus goes towards 1 effect. 2. The effect should assume standard resistances. So if an assumption is a monster has it's oppo element at 130%, then this idea should cap at 130%. It will result is very minor damage boosts between 100-130%, but in my opinion, you can't *just* give damage boosts in sub-optimal conditions. As long as players have an option to target a resistance at 100%+, it will prove to be the best option anyway and this really good idea will only serve to be helpful sometimes. And sometimes help isn't good enough. So there should be help all the way up to 130% in order to allow for the effect to be helpful all the way up to "standard assumptions"

Also, just to clarify. This idea actually edits monster resistance, right? Much like freeze-like effects, so it's a damage boost because monster elements are modded...this is an important distinction because status scaling effects *should* get scaled with this wall-breaker effect, too. So it's not just damage. It's element modification between 1%-129%. I support this idea with these to changes.




quote:

Endurance:
* Style bonus 1: Player takes [END/10]% less damage from DoT effects (Burn, Bleed, Poison, Prismatic Burn, generic DoTs like from Control). (5% melee)
* Style Bonus 2: HP healing effects are [END/20]% stronger on the player (unchanged from how it currently exists in-game). (5% melee)
* Style Bonus 3: Status Resistance worth 5% Melee
* Style Bonus 4: +5% Melee added Blocking


On board here, but we have 20% power budget to work with, so adding back in the status resistance, and moved the blocking bonus from DEX to END to ensure END takes on the bulk share of "defensive statuses" (The STR-based damage reduction being the 1 sole outlier). STR+END, esp with warrior lean should prove to be quite hardy. You've now shaped warriors to be very defensive potentially, while dealing consistent damage. Warrior builds are the likeliest build to run END, too.



quote:

Charisma
* Special: Guest base upkeep cost is 45% melee.
* Style Bonus 1: Reduces the upkeep cost of guests by -[CHA/50]%. This means 40% melee with expected CHA investment and 45% melee with no investment. (5% melee)
* Style Bonus 2: Guests have a 12.5% chance to deal +[CHAx4/15]% damage per hit. (5% melee).
* Style Bonus 3: If you wield a Charisma weapon, reduce the upkeep cost of guests by -[CHA/25]% further, resulting in 30% Melee overall when partnered with style bonus 1.
**Special case redesign of charisma weapons: Redesign "Charisma weapons" in order to continue to make them and to open up the idea to using them without restrictions. This also fixes the CHA weapon override issue
1. Change stat damage/BTH from 100% CHA to Highest of Mainstat/2+CHA/2 (similar to hybrid weapons. Then *if* Highest of mainstat is either strength or Dexterity, the weapon gains a 4/3 boost similar to how magic weapons are boosted for hybrid stats.
A. CHA weapons will always be magic type
B. But any build can use them as long as they have expected CHA
C. Baseline damage cannot exceed 90% melee. (You'll always take a damage penalty even if the weapon has 0 effects) You pay 10% damage for the CHA stat/2 and upkeep discount, some of which is funneled into the style bonus



The power allotment states 20%. I'm pushing 10% of CHA onto "CHA weapons" so it's a bit indirect. I saw that potentially CHA weapons might be a relic of old standards, and that implies no more CHA weapons. This doesn't make any sense to leave them alone if they exist but ensure no more are made. So instead, I'm using them to fuel change (to fix one issue) but provide a style bonus to match the power asked for. Not making more CHA weapons is a bad idea. Just fix them. In this model, you *can* get 60% Melee out of guests, and have guest "ferocious trikes" and have a 15% upkeep discount but it requires full investment in CVHA, and wielding a CHA weapon to get the max upkeep discount. This creates incentive to hold and USE CHA weapons, and for everyone, too. Player damage will be down, to pay for upkeep to do this. It's win-win for everyone.



quote:

Luck
* Style Bonus 1: Lucky strikes are worth 15% Melee at base assumptions for a player. With luck usually at 225 for monsters, it's a tad less, but close. When a lucky strike occurs for a monster, there is a luck vs luck roll. If the player wins, 5% of the 15% melee in damage is removed. If you lose the roll, full damage. This is lucky strike damage reduction due to your own luck. (5% melee)
* Style Bonus 2: [LUK/25]% chance to automatically dodge any one hit attempted against the player each turn...ie Lucky Dodge(10% melee)
* Style Bonus 3: [LUK/50]% chance that if you lose *any* status roll whether it be to inflict or to resist, it will "Lucky Override" it and make you win the roll instead. (5% melee)


Again, 20% power overall. These are real life luck based things . Editted to add the lucky strike damage removal idea. The status rolllose override will end up being a very very very minor addition as the circumstances to have this occur will be on the rare side, but when it happens it will be nice. As for style bonus 2, 2 things. 1. It just needs to be decided if the monster has auto hit and the lucky dodge fires, which one wins out. 2. I'd actually kind of like to minorly change "lucky dodge" to "lucky fumble" if it could be ensured that on a monster "fumble (it would work *exactly like dodge except the verbiage and etc will show a fumbled attack instead but mechanically its the same) but if it can "turn off" all dodgelash effects when this fires to help make it look like the monster fumbled the attack. To me that idea feels more "lucky" than a dodge. If this cannot be done, I'm fine with lucky dodge.



To wrap up, I feel as though implementing new ideas needs to be at the heart of all of this over expanding old ideas. I think it will prove beneficial for the game long term.















< Message edited by SapphireCatalyst2021 -- 6/7/2023 17:23:36 >
Post #: 51
6/7/2023 11:52:21   
LUPUL LUNATIC
Member
 
quote:

Strength:
* Special: Warrior Lean. Melee weapon-based effects in FD armors deal x1 damage instead of x0.8 damage.


I have to express my disagreement around this "warrior lean". This is not the solution to Warriors, it completely redesigns FD armors to be warrior friendly, but that means it comes with a series of design issues when creating new FD armors because Warriors are still a weapon-based type of damage and FD with weapon-based skills are few or they do not exist at all. I cant express the impact of itemisation this change would achieve, i feel like it is just a pity lean for Warriors but i stand tall and say FO is Warrior's identity. Either that or make Warriors be the Battlemasters, their identity is changing armor leans from FO to FD in-battles as many times as they want because i am referencing Defensive Stance Warriors or Berserker Stance Warriors here.

Having a lean change on already FO Warrior centric designing armors is way better than when making FD armors to try to accomodate them to Warriors because there arent any FD armors that work well with Warrior currently, as in not weapon-based skills FD armors. Having to carry both a FO and FD armor doesnt seem very Warriorish this is why i prefer them to be Battlemasters experts of changing leans from FO to FD instantly while benefiting from "FD" Lean at the same time but tying Warrior identity to Lean Swaps at the same time.



< Message edited by LUPUL LUNATIC -- 6/7/2023 12:14:38 >
AQ  Post #: 52
6/7/2023 17:18:52   
dizzle
Member
 

 I have to agree with Lupul regarding the STR change proposal, specifically the “special.” Why are certain specific items (FD armors) required in order to get the “special” bonus for STR invested builds, yet INT builds are free to use their MP bar wherever and whenever they please without any specific requirements. The same goes for DEX as the items used are independent from the “special” bonus. If tying statuses like berserk to mainstats is a massive mistake, how is tying armors to mainstats any better? I like the idea of warriors having defensive perks to help survivability, but requiring specific items to receive the “special” bonus is a total waste unless you go out of your way to carry FD armors. Not only does that go against the theme of Warriors, but it directly steps on the toes of the niche that 100-proc rangers have.

One of main reasons for this stat revamp is to recreate or build upon the mainstats identities and to bridge the gap of appeal between the 3 mainstats. With the proposal posted by Dreiko, I don’t think the goal of bridging this gap is being hit. With that being said - Again I like the idea of giving defensive perks to Warriors/Str invested builds, but I don’t think it should be exclusive to FD armors when Warriors have been primarily FO for the last 20 years ago. As Lupul said, the impact this would have would be tremendous. It would take years to give this proposed change enough support to bring it into fruition without opening a massive can of worms. Not only that, as I mentioned, it still doesn’t bridge the gap between INT/DEX and STR.

With all of the being said, I can appreciate the thought and efforts that went into the proposal posted by Dreiko, but I hope we can continue to discuss and possibly even expand on the ideas put forth. I’d love to see warriors have some sort of defensive perks to help with survivability, but maybe we could alter the numbers so that the “special” bonus isn’t exclusive to FD warriors only. If defensive perks isn’t in the table or appealing then I also like the idea of giving a free lean shift although I’m not sure how realistic it is. I think it’d have to be a 1x per battle effect similar to the T3s/Knightmare/Summer Dryad so that it’s not abusable. I also like the berserk-esque idea. Warriors are supposed to have consistent damage so I think giving a choice between a -bth and +bth would be cool and add a little spice to any build invested in STR. I’m not sure how it would be valued but I think giving that a once per battle restriction would also be a good idea and prevent abuse.

In conclusion, I think sapphire said it right. Warriors/STR still lacks that sparkle and I hope we can expand on the ideas put forth my the tavern, as well as continue to discuss alternative creative possibilities. I will post my thoughts on the rest of the stats whenever I get more time to think on it and more discussion has been had

< Message edited by dizzle -- 6/7/2023 17:35:19 >
AQ  Post #: 53
6/7/2023 18:12:58   
CH4OT1C!
Member

@dizzle: I think you might have misunderstood the mechanics we're proposing for STR.

The true stylistic bonus to STR is +25% melee on attacks (Melee weapons deal 100% Melee, Ranger and Mage do not under this system). I recognise that @Dreiko Shadrack's original post mentions 'Warrior Lean' as "special". With that said, the 'Warrior lean' should not be treated as the equivalent of DEX's damage adjustment or INT's MP. It's closer to a band-aid stat inclusion; Warriors don't get access to 100-proc weapons. While this is for thematic reasons, it causes all sorts of problems mechanically. Warriors can't come close to competing defensively because of it - they're nowhere near as efficient as Rangers or Mages. While a stat-based method to overcome this problem isn't exactly mathematically justified (it's a free bonus, basically), it's compensated by the lack of 100-procs.

There is however a stylistic benefit to setting Warrior up in this way. It means Warriors can play in FO and FD using the same weapons. The main stylistic bonus is the extra base damage (and this can't really change due to how the balance model works), but we can create a secondary pseudo-style bonus by releasing armours with FD and FO toggle options. This allows Warriors to use both modes without having to use multiple weapons to retain efficiency, a niche that would only be exploitable because of the implemented system.

It's not that we're restricting Warrior bonuses to the defensive. On the contrary, it encourages Warriors to play with both depending on which is beneficial.

< Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 6/7/2023 18:21:51 >
AQ  Post #: 54
6/7/2023 18:50:59   
dizzle
Member
 

 I don’t believe I’ve misunderstood the proposal. Unless I’m mistaken, which I do not think I am, warriors “style” bonus isn’t receiving +25% melee to melee attacks. They receive +0% melee on attacks. Mages “style” bonus is +(-25%) melee on attacks to pay for the mp bar. In relation to INT, sure STR gets 25% more melee on attacks, but the game does not revolve around INT, it revolves around the turn model which values the players attack at 100% melee on average (excluding outside factors) unless I’m mistaken.

Aside from the poor wording, I still am just not a fan of secluding the bonus to one specific type of armor - FD armors. It addresses something that absolutely should be addressed in warriors having defensive abilities/perks/playstyles but again, I just view it as a waste. You either carry FD armors, or lose out on the special bonus. I think this idea can be expanded upon and made better so it’s not as restrictive as the current proposal has it.

< Message edited by dizzle -- 6/7/2023 19:23:56 >
AQ  Post #: 55
6/7/2023 19:51:06   
CH4OT1C!
Member

@dizzle: The model is based around Melee attacks, but this isn't mutually exclusive with style. It depends upon your frame of reference. One can view the situation as Mages sacrificing damage to condense as MP, or for Warriors to gain +25% damage and Mages to gain MP. The end result is the same - Warriors consistently deal more weapon damage than Mages, who have spells. The lack of bonus is perceived rather than absolute. They receive the same.

You are mistaken. Warrior Lean is a bandaid for not having 100-procs. The bonus power is allocated to:
i). Reducing incoming damage taken
ii). Additive damage bonuses for Melee attacks are 5% stronger.

These apply in all leans, not just FD.
AQ  Post #: 56
6/7/2023 20:30:40   
ruleandrew
Member
 

 Neutral armour needs attack buff if Warrior lean is implemented to fully defensive armour.
AQ  Post #: 57
6/7/2023 20:32:21   
dizzle
Member
 

 I sense this is trending towards a circular discussion over minutiae which should not be the objective. With that being said I’ll leave this here in hopes to clear things up.

Your argument of warriors receiving +25% melee on weapon attacks is a fallacy. As I mentioned in my previous post, this game does not revolve around INT standards. It revolves around the turn model which, as you stated, is based on melee attacks. This must be our common ground if we’re to get anywhere. Making arguments from the perspective of different builds or play styles is inherently biased and can be misleading when discussing numerical values. I don’t believe it was your intention, but this must be cleared up for anyone else reading as your first response to my initial post was very poorly worded and, as i said, misleading. Warriors “style bonus” *is not* to receive +25% damage on weapon attacks as you mentioned. The wording should’ve been, “The true stylistic bonus for STR is to deal standard damage” (not very exciting or stylish in my humble opinion)

And thus, we’ve done a full circle. Many people, myself included, feel as though dealing standard damage (albeit consistently) is just not exciting and doesn’t provide enough incentive to make STR competitive with DEX or INT. I understand you’re proposing a bandaid fix, but if we’re going to do this stat revamp, let’s do it right. No bandaid fixes, no corner cutting, and no mistakes. Once again, I like your idea of giving STR investors defensive perks. I’m just asking that we continue to discuss and expand upon the ideas instead of settling.

< Message edited by dizzle -- 6/7/2023 21:07:21 >
AQ  Post #: 58
6/7/2023 21:27:11   
CH4OT1C!
Member

I agree inasmuch that discussing such minutiae will go nowhere.

For the sake of constructive discussion: Warrior damage cannot change. It would break the balance model. It is non-negotiable unless the staff intentionally decide to break it. In the absence of such a concession, any alternative solution implemented would need to conform to that red line.
AQ  Post #: 59
6/7/2023 22:06:55   
Korriban Gaming
Banned
quote:

It's a lot more than now, but it's perfectly possible to infinitely sustain.

With all the broken SP healing we have in the game currently, absolutely agree. But the thing is, you won't have flexibility for anything else and that's my main gripe. You either devote everything into upkeeping it indefinitely or you have them out for 2-3 turns max before your SP bar runs dry. Since Guest value/damage can't be easily changed then have it remain the same but increase guest cost to 35% (not by 35% just so we're clear). Whether or not we still have room for the FS idea with my proposed change is secondary to me. This is the absolute maximum I would go regarding the costs assuming we're keeping the guest values the same.

quote:

Having a lean change on already FO Warrior centric designing armors is way better than when making FD armors to try to accomodate them to Warriors because there arent any FD armors that work well with Warrior currently, as in not weapon-based skills FD armors. Having to carry both a FO and FD armor doesnt seem very Warriorish this is why i prefer them to be Battlemasters experts of changing leans from FO to FD instantly while benefiting from "FD" Lean at the same time but tying Warrior identity to Lean Swaps at the same time.

I was having a discussion with Lupul and Sapphire yesterday and I think this might just be the thing that Warriors need. Keep the value of the FO and FD leans the same but instead give Warriors the option to freely switch between either of the 2 for every armor any time in battle (no limit to switching). On one hand, this doesn't mess with the math too much and it also provides something appealing for both FO and FD playstyles. I'm not sure how possible it is to code this but I feel like this can be the one special thing that Warriors can do that sets them apart from Rangers and Mages.

Fully agree with Dizzle with regards to his opinions on STR.

One new idea I thought of yesterday for Warriors is
1. When taking more than X damage for that turn, gains Stalwart on the next turn, reducing damage taken by Y%
2. When taking less than X damage for that turn, gains Bloodthirsty on the next turn, increasing damage dealt by normal attacks by Z%
Nothing happens if you don't take damage (so nothing at the start of battle or if enemy doesn't attack). As for XYZ values, not sure what would be good numbers, feel free to suggest based off the 20% power budget. This is something that both FD and FO builds can utilize


< Message edited by Korriban Gaming -- 6/7/2023 22:16:52 >
AQ DF AQW  Post #: 60
6/8/2023 1:14:47   
Primate Murder
Member

Please don't take this personally, but I'm afraid I must add my voice to those opposed to Dreiko and Chaotic's suggestion. I'm not sure mages need more damage, I think warrior gets the blandest treatment possible and Cha changes would kill all guests except boosters, but mostly I want to focus on Dex as I believe it falls short of Lorekeeper's #1 goal of 'establishing a foundational concept.'

The difference between Mage and Warrior is clear. Mages consistently got more spellcasting armors and weapons over the past year, expanding the difference through item support. Warriors will vastly expand their options in a single release with the addition of 'warrior lean'. Rangers get... a minor bth boost.

That's not an identity.


I ask again not to take this personally, as I greatly respect both Dreiko and Chaotic, and the effort they put into the proposal is indisputable, but with the addition of 'warrior lean' rangers will finally lose the sole thing that made them semi-unique, and there's no fallback, no safety net to catch them as they plunge into obscurity.

Please, find a different path.
AQ DF  Post #: 61
6/8/2023 1:57:10   
ruleandrew
Member
 

 One idea for STR players

Perks for STR players:
Player can freely switch between fully offensive lean and neutral lean if player equip fully offensive lean armour or neutral lean armour.
Player can freely switch between fully defensive lean and neutral lean if player equip fully defensive lean armour or neutral lean armour.

AQ  Post #: 62
6/8/2023 2:33:06   
PD
Member
 

 A long time ago, I had an idea for warriors / STR where they could get a "Rage" mechanic like from Epicduel where if you miss a certain amount of times with Melee attacks or get hit with a certain amount of damage per battle, eventually you'll get one "Rage" attack that ignores defense and modifiers, or could allow you with that "Rage" attack to more easily land effects just for that attack. It might be an unworkable (even unbalanced) idea for AQ but I'm throwing darts at a board at this point.

Other whacky/out-there ideas I had for STR/Melee:
  • Chance for inflictions per attack (Daze/Paralyze/MRM loss)
  • Gaining "Shield" per turn. Note: Not a heal, so your HP would not increase. Probably too similar still to actual healing though.
  • A chance to auto-hit attacks without a damage penalty.
  • Being able to mitigate ambushes against you. Ideally something like taking less damage on the enemy's first attacking turn.
  • Maybe too overpowered? All Melee attacks reduce enemy SP growth OR have a chance to halt SP regeneration OR attack SP directly.

    Again, throwing darts out there.

    < Message edited by PD -- 6/8/2023 2:40:37 >
    • Post #: 63
    6/8/2023 4:27:44   
    CH4OT1C!
    Member

    quote:

    But the thing is, you won't have flexibility for anything else and that's my main gripe. You either devote everything into upkeeping it indefinitely or you have them out for 2-3 turns max before your SP bar runs dry. Since Guest value/damage can't be easily changed then have it remain the same but increase guest cost to 35% (not by 35% just so we're clear). Whether or not we still have room for the FS idea with my proposed change is secondary to me. This is the absolute maximum I would go regarding the costs assuming we're keeping the guest values the same.

    With all the broken SP healing we have in the game currently, absolutely agree. But the thing is, you won't have flexibility for anything else and that's my main gripe. You either devote everything into upkeeping it indefinitely or you have them out for 2-3 turns max before your SP bar runs dry.

    @Korriban Gaming: While I do not begrudge you for saying this (nobody enjoys a reduction in power), it's akin to asking to remain overpowered. That applying to one of two main groups consistently accused of being overpowered (Mages and Beastmasters). You will not run dry of SP in three turns so long as you're more conservative with how it's used... which is rather the point.
    With that said, there are a couple of alternatives on the table using the same proposal with different parameters:
    1). Instead of any FS, use the whole bonus to reduce the cost. This would bring it down to 35% Melee cost. Just to be clear though, this is CHA's 'style bonus' - non-CHA users won't get its benefits
    2). I've already mentioned the point around 15% rather than 20%. In the case of minor stats, we actually restricted it to 10%. There is scope to increase the input power and have both FS and the cost reduction. I really don't like the idea, as the whole point is to nerf Guests, but it is mathematically possible within the staff's ruleset.

    Regarding Warrior - I'll restate that the 25% Melee warrior has on attacks has to stay for the model to work. That is unless the staff want to change the entire balance model.

    quote:

    Keep the value of the FO and FD leans the same but instead give Warriors the option to freely switch between either of the 2 for every armor any time in battle (no limit to switching)

    This is exactly what I have been proposing for Warrior since the last stat update thread when I proposed the concept. The value of 'Warrior Lean' is external to this (like I said, band-aid), but implementing it this way gives us that massive advantage. Warriors will be using the same weapons in FO and FD, so turn that into a pseudo-style bonus.

    quote:

    Please don't take this personally, but I'm afraid I must add my voice to those opposed to Dreiko and Chaotic's suggestion. I'm not sure mages need more damage, I think warrior gets the blandest treatment possible and Cha changes would kill all guests except boosters, but mostly I want to focus on Dex as I believe it falls short of Lorekeeper's #1 goal of 'establishing a foundational concept.'

    The difference between Mage and Warrior is clear. Mages consistently got more spellcasting armors and weapons over the past year, expanding the difference through item support. Warriors will vastly expand their options in a single release with the addition of 'warrior lean'. Rangers get... a minor bth boost.

    That's not an identity.


    I ask again not to take this personally, as I greatly respect both Dreiko and Chaotic, and the effort they put into the proposal is indisputable, but with the addition of 'warrior lean' rangers will finally lose the sole thing that made them semi-unique, and there's no fallback, no safety net to catch them as they plunge into obscurity.

    Please, find a different path.

    @Primate Murder: Funnily enough, I've had this conversation a number of times before the proposal was made - the problem with Mage is in itemisation, not stats. We're planning stats for the long-term, which means also planning for a stage when said items have been weakened. This is also likely the last stat update. In principle, we have to be fair to all build stats, especially when the balance will change with item-based changes. That's why INT needed a bonus. The 'Wallbreaker' was a brilliant idea that came from a participant in the discussion that essentially allowed us to provide a bonus to Mages without it significantly increasing their overall power (to take advantage, they have to essentially break the assumption of using the optimal element for the job, or fight one of the rare monsters with low resistances, where harm is well-suited).

    quote:

    The difference between Mage and Warrior is clear. Mages consistently got more spellcasting armors and weapons over the past year, expanding the difference through item support. Warriors will vastly expand their options in a single release with the addition of 'warrior lean'. Rangers get... a minor bth boost.

    Yes, they get a minor bth boost. The reason it's there is because it synergises with the real 'stylistic' aspect of the class, boosting your damage with consecutive hits. It essentially creates a false equivalence - rangers gain damage when they hit and lose when they miss based on an accuracy of 85%. The 8.5bth essentially knocks that number up to 93.5 before they they even consider weapons. It approximates a ramping effect without the much longer turn delay that would be necessary in the previous current system (but not as overpowered as the one we have currently). It fosters a focus on accurate, multi-hit attacks to bring out the best in Ranger.

    I'm well aware of the risks regarding subsuming Ranger. An arguable worse situation would be true if we focused on them instead (Warrior would be virtually non-existent for a while). As I discussed at length in the last stat revamp thread, Mage is dominant almost everywhere due to items. Only itemisation can fix that. Fixing it with bonuses directly to the stats in the vast majority of cases will cause chaos in the long-term. This is a foundation, a start, not the end of the process.

    One might argue that I'm being hypocritical - Warrior lean is a stats-based solution to itemisation. There's a massive difference - it's explicitly stated that Warriors will never get more 100-procs. We know the gap will never close, which is where the scope for this came from.


    < Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 6/8/2023 4:31:03 >
    AQ  Post #: 64
    6/8/2023 6:15:15   
    Korriban Gaming
    Banned


    		 Guests cannot be made "balanced" without making them completely worthless to use. I am of the opinion that it should still be worth to use guests even without CHA, though obviously not as worth as someone who is running CHA. I think any base cost higher than 35% without CHA would kill guests entirely. We want to nerf them but not kill them completely. Within the staff's ruleset we can look to reduce their cost by 10% rather than your proposed 5% and have room for FS too which I think is the sweet spot.

    quote:

    This is exactly what I have been proposing for Warrior since the last stat update thread when I proposed the concept. The value of 'Warrior Lean' is external to this (like I said, band-aid), but implementing it this way gives us that massive advantage. Warriors will be using the same weapons in FO and FD, so turn that into a pseudo-style bonus.

    I see, it's rare that we agree on something so I think this idea is defintely worth looking at.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 65
    6/8/2023 6:45:17   
    Dreiko Shadrack
    Member

    		Something of key-note is that the values proposed are our version of them, we give full and implicit concessions to staff not agreeing with the style bonuses having our power allotment or that there would be separate power based on whether it's mainstats or secondaries. Staff are still very much at this time, as far as we've been informed on the subject, using the 20% style bonus for all stats. The concepts and the values presented are not intrinsically tied together as a package of "all or nothing", as long as the reasoning and value correlation for them is accepted we've always known staff are most likely going to use their own numbers on this.

    I will however make the point that as we've communicated with staff on this process (usually via discord) it has been made clear that not having INT benefit from the style bonus is not now nor ever was an option (reducing INT's power as a stat to below what it currently is in any capacity also isn't an option as per staff communication), so the best we could do is come up with was a bonus that doesn't give Mages more upfront power or messes with their assumptions in the model but is still nonetheless both useful and visibly impactful, which we arguably have thanks to an idea from someone that just popped into the discussion to put in their 2 cents and which was then expanded upon until we landed on this specific iteration of the "Wallbreaker" effect, which only really comes into play if you're not attacking the optimal elements for damage but at the same time isn't skewed enough on its own to make Harm element have no place anymore, as well as that if one looks at the explanation for it in the link provided you will see that it only works for elements below 100%. Though the case can be made, and indeed has been, that it should use the specific expected elemental spread of monsters with 130% as the upper cutoff limit and 50% for the lower limit rather than a custom one.

    < Message edited by Dreiko Shadrack -- 6/8/2023 7:24:33 >
    AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 66
    6/8/2023 7:15:21   
    CH4OT1C!
    Member

    quote:

    A long time ago, I had an idea for warriors / STR where they could get a "Rage" mechanic like from Epicduel where if you miss a certain amount of times with Melee attacks or get hit with a certain amount of damage per battle, eventually you'll get one "Rage" attack that ignores defense and modifiers, or could allow you with that "Rage" attack to more easily land effects just for that attack. It might be an unworkable (even unbalanced) idea for AQ but I'm throwing darts at a board at this point.

    Other whacky/out-there ideas I had for STR/Melee:
    Chance for inflictions per attack (Daze/Paralyze/MRM loss)
    Gaining "Shield" per turn. Note: Not a heal, so your HP would not increase. Probably too similar still to actual healing though.
    A chance to auto-hit attacks without a damage penalty.
    Being able to mitigate ambushes against you. Ideally something like taking less damage on the enemy's first attacking turn.
    Maybe too overpowered? All Melee attacks reduce enemy SP growth OR have a chance to halt SP regeneration OR attack SP directly.

    Again, throwing darts out there.

    Cool darts. In terms of the model...
    -> We can't directly associate any of the three main builds with status. We can just about get away with LUK, but we can't do it for STR unfortunately.
    -> A shield is essentially indirect regeneration. It's not as bad, but you're right that it would be too close to healing. We discussed this idea early on and rejected it for that reason
    -> Autohit chance is something that @Sapphirecatalyst2021 brought up during those discussions. I'm not against this idea in principle (at one point we did consider including it). I'm not sure for STR though - we decided to tie bth related effects primarily to DEX (the +8.5bth bonus was an evolution/simplification of that idea since we wouldn't be able to synergise the autohit with the damage stacking bonus).
    -> A fortune thief related effect is also something I suggested we consider (and at one point were using) for DEX. Once again, not inherently opposed to the idea.
    -> Halting SP regeneration? That's a completely new one, haven't seen that yet. It could only be worth a small fraction of the style bonus for it to be reasonable though, so I'm not sure people would like the result.

    < Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 6/8/2023 8:47:44 >
    AQ  Post #: 67
    6/8/2023 9:10:37   
    Sapphire
    Member

    quote:

    I will however make the point that as we've communicated with staff on this process (usually via discord) it has been made clear that not having INT benefit from the style bonus is not now nor ever was an option (reducing INT's power as a stat to below what it currently is in any capacity also isn't an option as per staff communication), so the best we could do is come up with was a bonus that doesn't give Mages more upfront power or messes with their assumptions in the model but is still nonetheless both useful and visibly impactful, which we arguably have thanks to an idea from someone that just popped into the discussion to put in their 2 cents and which was then expanded upon until we landed on this specific iteration of the "Wallbreaker" effect, which only really comes into play if you're not attacking the optimal elements for damage but at the same time isn't skewed enough on its own to make Harm element have no place anymore, as well as that if one looks at the explanation for it in the link provided you will see that it only works for elements below 100%. Though the case can be made, and indeed has been, that it should use the specific expected elemental spread of monsters with 130% as the upper cutoff limit and 50% for the lower limit rather than a custom one.



    I really like the wallbreaker idea mechanically, but it needs refinement.

    The power increase is FAR too situational. Facing off against a monster with all resistances sub ~90? Then you will see the mage damage-wise, at an advantage.

    But a breakdown of the number of monsters (admittedly, based on feel and not knowing, and just by playing the game) is a point Gibby made. And he is 1000000000% correct.

    If you have a monster with a resistance sitting at 90%+, 100%+, or whatever, there is NO point to attack using another element. None. In this rather vastly more likely scenario, there is no point in having this new idea even there whatsoever.

    So it needs to consider standard assumed resistances and scale up to 130%, at which point at exactly 130% there is NO change. 129% and below should be gaining a tiny amount of power. Or maybe a concession to 120-125. I'd be fine with 120%-125%. That way, under "assumptions, Mages aren't increasing the damage at all, but when faced with less than standard assumptions, they gain something. So I propose a middle ground and allowing for the wall breaker effect to scale to 125%. This way Mages can utilize the idea more often, don't have it made pointless a huge swath of the time, but done in a way that doesn't increase their damage over other builds beyond 130%+ resist.

    To me this is a logical concession.
    Post #: 68
    6/8/2023 16:07:02   
    Dreiko Shadrack
    Member

    quote:

    The power increase is FAR too situational


    1) There is no power "increase", there's a versatility increase.
    2) That's rather the point of it, it gives you more options in fights beyond just harm but ultimately doesn't affect your expected damage output as a mage. Our proposed version is meant to give you more horizontal "power" rather than vertical. You are free to add our version of wallbreaker with your preferred scaling to your own proposals if you wish.

    As I said: "(...) the best we could do is come up with was a bonus that doesn't give Mages more upfront power", mages can't get upfront power from their bonus.

    < Message edited by Dreiko Shadrack -- 6/8/2023 16:20:56 >
    AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 69
    6/8/2023 16:40:11   
    Sapphire
    Member

    		I agree. 1-100 range vs 50-130 ranged in elements, if you look at the situational opportunity or likelihood of the frequency of encounters to utilize the idea and try and compare the two elemental ranges, the elemental range of 50-130 would occur more often and mages would use the idea more often in that range. I *still* say it needs to be there from elemental resistances from 1-130. It's still not verticle power above 130% element.

    I don't want to see this good idea end up actually pointless because 90%+ of the time the monster will have at least 1 resistance at 100+, and this idea will almost *always*end up being sub-optimal compared to simply using the element that you'd have used all the time anyway. I think considering since the bonus lowers, the higher the element goes up, I see it as not a big deal at all considering there's zero power added on above standard assumptions. You said yourself you think staff will use standard assumptions anyway.

    < Message edited by SapphireCatalyst2021 -- 6/8/2023 16:45:59 >
    Post #: 70
    6/8/2023 17:18:01   
    Aura Knight
    Member

    		Would there be any chance to make item, toggles and guest upkeep costs use hp overall? This way sp can be used for anything else. It may add more relevance to endurance which is mostly neglected.

    To the idea of making a warrior lean I'm against it simply because it would be against the spirit of fd which to my understanding is meant to be a turtling method where you take and inflict low damage. It's fine for battles meant to last long. If we are to turn to a strategy of high outgoing damage while taking low incoming where's the balance? FO:N ratio could make more sense if there was an added bth penalty.

    On the other hand if it is pursued simply have there be a range equivalent too. Make spellcaster lean the offensive norm for mages and adjust warrior and ranger power to match. The problem with things now is mage has too many options. Doesn't need a nerf so much as a limit to the power. A threshold which other styles can meet. That would be fair.

    Can't bother with the numbers as that part of brainstorming annoys me but figured I'd throw in a thought from my casual perspective. I'm sure the finalized changes will do well.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 71
    6/8/2023 17:31:17   
    Dreiko Shadrack
    Member

    quote:

    You said yourself you think staff will use standard assumptions anyway.


    I did not in fact say that. I said that staff would most likely use their own numbers, the two statements are not one and the same, as the concept of style bonuses already attests to.

    Regardless, I don't personally agree that the 1-100% brackets make it less useful overall. That we chose those numbers and chose to publish them as that is proof of it.
    As previously mentioned, you are free to add your own preferred scaling of it to your own proposals, we hold no proprietary copyright on any ideas after all.

    < Message edited by Dreiko Shadrack -- 6/8/2023 17:39:50 >
    AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 72
    6/8/2023 22:45:04   
    Primate Murder
    Member

    		@ Chaotic

    I think this is an oversight rather than malice, but you've addressed every issue except for the one I actually raised.

    Yes, mathematically the Dex bonuses are good, even slightly op; I'd love to see them on some set. That said, they're a gimmick. They do little to nothing to differentiate Ranger from Warrior, how they actually play the game.

    Mage is upfront nuking. Warrior is stable damage.

    Can you put Ranger in a single sentence the same way?
    AQ DF  Post #: 73
    6/8/2023 23:02:03   
      Ward_Point
    Armchair Archivist


    		 So Ianthe's given me an interesting tidbit to share.

    As she's been updating Guests individually to draw from the balance engine, she's also been adding a modifier to them for a potential 'Beastmaster' effect.

    She's able to alter Guest Power (And the corresponding Status Power) to a particular multiplier. This means that once the Guest Revamp is complete, Ianthe's going to be able to apply a multiplier to Guests.

    In case the above isn't clear enough, she can basically modify Guest Power from 0.6 Melee to Pet Level 0.4 melee by simply applying a 0.666... multiplier, and this will also affect the Status Effects that each Guests applies.

    Conversely, IF the Beastmaster Class gets updated, it could be a potential skill where 'Toggle: Guests are 50% stronger for [Upkeep] SP', and also have the Status effects buffed (Burn gains 50% Power, for example)

    Run wild and free with your suggestions, my friends.

    < Message edited by Ward_Point -- 6/8/2023 23:08:31 >
    AQ  Post #: 74
    6/8/2023 23:33:03   
    Korriban Gaming
    Banned


    		 Proposed guest power and upkeep costs
    45% power
    35% upkeep cost with no CHA, 25% upkeep cost with CHA
    Chance to FS

    OR

    50% power
    35% upkeep cost with no CHA, 25% upkeep cost with CHA
    No FS

    Still considered "OP" to some but the goal here is to make guests worth using while reducing it's original power which I believe this has acheived. No, guests should not be the same or worse than pets and neither should their cost be higher than 35% for non CHA users

    < Message edited by Korriban Gaming -- 6/8/2023 23:37:24 >
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 75
    Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
    All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update
    Page 3 of 5<12345>
    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