Sapphire
Member
|
Hi. I deleted all of my previous posts in this thread because I felt like not only does the thread seem all over the place and disorganized, my opinions on some of several aspects here have changed. So I wanted to put my entire thoughts on several issues tied to the stat revamp in one large wall of text. My hope is that this post isn’t deleted or altered, because I will be covering topics related to the stat revamp as a whole, in addition to providing opinions on the specifics. My hope is that at the end of the day, the stat revamp that gets implemented is solid, not half baked, and it makes more players happy than not. (Because we all know not everyone will be, it’s impossible)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In the beginning throes of the stat revamp as an idea, and in retrospect, it is of my opinion that the stat revamp had two major tennants to review and adjust, with a bunch of other minor ones. The first was the realization that Dex being tied to so much created issues with AQ’s traditional Archtypes and the balancing and distinctions they had. Dex was doing way more for a character than possibly any stat. Reliance on Dex for all accuracy, and reliance on 2 stats to be a “Ranger”, which included Dex reduced flexibility in builds and in reality, in terms of stats a Warrior and a Ranger were one in the same. It was simply the weapon choice that dictated what one was, but because this was so interchangeable, in actuality there was no difference. “In actuality” is a concept I want everyone to tuck back in your back pocket for now, because this will come up later in this post a few times..
The other stat that needed a major refinement was Charisma. As has been discussed at length, many viewed it as vastly overpowered. The only way to properly handle it, was to go through every single guest and migrate them over to the engine side so that certain files could be globally altered. This backend work took well over a year.
So major goals here was to decouple Dex, provide Dex an identity, and reign back Charisma. In order to do this, a lot of discussions and hard work had to be put into action. And staff have delivered on this hard work.
So I wanted to first begin by thanking the Dev team. Not only has this been a bold undertaking by breaking from longstanding gameplay aesthetics, but the realization that some very intensive back end work (guests) was the best path forward to deal with some things. The undertaking has caused extra work for both Ianthe and Kamui. While Ianthe worked diligently on back end framework changes, Kamui more often than not was having to code the weekly release items by himself without help. I have no doubt the past several months and possibly upwards of well over a year has likely been more taxing on the team than ever before. So thank you for all for this work. Again, thank you to the Devs for this undertaking.
Now, hindsight is always 20/20 as they say. Nobody is perfect, and we’re all human. And sometimes what we’d really like to see cannot come to fruition due to a number of constraints. However, the approach to the stat revamp in my opinion has been wrought with issues.
The next phase of this post will be attempting to review several things that I believe to be issues, and will be offering solutions to them. (Some of which will have to be for future endeavors) This isn’t an attempt to be critical of the Devs, or anyone that are decision makers for AQ. . It’s an attempt to raise awareness on all issues on everything related to the stat revamp , review proposals as written and offer my opinions, and offer what I think some solutions could possibly be. I wanted to do this before tackling the issues with the proposals themselves.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The first topic I wanted to bring up has to do with the entire approach to leveraging “The Players” for ideas for the stat revamp.
I have often been critical of the notion that there’s not enough player involvement, from implementing item suggestions, or the idea of having a bug-seeker group pre-release to assist with bug squashing on a separate server, to other aspects. I get that it is impossible to make everyone happy, and the constant complaining will cause the devs to be forced to have thick skin. It can’t be reassuring whatsoever, so in some ways ignoring “the noise” is often a good path to take.
However, I commend them for asking “The Players” for assistance with ideas. Lorekeeper has attempted to provide parameters and provide some framework for what types of ideas would be accepted vs non-starters. And many good ideas have come out of this.
But here’s the issue. And I really need Hollow, and the rest of the staff team to really understand what I’m saying here. Many of the ideas that ended up making this latest stat revamp proposal actually doesn’t stem from “the players” as much as it came from “some players”. And by “some players”, I mean a small group of like-minded players who like to run in the same circles. This inherently doesn’t automatically reduce or remove any merit to the ideas presented. Far from it. Many of these players are smart, well-knowledged in game mechanics, and I quite like several of the ideas presented from a foundational level. I do not bring this up to stoke rivalry. Far from it. I bring this up to provide some self awareness to staff that much of the proposals have come from a very small group of players, and not some broader general playerbase. As a result, the optics are such that there is a perception amongst many that in actuality, there are entire swaths of players who’s ideas and opinions are being shut off from being heard. And taking on a no-compromise approach will further demonstrate and exemplify and enhance the optics.
So what I think needs to be a better approach in the future, would be to ensure all ideas, suggestions, collabs, and any and all player-formed anything ensure that they must be documented on the official forums as to avoid assumptions from players that there is bias, catering, and favortism. I am not saying that there is. I am saying care should be taken to squash the perceptions, especially if untrue. (which I think they are untrue), This is why means of “officialdom” need to be leveraged over other places on the internet.
Secondly, when player feedback was first asked for, in retrospect, not a lot of actual time was invested in allowing players to offer opinions and ideas. While I don’t remember an exact number of days this took place, it seems like it was only a few weeks, if that. Then the suggestions and ideas was sort of closed. Now here we are much, much later and I’d be willing to bet many players have spent time thinking about the totality of the stat revamp and as time has passed, there might be better ideas now that we’ve all had time to think in a less pressed setting. We have had to time think about tweaks to ideas submitted that might work a bit better. We’ve had time to evaluate additional unrecognized areas for review. But because the production schedule has carved out a timeframe to get this done, and player’s are now voicing their opinions on much of the details, but the timing means we’ve likely now come to what is likely a deadline to just “have one go at it”, as has been said. This approach and creating this time crunch for the rollout is entirely problematic in my opinion. The end result could potentially be bad ideas, bad implementation, and flat out upset players if things go live for the sake of it due to time constraints. I would have rather just implemented all of this in phases so that as the next phase is fleshed out, the previous implemented phase could be re-evaluated for unforeseen “realities” or “actualities” as we went along.
The final issue to the approach that I think that’s a bit of an issue is this: When you begin asking for suggestions and feedback, the forum thread takes off into an uncontrolled mess with no cohesion, no conformity, and no consensus. There needs to be a collection of ideas that are perceived to be more favored over others, and polls, votes, or some other system to attempt to provide a more unified set of ideas needs to happen, which likely contains a lot of compromising…and it needs to happen on the forums, and not elsewhere. There has to be documentation for all to see.
A better approach would have been to make a sub-forum specific to the stat revamp, and each stat be given it’s own thread. The discussion therein would have been more organized and less chaotic, and the back and forth debate and ideas and compromises contained within would have been easier to follow, track, and understand what seems to be the most popular and best approach. (Most popular doesnt mean best, of course).
Now that I am done outlining several of the issues with the approach, I implore staff that hopefully much of what I have put forth up to this point is understood and taken to heart. My hope is moving forward, there be something far more deliberate and organized and fair. Again, thank you for the hard work.
My wish is for replies to this not focus on what was said above, but rather what will be said below. Thank you.
Now, onto discussing the proposals themselves.
In my mind, I have always felt as though in order to implement a style bonus and help carve out specific niches for each stat, that brand new ideas and mechanics would be a preferab,le route rather than focusing on number manipulation or focusing on altering things with existing ideas. An example would be to create a new idea over tacking on basic damage to somebody. The other criteria for me is the bonus or new mechanic needed to be “felt” in actual gameplay. The third thing is the ideas needed to be desirable. A reason to train the stat. Now also throw on common sense ideas from a stylistic standpoint, and we would have some winning ideas. For example, stylistically speaking, IMO, a warrior is more “hardy” and “tough” and can “take a punch” far easier than the other Archtypes. This is using common sense and style to create something. This is the foundation for my personal thoughts and opinions for these style bonuses.
To begin, as for proposals to Charisma and Endurance, I don’t have much to dispute or debate. My preferences would be nuanced and petty, and by in large I can live with most of what was proposed. I know some hate Ferocious strikes for CHA, but I for one desire new ideas and new mechanics and I’ll take less consistent and less reliability for new and fun. Some clamored for 55% melee all the time. But I rather like the FS idea, as IMO it opens doors for gear support.
As for END, while I think it’s a bit of an antithesis to have way more HP’s via training it and get boosted healing when you’d need to heal less often simply for the fact that you have more HP’s and the fact that monster damage doesnt even assume END is trained, I fully understand that END is in an odd spot so leaving it alone and going with the current proposals I can’t argue with too much.
So instead, I wanted to focus on Strength, Int, Dex, and Luk because all have issues that don’t meet my personal criteria for what I had hoped to see as explained above.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Strength:
I do not have a huge issue with strength if I’m being honest. It just doesnt have anything new. While some may view the Warrior Lean as something new, I feel like it’s just allowing a FD playstyle that the other Archtypes always had. I once proposed a Strength stat based damage reducer mechanic that would work in both FD and FO armors. I have said that a Warrior is in close hand to hand combat, and needs to be able to absorb more damage than a Ranger and a Mage. The choke idea somewhat accomplishes this, but one thing it does do is kind of kill off Warrior-based Backlash. And it’s also for a specific number of turns, and then it’s over. The proposal of -12.5% choke for 4 turns will not be well recieved by backlashers. This 50% should be changed.
Alternate Solution:
Instead, I would just implement a Str/50=5% cap universal damage reduction on all incoming damage. Since the average turns is slated for 10, this is 5x10=the same 50%. This “always” approach also will not hinder warrior backlasher nearly as much. This is tied to STRENGTH and not MELEE DAMAGE. Hybrids will appreciate this nuanced difference as well.
The +15% damage is fine.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Dexterity:
Dexterity has a number of problems. First of all, it actually feels like one of the major Tennants of the stat revamp isn’t being fulfilled. We have decoupled Dex and made a Ranger, but it still feels worse than warrior. One of the major issues here is that almost nobody likes Ramp Up. It actually feels like it’s being forced onto the players like a child who doesn’t like his vegetables. Also, there’s no new mechanics. There’s just ideas toying with damage identity. Dex needs a new mechanic that shapes the Ranger differently. It has to be something desirable. Something that provides a reason to be a Ranger over a Warrior or Mage. The proposals do not accomplish this and it doesn’t fullfill original goals.
For starters, you may need to completely scrap ramp up. If not, I would overlay a lean system on top of it. A lean system rewards both hitting and missing. And if you ramp and get damage rewards at the same time, the ramping damage will feel faster.
But this is just a damage identity, and nothing new mechanically IMO.
Because I believe Warrior lean is necessary, it will end up greatly stepping on FD Rangers. I feel as though this much is crystal clear. So what needs to happen for FD Rangers is a new idea to separate itself from Warrior lean.
So here’s the one proposal: I call this “Ranger Stance”. Think Sniper Mode. Or you can call this Sniper Mode, or Sniper Lean. Something along these lines:
The idea is this: You must meet all 3 criteria to activate the idea:
Win Initiaitive
You must be in a FD Armor
You must be wielding a 100 proc Ranged weapon (Bows, guns)
Once all three criteria are met, the Ranger Stance/Sniper Mode activates turn 1.
It works like this: Firstly, there is an assumption here that the player is not seen by the monster. This means that the Ranger will be able to fire off a great first shot and the monster’s defenses are super vulnerable. So, having said that, here’s the effect:
The first shot gains a troposhield-like 0 turn omni elevuln of 25% that pre-fires. This is auto hit with no save. The second effect is the player gains 25% melee worth of defboost during the monster’s first turn.
In actuality, a ranger will have an ability to engage a fight from a distance, while hidden, and at a defensive and offensive advantage on turn 1. This will mitigate some of the ramping starting point if ramping stays. It also keeps the “blocking focus” of the Archtype, and stylistically I feel as though this makes sense.
Another proposal is to boost armor MRM when in a FD armor and a ranged 100 proc is used. It’s similar to warrior lean, except here it’s a blocking focus rather than a damage focus.
And my last proposal for Rangers, is that all ranged weapons auto-bleed. They use pointy, sharp weaponry.
The ideas I put forth take into account stylistic gameplay if this were more of an MMO and not turn based 2d animations, and tries to incorporate ideas to match these.
I also saw some notes on maybe Dex increases proc chances or damage or something. I am intrigued. It would be a new mechanic and it could actually revitalize the old school weapon special, and could also even work with the new age weapon special. I like it on the surface. But make a new idea for sure for Dex.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Intelligence:
Mages are said to be fine where they are. There is a hesitancy to provide vertical power. I completely understand, and don’t disagree. But one of my criteria for an implementable style bonus is it has to be something noticeable. You have to feel it. While WallBreaker is a new mechanic and meets that criteria for me, the implementation as written doesn’t make this have a feel.
Implementing something for mages is tricky. But as proposed, this feels like a bone and nothing more. The result is such that a few players are correctly saying that using a harm spell would outperform this idea, rendering the idea mostly useless. Others have argued that if you use an elecomped spell, you can boost it enough to outperform harm. Well, I’m sorry folks, but this would mean the effect is more tied to specific armors and not so much as spells. This would mean non harm spells that are housed in the spell slot would only take advantage of the mechanic once the monsters resist is above approx 85-86%. (Most cases, 90) The only other scenario is if the average of all resists sit at 75%+ and you use an 8 element spell since it gets a 132/109 boost. The case usage here is so small, that it honestly doesn’t feel like anything noteworthy. This is why some are calling for a perm harm spell. This is why I have called for this to include harm damage.
But because we can’t really have vertical power, this is tricky. So I want to give 2 proposals, in order of preference:
1. Adjust the allocated elemental spread tbis works with closer to what a monster is assumed to have. This, I think, means the monster is assumed to have it’s worst resist at 130%. I say not go that high. I say cap this at 115%, where at this % it’s boosted to 120%. This will increase the case usage of this mechanic up to be utilized a bit more often and at the same time, squash calls for perm harm spells and perm harm boosts. I do not feel as though this is vertical power. It just opens up a bit more instances you can actually use the mechanic. Tying it to armors with elecomped built in spells isn’t a great idea.
2. If for some reason this is thought of as too much, then I default to just make harm hit as if it’s hitting at 95% for magic spells instead of 90. This would at least match best case scenario for the rest of the elements which are capped at 90. This also isn’t vertical power.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Luck:
The status flip idea sounds nice in practice, and I’d love to see some examples of such an % idea, but I have no issues with it. The chance-to-hit formula change to disallow a floor below 5% is a nerf to the OP dodge playstyle. This is all good. But the 5% luck style bonus is a faux bonus. If hit rates are dropping so much so that you’re taking advantage of this 5 points, you deserve to lose. Just mainstat boost or use auto hit. This is why it’s a faux bonus.
Instead, allocate that 5% to something that feels “lucky”. This can be literally anything.
I propose a new mechanic that I call “fumble”. At 250 luck (luck/50 rate), you have a 5% chance that the monster will fumble his sword or spear and lose concentration on any single hit. Mechanically, this is auto-dodge. But the bubblewrap will disable dodgelash effects and the verbiage will speak of fumbled weapons and lost concentration (spells). It’s RNG, per hit, and real life luck.
< Message edited by Sapphire -- 1/24/2024 21:39:47 >
|
Printable Version
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
