Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Keystone

Members
  • Posts

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Keystone last won the day on April 8

Keystone had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Keystone's Achievements

4★

4★ (5/17)

34

Reputation

  1. I edited my first post and added as complementary suggestion: Remove the time limit of buffs Change Megistar and make it the main means of buffing & rebuffing players: No PA frag cost Instead of having HP loss on ticks to balance it with normal buffs (let's let monsters take our HP): Make Megistar add 2 random buffs not presently on players within range (2 uses guarantees full buffs) Megistaride could do the same for 1 player (2 uses for full buffs, max allowed in inventory could be raised)
  2. Yuffie and Miyoko, I gave losing Shifta a low chance of removal for every type, and Retier only has a high chance of removal on classes that don't use Technics/TP. Getting a single buff removed of any kind wouldn't have to happen more than getting frozen or stunned, and it would more likely be Zodial for fighters, Deband for ranged attackers, and Retier for classes not using their TP stat. The way buffs are now, I enjoy using Resta more than buffing because the enemy can take away HP I add to teammates with Resta. On only very rare occasions, can they remove a buff. (Enemies' debuffs don't even work against me when I play, and the only other way they can remove my buffs is with incapacitate, since I'm not dying from anything else.)
  3. Also, this make me think that some custom ennemies/bosses (if that happen) could have an AoE pattern that remove all buffs (more a bosses stuff, with not a new pattern for S5 custom falz or w/e) Edited 1 hour ago by Aelphasy I thought about that too, like maybe letting a Polty, Rappy, or some otherwise superweak enemy to have an increased chance to remove your buffs. I'd like a sound effect too on buff removal. Like glass breaking or something.
  4. I would have it apply to Megistaride, but maybe raise the level of boost all stats to balance it if necessary (or drop the item's store price, or both). Plus, it would remove buffs individually at random. Maybe if one of four Megistaride buffs was removed, your HP could drop by 75% the value it normally drops each tick, for example. Also, I wrote the chances as "low" and "high" rather than percentages to prevent assuming what reasonable chances would be.
  5. Hello, all. I find buffing less fun than Resta-ing. In fact, buffing is no fun to me at all, because it adds nothing to teammates that enemies have any good chance of taking away. (Enemies can take away HP I add to teammates with Resta; slim chance they could do that to my buffs with their debuffs that usually don't even work.) So here's a suggestion: Give all enemies' damaging attacks a chance to remove buffs from players. Chance to remove buff Shifta Deband Zodial Retier Fighgunner low low low high Wartecher none low high low Guntecher low high none low Fortefighter low low high low Fortegunner low high low low Fortetecher low high low none Protranser low low low high Acrofighter low low low low Acrotecher low low none none All Techers have at least one immunity. Thoughts? Other ideas to make buffs funner? Idea for complementary buff overhaul (Added 4/10): I would remove the time limit of buffs, and have the above as the main means of losing them. I would change Megistar and make it the main means of buffing & rebuffing players: No PA frag cost Instead of having HP loss on ticks to balance it with normal buffs (let's let monsters take our HP): Make Megistar add 2 random buffs not presently on players within range (2 uses guarantees full buffs) Megistaride could do the same for 1 player (2 uses for full buffs, max allowed in inventory could be raised)
  6. Some of your other points I didn't get to... 1.) A low level player will be worse than useless because enemy strength scales up with more players in party. We could just reduce how much more powerful enemies get when a low level player joins. 2.) Level requirements create a sense of progression, like fighting Delsaban and then Deljaban later, and take you to different missions as you reach new level requirements for them. I agree with you that level requirements are in the game for that purpose. But with the small player population that we have, level requirements sometimes feel like party passwords, and that's where I have an issue. If you're a low level player and you don't want to solo, you aren't going to go to a random mission counter, because on the small chance there's even someone there, you probably won't be able to join them. And on the flip side, if I play an infrequently run mission as a high level, unless I pick C-rank, I'm almost certainly restricting myself to a solo run, so the reward for level progression can feel empty in at least that respect. Instead of missions reading "all members must be LV100+", I'd have them read "Full loot and EXP yield at LV100+".
  7. What I would do is this: if (enemyHP == 0) // When the enemy is defeated... { if (playerLevel < missionRequirement) { enemyLevel = playerLevel; // If player's LV < mission req., make enemy LV = player's LV. } killEnemy(); // Calculate loot and XP based on the reduced enemy level. } killEnemy() would just be a method that determines what EXP and loot drops when the enemy dies (based on the enemy's level). Marmalade probably has a method like it in the code. (A method is just a reusable block of code.) That's what I would do, but people don't always like my ideas, so if they have another way, I'm for their other way. Plus, in killEnemy(), I'd probably make it so if the player's level was under the requirement, anything dropping besides meseta, 'mates, or charges wouldn't drop.
  8. To me, mission level requirements are poison. They feel like the worst carry over from the original version. Anyone else not like being able to join a party of 4 because you're level 60 instead of 75? Wanna scrap this in a balanced way that still gives incentive for lower level players to run lower rank missions? I support any way that would work and be popular, but at Zeta's request, here's a way I would manipulate the code to accomplish this: if (enemyHP == 0) // When the enemy is defeated... { if (playerLevel < missionRequirement) { enemyLevel = playerLevel; // If player's LV < mission req., make enemy LV = player's LV. } killEnemy(); // Calculate loot and XP based on the reduced enemy level. } killEnemy() would just be a method that determines what EXP and loot drops when the enemy dies (based on the enemy's level). Marmalade probably has a method like it in the code. (A method is just a reusable block of code.) That's what I would do, but people don't always like my ideas, so if they have another way, I'm for their other way. Plus, in killEnemy(), I'd probably make it so if the player's level was under the requirement, anything dropping besides meseta, 'mates, or charges wouldn't drop.
  9. I think all it really controls is how early you want the next wipe to come. Grind failing just extends the amount of time 'til we all have 10/10's and there's nothing left/better to acquire in the game.
  10. I played that game very, very briefly when everything was in Japanese, so I'm not too familiar with it. Does it stink?
  11. In Pokemon, there's an ability "Moxie" where a Pokemon gains attack after defeating another Pokemon. What if in PSU, as an alternative to "travel PAs", you gained a temporary speed boost after defeating a mob of enemies? It could show up like a buff, but be a green, orange, or violet arrow instead. You could partner this with travel PAs removing the speed buff from the player, so classes without travel PAs could still keep up. The temporary buff could be added to the player at mission start if needed, especially if they're joining mid-mission. Edit @ RedKing's request: If 2 seconds pass after receiving the buff, attacking ends it. This way, the player wouldn't end it accidently immediately after getting it.
  12. If this game were even slightly challenging, wouldn't you see Protransers using their EX traps more than once a month?
  13. Keystone

    Grind Idea

    Hi folks. I've seen some of the topics hating on grinding recently, so I came up with a master plan for you all. The idea is 1 or more final grind_difference variables. (In programming, a final variable is basically a variable with a set value that doesn't change.) The effect would be the following: grind_difference = 1.0 (no change to your weapons' ATK, TP, & PP as they are now) grind_difference = 0.8 0/10 Hiken PP: 311 -> 334 (+23) 5/10 Hiken PP: 357 -> 371 (+14) 10/10 Hiken PP: 424 (+0) x/10 weapon stat = 10/10 weapon stat - ( grind_difference * ( 10/10 weapon stat - x/10 weapon stat ) ) With a smaller grind_difference variable, someone not wanting to risk lowering their x/10 weapon's max grind potential would feel less pressured to do so, because the weapon wouldn't be as weak as it is presently. There could be one grind_difference variable for ATK/TP, another for PP, or one for both. It could also only affect weapons between certain grinds, like 3/10 to 10/10, so 0/10's would still be crappy. Specific weapons could be ignored, like the very grind-impacted Agito Repca sword if desired. Grinding would be kept as a system, but the variable value(s) would change according to how over/underpowered the community felt 10/10's were. Edit: rewrote "break their x/10 weapon" to "risk lowering their x/10 weapon's max grind potential" at Hatsodoom's request.
  14. Keriqo (Buck; Mosquito Deer Hybrid) Light Element, but casts Megiverse (to suck your blood) Native to Raffon Meadows
×
×
  • Create New...