 |
 |
 |
Possible future revamp |
|
Feb 18 2013, 18:37
|
skillchip
Group: Catgirl Camarilla
Posts: 5,754
Joined: 31-December 06

|
Only reason ratings were so crazy was because edb got multiplied twice in the old formula if I remeber right.
But yeah, we can keep debating like this, but likely we are all going to be way off how things are going to be
|
|
|
Feb 18 2013, 18:41
|
HTTP/308
Group: Catgirl Camarilla
Posts: 1,087
Joined: 8-April 10

|
Exponential or Logarithmic isn't any different from Polynomial. Parameters are very range limited.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Feb 18 2013, 23:36
|
Lement
Group: Members
Posts: 2,977
Joined: 28-February 12

|
Hm. one could work out new formulas, but there is the problem of "appropriate compensation". Tbh I feel like sth should give flat, liner boost to spell damage after other calculations(like reverse absorption) with MMI and prof change to have lower lever players not have their damage shafted when MMI doesn't drop significantly or even increases at times. QUOTE(ChosenUno @ Feb 18 2013, 18:16)  I feel maging at anything below 190 is a poor decision, due partly to the lack of SP shield but also due to the lack of APs. Maybe this will change with the AP changes but right now I can only say that.
Um...Melees need APs far more to fill all the OC tanks than mages just SP, HP, HP and their minimum quota of spells(which can be cheaply covered by AP training), and I certainly have found that maging only becomes worse as level increases past 100. I don't really understand where below 190-mages get shafted so badly. (I also don't think SP shield is a good choice in most cases when so many hits take off more than it's minimum, it is easier to let regen II+health pot cover it in the intervening rounds and when they can't cover SP shield would probably have drained more SP anyway for such damage. I have filled my points into it and found it making me weaker when up in practice.) I imagine that is the case even more now, so....Maging is best done at the levels you unlock the spells right now imho, which makes sense to me. Bunker Buster: CR being linearly scaling works really poorly(like other defense reduction effects being linear suck like you mentioned) for 50-150 players as well (IMG:[ invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) Ichy: Very possibly both.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Feb 18 2013, 23:53
|
skillchip
Group: Catgirl Camarilla
Posts: 5,754
Joined: 31-December 06

|
Might be easier to balance counter resist if it had some effect on mobs without resist.
|
|
|
Feb 19 2013, 00:05
|
Pickled_Cow
Group: Gold Star Club
Posts: 6,377
Joined: 22-November 06

|
Okay strategic question.
I'm about to reset my ability points so take out all my experience boost points and put them into the spells I have never really bothered to use before.
Should I hold off on that or go ahead and do that?
|
|
|
Feb 19 2013, 00:13
|
destructorspace
Group: Gold Star Club
Posts: 403
Joined: 22-November 09

|
I'd wait, but that's just me. I'm waiting for these fairly substantial changes to come out before I'm going to do some more tweaking of my build, and before I start trying melee. I'm not going to waste a couple k on something that's going to get completely reset in the near future anyway.
|
|
|
Feb 19 2013, 00:21
|
buktore
Group: Members
Posts: 4,353
Joined: 9-September 09

|
50 Hath for the first person with an idea about the prof thing that do not have anything to do with damage and not already mentioned in this thread, and I like/think it's a good idea.
This post has been edited by buktore: Feb 19 2013, 00:21
|
|
|
Feb 19 2013, 00:22
|
Arxdewn
Group: Members
Posts: 711
Joined: 19-November 12

|
QUOTE(destructorspace @ Feb 18 2013, 14:13)  I'd wait, but that's just me. I'm waiting for these fairly substantial changes to come out before I'm going to do some more tweaking of my build, and before I start trying melee. I'm not going to waste a couple k on something that's going to get completely reset in the near future anyway.
a few thousand credits takes what, a few minutes? probably takes longer to respec your points than it does to earn the money
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
Feb 19 2013, 02:24
|
destructorspace
Group: Gold Star Club
Posts: 403
Joined: 22-November 09

|
QUOTE(Arxdewn @ Feb 18 2013, 17:22)  a few thousand credits takes what, a few minutes? probably takes longer to respec your points than it does to earn the money
Meh, I'm pretty happy with my current setup, I'm mainly doing hourlies and a couple of arenas a day, so it's not like I'm missing out on any golden opportunities. So, on proficiency. It's technically supposed to be how comfortable you are with a certain style, and how much better at it you are compared a random schlub who is just learning where the pointy end of the stick is supposed to point. Following that train of thought, when you're good at something, you tend to be able to do it faster than inexperienced people, with fewer mistakes. Therefore, reducing the cast/attack speed modifier and improving accuracy should be the primary results of becoming more proficient in your chosen fighting style. In addition, you tend to instinctually react to incoming threats, so evade/block/parry should also get buffed, with maybe a chance to add a certain amount of mitigation from using your own proficiencies to recognize how monsters are attacking you - in other words, your two-handed prof might help you better react to a giant's attack patterns, because they likely function in similar ways. Granted, that's a pretty complex idea that would need considerable tweaking to avoid punishing those without an equip set for each proficiency type, and the time/inclination to get to at least half-level in every proficiency, without giving a paltry bonus to those 350+ players who take so long to level that they naturally build up to near full prof, and tend to switch between mage and melee whenever they feel like it. Gah. That took a while to get through. In addition, if you're familiar with a fighting style, you learn how people tend to defend against your attacks - so after a certain mastery level (say 75% level?), you gain anti-resist and anti-evade and all that. Also, certain weapons would probably lend themselves to easy use - well balanced/made, less exotic, etc. Therefore, maybe certain weapons would get natural proficiency boosts, or get it added as a slot that can be unlocked based on quality or whatever. In addition, some should probably be linked with a certain armor type - it's harder to image someone in full plate armor using a staff to obliterate monsters from far away rather than grabbing a broadsword (or dragon-slayer like Guts) and charging straight in. TL;DR: Having a higher proficiency primarily reduces the time it takes to attack, and improves accuracy. In addition, some weapons/equips should probably have prof boosts due to both ease of use, as well as indicating a synergy with a certain armor type. If you've really ground your proficiency up (or have a lot of bonuses from equips), you gain a small amount of anti-resist/evade/parry/etc.. Finally, something to consider would be gaining evade/parry/resist/etc. versus monsters using a fighting style you're very familiar with, but that's more iffy. I suppose that's something to consider when making these broad changes to the very combat system - what are these numbers supposed to indicate, and how we can make them better reflect those ideals.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Feb 19 2013, 02:50
|
blue penguin
Group: Gold Star Club
Posts: 10,046
Joined: 24-March 12

|
QUOTE(HTTP/308 @ Feb 18 2013, 16:41)  Exponential or Logarithmic isn't any different from Polynomial. Parameters are very range limited.
Probably no one cares but here goes: Logarithmic growth is very different from polynomial growth. It is the other way around, logarithmic functions grows less for bigger x, type log(x) in wolfram. Although, logarithmic growth is just the inverse of exponential growth. More importantly, there's a fourth type of growth apart from linear, polynomial, exponential and . There's abnormal growth. You can find it in sequences, from quicker to slower growth here are some examples: CODE 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 4 6 9 13 17 26 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 7 10 14 19 29
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Feb 19 2013, 03:43
|
Herp in your Derp
Group: Members
Posts: 2,158
Joined: 7-November 12

|
I don't mage, so I don't know what the numbers are like, but how about adding bonus multiplier to ether tap based on your highest magic proficiency value? So something like if prof = 1.2,1.4,1.6,1.8 times hv level (or whatever prof:lvl ratio is sensible), it would tack on +0.75% to the base mp value (ie. 2.75%/3.5%/4.25%/5%, or again whatever numbers are sensible) so ending up with a max of 10% base mp return a tick when stacked.
|
|
|
Feb 19 2013, 08:04
|
Herp in your Derp
Group: Members
Posts: 2,158
Joined: 7-November 12

|
Didn't see it until now. I would have put more effort into it if I saw the offer earlier (IMG:[ invalid] style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) Anyway, the idea was based on all that whining you lot did about the change to ET.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
Feb 19 2013, 10:47
|
HTTP/308
Group: Catgirl Camarilla
Posts: 1,087
Joined: 8-April 10

|
QUOTE(blue penguin @ Feb 19 2013, 08:50)  Probably no one cares but here goes: Logarithmic growth is very different from polynomial growth. It is the other way around, logarithmic functions grows less for bigger x, type log(x) in wolfram. Although, logarithmic growth is just the inverse of exponential growth. More importantly, there's a fourth type of growth apart from linear, polynomial, exponential and . There's abnormal growth. You can find it in sequences, from quicker to slower growth here are some examples: CODE 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 4 6 9 13 17 26 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 7 10 14 19 29
First, you ignored that I mentioned 'paramters are range-limited'. Second, you failed to realized that 1st & 3rd example are so obviously exponential. This post has been edited by HTTP/308: Feb 19 2013, 20:07
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Feb 19 2013, 16:40
|
blue penguin
Group: Gold Star Club
Posts: 10,046
Joined: 24-March 12

|
QUOTE(HTTP/308 @ Feb 19 2013, 08:47)  1st & 3rd example are so obviously exponential.
Crap, you're right HTTP/308, I plotted the sequences and all three are exponential. I always used sum and product sequences to disguise the growth from my users. Now I will need a better idea...
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Feb 21 2013, 01:58
|
Jaiim
Newcomer
 Group: Recruits
Posts: 16
Joined: 13-September 11

|
I'll just throw in my opinion as a relatively low level mage.
As far as proficiency goes...my profs are really low across the board (I level too quickly for my profs to catch up now), so I've been wearing Gossamer from the beginning and still am. How about making proficiency affect cast time and counter-resist of their schools DIRECTLY, instead of being a bonus attached to your armor? This way you don't even need to make changes to the armor. Phase would retain its current role of being good when your proficiency is already high and gossamer would retain it's purpose of boosting proficiency until you get it to a decent level and can use Phase to boost your damage output. Gossamer would get a niche since the high proficiency boost would make spells of particular schools excessively cheap and quick to cast when used at an already high proficiency level, which might appeal to some over raw damage. Might even make "of the Earth Walker" gear viable to use in some situations.
As far as the new spell learning being dependent on level...I love the idea, because it would funnel more of my AP towards other things like Spirit Tanks, Resistances, and EXP Tanks (which I currently have none of, because Health, Mana, and Spells use up nearly all my AP even though I trained 50 ranks of extra points). However, in the short term, I would probably lose a lot of my spells and have to grind profs in the item world to learn them again. Perhaps make it a bit easier to gain spell proficiency now that there is no damage bonus and it is required to learn new spells? Since it's capped to your level anyway, it shouldn't be an issue to make it slightly less of a hassle.
Curse weaving being removed can only be a good thing right? This means we can just cast as many debuffs as we want. My prof is so low right now that I can only get up 2 spells; with Imperil being nerfed I'll use it even less than I already do. Now I can play with Slow, Poison, Sleep, and Silence if I feel like it without the only usable slots being monopolized by Weaken and Imperil out of necessity.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Feb 22 2013, 12:57
|
xmagus
Group: Members
Posts: 1,042
Joined: 16-July 12

|
In terms of proficiency balancing, how about this? For elemental magics, proficiencies in each element: 1. Increase specific mitigations (say, every 10 points gains you 0.25% mitigation for the 4 elements, and 1% for Holy/Dark/Soul). This should have the immediate effect of making Gossamer a bit more valuable (and Cotton somewhat less valuable, but you can't have everything). 2. Have a chance of "W-Magic from FF7" effect (say, every 10 points above the minimum required increases the chance by 10% of an additional cast). Which is to say, if your proficiency is 250 and the spell requires 100 prof, you will cast the spell 2x 100% of the time and 3x 50% of the time (so you will always have a 2nd cast, and half the time, you'll have a 3rd cast). Again, this will make Gossamer pretty useful. 3. Allow elemental debuff stacking. If you're removing Curse Weaving anyway, I don't see why not. Higher proficiencies increase the chance of stacking debuffs (say a max of 3x or 5x). When you set off an elemental explosion, you pop one off the stack (and have a chance to proc the 2nd element's debuff, and stack it as well). I can imagine any number of tactics based on this. (IMG:[ invalid] style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) 4. Increase the duration of Infusions. As it is, infusions are far more useful for melees than mages right now. If every 10 points of elemental/divine/forbidden proficiency increases the effect of Infusions by 1 turn, I think that would make infusions much more useful. 5. Increase the (random) chance of casting a higher-tier/AoE spell instead of the spell chosen, but at the same cast speed and mana cost. Sort of like a mini-Channeling. I fully realise this might play havoc with tactics, but it would make for a more interesting game. For Deprecating and Supportive, in addition to longer spell durations (which it already does): 1. Increased spell power. Right now, Weaken cuts 50% attack damage at full AP. Let proficiencies further reduce damage (say, by 1% every 10 points). You can always implement a cap (say, 90%). 2. Effect on corresponding Scrolls. Similar to increase in duration of Infusions for Elemental proficiencies. 3. Allow in-battle auto-casting, say, each 100 points above minimum required allows spell to be re-cast 1x. So, if I cast Haste, which requires 100 prof, and I have 250 prof, Haste will renew itself once after expiring. If I have 350 prof, it will renew itself 2x without my having to manually cast it again. After that, I will have to manually cast it again (but it will re-cast 2x). Same with Deprecating spells; let the effect auto-renew x number of times when it expires. It isn't IA, and you don't get the mana discount, and if you DON'T want it to recast it will play havoc with your mana management. My personal beefs: 1. For Heavy armour, but especially for Power, proficiencies (or armour levels) should increase Attack Speed. The reason is, powered armour in real life includes servos and motors which really does not only increase your strength, but your speed as well. 2. Proficiency in Light armour, but especially Shade, should add Counter-accuracy to mobs' attacks. My image of Shade armour is the kind of stuff that allows you to dance around the battlefield, making it harder for the enemy to hit you. Not just increased Evade, which is more like just-in-time dodging, but actually reducing Attack Accuracy. 3. The nerfing of OC is not a good idea (for any number of ideas others have already given), unless there is a static damage bonus per OC tank. Spirit Stance should also be made independent of OC, if you're going to nerf OC.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
 |
 |
 |
|