The Forum

A problem with the % system at GVW/WotW and how to solve it

<<Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next >>

Author	Content	Date
_JR_	RVR- mentioned before Split the % instead of a set 100% for all f10 stats.. devils could be... 60% attack 60% defense 60% MA 100% MD Gvw... Put the % back to normal and look at the issue after the new stat system. The only reason why people can tank is due to lack of pvp skill... if heal chars turned up spamming a few spells, speed of the knuckles flying around and 100% hit rate on axe ... grab some zombie pads and a decent proc set and its game over.. there's 0 team work, last gvw every1 was hitting different people. even if sum1 was on the stone there were still people fighting the person next to them PM Reply Quote [quote="_JR_"]RVR- mentioned before Split the % instead of a set 100% for all f10 stats.. devils could be... 60% attack 60% defense 60% MA 100% MD Gvw... Put the % back to normal and look at the issue after the new stat system. The only reason why people can tank is due to lack of pvp skill... if heal chars turned up spamming a few spells, speed of the knuckles flying around and 100% hit rate on axe ... grab some zombie pads and a decent proc set and its game over.. there's 0 team work, last gvw every1 was hitting different people. even if sum1 was on the stone there were still people fighting the person next to them [/quote]	#31 2017/01/04 22:42:00
JARAGOONDOO	"_JR_"devils could be... 60% attack 60% defense 60% MA 100% MD This idea is decent, but it just feels kind of.... messy and non-autonomous? How do we decide exactly what the attack % and the defense % should be? It seems like a solution that would require constant GM attention (adjusting %s), and for that reason I don't like this idea. PM Reply Quote [quote="JARAGOONDOO"][quote="_JR_"]devils could be... 60% attack 60% defense 60% MA 100% MD [/quote] This idea is decent, but it just feels kind of.... messy and non-autonomous? How do we decide exactly what the attack % and the defense % should be? It seems like a solution that would require constant GM attention (adjusting %s), and for that reason I don't like this idea.[/quote]	#32 2017/01/04 22:48:20
JARAGOONDOO	"ISYLVER" Not sure who you're addressing in your molehill comment but your solution offers no solution to the above issue with a damage based calc that both finito and I questioned above. Theoretically if I'm doing 1 damage to a character on 100% and still 1 damage to them if they're on 5% is that a good solution? Con/str int/wis and the defensive stats will be switched back in the Dsoma rework. Sorry, didn't see this comment earlier. You could just leave Defense as is (use the current % system to alter F10 defense). The main issue I noticed was with Attack. PM Reply Quote [quote="JARAGOONDOO"][quote="ISYLVER"] Not sure who you're addressing in your molehill comment but your solution offers no solution to the above issue with a damage based calc that both finito and I questioned above. Theoretically if I'm doing 1 damage to a character on 100% and still 1 damage to them if they're on 5% is that a good solution? Con/str int/wis and the defensive stats will be switched back in the Dsoma rework.[/quote] Sorry, didn't see this comment earlier. You could just leave Defense as is (use the current % system to alter F10 defense). The main issue I noticed was with Attack.[/quote]	#33 2017/01/04 22:50:06
DEIMOS	Rvr the problem with lowering Dev Dex would be how do you then counteract a human with 20+% eva set? PM Reply Quote [quote="DEIMOS"]Rvr the problem with lowering Dev Dex would be how do you then counteract a human with 20+% eva set?[/quote]	#34 2017/01/04 22:51:28
JARAGOONDOO	"DEIMOS"Rvr the problem with lowering Dev Dex would be how do you then counteract a human with 20+% eva set? Well, that's the point. A human using a 20% eva set should be really evasive. With our current superior dex it makes their eva sets completely redundant (which doesn't feel right to me). Would make Acc sets more important on DSoma as everyone just goes full STR sets. EDIT: I think there's too many different discussions going on at the moment, so could we please bring it back on topic. Thanks :) PM Reply Quote [quote="JARAGOONDOO"][quote="DEIMOS"]Rvr the problem with lowering Dev Dex would be how do you then counteract a human with 20+% eva set?[/quote] Well, that's the point. A human using a 20% eva set should be really evasive. With our current superior dex it makes their eva sets completely redundant (which doesn't feel right to me). Would make Acc sets more important on DSoma as everyone just goes full STR sets. EDIT: I think there's too many different discussions going on at the moment, so could we please bring it back on topic. Thanks :)[/quote]	#35 2017/01/04 22:53:58
PATHOLOGIST	"JARAGOONDOO" "DEIMOS"Rvr the problem with lowering Dev Dex would be how do you then counteract a human with 20+% eva set? Well, that's the point. A human using a 20% eva set should be really evasive. With our current superior dex it makes their eva sets completely redundant (which doesn't feel right to me) And an Axer should feel like a brick wall since hes got no dex to his name, yet you want to change this. PM Reply Quote [quote="PATHOLOGIST"][quote="JARAGOONDOO"][quote="DEIMOS"]Rvr the problem with lowering Dev Dex would be how do you then counteract a human with 20+% eva set?[/quote] Well, that's the point. A human using a 20% eva set should be really evasive. With our current superior dex it makes their eva sets completely redundant (which doesn't feel right to me)[/quote] And an Axer should feel like a brick wall since hes got no dex to his name, yet you want to change this.[/quote]	#36 2017/01/04 23:02:50
FINITO [Staff]	"JARAGOONDOO"You could just leave Defense as is (use the current % system to alter F10 defense). The main issue I noticed was with Attack. Well damage is taken as attack - defense. So I don't see how can switch to applying reduction to damage while also keeping the reduction applying to defense separately as well. The way I currently see it working if it was to be changed: Attacker output damage (damage dealt) changes based on their %. If they are at 75% then the output damage is decreased by 25%. Defender input damage (damage taken) changes based on their %. If they are at 75% then the input damage is increased by 25%. So if you have two players both on 75% and 90%, then one would deal 25% less damage (as attacker) and take 25% more damage (as defender) and the other would deal 10% less damage (as attacker) and take 10% more damage (as defender). "PATHOLOGIST"And an Axer should feel like a brick wall since hes got no dex to his name, yet you want to change this. The axer still has the higher attack and defense though. PM Reply Quote [quote="FINITO"][quote="JARAGOONDOO"]You could just leave Defense as is (use the current % system to alter F10 defense). The main issue I noticed was with Attack.[/quote] Well damage is taken as attack - defense. So I don't see how can switch to applying reduction to damage while also keeping the reduction applying to defense separately as well. [b]The way I currently see it working if it was to be changed:[/b] Attacker output damage (damage dealt) changes based on their %. If they are at 75% then the output damage is decreased by 25%. Defender input damage (damage taken) changes based on their %. If they are at 75% then the input damage is increased by 25%. So if you have two players both on 75% and 90%, then one would deal 25% less damage (as attacker) and take 25% more damage (as defender) and the other would deal 10% less damage (as attacker) and take 10% more damage (as defender). [quote="PATHOLOGIST"]And an Axer should feel like a brick wall since hes got no dex to his name, yet you want to change this.[/quote] The axer still has the higher attack and defense though.[/quote]	#37 2017/01/04 23:07:08
JARAGOONDOO	"PATHOLOGIST" "JARAGOONDOO" "DEIMOS"Rvr the problem with lowering Dev Dex would be how do you then counteract a human with 20+% eva set? Well, that's the point. A human using a 20% eva set should be really evasive. With our current superior dex it makes their eva sets completely redundant (which doesn't feel right to me) And an Axer should feel like a brick wall since hes got no dex to his name, yet you want to change this. An Axer still has more DEX than any human I know of (unless they want some weird pure dex build lol), and they have about 120 more str then STR capped humans. Anyway, it was just a suggestion. You just being your usual self with the negative comments ;) Please keep on topic :) PM Reply Quote [quote="JARAGOONDOO"][quote="PATHOLOGIST"][quote="JARAGOONDOO"][quote="DEIMOS"]Rvr the problem with lowering Dev Dex would be how do you then counteract a human with 20+% eva set?[/quote] Well, that's the point. A human using a 20% eva set should be really evasive. With our current superior dex it makes their eva sets completely redundant (which doesn't feel right to me)[/quote] And an Axer should feel like a brick wall since hes got no dex to his name, yet you want to change this.[/quote] An Axer still has more DEX than any human I know of (unless they want some weird pure dex build lol), and they have about 120 more str then STR capped humans. Anyway, it was just a suggestion. You just being your usual self with the negative comments ;) Please keep on topic :)[/quote]	#38 2017/01/04 23:07:50
JARAGOONDOO	"FINITO" "JARAGOONDOO"You could just leave Defense as is (use the current % system to alter F10 defense). The main issue I noticed was with Attack. Well damage is taken as attack - defense. So I don't see how can switch to applying reduction to damage while also keeping the reduction applying to defense separately as well. The way I currently see it working if it was to be changed: Attacker output damage (damage dealt) changes based on their %. If they are at 75% then the output damage is decreased by 25%. Defender input damage (damage taken) changes based on their %. If they are at 75% then the input damage is increased by 25%. So if you have two players both on 75% and 90%, then one would deal 25% less damage (as attacker) and take 25% more damage (as defender) and the other would deal 10% less damage (as attacker) and take 10% more damage (as defender). Thanks for the reply. Yes, it could work like this (I already mentioned that on my post here). PM Reply Quote [quote="JARAGOONDOO"][quote="FINITO"][quote="JARAGOONDOO"]You could just leave Defense as is (use the current % system to alter F10 defense). The main issue I noticed was with Attack.[/quote] Well damage is taken as attack - defense. So I don't see how can switch to applying reduction to damage while also keeping the reduction applying to defense separately as well. [b]The way I currently see it working if it was to be changed:[/b] Attacker output damage (damage dealt) changes based on their %. If they are at 75% then the output damage is decreased by 25%. Defender input damage (damage taken) changes based on their %. If they are at 75% then the input damage is increased by 25%. So if you have two players both on 75% and 90%, then one would deal 25% less damage (as attacker) and take 25% more damage (as defender) and the other would deal 10% less damage (as attacker) and take 10% more damage (as defender).[/quote] Thanks for the reply. Yes, it could work like this (I already mentioned that on my post [url=http://myth-of-soma.com/Forum/Thread.asp?ID=12541&title=A+problem+with+the+%25+system+at+GVW%2FWotW+and+how+to+solve+it&Page=2#post88937]here[/url]).[/quote]	#39 2017/01/04 23:11:31
FINITO [Staff]	"JARAGOONDOO"Yes, it could work like this (I already mentioned that on my post here). How do you see leaving defense as is with the current system as being an option though? How would that work? PM Reply Quote [quote="FINITO"][quote="JARAGOONDOO"]Yes, it could work like this (I already mentioned that on my post [url=http://myth-of-soma.com/Forum/Thread.asp?ID=12541&title=A+problem+with+the+%25+system+at+GVW%2FWotW+and+how+to+solve+it&Page=2#post88937]here[/url]).[/quote] How do you see leaving defense as is with the current system as being an option though? How would that work?[/quote]	#40 2017/01/04 23:17:17
PATHOLOGIST	"JARAGOONDOO"Anyway, it was just a suggestion. You just being your usual self with the negative comments ;) Please keep on topic :) There is literally nothing negative about that comment. . . Its exactly the same logic as you are using, you've clearly got a chip on your shoulder. PM Reply Quote [quote="PATHOLOGIST"][quote="JARAGOONDOO"]Anyway, it was just a suggestion. You just being your usual self with the negative comments ;) Please keep on topic :)[/quote] There is literally nothing negative about that comment. . . Its exactly the same logic as you are using, you've clearly got a chip on your shoulder.[/quote]	#41 2017/01/04 23:27:46
JARAGOONDOO	"FINITO" "JARAGOONDOO"Yes, it could work like this (I already mentioned that on my post here). How do you see leaving defense as is with the current system as being an option though? How would that work? The way Defense currently works. If they normally have 100 defense, at 70% they would have 70 Defense (meaning they would take 30 extra damage from all sources). You essentuially treat this player as having 70 defense, and not 100 for the purpose of the outgoing attack calculation (hope that makes sense). PM Reply Quote [quote="JARAGOONDOO"][quote="FINITO"][quote="JARAGOONDOO"]Yes, it could work like this (I already mentioned that on my post [url=http://myth-of-soma.com/Forum/Thread.asp?ID=12541&title=A+problem+with+the+%25+system+at+GVW%2FWotW+and+how+to+solve+it&Page=2#post88937]here[/url]).[/quote] How do you see leaving defense as is with the current system as being an option though? How would that work?[/quote] The way Defense currently works. If they normally have 100 defense, at 70% they would have 70 Defense (meaning they would take 30 extra damage from all sources). You essentuially treat this player as having 70 defense, and not 100 for the purpose of the outgoing attack calculation (hope that makes sense).[/quote]	#42 2017/01/04 23:30:21
FINITO [Staff]	"JARAGOONDOO" You essentuially treat this player as having 70 defense, and not 100 for the purpose of the outgoing attack calculation (hope that makes sense). Well if you keep it the same as current system then the defense would be altered before the damage is calculated (damage is not same thing as the attack here) so will get different results if was to apply it afterwards on the damage value. PM Reply Quote [quote="FINITO"][quote="JARAGOONDOO"] You essentuially treat this player as having 70 defense, and not 100 for the purpose of the outgoing attack calculation (hope that makes sense).[/quote] Well if you keep it the same as current system then the defense would be altered before the damage is calculated (damage is not same thing as the attack here) so will get different results if was to apply it afterwards on the damage value.[/quote]	#43 2017/01/05 00:42:49
JARAGOONDOO	Yes, you alter the defense first, then calculate the damage they receive afterwards. EDIT: I will elaborate. You have 2 players. (forget about MD/MA for now, it will be treated the same) Mr. 90% - This guy is at 90% Attack - 400 Defense - 300 (at 90% his actual defense would be 270) Mr. 80% - This guy is at 80% Attack - 400 Defense - 300 (at 80% his actual defense would be 240) Mr. 90% hits Mr 80% and you calculate the damage like so: damageReceived = (400 - 240) * 0.9 = 144 Mr 80% hits Mr 90% and you calculate it the same way: damageReceived = (400 - 270) * 0.8f = 104 This would be how I would do it pragmatically. PM Reply Quote [quote="JARAGOONDOO"]Yes, you alter the defense first, then calculate the damage they receive afterwards. EDIT: I will elaborate. You have 2 players. (forget about MD/MA for now, it will be treated the same) Mr. 90% - This guy is at 90% Attack - 400 Defense - 300 (at 90% his actual defense would be 270) Mr. 80% - This guy is at 80% Attack - 400 Defense - 300 (at 80% his actual defense would be 240) Mr. 90% hits Mr 80% and you calculate the damage like so: damageReceived = (400 - 240) * 0.9 = 144 Mr 80% hits Mr 90% and you calculate it the same way: damageReceived = (400 - 270) * 0.8f = 104 This would be how I would do it pragmatically. [/quote]	#44 2017/01/05 01:00:27
FINITO [Staff]	Yeah but then you are changing only the defense when calculating the damage. That doesn't seem right to me and the result will be different to increasing the damage received by the defender. This is how I would do it if was changing it to apply the % to the damage instead of attack and defense separately using your example: Mr. 90% hits Mr 80% and you calculate the damage like so: damageToDeal = (400 - 300) * 0.9 = 90 damageReceived = damageToDeal * (1.0 + (1.0 - 0.8)) = 108 Mr 80% hits Mr 90% and you calculate it the same way: damageToDeal = (400 - 300) * 0.8 = 80 damageReceived = damageToDeal * (1.0 + (1.0 - 0.9)) = 88 PM Reply Quote [quote="FINITO"]Yeah but then you are changing only the defense when calculating the damage. That doesn't seem right to me and the result will be different to increasing the damage received by the defender. This is how I would do it if was changing it to apply the % to the damage instead of attack and defense separately using your example: Mr. 90% hits Mr 80% and you calculate the damage like so: damageToDeal = (400 - 300) * 0.9 = 90 damageReceived = damageToDeal * (1.0 + (1.0 - 0.8)) = 108 Mr 80% hits Mr 90% and you calculate it the same way: damageToDeal = (400 - 300) * 0.8 = 80 damageReceived = damageToDeal * (1.0 + (1.0 - 0.9)) = 88[/quote]	#45 2017/01/05 02:51:34

Please sign in with one of your characters to reply

<<Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next >>