[X] My Assistant

He must get his mon from Jurassic Park then.

I had a small one for long. Refused to buy a new one before the old one dies and then the Fucker lived 7 years!

I had a small one for long. Refused to buy a new one before the old one dies and then the Fucker lived 7 years!

Mons die? (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) I still have a 20 or so year old one that still works....it came used when I got it as a donation from a relative.

EDIT - and no I don't use it.

This post has been edited by Kaosumx: May 2 2012, 20:17

I had a small one for long. Refused to buy a new one before the old one dies and then the Fucker lived 7 years!

My old CRT mon lasted for about 7 years, and the LCD replacement is still working after 7 years.
Don't want any replacement though, as 17" mon is difficult to find nowadays. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif)

Mons die? (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) I still have a 20 or so year old one that still works....it came used when I got it as a donation from a relative.

EDIT - and no I don't use it.

the one I got after this worked for like half a year (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

Make Domino Strike "cycle" through the monster list

i.e. 8 monsters, A through H, I hit monster A and Domino Strike procs, monster B and H get the hit.

8 monsters again, A through H, with only monsters A, B, and H remain and the rest are dead. Hitting monster B with Domino Strike proc should also hit monster A and H , instead of monster A and C (who is already dead)


This post has been edited by Coma: May 2 2012, 21:56

You like text? I like text. Reposting from main discussion thread because I like my suggestion so much and so should you.

WARNING: EFFORT POST

The differences between heavy armor and light armor in general are pretty counterintuitive.

For these equations, I'll assume a value of 20% mitigation from Endurance, and 10% from the secondary mitigation stat (wisdom or strength).

Light armor has lots of protective resistances, such as +evade, lots of +resist (not that that matters now but it really helps vs. original creatures like FSM) and low burden. Assuming a 16% contribution to mitigation from this armor type.

(1-0.20)(1-0.10)(1-0.16) = 0.6048x = 60.48% damage taken/39.52% damage reduction.
Assuming effective 20% evade for average HV light armor player's equipment and agility (I make no delusion that my equipment is average), light armor players take an overall 48.38% of damage incoming before parry or resist.

Heavy armor has 1.5-1.6x the amount of mitigation while losing at least half of the evade, plus resist is completely gone. Assuming a 25% contribution to mitigation from this armor type, and a ~2% advantage to Endurance added.
(1-0.22)(1-0.10)(1-0.25) = 0.5265x = 52.65% damage taken/47.35% damage reduction.
Assuming effective 2% evade for the average HV heavy armor player's equipment and agility + burden penalty, heavy armor players take an overall 51.6% damage taken, before parry (not resist, since that's mostly absent.)

This makes heavy armor clearly less protective than light armor, and due to the heavy reliance on top-quality gear, heavy armor users pretty much have to look for high percentile mitigation rolls on their gear to edge out light armor users in protection.

Ideally you'd have heavy armor be at least 2.5x-3x protective on the mitigation aspect due to diminishing returns but that's not what happens in reality.

IN WHERE I PROMOTE A 1/(1+X+Y+....) SYSTEM OVER (1-X)(1-Y)(1-Zn).... SYSTEM, AGAIN

If the mitigation system worked under 1/(1+x+y+z1+z2+z3+z4+z5+zS) (where z is equipment and zS is a possible shield) like I've posted before it would be a lot easier to balance the defensive capabilities of light and heavy armor.

...so instead of 16% of mitigation coming from light armor and 25% mitigation coming from heavy armor on top of a 20% endurance mitigation, you'd have 16* mitigation from light armor, and 48* mitigation from heavy armor on top of 20* endurance mitigation. assuming secondary mitigation can come from either strength and wisdom, I'll put that in as 10*.

* being the value from the proposed system.

Proposed light armor damage taken:
1 / (1 + 0.20 + 0.10 + 0.16) = 0.684931507 ~= 68.5% damage taken/31.5% damage reduction.
Assuming effective 20% evade for average HV light armor player's equipment and agility, the light armor player will face 54.8% of total damage incoming.

Proposed heavy armor damage taken, with a small endurance advantage assumed in the form of +2 "value" of the proposed mitigation system:
1 / (1 + 0.22 + 0.10 + 0.48) = 0.555555556 ~= 55.6% damage taken/44.4% damage reduction.
Assuming effective 2% evade for the average HV heavy armor player's equipment and agility + burden penalty, this is 54.48% total damage incoming. Survivability under this system and scaling become similar, though light armor now has a measurable higher vulnerability to attacks that actually hit compared to heavy armor, closer to expected and possibly intended.

The other reason I promote this system is that 1/(1+X+Y+Z1+...+Zn) is not that much harder to code than multiplying (1-X)*(1-Y)*(1-Z1)* ... *(1-Zn) together.

Additionally, the "new value" scaling factors for mitigations can be increased from 0.21 to 0.42-0.504 to scale better with this proposed system, by level:

If the scaling values for mitigation were .502 instead of .21, we'd see these equations:

Light Armor
20 From_End + 10 From_Sec + 38.24 From_Eq
1 / (1 + 0.20 + 0.10 + 0.3824) = 0.594388968 ~= 59.44% damage taken.
Assuming 20% evade, this is 59.44 * .8 = 47.552% overall damage taken.

Heavy Armor
20 From_End + 10 From_Sec + 114.74 From_Eq
1 / (1 + 0.22 + 0.10 + 1.1474) = 0.405284915 ~= 40.53% damage taken.
Assuming 2% evade, this is 40.53 * .98 = 39.7194% overall damage taken.

This post has been edited by Bunker Buster: May 4 2012, 13:11

Adapt Defend and Focus to stances, so we have three fighting stances!!

This post has been edited by Bunker Buster: May 4 2012, 14:00

Adapt Defend and Focus to stances, so we have three fighting stances!!

good one (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

You like text? I like text. Reposting from main discussion thread because I like my suggestion so much and so should you.
The other reason I promote this system is that 1/(1+X+Y+Z1+...+Zn) is not that much harder to code than multiplying (1-X)*(1-Y)*(1-Z1)* ... *(1-Zn) together.

Additionally, the "new value" scaling factors for mitigations can be increased from 0.21 to 0.42-0.504 to scale better with this proposed system, by level:

You forget that heavies also have shield pieces. With my crappy pieces, I can get easily 33% block chance, + whatever parry I already have.

And that's with 10% more mitigation compared to my shade pieces, identical block/evade, identical parry and 20% difference in mana use (120% for light compared to 140% for heavy).

If not for the difference in action speed, I'd go for heavy every time.

There's no real difference in action speed now~

Shield has 27% lower maximum protection rolls than Plate, though, and due to the percentage inverse multiplier system is most often worse than Plate, especially since block has such a high variance compared to mitigation (lowest block is less than 20% of highest block, while lowest mitigation is ~68% of highest mitigation)

Under the proposed system, the effective damage you would be allowed to take before block is factored in would be consistently 27% lower for shield vs. plate, which is a more acceptable loss assuming a block chance of 20% from the average shield set, compared to the increasingly higher damage mitigation advantage plate has over shield.

Send Monster of Banned Users on Hiatus.

They take up spawn slots for Monsters of active users.

Send Monster of Banned Users on Hiatus.

They take up spawn slots for Monsters of active users.

Also please stop making us fight our own monsters. Does not make sense and is counterproductive since we can't get/exploit materials from them killing us.

Or better yet, all owned monsters are your ally if hostile monsters are present and contently take their beating without attacking if there are none.

This post has been edited by hitokiri84: May 4 2012, 21:01

Also please stop making us fight our own monsters. Does not make sense and is counterproductive since we can't get/exploit materials from them killing us.

Or better yet, all owned monsters are your ally if hostile monsters are present and contently take their beating without attacking if there are none.

I often see 4 of my monsters in the same battle, it would be about time they did something for me (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I would love fighting together with my Lisi (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/happy.gif)

What happens if all the monsters spawned are your own monsters (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

What happens if all the monsters spawned are your own monsters (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

Free win (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Better then dying to a round of all your monsters, no one wins...

I would love fighting together with my Lisi (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/happy.gif)

pillow fights don't count

What happens if all the monsters spawned are your own monsters (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

The most I've seen is 4 in one battle, don't recall ever seeing anymore then that so maybe there is a limit

Get a dozen PL1000 monsters and half of them will we in battle at any time then. You don't even have to anything, free wins (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Just allow one monster to fight alongside you.
It can only attack like other mobs but cant be attacked. Would be pretty easy to implement?