RE: =AQ= Warwolf Prime Giftmaster Set Vote


	Home \| Login \| Register \| Help \| Play

RE: =AQ= Warwolf Prime Giftmaster Set Vote

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= Warwolf Prime Giftmaster Set Vote

Page 2 of 5

=AQ= Warwolf Prime Giftmaster Set Vote

Dardiel's Accuracy/Beast Manipulation Set

44% (70)

GwenMay's Hypercrit/LS Set

43% (68)

RobynJoanne's Information-Based Set - The Hunt

11% (18)

Total Votes : 156

(last vote on : 8/10/2024 15:00:13)
(Poll ended: 8/10/2024 15:00:00)

Forum Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

7/22/2024 11:27:53

Korriban Gaming
Banned

quote:

It seems misleading to say the set attached to my name would take significant time. Most of the dev feedback on the set was that its high compression might be pulled back, and the items are very easy to reduce complexity for (in almost all cases, just remove one of the toggles); this being in comparison to a set that the designer herself thinks would need BOTH a second design period to compensate for "nearly the entirety of the set needing to be reworked" on top of a "thoughtful conversation" that will explicitly require dev time to compensate for the extra dev time from the suggestion being something the devs explicitly say "cannot be implemented" and can very well be either "invalidated or left requiring a revamp" (ie taking even more dev time unless it's more practical to let the gear be useless).

Reworking the entire charge mechanic would take just as much time as reworking the entire Hypercrit mechanic no? The devs also did say that triple mode items would take a long time. I mean, I would definitely prefer if they kept 3 modes if possible as opposed to shaving off 1 to save time if your set won. Can't speak for those who supported your set but I'm inclined to believe they might feel the same.

quote:

Saying that any winner would be adjusted should also feel a bit silly/misleading with the above context; there's a difference between "we might trim a bit here be there" and "there is virtually no aspect that can reasonably expect to go without major changes"

No I think Gwen is accurate in saying this. Your set needs a rework for the charge mechanic as well as extra time for triple mode items. Gwen's set needs a rework for Hypercrit mechanics. Robyn's set needs additional reinforcements for UI features. Honestly based off how they worded it, I think it's accurate to say that all 3 sets would require a significant amount of time to implement.

quote:

Reliability: Dev feedback was extremely forgiving to this set; it has a lot of options and they might cut back on exactly how many things it can do, but the core mechanic is virtually untouched as are the core mechanics of basically every item in the set. This set is the most likely to turn out the way it was written, you're not voting for the chance of a second round of design to try and have a better guess about how a rework might turn out.

Triple compression as well as trimming off parts of the armor (the biggest part of any of the sets) is quite a significant change imo

AQW

Post #: 26

7/22/2024 11:57:11

Dardiel
Member

Lucky strike is a mechanic where player attacks have a 10% chance to add LUK*3/8 stat damage per turn (under the assumption that it averages out to LUK*3/80) while pets provide 40% of that amount via a combination of a different amount of LUK scaling and a different stat modifier, and which can have the output multiplied as well as can have the rate increased via addition and via multiplication.

Charges are the concept of paying for something over time; it's hopefully very clear that one is a ton simpler - as a matter of fact I even proposed a way that it could work within the suggestion, and something as specific as weapon accuracy lean was corrected while my proposal was not.

Regarding compression, if it's an issue then it's extremely easy to just "not do" the standalone parts that push it over the edge rather than to entirely redesign multiple components of a set; and if it isn't an issue, then congrats on the compression items.

The devs did a very good job of objectively laying out the facts for each suggestion, and I think 9 out of 10 dentists would agree that only one set has a disclaimer of "most of this doesn't work at all, the rest of it requires an overhaul, you're voting for something that might be useless within a year".

Post #: 27

7/22/2024 12:23:36

Lorekeeper
And Pun-isher

Just a quick correction to refocus the discussion: We never said we'd rework charge mechanics as a whole. The relevant breakdown says:

quote:

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:

This would involve setting new rules and using the code on this armor for future items, rather than reworking the code for accumulating charges and adjusting the full backlog of charge items.

Post #: 28

7/22/2024 12:32:07

KhalJJ
Member

quote:

No I think Gwen is accurate in saying this. Your set needs a rework for the charge mechanic as well as extra time for triple mode items. Gwen's set needs a rework for Hypercrit mechanics. Robyn's set needs additional reinforcements for UI features. Honestly based off how they worded it, I think it's accurate to say that all 3 sets would require a significant amount of time to implement.

Korri, There's 2 (admittedly related) components of this point that you are mixing together in my view:

1) Time taken

2) Adjustments necessary

Re: 1) Yes, I think all 3 sets will take considerable time. Big sets tend to do this. It's hard to say which would take the longest, given the complexity of Dardiel's and Joanne's, and the further ideation and mechanic issues present in Gwen's. It's not unreasonable imo for Dardiel to argue against his case here, and he makes a couple very relevant points:

quote:

in comparison to a set that the designer herself thinks would need BOTH a second design period to compensate for "nearly the entirety of the set needing to be reworked" on top of a "thoughtful conversation" that will explicitly require dev time to compensate for the extra dev time from the suggestion being something the devs explicitly say "cannot be implemented" and can very well be either "invalidated or left requiring a revamp" (ie taking even more dev time unless it's more practical to let the gear be useless).

Re 2), Dardiel imo was specifically calling out Gwen in a subsequent bullet point for the separate, but related misrepresenting of the amount of adjustments required in his and Joanne's suggestions, and trying to equate them to hers. Irregardless of the "time" point, he is completely correct to do so - Gwen states:

quote:

It seems pretty clear from the dev notes that all of the suggestions will be changed if selected ...

and that they will

quote:

require fundamental game changes

If you have read the dev notes, there is obviously 1 set which requires easily the most adjustments to the set as suggested, anyone trying to argue against this has not read the dev notes.

And re: changes to a base game mechanic, this is also clear and obvious, with Hypercrit being slated for changes. Dardiel's set is not "re-working the entire charge mechanic" , I don't understand where you get this from? LS is a game-wide mechanic, Dardiel's charge mechanics are specific to the set and we already have plenty of charge mechanics that work relatively similar ways.

You could argue that Joanne's suggestion has a similar level of significant mechanic changes to Gwen's, with the UI components, but I don't think there's any justification that Gwen's could be compared to Dardiel's re: the amount of "fundamental game changes" needed to implement it.

*Edit - I see LK has posted clarifying this in the time I wrote this. Hopefully that helps settle that point.

Post #: 29

7/22/2024 22:18:14

PeeBall
Member

quote:

Hollow stressed that voting should take place based on the general theme and ideas

Based on this I have faith that devs will not destroy LS if it is what we like and want to see more of.
My vote goes to Gwen's set as LS is always exciting.

Post #: 30

7/23/2024 3:44:50

LUPUL LUNATIC
Member

I am voting with Gwen's set because i personally am a FO player and enjoy the Lucky Strikes theme due to the fact i like to see big damage numbers, my FO Warrior is a nuking build with hypercrits, i have other chars too, each a sort of one trick ponies.

Lucky Strikes would be toned down but i trust staff to still make it decent and to an extent still the best for Nuking.
I am voting for a theme to be noted, i am aware items might not be the same however the only thing i expect is the fact items would be Lucky Strike related and that solely is enough for me

AQ	Post #: 31

7/24/2024 8:05:24

Branl
Member

While I am happy both of the suggestions I mentioned made it in the polls (Dardiel/Jeanne), it also puts me in the unfortunate position of having to choose between them (I really should've bought up the rolling poll idea sooner).

Jeanne's set is the one between the three that has the least amount of assumptions when using it. While Dardiel and Gwen's sets both assume you're using either Charisma or Luck, Jeanne's set doesn't really presume any stat in particular, meaning that should mean more people have a use for it. The benefits to having the UI changes this set would require would open up a LOT of new design space around items and has the potential to do the most good for the game. FD/Spellcaster in a post warrior lean meta for an armor covers a LOT of playstyles. This set also has the potential to establish standards for new FD Warrior armors going forward, so that's also a neat little positive.

Dardiel's set is a close second in versatility, while it does presume Charisma, it also tackles a relatively new status effect ripe for establishing new standards (Ferocious Strikes), and isn't far behind Jeanne's in being very versatile in the builds you can use it in. Being a charge set would also allow staff to set standards for future charge items so we don't have the issues these items normally have with being so overpowered they need to be changed, or so underpowered they aren't worth using. This is a more classic FO/FD armor, except the armor actually has benefits for using one of the toggles to enhance the effects that can be found in the other toggle, instead of a once per battle toggle in an armor clearly designed primarily for one mode over the other. So this should also cover a lot of playstyles.

But, gotta play by the FPTP rules here, so my best move seems to be withholding my vote for whichever suggestion seems the most likely to win.

< Message edited by Branl -- 7/24/2024 17:51:05 >

Post #: 32

7/24/2024 9:00:17

dizzle
Member

The theme is just to pick your favorite set, not to calculate the weight your vote might hold in comparison to the other suggestions. This whole deal about the polling being unfair just seems like a big over reaction. Directions were to vote for your favorite set. Withholding your vote until there’s a clear winner completely defeats the purpose of this voting system lmao. It’s by no means perfect, no doubt about it, but I see no reason in making it *even worse* by taking this stance. This never would’ve been a big deal if we couldn’t see how many votes each set has gotten. 3 options, pick your favorite. Simple as that.

My vote goes to Dardiels set

AQ	Post #: 33

7/24/2024 9:23:12

Branl
Member

quote:

The theme is just to pick your favorite set, not to calculate the weight your vote might hold in comparison to the other suggestions. This whole deal about the polling being unfair just seems like a big over reaction. Directions were to vote for your favorite set. Withholding your vote until there’s a clear winner completely defeats the purpose of this voting system lmao. It’s by no means perfect, no doubt about it, but I see no reason in making it *even worse* by taking this stance. This never would’ve been a big deal if we couldn’t see how many votes each set has gotten. 3 options, pick your favorite. Simple as that.

I'm not really seeing this "big over reaction" over the polls though? Jeanne mentioned that FPTP is inferior to other ways to run polls and Grace offered another way to run the polls.
All I said is that I'm a little sad I didn't bring up the idea of striking the least popular option after a period of time and running another poll with the remaining ones before this poll opened.

I... don't see how withholding your vote until you can tell which of your two favorites seems likely to win "defeats the purpose of the voting system". It's a fairly common tactic in first past the post voting. Hollow even mentions that we should "choose wisely" as only one suggestion can win.
I like Jeanne and Dardiel's ideas fairly evenly anyway.

Post #: 34

7/24/2024 9:29:06

CH4OT1C!
Member

It is a well-known and widely discussed problem that first-past-the-post systems encourage people to tactically vote for an outcome that they consider to be suboptimal, but has a more realistic prospect of winning than their preferred choice. This notoriously skews the outcome. If this must be a popularity contest, I agree with @RobynJoanne that the voting system is flawed. I recognise that there are limitations to what can be done on the forums, but I do believe that the staff should try to make the system fairer in future, if at all possible.

AQ	Post #: 35

7/24/2024 10:50:42

dizzle
Member

There’s nothing wrong with using your vote tactically and there’s also nothing wrong with voicing your concerns about the format. But I think we’re just beating a dead horse at this point after days of repeating the same thing over and over across all the different communication channels, especially after it’s already been addressed by LK. Devs have made a serious effort to make this contest more fair and transparent than it has ever been and I just think the relentless criticism is distasteful. What do you do though, you can’t please everyone. I probably just shouldn’t have said anything

AQ	Post #: 36

7/24/2024 14:03:36

sunblaze
Member

My vote is currently on Jeannes set. But I would like to switch to Dardiel.
While I personally hate stacks I do love beastmaster stuff so some fun with minions deserves a switching vote.

Can that be done manually? That would be neat

AQ	Post #: 37

7/24/2024 14:09:46

Lorekeeper
And Pun-isher

The poll cannot be modified, but I can pass along desired vote switches in the thread.

Dev Anim: Update on this. Sorry guys, we're not allowing switching of votes this time around. It's not fair to switch last moment, nor fair for those that voted earlier. We'll certainly look at ways to improve the system for next time.

< Message edited by AnimalKing -- 7/26/2024 2:43:30 >

Post #: 38

7/24/2024 14:25:45

What did you expect?
Member

While I voted for the Hunt, I would've preferred the Beastmaster set option considering the current circumstances. The uncertainty behind the current winning option may be a problem. Because of the fact that hypercritical is going to be looked at and majorly changed at some point, Gwen's option might not turn out to be implemented in a way that anybody likes.

< Message edited by What did you expect? -- 7/25/2024 11:54:09 >

Post #: 39

7/25/2024 18:45:45

GwenMay
Member

I object to any manual vote switching by staff. Everybody gets one vote which is set once you vote. Players do not get to see the vote totals until they vote. This is why Hollow advised players to "choose wisely" when voting. Permitting vote switching changes after they see the vote total changes the rules mid-contest. It would also mean supporters of one set or another would have to continue seeking support from players who had already voted, likely leading to many more change requests which would burden the staff, especially since it would be unfair to switch some player's votes but not others. As for players who are changing their vote solely for strategic reasons, I note that the poll hasn't even been open a week and we still have two weeks remaining. The poll totals are still volatile and subject to potentially significant changes.

AQW

Epic

Post #: 40

7/25/2024 19:26:36

Dreiko Shadrack
Member

quote:

Players do not get to see the vote totals until they vote.

This is not actually true, I haven't voted and I can click on the "Show Results" link below the vote button on the poll to see the current results of votes over the poll's options. Though I will say that vote switching is not really something that should be allowed, as well as not allowing for something like a new period where the suggested sets can be reworked by players as it's something I've seen floated about recently which similarly would be quite unfair and defeating on the whole process that even caused this system of a poll to be enacted to begin with.

AQW

Epic

Post #: 41

7/25/2024 19:50:18

CH4OT1C!
Member

Mistakes are sometimes made. I think vote switching should be allowed if practically possible. It makes the process as democratic as possible. With that said, I do agree with @Dreiko Shadrack that there shouldn't be a subsequent period of reworks. I'm not a fan of the idea that an item could subsequently change after people had voted for it. What if the changes mean they no longer support the set?

AQ	Post #: 42

7/25/2024 20:04:47

Branl
Member

The issue I have with an objection to "vote switching" is that the only reason the poll itself operates on first past the post logic is because the forum functionality doesn't really grant staff the capability to run it any other way, rather than some deep seated belief that first past the post voting is fair. If there's ways to make it more democratic, such as allowing people to switch votes when it's apparent their first set can't win (closest we can reasonably get to ranked choice right now), then I don't see a reasonable excuse to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

I mean, ideally I would've already voted, but if I had voted for Jeanne, I'd have people arguing my vote should effectively be meaningless, irrespective of my thoughts on the other two sets.
And that honestly really sucks.

< Message edited by Branl -- 7/25/2024 21:05:13 >

Post #: 43

7/25/2024 20:11:38

GwenMay
Member

I voted pretty quickly so didn't see the show votes button. Nevermind on that. Players aren't changing their vote because of mistakes. Also, insofar as I know most democratic elections don't allow vote switching either - you vote and you live with your choice. As for the first past the post system, that's just how staff set it up. It doesn't matter if you're second or third, either way only players who vote for first get what they want. Also, if you like Robyn, switch to Dardiel or my suggestion because you think they're winning, and then Robyn starts winning, do you get to switch back? We still have 2 weeks left.

I agree there should be no "binding" period of reworks or anything. Staff obviously get final say. But suggesting changes for items that staff have indicated need to be changed (e.g., RobynJoanne's shield) is totally fine so long as everyone understands staff have final say. Players suggest changes for existing items, there's no reason they can't suggest changes for items that haven't been made and need to be reworked anyway. There's also nothing preventing players from opening an unofficial suggestion thread, even if just for fun. The winning theme obviously can't be adjusted.

< Message edited by GwenMay -- 7/25/2024 20:14:51 >

AQW

Epic

Post #: 44

7/25/2024 20:16:11

Dreiko Shadrack
Member

There should be no extra suggestible changes after the poll closes (or even during it), staff already have the final say it's what the set notes were meant as in terms of a preview and this sort of thing would defeat the entire purpose of a poll to choose a victor to begin with if the victor then can try to change any number of things in a drawn out back and forth until satisfied.

EDIT: Though to be clear, I don't believe vote swapping should be allowed regardless, commit to your choices. The set notes were there from the start and who knows maybe the votes on the sets that don't win will show the general interest for such individual item mechanics to be put in the game elsewhere in the future.

< Message edited by Dreiko Shadrack -- 7/25/2024 20:21:03 >

AQW

Epic

Post #: 45

7/25/2024 20:22:05

CH4OT1C!
Member

@GwenMay: That's fine, as this isn't an election. So long as it is practically reasonable for the staff, accommodating such changes would still make the system more democratic.

AQ	Post #: 46

7/25/2024 21:01:09

Dardiel
Member

I agree with Branl that allowing vote switching is the best way to emulate some arguably-better voting systems (it's basically runoff voting) by reducing the number of wasted votes. However I also agree with Gwen about poaching votes and constant swapping.

In my eyes the solution would be:
- You can't swap away from one of the top 2 suggestions (minimizes poaching, while still allowing functional runoff voting); presumably "the top 2" would mean whichever options were top 2 at the time of the poll locking, current trends imply that the top 2 will be consistent throughout the entire poll but for the sake of completion that'd be my guess
- You can't swap more than once (further minimizes poaching, and minimizes the potential number of posts about swapping)

Post #: 47

7/25/2024 22:01:21

Korriban Gaming
Banned

I agree that the vote count should be hidden though I'm not sure if there is a way to do this. That fixes all of the problems being brought up. Nobody will know what wins till the end and people will vote for whatever they like instead of whatever is winning or losing.

I heavily disagree with allowing people to switch votes. Not only is it unnecessary extra work but it also incentivizes poaching. Everybody gets to make the decision once and you live with your choice. Why should some people get to decide twice? What if everyone who takes part wants to switch? Does the staff have to adjust votes for 80+ people (probably more at the end)? Or do we run the entire vote again? This is extremely unfair to everybody. Both the voters and those who proposed the ideas/worked hard to garner votes for their set.

quote:

Also, if you like Robyn, switch to Dardiel or my suggestion because you think they're winning, and then Robyn starts winning, do you get to switch back? We still have 2 weeks left.

This. People should be voting for what they like, not for strategic reasons so 1 set wins or just to make another set lose.

quote:

maybe the votes on the sets that don't win will show the general interest for such individual item mechanics to be put in the game elsewhere in the future.

I agree with this.

quote:

I agree there should be no "binding" period of reworks or anything. Staff obviously get final say. But suggesting changes for items that staff have indicated need to be changed (e.g., RobynJoanne's shield) is totally fine so long as everyone understands staff have final say. Players suggest changes for existing items, there's no reason they can't suggest changes for items that haven't been made and need to be reworked anyway. There's also nothing preventing players from opening an unofficial suggestion thread, even if just for fun. The winning theme obviously can't be adjusted.

Agree with this. The main theme should obviously not be changed. But when staff has already stated that all 3 ideas will have some parts that needs to be reworked then obviously players should get a further say on how the rework is being done in line with what staff allows. Hollow also did say we're voting on the general idea, as long as the winner works around that idea I think it would be good to let everyone get a set we're all happy with. This is a set suggested by players for players after all.

<Snipped. ~Anim>

< Message edited by AnimalKing -- 7/29/2024 8:38:01 >

AQW

Post #: 48

7/25/2024 22:50:42

Branl
Member

<Snipped, quoted response to deleted content. ~Anim>

quote:

I agree that the vote count should be hidden though

First, we want to effectively make strategic voting in a First Past The Post system impossible.

quote:

I heavily disagree with allowing people to switch votes. Not only is it unnecessary extra work but it also incentivizes poaching.

Then we want to disallow people from expressing their interest in a more democratic system. On a basis where, if you are really that concerned about poaching or the staff's workload, @Dardiel has provided a perfectly reasonable set of limitations that address this.
Further, players were encouraged to rank these sets and the original post only states that we'd get one vote, not that we'd wouldn't be able to switch it. So even if you want to argue this from a "You can't change the rules basis" there isn't really a leg to stand on.
Even further, a "You can't change the rules" mindset has already been thrown out the window, given how last years donation contest went. There's established precedent for the staff making decisions that would best represent the will of players, and players wanting their voices to be heard on their first, second, and third, preferred sets would fall under that umbrella.

quote:

I agree with this.

If you want to gauge general interest in a mechanic, a system where people are forced to withhold their vote so they can have a measurable impact on the overall results isn't great at representing that. I can't even really commit to a vote because I don't know if Jeanne is going to suddenly become a possible winner, and Dardiel's set is about on par with it for me in terms how much I like it. I think that's awful, but rather than make polls less representative of player will by making it impossible to express their interest in their second preferred pick, I'd rather make the system more democratic and give players the opportunity to express a wider range of their opinions. I've expressed as much in the very first post in this thread, so this isn't even a reaction to current poll results.

< Message edited by AnimalKing -- 7/29/2024 8:38:43 >

Post #: 49

7/25/2024 23:08:55

Korriban Gaming
Banned

quote:

If you want to gauge general interest in a mechanic, a system where people are forced to withhold their vote so they can have a measurable impact on the overall results isn't great at representing that.

I agree but this is a side effect and not the main goal.

quote:

I've expressed as much in the very first post in this thread, so this isn't even a reaction to current poll results.

This is fair but the poll already has over 80 votes on it now and staff did say some things were straight up not possible with the current system. It would be much fairer to just stick with what was given to us initially. The staff also made the rules clear in the initial post but 80+ people voted anyway so there are those who are fine with the current system

< Message edited by AnimalKing -- 7/29/2024 8:39:47 >

AQW

Post #: 50

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= Warwolf Prime Giftmaster Set Vote

Page 2 of 5

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