MaxQuest

I've mentioned this in the above post) PoE1 (checked in v2.03 and 3.0+): offhand attack -> mainhand attack -> mainhand recovery Deadfire (checked in Beta1): mainhand attack -> offhand attack -> offhand recovery Afaik it's always the mainhand. Afaik in PoE1 it would be as following: - if you issue a special attack before your current normal swing deal the damage: current animation is discarded/interrupted and your start your special attack - if you issue a special attack after your current normal swing dealt damage: you go into recovery, and only after that your special attack will start And no, it doesn't matter what you did before. The hand-sequence will be as described in the answer on question 1.

Except it didn’t. One particular purely DPS focused cipher build got nerfed (not crippled). Ciphers are still work just fine. I would argue that they didn’t get broken but became a gold standard of how each class should ideally work - all attributes are valuable, increasing/decreasing an attribute will buff/debuff certain aspect of the class. Perception might be the only one really hurting if you dump it because than you can’t hit&you can’t cast spells. At the same time, every class needs perception. Hmm. Depends how to look on it. I quite enjoyed ciphers in PoE1, even had 3 MCs of this class. And always had two of them in my party on all of my full-playthroughts. I liked this class versatility, quickness and the fact that there are several different and more than viable ways to build one. E.g: - (melee) (aoe) damage-oriented (dw or 2h): 18/9/18/12/15/6 - (melee) cc-oriented (2h): 9/9/18/18/18/6 - (ranged) (aoe) damage-oriented (warbow or quick-switch blunderbusses): 18/7/18/18/14/3 or 18/7/17/14/19/3 (if you wanted very strong Disintegration) - (ranged) cc-oriented (warbow): 13/7/18/18/19/3 note: two thirds of damage inflicted by damage-oriented ciphers was coming from his powers (like Echo, Soul Shock, Silent Scream, Detonation and ~Amplified Wave). And expected that Soulblade will be an additional way to those above to play the cipher, specifically a damage oriented one (but who dumps focus mostly in Soul Annihilation and not in powers). So there will be at least 5 viable ways to play them. In reality though it's not as expected, because ciphers took the following 6 hits: - 1) doubled cast times compared to PoE1. (it's understandable that ex-vancian classes had to be nerfed somehow, once their per-rest abilities became per-encounter; but somehow this affected ciphers as well) - 2) afflictions provide weaker defense maluses. [-10 deflection and -10 fortitude] from the new stun is not the same as [-30 deflection, -38 reflex, -8 will]. Prone doesn't provide any maluses at all, and is not a disable any longer. Tbh, paralyze is the only decent cc left, but still it doesn't provide miss-to-graze conversion. - 3) one of the best cc pre-setter (Painful Interdiction) was not moved to Deadfire (and having enemies with -28 fort, -20 will was really handy when trying to charm or paralyze someone) - 4) even if landed succesfully, cc effect may not be applied if the target was affected by a matching inspiration already. So you will have to cast the same power twice. - 5) if MIG is multiplicative with Soul/Bitting Whips and TwoHandedStyle, leaving MIG at ~flat values for cc-ciphers is so-so, because you would be crippling your focus generation. - 6) change from MIG to STR, puts damage-oriented ciphers in an awkward position, since they need STR and RES now at the same time (while before RES could be kept flat or even dumped) And there are also affliction resistances which make the life of hard-cc'er a bit harder. Although if they came instead of immunities and not in addition to them, it's fine. So yeah... If it was only the #6 change (i.e. going from MIG->STR), it wouldn't be that much of a deal. Instead of dumping RES on damage-oriented power ciphers, I would likely dump PER (*) instead, and that's it. But as it is now, I would rather avoid building ciphers focused on cc or aoe power-casting altogether. (*) Why Per? Characters that are not limited by resource-limit (like ex-vancian casters), nor need high levels of reliability (like debilitators), can afford re-casting. Thus they will focus on getting attributes with the highest dps gain... which currently are STR/RES and DEX. So a cipher that is focused on dealing lots of damage via his aoe powers could easily end up with something like: 17/7/17/3/17/17. And one more thing: some powers currently have x3 and even x6 shorter recovery than casting duration. This means that you can equip heaviest armor without big slowdown. And if so, there is little incentive to be ranged, as you'd be more effective by dual-wielding sabres in melee in plate armor, even if you'd have to transfer a few points from DEX to CON. P.S. It turn'ed out to be a longer explanation than initially thought, but just wanted to describe the chages that affected this class.

Additionally: what should the interaction be if you charm-back a charmed team member? In PoE1: he would change alliance back (i.e. become friendly), but would not be able to use any abilities. Personally I would expect second charm to cancel the charm effect, even if other maluses (like minus defenses in PoE1 or minus 5 INT in Deadfire) are still in effect. In Deadfire Full Attack is even more powerful, provided that your recovery duration is above zero. In PoE1 (FoD with dual sabres, naked, no other effects): 1s (offhand attack) -> 1s (mainhand attack) -> 0.833s (mainhand recovery). You hit twice in 2.833s compared to 3.666s - time that would take you to make two consecutive normal attacks. In Deadfire (FoD with dual sabres, naked, no other effects): 0.7s (mainhand attack) -> 0.7s (offhand attack) -> 1.5s (offhand recovery). You hit twice in 2.9s compared to 4.4s.

Can I assume that you meant "to make all attributes usefull for all classes (such that there would be at least 1 melee and 1 ranged viable x-based build per class for each attribute x) you should have every attribute giving offensive bonuses"? If yes, I've came to a similar conclusion. Defensive attributes are more useful for melee builds as they are more susceptible to be targeted and damaged. While ranged characters can get away with lesser survivability. After a certain threshold investing points in CON and RES was providing for them a quite diminished gain. As example in PoE1 or in Deadfire Beta1, it was hard to justify a CON-based or RES-based ranged: ranger, rogue, chanter, cipher, druid, wizard and priest. Beta2 partially addressed the situation for RES and casters; but it did so on detriment of hybrid builds; additionally the state of CON-based casters and CON/RES-based rogues and rangers is still kind of moot. Making all attributes carry an offensive component will indeed make them desireble for at least 1 melee and 1 ranged build per each class. On the other hand, this offensiveness can be indirect. Let's take CON as example. If it gives "+4% hp base hp; +3% healing received" - it's defensive. But if there are: - weapons or modals, that are reducing your hp (like scepter's modal) - both hp and regeneration become a mean of offence. - or if there were spells that use your hp pool as resource, for example something like: "inflict to self and all surround enemies damage equal to 25% of your max hp" or "drain the target for 6% of your max health pool per second" - hp again would be helping with dealing damage. Additionally it could enable a new way to play a class: drain-tanking. (makes me think of Concelhaut by the way)

Ehh Gromnir. Am glad that you feel relieved. And at same time am saddened. Your reply style more and more resembles that of Litter-Bearer fan type (that is described in the bottom part of this article). There is really no need to be that highbrow and condescending. That said, I'll see myself out, as am no longer interested in the subject of this thread, nor in continuing such discussion.

Perfectly matches my experience with the Beta so far. > Create a beguiler/fury and travel with the 4 predefined mercenaries. Get completely crushed by anything that has a "lagufaeth" in it, despite of intensive micro. > Create 3 wayfarer/berserkers. Max PEN. Max AR. Dual-wield sabres. 19/10/18/3/18/10. Watch them destroy anything on an auto-pilot AI behavior, in less time a druid would conjure a Blight. It's kinda hard to estimate PEN (and AR), because the gain from +1 penetration keeps changing along the scale. It would be much easier if it was gradual. But Josh is adamant about it being not: link. The thing is it makes following estimations and conclusions a bit fuzzy. Also would like to add a few thoughts/corrections: - 12 perception is greater than 12 accuracy, since there is also 24 reflex. - 5 constitution may not necessary have the same impact as 8 dexterity or 8 might; as the latter help finishing the current opponent faster and switch to another, creating 2x1 local overwhelming; plus in case of might less limited resources will be spent. And if there is a high amount of incoming healing, investing in constitution becomes a little moot. But that's nitpicking) as I do agree with your conclusions about armor, dual-wielding and shield/deflection. Btw, when thinking about such heuristics vs Josh's approach, I tend to think of: - balancing a wood plank on a line (example), vs - balancing a wood plank on a point (example) In the first case it's easier to come up with a balanced state, and even if you shift some value, overall balance won't get altered if the values are tied by common heuristics. In the second case it's harder to balance stuff, but you can achieve some exotic state where unexpectedly everything works fine enough. Tbh I had this feeling when estimating (additive) MIG vs (multiplicative) DEX in PoE1. Unlike DEX, MIG was useful only for damagers and healers; and additionally it's effect was getting dilluted by other damage coefficients (like crits and weapon quality), but it still was on-par with DEX, because of the flat DR in general AND DR of the enemies we met in particular. Personally I like having some heuristics / association formulas. They make the whole system which is being constructed more robust. And only when the construction is almost finished / has a solid fundament, one can add one or two point-balanced features like an icing on the cake. (without going: oh we can't change x this way, because it will unbalance y, which will unbalance z, etc) (and the icing may be required such that the system won't feel too rigid, dull or boring) Speaking of game systems, neither did I. I mean I liked the story, the implemented ramifications, the idea of spell creation. But completely disliked the attack resolution and balance. It was too easy to break, i.e. come with a single best build, check it in solo PotD, and at that point replay'ability from powerbuilding point of view was gone, because trying anything else would be just gimping yourself. And one more thing: playing with a good build in Tyranny felt unfair for me, as if the systems were not thought/play-tested well enough and you are just exploiting them; while comming with a good build in PoE feels way more rewarding and without that guilt feeling.

Regarding damage: it would become close to being fine, if Dragon Trashed was changed back to DoT like it was in PoE1, with current damage becoming inflicted per-tick.

^ Just in case I had all six attributes at 10)) P.S. If Dragon Trashed affects only one target per chant, am really surprised it can be worse than already borderline bad.

What the... I've just tried it, and it's not even a DoT now?? At 10 MIG, it's just dealing 4.8 (according to combat log, or 6 according to overhead numbers) burn and slash damage once! every 6s (without brisk recitation) or every 3s (with brisk recitation) In PoE1, with brisk recitation at 50% and 20 INT, it would have 4s duration + 6s linger resulting in 10 DoT duration. So every 4s there would be applied a DoT that has a duration of 10s (4.33 ticks) and every tick would deal 10 fire + 10 slash damage (@10 MIG), for a total of 86.6 (preDR) damage. At 10 MIG: - now: 6 preAR damage every 3s, compared to - poe1: 86.6 preDR damage every 4s That's a very severe nerf.

Trying to get better at this + official background: _lg: _convo: _sm: _si: P.S. Thanks again Aramintai. Stroke + applying Poster Edges on a higher resolution (and only after that downscalling) made it look so much better than my first attempt.

Afaik Brilliant, Enfeebled, Resolute and Energized are not associated to any spell or ability in the current beta. Have found them in the game files.

Technically concentration is now discreet. One charge would eat one interruption. While during courageous you could ignore all interruptions, nevertheless of their amount.But yeah, something is feeling redundant)

penetration bonus is the first thing I have tried for PER and dismissed out, as with current enemy AR values it would only enforce [high-dmg, low-pen] for classes with any flat PEN bonuses. Still your deleted note is a valid concern. As what I am trying to achieve is a proper balance between dmg+heal party versus dmg+debuff party. The latter would likely have a cc wizard, cipher, trickster, skald or dump-mig monk/barbarian/fury. I'd like maxing PER if you already have maxed MIG, be situational not a no-brainer (i.e. great for some builds but not for all) The monk's PEN bonuses were probably meant to compensate for low penetration with fists. Am not completely sure if it's fair to apply them to all weapons. If monk's PEN bonuses won't be partiaĺly moved to Transcendent Suffering, other variant would be to make PEN have a chance to apply dazed or weakened on critical strike. This way PER will keep it's position as prime attribute for debuffing while also rise in usefulness compared to the just "+1 acc per point", which was providing only +2.22% dps increase at most, compared to +3% from MIG and PER. And also there will be a synergy between PER and RES as those dazed/weakened would get a chance to get upgraded.

It's more unusual, that's for sure I've been trying different combinations of possible effects, and this one matches the v2 approach: But am not completely happy with this variant, because RES is still a weak attribute for rogues and rangers. Also the balance of MIG vs RES is in favor of the former for wizards and ciphers. I will try to come with a different variant matching v2, and also take a look if something similar could work with STR-system. At the moment though, I'd like to show a variant matching v1: (let's reference it as "suggestion s1") MIG: +3% all damage done; +3% healing done CON: +4% base hp; +3% healing received [1] DEX: +3% action speed; +1 deflection PER: +1 accuracy; +2% to overpenetration bonus [2] (another variant could be: +10% to inflict a 6s affliction on weapon crit: dazed - with crush weapons, weaken - otherwise) INT: +5% outcoming effects duration; +6% aoe radius RES: +3% damage received suppression [3]; +3% chance to upgrade outcoming afflictions and inspirations [4] Notes: I am still "stress-testing" this attribute system, in the sense that am going through all classes and try to estimate their builds at flat, maxed and dumped values for each attribute; plus checking if they are not becoming OP with some of existent buffs (like a potential +25 RES). Also have to keep in mind that attributes are a double edged-sword since they apply to enemy creatures as well. And finally checking if it supports as many different ways to play a class as possible. So far I'm really liking [s1], because: - RES is useful for casters. Including ranged casters as required. Specifically it is good for buffers and debuffers, but not for damage-dealers, so it's not an auto-max stat. - RES is good for non-casters as well. Example: low-MIG barbarian focused on status effects, that has a chance to upgrade carnage staggering to dazed; or a ranger that can potentially paralyze instead of immobilize. - It may make sense to actually max CON now for some regenerating offtank builds. (previously we would just keep it on an empirically stable value at which the character would not die, and all points in CON above it were wasted) - So yeah, you can make a good RES-based build now and a good CON-based build as well. - Dumping any attribute stings. At the same time if you want to dump one, it will still be viable if you are making a specialist character. - This system stimulates tanking type combinations: [meat shield + regeneration] (CON + MIG), [mitigation + being healed] (RES + CON), [avoidance] (RES + DEX) - Also it enables two approaches to auto-attacking damage dealing: MIG-based (consistent), PER-based (spike, crits are responsible for a larger quota of dmg); the first one may be more appealing to characters favoring more straight-forward approach; while the second approach has low-MIG cc ciphers and rogues in mind, who are also focused on afflictions. And ofc there can be a mixed approach - that's a Devout "blademaster". - This system looks ok from thematic point of view. An agile rogue being harder to hit, or a resolve-based character gritting his teeth and suppressing a portion of pain/damage has a natural feel about it. Similar thing about high-RES char who inspires his comrades and can overcome enemy resistance; or high-PER char who would notice the best spot to penetrate in enemy's armor. But yes, there are also cons about this: - The resolve effects have kinda long description - Damage received suppression may always need a note attached. Since it is not exactly the same as "-3% to damage received". At 20 RES damage_going_through is 100% * 1/1.3 and not 100% * (1-0.3); i.e. it won't snowball at high RES values.

Yeap. Breaking a bigger task into smaller, more manageable chunks works well for me, including situations when it's applied to forum posts. Personally I like when it's easier to track which excerpts are targeted by the replier, as it provides a more detailed context. Additionally it allows for ommiting the parts about which I'm feeling nothing-to-add or neutral about. My point of view on the issue stated in the starting post is already expressed in this thread. Targeting new input is a natural thing to keep the discussion flowing, provided that the input caught ones attention. Well, thanks for clarification. I could not agree about "all", but can agree with "collective". Although must note that PoE community is one of the most mature gaming communities I've been part/witness of. I remember few posts mentioning that the real problem for casters being low penetration of spells. Have to note though that beside damage-dealing spells, there are also heals, debuffs and buffs. Having a priest take 6s+2s in order to cast a single-target +5MIG buff, is... a bad deal even if you try to counter a MIG-affliction. As for melee synergies - it's a valid point. And it's up to devs, to [nerf those], [reduce casting durations] or make both solutions meet in between. In the end one could say that the main difference between these approaches is the resultant (average) duration of combat. Must note though: even though some spells are currently not worthy of their cast time, some of these are even less worty than the others. And it's important to detect and tune this "trash" options. I'd also like to quote this article from an interview with Josh: Agreed. It's wise to take fan feedback with caution.

That's logically true. Fans can be idiots. Uhm, sorry for nitpicking, but you said "can be idiots" (which is true), and not "we are idiots" (which may not be true). Also (in this context) it would probaly make sense to use "shortsighted" instead; because besides having low intelligence, it's also possible to arrive to wrong conclusion by not having enough/correct input data. That said I salute your call for improved transparency. Unless you meant unanimous consensus, don't you exagerate a bit? - topics with high consensus: casting speed, impact of melee vs ranged, beta 1 injuries being too severe - topics with average consensus: general talents, penetration system (some players still favor the flat and/or gradual approach; but still the majority as finding the iteration of AR vs PEN as being too abrupt) - topics with low consensus: MIG/RES vs STR/RES I'd just add that it's great when fans' input and wishes are constructive, concrete and taking an advice or pov, instead of the occasional enforcing form.

^ That can be a good fallback solution. What I am thinking though is: - imagine a rogue: one with high MIG focused on steady dps with high_dmg/low_pen weapons; and another with high PER, focused on spike dps (with stingy crits) with low_dmg/high_pen weapons - or imagine a cipher: one with high MIG and Great Sword; and another with high PER and Estoc And damage be somewhat like: MIG-based cipher with GreatSword vs naked: 16 PEN-based cipher with Estoc vs naked: 14 MIG-based cipher with Estoc vs naked: 12 PEN-based cipher with GreatSword vs naked: 12 MIG-based cipher with GreatSword vs leather: 12 PEN-based cipher with Estoc vs leather: 12 MIG-based cipher with Estoc vs leather: 9 PEN-based cipher with GreatSword vs leather: 9 MIG-based cipher with GreatSword vs plate: 4 PEN-based cipher with Estoc vs plate: 6 MIG-based cipher with Estoc vs plate: 3 PEN-based cipher with GreatSword vs plate: 3 At the same time something like fighter would obviously prefer a Great Sword for the most cases and switch to Estoc only vs very high-AR targets.

Iirc the full list of inspirations wasn't posted yet, so here it is: EDIT: Fixed typo in MIGHT (old img), and since this post is still occasionally being linked to, adding the updated list for v1.2.2 (22 july 2018):

Yeap, that would be the easiest way. But: - it will complicate the system description a bit. - when choosing these coefficients we should also keep base damage of different weapons in mind, and check how they will compete vs each other: It's important that both [high damage, low pen] and [low damage, high pen] are somewhat equally viable. And I have found the coefficients that would balance weapons around -4..0 (that's ~0.15) and around 0..4 (~0.27), But... nothing so far that holds consistent along the all length of the scale\ A niche could be: - high pen weapons are only useful if your PEN with them gets around -2..2 - high damage weapons are superior on the rest of the scale But am not really happy with this, as in 90% of cases players will just use Great Swords anyway and will be debuffing enemy AR, and even if they don't succeed, well, they lost only ~25% dps vs a select few enemies. Look at the scale for 0.25: if you jumped from -4 diff to 0 that's a big gain, from 50% of damage going through to 100%. And even if Estocs deal only 61.3% of Great Swords they will be ahead because 1*0.63 > 0.5*1. But we have a minor proble at the lower part of the scale, as going from -10 to -6, is only jumping from x0.29 to x0.36; and even if Estocs are likely purposed to be useful vs high-armored targets... players would still use great swords. We might need to have different bottom damage thresholds for different weapons, like: - Great Swords are capped at 20% minimal damage - Estocs are capped at 40% minimal damage But it has to be elegant and simple worded. So... still thinking. And there is one more concern: atm cipher with Estoc is really bad. You can take Great Sword and build focus by hitting squshies, why would you hinder yourself by taking Estoc in the first place? Now if the game allowed for two different and both viable types of ciphers... e.g. one mighty with Great Sword (reliable) and another accurate with Estoc (spike, based on crits) that would be really great both, thematically and mechanically. And I think I know how this can be achieved...)

Aside from already mentioned Acuan Giamas, morningstars are pretty bad. I mean I can't think of a situation where a morning star (except AG) would be superior to Tidefal if you need damage, Tall Grass if you need proning, and if you need interrupt there are better 1h variants like: Mosquito/Godansthunyr/Shatterstar.

The DR system used in PoE1 was considered "mushy". Strange, I can't find the exact article on that, but here are two partially related tumblr posts: - post 1 - about mushy feel of DR; plus it explains that graduated approach will not be used for PEN-AR - post 2 - mentions that PEN should be separated from flat damage numbers, and be percentage based P.S. I'm pretty neutral on the DR vs AR thing, but I'd recommend also checking this post from 2014. It's a bit humorous, that flat DR is now marked as mushy; while percentage DR was considered confusing =)

I've been toying for awhile with various alternative bonuses for the character attributes. Have a few ideas, but first... an abstract question: If out of: damage dealing, healing, buffing and debuffing; you could specialize your characters in doing really well only two things, how would you like them being grouped?: v1: > damage and heal > debuff and buff > heal and buff v2: > damage and buff > debuff and heal > buff and heal

^ Partially yes. On the other hand AR helps vs 7 out 8 damage types, while deflection is only 1 out of 4 defenses. But yes, if there were more nasty enemies dealing raw damage - definitely.

I could fraps PoE1 at a constant rate of 30fps @ max settings. As for Deadfire: even if I set minimal possible settings and lower resolution from 1920x1080 to 1280x720, I get maximum 26-27fps with Fraps on Spec for reference: i7-4710HQ, 16Gb RAM, GTX 970M

I have tried to visualize your suggestion: Still thinking what conclusion to make, but can already see that the increase in damage from extra PEN is really high. And if we take a lower coefficient, our frontliners will struggle with damage mitigation. Understood your point, and agreed: fine-tuning enemy AR coupled with addition of few enemies with very-high PEN / low acc (as suggested by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy) will make avoidance-tanks (def-based) as useful as mitigation-tanks (armor-based).