[X] My Assistant

As the game scaled up, monsters can get base mitigations that are quite a bit higher than what was originally intended. This makes stuff that reduces this mitigation much more powerful than most everything else.

Furthermore, proficiency gear is still viewed mostly in terms of how much damage it adds. It would be nice to give it something else instead. Seeing as reducing mitigations outright would restore a certain facerolling aspect, combining this with a mitigation decrease makes sense.
Planned changes:

- Monster PMI/MMI formula changed to use player's formula, meaning it caps at 80% instead of 95%, and get there much later.

- Removed proficiency damage modifier. Today this is a /200 factor increase.

- Removed skill damage bonus for higher than required overcharge.

Interesting. I'll be running some numbers before I comment much further. I have the feeling that this will up damage vs 501st and such, but lower it vs more mundane mobs. Yep, time to go crunch a pile of numbers.

- Spells now have a required proficiency and player level. They are granted when you meet both conditions.

- Spells get a cost reduction and/or cast time decrease depending on how much higher your proficiency is compared to the spell's required proficiency.

Interesting. I'm guessing you intend to pull Ability Tree Mk 2 at the same time. So this is Tenboro's Ambition™.

- Having a proficiency higher than a monster's level will grant a counter-resist bonus for spells targeting it.

I'm assuming this will be a ratio like Curse Weaving (since otherwise a high level with a good prof piece will just scale to the point of negating all resist, or it'll be useless drek like Oak's CR).

- Curse Weaving removed.

Barely affects mages, but good for low level melee trying to take FSM. If they had 0 Deprecating, they simply could not make Silence, Weaken and their weapon proc stick. Now they'll just run out of mana half way through. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Assumed effects:

- Reduced reliance on armor piercing and imperil at higher levels: increase in damage output without debuffs, but decreased with armor-piercing debuffs.

- Added value to proficiency-increasing gear.
Discuss. Preferably in more general terms and not in a "this is a net gain/loss for my specific style and setup" kind of way. (And I'm specifically not mentioning the exact numbers and scaling involved.)

I do have to say regarding Gossamer vs Phase, should probably bring Gossamer up to Phase general stats. I know there's a tier difference, but there's a reason we'd rather get prof from Staff than armor, and the defense hit is part of it.

Temchy: That's a positive mana net per turn - even partway it is rather powerful. Though I acknowledge the approaching /0 effect that is a problem between starting out and established melees. But it is not like mages don't use IA too (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) And in that T1 scenario, the mage, assuming having invested that into gear, will still fail to oneshot something other than 'weak' and get nomnommed.

Anyhow, one thing I'm curious about here. Is it intentional for everyone to both melee and mage?

Tenboro, you forgot to add about the reduced riddlemaster appearances. Good thing I was here to remind you, huh?

I like how my suggestions made the cut

T1s wouldn't be able to kill anything.

Oh yes they do.

Remember that the most popular way to farm for some things is in Normal GF wherein going for hundreds of rounds is preferred.

As a DW rapier and 2H estoc user, I'm curious as to what this means. Will Penetrated Armor just not have as big of an effect as it does now? It was already nerfed with the Proc stacking thing, so this would be pretty bad for those weapons.

Exactly, it seems like the "reduced reliance on armor piercing weapons" is gonna suck for estoc and rapier users (and right after the 3x stacking already gimped those two weapons a bit). I guess that falls under the "net gain/loss for my specific style and set-up" though.

Oh yes they do.

You can spam t3 spells in gf.

Exactly, it seems like the "reduced reliance on armor piercing weapons" is gonna suck for estoc and rapier users (and right after the 3x stacking already gimped those two weapons a bit). I guess that falls under the "net gain/loss for my specific style and set-up" though.

Estoc and rapier wont be nerfed, the damage will be the same as now the only change would be that mace and scythe would do more damage without penetrated armor.

Joe: I certainly can't do much with them. Chosen is a holy mage on the level of investing in DD, hundreds of forges, yet he needs to target Celestia with Banish and hope on Normal.

Type advantage would lets them kill 1-2 - against those that are weak. Wouldn't kill even those with neutral starting resistances.

Oh and btw: if you do have enough damage(as I had few patches ago) you can go on in gf and gain mana inconsistently with current t1 costs thanks to gems and riddles in early gf thanks to receiving less damage.

increase in damage output without debuffs, but decreased with armor-piercing debuffs.

Maybe I am not fully understanding the change but Tenboro flat out states that there will be reduced damage output with armor piercing debuffs. So that sounds like it sucks for PA and estoc/rapier. Can someone explain a little better what exactly the monster mitigation change will do to PA?

This post has been edited by T_Starrk: Feb 15 2013, 01:59

Don't give better PABs/evade on gossamer.
T2 equips should look like T2 equip.

Anti-resist is already attractive enough.

I certainly can't do much with them.

Notice the difference in our levels? (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Possibly change the stacking for PA/bleed slightly after this, like 50/100% PA and 0.5/1/1.5/2 or 1/2 for bleed. Depending on how the counter-resist/cast speed reduction works out, mages might get too far ahead in killing speed. Although I'm sure skillchip is just dying to do some calculations for this. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
Keep the bonus or decrease it slightly but make it based on max overcharge. If you just remove it, schoolgirl arenas become even less attractive as melee.
Maybe cast time for offensive and cost reduction for supportive spells? That way both mages and melee benefit from this.
Yeah.. IA5, Gold Star, Rainbow Aura and fully sharded? Maybe. Hardly an investment. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

I wouldn't say you need all that. You can probably make it happen with IA3, some feathering/aether shard, a nice estoc and Fus Ro Dah.

Notice the difference in our levels? (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Even hito can't consistently 1-shot shit with t1 (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

And is the new ET here to stay? Can we not just double the effect and make it not stack?

This post has been edited by ChosenUno: Feb 15 2013, 03:14

Even hito can't consistently 1-shot shit with t1 (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

You can't consistently 1-shot anything period, binary resists prevent that at all levels. T1 is faster, cheaper, and still benefits from elemental explosions.

You can probably make it happen with IA3, some feathering/aether shard, a nice estoc and Fus Ro Dah.

Infinite mana with IA3, shards, a killer estoc and Fus Ro Dah? No, just no. Even if you throw gold aura on top it won't do it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I'm imagining the new AP spell system would work:

All elemental, holy and dark T1 spells are available by/at lvl 100. From then on, spells are unlocked on the ability tree as usual, although maybe moving some around, but will require proficiency equal to maybe half level for T2, and 5/6 for T3, and maybe have a T4 that requires 13/12 (unlock) level, just to taunt phase users.

The reason I say holy and dark are up by lvl 100 is because it seems like all spells past that point (or whatever lvl it ends up being) will need proficiency to unlock them, and it just seems evil to require someone to be wearing a full set of prof cloth just to start grinding divine and forbidden profs.

Also, T1 cure and regen seem like they shouldn't have a prof requirement, but the later tiers should.
And then the first five or six supportive spells seem like they won't have a prof requirement either, or else they'll have a very low one. Ooh - can we have holy/dark spike spells, that require divine/forbidden proficiency where the elemental spikes don't or have a much lower requirement?

Infinite mana with IA3, shards, a killer estoc and Fus Ro Dah? No, just no. Even if you throw gold aura on top it won't do it.

If you focus you can achieve near-infinite mana.

Maybe I am not fully understanding the change but Tenboro flat out states that there will be reduced damage output with armor piercing debuffs. So that sounds like it sucks for PA and estoc/rapier. Can someone explain a little better what exactly the monster mitigation change will do to PA?

I think what he meant was more like "the increase in damage will be less when PA/imperil is applied." At least that's what will happen when monster PMI changes, non-PA will deal up to 4x as much damage, PA will deal the same amount of damage at 3 stacks.

If you focus you can achieve near-infinite mana.

If you ET you can to DwD on IWBTH, too.
Point is, there was no mention of focus, pretty much the only mode where infinite mana would come in handy should be high-round GF and I'm not too sure about spamming focus on round 500+.

I think what he meant was more like "the increase in damage will be less when PA/imperil is applied." At least that's what will happen when monster PMI changes, non-PA will deal up to 4x as much damage, PA will deal the same amount of damage at 3 stacks.
If you ET you can to DwD on IWBTH, too.
Point is, there was no mention of focus, pretty much the only mode where infinite mana would come in handy should be high-round GF and I'm not too sure about spamming focus on round 500+.

You can just sleep something and spam focus. Not a big deal.

As for ETing your way to DwD, yeah you can, but then why not just play melee? (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Some people here will remember somebody who wore full kevlar and a staff going into DwD IWBTH (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

- Removed proficiency damage modifier. Today this is a /200 factor increase.

How about instead of removing it, capping it at player level, and anything over it going towards anti-resist.

Or always having the additional factor being (1+level/200) to replace the loss of prof damage bonus.

Or you could instead have it take away from SPECIFIC mitigations, that would be interesting and a good way to stabilize damage.

Or maybe making resistances going back to the old "Rating" system, where they boost damage that way. Pretty much like Chosenuno said, if you just remove the proficiency damage factor without replacing it with another one you remove a LARGE chunk of mage damage, which would not be made up for from the change in PMI. The ratings would have to be some factor of level though in order to have it "Scale" with the player.

The final way that the damage decrease could be offset besides a different prof factor like what was suggested earlier, would be to change the level scaling factor of EDB so that it scales faster.

- Removed skill damage bonus for higher than required overcharge.

Are you going to bring back the old damage buff from having overcharge then?

- Spells now have a required proficiency and player level. They are granted when you meet both conditions.

- Spells get a cost reduction and/or cast time decrease depending on how much higher your proficiency is compared to the spell's required proficiency.

- Having a proficiency higher than a monster's level will grant a counter-resist bonus for spells targeting it.

Hope this scales well in all of those. The cost reduction sounds sexy, but like the change in how damage is done, will be difficult to balance just right. Cast time would honestly be easier, but the cost reduction would be much more noticeable by the players.

You might need to lower the prof level scaling factor some so it scales faster with level, otherwise it will slowly become a lower percent over a players level as the person becomes a higher and higher level.

- Curse Weaving removed.

Thanks for agreeing with me here, since players already had to deal with resist why have to deal with both? But since you are doing this why not add a fair amount of resist to FSM and other "Gods" like RL and IPU?

Assumed effects:

- Reduced reliance on armor piercing and imperil at higher levels: increase in damage output without debuffs, but decreased with armor-piercing debuffs.

As the game scaled up, monsters can get base mitigations that are quite a bit higher than what was originally intended. This makes stuff that reduces this mitigation much more powerful than most everything else.

- Monster PMI/MMI formula changed to use player's formula, meaning it caps at 80% instead of 95%, and get there much later.

Even with the change from the old PMI/MMI values to the new, you won't really make Bleed be quite as attractive as
PA in most cases. This is mainly due to the fact that it "ticks" when the monster takes a turn. If it did a portion of the bleed damage every time it was proc'ed. PA does a fantastic job of putting out big numbers and having a noticeable effect on the damage per swing that the player has. The problem with bleed is that it is pretty passive, if it was able to deal damage every time it was proc'ed on the enemy instead of JUST when the enemy takes a turn, then bleeders would truly be able to compete with the thrill of strength of PA.

Assumed effects:

- Added value to proficiency-increasing gear.

Really you wont add much value to prof gear, since like I told you before, someone isn't going to give up a large amount of damage in order to hit 1% more often. 50% anti-resist would increase "long run average damage" 12.5%. I think Anti-Resist and Anti-Resistance/Mit would be a good way to make this kind of gear more attractive or "Valuable"

Even with the change from the old PMI/MMI values to the new, you won't really make Bleed be quite as attractive as
PA in most cases. This is mainly due to the fact that it "ticks" when the monster takes a turn. If it did a portion of the bleed damage every time it was proc'ed. PA does a fantastic job of putting out big numbers and having a noticeable effect on the damage per swing that the player has. The problem with bleed is that it is pretty passive, if it was able to deal damage every time it was proc'ed on the enemy instead of JUST when the enemy takes a turn, then bleeders would truly be able to compete with the thrill of strength of PA.

As what I have seen from the last patch, estoc and rapier are namely 'T2' but actually in a drop rate of 'T4'. The reason of claiming that scythe is in 'T3' and so bleeding must take a great buff or estoc should go to hell has destroyed.
It is interesting that what is the aim of making changes. Are we going to force every one using 'T3' as a end game level, or hoping both 'T2' and 'T3' become a choice of playing.
Making a buff or debuff is easy, but the reason to do and convinced player is difficult.


I did not play HV a long time, even only play with a warrior two-hand heavy armor style.
By looking at the future revamp, it seems that decreasing the monster's PMI is already a relative debuff to PA and buffing to bleeding. I am not going to say this is good or bad (actually feel cool), but first just take a look of the over changes.
As the monster's PMI decrease, without taking any PA or bleeding, keeping the same base damage currently will come out a higher damage. For PA, there is no changes that it still require 3 stacks to reduce 100% PMI. The capped damage will not change from now. For bleeding, as what I saw from the formula, nothing changed.
To conclude, I think that is what Tenboro means:

Assumed effects:

- Reduced reliance on armor piercing and imperil at higher levels: increase in damage output without debuffs, but decreased with armor-piercing debuffs.

The PA defuff become less important to deal full damage, it looks like a nerf to PA but actually not, it is just reducing the hardness of other playing style.