quote:

Dev Notes for Dardiel's Accuracy/Beast Manipulation Set:
While complex, this is a very interesting set that would provide a chance to set new standards to finally fix the long-standing issue of charge mechanics feeling unrewarding unless overcompensated for in design. However, due to its mechanical complexity, it does enough that we have some notes to communicate on how the set would have to deviate from the suggestion:

At the time being, Ferocious Strikes are coded to have a fixed x2 output and require CHA. Some minor system work would be required to adjust this.

+100% Ferocious Strike rate is a threshold we're very wary of.

We're wary of proliferating more triple mode items. This isn't a hard no, but it's one of those things that would slow down releases and result in fewer cool things being released due to taking longer to make them.

PCF being balanced around it dividing the bonuses based on how many PCF items have their Integration active This gives a lot of potential to get something hugely powered up if you use multiple items to charge it within a fight, and then condense the bonus into a single item. One way in which we could address this would be to cap how high the bonus for an individual item can be.

Weapon: Weapons need to be capped at +/-10 BtH.

Misc: As well as the above note on triple compression, the 2nd option spending HP/MP/SP takes up the MC effect. In addition, we've been moving away from damage-scaling effects over time, this would need to have a X% Meleevalue.

Pet: Highlighting component of a broader set issue through which penalties that pay for effects occur on a miss, while the set trivializes accuracy.

Shield: Rather than give the EleShield at the start of turn, it would likely be better to have it applied on the first attempted hit, or at the end of the player turn if no hit was attempted.

Armor: This has such a heavy amount of compression that it raises concerns for development time and compression standards. It reaches a point that would make it difficult to implement everything even before bringing up the concerns for future expectations, so we would have to focus on the parts most important to the idea. As a last note, the pet damage bonus would have to be lower than expected, and penalties that the set trivializes may need a second look, particularly when a mode funnels the bonuses to the player.

quote:

Dev Notes for GwenMay's Hypercrit/LS Set:
We'd be remiss not to include a large collaboration set that has garnered this much support, but must unfortunately include the caveat that most of it cannot be implemented as suggested. At its core, this is because it revolves around mechanics that are subject to updates at a time when we are too overloaded to predict when we'll be able to revise them. That makes it very tricky to apply this concept in a way that won't be invalidated or left pending a revamp at the uncertain time in the future when this mechanic changes. To cover other specific details:

Lucky Strikes and Hypercrit are currently slated for revision. This is partly due to inconsistent values that need to be consolidated. Additionally, they're based on multiplicative bonuses that make it too easy to guarantee critical strikes with minimal setup. The setup-to-output ratio is virtually all output, making it very unbalanced. It would be very difficult to maintain this idea's identity without having to perform all the work for this revision before or in time with this set, at which point the values themselves would still be different.

Misc: In lacking an elemental component; it'd need either Fire resistance or a non-elemental penalty. Healing based on outgoing damage is already something we're moving away from, and would need an alternative approach. Healing on outgoing crit and multiplying this value by 10, on a set that can guarantee crits, is also something we cannot implement.

Shield: We have not created a LUK drive shield because it would invalidate all stat potency shields. This set's shield is not only a LUK drive, but an effect we specifically moved away from retaining on Ironthorn. We would need to do something completely different.

With nearly the entirety of the set needing to be reworked to make it through, we feel it important to inform players about implementing the closest manageable version with the caveat that it could be impacted by future changes.

quote:

Dev Notes for RobynJoanne's Information-Based Set - The Hunt:
This is a set that would require a lot of work, and we would have to call in some reinforcements for UI features, but the necessary improvements to the UI (A new status display/stat card) could be a huge boon to the game. So while the complexity and workload are both serious concerns, a week in which Ianthe and Kamui work on these items while we get help overhauling the status UI would serve as both a reward to the Giftmasters and an advancement on upcoming QoL revamps that improves the game for everyone.

Some of the bonuses run too high for comfort and would need to be toned down. Ie. triple compression on every item would be a concern. Question from Kamui on that: It seems Tracker should be active at all times and you just swap between Analyst and Striker, no?

Weapon: We've shifted to having DefLoss not require a hit to attempt, and this item's whole setup seems to be perm DefLoss per turn and you can take bonus damage and apply up to a -20 BtH lean to get even more damage. We're iffy on this much bonus damage being sourced from a single piece of equipment.

Shield: Getting -26 to all elements feels OP in general, and for the cost required. We could potentially have it either charge a greater amount per element, or weaken the resistance per element applied, like two elements becomes -24 to both, three elements becomes -20 to all three, etc, though we'd be wary of this still being a bit much while deviating from the idea.

Armor: Shield elecomp is not an available option. We have concerns about both +50% damage and element seeking, and would need to tone that down.

Pet: +100% Damage dealt would have to be toned down.

quote:

This is a set that would require a lot of work, and we would have to call in some reinforcements for UI features, but the necessary improvements to the UI (A new status display/stat card) could be a huge boon to the game. So while the complexity and workload are both serious concerns, a week in which Ianthe and Kamui work on these items while we get help overhauling the status UI would serve as both a reward to the Giftmasters and an advancement on upcoming QoL revamps that improves the game for everyone.

quote:

Armor: Element [FD Armor. Starts out dismounted. Mounts as Striker.
Flavor Effect:
Tracker: When a Status Roll is used to attempt to apply a Status Effect, record the inherent save bonus and stats used for both sides. This information is added to the status roll of the side that attempted to apply the Status Effect.
Analyst: Deal -10% damage to gain +5 Generic Status Potency/Resistance.
Striker:[ If holding a Magic Weapon, shift to spellcaster lean. Pay HP per turn to add +35 to a stat that was recorded as a stat used on the Player side of a Status Roll. Up to two stats can be boosted. Priority is Player-attempted Status Roll stats, and if there are still too many possible stats, Str/Dex>Int>Cha is used. If a stat was used for both Player-attempted Status Rolls and Monster-attempted Status Rolls, that stat is boosted to +50 instead.

quote:

Players voting with their wallets will determine whether or not the set is mediocre. We can let the results speak for themselves at the end of the contest.

Now, of course I don't think anyone wishes to go down this route so I hope that whichever set wins, we'll get another chance to come together to rework the winning set to something that people actually want. In my opinion, based off the feedback provided by Hollow, all 3 sets are not gonna turn out great and is probably not something that the original idea proposers had in mind.

I understand the rules still apply to premium gear but alot of flexibility has always been exercised when it comes to dono stuff and I hope we can keep that. Not by breaking the rules directly, but by circumventing it in different ways like we've done before. This is why dono sets are highly sought after.

Looking at the bigger picture, 2-3 new issues isn't making any difference when you have a 100 unsolved ones but that's a argument for another day.

Like I mentioned earlier, the transparency this year is great and I hope for it to continue but the dono set is starting to look alot like this

"let's suggest a powerful set we want and are willing to spend $$$ on"
to
"let's spend $$$ and vote on what mechanic we should relook at next"

quote:

A first-preference plurality voting system is a highly flawed system that wastes all the votes given to the third-place suggestion, usually resulting in strategic voting instead of voters picking their actual favorite choice.

quote:

I have concerns about the way the dev notes were put forth. It feels like the words chosen when compared collectively, are unintentionally pushing the voting away from one specific set and towards another specific set. I get the transparency in some ways is appreciated, but I think it doesn't feel neutral...this assumes people are actually reading the dev notes prior to voting...and that might be a huge assumption on my part lol

In addition, I have concerns that the dev notes on one particular set has left it's ideas in limbo. Literally saying "we cant do this" and "this idea has been slated for a nerf" and "we're moving away from this idea and "we wont do this affect on this item category for this reason" all in one set of dev notes effectively causes the set to be ineligible for consideration in my mind, and I feel as though anyone who votes for it are doing so in a blind manner.

You might as well be blindfolded, swinging at a Pinata if you do. And if for some reason that set still wins, I don't forsee myself attempting to "go for it" in terms of token donos if literally every idea on the set is obliterated.

I even call into question even having it as an option...


Oh, and the thing that's slated for a review ..I'd approach the issue delicately, while still addressing what needs to be addressed. I get it needs looked at, but a draconian approach won't go over well.

quote:

Probably the biggest example would be Frostwyrm recycling many of the most problematic aspects of the Doomlight armor, but they don't usually design donation stuff with the idea that there's any more or less leeway when it comes to designing items around them.

quote:

This doesn't mean that the effects won't be "powerful" or "desirable" if they don't make it in as is.

quote:

Finally, I would like to ask regarding the poll itself. From what I've seen from other people, no one knows how to change their vote after placing it. Is it possible for there to be a clarification regarding that?
A first-preference plurality voting system is a highly flawed system that wastes all the votes given to the third-place suggestion, usually resulting in strategic voting instead of voters picking their actual favorite choice. I want to know if the devs could reconsider the way the poll is done so that it can more accurately represent the voters' preferences.