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 5 of 5<12345
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
6/10/2023 11:28:43   
justaguy58
Member

I agree aq maths shouldnt outweigh what the people want. If ramsay guest gets powered down im gonna leave this game for good. The cost increase can work but im not down for a nerf to something i purchased specifically for that amount of buff to damage.
Post #: 101
6/10/2023 17:04:39   
Bannished Rogue
Member


 My opinion is based on a few focal philosophies:
1. While all builds should be have access to the same resources, their ability to utilize them to varying effectiveness and or efficiency spykd be determined by how much the player invests their stats to optimize it.
2. Everything is risk vs reward.
• You do more damage therefore you take more damage.
• You take less damage therefore you do less damage
• etc., though this doesn't have to be in a straight line and can be accomplished in various ways

Before we continue I would like to point out something that I keep seeing. In terms of stats in comparison to gameplay, the Staff and community seems to just look at DEX builds as just accurate warriors and/or warriors that just use ranged weapons. I think this ideology gets in the way of actually making the necessary assessments and changes to incentivize certain playstyles and builds if the differences aren't actually profound enough to properly define what they are. Thus ultimately missing the mark for implementations to both grow identity, balance, and incentivize investment.
I myself have for a very long time have though of warrior, range, mage as a straightline with range in the middle versus a triangle with hybrid in the middle. Thus it is important to outline what does/should DEX builds be in contrast from typical STR or INT builds. So far what I see the understanding being:
• Warrior- Simple playstyle, expects to get hit so selects equipment to best reduce damage, presses attack. Whole goal can be summed up as "do more damage than you take and survive long enough to win"
• mage- selects equipment to deal most damage possible, prays opponent dies before they run out of MP and/or SP.

While there is variability within those that determine survivability at the cost of short term damage, where does that leave the DEX build? The current model of ramping "up" damage for DEX builds suggests that those DEX builds are built for long haul battles. This mindset is heavily based on the concept of ranged weapons typically doing less damage on top of STR now increasing weapon damage itself having DEX just be low and slow and not feasible unless it could eventually surpass STR in damage eventually. However there in lies the issue of how DEX builds play; this is a warrior mindset. So I think a big change needs to be fundamentally how DEX builds are supposed to play.

A big facet between the difference between each build comes down to survivability. Warriors surive by being built to get hit and reduce damage, mages survive by killing their opponent way faster than they can be kill and aren't exactly built to take hits. What about DEX builds? I think the answer in already present within the Stat, that being dodging. Which poses a problem, every build can dodge, so how do we turn this from a straight line to a triangle? I think there should be a difference between dodging and blocking.

Blocking suggests that you actually got hit which would cushion against damage not negate it as opposed to the attack outright missing which is what dodging would be.
Therefore STR should have "blocking" tied to it and DEX should have dodge explicit to it.
What about mages, do they just have no survivability then? I think a good way to balance the ideas about regenerating MP and barriers is to have both actually, however the barrier would act as a weaker block, cushioning against some damage but not all. Some damage would be applied to HP and some would apply to MP. Mages are often mentioned as being OP, this slows this all down without outright making them weaker and not putting them in a position where they are just punching bags that are now useless. Spells are still as powerful, however damage to MP would result in the player now assuming the risk of still attempting to cast a spell, hoping they finish off the opponent and if unsuccessful, potentially eating way more damage that they could have defended against or playing it safe and regenerating MP on weapon hit and doing a little less damage. Thunk of the quest where we got to play as Warlic. Mage combat would be much more dynamic than just click spell then win.

Each of these still presents the variability for more offensive or defensive playstyles in their own unique way without stepping on each other's toes of how that's accomplished being warriors focusing more or less on blocking, DEX being more or less on dodging (the ghost costume lean would be an example of a defensive DEX build), and mages being more or less on barrier.

However, thematically that means that rangers should actually start damage high and ramp downward, as while they might last a bit longer than mages due to outright nullifying damage, they aren't built to get hit either.
Thematically, Range should (if there will be any ramping at all) ramp downward. The point of a ranged weapon is that it is extremely useful at a range, before the opponent can clear the distance between each other. Therefore damage should start even higher than mages and ramp down the longer the fight drags on. Possibly also (Im not 100% in full support of this) accuracy should ramp up too, as the closer the enemy the better accuracy you-d have, especially with bows/guns
This is further supported by the idea that typically builds that utilize ranged weapons aren't usually your warrior builds, which are supposed to be the steady damage and optimal for long drawn out battles. Which gives rangers their own identity instead of expecting them to have warrior-like long drawn out battles.

As you know, im a huge fan of fixing multiple problems at the same time (e.g: pure human and ultraguardian/awe sets).

The idea is to have warriors and mages (the more STR and/or INT actually DEBUFF SP in different ways

• STR would reduce SP total bar amount but then give a HUGE buff to weapon special damage and effectiveness, this solving the issue of everyone using 0 proc weapons. Essentially weapon specials will now function as a warrior's spells. Possible addition- warriors damage ramps up like ranger does now (like lifting in the gym, they get warmed up). This stops the warriors from being mages thing
• because a DEX focused build wouldn't feasibly have access to MP due the lack of INT. therefore to balance out INT would also stunt SP regen . They'd still have access to it, it just wouldn't regen which prevents the
• DEX builds become the SP casters, starting off with strong weapon damage, favoring quickly ending opponent, that ramps down quickly, not favoring long drawn out battles. The first word in the definition of dexterity is "skill". Damage should come from applying techniques (i.e skills)
• the way then to achieve the optimal FD ranger (100 proc weapons) would be STR+DEX. They get the bonus of the super strong weapon special that will always activate without getting the same SP regen that a FO DEX build gets while the STR ramp ups and DEX ramp downs cancel each other out more or less. Damage starts high (less high than 0 STR, 250 DEX) and ramps down but stops halfway instead of how low 0 STR, 250 DEX would. This also brings back the old school ranger stat make-up
• as a consequence, the traditional hybrid (STR+DEX) would be a essentially a FD mage and would benefit most from wands and/or tomes. Only issue with this is SP would be a non factor so to compensate, the only thing I could think of would be to make (as much as it doesn't make sense) STR regen MP. To make that make more sense would then to make STR (while reducing SP total, actually increase SP regeneration (in addition to auto MP regen)
• That leaves DEX+INT.. well the get to be the nuke build lol. A bit more high damage sustain but lacks in survivability versus a STR, INT, or DEX + END

< Message edited by Bannished Rogue -- 6/10/2023 18:55:51 >
AQ DF AQW  Post #: 102
6/10/2023 17:40:15   
CH4OT1C!
Member

@Bannished Rogue:... so, uh, Dodging and Blocking are the same mechanic in AQ under the surface. Even if one were to accept your thematic justification, we couldn't mechanically distinguish them. In addition, differentiate the builds based on SP - it's build agnostic and we can't change that. Neither could we make STR regenerate MP, for a multitude of reasons.

< Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 6/10/2023 17:45:59 >
AQ  Post #: 103
6/10/2023 18:52:26   
Bannished Rogue
Member
quote:

CH40T1C! said:
so, uh, Dodging and Blocking are the same mechanic in AQ under the surface. Even if one were to accept your thematic justification, we couldn't mechanically distinguish them
I understand that, what I'm saying is all what currently is both dodging and blocking be JUST dodging. Blocking will basically be the bun-mob's "too cute to hurt" damage cushion tied to STR.

quote:

CH40T1C! said:
Neither could we make STR regenerate MP, for a multitude of reasons.
Oops, forgot to take that out as I was brain storming lol. My only concern would be that teaditional hybrid builds (STR+INT) by default would then just be tanks. Not necessarily a bad thing per say, but I'd rather not limit something that is supposed to gave a bunch of versatility.
AQ DF AQW  Post #: 104
6/10/2023 19:35:15   
CH4OT1C!
Member

I'll go through the ideas in a bit more detail:
quote:

• STR would reduce SP total bar amount but then give a HUGE buff to weapon special damage and effectiveness, this solving the issue of everyone using 0 proc weapons. Essentially weapon specials will now function as a warrior's spells. Possible addition- warriors damage ramps up like ranger does now (like lifting in the gym, they get warmed up). This stops the warriors from being mages thing

  • We can't reduce the SP bar amount.
  • Warriors don't have access to any spells. Spells are exclusive to mage
  • Specials are tied to items, not stats.
    quote:

    • because a DEX focused build wouldn't feasibly have access to MP due the lack of INT. therefore to balance out INT would also stunt SP regen . They'd still have access to it, it just wouldn't regen which prevents the

  • SP is build agnostic. You can't have MP stunt it.
    quote:

    • DEX builds become the SP casters, starting off with strong weapon damage, favoring quickly ending opponent, that ramps down quickly, not favoring long drawn out battles. The first word in the definition of dexterity is "skill". Damage should come from applying techniques (i.e skills)

  • See above about the build agnosticism
  • Ramping down puts Rangers in direct competition with Mages, who overload their damage at the start of battle. Not impossible but certainly not ideal.
    quote:

    • the way then to achieve the optimal FD ranger (100 proc weapons) would be STR+DEX. They get the bonus of the super strong weapon special that will always activate without getting the same SP regen that a FO DEX build gets while the STR ramp ups and DEX ramp downs cancel each other out more or less. Damage starts high (less high than 0 STR, 250 DEX) and ramps down but stops halfway instead of how low 0 STR, 250 DEX would. This also brings back the old school ranger stat make-up

  • Warrior, Ranger, and Mage each have distinct mainstats now. You are describing a STR-DEX hybrid.
    quote:

    • as a consequence, the traditional hybrid (STR+DEX) would be a essentially a FD mage and would benefit most from wands and/or tomes. Only issue with this is SP would be a non factor so to compensate.. To make that make more sense would then to make STR (while reducing SP total, actually increase SP regeneration (in addition to auto MP regen)

  • See above comment about distinct Mainstats. FD Mages use INT as their mainstat.

    In sum:
  • Your post defines Warrior, Ranger, and Mage based upon your own subjective view of what each of these three builds should thematically encapsulate. However, this is a discussion around game mechanics, where there are strict, objective definitions on what they each constitute. Each has its own mainstat - STR for Warriors, DEX for Rangers, and INT for Mage. Investing in multiple makes you some form of Hybrid. Your subjective definitions of each don't align with how they are defined objectively, making it difficult to translate your system
  • Most of your ideas cannot be implemented without breaking multiple balance rules. As a result, they cannot be implemented. I would advise you to look into these rules - it might help you translate your ideas in a way that would be feasible to implement

    • AQ  Post #: 105
    6/10/2023 20:27:07   
    Bannished Rogue
    Member
    quote:

    CH40T1C said:
    • We can't reduce the SP bar amount.
    • Warriors don't have access to any spells. Spells are exclusive to mage
    • Specials are tied to items, not stats.
    First, who is this "we", are you staff?
    • Both HP and MP are adjusted by END and INT respectively, yes SP can be tied to specific stats that would reduce or increase it, especially with the notion of making DEX "skill casters" as their own unique thing.
    • I'm not saying warriors have access to spells, reread what I said.
    • Thats the thing about change, it means that something that currently is becomes different. Guests are being updated, therefore so can weapons..


    quote:

    CH40T1C said:
    • SP is build agnostic. You can't have MP stunt it.
    Thats the thing about change, it means that something that currently is becomes different. END now functions as reducing resistance to healing, thus making healing more effective. The same thing can be applied in reverse to INT and make SP a SP heal like dodging with the Ultraguardian shield

    quote:

    CH40T1C said:
    • Ramping down puts Rangers in direct competition with Mages, who overload their damage at the start of battle. Not impossible but certainly not ideal.
    Which makes sense be DEX builds, like Mages are not supposed to be nor usually damage sponges, they avoid damage which is something usually that cannot be consistently be maintained for extended periods of time due to resources cost. I see this as more ideal considering the opinion being that it is under performing.

    quote:

    CH40T1C said:
    • Warrior, Ranger, and Mage each have distinct mainstats now. You are describing a STR-DEX hybrid.
    Yes I am describing a STR+DEX Hybrid, that is what I said. Which makes even more thematically sense if they are using 100 proc weapons, which are utilized mainly by FD builds, which if STR grants a damage cushion based off of originally mentioned, then it supports the build even better while also keeping FD Rangers from being able to be at the same level of skill casters FO range would be capable of, preventing either from being objectively better than the other.

    quote:

    CH40T1C said:
    • See above comment about distinct Mainstats. FD Mages use INT as their mainstat.
    I me tion FD Mages out of convenience due to the colloquial imagery of a player that would utilize both spells and 100% proc magic weapons (I'm not sure of any 100% proc Melee weapons). Due to INT, they would have access to spells and going based on the STR increasing weapon specials like mentioned for FD Ranger, it would be the more optimal set-up without assessing equipment for alternatives.

    In sum:

    • If the current model and definitions are the problem, then a refusal to fix that root will keep us routinely coming around to make changes. Like I said, currently DEX builds are assessed as just being accurate warriors, yet on the other hand, we gawk about them having their own mainstats, build identity and incentives. You can't have both.

    • We act like things can't change, while not too long ago ranged damage was based on both STR and DEX. And what happened? It changed. STR+DEX was a balance rule, and then it changed, THIS FORUM thread is literally about change. Either we want to fix the problem or we don't, and if we're afraid to push boundaries and are unwilling to deviate from the current, then we are just wasting time. Everything that I'm saying are already mechanics that exist in the game, this isn't a matter of coding, it's a matter of willingness.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 106
    6/10/2023 21:15:18   
    CH4OT1C!
    Member

    quote:

    First, who is this "we", are you staff?

    I apologise for the poor phrasing. From the previous interactions, it's clear that I must word myself more clearly to avoid misunderstandings of this type in the future.

    quote:

    • Both HP and MP are adjusted by END and INT respectively, yes SP can be tied to specific stats that would reduce or increase it, especially with the notion of making DEX "skill casters" as their own unique thing.
    • I'm not saying warriors have access to spells, reread what I said.
    • Thats the thing about change, it means that something that currently is becomes different. Guests are being updated, therefore so can weapons..

    SP is a core component of the player turn formula. This formula is the most basic component of AQ's balance system, and has been for much of the past 15 years. It dictates how much power (valued in Melee% or percentage of a standard melee attack) is provided to the player per turn, as well as how this is portioned. That formula is:
    quote:

    100% [Player Damage] + 20% [Pets] + 20% [SP]


    Unfortunately, I can't provide an official source for this as it isn't explicitly written down on the forums (to my knowledge). Here, Player Damage accounts for standard attacks. Mage spells are internal to this component, as Mages make up for MP by dealing lower weapon damage. As you can see, SP is a fundamental component of this model, and portioned out to all players, irrespective of build. Changing the amount of SP for a given stat means messing with this formula, incurring severe consequences because this model (as mentioned) underpins the entire game. Changing it requires changing far too much of the existing game to be practical.

    This is what I meant with regards to the statement "we can't reduce the SP bar amount". It is too impractical to change, as it would essentially require a complete rewrite of AQ's balance system. The staff have repeatedly stated that this will not happen. The staff have made this clear on this thread, as well as in numerous other places on the forums and on Discord.

    Your comparison of SP to MP and HP is incorrect. As mentioned, MP is build specific, making it an apples-to-oranges comparison. HP is more complex (and here I skip the details for the sake of brevity). Nonetheless, HP is not directly modified by any of the three Stats associated with primary builds either. There are numerous additional consequences and risks to doing this even beyond feasibility, including the risk of Warrior becoming obsolete as Rangers would assume a decisive advantage over them in a key aspect of their build, Weapon-based skills.

    Regarding the point around Weapon specials: Whether Weapon specials are updated is irrelevant because Builds identities themselves are tied directly to stats rather than to items.

    quote:

    Thats the thing about change, it means that something that currently is becomes different. END now functions as reducing resistance to healing, thus making healing more effective. The same thing can be applied in reverse to INT and make SP a SP heal like dodging with the Ultraguardian shield

    You might have misunderstood my point. It is possible to code such a mechanic, that was not my point. Instead, I was referring to the fact that it would break the Player Turn Model as described above.

    quote:

    Which makes sense be DEX builds, like Mages are not supposed to be nor usually damage sponges, they avoid damage which is something usually that cannot be consistently be maintained for extended periods of time due to resources cost. I see this as more ideal considering the opinion being that it is under performing.

    Your justification for Rangers being offensive is based on your own personal, thematic definition of each build. I can't really comment on this because, while such thematic points are entirely relevant for theorycrafting, what really matters is how those ideas are crystallised within the existing game mechanics. That needs to be done in a way that doesn't destroy the balance model for the reasons discussed above. For that reason, I'd prefer to stick to objective definitions that we can all collectively recognise. Beyond this, the implementation of your system mechanically would inevitably put Rangers at a considerable disadvantage because Mages have a fully fleshed out identity and years-worth of supporting items. This essentially reverses the good work done to mechanically distinguish rangers (the promotion of DEX to a main stat) in previous parts of the stat update.

    Your following comments continue to follow your personal definitions for Warrior and Ranger, to which I will not comment as described above.

    quote:


    • If the current model and definitions are the problem, then a refusal to fix that root will keep us routinely coming around to make changes. Like I said, currently DEX builds are assessed as just being accurate warriors, yet on the other hand, we gawk about them having their own mainstats, build identity and incentives. You can't have both.
    • We act like things can't change, while not too long ago ranged damage was based on both STR and DEX. And what happened? It changed. STR+DEX was a balance rule, and then it changed, THIS FORUM thread is literally about change. Either we want to fix the problem or we don't, and if we're afraid to push boundaries and are unwilling to deviate from the current, then we are just wasting time. Everything that I'm saying are already mechanics that exist in the game, this isn't a matter of coding, it's a matter of willingness.

    It has been repeatedly stated by the staff that the existing model cannot change, through lack of time and resources. In addition, there are fundamental mechanical differences between promoting DEX to a mainstat within the existing balance model, and entirely reworking the fundamental aspects of this model across the entire game. It is another order of magnitude in terms of difficulty, complexity, and intensity.


    < Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 6/10/2023 21:27:25 >
    AQ  Post #: 107
    6/10/2023 22:27:06   
    dr jo
    Member

    		I agree aq maths shouldnt outweigh what the people want +1 to this
    Unsure if possible on gold upkeep guests increase cost eg 1 million gold a turn as alternative to SP increase
    This might make shogon and Anatsu more appealing if not possible ignore
    AQ  Post #: 108
    6/10/2023 23:03:42   
      Lorekeeper
    And Pun-isher

     

    		 No part of this thread is about a dichotomy between math versus public demand, let alone between a math-only approach and an assumed homogeneous demand, as neither of those situations are occurring. The balance framework of the game exists for reasons explained in a board pin, most importantly to balance fun and fairness. Numbers are simply the tool through which this is achieved, as this thread explains:

    quote:

    We are not trying to achieve perfect balance. We know it's impossible, and we wouldn't want to do it in the first place. Balance isn't some state of perfect mathematical compliance, it's a tool used to keep the game sustainable and fun for our entire player base, without deliberately excluding anyone. Consider Tier 3 classes: The amount of skills alone is a huge, calculated exception to mathematical balance, made purely for the sake of fun. T3 class armors are essentially on their own set of compression rules.


    Players can rest assured that, as is clarified in both my recent posts and the first post in the thread, we're not aiming to excessively increase the cost of guests and have multiple avenues to mitigate the impact of the fix to guest cost. The goal is for guests to remain strong for beastmasters and reasonably usable for everyone else. If we were doing anything close to the odd notion of 'Math over fun', we would not be deliberately engaging in even more power creep and adding power outside of the base value of every single stat (Which is to say, outside of all mathematical assumptions about turn value, proving from the foundational step of the revamp that we're not putting math over player wishes) with the explicit purpose of improving their identities without taking away from their existing power.

    Post #: 109
    6/11/2023 1:40:24   
    Primate Murder
    Member

    		I would like to voice my support for PD's 'Retaliation' idea. Whether you gain a bonus or perform a counterattack each time you're hit, this makes warriors much more fun to play and fits thematically. If adding damage directly to a warrior build is not an option, this seems an acceptable compromise. Sorry, Chaotic, but both mages and rangers get extra damage in some shape or form in your suggestions, and giving warriors a second defensive perk in the revamp kinda gives mixed signals as to which build is meant to play defensively.

    ***

    Next I'd like to quickly talk about Dex once more. I'll stop harping about the ramp, I promise, but tying the ranger identity to accuracy still seems like a bad idea. Here's just some of the issues I found with it:

    - statuses like Blind and The Cold will absolutely murder FO rangers. Combined with Choke and Panic, you literally double the number of statuses that reduce Ranger damage; (please don't mention Entangle and Off-balance, I'm trying to forget they exist)

    - you render large swaths of ranged equipment obsolete because they have -bth leans;

    - autohit weapons;

    - and finally, it's just not really fun. You don't really enjoy that gradual rise in power when it comes in increments of 1.5%, but you will absolutely curse the game each time you miss and render the last three turns obsolete.

    ***

    After the last two, my kneejerk reaction to your statement that guests shouldn't be infinitely sustainable was immediate rejection, but on second thought, I'd like to apologize. After going through your calculations one more time, you actually make a lot of sense. Put in that light 30% melee upkeep seems a lot more reasonable.

    With that said, I still disagree with certain opinions. Who could've guessed, right?

    Your calculations work based on the notion that you use guests and no other source of sp-drain; in effect, you're removing all spells and skills from the equation. This puts guests in direct competition with actual weapon- and spell-based skills, with actual MainStats, and those, naturally, get a lot more support than guests. Once EO and similar items are properly re-balanced, you're going to have to choose between the two - and, tell me honestly, is there any chance your mage is going to forgo the use of spells to maintain a guest a few more rounds?

    I do think beastmasters need more support.

    They'll need a lot of it once the revamp goes live or every guest besides boosters is going to swiftly go extinct.
    AQ DF  Post #: 110
    6/11/2023 6:28:43   
    CH4OT1C!
    Member

    		@Primate Murder: Don't worry, @PD's perk still boosts damage directly (albeit conditionally). Boosting Warrior damage directly (even conditionally) isn't feasible without breaking the Player Turn model because Warriors and their stable damage bonus are the baseline. Therefore, unless the staff say otherwise (and fancy rearranging the formula!), this isn't really an option. Rangers and Mages have more leeway because they aren't the baseline, which is why we allowed damage boosts. Even then, to get the Mage damage bonus you have to break the core assumption of attacking against optimal resistances.

    quote:


    Your calculations work based on the notion that you use guests and no other source of sp-drain; in effect, you're removing all spells and skills from the equation. This puts guests in direct competition with actual weapon- and spell-based skills, with actual MainStats, and those, naturally, get a lot more support than guests. Once EO and similar items are properly re-balanced, you're going to have to choose between the two - and, tell me honestly, is there any chance your mage is going to forgo the use of spells to maintain a guest a few more rounds?

    I do think beastmasters need more support.

    I believe that you're most likely worrying over nothing.
  • As demonstrated in my previous post, you basically already need SP regeneration like EO to use other skills alongside your guest. You're already using things like EO
  • Regarding EO specifically, the current ratio of HP -> SP conversion is approximately the same as what it would be after an update (I calculated the balanced figures here). The other likely addition is a turn conversion limit, which I believe should lay at approximately 350 SP at Lv150. This is sufficient to limit Beastmages and their casting of spell-based skills, but shouldn't affect weapon-based skills nearly as much given their elecomp to cost. Go on the offensive by sacrificing HP, and you'll be able to have your cake and eat it too.
  • Supposing you do have to make a tradeoff, Guests are incredibly attractive. They get additional power for free (i.e. they're overpowered), they're low cost even as compared to elecomped weapon-based skills. On top of that, elecomped weapon-based skills require you to stand in a poor-choice armour to attack, meaning either you need to spend additional resources defending yourself, or take a huge risk if the enemy manages to survive. For Guests, these are the costs without elecomp. You can be perfectly safe and allow your Guest to chip away. Spell-based skills aren't direct competition because they cater to a different niche - high cost, high damage.
  • Supposing none of that is convincing, in the future of course there'll be additional items added around Guests (just as there'll be added support for every stat).
    I believe the above points clearly demonstrate that Beastmasters don't need any additional special treatment. If anything, the system we propose might be too generous (CHA competes not with Mainstats, but with the other support stats. In that scenario, CHA is far and away the most valuable). Where Guests will be less attractive is when you don't invest in CHA. And frankly they should in that situation - why should non-CHA users find Guests an attractive option?

    quote:

    - statuses like Blind and The Cold will absolutely murder FO rangers. Combined with Choke and Panic, you literally double the number of statuses that reduce Ranger damage; (please don't mention Entangle and Off-balance, I'm trying to forget they exist)

    - you render large swaths of ranged equipment obsolete because they have -bth leans;

    - autohit weapons;

    - and finally, it's just not really fun. You don't really enjoy that gradual rise in power when it comes in increments of 1.5%, but you will absolutely curse the game each time you miss and render the last three turns obsolete. ]

    Short answers for these:
  • This is why rangers will want and need additional support. Status cleansers, Accuracy boosters. Items will solve this problem. This answer also applies to your second point - bth boosters (direct and indirect) can offset this
  • On our original set of notes, we already accounted for and partialled out autohit weapons. They won't contribute. I'm not sure why that isn't on the original post!
  • Totally reasonable if you don't find it fun, there are obviously alternatives. Sure, you'll curse the game if you miss, and that's the risk of Ranger. It's not stable like Warrior.

    < Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 6/11/2023 9:57:02 >
    • AQ  Post #: 111
    6/11/2023 19:57:18   
    Bannished Rogue
    Member
    quote:

    CH40T1C said:

    SP is a core component of the player turn formula. This formula is the most basic component of AQ's balance system, and has been for much of the past 15 years.
    And what about before SP even existed? But that changed and so did the model..

    quote:

    CH40T1C said:
    100% [Player Damage] + 20% [Pets] + 20% [SP]

    Here, Player Damage accounts for standard attacks. Mage spells are internal to this component, as Mages make up for MP by dealing lower weapon damage. As you can see, SP is a fundamental component of this model, and portioned out to all players, irrespective of build. Changing the amount of SP for a given stat means messing with this formula, incurring severe consequences because this model (as mentioned) underpins the entire game. Changing it requires changing far too much of the existing game to be practical. This is what I meant with regards to the statement "we can't reduce the SP bar amount". It is too impractical to change, as it would essentially require a complete rewrite of AQ's balance system.
    You say irrespective of build, but one of the initiatives by staff is for SP to be respective of build, again, you cant have both changing that standard yet claiming it cant be changed.. Not practical if it HAD to be accomplished in month, which it doesn't.
    • Would it take time? Yes.
    • Has it been practically done before, also yes. You don't treat an infected wound by applying a bunch of bandaids.

    quote:

    CH40T1C said:
    The staff have repeatedly stated that this will not happen. The staff have made this clear on this thread, as well as in numerous other places on the forums and on Discord.
    Which goes back to my point that it's about willingness not an impossibility. Staff may ultimagely be asking for bandaid solutions but my response is actually fix the issue. Staff may not have the resources to actually fix the issue, that doesn't change my answer.

    quote:

    CH40T1C said:
    Your comparison of SP to MP and HP is incorrect. As mentioned, MP is build specific, making it an apples-to-oranges comparison. HP is more complex (and here I skip the details for the sake of brevity). Nonetheless, HP is not directly modified by any of the three Stats associated with primary builds either.
    There is a difference between what is and what should be. This is a thread about proposals for change, therefore there is nothing incorrect about the proposal for something existing to function similar to something that currently exists within the same medium.
    • Does SP currently work like that? No.
    • Can it, yes; you may not like it, but that doesn't make it incorrect.
    • Would it change the mechanics of the game? Yes, that's literally the point.

    quote:

    CH40T1C said:
    There are numerous additional consequences and risks to doing this even beyond feasibility, including the risk of Warrior becoming obsolete as Rangers would assume a decisive advantage over them in a key aspect of their build, Weapon-based skills.
    Not really. Assuming that the Warrior is pure and did not invest in a different "mainstat", then the Warrior would either have
    • extra damage from pets and guests
    • extra HP and more tanky
    • extra lucky strike damage
    Also I forgot to put in the original, weapon specials power would need to be updated and compensated for reliability (meaning the lower the proc the more powerful). Thus FD Rangers 100% proc weapons wouldn't do as much as a FO Warrior with a [weapon proc] = 100%. Also as mentioned, a Ranger' damage would ramp down as a warrior's ramps up, further widening the gap of power/damage.

    quote:

    CH40T1C said:
    Regarding the point around Weapon specials: Whether Weapon specials are updated is irrelevant because Builds identities themselves are tied directly to stats rather than to items.
    Yes, thats why guests are being updated, because Builds tied directly to stats rather than items. Beastmasters are just as effective without any pets or guests; that CHA stat just does it all.

    quote:

    CH40T1C said:
    You might have misunderstood my point. It is possible to code such a mechanic, that was not my point. Instead, I was referring to the fact that it would break the Player Turn Model as described above.
    You kght have misunderstood my point. To put plainly, take the current model, and change it; that is my answer.

    quote:

    CH40T1C said:
    Your justification for Rangers being offensive is based on your own personal, thematic definition of each build. I can't really comment on this because, while such thematic points are entirely relevant for theorycrafting, what really matters is how those ideas are crystallised within the existing game mechanics. That needs to be done in a way that doesn't destroy the balance model for the reasons discussed above. For that reason, I'd prefer to stick to objective definitions that we can all collectively recognise.
    If the existing game mechanics were so sound, we wouldn't be here right now. An inability or unwillingness to think outside if the box is not conducive to figuring out effective solutions. As well as, all of my proposals have been things that currently exist in the game, just not currently applied to the player character.

    quote:

    CH40T1C said:
    Beyond this, the implementation of your system mechanically would inevitably put Rangers at a considerable disadvantage because Mages have a fully fleshed out identity and years-worth of supporting items. This essentially reverses the good work done to mechanically distinguish rangers (the promotion of DEX to a main stat) in previous parts of the stat update.
    Is the irony lost on the concept of the "good work done to mechanically distinguish rangers" in a thread where the staff is saying that the mechanics used to distinguish rangers are flawed and in need of change? You seem to misunderstand what I am saying and that comment makes me believe that you think that I'm saying to make rangers STR+DEX which is false.
    • Rangers mainstat is DEX, HOWEVER even in the current model STR increases weapon damage yes? The same is true for what I'm proposing.
    • Therefore optimally, in both the current model and what I am proposing, if the intent of a ranger is to deal the maximum amount of weapon damage, it would be necessary for them to max both DEX and STR.
    • Is STR necessary for ranged weapons to be utilized effectively? No
    • Since my proposal has STR greatly increase weapon special damage to shorten the gap of damage from mages, and FD Rangers typically use (as it would be most optimal for them) 100% proc weapons (i.e weapons that weapon special trigger 100% of the tone a normal attack is attempted). Therefore, it would make sense, under this model that FD Rangers would opt to max STR.
    • Would FO Rangers do the same? Not optimally, because as mentioned, if the goal is to turn Rangers into "skill casters" , then it would not make sense for them to take their primary source of max damage away by training STR and thus reducing their total SP useable.
    • If FO Rangers had access to the same SP capability, then they would be objectively better than FO Rangers, but because STR would reduce their total SP, they by virtue of DEX, would be able to use skills better than warriors or mages, but not as effectively as FO Rangers to balance the increased weapon damage they would deal assuming they maxed STR which they don't have to.

    quote:

    CH40T1C said:
    It has been repeatedly stated by the staff that the existing model cannot change, through lack of time and resources. In addition, there are fundamental mechanical differences between promoting DEX to a mainstat within the existing balance model, and entirely reworking the fundamental aspects of this model across the entire game. It is another order of magnitude in terms of difficulty, complexity, and intensity
    If staff answer is no, then its no. That doesn't change my answer. All I'd say is do t be surprised when we're coming back to this same topic of concern a few years later.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 112
    6/11/2023 21:23:12   
    dizzle
    Member
     

    		 Banished Rogue brings up something that is worth talking about in the idea of balance standards changing. Nearly every proposal submitted by casual players has been shot down, combatted, or deemed infeasible not by the developers, but by other players. We are getting concrete statements *from players* about what can and cannot change, what can and cannot happen. Some of these statements are in direct contradiction with Ianthes post that kicked off this thread. For example, the nuclear option for rangers. If a developer is proposing an SP regen mechanic that is tied to a stat, is tying resources to stats really out of the question? If a developer is offering the idea of changing standards, is the changing of standards really out of the question?

    I don’t ask this to combat Chaotics relentless disagreement with nearly every proposal not put forth by the tavern, I truly mean no disrespect. I ask this because I would consider myself a casual player who has a fairly strong grasp of game mechanics and the balance standards we have currently, and I’m more confused than a chameleon in a bag of skittles. What precisely are the parameters for this overhaul we’re getting? What precisely is out of the question and what is still on the table? I can’t help but feel like we’re all just spinning our wheels here. Undoubtedly Chaotic is one of the most knowledgeable people to ever play the game, I don’t think this is up for debate. But when concrete statements given by them are contradictory with comments from a developer themself, I think we’re all due for some clarification as to what exactly is on the table and what exactly isn’t. I know this is easier said than done because the devs don’t have time to address every single proposal put forth, but I suspect some type of reassurance, *from a developer,* as to what is acceptable to change and what is not acceptable to change would greatly benefit this discussion. Just my 2 cents, and again I mean no disrespect to Chaotic or anyone else. I’m just trying to figure out what is realistic and what isn’t before I waste my time brainstorming an alternative that would never happen because, idk, the turn model will never get updated or something of the like
    AQ  Post #: 113
    6/11/2023 22:43:49   
    PeeBall
    Member
     

    		 The new ranged damage ramping is great and bringing in much appeal to playing ranger.

    The SP and HP healing ideas are nice, but I feel those are most suited for FD playstyles, which focus on resource management and lasting in battle. The extra weapon damage idea is great, and the warrior lean idea is very interesting. These two could be improved further instead of having the healing suggestion, but if that isn't viable, the healing idea still sounds great.

    On another note, while most of the discussions for other changes are interesting and exciting, why are some players (non-devs) dismissing unique ideas by saying "we can't do xx"? I don't think players have any say in what can and cannot be done and I feel we should not overstep our position as players. Let's remain open-minded to change especially for the better. Ideas we dislike can simply be stated exactly as so, instead of claiming it "can't" be done.

    Post #: 114
    6/11/2023 23:27:29   
      Lorekeeper
    And Pun-isher

     

    		 This is leaning heavily back toward uncompromising posts and bringing extraneous community rivalries into a thread that already required a stern warning early on. Let's be mindful of how we frame each other's reasoning.

    We're reading every proposal, and understand the inconvenience of not being able to provide complete and exact parameters. While it'd be extremely impractical to try and list everything we can or can't change in time in a game with this much content, there are a few easy examples of things that are off-limits, and examples of why it has been said that some ideas can't be done:

  • Changing the base power of STR, as the value of a melee attack is used as the central reference for every value calculation in the game, or the core behavior of INT (We'd have to tweak every magic weapon and reevaluate MP).
  • Changing the entire turn value, because we'd need to change countless items and the monster turn value would need to be changed to match. The stats themselves have player-only behavior, such as the Style Bonus, but the turn value must always be equal.
  • Changing the turn model. To be absolutely clear, it's not a statement of how long we want battles to take, but an essential framework of what happens under minimal conditions, as a reference for virtually all game calculations. This is a stat revamp, after all, not the creation of a whole new mechanical framework for a new game. That's about what the workload of changing the turn model would be like -- EVERYTHING would have to be reworked to fit it. Correction: It's not fundamentally impossible, but it's not practically doable within the scope of a revamp that has already been significantly delayed. It would vastly increase the pressure for tutorial and early game adjustments that require feature/UI work, and managing its ripples to keep the game fun would be a massive redesign task.

    It may take a while to get back to you with this due to background circumstances, but I'll ask for any other such examples we can list. In the mean time, here are a few essential rules of thumb.

  • The more work beyond adjusting the stats themselves is needed to implement it, the less viable a given proposal will be. We're making some radical, time consuming changes as it is, but it's vital for the scope of this project not to grow past what Ianthe can complete during the summer. We all have a sore thumb or two we'd like to fix about the game, but if we would have to redo the entire game's balance to make a concept work out, it's inevitably going to be unfeasible. Proposals that require sweeping new mechanical features such as new item categories with extensive database and shop work, or other matters that would require us to delay the revamp until we can have lots of backup from Cap'n and Spider, are unworkable for this reason.
  • Along a similar vein, we need to stick to changes that can be completed in one go. We're likely to have to make some tweaks after the fact, but anything requiring heavy iteration over a long period of time is unfeasible. The stat revamp needs to be complete to keep moving forward with other projects, especially classes, or we'd have to redo those projects to suit the stat changes.
  • The most viable ideas are those that align with the goals of the revamp. We've brought up the need to give each stat a distinct style in terms of both playing differently and having its own reason to hybridize into. It's vital to finally move away from any build playing exactly like another, only better. Proposals that would run counter to that, take us back to the times of specific mandatory stats, or have secondary stats perform as primary stats, would be more difficult to extract usable feedback from.

    < Message edited by Lorekeeper -- 6/12/2023 11:25:53 >
    • Post #: 115
    6/12/2023 1:36:55   
    Bannished Rogue
    Member
    quote:

    Loremaster said:
    Or the core behavior of INT (We'd have to tweak every magic weapon and reevaluate MP).
    I don't understand, Ianthe is apparently updating every guest in the game. While I understand it would be something preferable to avoid for obvious reasons, why is that looked at as cant/won't do, when something similar is happening as we speak?

    quote:

    Loremaster said:
    We're making some radical, time consuming changes as it is, but it's vital for the scope of this project not to grow past what Ianthe can complete during the summer.
    Why does all of this NEED to happen in this summer alone? Archmage is proof that projects can be pushed back when more pressing concerns arise that warrant higher priority. I mean we're talking about the fundamental mechanical of how we play the game here, is that not more pressing than your casual weekly release? Theres only (as far as we are concerned) approximate 16-18 major things based on time out of an approximate 52 week year (seasonal releases, the Mastercraft set, and possible but not guaranteed class revamp). While I get possibly getting tired of it and maybe getting frustrated, but yall dictate your own schedule, you could always just.. give yourselves more time..stop for a little and come back to it with the same direction and goal in mind versus having to change the changes you made.
    It's like watching someone who's got a car radiator that's overheating, and instead of just driving an hour to the next town over to get some coolant (in this hypothetical there isn't any coolant in town) because they dont like driving for more than 10 minutes at a time without stretching their legs. Instead, they keep just putting water in it and driving to and from work because it's only a 10 minute drive.
    Then they start having more and more problems, but everyone is suggesting different brands of water to use instead of coolant.
    But after about a week, they would have already driven further to and from work than the hour to actually fix the problem.

    quote:

    Loremaster said:
    Along a similar vein, we need to stick to changes that can be completed in one go. We're likely to have to make some tweaks after the fact, but anything requiring heavy iteration over a long period of time is unfeasible. The stat revamp needs to be complete to keep moving forward with other projects, especially classes, or we'd have to redo those projects to suit the stat changes.
    Could you extrapolate on what you mean that this needs to happen all in "one go"? Is this referring to all of DEX's changes in one go and all of INT changes in one go or ALL ALL changes in one go?
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 116
    6/12/2023 2:20:49   
    PD
    Member
     

    		 Glad to see my ideas getting nice feedback here and there, even if they probably won't make it in. It's at least worth a try to pitch an interesting idea. If it won't make it, at least they could make some cool ideas for future items.

    One thing I want to try doing when this is all over is comparing the early game experience between all the classes. And some general questions:

  • How is this going to affect enemies if at all?
  • Will there be any changes to things like initiative and the like?
  • [Again] Can we consider changes to the stat-training/growth experience? (Make it free, don't require resets to change stats, remind people to train stats if they have free points).
  • Can we have a resource that better explains these concepts/stats in game somehow when it's all done?
  • Are these changes going to be packaged with other item fixes/balance/updates/QOL? (problematic stuff mostly, but other things need attention here too).

    Above all, I know the numbers are going to be important, but I want this to be packaged with a better stat building experience. The experience is clearly showing its age and now is a good time to insert some badly needed QOL into it. I previously pitched some feedback regarding the initial stat training update and hope they can be considered now.

    And thanks in advance for the answers.

    < Message edited by PD -- 6/12/2023 2:27:11 >
    • Post #: 117
    6/12/2023 4:15:45   
    CH4OT1C!
    Member

    		@PD: Someone asked me about this the other day - I completely agree that whatever mechanics are implemented could have significant consequences depending upon player level. To be blunt, player scaling already isn't exactly great. Regarding (some) of the questions you asked:
  • As the rules will be stuck to, enemies won't get stronger than they are now really
  • Possibly - initiative is definitely on the table
  • I would love a detailed explanation of stats to be implemented in-game.

    Obviously, these can't be implemented alongside the stat update directly - it's already a monumental project as is. The changes to Guests alone have required months. Maybe this could be a future project after the Devs have managed to recover!
    • AQ  Post #: 118
    6/12/2023 4:21:54   
    Broccoli
    Member

    quote:

    Why does all of this NEED to happen in this summer alone? Archmage is proof that projects can be pushed back when more pressing concerns arise that warrant higher priority.

    Because it establishes core concepts for every build that will influence all future item releases.
    Post #: 119
    6/12/2023 11:00:43   
    Bannished Rogue
    Member


    		 Broccoli said:
    quote:

    Because it establishes core concepts for every build that will influence all future item releases.

    We're you trying to make a point? That sounds like it should be given more time, not cramed into 1 summer..
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 120
    6/12/2023 11:01:40   
      Lorekeeper
    And Pun-isher

     
    quote:

    I don't understand, Ianthe is apparently updating every guest in the game. While I understand it would be something preferable to avoid for obvious reasons, why is that looked at as cant/won't do, when something similar is happening as we speak?


    Because it's actually not something similar at all. Ianthe is going through every guest to make them compatible with new code that allows their cost and output to be modified by a central system instead of calculated by every individual file. This is a grueling, months-long task with a baseline of 801 guest files, with Ianthe already going beyond her usual workload to accomplish this when it doesn't require redesigning every single one entirely. If we were to change the power assigned to every melee or magic weapon, we would have to similarly redesign every single one that uses its power budget for more than just damage or outgoing status effects. There are thousands. There are also thousands of spells.

    When a much smaller task is already so strenuous and time consuming that it's the largest part of the revamp by far, we know with certainty that we can't also add multiple sweeps of many times its size. We're having to go through every guest individually to make it even possible for the revamp to affect them; this not only doesn't imply that we're up for redesigning anything and everything else, but it actually exemplifies why we can't multiply the scope of the project.

    quote:

    While I get possibly getting tired of it and maybe getting frustrated, but yall dictate your own schedule, you could always just.. give yourselves more time..stop for a little and come back to it with the same direction and goal in mind versus having to change the changes you made.


    We do not get to change the weekly release format, and production schedules cannot be changed on immediate notice without having a long term domino effect that delays other projects -- Which we're already in the middle of experiencing due to force major circumstances. When delaying a project, everything that depends on it gets delayed as well. Archmage depends on the progress of a larger project so that its skills can be suitably different from Mage and Wizard, among other reasons explained here. The stat revamp is a major dependency of all class projects, and thus needs to be completed in order to continue working on class revamps without having to redesign them when the revamp immediately leaves them behind. Not only that, it affects everything with even the smallest mechanic, so if we were to take a break from this to work on other major projects, those would need to be redesigned once the revamp changed the floor out from under them. We also absolutely can't cease all content production until the revamp is done.

    It's possible and even likely for the revamp to require items designed during its progress to be remade if they don't work well with its parameters. As it will impact the design of nearly every item, it's imperative for the stat revamp to done before running into major releases that would further delay it and need to be revisited after having their foundation changed. On that note, while the revamp is in progress, with the exception of times when Ianthe takes a break to help with big releases, Kamui is having to tackle every item release on his own.

    In summary, we're reworking the very foundation of everything with even the smallest combat mechanic. We can't have this overlap or become interspersed with other major mechanical releases without said releases having their workload get multiplied and/or outright invalidated. We've also already delayed far longer than planned due to priorly mentioned health issues. If we had three other Ianthes and could convince them not to take over the world, then we could consider making the project even bigger. As it stands, we have to be mindful of our limits and not work in such a way that the workload of all future mechanics projects increases.



    In regards to training, the low level experience, and in-game tutorials, we've got several ideas in internal discussion, but need to finish the revamp before we can dedicate releases to them because they will need major UI and system work rather than mainly mechanical adjustments. One aspect the revamp can tackle is that END scaling has changed for mobs only, having a flatter curve that gives enemies below level 135 significantly less health than they have now.
    Post #: 121
    6/12/2023 13:07:17   
    Korriban Gaming
    Banned


    		 I feel like Bannished brings up some good points but I don't necessarily agree with everything especially the part regarding fixing the entire turn model together with the revamp, that will take far too long. Since it's been confirmed in the other thread that the turn model change won't be happening anytime soon due to the humongous workload, I don't think there is a need to discuss that further.

    Appreciate LK for clarifying what will and won't be possible in this change. I am waiting to see more examples if possible so that we can raise more targeted suggestions.

    Fully support PD's ideas for improving the lower-levelled experience. I cannot stress how important that is to keep new and returning players to ensure the longevity of the game. That being said, I feel like that will be an entirely different project altogether so I'm a bit confused on why it was brought up here.

    After 5 pages worth of discussion, it feels like 2 key problems still remain that majority can't seem to come to a consensus on
    1. Ranger's identity, both FO and FD
    2. Guest power and upkeep

    Regarding point 1, I personally feel FD Rangers are in a good spot currently with the updated ramping but since they're heavily tied to guests, I will further elaborate in the next point. The lean ideas aren't fantastic but they aren't bad either per se, I just feel they aren't super exciting. FO Rangers on the other hand, I feel should be skillcasters. Some will take issue with it as it is either too close to Mage or that SP shouldn't be tied to a single build. Honestly I don't think there's much else we can come up with that actually makes it both viable and completely unique, it's either one or the other and if I had to choose, I'd much rather it be viable, it can be another Mage, so be it, it's not like Mages are weak lol

    As for point 2, I strongly feel that guests should be usable by all builds. Now, this definition of usable is probably quite subjective depending on who you're asking. My definition of it would be that it doesn't cost more than 35% Melee and that it should still be stronger than a pet with 0 CHA but only slightly weaker than a pet with 250 CHA. CHA can go into both lowering the cost and increasing the power. Ferocious Strike is probably the most popular idea brought up to compensate for power. I am not a fan of it because it only accounts for damage and no one uses guests nowadays for damage alone, since I could not get a confirmation regarding effects and boosts, I am assuming it does nothing for the 2 and that to me is a straight up heavy nerf sugar coated to be something good. On top of that, it is also random, so it won't always be useful. I'd much rather have the entire mechanic be funneled into increasing base power instead. Not only is it less work for the staff but it will also account for effects and boosters on top of being always useful. I am aware that staff are looking for a little something extra to compensate for the increased costs to sweeten the deal. I think the most straightforward and simplest solution would be to not make the power reduction and cost increase too steep, there isn't a need for some new fancy effect. All the players I've spoken to thus far would rather see that than some new mechanic which they aren't even sure if it will be good. Apparently a number of people are also banking that we will see a guest version of Optico should we get Ferocious Strikes, this isn't something I'm super hopeful for which is also another reason why I'm against the idea. FD Rangers rely heavily on guests but with CHA trained, I don't think it will be too bad for them so I don't think there will be major issues for FDBRs going forward based off what has been said by the devs regarding guest changes

    quote:

    One aspect the revamp can tackle is that END scaling has changed for mobs only, having a flatter curve that gives enemies below level 135 significantly less health than they have now.

    This is great news, I hope this happens to help ease the lower-level experience
    Removed... Some things. ~Ward

    < Message edited by Ward_Point -- 6/12/2023 21:24:34 >
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 122
    6/12/2023 13:22:53   
      Lorekeeper
    And Pun-isher

     

    		 We can do without the attributions of ill intent.
    Post #: 123
    6/12/2023 13:28:58   
    Korriban Gaming
    Banned
    quote:

    We can do without the attributions of ill intent.

    Quite the opposite actually. We're just hoping to have an environment where we can freely toss out ideas without fear of being judged or shut down by other fellow players. Disagreeing is one thing and perfectly acceptable, to say something can't be done is an entirely different thing when there has been no indication by staff on what's not possible (at least not before your post on 6/12/2023 11:27:29)
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 124
    6/12/2023 13:53:39   
      Lorekeeper
    And Pun-isher

     

    		 No. We can freely assume each other's intentions and make accusations based on that assumption, but that doesn't mean we may. That was never acceptable nor correct before, and it is not suddenly the case now. Disagreement with a user's wording when explaining how game rules impact the viability of a suggestion is acceptable, but it can be kept to criticizing their wording and point without needing to add further accusations. Please follow Ward's warning.

    Dev Anim: I want to say a huge thank you to everyone who has gotten involved, giving their time to mull ideas, discuss, suggest and thrash out amongst yourselves. We really do value your input, there's a lot here for us to go over and analyse. With that said, I'm locking the thread so we can have a bit of an adjournment to have an internal look and review, and consolidate what we have before coming back with a summary of where we are and next steps. So without out further a do....

    Meeting adjourned for a snack break. Stay tuned for an update soon. ~Anim

    < Message edited by AnimalKing -- 6/12/2023 16:48:57 >
    Post #: 125
    Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
    All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= Spring Balance Update
    Page 5 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