Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback!

  		Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback!
Page 5 of 10«<34567>»
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
1/28/2024 11:56:24   
LUPUL LUNATIC
Member
 
quote:

DEXTERITY

Base Behavior Changes:
Ranged damage starts at 80%. Whether or not you're using a Ranged weapon on a given turn, it increases by +7% per turn until it hits 101%, then +3.5% per turn until turn 20.

Style bonus:
Enable BTH lean expertise: the downside of BTH leans is mitigated by up to 25% on all weapon attacks and spells.
>> Example: at +20 BTH lean, you normally gain +20 BTH and deal 81% damage. With full DEX, this becomes +20 BTH and deal 86% damage.
>> Example: at -20 BTH lean, you normally deal 131% damage and take -20 BTH. With full DEX, this becomes 131% damage and take -15 BTH.
+6 Blocking


Ramping is not very desirable as a whole and as such i am suggesting a new DEX identity :
quote:


Base Behaviour Changes:
Whenever you land your hits on the monsters,increase damage done, eventually it will have a cap after x hits (assuming 2 hits average and 10 turns the fights, capped at 20 hits). I suggest fueling this with style points to not have a lower than 100% Damage upon turn start. Assuming 2 hits being the average for the boost and 4 hits being the cap per hits landed per turn. When you miss you lose some damage the trade-off.


quote:

Style bonus:
5% Melee into landing hits for more damage
+4.25bth (5% Melee)
+6 MRM (10% Melee)


Numbers may vary to suit the identity better but i like DEX being an accurate flavor for Rangers, if Warriors get more sustained damage, Mages burst damage via spells, Rangers could be the accurate+damage ramped identity, somewhat being better than Warriors over a period of turns with scaling damage bonuses but still not starting with 80% Damage either to favor FO Rangers that use Initiative Boost armors.




< Message edited by LUPUL LUNATIC -- 1/28/2024 11:59:30 >
AQ  Post #: 101
1/28/2024 12:24:05   
CH4OT1C!
Member

My apologies @Grace Xisthrith. I think what must have confused me is this comment:
quote:

That being said, some free power should be allocated to CHA, so is this 15% gap in upkeep versus output intended to be a part of that free power?

in relation to this prior statement:
quote:

Jeanne pointed out a rationale for this, that END gives free power (by my estimates, 90% melee a turn), LUK gives free power (by my estimate, 37% melee a turn + status rolls), and CHA also gives power (by my estimate, 57% melee a turn).

To me, this made it look like your entire opinion somewhat contradicted itself, so my bad on mistaking your intentions. Putting your particular view aside though, I maintain that whether intended or not, the boost should be enshrined within the power being provided by the style bonus.

On Dex bonus: You've convinced me it's sufficiently different from Warrior's bonus. With that said, this whole premise of the boost now seems illogical. You're trying to distinguish Ranger by having unreliable damage, ok. Except we have weapon specials, so the only reason you'd want this is to ensure 0-procs still get the bonus. Except now you're trying to compete offensively with the reliable damage of warrior using the unreliable damage of Ranger. It's a mess, and doesn't really achieve the incredibly niche goal it sets for itself as a proc approximation that still allows Rangers to compete offensively. I'd prefer more committment one way or the other.

On Warrior lean: The addition of Warrior lean is obviously going to create additional competition for Ranger in the FD space. For me, this comes down to a simple tug of war between FD rangers having a niche and Warriors being able to compete defensively at all. Warrior lean is the bare minimum. It's providing the same ratio both Ranger and Mage receive. Without it, Warrior won't compete. But with it, we can still ensure Rangers excel. To me, it's a no-brainer.

This importance of keeping FD ranger afloat brings me to @Korriban Gaming's response on Defensive support. They're not wrong in highlighting the barriers and other toys mage already receives. For me though, it's more important we avoid giving Ranger more to deal with when we're already introducing Warrior to the defensive mix (That being said, the 9th slot harm spell is even worse).

< Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 1/28/2024 13:15:57 >
AQ  Post #: 102
1/28/2024 13:30:42   
Aura Knight
Member

Maybe we keep things simple. If strength reduces incoming damage through the choke effect planned and dexterity increases defenses why not have intellect offer a similar type of defensive benefit too? Could be a fixed reduction for incoming damage, a weak barrier, an effect whenever you hit with magic damage. Maybe panic can work here.
AQ DF AQW  Post #: 103
1/28/2024 16:15:36   
Ogma
Member

I think the initiative bonus for DEX fits. If you win the initiative, you get initiative bonus based on your DEX : extra chance for a lucky strike for you and all your hits and/or an all potence to inflict any debilitating status, which fits the ranger/thief style.
AQ  Post #: 104
1/28/2024 20:23:02   
Sapphire
Member

^ I did give an init bonus of sorts for FD Ranger as an idea..It's a bit of a Sniper Mode..so it works differently than what we currently think of for Init (a la H series)

My idea doesn't help you win INIT, it provides some conditionals along with winning INIT to activate the idea

1. Win Init
2. Must be in FD Armor
3. Must use a 100 Proc Ranged weapon

The Ranger Stance/ Sniper Mode then assumes the player sees the monster but the monster does not see the player. So this is due to being concealed at a distance or because of being on higher ground. This then makes the monster vulnerable to a heavily concentrated attack from a distance such that the Ranger can really ensure an accurate and deadly first hit. Being startled and battered, the monster attempts to gather his bearings and his first return volley isnt very accurate. So the idea is an auto-inflict omni elevuln (like tropo shield) and a self-defoost or auto-inflict blind on the monster. Again, conditions must be met to trigger this.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Gibby

quote:

Sapphire: INT: Spellcast triggers get a fat multiplier, so the barrier on spellcast would probably end up being pretty OP (pretty sure Mana Crystal defender only pays 5% melee, for example). I think we disagree on what INT's style bonus purpose should serve because you're right to say that current suggestions on the INT bonus end up being rarely useful, while STR and DEX are almost always useful. For me that's not a bad thing, but if staff view that as a problem, they should definitely consider widening wallbreaker's range, or another strategy. About the spell slot, I really don't think we'll ever get a no drop / temp slot spell slot on mages ever, so while it's not wrong to say the style bonus shouldn't be "wasted" on it, "wasting" the style bonus on it would benefit players now rather than in 10 years / never when they get around to adding a no drop spell.


I am not saying because other Archtypes have a style bonus they're always using that it should mean Mages should, too. But having something extremely restrictive in the frequency of cases uses whether it be extremely RNG generated or pigeon-holing it to specific gear setups in my opinion would just be a massive feels bad. I'm on board with ensuring no vertical power is given. So to me there should be a compromise and keep wallbreaker ( I have a hunch that the mechan ic has been built, but I may be wrong) and just ..like a slider..move up the element cap such that there are more case uses that a Mage can take advantage. (This still isn't vertical power)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Edit: Below is what I said above, so a random thought occurred to me: What if Ranger Damage Identity was both Burst and Ramp? Details below the quote.

quote:

^ I did give an init bonus of sorts for FD Ranger as an idea..It's a bit of a Sniper Mode..so it works differently than what we currently think of for Init (a la H series)

My idea doesn't help you win INIT, it provides some conditionals along with winning INIT to activate the idea

1. Win Init
2. Must be in FD Armor
3. Must used a 100 Proc Ranged weapon

The Ranger Stance/ Sniper Mode then assumes the player sees the monster but the monster does not see the player. So this is due to being concealed at a distance or because of being on higher ground. This then makes the monster vulnerable to a heavily concentrated attack from distance such that the Ranger can really ensure an accurate and deadly first hit. Being startled and battered, the monster attempts to gather his bearings and his first return volley isnt very accurate. So the idea is an auto inflict omni elevuln (like tropo shield) and a self defboost or auto inflict blind on the monster . Again, conditions must be met to trigger this.



Rangers fight at a distance. Bows are shot from afar, and spears have elongated handles. That first round the Ranger for sure should always be at an advantage, especially if The Ranger wins Initiative.

So what if the first round is always very bursty, and the second round drops considerably but the ramping begins on round 2.

Random example. If 10 rounds = 1000% Melee. Warriors are 100 each round. Mages are 200, 200, then 75 for the next 8.

So Rangers could be something like 180, then 65, 80, 95, 105, 115, 120, 120, 120. (Can be any numbers..lower first turn than what I show here, and then more evened out ramp after)

Throw this Burst-Ramp (which is acting like a surprise attack) on top of my FD Ranger Sniper Mode Idea. This will both be effective for FO and FD builds.

(I think other suggestions have issues. Any suggestion that double dips damage because you landed hits just means BTH boosting will be meta, and OP) As much as people dislike ramp, I wonder if this version of ramp would go over better? The "Surprise Attack" Ramp

The #1 complaint about ramp is what? "It sucks at the beginning" So make the idea a surprise attack before the ramp kicks in and make turn 1's surprise attack bursty, then begin ramp.

< Message edited by Sapphire -- 1/28/2024 21:05:17 >
Post #: 105
1/29/2024 16:35:03   
Ogma
Member

I like the idea of DEX build, thief, archer and the like, takes advantage over an enemy offbalanced/distracted. If YourDEX > 0 and enemy has at least one bad status, you have X% chance to gain "Opportunistic play", a renamed Celerity just for the player alone, the enemy can resist YourDEX/LUK vs enemyDEX/LUK. X% depends on your DEX and with how many bad status the enemy has (maybe have a cap). DEX build would be incentivized to inflict status on enemy to press on their advantage. Ranged build rely on resourcefulness rather "brute force" of STR build, or some such.
AQ  Post #: 106
1/29/2024 22:00:36   
Bu Kek Siansu
Member
 

 http://forums2.battleon.com/f/fb.asp?m=22401773
quote:

Game Engine 45.73
- New popups and battle log! Thanks 133spider!
- Melee weapon attack and spells now use STR*3/20 + LUK/40 for BTH.
- Magic weapon attack and spells now use INT*3/20 + LUK/40 for BTH.
- Ranged weapon attacks and spells now use DEX/8 for damage.
- Blocking is back at DEX/10 + LUK/20.
- Your initiative bonus is now +(LUK + STR/2 +DEX/2 + INT/2)/2.
- New: All weapon attack now gain +STR/160 stat damage.
- Players and monsters now gain +END/50 status resistance.
- Players and monsters now gain +[END/20]% incoming HP healing.


NOTES:
- We dropped the planned DEX bonuses to initiative and status potence. Upon reflection, they were excessive.


Would it be possible to add CHA to the initiative bonus for the sake of Tank Beastmaster builds with 250 END/CHA/LUK?
So, then if it's reasonable:
- Your initiative bonus is now +(LUK + STR/2 +DEX/2 + INT/2 + CHA/2)/2.


http://forums2.battleon.com/f/fb.asp?m=22414107
quote:

Stat Overhaul Details

CHARISMA

Base Behavior Changes:
  • Pet and guest accuracy is now based on [Mainstat+CHA] instead of DEX+CHA.


    • Is there a way to improve Pet and guest accuracy since END is not as a Mainstat?
    How about another New Year's Surprise [CHA] for the sake of Tank Beastmaster builds with 250 END/CHA/LUK?

    Post #: 107
    1/30/2024 16:15:31   
    Dardiel
    Member

    		I posted my opinions at the beginning of the thread, I have kept it largely updated as my thoughts developed but I figured I should make a second post with my final summarized thoughts on everything. To help keep things quick, I'll use the brand new...

    Frogzard rating system: Two zards, first one is the main score and second one is a lean slightly in the direction of that second one. Stoplight colors of green/yellow/red for perfect/meh/bad
    = perfect
    = good
    = okay
    = not the worst
    = funky
    = worrying
    = bad

    For each update category that I have opinions on, I'll post my favorite proposal with my frogzard rating for how much I like it as well as any notes or alternatives.

    STRENGTH: IDENTITY
    Initial Proposition: Warrior Lean

    STRENGTH: STYLE BONUS
    Initial Proposition: +15% weapon damage, 5% melee Choke / 4 turns, every 10th turn
    I would make it an even split, 10% to offense and 10% to defense. I would also make the choke be a player-side eleShield or back-end damage multiplier, and make the effect more of a long term thing than just covering the burst window.

    DEXTERITY: IDENTITY
    My Proposition: Compensating Damage/Accuracy Multiplier
    I strongly believe that the multiplier should be uncapped, since it already auto-adjusts itself to prevent crazy scenarios and it creates a niche for auto-hit weapons to get infinite ramp in a way that isn't the "do nothing and you get damage buffs" issue of the current system.

    DEXTERITY: STYLE BONUS
    Opportunism as a concept; giving bonuses to the setup+payoff loop
    I haven't seen any individual idea I think is perfect, but I think the concept in general is great.

    INTELLECT
    Jeanne's Wallbreaker proposition, but applied to all attacks instead of only spells and giving a bonus other than damage.
    Applying to everything is for the style bonus to be more clearly a bonus for hybridization. Giving a bonus that isn't damage prevents the system from rewarding players for just using elecomped armor skills/spells, and makes it non-comparable to harm thus creating reasons to use harm or to attack a lower element.

    ENDURANCE
    Initial Proposition: +5% melee status resistance, +5% melee heal resistance (ie stronger heals)
    Funky because it's only a 10% boost. There should be 20% to match every other stat, but I have no real opinions beyond that. Maybe a reward for playing defensive, so that the stat feels more interactive?

    CHARISMA
    Jeanne/Gibby's sentiments that Guest output should keep at 60%
    As per the sentiments, 60% output means any items that use guest hardcoded guest output assumptions will remain balanced in that regard. Using the style bonus to reduce costs seems very reasonable, in addition to the idea that secondary stats give value just for existing (eg END giving health, LUK giving lucky strikes and bonuses to rolls). If it's easy to update the items or just not that big a deal overall, I also support having guest output be 40% melee with a 25% chance of Ferocious Strike - it's the best symmetry between guest power and pet power, so very player friendly for knowing what something can do.

    LUCK
    Boosting outcomes/odds for things the player will do, or granting random beneficial statuses
    I think flipping a status means Luck's style bonus will swing between literally useless and extremely powerful depending on the fight, while player-side buffs would only swing based on RNG. Variance to potentially make the effect more interesting could easily be applied, with durations that could be randomly chosen ranging from 1 turn to permanent and several beneficial statuses that could be chosen from.

    < Message edited by Dardiel -- 1/31/2024 11:47:29 >
    Post #: 108
    1/30/2024 17:28:36   
    Sapphire
    Member

    		^

    1. Agree on Strength, it's sort of what I said

    2. No issues with what you're saying with INT I guess, but making it only work on spells does promote spellcasting. INT-trained Hybrids , in theory, should be spellcasting.

    3. If we are rewarding accuracy with damage , that's an OP idea and front loading BTH will be double-dipping and will become Ranger-Meta. However, still completely unsure exactly how the Opportunism or damage identity works. I just know there's an accuracy aspect. Again, if that aspect rewards hitting by enhancing damage then players will just ensure they don't miss via support items.

    4. I'm not against leaving guests at 60%, but if we leave guests at 60% and we remove the FS idea, what we have is just a nerf to upkeep comparatively. There would be no actual style bonus. It'd just be a nerf. You can't nerf something and then "not nerf it as much" and then say "we lessened the nerf by calling it a style bonus". That's ridiculous. In addition to that, staff already abandoned upkeep discounts to appease Non BM's. So the style bonus was bonus damage in the form of FS.
    If they're going to up the melee valuation to 60%, does this mean 50% melee at base and then get the 10% back in the 22% FS rate at some specific damage output? Does upkeep become higher than the 30% as suggested?

    At the end of the day, those who are against the FS idea don't like the RNG aspect because they're so utterly used to 0 procs, and being able to have hypercrits, etc. This FS idea paves the way for item support...increasing FS damage, rates, etc etc and new ideas tend to eventualy mean new ideas for items. That alone makes me prefer FS, so I wouldn't mind a bit more RNG. I mean, excitement from a FS at an opportune time IMO means more fun than just leaving guest output the same but nerfing upkeep and claiming "we lessened the nerf via a faux style bonus" I think this is the mental approach to CHA from staff, and I appreciate it.
    Post #: 109
    1/30/2024 18:01:55   
    CH4OT1C!
    Member

    		@Dardiel
  • Agreed with Warrior.
  • Not a fan of the infinite DEX ramp idea, that's just asking for trouble
  • Regarding INT, @Weeum and I had been discussing the same thing elsewhere. This would remove the biggest problem @RobynJoanne raised regarding the modifier that would need to be applied to Wallbreaker. The upshot of those conversations is that I would prefer the Wallbreaker effect not to be normalised if this happened, in order to give the advantage to spells (otherwise it would work better on Weapon-based skills...)

    @Sapphire:
  • I think the idea is keep it at 60%, and then use the style bonus to reduce cost by 20%. So a 60/40 split as I pointed out here. It would be a straight nerf, but Guests frankly need a straight nerf.

    EDIT: On END, it's been raised that perhaps one solution would be to cut HP by 10% at 250 END to provide heal resistance and status resistance. Certainly, we don't often make use of the HP we have...

    EDIT #2: Quick note in response to @Korriban Gaming's claim that an increase of Guest costs by 4% would be an acceptable nerf to all: This would categorically not be acceptable to me. Guests require a significant nerf to become remotely reasonable as compared to other playstyles. Increasing the cost by a mere 16 SP is not nearly enough.


    < Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 1/30/2024 21:30:42 >
    • AQ  Post #: 110
    1/30/2024 18:12:02   
    Aura Knight
    Member

    		The worries of ferocious strikes being unreliable would cease if we get items or effects which help increase it. Or you know just boost the rate itself while losing some power from regular hits.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 111
    1/30/2024 18:33:59   
    Grace Xisthrith
    Member
     

    		 How can you disagree with someone with a zard tiering system? Push it to live servers and call it a day : p

    Jokes aside:
    mainly agree on STR.
    mainly agree on DEX. This system would solve the issue that it's so easy to overcap on accuracy. Think the infinite interaction is fine, if someone wants to swing with autohits for 30 turns they can do that
    mainly agree on INT. Not normalized like Chaotic says is good, arbitrarily nerfing the power is good to not buff mages. Still would prefer harm but not really a huge difference IMO
    mainly agree on CHA. Guests at 60% or Valencia kills a truffle (no ferocious strikes because the game does not need Optico 2 in the future)
    somewhat agree on LUK: I'm be more concerned about the status flipping cuz it seems wild but not a big deal
    somewhat agree on END: I don't think it needs a more style bonus in game, regardless of the 20% melee plan

    Overall my favorite agreement is on DEX. Giving it the lean adjustment (miss get +bth lean, hit get -bth lean) would make it unique, have its own identity, and enable fun synergies, and enable players to not have to worry about overcapping accuracy like it's so easy to do. Very big on this idea
    AQ  Post #: 112
    1/30/2024 21:07:22   
    Korriban Gaming
    Banned
    quote:

    I would make it an even split, 10% to offense and 10% to defense. I would also make the choke be a player-side eleShield or back-end damage multiplier, and make the effect more of a long term thing than just covering the burst window.

    Interesting thought, I actually like this idea!

    quote:

    I strongly believe that the multiplier should be uncapped, since it already auto-adjusts itself to prevent crazy scenarios and it creates a niche for auto-hit weapons to get infinite ramp in a way that isn't the "do nothing and you get damage buffs" issue of the current system.

    Agree though I do feel the ramp up could still be slightly better

    Style bonus of DEX is still meh, I've seen a few decent suggestions here though.

    quote:

    Jeanne's Wallbreaker proposition, but applied to all attacks instead of only spells and giving a bonus other than damage.

    I went back to read through Jeanne's proposition again and those proposed numbers for normalization is actually something I'd be 120% onboard with. I hope we go this route if we're keeping Wallbreaker

    quote:

    Funky because it's only a 10% boost. There should be 20% to match every other stat, but I have no real opinions beyond that. Maybe a reward for playing defensive, so that the stat feels more interactive?

    While I don't think END needs changes I agree, it shouldn't only be getting 10% when everything else is getting 20%

    quote:

    As per the sentiments, 60% output means any items that use guest hardcoded guest output assumptions will remain balanced in that regard. Using the style bonus to reduce costs seems very reasonable, in addition to the idea that secondary stats give value just for existing (eg END giving health, LUK giving lucky strikes and bonuses to rolls).

    Fully agree, scrap all that RNG that is FS and just give us base power and cost reduction instead.

    quote:

    what we have is just a nerf to upkeep comparatively. There would be no actual style bonus. It'd just be a nerf. You can't nerf something and then "not nerf it as much" and then say "we lessened the nerf by calling it a style bonus". That's ridiculous. In addition to that, staff already abandoned upkeep discounts to appease Non BM's. So the style bonus was bonus damage in the form of FS.
    If they're going to up the melee valuation to 60%, does this mean 50% melee at base and then get the 10% back in the 22% FS rate at some specific damage output? Does upkeep become higher than the 30% as suggested?

    No matter how you math it, whether it's with FS or without, it would still be a nerf to CHA. If you looked through my previous post, using the 20% style bonus, we can still have power at 60% and only increasing upkeep cost by 4% overall. That is a nerf that would be 100% acceptable for everyone

    quote:

    This FS idea paves the way for item support...increasing FS damage, rates, etc etc and new ideas tend to eventualy mean new ideas for items. That alone makes me prefer FS, so I wouldn't mind a bit more RNG. I mean, excitement from a FS at an opportune time IMO means more fun than just leaving guest output the same but nerfing upkeep and claiming "we lessened the nerf via a faux style bonus" I think this is the mental approach to CHA from staff, and I appreciate it.

    Basing expectations off items that have not even been created much less conceptualized is so dangerous, because it might never even happen (also keeping in mind how long it takes for stuff to actually happen in this game).

    Also, quoting what Grace said here
    quote:

    (no ferocious strikes because the game does not need Optico 2 in the future)

    How likely is it that we'll even see something like that. As a CHA user myself, I'd rather not take any chances. I'll prefer keeping my base power and cost reduction thank you very much

    quote:

    I think flipping a status means Luck's style bonus will swing between literally useless and extremely powerful depending on the fight, while player-side buffs would only swing based on RNG. Variance to potentially make the effect more interesting could easily be applied, with durations that could be randomly chosen ranging from 1 turn to permanent and several beneficial statuses that could be chosen from.

    Agree. It could be useless in a lot of fights which falls under the same concerns I have with CHA. Though that being said, we have been seeing more bosses with status effects so that might make this more useful in the future (unlike CHA whereby there's no actual trends to show item support for buffing guests yet)

    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 113
    1/30/2024 22:49:31   
    Aura Knight
    Member

    		Ferocious strikes can be good if done properly. The change coming to guests is drastic with the lower output and higher upkeep cost. Relying on the chance to double the output is bad when we can instead put the power back to damage.

    10% power loss, 8% cost increase FS chance boosted to 40% with the benefit being 1.5x output not the 2x. This lowers the damage loss, offers reasonable upkeep cost and makes the bonus of ferocious strikes less reliant on just luck.

    You can't kill charisma while empowering the other stats and tell us it's a good idea.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 114
    1/30/2024 23:50:45   
      Lorekeeper
    And Pun-isher

     

    		 Charisma is not being killed, and other stats gaining in power does not support this notion. Please review the design notes post for a thorough explanation, as we need to all be on the same page about the revamp's goals to process feedback. The thread has a detailed breakdown of how and why the balance of power between the stats has been thrown off for a long time.
    Post #: 115
    1/31/2024 0:29:15   
    Aura Knight
    Member

    quote:

    Charisma is not being killed, and other stats gaining in power does not support this notion.


    Not entirely but the power loss for guests is significant. It's the only loss of note here. I don't agree that guests were ever overpowered. The very idea never crossed my mind. They had lower damage output at the mentioned 60% yet they're to be further dropped while mainstats will see empowerment.

    quote:

    We need to all be on the same page about the revamp's goals to process feedback


    Right but this doesn't mean we'll agree with the ideas. With all the varying discussions the processing of feedback should be doable with little issue provided everyone's thoughts hold equal power. If the changes to come go as initially proposed there wouldn't be a point to this.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 116
    1/31/2024 5:28:48   
    CH4OT1C!
    Member

    		@Aura Knight: The power loss is meant to be significant, because guests are extremely overpowered. Based on their current output, they should cost 235 SP or 313 MP at Level 150 per turn. It is incredibly unfair to every non-beast build in the game. Guests also offer an incredible range of versatility in terms of effects. Furthermore, the stat update is doing something unprecedented (and usually impossible) by buffing everything so that the drop isn't as severe. It won't kill CHA so much as bring it in line with everything else.

    Neither would a cost increase of 4% be remotely acceptable as an adequate solution. While I have no doubt it would make some happy for guests to remain overpowered, it would not come close to solving the problem.

    I suggest we run with 60% guest output (i.e. no loss in damage), using the style bonus fully for cost reduction. This means guests will cost 157 SP or 209 MP per turn to maintain. I recognise that this is a significant cost increase, but it will preserve damage output, as well as all of the interacting mechanics that rely on 60% output as noted in @RobynJoanne's post.

    Post Below: While it can't really be tackled by the stat update, it's an excellent point. Should MP-cost guests be produced in future? They are clearly unfair.


    < Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 1/31/2024 6:46:30 >
    AQ  Post #: 117
    1/31/2024 6:29:00   
    legendd
    Member
     

    		 While we are at it, why not fix the issue where guests' MP upkeep is unfair for non-mage builds ? I.e., beast-mages have the SP bar free to do other things when they use Summon (To avoid future build identity debate again ).

    Sorry if this was discussed by any of the previous posters. Do not have the opportunity to read everything.
    Post #: 118
    1/31/2024 8:18:05   
    Ogma
    Member

    		On a 20 turns standard, if set MP guest to always attack during these 20 turns, then the guest power should amount to (2000 - 75*20)/20 = 25% Melee, and MP cost would be 653*4/20 = 130 MP per turn.
    If we set MP guest at 60% Melee, the guest will attack less than 20 times : (2000 - 75*20)/60 = 8.33..., rounding down you deal 1980% Melee in 20 turns or rounding up for 2040% Melee in 20 turns. And MP cost would be 653*4/8 = 326 MP per turn or 653*4/9 = 290 MP per turn if we allow that 40% free.

    Since we have "efficient spell", can we make distinctions for guest too? Efficient guest, standard guest, even overcharged guest.

    < Message edited by Ogma -- 1/31/2024 8:28:05 >
    AQ  Post #: 119
    1/31/2024 12:42:12   
    Aura Knight
    Member

    quote:

    the stat update is doing something unprecedented (and usually impossible) by buffing everything


    Replacing guaranteed damage with a chance boost isn't much of a buff. Guests couldn't possibly be a problem when we have skills costing under 100 sp for melee/range hitting in the upper thousands.

    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 120
    1/31/2024 13:51:51   
    Sapphire
    Member

    quote:

    While we are at it, why not fix the issue where guests' MP upkeep is unfair for non-mage builds ? I.e., beast-mages have the SP bar free to do other things when they use Summon (To avoid future build identity debate again ).

    Sorry if this was discussed by any of the previous posters. Do not have the opportunity to read everything.



    I've talked about this at great length in a variety of places. The MP upkeep guest is both a problem and not a problem. But IMO the MP upkeep guest should be on a separate standard than the SP upkeep guest, but that won't happen.

    Let's assume a Mage variant Beastmaster is using MP guests, and then let's compare them to Rangers/Warriors who'd be using SP upkeep guests. Let's also assume pet and guest accuracy are fixed. And lets assume 60% guest valuation.

    The Ranger and Warrior, using a FD armor will be doing 100% melee per turn. Bows and Warrior Lean will ensure this. Over 20 turns, this is 2000% Melee each. The guest will be doing 60%, and the pet will be doing 40% per turn. This is another 100% Melee, and thus is another 2000% melee over 20 turns. In total, the Ranger and Warrior will be doing 4,000% melee, while in a FD armor.

    The Mage is assumed to be using spells by virtue of the spell slot and it's MP bar. This feature lowers it's weapon damage to 75% Melee. Normally it'd be doing 4 spell casts for 800% Melee and then 16 turns at 75% for a total of 1200% melee, for a grand total of 2000% Melee. A pet is assumed in the model, but w/o CHA it's value is 20%, so 20x 20=400 for a final total of 2400% Melee. But because for a Mage the use of the spell slot is assumed, if the Mage trains CHA the game's assumptions do not assume the Mage to use a Guest instead of a Spell since the assumptions don't change. This is absurd in reality. However, lets say we swap out 8 spells that represent the 8 elements in favor of 8 MP Guests that represent the 8 elements , which would be common sense.

    Now not having access to spells this means the player is at 20 turns of 75% (using wands in a FD armor) for 1500% Melee. Then the guest is 60% Melee and the pet is now worth 40% melee due to CHA being trained. This is the same 2000% as Rangers and Warriors. But because the MAge's player-side damage is reduced by 25% per turn for having access to spells as per the standard EVEN THOUGH SPELLS ARN"T USED in this model...the Mage who uses all MP upkeep Guests come in at 2000+1500=3500% Melee...500% Less the Rangers and Warriors.

    The reality is that a Mage using MP upkeep guests are not on par with Rangers and Warriors due to the drop in weapon damage.

    In order to catch up, the Mage must use an SP guest instead and choose all TOMES. I have mapped out several models in which the Mages chooses to draw mana from the tome ...and in every case I am only able to manage to get to 4000% Melee in 20 turns, which matches Rangers and Mages. This is the only BeastMage item-loadout that can catch up to BeastRangers and BeastWarriors on paper using standard assumptions and the model.

    The 3 massive caveats here are as follows, with one being bad for BeastMages and the other two being good for BeastMages.

    A.Bad- Access to an abundance of Tomes isn't a viable strategy, as their creation is rather anemic and several are premium
    B. Good- The MP bar does provide a ton of versatility and so if you can access spells, guests, etc via other items it can save a spot here and there
    C. Good and bad. The creation of the weapon with the compressed spell can give the player both access to a spell and a "bonk", but lacks MP regen. Also, these are a new idea and they have yet to have a pure damage option contained within them. For some this is a no-go while for others that's fine.

    So the MP upkeep guest is actually completely fine on paper because it's actually less damage than the alternative options. I used to think MP upkeep guests were bad and shouldnt have been created but once you sort of use logic and common sense and map out some scenarios it will show the opposite. Not changing my mind on this, don't forsee any viable arguments otherwise.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



    Now, onto the real topic:

    I am seeing proposals to bump guest output back to 60%. On the surface, I was fine with this because I thought that came with 2 caveats: A. FS damage would be included B. If it meant an upkeep increase, a very minor would (5% to match the 5% damage) would be OK with me.

    However, in actuality, there seems to be a movement to use this as an excuse to further increase guest upkeep by even more than logical conclusions, much less just an amount to match the 5% bump in power. (As you've seen even in this thread, some are saying 60% guest output for 40% increase)

    The result here would be keeping guest output the same but doubling the upkeep, then claiming the style bonus just be a "smaller nerf to upkeep" in essence. And not only that, some people are wanting this while also killing the FS idea

    I'm sorry, folks, but the baseline for comparison when debating what CHA and guests should be is no longer the 21% upkeep and 60% output. It's 30% upkeep and 45% melee output+10% damage add-on in the form of FS which also boosts status power BTW

    So since the needle has moved, to me since staff has now put on paper that specific proposal, any further drastic interations to nerf CHA for me is off the table. And people need to understand what is really going on with these proposals to reboost guests back to 60%.

    Now: 60% Melee for 21% Upkeep
    Staff: 45% Melee for 30% Upkeep, but a FS mechanic that doubles damage (45->90%) at 22% rate which averages to 55% over time. So 5% damage Nerf for 9% upkeep nerf. The style bonus is FS mechanic.
    New players nerf proposal 1: Keep Guest output at 60% but Heckate-Nerf guest upkeep to 40%...so here eat this.
    Alternate extra nerf proposal 2: Keep Guest output at 60%, but this is actually some number lower and then FS brings this up to 60, but also 40% upkeep regardless.


    Na, I'll take staff's proposal. Thanks, but no thanks.

    < Message edited by Sapphire -- 1/31/2024 13:54:35 >
    Post #: 121
    1/31/2024 13:54:23   
      Lorekeeper
    And Pun-isher

     

    		 The exact manner in which guests are a problem, as well as the larger problematic system that this error was both caused by and a part of, is explained in the design notes post that the original post in this discussion requires reading as context.

    quote:

    Guests have always provided several times the power they paid for, as they were originally designed based on a damage and accuracy model that was never implemented. Their cost discount was meant to be a decompression bonus for using Beastmaster weapons, as part of this model in which CHA would have been a main stat and DEX a secondary one. Since this old model was never completed, and guest costs couldn't be dynamically adjusted, the end result is essentially a spell being cast every turn that only pays part of its actual cost. That really isn't fair to any other build.
    Post #: 122
    1/31/2024 13:58:20   
    Korriban Gaming
    Banned


    		 I don't think most people are intentionally supporting 30% upkeep. At least I know that is clearly not what I intended. Perhaps some are confused on what keeping the 60% power would entail, in which case I'd say once again, use whatever power is in FS to lower the cost
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 123
    1/31/2024 14:12:13   
      Lorekeeper
    And Pun-isher

     

    		 One can't exactly discount feedback because there's a nebulous possibility that it might be unintentional. That method would effectively discount all feedback while only leaving room for arbitrary caveats.

    We'll be reviewing all feedback and providing a major update to the discussion soon, folks. Expect more information in a few days as we work on release stuff and coordinate our schedules to clear time to properly compile information.
    Post #: 124
    1/31/2024 15:18:54   
    Ninjaty
    Member

    		I am really looking forward to CHA using mainstats instead of DEX. A lot of the pets I like are below level 100, so any bonus accuracy for them will be super appreciated.

    One question, in relation to DEX no longer being the universal accuracy stat: As I understand it, the status inflicted by Airenal's Might is supposed to lower enemy accuracy; so if that understanding is correct, will the status inflicted by that armor be swapped out for something more universally applicable?
    Post #: 125
    Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
    All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback!
    Page 5 of 10«<34567>»
    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