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 7 of 10«<56789>»
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
2/3/2024 14:47:05   
Grace Xisthrith
Member
 

That's very true about neutral lean not recently being powercrept (although it's last situational use, STR builds, was now powercrept), it's been a long time since they've been meta.
I do have a question, when you say, "This is compounded by the fact that Neutral Lean itself can't be changed without altering the others too, as their modifiers are relative to it," is that a factor of the code? Or a factor of precedent, IE neutral lean was first, so the other leans were built off of it. From my understanding, armor leans are coded on a universal basis, and can have their elemental damage intake modified on a universal basis (currently armor leans don't impact harm or void damage, I'm led to believe this could be changed universally), so there isn't anything stopping neutral lean from being changed on that end, unless FD lean is coded as Neutral x .8, and FO is neutral x 1.25, or something like that, which would obviously lead to issues in changing neutral lean.

If it's not a factor of the code, but only of the precedent, I'll voice my opinion for neutral lean to receive a small buff. It could be renamed (balanced comes to mind), but something like 1.1 output .9 input, or 1.05 output .95 input, could serve as a way to do that. I think there are pros and cons to this, and I'll discuss them.

I think one of the pros of neutral lean being 1:1 is it is completely simple and easy to understand. While I don't think the lean system is complicated in general at the moment, potentially having FD be different depending on 2 of the 3 held weapon types, and FO and FD behaving (as they do today) different for weapons that attack as procs (making weapons like Nemesis Mace and Edge of End 0 Proc misleading in their claims of +25% damage in FO), adding Neutral Lean not actually being neutral, but being 5 or 10% this way or that way could add confusion. Another benefit of neutral lean is it can lead to built in progression. Werepyre starts as neutral lean, and only can become FO when you unlock level 10. Same (sort of) with paladin and necromancer, and even archer and fighter to master archer and master fighter (not sure about that last one, if the base armors of FD / FO or not). Staff could also use neutral lean as a way to balance an armor, the effects are very good, but the lean is suboptimal (I don't think they've ever done that, but personally I'd try anything once). I think there's another positive aspect of this I'm currently forgetting, I may edit it in in the future.

With that being said, the main con of leaving Neutral 1:1 is that it would be even more crept than it is already. Is this an issue, since the staff hasn't released a neutral armor without a lean change (tough luck paladin and necro adventurers I guess) in several years? Honestly, not really. But that being said, there are a variety of neutral lean armors that do still see use today. White Knight Z is neutral lean, a majority of older MC sets, which I've personally observed many returning players to greatly enjoy collecting, are all neutral lean. Yulgar's beginner armors, which I often recommend to newer or returning players before they get their gear sorted, are neutral lean. Every low level old armor people might use in the early game (I'd need a fact check on this, as I'm not sure if they're actually neutral, or don't have a lean at all) are neutral lean. Giving these armors a small buff to stay a little more relevant, I think would be a nice change.

That's my opinion, and I think that if there isn't a code reason it would take significant dev time, or it would actually upset the other 3 major leans, the pros of buffing neutral lean outweigh the cons of buffing neutral lean. I also think a balanced lean works thematically, instead of taking an intense change in lean, which either lets you deal much more damage, or take much less damage, you get an unbalanced buff (less monster damage more player damage) but it's much smaller.
AQ  Post #: 151
2/3/2024 15:41:46   
Ogma
Member

Is there even a situation where both the choice of being defensive or of being offensive being punished? Being balanced doesn't seem to have merit when you can win in either setup.
AQ  Post #: 152
2/3/2024 16:26:55   
Red Blood
Member

In some challenge content FO is flat out punished but that is also a very small subset that content to be fair. Namely War-torn Dragon if you need a direct example of FD being the better option if you wish to "win" and get the title.
AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 153
2/3/2024 16:31:14   
Sapphire
Member

Summons Guest = 60%
Call Guest = 45%


Mage using wands(75%) and Summons Guest (60%) and 20 rounds of pet and a Summons Guest=(40x20)+(60x20)+(75x20)=3500

Mage using tomes and Call Guest (45%) and 20 rounds of pet and Call Guest = (40x20)+(45x20)+(200x10)**= 3700

**Tome Use Mapping Model Below:

quote:

2632 MP to start. The model works the same regardless of where you "Draw Mana", I've mapped this out with several diff scenarios. Here, I will cast a spell as long as I have MP, then draw mana until I have enough

Turn 1: Spell (200%) 2632-653=1979 MP left
Turn 2 Spell (200%) 1979-653=1326 MP left
Turn 3: Spell (200%) 1326-653=673 MP left
Turn 4: Spell (200%) 673-653=20 MP left
Turn 5 Draw Mana (0%) 20+395=415 MP left
Turn 6: Draw Mana (0%) 415+395=810 MP left
Turn 7: Spell (200%) 810-653=157 MP left
Turn 8: Draw Mana (0%) 157+395= 552 MP left
Turn 9: Draw Mana (0%) 552+395= 947 MP left
Turn 10: Spell (200%) 947-653= 294 MP left
Turn 11:Draw Mana (0%) 294+395=689 MP left
Turn 12: Spell (200%) 689-653= 36 MP left
Turn 13: Draw Mana (0%) 36+395= 431 MP left
Turn 14: Draw Mana (0%) 431+395=826 MP left
Turn 15: Spell (200%) 826-653= 173 MP left
Turn 16: Draw Mana (0%) 173+395= 568 MP left
Turn 17: Draw Mana (0%) 568+395=963 MP left
Turn 18: Spell (200%) 963-653= 310 MP left
Turn 19: Draw Mana (0%) 310+395=705 MP left
Turn 20: Spell (200%) 705-653=52 MP left

10 Spell casts x 200%=2000% Melee



Ranger/Warrior Lean using pwt and Call Guest (45%) = (40x20)+(45x20)+(100x20)=3700



So to

A. Keep Neutral Lean Relevent
B. Make all Beast Build equal, regardless of "style"

~You'd need to Drop Bows and Warrior Lean to 90%, and keep Call Guests at 45%..resulting in 3500% over 20 turns
~Keep Summons guests at 60%. You're assumed to use Wands here, which are 75%.
~ Drop Spell Damage inside Tomes to 180% due to compression which drops that 3700 down to 3500.

Now you have the same 3500% melee no matter the build over 20 turns.

< Message edited by Sapphire -- 2/3/2024 16:34:18 >
Post #: 154
2/4/2024 22:01:49   
  Lorekeeper
And Pun-isher

 

Information Update


After reading your feedback, we're making several major adjustments to our stat revamp plans to both correct mathematical errors and better align the changes being made with the goals of the project. As we're fast approaching feature freeze on the project, we're posting these to keep everyone updated as well as gather a last round of preliminary feedback until noon EST on Tuesday the 6th.

After that point, barring any extreme circumstances, concepts will be frozen and we will not have time left to make major changes. This is the last chance to present general suggestions for stat behaviors. Because this is so close to the deadline, and stats are foundational aspects of the game's balance, we have to further emphasize that the most likely suggestions to be workable are those that take the game's balance into consideration. If you're satisfied with the upcoming changes to a stat, great! If you're not, this would be the time to present concrete suggestions!

Once this period of the discussion ends, we have to freeze the actual changes to begin working on them. We will then move the discussion to Game Balance Issues, where a general thread and a thread for each stat will be opened. The purpose of the GBI threads will be to iron out the balance of the changes and catch any last minute errors, not general discussion (This thread will remain for that purpose) or coming up with new and completely different ideas. These threads will be posted ahead of time for the sake of convenience, and we will keep a close eye on them until a final deadline of Wednesday the 7th at 11:59 EST.



General Changes

Most Style Bonuses were miscalculated and provided around 10% melee in benefit. Rather than double their power, which would be out of the question due to extreme power creep, or filling out the entire gap, which would delay the design phase beyond what we have time for, we're making a compromise by setting the value of a Style Bonus to 15% melee. This will still make most stats even stronger than the prior bonuses suggested.

Summary #2


quote:


STRENGTH

Base Behavior Changes:
  • Enable "Warrior Lean": FD armours deal 100% outdoing damage and take 80% incoming damage.

    Style Bonus:
  • +10% to all weapon damage.
  • Counterattack: inflict damage when attacked, hit or miss, for each hit. Worth [2.5% Melee of an expected player attack] per hit, follows weapon type+element but doesn't get weapon effects


    DEXTERITY

    Base Behavior Changes:
  • Ranged attacks once again have a baseline of 100% melee.
  • Adaptation: After each successful Ranged hit, the lean shifts by -0.75 BtH. After each miss, the lean shifts away from damage and towards accuracy by +4.25 BtH. The effect on damage would be a multiplier of 85/(85±LeanMod) damage. The maximum values are +/-20 BtH. If not performing any Ranged attacks, the lean change is frozen. When using an autohit attack, the lean does not shift nor affect the attack.

    Style bonus:
  • Weapon special attacks gain bonus output increasing logarithmically with their proc rate. With a power budget of 10%, this means 100 proc weapons will get a boost of 15% before being affected by DEX's adaptive behavior.
  • +3 Blocking


    INTELLECT

    Base Behavior Changes: None.

    Style Bonus:
  • Wallbreaker: Value adjusted to a 15% melee style bonus.
    >> Example: Against 90% resistance, spells deal +3.75% damage. Equivalent of hitting 93.375% resistance.
    >> Example: Against 50% resistance, spells deal +18.75% damage. Equivalent of hitting 59.375% resistance.
    >> Example: Against 10% resistnace, spells deal +33.75% damage. Equivalent of hitting 13.375% resistance.


    ENDURANCE

    Base Behavior Changes:
  • ENEMY ONLY: Reduced health scaling.

    Style Bonus:
  • [Implemented] Increased status resistance
  • [Implemented] Increased heal resistance
  • Once per battle, break out of and remove any stun effect.


    CHARISMA

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

  • Guest stats adjusted to account for paying a third of the actual cost of their output:
  • Base guest output reduced to 45% Melee from 60%
  • Base guest Cost increased to 30% Melee from 21%

    Style Bonus:
  • Guests gain Ferocious Strikes: A flat 22.2% chance to have double output (Damage, status effects, etc).
  • Increase guest output by +5% Melee (50% Melee total)


    LUCK

    Base Behavior Changes:
  • Removed: Bonuses to blocking. No longer a part of the accuracy formula. Accuracy percentages remain the same; it simply doesn't take LUK to reach maximum accuracy.

    Relevant Accuracy Changes: Implementing a global accuracy floor. No attacks can be brought below a 5% chance to hit, regardless of other modifiers. This is a minimum result, and is unrelated to auto-hit and auto-block mechanics.

  • Added: Lucky Break. This is a player-only feature that gives a (LUK/50)% chance to cleanse one affliction and grant a buff worth 50% Melee.

      Lucky Break buffs are chosen as follows:
      - Non-stunning DPT effects (Burn, Bleed, etc) become Regeneration.
      - EleVuln becomes EleShield.
      - Damage or accuracy reductions (Choke, Panic, Blind) become Elemental Empowerment.
      - DefLoss becomes DefBoost.
      - Effects with a chance to stun you (Fear, Daze) would be cleansed with a 50% chance at Celerity.
      - Secondary stat reductions become a boost to the stat being reduced.
      - Main stat reductions become a boost to your main stat, using your held weapon's corresponding stat as a tie breaker.


    Style Bonus:
  • 15% additional Lucky Break chance.




  • Update Breakdowns


    STRENGTH

    Base behavior remains unchanged. As explained before, we cannot change the base value of STR due to its role as the root of the game's calculations.

    This places STR in a similar situation to the 20-turn model, which is not a dev statement on how much we want fights to last, but the estimate of how long players fight between full heals if they perform nothing but a bog standard set of actions. Both are root values for the game's calculations, with design ripples on par with redesigning all items and the entire combat system if we should alter them. As such, changes to STR's effective power remain focused on Warrior Lean and the Style Bonus.

    The prior bonuses had a number of issues. In tandem with Warrior Lean and DEX's damage ramping, they clearly spelled a return to the situation of DEX's niches being absorbed by other stats.


    DEXTERITY

    With FD Rangers taking an unacceptable 7 turns before achieving parity with defensive Warriors in the most recent iteration of the damage ramping, and offensive ones only having a shadow of an identity on the back of harming their counterpart, it was clearer than ever that we needed a fundamentally different approach. As such, we're trying a dual niche: Adaptability and opportunism.

    The current iteration of DEX's ramping is being discarded in favor of returning to what we originally planned to replace it with: An adaptive accuracy lean that shifts towards accuracy to counteract misses, and pushes toward damage when hitting to reward accuracy. This concept is based on the next closest submission to a fully working DEX behavior that we received during the prior iteration of our stat plans, and we were prepared to fall back to it should damage ramping prove undesirable.

    The Style Bonus has been replaced with an internal idea that was held in reserve due to uncertainty on the part of its proponent, with a formula for how to make it impactful that was helpfully provided by a player.

    We considered additional player ideas, such as ones involving additional hits, but unfortunately kept running into technical hurdles for implementation and had to keep to what was plausible.

    We also tried out ideas for separate lean modifiers for FD and FO rangers, but similar system limitations and time constraints made it so that these leans would have to wait for their potential place in another project.


    INTELLECT

    Base behavior for INT is still unchanged, and will remain that way. Because INT is the only stat that had a firmly fleshed out niche before, it's already at the level of success we want the other stats to achieve. As such, no changes that provide INT with a vertical increase in power will be made, similarly to how we're striving to avoid changes that make one stat infringe on the niche of another.

    The sole change to INT for the moment is Wallbreaker being changed according to the 15% Style Bonus value.


    ENDURANCE

    With an extra 5% melee budget to fill, END is being given a counter to stuns. While the deliberate inclusion of stun inflicting enemies in modern story content is rare, there is a larger backlog of enemies in older content that do reduce the player's action economy. END is the perfect stat to provide a limited counter to that

    CHARISMA

    Charisma's Style Bonus was one of the miscalculated ones. As its buff, we decided to give it an increase to guest output to maintain the average assumed output of guests. While a lot of players might prefer an upkeep reduction instead, Ianthe's update of guests has made it possible to provide for that issue through future gear support. Ferocious Strikes remain random due to not being a nuking feature. Similarly, we've corrected wording on Ferocious Strikes affecting boosting features. That was a major error that fundamentally clashed with the point of Style Bonuses: Rewarding stats for their respective styles. Nuking is INT's style, not CHA's.


    LUCK

    As it was universally disliked, we're removing the feature by which LUK's fresh gap of 5% melee in power was spent on adding to the player's accuracy floor.

    Instead, Lucky Break is being turned into base behavior, with the Style Bonus providing a bonus to bring its chance up to 20% at full LUK investment.



    < Message edited by Lorekeeper -- 2/4/2024 23:08:53 >
    Post #: 155
    2/4/2024 22:32:59   
    Grace Xisthrith
    Member
     

    Nobody's gonna be happy with everything, but I think this is a pretty reasonable proposal. Once again, before I start my commentary, I want to say thank you to the staff for being willing to take suggestions and communicate very clearly, and for working so hard on this ancient (but lovely) game.

    STR: We love caltrops? Jokes aside, seems reasonable although the hitcount could get high. The damage is quite low though, so probably not a big deal in a majority of situations. I like the flat damage was slightly lowered, +15% was a ton.

    DEX: Lean adjust fans stay winning, glorious. Style Bonus: This would give 115% output and 80% intake to FD rangers, and not impact optimal FO rangers at all. This would also stack with the +15% damage from STR. I think that's probably a bad idea. (I think it's a very bad idea).

    INT: Wallbreaker (this iteration) good, big mage buffs bad.

    END: Once per battle cleanse is nice, maybe even too strong but who is counting. Could make it a 5% chance at revive on 10% HP or something once per battle, if you wanted a placebo buff for END. I'm biased because I'd use this for unbeatables.

    CHA: So with ferocious strikes on top, guest average output would be 60% melee with 30% melee cost, if I'm reading this right. Please feel free to correct me if I'm not. I think the numbers would need minor adjustment if I'm understanding correctly (because the old ferocious strike chance doesn't take into account the new +5% output), but I love keeping guests at 60% melee output. I would prefer a standard 60% rather than an RNG 50-100%, for various reasons, but I'm here for a good time, it'll be okay.

    LUK: I'd give it a cleansing limit personally (IE, can't cleanse an 8 turn power 5 Baorus poison or something, only removes part of it or something), but it seems mostly reasonable for an RNG mechanic that will only come into effect on status specific bosses. Probably proportionately very strong against those bosses, if that's intended, then sounds good. Is there a 20% chance of this occurring? Is the stat behavior capped at 250 LUK? Or if you have 450 from rhubzard or miscs or whatever you get higher base chance?

    Best of luck with the release this week, thanks again for communicating so clearly.
    AQ  Post #: 156
    2/4/2024 22:38:07   
    Aura Knight
    Member

    Strength is a melee focused stat and should only add power to melee.

    Dex seems ok.

    Intellect remains a powerful stat but wallbreaker is a fail concept with my mind likely to never change. Thanks for existing harm damage.

    Endurance is ok though the once per battle stun removal might be too situational.

    Charisma I'm not too happy with but will hold off the hate due to the potential for future gear helping it.

    Luck isn't bad.

    This could be fine.

    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 157
    2/4/2024 22:40:08   
    Weeum
    Member

    Lots of interesting changes! Reactions to wallbreaker catching a stray from the style bonus budget change will be entertaining.

    I actually suggested warriorlash for dex on a lark flavored as a riposte as opposed to a counter attack so it's funny to see the direction that ended up going.

    Ranged's lean mastery is very :/ to me but hey can't win em all. That + the style bonus is a huge win over a super long ramp tho so that's a w we take those.

    Endurance makes sense. Stuns are super annoying anything to get over them is welcome.

    CHA I'm not even gonna touch.

    Luck still seems mad OP to me but I have a medical condition called smoothbrained so I can't really gauge how strong it's going to be in practice, maybe it's fine.

    --

    All in all I feel this is a much better pass. Very excited to get a hold of this when it's rolled out. Anything that opens up opportunities for new play patterns is a good change in my book.

    < Message edited by Weeum -- 2/4/2024 22:52:43 >
    AQ AQW  Post #: 158
    2/4/2024 22:53:51   
    Korriban Gaming
    Banned


    The valuation of 20% Melee for style bonuses was originally proposed by staff. I think most people were happy with that number. Why the sudden 180 turn in attitude now saying that 20% is "out of the question"?

    STR
    Seems fine to me though I'd have preferred if we kept the 15% to all weapon damage rather than only 10% now. Still alright with what it cureently is. Counterattack seems to be a suggestion from somewhere iirc, I quite like it.

    DEX
    Surprisingly after the tweak to the numbers, this seems alright. Will have to do some testing in-game to see once it's out

    INT
    This is the part I take the most issue with. While everyone agreed that INT didn't need a vertical power increase, they also agreed that the initially proposed numbers for Wallbreaker were bad. And now it's made even worse??? Was any of the feedback and other idea suggestions for INT even considered?

    CHA
    The extra 5% output is nice. Still not a fan of the FS idea. Would it be possible to remove the RNG from FS and give us a button to toggle it on whenever we need it similar to how DF recently revamped their weapon specials? Could add a cooldown to it too, thereby making it "on demand" rather than having it proc when we don't need to and not proccing when we most need it. Eagerly awaiting to see the new guest cost reduction items

    LUK
    I think this turned out better than what I was hoping for. Excited to see the changes! 1 question though, does this affect monsters that reduce your levels like Safiria? If yes, how does it affect it?
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 159
    2/4/2024 23:10:15   
      Lorekeeper
    And Pun-isher

     

    quote:

    The valuation of 20% Melee for style bonuses was originally proposed by staff. I think most people were happy with that number. Why the sudden 180 turn in attitude now saying that 20% is "out of the question"?


    Please be sure to read the staff posts in full.

    quote:

    Most Style Bonuses were miscalculated and provided around 10% melee in benefit. Rather than double their power, which would be out of the question due to extreme power creep, or filling out the entire gap, which would delay the design phase beyond what we have time for, we're making a compromise by setting the value of a Style Bonus to 15% melee. This will still make most stats even stronger than the prior bonuses suggested.


    The results we aimed for stemmed from a budget of 10% Melee, and doubling them would have made them stronger than intended. We still ended up buffing most of them.

    On the note of Wallbreaker, we still are very much open to feedback, and if there is a better way to use the new power budget with a formula way that doesn't result in powercreep or in attacking a lower resistance doing more damage than attacking a higher one, we'd love to see suggestions on it! However, we can't give INT special treatment with a higher value Style Bonus than the others. All stats get the same power budget.

    I edited the post to correct an accidental paste of the old CHA features. It now contains a clarification on Ferocious Strikes.

    As of level reductions, those wouldn't be flipped by Lucky Break.
    Post #: 160
    2/4/2024 23:17:40   
    Sapphire
    Member

    STR

    No real issues. I don't remember seeing a counterstrike proposal in all of that but I'm guessing it's there.

    DEX

    So glad the lean change made it. It literally was the least abusable aspect. I do predict some future refinement to 100 proc. Doing that much damage in a FD armor will be crazy. I love that potentially the old school weapon special might make a comeback, especially if staff implements items (armor/misc/weapons) that have traits that specifically boost the weapon special. I have a few of these ideas in my suggestion thread. This likely serves a better niche than Ramp up.

    INT

    Bad implementation made ...worse? I mean just scrap it and say INT is fine. Really, save yourself the work. IDk what the power budget would be, but just add in (pay for it somehow) a "versatility trigger" when all elements are 90 or below, then all magic spells ele-seek and their effects scale on the new sought element. IMO, this gives a few reasons to not use harm in 99% of these situations. If the notion is to just use elecomp than wallbreaker is more so tied to armors than spells. I'm actually flabbergasted here.

    LUK

    I'm fine with this. It will be a useful thing that's not very often at all. Mobs that inflict statuses isn't the norm, not even close. But it's something new and unique so thumbs up

    CHA
    A bit of confusion at first, but clarity provided in the bottom. The original proposal was 45% base and a 22% rate FS mechanic that doubled damage/effects. This was worth 10% melee. But the power budget is 15%, so it was missing 5%.

    That's the reason for -->Increase guest output by +5% Melee (50% Melee Total)

    So by adding in 5% damage on top of the 10% melee value Ferocious strikes, we now arrive at 15% style bonus. Upkeep remains at 30% out of sheer nicety. The proper approach whether people realize it or not. There will be those who will both balk at the upkeep and at the FS idea. But this is the best path forward for several reasons.

    Edit--> Removing Booster guest from FS was a necessary evil. Allowing them to do +90% 22% of the time was ...insane. This change will actually mean using normal guests for Beast Builds will be preferable..for once something that makes sense. The nerf to boosters is something I've been saying for a bit now, and so all of this 1-2 turn meta is now 3 turn meta. Join the BM club, folks!


    END

    Eh no comment. I dont train it, dont forsee training it, and so others can say what they want.

    __________________________________________________________________________________________

    TL;DR---> I'm good with everything here except INT. It almost feels like a do-over, or find a way within the budget to add in a feature that isnt vertical power. My suggestion inside the INT section IMO is that.

    < Message edited by Sapphire -- 2/4/2024 23:26:57 >
    Post #: 161
    2/4/2024 23:29:34   
    Mananite
    Member

    Changes look much healthier for the game overall, but I still have some issues with a few of the specifics:

    STR:
    Reducing the free damage the style bonus gives was sorely needed, especially when implemented in calculations (EG the functional turn 1 damage output of H-Series with the Initiative bonus would've made it trade blows with Kindred if it was implemented as +15%, completely eclipsing all other possible nukes in sheer stopping power. Granted, it already does that at base (and adjusting it would be something I would greatly welcome), but that's not the point of this thread).
    Changing the remaining budget to "Backlash at home" instead of on-demand Choke is much less degenerate and abusable. Clarification if it respects the whole "assumed hits" things hit-based effects have (where hit-based effects are capped at 4 hits); if it's uncapped, it'll create fringe cases of abuse where it starts providing a disproportionate amount of "free" damage against high hitcount encounters.

    Overall this is a much healthier style bonus, but I'm still not entirely convinced that STR won't still be a "mandatory" stat for weapon-based setups due to the "free" +10% boost. I feel that changing the power allocation to +7.5% boost and a 3.75% "backlash" (even 50/50 split) would be a safer initial option. Safer for player power to be undertuned and buffed instead of overtuned and nerfed.


    DEX:
    No complaints here. Removing damage rampup and changing it to accuracy modulation is amazing. On the other hand, I don't have any real strong feelings towards the style bonus; I'll reserve judgement until implementation and we can see how things play in practice, especially since Procs in general have always been in a state of "why do you even have a proc rate".

    INT:
    Nothing's changed from my initial impressions; INT has always been strong. Wallbreaker is neat as a "little extra", and helps reinforce the "Mage" part of INT, rather than the "better Warrior" situation that's been plaguing balance for the last decade.

    END:
    No changed from my initial impression.
    Clarification would be nice on order of operations (not that it matters in practice, but it's nice to just know) regarding the style bonus: If multiple items are equipped that "shake off" stuns (Lights of Destiny, Werepyre) and the END style bonus is active, in what order are they used? That is to say, if LoD/Werepyre already used their free once per battle use and the player is stunned again, would END's free removal kick in first, or would the item's 100% Melee cost take precedence? Conversely, would END's style bonus take precedence in activation order if all three are active when a stun is inflicted (or would they all happen at once and is a bug that should be addressed?)

    CHA:
    Still not entirely convinced Ferocious Strikes should apply to all Guest effects, especially when with style bonus, Guests can swing for 100% Melee worth of effect. Certain Guests would be pushed over the edge with that much power allocation, such as Dreadfiends (150%+ Backlash might as well just say "instantly kill the enemy" with how cursed the status is). Style bonus being a relative +10% boost to Guest baseline is something I'm also ambivalent towards, but Guests irrevocably having their worst-case baseline be weaker than how they are currently is a net positive in my books (granted, their average power is still 60% Melee, but I'm a believer in planning around worst case).
    Incidental inquiry regarding the reduced Guest power: how would this reduction in Guest power affect Guests that were implemented with an assumed 60% Melee power budget? Specifically I'm talking about Mogdin (and the Queen's Corgi), which trade all their damage for a guaranteed attempt at Paralysis, whose numbers only math out to 100% with the assumption of a 60% Melee power budget. I'm hoping situations like this are exceptions and not the norm, but it's still something to be cognizant of going forward.


    LUK:
    Initial impressions still remain: Decoupling from hitrate is welcome. Flooring accuracy is still something I'm not entirely onboard with, but I'm accepting it's a necessary evil given the absurdity of dodge setups.
    The clarification on Lucky Breaks is appreciated, but some further clarification on the valuation of the "inverted" status would be nice. If the inversion is a flat 50% (and not a relative value up to 50%), this creates a problem where the player is incentivized to constantly suffer negative statuses (such as self-inflicted ones from Hexbound or Edge of Defiance), and fish for the 1 in 5 Lucky Break proc inverting their <50% of status into a 50% Melee buff. If this is intended, then it enables the creation of degenerate strategies where low value self-inflicted statuses are constantly cycled for Lucky Breaks procs to invert into beneficial statuses.

    Overall, these changes are much healthier than the initial proposals and a step in the right direction.

    < Message edited by Mananite -- 2/5/2024 0:17:02 >


    _____________________________

    Post #: 162
    2/4/2024 23:31:55   
    Weeum
    Member

    I just wanted to repost this as I feel it may have gotten lost in the sauce earlier when there was discussion around the other stats.

    quote:

    +[(INT/ExpectedINT)*(100-MonsterEleMod)/130]%(Formula provided by CH4Ot1C!)

    Then the resist mods become

    Base Res   Hits Like
    100      100
    95       98.65
    90       96.92
    85       94.80
    80       92.30
    75       89.42
    --------------  <- Below here requires 132/109
    70       86.15
    65       82.5
    60       78.46
    -------------  <- Below here requires elecomp
    55       74.03
    50       69.23
    45       64.03
    40       58.46
    35       52.5
    -------------   <- Beyond elecomp
    30       46.15
    25       39.42
    20       32.30
    15       24.80
    10       16.92
    5        8.65



    --
    quote:

    I feel that changing the power allocation to +7.5% boost and a 3.75% "backlash" (even 50/50 split) would be a safer initial option.

    I kinda like the sound of this tbh

    < Message edited by Weeum -- 2/4/2024 23:34:31 >
    AQ AQW  Post #: 163
    2/4/2024 23:45:01   
    ArchNero
    Member

    DEX seems fine, one thing I'd suggest even if it can't be implemented in time but I think it would be nice, if the battle log could keep track of the lean shift just like how, in game it currently tracks the ranged damage modifier.
    Post #: 164
    2/4/2024 23:46:56   
      Ward_Point
    Armchair Archivist


    APPROVED!

    Style Bonus of 20% was throwing the interaction between Warrior Lean and FD Rangers entirely out of whack with respect to 'Innate Behaviour: Ramping Damage'. The innate behaviour of DEX required some adjustment, or STR would just have been the new DEX. With the adoption of an entirely different innate behaviour of DEX, DEX now gains its own identity in the form of 'Live-accuracy adjustment'.

    For the Style Bonus, the initial 5% proposed was too low, and 20% seemed far too high. This resulted in a Strength Style Bonus of 1.15 damage multiplier and 5% of (Whatever). 1.15 multiplier to melee was simply viewed as too high (This was due mainly to the above interaction between Warrior Lean and FD Ranger. 1.15x Melee multiplier completely decimated Ranger's damage potential). As a breakeven matter, 10% seems to be the balance as struck. Add on the change in Dexterity's innate behaviour and both Warriors and Rangers now truly have their own identities that are distinct from each other. I am satisfied with the changes where Warriors & Rangers are concerned.

    As for Wallbreaker, I'm not overly concerned. The sheer versatility of the MP Bar can't be valued mathematically. In practice, (at risk of conflating itemisation issues) resource conversion is ridiculous. With the new numbers, a Harm Spell is now less useful in a Mage's inventory than before. (EDIT: I seem to have read these numbers wrong. My logic is still the same: Increased damage via Spells still allows a Mage to gain an advantage over their counterparts who aren't able to easily fit Harm damage into their inventories.)

    Pets need 85% accuracy to conform to Standards. Otherwise, most pure builds will probably end up using a Healing/Boosting Pet with no variation. Pet accuracy should be fully influenced by Mainstat only to achieve 20% melee.

    Guests are in a slightly odd place.
    Base 45% Melee output implies that Guests without CHA investment are valued at 22.5% melee. This would disincentivise non-CHA players from using Guests entirely. I'd prefer it if non-CHA players get 1:1 SP Efficiency out of a Guest at minimum, with 250 CHA scaling off the stat-based 15% damage.
    For Boosters:
    Current Formula: Provides a [30 + 30*(0.75*[MainStat/ExpMainStat] + 0.25*[CHA/ExpCHA])]% boost to [Element] Melee/Ranged normal attacks.
    Probable New Formula with figures provided by LK: Provides [22.5 + 22.5*(0.75*[MainStat/ExpMainStat]] + 0.25*[CHA/ExpCHA] + 5*(CHA/ExpCHA))]% boost to [Element] Melee/Ranged normal attacks.
    With no CHA investment, this will result in Boosters providing a base Boost value of 39.375%. This is still efficient.

    Probable New Formula with Base 30% with 250 CHA affecting 15%: Provides [30 + 15*(0.75*[MainStat/ExpMainStat]] + 0.25*[CHA/ExpCHA] + 5*(CHA/ExpCHA))]% boost to [Element] Melee/Ranged normal attacks.
    With no CHA investment, this results in Boosters providing a base Boost value of 41.25%. A minor improvement for a Booster, but a much needed boost for Non-CHA players to feel parity when using other Guests.

    Edit 2: Of course, all this could be utterly pointless if Ianthe decides 'Let's give Boosters their own rules' where it's 1:1 scaling with Mainstat only.

    No further issues with END & LUK. Their uses have always been known.

    < Message edited by Ward_Point -- 2/5/2024 1:31:05 >
    AQ  Post #: 165
    2/4/2024 23:54:09   
    Aura Knight
    Member

    quote:

    With the new numbers, a Harm Spell is now less useful in a Mage's inventory than before.


    Not likely. But it's not like harm took up a slot. Necromancer exists.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 166
    2/4/2024 23:57:34   
    Sapphire
    Member

    ^ I kind of feel like a player with 0 CHA not only doesnt already use normal guests, but shouldnt? It's like saying a player with 0 INT should still cast magic spells sometimes. IDk man.

    In regards to booster guests, just redesign them. Remove CHA scaling entirely, and make them scale using their mainstats. Get rid of the outleveling formula on the 1.1 part. Make them just be +45% and that scales with mainstat. Thats who's using them, so that's the only type of guest that a 0 CHA player should use.

    Anyway, I fail to see how the new numbers for wallbreaker make a Harm spell less useful when the boost that's provided near and at 90% is less than before????
    Post #: 167
    2/5/2024 0:01:32   
    Primate Murder
    Member

    I must admit, the new changes are not what I expected.

    Dexterity:

    I have quite a bit to say here, and I'm afraid none of it is positive. I apologize in advance.

    It is my understanding that the stat revamp had two major goals in regards to dexterity - making it competitive with the other two main stats and giving it a sufficiently unique identity to differentiate its playstyle from that of Strength. Unfortunately, the proposed solution fails on both of those accounts:

    - The style bonus is hands down an inferior version of Strength's style bonus. It only affects a certain subset of weapons instead of all of them, and since the thing being supported is weapon procs it also does nothing to support the use of armor skills. So not only does it limit your choice of both equipment and actions taken, but it also runs directly counter to the current meta.

    - It does not support a distinct playstyle. Neither base behavior nor style bonus provide any support for the use of status effects, it provides no unique actions (like spells) or mechanics (like str's pseudo-caltrops) to diversify your gameplay. Aside from providing a stacking damage boost to autohit weapons, Dexterity's playtyle seems to be simply repeating your attack over and over again - and isn't that supposed to be Strength's shtick?

    At this point, I have to wonder if, perhaps, there's nothing left for Dexterity at all. If there's no unique behavior left to attribute to the stat, then perhaps, it should not be a main stat at all? Maybe it's better to turn all Ranged weapons into Melee and make Dexterity a secondary stat alongside Charisma, Endurance, and Luck. It's a bit of a radical decision, but if any mainstat identity would require either too much dev time to code or is an inferior version of another stat, would it not be better to just cut this Gordian knot?

    Strength:

    Counterattack is an interesting choice, and I like the mechanic, but I think the numbers could be tweaked a little. 2.5% is pretty much negligible.

    Charisma:

    I would once again like to entreat the staff not to make guest upkeep higher than a turn's worth of sp regen. 5% is not much of a difference for FO builds that end the fights in a turn or two, but for FD builds it's a major nerf - particularly once EO and other broken regen items are reduced down to proper numbers.

    FD is already an unpopular playstyle. Let's not make it even harder than it already is.


    Honestly, I think we should've tackled the 20-turn model before doing the revamp, even if it would've taken longer, but I understand why people are impatient. That makes it all the more important to get things right, right now, particularly if we're building a mainstat (theoretically a third of all player builds) from the ground up.
    AQ DF  Post #: 168
    2/5/2024 1:15:43   
    Korriban Gaming
    Banned


    Alright, after looking at some of the other comments and a bit more thinking, here are my thoughts

    STR
    Probably an oversight on my part but I do agree that 2.5% isn't noticeable if at all. I am however, in favour of keeping the 10% boost to weapon attacks as opposed to lowering it further and giving more power to the counterattack. Better to have 1 great thing than 2 average things imo

    INT
    1. Regenerate 15% of the spell's original cost in MP per spell cast. Rather than a flat value, the value would scale based off how much the spell costs so efficient spells would regenrate less, overcharged spells would regenerate more etc
    2. Give all INT users a 9th no-drop Harm spell. Standard spell with standard costs but the spell starts off with -15% power, only getting the full 100% at 250 INT. Not sure if it's possible to make it overcap with other INT boosts
    3. Extra hit of Harm damage per spell cast worth 15% Melee when casting spells vs an enemy with <90% resist to the element

    CHA
    Second the idea that guests should not cost more than they are outputting even at 0 CHA. The bare minimum should be 1:1. Again, I will propose my idea of a "on demand" proc button for the FS with a 5 turn cooldown (since 22% chance averages to about once every 5 turns). This way, we're at least guaranteed to be able to use the full potential of the CHA investment rather than only being able to enjoy it 22% of the time
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 169
    2/5/2024 2:02:41   
    Aura Knight
    Member

    Isn't it just free damage? Sounds good to me. The counterattack should be a small boost to backlash which has power without the help from it too.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 170
    2/5/2024 2:59:01   
    Dreiko Shadrack
    Member

    quote:

    Adaptation: After each successful Ranged hit, the lean shifts by -0.75 BtH. After each miss, the lean shifts away from damage and towards accuracy by +4.25 BtH. The effect on damage would be a multiplier of 85/(85±LeanMod) damage. The maximum values are +/-20 BtH. If not performing any Ranged attacks, the lean change is frozen. When using an autohit attack, the lean does not shift nor affect the attack.


    Does this apply to ranged spell-type skills and ranged spells? Or is it only for specifically ranged weapon hits?
    AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 171
    2/5/2024 4:14:43   
    1stClassGenesis
    Member

    May I propose that instead of "max out 250 to get the full style bonus", that there be an Adventurer tag check such that a 250/250/175 stat check allows for the full 45% Melee worth of style bonuses?

    If not, official word on that would be very much appreciated. Otherwise, would it then be fair for me to say that my valid question was ignored?


    I suppose another point of clarification is in order: would access to style bonuses be enabled if one were to use stat boosters or does it solely refer to stat investment?
    Post #: 172
    2/5/2024 5:35:09   
    RobynJoanne
    Member
     

    As I have explained in my analysis, the previous stat changes have led to a substantial increase in Player side power. The amount varies based on build and valuation, but a relatively low estimate for the current level is 180% Melee per turn for Hybrids and 200% Melee per turn for pure builds. Now, obviously, this will change based on the stat overhaul coming this week that remains unfinished, but an additional 45% Melee per turn seems to be the current trajectory. I find the Player side having close to or even greater than double Monster output an untenable direction for the game.

    Still, merely complaining about style bonuses without providing a replacement would be irresponsible of me. I would only be adding inflammatory remarks to a discussion while providing no useful input of my own. I have been thinking since I made my analysis on the original proposed stat overhaul, and I have a proposal that may be controversial but has enough merits to be worth considering: style penalties.

    To understand why I propose style penalties, we must first consider the reasoning for style bonuses. According to Hollow's post, style bonuses are "added to every stat in the shape of small boosts that reward its core behavior or shore up its transitional issues. In the case of main stats, these bonuses are meant to reward both pure and hybrid builds by making each stat equally appealing as a primary or additional main stat." Style bonuses are there for the primary purpose of more strongly defining every stat's identity with a secondary purpose to provide a greater incentive for hybridization.

    Style penalties can fulfill both purposes as well. To more strongly define a stat's identity, it is possible to penalize around that identity. Warrior lean means Str's greatest strength now is its Weapon versatility, so a style penalty could be something that varies based on Armor lean to encourage Players to use multiple leans in their inventory. Alternatively, a style penalty could penalize the opposite of the current proposed style bonus. Dex's MRM boost encourages dodging, but an increase in damage intake could do the same. Style penalties could also incentivize hybridization if a stat penalty only applied when using the attack type for which the mainstat affects. If Int's style penalty weakens Magic Weapon damage to encourage spellcasting, then one could choose to be a Hybrid to get better Weapon damage (more accurately, a greater difference in Weapon damage than now).

    I would like to use the idea of style bonuses beginning at 150 and only reaching their full power at 250 for stat penalties. In other words, style penalties would start at 150 and reach full penalties at 250. Ever since the stat cap increase to 250, builds have been mostly stagnant, with the changing standards making it so non-min-maxed stat distributions were penalized in multiple ways. Thus, almost all level 150 builds gravitated to the standard 250/250/250 build. Indeed, this build distribution is so ubiqutious that the discussions of the style bonuses revolve solely around the 15% (previously 20%) provided at 250 stats instead of any number below full investment. The stat update did nothing to change this. Freeing 250 stats from Dex only caused players to shift those points to other stats or keep it there to be a Hybrid. Penalizing investment in stats past a certain point would help disincentivize the current standard build. The current stat bonus idea does the opposite. This provides a reason for players to experiment and do a cost-benefit analysis on stats. Also, on a more personal note, I would love to see those messy builds from our childhood when we knew nothing about game mechanics return and have an actual legitimate reason for them now.

    There is one other factor that greatly discourages investing in a stat below the maximum amount possible: accuracy. No one likes missing, and accuracy is strongly tied to the respective stat(s). It's no secret that one of the most anticipated parts of the stat overhaul is the decoupling of Dex from Guest/Pet accuracy. Even if stats received penalties when invested to the maximum amount, the increase in accuracy would be well worth it almost always.
    Thus, as an addition to the stat penalty concept, I also propose another radical change: the decoupling of stats from accuracy entirely. This has multiple benefits beyond encouraging more stat distribution variety. A primary one is it finally corrects a major flaw in the Player side turn valuation. The Player side includes Pets, and Pets are considered to be worth 20% Melee in this valuation, with the assumption of 0 Cha. The problem is that Pet accuracy at 0 Cha is substantially reduced, so players with 0 Cha are almost forced to use Pets with auto-hit attacks or otherwise do not need to make accuracy checks to provide an effect. If players do not, the reduced accuracy still drops the expected value of Pets. Either way, Pets are not actually worth 20% Melee since that value assumes 20% Melee damage and expected accuracy when only 20% Melee damage is true. A second benefit of decoupling accuracy is stat debuffs are no longer as onerous. Rangers who have fought certain bosses know this very well. Entangle/Offbalanced is an utterly oppressive effect on Rangers, especially now that even their primary damage stat is Dex. It's particularly awful for FO Rangers who depend on their Player damage for the bulk of their damage. A final benefit is that stat buffs are no longer so overpowered. The stat revamp had made stats far more powerful, and stat buffs became more powerful due to it. On top of the already sketchy valuation of stat buffs (stat effects are universally valued incorrectly, basically always too low though to varying degrees), this made stat buffs practically invalidate the need for other buffs. Accuracy buffs were unnecessary when a stat buff of the same cost could provide equal if not more accuracy.

    Buffs and nerfs are levers the devs can pull to affect player behavior. However, like for most things, diminishing returns apply here as well. When players are too strong, further buffs have a relatively small effect on gameplay and thus player behavior. This is not the first time this has happened. Back in the stunlock->nuke meta, all AQ bosses could be dispatched in 1-2 turns in the same way. That meta ended, but it wasn't because players as a whole decided that meta was no longer fun. Slower builds weren't able to compete no matter how many strong FD items the devs released. Buffs alone could not solve the problem. Players were forced to stop relying on those setups with damage caps and Freedom. Those were indirect nerfs to that meta. When spell-type skills were completely inferior to weapon-based skills in terms of damage and efficiency, the devs could not release any appealing spell-type skill that would make Players use them. The gap had to be forcibly reduced by nerfing Chieftain's Ironthorn. That nerf then also created the space for the devs to make the T3 classes whose primary nuking skills are spell-type skills/spells. Using nerfs to make the game more fresh and exciting is not new for AQ. It's been done to success many times in the long lifespan of AQ. If the goal of the stat overhaul is indeed to revitalize the game, then it's necessary to create an impetus for players to change their behavior. Necessity is the mother of invention, and there's no need to change anything if all the stats are buffed. The same builds and item setups that have worked will just work even better. Buffing Str damage will only make H-Series even more of a black hole for Warrior gameplay. Even if people disagree with style penalties, style bonuses are not the answer.

    < Message edited by RobynJoanne -- 2/5/2024 5:56:39 >
    Post #: 173
    2/5/2024 10:01:07   
      Ward_Point
    Armchair Archivist


    Alright, I'm going to math here. The overall point is that CHA is being allowed a little too much value via Guests. While I understand that this is somewhat a legacy issue of CHA initially being a Mainstat, the entire point of the Stat Revamp is to break some paradigms and improve the game.

    Let's have some
    [1]Initial definitions.
    Core Assumptions: Core Assumptions that define AQ. The most relevant one for purpose of this post is that the Player is valued at 1 melee per turn. Pet at 0.2 Melee & SP at 0.2 melee.
    Player: The Player Character. Excluding Companions
    Base Behaviour: Base Behaviour refers to the basic attributes these Stats provide. Strength & Dexterity provide Stat Damage & Accuracy to their associated damage type. Intelligence provides Stat Damage & Accuracy to Magic Weapons & their Spells.
    Pet: The 'Pet' as referred to in AQ's Core Assumptions
    Guest: A somewhat additional Companion with respect to AQ's Core Assumptions.

    [2]Preliminaries:
    Mainstats (Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence)
    The 3 Main Stats form the core of the character's offence. The mathematical value of these Stats (Assessing their Base Behaviour) is 0.75 Melee.
    At 250 Mainstat, the Player gains 0.75 Melee damage per turn on average with respect to Base Behaviour
    With the recent post by LoreKeeper, Mainstat also contributes ~0.05% melee in the form of Pet Accuracy (Part of Core Assumptions) & ~0.06 melee in Guest Accuracy (Not part of Core Assumptions).

    Secondary Stats
    LUK (Base Behaviour):
    10% Chance to Lucky Strike (1.5x damage) this averages to 0.15 melee.

    END (Base Behaviour):
    Additional HP is being handwaved as approximately 0.15 melee. This is due to 'unused' HP being considered a 'waste' where a battle is concerned.

    CHA (Base Behaviour):
    Pet Damage (0.2 melee) & Accuracy (0.05 melee). Already, this does not conform to Core Assumptions. The Pet is supposed to output 0.2 melee without CHA investment. This is easily solved by shifting all Pet accuracy to the Player via a Mainstat.
    Guest Damage & Accuracy: Based on Lorekeeper's post, Guest base behaviour is being valued at 0.45 melee in damage. This means that CHA contributes ~0.22 melee in damage and 0.06 melee in accuracy. A Guest is not part of the Core Assumptions.

    One would note that based on Base Behaviour alone, CHA is outperforming the other two Secondary Stats whenever a Guest is present. Briefly, this is a legacy issue caused by CHA was intended to be a Mainstat. Please refer to RobynJoanne's post on the details as to why CHA adds more value comapred to END or LUK.

    Style Bonus
    This has been discussed at length. The value of the Style Bonus has been set at 15%. It's application has been consistent in its application to all stats.

    [3]The Question
    Why is CHA being approached in such a way that it not only offers more '% melee in value' when a Guest is present, but also requires a Style Bonus that increases its efficiency?

    It has been mathematically proven that the Style Bonus has been consistently applied to all 6 Stats.
    However, CHA retains its Base Behaviour of contributing ~0.28 melee to a Guest (Based on its 0.45 damage output)

    Ideally, I believe that the AQ Team is trying to offer some parity (or close to, at the very least) to 0 CHA Players who choose to use a Guest.
    It's not possible to satisfy '0 CHA Players get 1:1 efficiency' and not have Guests be efficient by default. It's mathematically impossible to satisfy the two aforementioned conditions.

    Based on the numbers as proposed
    0 CHA Players will pay 30% Melee in SP for 0.225 Melee in Damage (Assuming a non-combat Guest, for argument's sake, let's just halve the Guest value. It's easier that way).
    250 CHA Players will pay 30% Melee in SP for 0.45 melee in Damage
    Factoring a 15% style bonus, 250 CHA investment results in 30% melee in SP for 0.6 melee in Damage. This is still a little too efficient.

    [4]The Proposal
    Step 1: Allow a Guest to reach 'Full Power' without Stat Investment.
    Begin with Parity: 30% Melee in SP for 0.3 Melee in Damage. Allow the CHA Style Bonus to increase damage to 0.45 melee.

    Problems: Guests are essentially a CHA-based Skill. Power & Accuracy of a Guest should be based off CHA. It's not logical to have Guests essentially be 'free' sources of damage. The same way a Mage needs to invest in INT to cast spells properly, Guests need CHA investment to be used 'properly'.

    However, one should note that this is the Stat Revamp. This is precisely the time for paradigms to be broken. Let's break them.
    Step 2: Make Mainstat the 'main' stat of Guest Power as opposed to CHA only
    30% Melee in SP for 0.15 Melee in Damage. Scale it up with Mainstat until it reaches parity (30% Melee in SP for 0.3 Melee in Damage at 250 Mainstat).
    Apply Style Bonus via Ferocious Strikes or outright damage after to reach 0.45 Melee damage.

    [5]Conclusion
    1) Guests are still too efficient. They should be reined in
    2) CHA still does too much. It not only adds ~0.25 melee to a Pet, it adds ~56% of Guest Value in Melee via Damage & Accuracy to the Guest.

    Solution:
    Break the paradigm of Guests being tied to CHA in terms of the Damage & Accuracy to achieve parity. In other words, treat Guests like any other Skill.
    One should note that the proposed solution does not need to be set at 30% Upkeep, 30% Damage. It could be set at any figure, but it should be on par with other Skills (1:1 efficiency at base)
    Allow CHA to contribute to Guests via Style Bonus only to gain efficiency (Up to 15%)

    While I'm fully aware thatnerfing Guests is unpopular, allowing Guests to maintain 30% SP Upkeep / 60% Melee output is not conducive to build diversity. For this alone, it is likely the players will almost-always build into CHA as opposed to choosing END or LUK.

    Notes: Thanks to Chaotic for letting me bounce numbers and logic off him.

    < Message edited by Ward_Point -- 2/5/2024 10:11:17 >
    AQ  Post #: 174
    2/5/2024 10:38:30   
    Aura Knight
    Member

    quote:

    it is likely the players will almost-always build into CHA as opposed to choosing END or LUK


    Why not have guest power make use of luck or endurance? Guest lucky strike could have been a thing yet the option was the ferocious idea. If luck can help it there will be little concern of charisma doing too much. Just remove accuracy from charisma and move it to luck. It makes no sense to me how my main stat should benefit my guests. For the possible endurance benefit maybe allow it to help with guest effect infliction rate or duration.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 175
    Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
    All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= Stat Overhaul Discussion & Feedback!
    Page 7 of 10«<56789>»
    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