MaxQuest

Yeap. Crit damage bonus is additive. As for graze, it looks like a multiplicative malus: example. But if might is multiplicative (see below) something doesn't add up. There is no easy answer to that, because we have several sources that seem to contradict each other. > According to UI tooltip steps: all damage coefficients are additive. > According to Source Code (assuming I understood it right) all damage coefficients are additive. > According to UI tooltip result (if we try to figure out how the end result was achieved): Might is applied multiplicatively, while all other damage coefficients are applied additively. And BMac confirms that this indeed is the case here, and tooltip steps - being just an UI problem. Funny enough, none of the above would explain the graze above. In this case looks like all damage coefficients (including Might) are additive, while Graze itself is a multiplication by x0.5 Agreed that both graze and crit should be applied multiplicatively. This is also reflected in suggestion v4. As for perception - it was a flat stat for dps'ers in PoE1, and a bump stat for debuffers because it made cc reliable, and helped a lot in bringing defenses of high-def bosses down. And in Beta 2 there are no bosses, no Broodmothers/Battery Sirens, nor cc is worthy the cast time yet.

Since majority in this thread agree that spellcasting should be faster, there is also another question: - should there be a few consistent spell categories, or it's ok to have a ton of them? And in order to start from something, here are the values for PoE1, and Deadfire Beta 2: Notes: - as you can see, spells in PoE1 did not always obey their displayed speed category, yet they still were more consistent than in Deadfire Beta 2 - unlike in PoE1, in Deadfire some instant spells can be used during pause (for example Disciplined Strikes and Second Wind, but not Swift Flurry)

You are using two fast 1h weapons with base values of 0.5s attack / 2.0s recovery, right? P.S. Looking at AttackBase.NotifyAttackComplete() I see that nothing has changed in recovery calculation logic in comparisson to PoE1. Well except for recoveryFactor which is a constant, and allows for a different ratio between attack and recovery durations. But still something is odd, specifically base values and rounding: - fast melee weapons have base 0.5s att and 2.0s rec - slow melee weapons have base 0.7s att and 3.0s rec which is technically impossible, since they both go through the same function and thus should be proportional. My current guess is that fast weapons actually have 0.46(6)s attack duration (or exactly 14 frames). So it's likely is: - fast melee weapons have base 14 frames att and 60 frames rec - slow melee weapons have base 21 frames att and 90 frames rec Will be able to tell precisely when will find the value of new recoveryFactor. SaruNi is speaking of recovery duration) Dexterity bonus is applied multiplicatively. Both in PoE1 and in Deadfire. Also DEX does not allow you to reach 0 recovery... but huge numbers can bring you close to it. Specifically if you are at 0.0499 recovery it could be rounded to 0 by UI. So let's compute how much DEX would we need for UI to indeed display 0 recovery duration for a fast weapon (provided there are no other bonuses/maluses): 2s / dexBonus = 0.0499s 40 = dexBonus 40 = 1 + (dex - 10) / 33.3 39 * 33.33 = dex - 10 1298.7 + 10 = dex result: 1309 dex or above

Are you sure that's a good example? I am interested in the arguments presented in that video. Can you share the link? This does not reflect the current state of the things. Not to mention that youtuber is speaking in absolutes. Hmm, it sounds a bit black & white: - community feedback being impure - and devs initial vision being pure If Obsidian is adamant about any system/change they implement, they would not need our feedback, nor this beta thing. It would be obvious that they would like to not "taint" the upcoming masterpiece, and just present it when it's completely ready. Forced?

I suppose that it's not that testers really hate the beta (if you saw any hate)... rather there could be subtle feeling of potential disappointment. How to put it better... Look Deadfire has a bigger potential than PoE1, because: - it is bigger (sequel adds many new features) - devs are more experienced now, and are already familiar with many possible pitfalls So it is natural to expect for Deadfire >> PoE1. And having such expectations is ok. While the beta itself atm is: Beta << PoE1. Which results in that little bitterness. But is actually also ok, since Deadfire didn't come through a comparable number of iterations yet. Good question, and you are on point with the split feedback. As I see it there are two general approaches to balancing: #1. You create a detailed mathematical model from the very ground. You start with a set of axioms that list what you want to achieve and build a pyramid from bottom to top. It's balanced, it's stable on every stage of development. It maybe scallable, but you are limited that you can't change the grand blueprint. #2. You have several nice ideas, that are cool but not necessary balanced or thought to their depths. You translate each into a corresponding system and throw it into the common cauldron. After that you try to figure out what's ok and what is requiring tuning. You test->estimate->tune->and repeat. In his presentation here Josh is talking about iterative approach. So it's closer to #2. They test, estimate, compare their own conclusions with collected feedback and implement changes. With each iteration getting closer to an etalon state, just like getting closer to solution in bisection method. Experience, vision and access to more info, really help in sorting the feedback, and estimate which one was off, which one was on point, which one was short-sighted (for example because the player didn't take X or Y in account). We all do)

Yeap, I remember that. Exactly. Not to mention that his original idea could undergo a series of stealthy transformations (like current might and attack/casting speed being changed without being mentioned in transcripts) or be ditched altogether (like trinkets or reloading duration affected by armor)

Josh goes in-detail about this during his presentation here. And before that, he talks about attributes in D&D2, AD&D and D&D3.x.

Uhm. Using bulverism followed by appeal to shame doesn't look really efficient in making a point.

When Josh mentioned that weapons we'll find closer to the end of the game will come with higher capacity, forumers instantly pointed out that this will narrow the amount of viable weapons in the late chapters; plus it will make player feel uncertain about investing materials into the current weapon, because it may become gated by a great margin compared to a new shiny he can potentially find around the corner. That said, I can't answer this question completely because I need to take a look at the actual enchanting system in Deadfire first. But if it was like in PoE1, I'd say that non-legendary weapons would not necessary be useless as it would depend on what you are trading for. For example a player would not enchant superb to legendary, if: - this will make it impossible to apply lash, because (c + 0.45) * 1.25 > (c + 0.55), and there is no DR in Deadfire - he can have some cc effect instead (especially if he is not a dedicated damage dealer)

> if weapon quality is NOT a separate multiplier (relative to MIG/STR) - it's unfair to weapon-based damage-dealers, because the effect of MIG/STR becomes heavily diluted. > if weapon quality is a separate multiplier (relative to MIG/STR) - the fairness of weapon_dmg vs spell_dmg is not disturbed much if at all, because: -- in case of cipher powers: cipher gets higher focus gain -- in case of chanter: he manages to unlock more potent chants, invocations and get invocation upgrades. -- in case of ex-vancian casters: higher ranks usually contain more powerful spells. And if something is weak now, it can be slightly tweaked-up. Not to mention that this will also indirectly buff single-class casters as they get access to higher ranks earlier. - MIG has same impact on auto-attacking dps as DEX Many spells already benefit from power level which gradually increases with character's level. We can view weapon upgrading to fine/exceptional/superb/legendary at level 4/8/12/16 as gradual as well. And the devs task is to match these between them. (note: it may not necessary be 1:1 proportion like +45% dmg to spells at power level 5. It could be even half or third of it, provided that base damage / effect of spells goes up with ranks, e.g. Ray of Fire vs Hand of Weal and Woe)

Sorry, I have missread the starting post. Was under impression that you get -10 ACC Penalty even if you take the corresponding proficiency. And if it's currently works as I wrote above, unless I am missing something, I see no proficiency-related problem here... As for those two mentioned issues: - Kalakoth's Minor Blights besides being marked as universal, should be also marked as wand - as it was in PoE1 - Devouts should get a free talent at rank 5 that would allow them to change their preferred weapon once (or non-free talent that would allow them to select a second proffered weapon type). Otherwise devout/wizards would just respec for Citzal once it becomes available.

Aah, the Consortium)

There you go: And: full screenshot Btw seems that there is only male form atm. And still don't quite understand why claws are two-handed

Probably unpopular opinion, but I'd prefer specializations being limited by weapon type, e.g: - Great Sword specialization working with regular Great Swords, soulbound Great Swords and summoned Great Swords (e.g. Spiritual Weapon) - Quarterstaff specialization working with regular Quarterstaves, soulbound Quarterstaves and summoned Quarterstaves (e.g. Councelhaut's Staff) - and so on And if there has to be something that would affect summoned (conjured) weapons exclusively - make it a talent (e.g. BattleMaster Conjurer or smth).

A combination of: - there is no etalon stat spread that should be used by all characters of a class if they want to be optimal - emergent roles inside of a party - different playstyles are viable without a huge gap between them

Yeap, either -100% "recovery duration" or +infinity% "recovery speed" Well yes, for a final result this is the next most useful info. But it might not work well if you compute in duration reductions from the start if there are multiple effects. Unfortunately it would likely end up with irrational number. I think for now would be great at least get consistent signs and consistent terminology among all action/attack/recovery/reloading speed/time/duration effects and their tooltips.

Let's say you are going from city A to B, which are 100km apart. At 100km/h you would arrive in 60min. At 125km/h you would arrive in 48min. 125km/h is by 25% bigger speed than the referenced 100km/h. (25/100 = 0.25) 48min is by 20% smaller duration than the referenced 60min. (12/60 = 0.2)

I don't think it stacks. Gotta check it. But 3 moon-godlike berserker-wayfarers with shared flames, seem to always be at close to full hp.

I suppose it's UI problem coupled with the fact that there should be a special case for speed-related tooltip generation. If an effect gives +25% action speed, than it's obvious that it's tooltip should write: [+25% action speed] or [-20% action duration]. P.S. Cross-linking a related thread.

If someone would tell me before beta that I would have a party of auto-fod-attacking paladins, and have not 2, not 1, but 0 ciphers in my party, I wouldn't believe him

This is exactly what I was thinking. Having MIG or RES provide a bonus to Healing Done. While CON providing a bonus to Healing Received. Although 5% is a bit too much. I am thinking 3% should be enough. Also when Josh mentioned that there are no resolve-based ranged casters, I've immediately thought that there are no constitution-based ranged casters either. And tbh that was one of my favorite playstyles in WoW (during TBC expansion). It was really fun having a warlock with health pool higher than that of pvp warriors, and constantly draining and using hp as resource. So I can easily see few new spells that allow tapping for extra damage; or percentage-based self-healing which all would indirectly increase the importance of CON.

If you have unarmed Barb/Paladin it's weird that you can get +6 acc with proficient weapons talent, and fists... are excluded; because Aegis of Loyalty works only with unarmed attacks now... Edit: Agreed regarding that generally fists should not be viable damage-dealing weapon for non-monks, with the minor exceptions: - if a character actually spent a lot of time learning the needed techniques - imagine if the was a chain of general talents (so you needed like 2-3 of them in order to reach 80% of monk's fist efficiency) - if there are some magic summoned gauntlets from some high-level spell And yes, agreeing that base fists should have lower Penetration. Also fists could have a proficiency modal. Personally I'd like there to be even more than 1 (mutually-exclusive) modals for that as it increases the character's specialization: (beware random placeholder names) - concusive blows - provides a chance to stun, at the cost of higher recovery - iron fist - increases PEN, but character takes a small % of delivered damage proportional with AR-PEN - deflecting weave - melee strikes deal less damage but mess enemy targeting with non-instant attacks and abilities. Struck enemy is affected by 40% hit-to-graze and graze-to-miss conversion for 1.5s.

Not pressuring ya I have over 100 PoE friendly portraits. Was thinking to slowly watercolor them over time myself and share the pack) Or say screw it, and watercolor only those that I am going to use myself. Depends on free time and if I'll manage to do the stylisation of somewhat similar quality.

Oh, that's definitely better) Btw, how do you achieve that extra-thick black outline while keeping their face features thin? Well... I have more then

It could be the recent nerfs to devout (including lower PEN, and the fact that now everyone grazes) coupled with probably suboptimal use from my part: - everyone is in plate armor; and far from zero recovery - combat was mostly governed by AI behaviors - berserkers could get extra damage dealt because they also hit each other