UPDATE: Ancient Dragon Stats

[Vahrokh]

Smeglor, you really think that imposing on those who quested and levelled a dragon to the exact end of having it bigger is fairer than having those who don't want big dragons do a /setscale 0.85?

They will have to /setscale 0.30 anyway because the adult size is already "too much".

End result: non dragons still using setscale and lots of p.issed dragons and possible loss in money. In fact I am cancelling now my 2 yearly subscriptions, I don't want to pay to see 2 years wasted to the bin, I don't have the guts to see myself exactly the same just with a funny neck after all what I have passed in these years.

I am incredibly saddened at this, seems the final straw came even for me.

[Tantalyr]

Query (as my dragon is still a bit short of starting the ARoP)--How much larger (percentage-wise) than adults were the original models of Ancients? 10%? 50%?

I ask this because of Smeglor's post that the new Ancient model has been reduced in size by 15%, and I am wondering how much, if at all, the new Ancient model is larger than the current adult model?

[Theolaerynn]

There is a consolidation thread in this forum that has screenshots of the Old Ancient as compared to an Adult.

From other comments made by Devs I think the comparison of the New Ancients to Adults is correct as well, and that the bad model patch was done after the screenshot.

[Guaran]

The original Ancient model is 1.75x the size of the adult model.

Since now they have said it is only 15% smaller than it used to be, something like 1.60x to 1.50x the adult size should be the final ancient model size.

I'll give both models a go, I did notice the very first time I played with the ancient model, that it seemed a bit rough and blocky, needed some cleanup done.

Hopefully they can do the cleanup to both the old size and the newer models, and we can choose between them once that is done.

[LaughingOtter]

Could someone explain why the model was reduced 15%? What was gained, and is that gain worth the cost? If there isn't a substative gain to overall game play - one that can be clearly and succinctly articulated - then why is this being done?

"They're too big" - with all due respect, that's not a very good reason. Aesthetics is highly subjective,and willlead to nothing butadding fuel to the biped-dragonrift. Gameplay or performance can be more easily defended.

David, Manga, Smeglor - you want your dragon players pumped up and excited andanxious to go out and tell their friends, other dragon fans, and everyone else they can get hold of how cool and wonderful it is to be a dragon in Istaria. Is this 15% reduction worth losing that?

Make your case, orroll backthe size change. Don't lose customers over a change that has no defensable basis.

[Theolaerynn]

This is a good and valid question, and has been asked before with the response being between a dev giving a vague response, and an intern giving an inflamatory one.

Any chance a Dev can respond?

[dorrin]

bless you, klaus.

[IndyMan]

I would, however, be surprised if soemone who never played the game before got the free trial, and then quit the game because of the difference in mesh size between adult and ancient.

Would you be surprised if someone never tried the game after talking to some friends who played ? That is very likely to happen, especially with the way things are done in game.

I have nearly a dozen friends who wont touch the game because of what they have heard about it. They wont even check in to see what changes are made that might entice them to join the game. Seems I am the only nut amoung them who peeks in to see if things are "better" and worth taking a shot at the 14 days. More ugly word of mouth and you will be working for free for as long as you are there. [:(]
It was wrong to take the size away. It kept NO ONE from joining the game because Ancients were larger than adults. [:@]


Otter: the 500 number you tossed around is a number you grabbed from the air. The only way to get 500 new players is to offer the game for free, oh wait it IS free for 14 days ..... seen 500 new players yet ?

15% smaller anddragons are angry, is it worth it for 15% ?

[Theolaerynn]

I would, however, be surprised if soemone who never played the game before got the free trial, and then quit the game because of the difference in mesh size between adult and ancient.Would you be surprised if someone never tried the game after talking to some friends who played ? That is very likely to happen, especially with the way things are done in game.

Shhh! You are not supposed to recognize this, you are making The Lord Intern look foolish! Well, more foolish.

But that is the problem with harsh realities, isn't it? When your view is so incredibly narrow you can often miss the repercussions of one harsh reality on an even larger one. If he pisses off too many players he may get to practice his people skills using the one phrase he should have lots of practice with: 'Do you want fries with that?'

[Draxxis]

Since I've been playing this game (about 6 months now) I've been excited about Draxxis becoming an Ancient. My friends have watched with great interest, as we're all fans of D&D and Dragons. They stayed up with me all night as I went through the Lunus battles of RoP, and when we saw the difference between a hatchling and an adult, we were impressed. When we saw the difference between an adult and an ancient, we were ecstatic.

Now that Ancients have been nerfed, they've lost interest. If I haven't devoted six months to my character, I would have cancelled my subscription out of spite. I still may to be honest, considering as of Nov 2nd I am going without a computer.

The main thing that I've enjoyed about Horizons, above the crafting system and coolness of the game, is the community. Our ability as players to communicate with the developers and be heard. It seems now that the devs don't care at all about how the dragon community feels. I've seen many concerns about this, and no response from the devs.

Why the silence?

I for one can't understand the nerf in the first place. The only reason I've seen mentioned is that naka-duskael characters were bothered by the size, which I've also seen shot down as it was apparently easier to fight around ahuge dragon than alarge sized one.

It's been suggest by Smelgor that we dragons scaleset the ancients to make them larger. That makes very little sense for a few reasons. Anicent dragons are suppose to be one of the most powerful types of dragons around. It's been made clear that as dragons grow in power, they grow in size (ie, the Sleeper). If the reasoning behind the nerf is to appease the players of naka-duskael, that is purely a reason based on game mechanics. Being such, those players should be the one to use the game mechanic of setscale.

*turns to the devs*

If the reasoning behind the nerf is based on something else, then please communicate to the community your justification. You are in danger of losing players over this, and damaging your reputation as devs who work with their community to make the game enjoyable.

I personally don't care about the mechanics/appearance of the Ancient so much as I care about your willingness to communicate with us.

Thanks for taking the time to listen.

[Cobal]

The amount of threads on the size nerf is staggering.
Why do we get the silent treatment?

[Dragoniade]

The amount of threads on the size nerf is staggering.
Why do we get the silent treatment?

Because they believe they're never wrong and won't admit an error. I also believe they believe we'll just swallow the pill and forget about it, and just wait another 2 years until advancements are added. I won't...

****Review the Ancient stats gain and model size , please!!*****

[Tympest]

The amount of threads on the size nerf is staggering.
Why do we get the silent treatment?

Because they don't care, that much is obvious by the silence.

[dorrin]

bumpus

[Marco]

A bad patch went to Blight that set the ancient dragon to use the adult dragon skeleton. This is being corrected. It is likely the reason you were unable to use the old ancient model.

You should know that the ONLY change made to the model was a 15% size reduction. So honestly, rather than replacing the model assets, all you have to do is /setscale 1.15 and you'll be exactly the size of the old model.

To undo a 0.15 reduction multiply with 1/0.85 = 1.1764705882352941176470588235294

I hope this is NOT how you calculate things in the server code.

[Marco]

As resists are not delay adjusted, it means hasting yourself against mobs with strong resist actually decreases your damage.

Do you have a source for that?

[PJ]

If, resists are delay adjusted, and I have no information whether they are or aren't, hasting your self won't hurt your damage, but your dps bonus will be less against high resist mobs then lower resist mobs. So you'd still be getting a bonus, just less of one.

[Varangaard]

Do you have a source for that?

Again, the old dev post originally made at Tazoon.com and reposted by someone, somewhere here on community forum. The full formula presented in the said post was described as:

weapon base damage + attribute*delay + skill*delay -armor*delay - resist

And it was further explained that weapon damage is randomized along a gaussian curve and that attribute, skill and armor and divided by numbers they were not ready to divulge at the time, giving us the formula

base damage+(attribute*delay/X)+(skill*delay/Y)-(armor*delay/Z)-resist

Now, when we look at the formula, we can see that as attribute, skill and armor adjustments are delay adjusted, their DPS contribution will remain constant, regardless of how many times a second you swing your weapon - that is, regardless how large your alacrity bonus is. The true advantage of heightened speed is the base damage. As it is not adjusted by delay, it gets applied as-is on the mob more frequently, thus increasing your DPS. However the same applies to resist. It will be be applied more frequently as well, substracted from diminished, delay-adjusted skill&stat bonus, eventually overpowering the damage the faster you are.

To illustrate, here is a formula using some trumped up numbers; stat 1000, skill 1000, armor 1000, average weapon damage 75, delay 50.

75+(1000*50/100)+(1000*50/150)-(1000*50/100)
75+500+333-500=408
408 damage per 50 ticks = 408/50=8,16 damage per tick

We will give a considerable alacrity boost, diminishing delay to 20.

75+(1000*20/100)+(1000*20/150)-(1000*20/100)
75+200+133-200=208
208 damage per 20 ticks = 208/20=10,4 damage per tick

Which illustrates why alacrity is a good thing - more damage per tick. Now the exact same statistics against a resist of 100.

75+(1000*50/100)+(1000*50/150)-(1000*50/100)-100
75+500+333-500-100=308
308 damage per 50 ticks = 308/50=6,16 damage per tick

(1000*20/100)+(1000*20/150)-(1000*20/100)-100
75+200+133-200-100=108
108 damage per 20 ticks = 108/20=5,4 damage per tick

Of course, as these numbers are completely made up, and we don't know the full formula, it is impossible to determine just how large percentual impact resists have on DPS. However, these prove that resists adversely affect damage when you speed yourself up. This is also applicable to fast attacks, as final delay is simply a function of weapon delay and alacrity bonuses: resists are stronger defense against fast characters like monks, archers and dragons. Slow weapons are less affected as they deliver damage in larger 'chunks' that a resist must work against. Again, how measurable the impact to damage is, cannot be fully judged.

[PJ]

Your formula is wrong, the formula posted is http://community.istaria.com/Web/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2105

Damage: Weapon/Spell damage + Strength/Power * Attack Delay + Attack Skill * Attack Delay - Target's Armor * Attack Delay
All the modifications are divided by values that I'm not going to reveal at this time, but as stated originally, Strength/Power is 50% more valued than Skill, and Armor is slightly more valued than Strength/Power.

Armor: Reduces incoming non-ethereal damage at a slightly better rate than Strength and Power add to such.
Ethereal Armor: Same as Armor, but against ethereal damage.
Resistances: Add to Armor and Ethereal Armor against attacks of the resistance's type.
Wards: Add to Evasion and Magic Defense against attacks of the resistance's type.

Now Firstly, The attack delay in the formula, is the delay of the weapon, spell being used. Not the Adjusted Delay based on gifts/spells/abilties/etc. Now that's not stated specifically but there's numerous emperical evidence to support it, given that powerful haste items, like gummi maggots, gift of alacrity, and gnomian prowess have no impact on your damage per hit, but make you hit faster.

Secondly, you didn't adjust the resitance value in your formula by Z. Assuming resistances aren't delay adjusted. Your formulas should be

base damage+(attribute*delay/X)+(skill*delay/Y)-(armor*delay/Z)-resist/Z

But Thirdly, where exactly resistance goes into the formula is never specified. It could very well add into the armor value before armor is adjusted by Delay and Z. So the formula very well could be

base damage+(attribute*delay/X)+(skill*delay/Y)-((armor+resist)*delay/Z)

[Marco]

I belive resistances are delay adjusted, it makes most sense*

*Which also would be the largest counterargument hehe, the game that just doesn't make sense...