kTOS General Thread v2.0

[Kostik]

iToS is NOT equal to kToS… rules are a little different

[Seiran]

The people struggling with basic math are in the nicest way possible, troubling. Particularly with tangents to other factors (which are still rooted in math) that have been addressed.

And the people roleplaying math experts instead of playing are as well struggling to understand how the real gameplay is.

There was no statement that increasing the number of enemies hit makes a skill unbalanced so why pretend adding AOE ratio to multishot must have that conclusion.

Here:

Right, but I already responded to that by pointing out High Anchoring is shitty for other reasons. If you give another skill like Cannoneer or Musketeer skills 21 AoE attack ratio they’ll become extremely OP.

Unless extremely OP means it’s balanced?

Adding AOE ratio to hit more targets increases the damage output of multishot by the additional enemies hit. Output is very basic.

Yes, output is very basic, until you start to try to calculate skill % factor that is part of one instance of damage into a group that doesn’t consider other factors. Such as:

However it also has 21 AOE attack ratio.
This means it can hit 21 Small enemies.
In this cause you are doing 21 instances of 331% Damage. That is 6951% *2. for 13902%

Which you’re effectively saying a skill % factor varies based on number of enemies you hit, AoE Attack Ratio status and AoE Defense Ratio status of the enemies. Or even the enemies on the screen at the time you used your skill?

Or are you considering only the bonus AoE Attack Ratio of the skill? In this case 21? Even when the character can get more AoE Attack Ratio from gears?

Wouldn’t this be misleading? Especially when you will never find 30 monsters in a line for High Anchoring?

Regardless of enemy defense you have put out X skill factor into the game when you press whatever skill. The defense of an enemy is variable but you know the constant of your SF when you press the skill and how many times that SF is being applied.

Agreed. But the “constant” you say isn’t constant when it varies by number of enemies on screen or AoE Attack and Defense ratios. The constant is what’s there on skill tooltip and that’s it. Not the result of a *21 multiplication that doesn’t reflect the reality of the skill usage.

E.G once because you hit one enemy. Twice because you hit one enemy twice or two enemies once. Four times because you have hit two enemies twice.

Which is exactly my point of how this is misleading and can lead people to complain/understand skills as something totally different than what they really are.

You can say that High Anchoring is 13902% damage because AoE Attack Ratio, right? But this doesn’t reflect how the skill works because you will never hit 21 monsters at the same time.

But if you get more AoE Attack Ratio on character with gears, the skill tooltip will show the total AoE Attack Ratio, not only the bonus (at least in the past, by looking at Magnetic Force skill, I can confirm this if it is needed) so with 9 AoE Attack Ratio on character the skill magically turns into 19860%?

And do you do the multiplication even knowing that AoE Defense Ratio of enemy will make the 13902% you said early into a false statement?

There was an explanation on how with the split arrow change. It Outputs X% if you spent all 5 charges per CD and this output is greater than the output of Bounce Shot on 6 enemies + TBA on 6.

Yes and this is no problem because you’re almost always hitting that number of monsters in an acceptable range. Especially when those skills doesn’t take AoE Attack and Defense Ratio values to define the number of targets.

Sly and others counteres with the loss off skill spam as a style which is very fair while others struggle with math for unknown reasons and go to unnecessary tangents such as 100 health enemies and a 1 damage aoe that hits them all or one 100 date hit.

But the counteres are struggling and doesn’t seem to play the game to think that small monsters will align themselves in a straight line waiting the player to use a skill every single time it isn’t on cooldown, especially when there aren’t even 21 monsters in the screen.

It’s not because you can say you’re hitting 100 on 5 monsters (reality) that you can say a skill always hits 100 on 21 monsters (misleading) thus it hits 2100 regardless.

The poster not understanding that they just gave the point of which the ST and Aoe are in line with each other. 100 hits each to kill the group. If you reduce the number of enemies to 99 the single target would kill in 99 hits while the aoe still takes 100 hits and is less efficient. If you put it to 101 enemies then the aoe hitting them all is more efficient while the single target requires 101 hits.

This statement in itself is misleading because game mechanics. Character AoE Attack Ratio would influence on the skill factor value, target AoE Defense Ratio would influence on the skill factor value. Plus you can say for a lot of skills that you almost never hit the AoE cap of your Attack Ratio.

Let’s take Meteor as example. It’s one skill made to hit everything on its AoE.

Skill factor: 2335% - not misleading.
Bonus AoE Attack Ratio: 16 - okay, the skill is made to hit a lot of enemies and works under various conditions.
Character AoE Attack Ratio: 4 - gear.

Total skill factor: 46700% - misleading, because you know that you will almost never have 20 monsters inside its AoE.

Plus in practice it is hard to say that a skill less efficient just because it is made to be able to hit a lot of things, which doesn’t mean it will always do.

Especially when the target count is influenced by AoE Ratios. It can hit its AoE Attack Ratio cap because AoE Defense Ratio values, so would it be called efficient just because it hit its AoE cap even though not the target count? Wouldn’t that make the result misleading on itself?

There was one person you gave them an apple. You gave one apple. There are two people and you gave them each an apple, you gave two apples collectively. How full anyone gets is irrelevant to the specific discussion of you giving out two apples.

But in this case you’re not giving two apples to two people. You’re giving one apple to an undefined group. Two people eating apples doesn’t mean you gave two apples nor that you gave a big apple to them.

You could argue that in this case we divided the apple. But then I can argue that your example also doesn’t reflect the reality of AoE Attack Ratio based skills.

For why even mention this instead of the ST numbers with the implicit understanding of something being AoE.

Which shows that you’re lacking of knowledge in how AoE interacts with everything else.

Lunar FYI. We all know how aoe ratio works with aoe Def and can as such figure out how many enemies will be hit by X aoe ratio into a group with Y amount of aoe Defense. 21 enemies hit is from 21 small enemies (as small enemies have 1 aoe defense) which was also said earlier, had you noticed , to be an impracticality as we don’t get that type of mob layout justifying the charge, CD and SF for everyday uses.

I totally agree when we talk about everyday uses. In the same way you can’t say the skill will have skill factor as 13902% for every use, because that’s misleading.

A constant is a fixed value that shouldn’t change based on external conditions (or at all, I guess). Which in this case the skill factor can be seen as 331% and that’s the constant, not 13902% which is a variable result (character AoE Attack Ratio).

Moving on with my life and anyone who is struggling at this point to understand I am sorry but explaining things I’m this level is tiring, derailing the thread, and mildly annoying.

Alright, moving on with mine leaving my clear opinion which you are struggling to understand:

Everyone do understands how you are calculating your AoE * Skill Factor, no one asked you to explain it. Some just don’t agree with it because the simple reason that it doesn’t reflect reality, which is a simple and known fact, as long you play the game yourself.

[Sholf]

OoB Pretty much doubling physical damage. If anything it seems like its completely removing physical defense? Same boosted damage in that video can also be done on Tree crystals without the debuff.

Here’s a blind guess, instead of writing:

value = DEF * 0.1;
DEF -= value;

they wrote:

value = DEF * 0.1;
DEF = value;

Knowing IMC it’s not really impossible for that to happen lol.

[ophiuchu]

I am just curious do you and other people think AoE Ratio is a good stat? And agree with the way they balance single target vs aoe skills? In like a legible post where you are not wishy washy all over the place if possible.

[Kostik]

I agree with you on all the​ points!

Multiplying factor by amount of targets is not the right way.
Factor should be left alone and true potential of a skill should be calculated in relation to damage per second.

If we would have a base value of default equipment and adr +aar, then we can talk.

But it seems like no one wants to agree on those forums…

For now, i will always look at how fast it takes me to kill stuff rather then raw numbers.

Below is not directed at you or anyone in particular

And it is not fair to compare single target skills to aoe skills period.

We want to compare possesion to snipe? How do you even do that? It is like comparing a guitar lesson to a soup. Totally unrelated

Compare snipe to god smash. Or possesion to zaibas or high anchoring…

[Delcas]

Maybe that’s the case although it would kind of surprise me if they do it like that.

[Seiran]

I don’t think that’s the case but I totally agree that it can happen based on some things we see from time to time when checking code for using on addons D: (like 2 groups of 2 conditions inside a if but forgetting to add parenthesis to the groups, making it a big 4 conditions if).

I am just curious do you and other people think AoE Ratio is a good stat? And agree with the way they balance single target vs aoe skills?

To be honest it’s hard to give a “I think it is good” or “I think it is bad” without offering alternatives which I can’t think of any good one now.

I don’t think that AoE Ratio is that bad but I prefer when your skill simply hits the area where it was used. It can be unbalanced for some skills with current mechanics.

Then I can imagine how the idea of limiting the number of targets for certain skill would surge. But then I can also see where the idea of letting the player increase its own target count would start and make into skills.

I don’t think, with how the game works currently, that fixed target or unlimited target would be balanced but I do think that AoE Ratios are kinda used more than they should or should have been at least be more forgiving, especially for some melee/close range skills.

Balancing and/or changing it completely however means changing another lot of things too.

And for single target vs AoE skill currently it is clearly unbalanced. But for kTest skill I think it is getting a bit better when it comes to that though I’m not checking all changes to be able to give my opinion on the whole scenario. But I even do like how they nerfed (?) the class I play where multihits were kind of OP and I feel it sounds a bit better and more fun now compared to before.

If we would have a base value of default equipment and adr +aar, then we can talk.

But it seems like no one wants to agree on those forums…

It would be like, so better if we just agreed to use the % that is right on tooltip or then use always “skill%*X AoE=Y%” (not really “right” but shows the original skill%) or picking a better way to represent this that includes everything instead of just talking about the total as true value or simplification without the original value or talking just about the original value.

Everyone would be happy.

[Kostik]

What about, if it is in the range, it gets hit. no AAR ADR… makes some stuff OP, but also removes the anal mechanic that is confusing AF

[Sholf]

It seems stupid but judging from how the handled other stat increasing/decreasing buffs/debuffs it wouldn’t be entirely out of the realms of possibility.

For example right now you can easily get a ton of PDEF as a Pelta by simply using Guardian, holding down the block button, and then buying Aspersion. Repeat that process 10x and you can easily reach 10k PDEF with mediocre equips.

If you remember there was also a case of a Doppel doing the same thing but with Glass Mole + DoV to reach 70k PATK, though iirc they fixed that one already.

Basically it seems like when it comes to buffs/debuffs IMC doesn’t simply multiply stats by a modifier (e.g. ATK * 1.3) but rather they calculate a value and add that to the stat (e.g. value = ATK * 0.3; ATK += value).

Of course this is just a guess and I could be entirely wrong, since I never actually see the codes myself.

[Seiran]

To be fair I think that using two buffs to get more values (Quicken + Swift Step is also one example) is more of a bad design than a bad code, as in it only recalculates a single buff instead recalculating the whole thing.

Also I just remembered that it depends on if they (for whatever reason) uses Lua on server-side code (which I doubt). Or if they try to keep same code style as Lua.

Since Lua doesn’t support +=, -=, *= operators it is quite understandable that they code it that way.

value = something * another
ATK = ATK + value

They can’t use something like:

ATK += something * another

And for writing I’d advocate for using a separate variable for calculating what’s being modified by the skill/attribute/buff instead of simplifying it as one-liner such as ATK = ATK + (something * another)

And even if they keep Lua-style design on C++ side they wouldn’t be using -= operator in the first place and if they didn’t follow Lua style it would be completely different… I don’t think it would be safe to judge the code in this case.

[Delcas]

It is an interesting stat in that it creates another variable of play and more specifically other ways to customize your character.

[Sholf]

Fair point, accidentally typing

ATK = value instead of ATK = ATK + value

is much less likely then accidentally typing

ATK = value instead of ATK += value.

I’m not too familiar with Lua so I didn’t take that into consideration. Welp whatever the case they definitely messed something up with OOB debuff’s code.

[Satoru]

God damn, that has to be a bug right? Even IMC can’t be this IMC.

Even IMC can’t be this IMC.

Of course they can.
Warlock’s Drain and Enchanter’s Agility are still bugged, ever since release several months ago.

Idk if they are trying to beat KOG games into having bugged skills for over 3 years tho…

[Sholf]

Not to mention they still haven’t fixed Physical Link applying all multipliers twice, and that bug has been around since iCBT.

There’s a kTest video showing that Full Draw (which has a similar bug) is fixed though, so hopefully that means Physical Link is also fixed.

[rafael4lves]

Silute have a priest full SPR, LeafDreams, with 1k bless dmg.

[Wurmheart]

And it is not fair to compare single target skills to aoe skills period.

Doesn’t matter if it’s fair or not, quite often a comparison is needed to determine what skills are worth investing in. And to a lesser extent what party composition is ideal for a decent chance of success.

Nor is there a benefit for base equipment comparisons, builds are inherently different with different weapon options and stat priorities.

What does matter is what benefits a skill has, be it skill factor, weapon type, hit count, reliability, utility, AoE or anything else.

So for the sake of [insert whatever is sacred to you] stop trying to simplify what equates to a formula with several unknown variables, not to mention that reliability is qualitative. (Same goes for you @Delcas )

---

ps, is conversion still bugged in ktest?
As in do mobs still get stuck after the first conversion?

[Wolfy]

Welcome to KToS Thread! (And Ktest because its korean too i guess. And predictions on future dead classes, and we judge how much you suck at math too.)

^ This for new topic title please.

---

OT: We don’t have a date for implementation on live server yet. But i wish they could do a global patching to those changes (not possible because publishers and steam).

But it’s gonna be very annoying to see other servers try the new system and create the “meta” before we can do it.

[yurichalps]

Just love your new topic title sugestion lol

OT: I’m hoping the rebalancing ends up with us actually being able to get away from meta builds without becoming totally unwanted or unneeded. I understand there’s always gotta be some builds which adjust better to available content, I just hope it doesn’t mean anything else is useless (like it is right now for many build choices)

[KnightXlll]

so long absence from this game

did doppel spin still ■■■■ in KTOS?

[TheAlleyCats]

create the “meta” before we can do it.

If the whole rebalancing leads again to “meta” builds favored over “non-meta” ones, I think that many people here will be disappointed.