Back to forum.wakfu.com
Almanax 131 Octolliard
Al Howin's Day
The Al Howin festivities get their name from a Dofus-Era farmer. To create a buzz for the annual ...

No flash

Lock/Dodge Feedback and/or Suggestion
Nun Shall Pass * Member Since 2012-01-23
posté May 23, 2014, 20:10:27 | #1
Lock/Dodge Feedback and/or Suggestion My feedback regarding the new dodge/lock mechanics is more of a few suggestions to add to it:

1) Say you have a 4AP 4MP cost to dodge but you only have 3AP 6MP after attacking, and you want to dodge... Under this current system, you wouldn't be able to dodge because you don't have the required AP. My suggestion is that since you require a total of 8 points (4AP + 4MP), but you currently have 9 (3AP + 6MP), you should still be able to dodge, but it would cost you 1 extra MP since you don't have the last AP needed to complete the dodge; your dodge cost will go down 1AP, but go up 1MP. Same if you had 2AP 7MP or 6AP 3MP, as long as you have a total of 9 points or more and at least 1MP to perform the dodge and walk away, you should be able to dodge. I think that this way, there would be more leniency towards how you can dodge and it would help characters that have costs that are hard to work with on their spells.

Besides this, the ability to 100% move away from an enemy without getting locked randomly and unexpectedly is a huge plus towards any class, including Masqs who have insane dodge amounts.


2) I was experimenting with dodge/lock against a single enemy (Clammer Shark), looking at the threshold between when stats change as you're trying to dodge, and they seem to be very uneven:

- If your dodge is 71+ less than the enemy's lock, you lose 4AP 5MP. Enemy has 2.5x more lock than your dodge.
- If your dodge is 70-47 less than the enemy's lock, you lose 4AP 4MP. (24 dodge levels in between both numbers). Enemy has between 1.65x ~ 2.49x more lock than your dodge.
- If your dodge is 46-24 less than the enemy's lock, you lose 3AP 4MP. (23 dodge levels in between both numbers). Enemy has between 1.25x ~ 1.64x more lock than your dodge.
- If your dodge is 23-0 less than the enemy's lock, you lose 3AP 3MP. (24 dodge levels in between both numbers). Enemy has between 1.24x ~ 1.00x more lock than your dodge.
- If your dodge is 1-29 more than the enemy's lock, you lose 2AP 3MP. (28 dodge levels in between both numbers). Enemy has between 1.01x ~ 1.24x less lock than your dodge.
- If your dodge is 30-XXX more than the enemy's lock, you lose 2AP 2MP. (XX dodge levels in between both numbers). Enemy has between 1.25x ~ ?.??x less lock than your dodge.
**At this point I stopped, since I got to lv100 dodge and got bored of fighting the same enemy over and over again.

I also tried doing the same against a Black Gwandpa Wabbit to see if the dodge requirements changed at the same time, but they don't. According to the Clammer Shark's tests, I would've needed 70 dodge less than the Black Gwandpa Wabbit in order for the requirement to change to 4AP 5MP. I started a fight with a difference of 71 dodge instead to see if I had the max requirement, but I was already at 4AP 4MP required, which points at there being different tables per monster... Making it even more confusing!

I recommend changing them to a linear table, instead of haphazard numbers like the above. Like for example:

63+ less of your dodge compared to their lock = 4AP 5MP.
62 - 48 less of your dodge compared to their lock = 4AP 4MP.
47 - 33 less of your dodge compared to their lock = 3AP 4MP.
32 - 18 less of your dodge compared to their lock = 3AP 3MP.
17 - 1 less of your dodge compared to their lock = 2AP 3MP.
0 - 16 more of your dodge compared to their lock = 2AP 2MP.
17 - 31 more of your dodge compared to their lock = 1AP 2MP.
32 - 47 more of your dodge compared to their lock = 1AP 1MP.
48 - 62 more of your dodge compared to their lock = 0AP 1MP.
63+ more of your dodge compared to their lock = 0AP 0MP.

Every 16th dodge point, your cost for dodging increases/decreases. It's less confusing than the one in beta right now, and it helps players plan their stats accordingly. This is just an example though, and I don't endorse the number 16 at all, it's just an arbitrary number I picked to put forth my suggestion.


This post has been edited by [Sabi] - May 29, 2014, 09:01:32.
Ambitious Crackapult * Member Since 2013-02-17
posté May 23, 2014, 21:28:41 | #2
I dont agree you, locking is mostly prevent enemy to use their ap, dodging with sacrificing mp instead of ap is not something nice.  


Nun Shall Pass * Member Since 2012-01-23
posté May 23, 2014, 21:41:19 | #3

Quote (Celay01 @ 23 May 2014 21:28) *
I dont agree you, locking is mostly prevent enemy to use their ap, dodging with sacrificing mp instead of ap is not something nice.
I'm not saying we should change from AP+MP to just MP. All I'm saying is that if you don't have enough AP, but you have more than enough MP, you should still be able to dodge by sacrificing more MP to make up the difference. The AP you have left will still be used up by dodging.


This post has been edited by SSBKewkky - May 23, 2014, 21:41:48.
Ambitious Crackapult * Member Since 2013-02-17
posté May 23, 2014, 21:47:33 | #4
You need 30 more dodge than opponents lock to dodge freely?


Nun Shall Pass * Member Since 2012-01-23
posté May 23, 2014, 21:55:18 | #5

Quote (Celay01 @ 23 May 2014 21:47) *
You need 30 more dodge than opponents lock to dodge freely?
Uhh... What?


Ambitious Crackapult * Member Since 2013-02-17
posté May 23, 2014, 21:59:44 | #6

Quote (SSBKewkky @ 23 May 2014 21:55) *

Quote (Celay01 @ 23 May 2014 21:47) *
You need 30 more dodge than opponents lock to dodge freely?
Uhh... What?
Ok you added answer to main post  

Oh you didnt, it is suggestion xD


Scary Polter * Member Since 2011-03-26
posté May 24, 2014, 02:10:21 | #7
I would much prefer a lock/dodge system where depending on if you can't dodge you lose the ap mp depending on what the dodge ratio to enemy's lock is than what's suggested on the beta.
Masquraiders are going to cry blood srsly.


Nun Shall Pass * Member Since 2012-01-23
posté May 24, 2014, 02:24:41 | #8
Masqs are not gonna do too bad IMO, unless the amount of dodge needed to successfully break a lock is significantly higher than expected...


Scary Polter * Member Since 2011-03-26
posté May 25, 2014, 00:08:02 | #9
You're kidding, right? The locks are 170 to 250+ on most of the mobs. That means if you want to dodge as a masq you'll lose ap and mp everytime you try dodge. Masquraiders dmg bonus caps at 340 dodge and there's no way to stat that higher than 100 dodge from stats either.
To dodge effectively you'd have to invest alot of kamas to dodge runes after this update.


Nun Shall Pass * Member Since 2012-01-23
posté May 25, 2014, 18:17:51 | #10

Quote (MereBytes @ 25 May 2014 00:08) *
You're kidding, right? The locks are 170 to 250+ on most of the mobs. That means if you want to dodge as a masq you'll lose ap and mp everytime you try dodge. Masquraiders dmg bonus caps at 340 dodge and there's no way to stat that higher than 100 dodge from stats either.
To dodge effectively you'd have to invest alot of kamas to dodge runes after this update.
Doesn't every branch have an attack that allows you to break lock is the cost gets too high? Plus they haven't even changed mob mechanics or anything yet, they said they were revising them all as they test. Calm down and wait; if worse comes to worst, they'll just do what they did with Srams' invisibility on PvE and make it so that every mob has less lock or something (for Srams, it was perception). Those dodge buffs will get remodeled to work better in this system.


This post has been edited by SSBKewkky - May 25, 2014, 18:18:47.
Happy Miliboowolf * Member Since 2011-06-29
posté May 25, 2014, 20:42:15 | #11

Quote
I recommend changing them to a linear table, instead of haphazard numbers like the above. Like for example: 63+ less of your dodge compared to their lock = 4AP 5MP. 62 - 48 less of your dodge compared to their lock = 4AP 4MP. 47 - 33 less of your dodge compared to their lock = 3AP 4MP. 32 - 18 less of your dodge compared to their lock = 3AP 3MP. 17 - 1 less of your dodge compared to their lock = 2AP 3MP. 0 - 16 more of your dodge compared to their lock = 2AP 2MP. 17 - 31 more of your dodge compared to their lock = 1AP 2MP. 32 - 47 more of your dodge compared to their lock = 1AP 1MP. 48 - 62 more of your dodge compared to their lock = 0AP 1MP. 63+ more of your dodge compared to their lock = 0AP 0MP.

I agree with the geneeral thought but it's a bit wonky and arbitrary @ 16 per to remember. Just not a nice number.

Try it at 80 either way for:

80+ more lock vs your dodge: 4 AP / 4 MP
60 - 79 more lock vs your dodge: 3 AP / 4 MP
40 - 59 more lock vs your dodge: 3 AP / 3 MP
20 - 39 more lock vs your dodge: 2 AP / 3 MP
0 - 19 more lock vs your dodge: 2 AP / 2 MP
0 - 19 less lock vs your dodge: 2 AP / 2 MP
20 - 39 less lock vs your dodge: 1 AP / 2 MP
40 - 59 less lock vs your dodge: 1 AP / 1 MP
60 - 79 less lock vs your dodge: 0 AP / 1 MP
80+ less lock vs your dodge: 0 AP / 0 MP

It's a relatively smooth system that also gives leeway either way if you're even (need 20 more or less vs the other person to see a negative or positive difference from the base 2 AP / MP), and it's much easier to do simple math regarding lock/dodge differences when planning ahead to determine expected cc break costs (important in some cases where you might be trying to do a lot of other things that turn, which is often enough in high level encounters where you can't afford to skip a turn).

I think it works pretty well.


Nun Shall Pass * Member Since 2012-01-23
posté May 25, 2014, 21:25:34 | #12

Quote (Taku- @ 25 May 2014 20:42) *

Quote
I recommend changing them to a linear table, instead of haphazard numbers like the above. Like for example: 63+ less of your dodge compared to their lock = 4AP 5MP. 62 - 48 less of your dodge compared to their lock = 4AP 4MP. 47 - 33 less of your dodge compared to their lock = 3AP 4MP. 32 - 18 less of your dodge compared to their lock = 3AP 3MP. 17 - 1 less of your dodge compared to their lock = 2AP 3MP. 0 - 16 more of your dodge compared to their lock = 2AP 2MP. 17 - 31 more of your dodge compared to their lock = 1AP 2MP. 32 - 47 more of your dodge compared to their lock = 1AP 1MP. 48 - 62 more of your dodge compared to their lock = 0AP 1MP. 63+ more of your dodge compared to their lock = 0AP 0MP.

I agree with the geneeral thought but it's a bit wonky and arbitrary @ 16 per to remember. Just not a nice number.

Try it at 80 either way for:

80+ more lock vs your dodge: 4 AP / 4 MP
60 - 79 more lock vs your dodge: 3 AP / 4 MP
40 - 59 more lock vs your dodge: 3 AP / 3 MP
20 - 39 more lock vs your dodge: 2 AP / 3 MP
0 - 19 more lock vs your dodge: 2 AP / 2 MP
0 - 19 less lock vs your dodge: 2 AP / 2 MP
20 - 39 less lock vs your dodge: 1 AP / 2 MP
40 - 59 less lock vs your dodge: 1 AP / 1 MP
60 - 79 less lock vs your dodge: 0 AP / 1 MP
80+ less lock vs your dodge: 0 AP / 0 MP

It's a relatively smooth system that also gives leeway either way if you're even (need 20 more or less vs the other person to see a negative or positive difference from the base 2 AP / MP), and it's much easier to do simple math regarding lock/dodge differences when planning ahead to determine expected cc break costs (important in some cases where you might be trying to do a lot of other things that turn, which is often enough in high level encounters where you can't afford to skip a turn).

I think it works pretty well.
I used the number 16 for no real reason at all; I put a disclaimer on the very last paragraph in my post just for that. But yeah, a more linear formula would be nice.

If what I've seen is any indicator though, it's not the same amount for every monster out there. Apparently the threshold for each change in dodge requirement depends on the enemy's lock, from what I've experienced so far. The higher the enemy's lock, the more dodge you require before you reach each threshold. For example, if a monster has 117 lock, i would take 29 more dodge than his lock for your cost to go down from 3AP 3MP to 2AP 3MP. However if the enemy has 167 lock, you'll be needing more than 29 more dodge than the enemy's lock to reach that change.

I can kinda see where the devs were going with this... But at endgame, enemies possess so much lock and dodge that this system fails before it's even implemented. Equips don't have enough dodge for you to avoid getting penalized, and the limit of 100 dodge in stat points makes this system not work for anyone. Much less when there's no "dodge sets" like there are tank sets full of lock and block! Like I said in my original post (and you agreed with, which I appreciate), having a linear increase would actually help a lot in this game.

Also, did a little bit of division here and there and noticed a constant between the dodge requirement changes. I put them next to each bullet in the first post. This system can and will backfire in the later levels once we start getting to lv180+ enemies, where there's no way we can keep up with their locks. Hell now there's an enemy that's obviously exempt from the lock/dodge mechanics: Ponktius!


Happy Miliboowolf * Member Since 2011-06-29
posté May 26, 2014, 18:33:53 | #13
Ponktius and crushing spore mobs (the big ones) are outright unlockable, yet they have 300 lock themselves and can and will go right behind you and get backstab damage if it means they're simultaneously able to get closer to someone nearby you that has lower resistance. Honestly, really not a cool mechanic.

Yeah, with what you're saying it sounds like a bit of a mess right now.. it would be very difficult to track varying thresholds for every mob to determine how much dodge or lock is needed to deal with them properly. Here's to hoping they make a lot more adjustments in that area before release.


Eccentric Moogrr * Member Since 2011-11-03
posté May 27, 2014, 09:35:18 | #14
They can always add achievements that add dodge buffs as we get to the higher lvls and make them independent from statted dodge points. Also, most classes have a way to get away from combat or push (costing less than the penalty and also doing dmg) and if not then someone else can usually do it for them before their turn. Best case scenario a sac going last can pretty much transpo/push/pull/sac (or life trans) then MS the entire team away from mobs in one turn with 10ap and 5mp


Happy Miliboowolf * Member Since 2011-06-29
posté May 29, 2014, 12:02:16 | #15
Just doing some solo testing of Dragon Pig, it's.. very difficult to calculate what the hell is even going on.

Obviously since I was solo I couldn't test everything, but it appeared that even with a difference of me having 200+ lock vs dragon pig, I never stole more than 2 AP / 6 MP for him escaping lock, which is what I got when I had all of 15 more lock than he had dodge. For the record, Dragon Pig has 8 MP and 13 AP base, which means.. the lock did literally nothing to reduce his actions per turn, but it did seem to limit his sphere of influence to a few cells around the locker.. although given he can teleport (and does so every single turn), it's unconfirmed (at least for me, someone who's only done dragon pig 2 on the live servers and only following someone else's strategy, not doing much to discover dpig's tactics and AI personally) just how much he can do. If that teleport is always back to the person with the highest belligerence, then it isn't much of an issue because he'll go back to the tank, which means he has at most 2 MP to move onto someone else with. If he teleports to others at random, well, the tank isn't really doing much of anything at that point.

Number-wise:

532 lock vs 575 dodge (me doing nothing to him): -1 AP, -6 MP
532 lock vs 536 dodge (one rocky foot): -1 AP, -6 MP
532 lock vs 517 dodge (one crit rocky foot): -2 AP, -6 MP
545 lock vs 439 dodge: -2 AP, -6 MP

These values would change to 9 MP lost on the turns he got the initiative bonus and took his own +3 MP, leaving him with the same 2 extra MP after escaping from CC. Also an oddity, in the combat log it would always just say "Dragon Pig: -6 MP", even though I'm pretty sure the -2 AP was from escaping CC as it showed at the same time as the MP loss when he moved away, it was never on the combat log. It's possible but it seems very unlikely the 2 AP cost is from Enraged Leap (which is his teleport move he does after escaping).

There didn't seem to be a whole lot of change on whether his dodge was debuffed or not. Doing nothing with 532 lock, I already was stealing the max MP I ever could in the encounter, and the extra -1 AP he got from having more lock/lowering his dodge I seriously doubt will ever impact Dragon Pig's damage output, considering he has 13 AP. I haven't tested it with anybody to give any conclusions, and I think because of belligerence's mechanic dragon pig as a fight is likely still doable in the same kind of fashion, but other encounters that don't have such a clear-cut "Dragon pig hates the person with the highest belli" method will suffer greatly. that's just going off of this brief testing, though.

Unless they're making further changes to this encounter (and unless things are wildly different in a group, which they might be.. but the lock/dodge mechanics will probably stay the same), it doesn't seem nearly as hard to 'lock tank' as it was in terms of how much you need, but similarly, it may or may not be useful at all to even bother. Hard to say. I'm up for going with anybody that wants to do further testing on dragon pig on the test server though to figure it out.

--------------------

Another case, testing randomly outside of dpig:

Treechnid has 15 dodge, 8 lock.
I have 0 dodge, 400+ lock.
Astrub knight has 0 dodge, 0 lock.

Treechnid suffers 0 ap/mp extra for escaping cc from my astrub knight, who has 0 lock vs his 15 dodge.

My Astrub knight sometimes will pay a penalty of 4 AP/MP to escape, and other times it will be 3 AP/4 MP to escape, even though neither has anything modifying the lock/dodge differential. Also odd is the fact that in that same scenario, me being at the same differential as me *always* paying 4 AP/MP to escape. I never got the reduced 3 AP/4 MP cost to escape on my own character, but my multiman did. And while we had these massive penalties for being all of 8 lower in stats, its 15 dodge allowed it to escape my knight with 0 penalties.

It's just.. so random how it affects enemies, and to what threshold. and as it stands there's no information about it at all beyond what you discover on your own in-game, much less information that's easy-access (as it should be). I'm not really huge on the minimal communication going on with such a fundamental change to how high level content is handled.


Nun Shall Pass * Member Since 2012-01-23
posté May 30, 2014, 04:30:35 | #16
Apparently the lock/dodge mechanics got updated with the latest Beta update. Here's a thread that's been detailing some testing done:

Click here

I see some changes done and the multiples for the dodge thresholds have gone down dramatically (a big plus!).

In my opinion, I would still recommend dropping the requirement that you MUST have the exact number of AP/MP to dodge, and replacing it with a points system (if you need 4AP/4MP to dodge, you need a total of 8AP and MP collectively and a minimum of 1AP and 1MP to perform the dodge, if you don't have the required 4 AP or 4 MP).


This post has been edited by SSBKewkky - May 31, 2014, 20:39:18.
Grizzled Dandelion * Member Since 2012-10-11
posté June 14, 2014, 13:41:51 | #17
I think there should be no practically reachable upper limit on ap/mp drains from locks, just like with player damage. I see no reason for this 4ap/4mp cap. I suspect 1000% or so is the cap for damage but it's reachable for level 200ish characters only. The same should be the case with lockers. 4ap/4mp may be too little to effectively neutralize some higher level mobs. There already isn't enough people playing locking tanks competently, this new system effectively penalizes them thus making the situation worse. It should be the other way around to promote this play style.


posté August 04, 2014, 18:05:53 | #18
Could this be organized into a graph or chart please?

-Rizarealm