Monster Player Base Stats U21.3 Beta #2

[Lioncourt86]

[Lioncourt86]

[Lioncourt86]

My notes:

Reaver and warleader have the highest armour of the classes, but have the lowest and second lowest physical mitigation, respectively. By a signficiant amount too.

It seems counter-intuitive that +outgoing healing % modifier is tied to damage when the two healing classes (warleader/defiler) have the lowest damage passive of the classes. Perhaps move the healing modifier to resistance instead?

Health Regeneration rank 4/5 and Power Regeneration rank 4/5 currently have no benefit (the effects cap at rank 3). I assume this will be addressed but as is, it is a waste.

In my opinion, armour passive characteristic should have mits as well. I also think it would be better if it incremented critical defense by 3k instead of 2k per rank. (ex: armour rank 5 gives +15,000 critical defense instead of +10,000).

Bug - you actually seem to start out with NEGATIVE critical rating. It appears to be -5,666 critical rating to start, at least with the warleader in the screenshots below.



Compared to



edit:

yeah, for warleader it starts with -10,765 melee critical rating, -14,288 ranged critical rating, and -5,666 tactical critical rating.
For reaver, it's -5,666 melee crit rating, -10,765 ranged crit rating, -14,288 tact crit rating.

I don't feel like doing the rest... point is, it's broken.

[Spilo]

This is all very important, as this spots certainly what Vastin was toying with.

[idontcare789]

This is all very important, as this spots certainly what Vastin was toying with.

Trying to wrap my head around this way of thinking. Creeps need a bump, they need a bump more than the lazily implemented bumps from previous times so you go back to rework. You start negative? Really gotta question the thought process here. Are these gonna roll out unfinished when the raid drops and further exacerbate the pvp community while they wait for it to get corrected? Really looks like a poor start which shouldnt even be happening. Folks like Spilo have given very in depth changes to start balancing things out, i mean they did a lot of the leg work which is 1, real world playing not in theory of how it SHOULD work, 2, offered mostly unbiased suggestions of how to just shift some numbers(for exe in wargs spreading the damage). Going to be really interesting to see how this pans out.

[GrandCru]

There's malus already LIVE.

On a greenie stalker if one increases the Tactical Mitigation Rating through an Armour Value pot (e.g. 6465 -> 9649), the ''base''/shadow mitigation increases (e.g. 11% -> 15.6%), but the others Fire/Light/... stay at zero.

[Spilo]

Trying to wrap my head around this way of thinking. Creeps need a bump, they need a bump more than the lazily implemented bumps from previous times so you go back to rework. You start negative? Really gotta question the thought process here. Are these gonna roll out unfinished when the raid drops and further exacerbate the pvp community while they wait for it to get corrected? Really looks like a poor start which shouldnt even be happening. Folks like Spilo have given very in depth changes to start balancing things out, i mean they did a lot of the leg work which is 1, real world playing not in theory of how it SHOULD work, 2, offered mostly unbiased suggestions of how to just shift some numbers(for exe in wargs spreading the damage). Going to be really interesting to see how this pans out.

There's malus already LIVE.

On a greenie stalker if one increases the Tactical Mitigation Rating through an Armour Value pot (e.g. 6465 -> 9649), the ''base''/shadow mitigation increases (e.g. 11% -> 15.6%), but the others Fire/Light/... stay at zero.

Both of these sum up a little of my frustration with this PvP beta in general. I'm sure Vastin is slammed, but I feel as if we're having to investigate to find out what exactly was done, and then decide whether it's balanced or not, when it really should only have to be the latter. This feels more complicated than it should be.

[Vastin]

Don't sweat the negative ratings.

Every value you see has been modified by multiple different sources (each), and I'm untangling the numbers by negating some of the contributions to figure out where the remaining ones are coming from, then resetting them to more useful values. In this case some chart was helpfully providing creeps with large negative stat contributions to several of their ratings that I'd rather they didn't. I got to the point of exposing those values, but I haven't corrected them yet.

If you thought all this stuff was neatly laid out in a couple easy-to-read spreadsheets, you'd be very deeply mistaken. They're all scattered through scores of deeply nested charts and indexes, often named with helpfully misleading terms that make them difficult to hunt down through any process but trial and error - and like most software systems the internal documentation is minimal.

Actually CHANGING the numbers takes a few minutes - but finding the correct numbers to modify can take hours.

-Vastin

[Spilo]

Don't sweat the negative ratings.

Every value you see has been modified by multiple different sources (each), and I'm untangling the numbers by negating some of the contributions to figure out where the remaining ones are coming from, then resetting them to more useful values. In this case some chart was helpfully providing creeps with large negative stat contributions to several of their ratings that I'd rather they didn't. I got to the point of exposing those values, but I haven't corrected them yet.

If you thought all this stuff was neatly laid out in a couple easy-to-read spreadsheets, you'd be very deeply mistaken. They're all scattered through scores of deeply nested charts and indexes, often named with helpfully misleading terms that make them difficult to hunt down through any process but trial and error - and like most software systems the internal documentation is minimal.

Actually CHANGING the numbers takes a few minutes - but finding the correct numbers to modify can take hours.

-Vastin

Thanks for the clarity, Vastin. I have a lot of specific feedback that give numerical values that should be added to stats. How this applies directly to the numbers you are tweaking, I don't know, but it should be a decent guideline for how to approach this in general. I'm going to remove it from the specific Beta Feedback and create my own thread.

Best of luck!

[Sezneg]

Don't sweat the negative ratings.

Every value you see has been modified by multiple different sources (each), and I'm untangling the numbers by negating some of the contributions to figure out where the remaining ones are coming from, then resetting them to more useful values. In this case some chart was helpfully providing creeps with large negative stat contributions to several of their ratings that I'd rather they didn't. I got to the point of exposing those values, but I haven't corrected them yet.

If you thought all this stuff was neatly laid out in a couple easy-to-read spreadsheets, you'd be very deeply mistaken. They're all scattered through scores of deeply nested charts and indexes, often named with helpfully misleading terms that make them difficult to hunt down through any process but trial and error - and like most software systems the internal documentation is minimal.

Actually CHANGING the numbers takes a few minutes - but finding the correct numbers to modify can take hours.

-Vastin

At one point Jinjaah told me what it actually took to adjust a creep class back around lvl 100. Was very enlightening at how convoluted the system was. We are basically based on NPCs, and making us more than that took years of layered development from many different people. I wish you the best of luck dealing with the spaghetti, but really appreciate that SSG is taking this effort.

[Lioncourt86]

Don't sweat the negative ratings.

Every value you see has been modified by multiple different sources (each), and I'm untangling the numbers by negating some of the contributions to figure out where the remaining ones are coming from, then resetting them to more useful values. In this case some chart was helpfully providing creeps with large negative stat contributions to several of their ratings that I'd rather they didn't. I got to the point of exposing those values, but I haven't corrected them yet.

Right on. The advanced/core passives and battlefield promotions appear to be much more uniform as far as starting values/tier-up rate goes compared to live (some of those numbers really do come off as totally random). So progress is being made for sure in simplification.

Not to mention more up-to-date values (180 in-combat morale regen vs. 30k, nice)... though once all the untangling is done (hopefully possible before you get reassigned to something else) the numbers will certainly need to be tweaked. But as you say... that should be the easy part, fingers crossed.

If you thought all this stuff was neatly laid out in a couple easy-to-read spreadsheets, you'd be very deeply mistaken. They're all scattered through scores of deeply nested charts and indexes, often named with helpfully misleading terms that make them difficult to hunt down through any process but trial and error - and like most software systems the internal documentation is minimal.

Actually CHANGING the numbers takes a few minutes - but finding the correct numbers to modify can take hours.

Been there, done that... bandaids upon bandaids, and each made with its own special style!

All I can hope is that SSG recognizes that the PvMP community is (perhaps "was", at this point) a decent chunk of the player base. It's a judgement call, but if you were given sufficient time to modernize things and/or give decent documentation on the process of adjusting creep stats (since you are doing the heavy lifting step-throughs right now anyway)... I think it would be worth it. That's assuming the game still has some years to come.

Otherwise I am afraid all your efforts, very much appreciated as they may be, might amount to yet another bandaid that the next in line has to peel off. So... an investment of time to prevent more wasted time (and frustration) down the road.

Pessimism aside, thanks for what you are doing. Even if it tanks in the end, I at least can't blame you as an individual... you're doing the best with what you were given it sounds like.

I look forward to the next round of changes.

[Constrictions]

Don't sweat the negative ratings.

Every value you see has been modified by multiple different sources (each), and I'm untangling the numbers by negating some of the contributions to figure out where the remaining ones are coming from, then resetting them to more useful values. In this case some chart was helpfully providing creeps with large negative stat contributions to several of their ratings that I'd rather they didn't. I got to the point of exposing those values, but I haven't corrected them yet.

If you thought all this stuff was neatly laid out in a couple easy-to-read spreadsheets, you'd be very deeply mistaken. They're all scattered through scores of deeply nested charts and indexes, often named with helpfully misleading terms that make them difficult to hunt down through any process but trial and error - and like most software systems the internal documentation is minimal.

Actually CHANGING the numbers takes a few minutes - but finding the correct numbers to modify can take hours.

-Vastin

The vibe that SSG has increasingly limited time and resources is fairly strong. However, granting this, and given the magnitude of the task it sounds like you're doing, I would strongly encourage your boss to grant you some additional time on top of making these changes, to also make thorough internal documentations of what is going on the back end of creepside. Something so forward projecting could only increase the longetivity of the moors itself.

Thanks Vastin!

[lance20100]

All I can hope is that SSG recognizes that the PvMP community is (perhaps "was", at this point) a decent chunk of the player base. It's a judgement call, but if you were given sufficient time to modernize things and/or give decent documentation on the process of adjusting creep stats (since you are doing the heavy lifting step-throughs right now anyway)... I think it would be worth it. That's assuming the game still has some years to come.

Otherwise I am afraid all your efforts, very much appreciated as they may be, might amount to yet another bandaid that the next in line has to peel off. So... an investment of time to prevent more wasted time (and frustration) down the road.

Pessimism aside, thanks for what you are doing. Even if it tanks in the end, I at least can't blame you as an individual... you're doing the best with what you were given it sounds like.

I look forward to the next round of changes.

agreed