Quote:
Originally Posted by freido
Since you are here Famine, a word on the gem changes?
Just a definitive this and that to clarify, so people don't need to guess?
|
from the test live forums:
"Hi guys,
Seeing some of the feedback on this thread I just wanted to explain a little of the issue from our standpoint. It is important to mention up front though that the data on test-live isn’t complete just yet, only part of our total resolution for the issues with scaling and value of item bonuses are currently deployed on the test-server. That was an oversight on our behalf. While yes, it is a test server, it would also have been better for you to see the changes as a whole rather than in parts. Ok, now on to the issue at hand!
The issues that have required we look at the item bonuses again are as twofold really:
The combined effect of invulnerability bonuses on gems and items were giving bonuses beyond the intended frames set down by our System Designers.
Secondly, percentage-based bonuses (including the much discussed invulnerability bonuses) did not provide the intended progression scaling through levels. (i.e. they were not scaling correctly).
Both these issues are now resolved internally, and you can already see some of the changes on TestLive now. However, as I mentioned above, unfortunately due to some of the data living in different places in the system you are only seeing part of the fixes on Test Live at the moment. We are working to ensure we get the rest out at the same time (and the scaling issues will hopefully be resolved across the board as and when this update is completed)
But let's just jump right into what has changed and to what, and get down to the detailed why and how of this matter: Starting at the top – the combined effect of stacking gems, or what we call the conglomerate effects internally.
Firstly it is important to note that the design of the gem slot system was always intended to allow users to slot all their slots with a single type of bonus if they so wished. The problem is that since the bugs mentioned above meant the budgets weren’t enforced correctly it meant those slots became far too powerful.
So that said, what do I mean by ‘conglomerate effects’ and how does it effect the way the items are supposed to be structured?
Let’s take the "Inviolate Cabochon Star Ruby" as an example, it is a gem that provides conglomerate invulnerability bonuses to all Physical damage types (the physical damage types being Slashing, Crushing, Piercing and Poison).
Compare that to a "Tenacious Cabochon Emerald" and you'll see that it only increases your invulnerability towards a single damage type, in this case Slashing.
Now imagine that each of these gems has strict budgets to adhere to, and that their total magnitude of effect can never exceed a certain threshold, and look at the gems again: The conglomerate effect gem does indeed yield the same magnitude of effect as the singular effect gem, but spread out over several effects instead of focused into one single effect.
- The "Inviolate Cabochon Star Ruby" gives 0.4% invulnerability to 4 damage types - a total of 1.6% invulnerability.
- The "Tenacious Cabochon Emerald" however spends all of its "points", so to speak, on a single effect and provides the full 1.6% range to Slashing Invulnerability.
And the same applies to "Immutable" gems and their singular representatives as well, being of the same nature only aimed towards magical invulnerabilities (Cold, Electrical, Fire, Holy and Unholy).
The intention of these conglomerate effects is to provide the player with the choice between multiple invulnerabilities at the cost of individual effect magnitude and higher and more specialized singular invulnerabilities at a greater magnitude, making it a conscious choice what damage mitigating effects to aim for.
Next up there was the issue with percentage-based effects not scaling properly with level, effectively rendering the higher level gems redundant and causing an unnatural progression in the bonuses provided by items in general; a level 48 cloak providing a greater magnitude of effect than a level 75 cloak with the same stats is a prime example.
Obviously this is a highly illogical item progression and we had to work through the way the items were built and implemented to find where the logical error was. Now that we have found and corrected that scaling it does mean that some bonuses will rise and fall in value with the change. The percentage based modifiers did need to be reduced in places to provide better incentive to work up towards the higher level versions.
All other non-percentage based bonuses like damage increasing effects or expendable stat bonuses like health, stamina and mana has not been decreased at lower levels but rather been given a boost in magnitude on most levels and remains unchanged on a few - roughly 80% of all item bonuses has been boosted because of this change to maintain progressive development across levels.
Continuing the previous example with invulnerability, this resulted in the following progression for the invulnerability gems:
- Level 80: 1.57% (unchanged)
- Level 75: 1.42%
- Level 70: 1.34%
- Level 60: 1.26%
- Level 50: 1.18%
- Level 40: 1.10%
This provides us with a healthy entry-level bonus while still preserving the progression through the levels.
Combining these changes can in some cases (where the player has crafted high-level equipment and inserted low level gems for instance) result in quite different end-results than before the patch, and we are truly sorry for the inconvenience this may cause some of our players, but this was a change that was highly needed in order to preserve item balance and item progression for the long term.
I hope that this information helps to spread a little light on the changes that are in progress and the reasons behind them. "
Age of Conan Forums
Is Funcom trying to get AoC a teen rateing?
#
Is Funcom trying to get AoC a teen rateing?
Linear Mode
