[KR TEST] Armor masteries and stat/skill rebalancing

This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.

To view other archive projects go to https://archives.mabination.com

Zeo wrote on 2013-03-21 21:14

Quote from Zekkii;1053433:
So it's:

[Constant * Base * Mastery * (1 + MATK/100) + Contant * Base * Mastery * (Charge Multiplier - 1)] 1.3 if full charge?

That's just weird, makes me scared they're trying to make the full charges weaker so they can put in chain casting.

Yeah I'm worried too. I hope it's just a glitch and it'll be fixed soon.
Johny wrote on 2013-03-21 21:15

Quote from Zekkii;1053420:
Assuming everything turns to 4 MATK (S5 Ice Crown 28% magic damage, 15 matk from enchants, 1000 INT)

Wand damage = 28 * 4 MATK
Special Upgrade = 17 * 4 MATK
Enchants = 60 MATK
1000 Int = 200 MATK
Magic Masteer = 5 * 4 MATK

Total = 460 MATK (+r1 Ice, Lv 20 IS damage) [No Rosemary, missing step 6, missing about 100 Int, missing 5 MATK from current enchants, no extra reforges]

Constant * Base * Mastery * Charge Multiplier * (1 + MATK/100)
0.9 * 340 * 1.15 * 6.5 * 5.6 = 12,809

It's stronger. Right?

The new formula read more like this: (Base*charge bonus)+((matk+mastery_bonus+other_bonus)*spell_coefficient)

The flaw is the charge bonus only affects the base damage, not the whole result after calculating in magic attack.
radionoise wrote on 2013-03-21 21:21

Quote from Zekkii;1053433:
That's just weird, makes me scared they're trying to make the full charges weaker so they can put in chain casting.

Who knows.
<MovingCasting race="base">
<SkillLevelDetail Feature="gfCircleDruidMerlin"...

<ChainCasting race="base">
<SkillLevelDetail Feature="gfCircleDruidMerlin"...
Zekkii wrote on 2013-03-21 21:37

Quote from Johny;1053435:
The new formula read more like this: (Base*charge bonus)+((matk+mastery_bonus+other_bonus)*spell_coefficient)

The flaw is the charge bonus only affects the base damage, not the whole result after calculating in magic attack.

That would mean that 460 MATK would always give 414 max for any given IS? In no part of that formula does MATK or Mastery bonus ever multiply against base damage or charge multiplier. In fact, that would mean IS would only differ by exactly 240 from charge to charge, and 600 for the last charge.

Either you've given me a bad formula, or devCAT has lost their mind.
Johny wrote on 2013-03-21 21:39

Quote from Zekkii;1053453:
That would mean that 460 MATK would always give 414 max for any given IS? In no part of that formula does MATK or Mastery bonus ever multiply against base damage or charge multiplier. In fact, that would mean IS would only differ by exactly 240 from charge to charge, and 600 for the last charge.

Either you've given me a bad formula, or devCAT has lost their mind.

Only following what I read in Mabidata.

If DevCat is using this formula, then they did lose their minds... or made a mistake. I'm praying for the latter
JoeyDee9 wrote on 2013-03-21 21:40

Quote from Zekkii;1053453:
That would mean that 460 MATK would always give 414 max for any given IS? In no part of that formula does MATK or Mastery bonus ever multiply against base damage or charge multiplier. In fact, that would mean IS would only differ by exactly 240 from charge to charge, and 600 for the last charge.

Either you've given me a bad formula, or devCAT has lost their mind.

Zekki that formula holds, 100% for my personal use of it on test server.

Edit: It holds for ever charge value without a single error in max damage. At least for me it did.

Edit2: In my opinion adding more skills does not help the magic tab as a whole, even a chain casting one. It just makes the most AP costly skillset more AP costly. They have to either rewrite magic completely, or if they want to add skills in need to change the AP costs around.
Zeo wrote on 2013-03-21 21:54

...I'm confused now. If the bonus damage for each skill does apply to each charge... shouldn't the damage get a small increase instead of losing out some damages with the new formula?
Zekkii wrote on 2013-03-21 22:02

Quote from JoeyDee9;1053459:
Zekki that formula holds, 100% for my personal use of it on test server.

Edit: It holds for ever charge value without a single error in max damage. At least for me it did.

Edit2: In my opinion adding more skills does not help the magic tab as a whole, even a chain casting one. It just makes the most AP costly skillset more AP costly. They have to either rewrite magic completely, or if they want to add skills in need to change the AP costs around.

I wonder how hard they're raging in KR. If they're planning a buff later, I don't understand why they'd throw in a broken formula now. It shouldn't even require in-game testing to find out how stupid this formula is by itself, unless this is just a horrible bug.

Quote from Zeo;1053472:
...I'm confused now. If the bonus damage for each skill does apply to each charge... shouldn't the damage get a small increase instead of losing out some damages with the new formula?

Based on the formula, it's added after the damage from the skill. So it makes magic attack * coefficient a simple add-on regardless of charges or base damage.
JoeyDee9 wrote on 2013-03-21 22:05

If we came up with this I'm sure they did already and even more stuff. Blaze though...man blaze is way too powerful. It's like they didn't change it's formula at all.

That might actually be the case, anyone have blazes formula?
Perfectio wrote on 2013-03-21 22:50

Quote from NomadTrooper;1053384:
Why would you want magic to be fast? Then it would play exactly like every other skill set. Its problem isn't speed, it's damage. Why can melee kill everything before magic is loaded? It's because monsters are to weak, they were not readjusted when combat was buffed, so they got left behind. There is no reason to charge up a nuke attack when everything dies from a gentle tap of the sword! To add on to this, all combat types deal the same damage as our current nuke class. Why bother with a nuke, if you can deal the same damage with normal melee? Magic needs a massive damage buff. If range can hit 10k's every 0.5 seconds and Fire Ball takes 20 seconds to charge, then Fire Ball should deal 400k damage in one hit, or mathematically it can't compete. Think this is insane? Well, Fire Ball was hitting 10k back when smashing 2k was amazing, but Fire Ball is still hitting 10k wile players are smashing 30k now.

OT: this update looks bad as it is. I really hope they fix the charge stacking formula, or our long awaited buff has become a joke nerf.

Even if magic did 99999 after charging, why wait 7-14 seconds when you can clear the room in 3 with Crash > Act 7? And then WM or Bulletstorm on top. The only damage that is useful is that necessary to kill the enemy, the rest is waste. And as long as you can clear a room with spamming Act 7 or Crash, then magic will be second-rate and situational regardless of damage.

Your overall point is valid - physical skillsets are outrageously strong compared to the stuff you have to kill and because you don't NEED magic's high damage numbers to kill things, why wait?

That's why I support simply implementing an inherent chaincast (with all speedcast upgrades removed including reforges, while Vivace would boost alchemy/magic damage) on all "loading" magic coupled with long (Act 7/Fighter-esque) cooldowns, and the return of the current magic formula (maybe with 10 int for 1 matk instead but not needed).

Magic would then have the speed of puppetry (esp with Ice Spear) but more restrictive cooldowns, higher AP costs (You only need around 2.5k AP to cap Puppetry and get 800 total Str + Dex), and higher maint costs (wand repair, MP use)
radionoise wrote on 2013-03-22 00:10

Stat bonuses for alchemy are added AFTER multipliers. So 1 charge will be stronger, but 5 charge will barely change. Pretty lame.

Also, seems 50% balance is around 1150 dex.
Kingofrunes wrote on 2013-03-22 00:14

Quote from radionoise;1053618:
Stat bonuses for alchemy are added AFTER multipliers. So 1 charge will be stronger, but 5 charge will barely change. Pretty lame.

Also, seems 50% balance is around 1150 dex.

Which is still way too high? *le sigh*

Still a long way to go devcat.
Zekkii wrote on 2013-03-22 00:20

Quote from radionoise;1053618:
Stat bonuses for alchemy are added AFTER multipliers. So 1 charge will be stronger, but 5 charge will barely change. Pretty lame.

Sounds just like magic, and I really feel they did this because of chain cylinder. It seems to hint at chain casting weaker 5 charge skills, and I don't like it, particularly for intermediate magics that cause mass aggro.
Zeo wrote on 2013-03-22 00:22

Quote from Zekkii;1053630:
Sounds just like magic, and I really feel they did this because of chain cylinder. It seems to hint at chain casting weaker 5 charge skills, and I don't like it, particularly for intermediate magics that cause mass aggro.

Yeeeah... I don't like the idea of new formula for magic and now alchemy too.
JoeyDee9 wrote on 2013-03-22 00:27

Quote from Zeo;1053635:
Yeeeah... I don't like the idea of new formula for magic and now alchemy too.

Well, if it's the same alchemy formula with the addition of stats its not like much changes. Imagine a DK using flame burst...it technically hits 5 times so is that 5 times HP added?

« First ‹ Prev 1 … 35 36 37 38 39 81 Next › Last »