lewis_cb

I'll try to do my own math based on this superb Gamefaq to see if people agree, sorry if some of it is already well known. Let's try to compare current modal vs your proposal in the key use cases (I can think of 4). Light under-penetration (PEN-AR=-1): The -1 equates to a -25% Dmg Reduction multiplicator (3/4*DPS if alone) which has to be inverted and equates to a +33% Dmg Reduction divisor (DPS/(4/3) if alone). This would 'cost' or cancel out with a +33% Dmg Increase multiplicator, e.g. 11 points of STR. The current modal cancels the penalty above but applies a +50% Time Increase divisor (DPS/(3/2)=2/3*DPS if alone). This would 'cost' or cancel out with a +50% Speed Increase multiplicator, e.g. 16 points of DEX. Enabling it seems detrimental in principle: 75% DPS -> 66% DPS if alone. The proposed modal cancels the penalty above but applies a +25% Time Increase divisor (DPS/(5/4)=4/5*DPS if alone). This would 'cost' or cancel out with a +25% Speed Increase multiplicator, e.g. 8 points of DEX. Enabling it seems beneficial in principle: 75% DPS -> 80% DPS if alone. Moderate under-penetration (PEN-AR=-2): The -2 equates to a -50% Dmg Reduction multiplicator (1/2*DPS if alone) which has to be inverted and equates to a +100% Dmg Reduction divisor (DPS/2 if alone). This would 'cost' or cancel out with a +100% Dmg Increase multiplicator, e.g. 33 points of STR. The current modal cancels the penalty above but applies a +50% Time Increase divisor (DPS/(3/2)=2/3*DPS if alone). This would 'cost' or cancel out with a +50% Speed Increase multiplicator, e.g. 16 points of DEX. Enabling it seems beneficial in principle: 50% DPS -> 66% DPS if alone. The proposed modal cancels the penalty above but applies a +25% Time Increase divisor (DPS/(5/4)=4/5*DPS if alone). This would 'cost' or cancel out with a +25% Speed Increase multiplicator, e.g. 8 points of DEX. Enabling it seems even more beneficial in principle: 50% DPS -> 80% DPS if alone. Severe under-penetration (PEN-AR=-3): The -3 equates to a -75% Dmg Reduction multiplicator (1/4*DPS if alone) which has to be inverted and equates to a +300% Dmg Reduction divisor (DPS/4 if alone). This would 'cost' or cancel out with a +300% Dmg Increase multiplicator, e.g. 99 points of STR. The current modal lowers the penalty above to a -25% multiplicator (3/4*DPS if alone) but applies a +50% Time Increase divisor (DPS/(3/2)=2/3*DPS if alone). This would 'cost' or cancel out with a +33% Dmg Increase multiplicator, e.g. 11 points of STR, and a +50% Speed Increase multiplicator, e.g. 16 points of DEX. Enabling it seems beneficial in principle: 25% DPS -> 50% DPS if alone. The proposed modal lowers the penalty above the same way but applies a +25% Time Increase divisor (DPS/(5/4)=4/5*DPS if alone). This would 'cost' or cancel out with a +33% Dmg Increase multiplicator, e.g. 11 points of STR, and a +25% Speed Increase multiplicator, e.g. 8 points of DEX. Enabling it seems even more beneficial in principle: 25% DPS -> 60% DPS if alone. 2 PEN away from over-penetration (PEN+2=2*AR or 1.5*PEN+2=2*AR if crit build): Here we start with no Dmg Reduction multiplicator. The current modal gives a +25% Dmg Increase multiplicator (5/4*DPS if alone) but applies a +50% Time Increase divisor (DPS/(3/2)=2/3*DPS if alone). The former would 'provide' or equate to e.g. 8 points of STR, but the latter would 'cost' or cancel out with a +50% Speed Increase multiplicator, e.g. 16 points of DEX. Enabling it seems detrimental in principle: 100% DPS -> 83% DPS if alone. The proposed modal gives a +25% Dmg Increase multiplicator (5/4*DPS if alone) but applies a +25% Time Increase divisor (DPS/(5/4)=4/5*DPS if alone). The former would 'provide' or equate to e.g. 8 points of STR, but the latter would 'cost' or cancel out with a +25% Speed Increase multiplicator, e.g. 8 points of DEX. Enabling it seems even in principle: 100% DPS -> 100% DPS if alone. Note these are estimations and the exact DPS comparison depends on the final Dmg and Speed multipliers with vs without the modal, which is quite variable depending on items, buffs, etc. Math-wise, I think it is something like Final_DPS = Final_Dmg * Final_Speed = (Dmg_Mult * Dmg) * (Speed_Mult * Speed) = Dmg_Mult * Speed_Mult * DPS, with DPS = Dmg * Speed being the baseline values of the weapon. The above estimations assumed Dmg_Mult = 1 and Speed_Mult = 1 as the starting condition from which to apply the modifiers of each scenario. For example, in the light under-penetration case, if we had Dmg_Mult = 1 and Speed_Mult = 5/2 due to items, buffs, etc, with the modal off we have Final_DPS = (1-1/3) * 5/2 * DPS = 5/3 * DPS, whereas with the current modal on we have Final_DPS = 1 * (5/2-1/2) * DPS = 2 * DPS. Thus, enabling the modal with these particular multipliers is actually beneficial despite seeming detrimental in principle. This is because maximising Dmg_Mult * Speed_Mult tends to prefer Dmg_Mult and Speed_Mult of similar size, and because enabling the modal here induces in relative terms a smaller decrease of the big Speed_Mult (5/2 -> 2) than the increase it induces to the small Dmg_Mult (2/3 -> 1). In fact, in the light under-penetration case, enabling the current modal is generally beneficial whenever Dmg_Mult =< 2/3 * Speed_Mult. Other cases will have different inequalities, I can try to figure them out if you want. ------------------------------------------------------------ Edit: if I got them right these are all the inequalities determining exactly when is better to turn the modal on/off with current vs proposed modal in the 4 cases. Sry for the math madness . Hoping you would like to review & discuss it: Light under-penetration (PEN-AR=-1): Enabling the current modal is better than disabling it whenever (Dmg_Mult - 1/3) * Spd_Mult < Dmg_Mult * (Spd_Mult - 1/2) => ... => Dmg_Mult < 2/3 * Spd_Mult => build dependant (roughly modal on if low-dmg high-spd / off if high-dmg low-spd). Enabling the proposed modal is better than disabling it whenever (Dmg_Mult - 1/3) * Spd_Mult < Dmg_Mult * (Spd_Mult - 1/4) => ... => Dmg_Mult < 4/3 * Spd_Mult => build dependant (roughly modal on if low-dmg high-spd / off if high-dmg low-spd). Moderate under-penetration (PEN-AR=-2): Enabling the current modal is better than disabling it whenever (Dmg_Mult - 1) * Spd_Mult < Dmg_Mult * (Spd_Mult - 1/2) => ... => Dmg_Mult < 2 * Spd_Mult => modal on is almost always better. Enabling the proposed modal is better than disabling it whenever (Dmg_Mult - 1) * Spd_Mult < Dmg_Mult * (Spd_Mult - 1/4) => ... => Dmg_Mult < 4 * Spd_Mult => modal on is always better. Severe under-penetration (PEN-AR=-3): Enabling the current modal is better than disabling it whenever (Dmg_Mult - 3) * Spd_Mult < (Dmg_Mult - 1/3) * (Spd_Mult - 1/2) => ... => Dmg_Mult < 16/3 * Spd_Mult + 1/3 = 5.33 * Spd_Mult + 0.33 => modal on is always better. Enabling the proposed modal is better than disabling it whenever (Dmg_Mult - 3) * Spd_Mult < (Dmg_Mult - 1/3) * (Spd_Mult - 1/4) => ... => Dmg_Mult < 32/3 * Spd_Mult + 1/3 = 10.66 * Spd_Mult + 0.33 => modal on is always better. 2 PEN away from over-penetration (PEN+2=2*AR or 1.5*PEN+2=2*AR if crit build): Enabling the current modal is better than disabling it whenever Dmg_Mult * Spd_Mult < (Dmg_Mult + 1/4) * (Spd_Mult - 1/2) => ... => Dmg_Mult < 1/2 * Spd_Mult - 1/4 => build dependant (roughly modal on if low-dmg high-spd / off if high-dmg low-spd). Enabling the proposed modal is better than disabling it whenever Dmg_Mult * Spd_Mult < (Dmg_Mult + 1/4) * (Spd_Mult - 1/4) => ... => Dmg_Mult < Spd_Mult - 1/4 => build dependant (roughly modal on if low-dmg high-spd / off if high-dmg low-spd). Roughly for the light underpen & overpen cases: - Characters with high Dmg_Mult (e.g. 2) and low Spd_Mult (e.g. 1) are better off with the modals disabled, i.e. letting Dmg_Mult suffer a lower value rather than increasing it but lowering Spd_Mult even more. - Characters with low Dmg_Mult (e.g. 1) and high Spd_Mult (e.g. 2) are better off with the modals enabled. - Characters with similar Dmg_Mult (e.g. 2) and Spd_Mult (e.g. 2) are chaotic. E.g. for these values: -- For light underpen, current modal disabled but proposed modal enabled. -- For overpen, current modal disabled and proposed modal disabled.

You are quite awesome ty!

Hi, I think I found another weird behaviour in case it is a bug and can be fixed by BPM. Power Strike's primary attack & stun apply as expected the accuracy bonuses from weapons (e.g. Superb) and others (e.g. One-Handed). However, the 2nd part of Power Strike, applying raw damage & stagger, apply neither them nor any spell-like Ability Level bonus (e.g. 6*2=12) and Power Level accuracy bonus (e.g. 1 for a level20 MC with +1 PL due to Brilliant). Is this always the case with all weapon-based abilities that have a 2nd part (in the description the bits below where it says "Attack targets:")? or is it a bug perhaps?

Hi, it looks to me that Glacierbane's Shattering is bugged and doesn't suspend beneficial effects on crit. Was it known or could someone confirm? I thought of reporting it in case BPM could fix it in the future. Amazing work btw!

Thank you Chaospread, I think you are right, because I tried again being flanked between 2 opposite enemies and staggering the one engaging me and sometimes I stop being flanked but sometimes I don't . I also tested staggering the one unable to engage but this never cancelled my flanked status. Ok, I have now tested my previous ideas: With Grog so only threaten is in play i.e. no engagement, I tested having 2 enemies (X) between my 2 melee summons (O) like O-XX-O, then quickly command each summon to attack enemy1 > enemy2 > stop, and interestingly both enemies remained flanked, including enemy1 who my summons had stopped facing when they switched to enemy2. Without Grog so engagement is also in play, only enemy1 or enemy2 gets flanked, when the engagement arrows of both summons switch to it. This makes me believe a defender gets flanked if the attackers are currently engaging it but if any attackers have 0 engagements their application of flanked resorts to whether they have already threatened the defender or not. Maybe . If so, that is probably an oversight or bug imo because if an attacker has 0 engagements the game should resort to whether it is currently threatening the defender, not whether it has already threatened it. With Grog again (no engagements), dazing my summons didn't cancel the flanked on the enemies, in line with my previous post. While engaging some enemies (no Grog), I also tested the other idea about dazing myself and, despite becoming unable to engage, Mob Stance kept its -X% recovery and I was even able to threaten new enemies. I also now think that, not only if the defender but also if the attacker breaks the threatened / engagement / flanked, some 2s are waited before they can be reapplied again.

I strongly suspect flanked is not based on engagements but on being threatened by 2 enemies forming some 120° angle or worse. I tested being between 2 opposite enemies who have no engagement slots and indeed I became flanked. I also tested using Grog (giving me immunity to engagement) and again I became flanked. Something intriguing I found out is, if you are flanked due to being between 2 opposite enemies, and for example the 1st one has no engagement but the 2nd one does, and you stagger the 2nd one (making him unable to engage and thus also to threaten I suspect), you stop being Flanked. I should probably also test it with the 1st one. However, if you are in the same situation but this time are immune to engagement, e.g. Grog, and you stagger that 2nd enemy, you remain flanked . I can't explain why. I'd like to test having a few enemies between 2 allies (with Grog as pet) and making my allies threaten all of them to see if they can simultaneously flank all of them. Then check if they remain flanked even after switching to some other enemy. If so, it would align with my previous observations about the threaten mechanic. Also, flanked being based on threatened could explain how inconsistent flanked is. Any ideas to decipher it further would be welcomed! Edit: another test could be dazing myself and checking if I stop being able to threaten enemies (by checking Mob Stance recovery). I suspect so.

Good thinking, unfortunately I just tested it and it didn't work. Being surrounded I tested attacking the 2nd line of enemies with a pike and it didn't increase the Mob Stance recovery, but moving next to them and attacking did. I have also realised that moving ever so slightly also empties the list of threatened enemies (back to -0% Mob Stance recovery).

No, when an enemy is killed it is removed from the threatened list, but if there are more melee enemies waiting to reach you one will occupy that space (or you could use Into The Fray to pull ranged enemies). Yeah, physical space limits it, to a maximum of 8 I reckon. One thing you could do is leave the weak enemies for the end and focus first on the dangerous ones.

Thank you guys, appreciated. Yeah I noticed Shadow Step is not wasted on misses which is great (and I don't care too much about its cost due to Tactician) on top of being a single roll vs Deflection (which you can lower with Cofound Blind). Yeah Clear Out + WotEP is bonkers. Enemies get stuck in a buggy way though. @Elric Galad et al, do you know if/how I could only get the portion of the BPM that fixes the Ring The Bell line and Wahai Poraga? Could you help me or guide me, pls?

Hi, I thought of sharing my findings in case it is helpful to anyone in the future. Thanks to this old post which was golden. Based on my tests: All you need is starting a melee attack against an enemy to permanently add it to the list of threatened targets, without needing to complete it. So you can quickly start & stop an attack against each enemy, or just complete attacks vs various enemies over time, and you'll permanently get the -5% for each. If you have engagement slot(s), an enemy is added when the green arrow moves to it, which sometimes lags behind the attack when switching targets. Engaging an enemy will automatically add it to the list, without needing to start an attack against it. So more engagement slots help but are not mandatory, not even 1. If you are always attacking the same enemy, having several engagement slots will automatically give you -5% * N when such slots engage (assuming the enemies are not immune to engagement). If you are quickly switching targets, the more engagement slots the faster you will get all nearby enemies threatened because upon every target switch the engaged targets will automatically change. You can memorise which enemies you have already engaged or started an attack against, and spin around yourself switching your starting attack & engagements against whoever is missing. Being CC'ed (stunned, paralyzed, knocked down), switching weapons or moving will empty the list but using consumables won't. CC'ing a threatened enemy won't remove it but getting too far away will. If you become invisible, if the enemy doesn't go too far away it will remain threatened. For a solo run this could be very powerful, as you could end up being surrounded by let's say 8 enemies (-40% recovery) or induce it by using pull effects like Into The Fray, Pull Of Eora, Implosion Charge... Edit1: if without Mob Stance you have threatened so far N enemies (which you can speed up with Guardian Stance + switching attacks) and you then activate it, the -5% * N recovery is obtained instantly. It makes sense as the threatened list is unchanged. Edit2: I just realised Entonia Signet Ring's Inviolate (+2 All Def / Engaged) scales with how many enemies engage you, not how many you engage. I find Guardian Stance less mandatory now (except if I need Persistent Distraction), both have their places.

Thank you guys. To be honest, if Shadow Step paralyzed in AOE it would be kind of OP. My WotEP definitely doesn't stagger or daze in AOE with Ring/Break The Bell. Maybe my game got buggy due to having used the Unity Console mod? could anyone try it in his/her game pls? I have also read the BPM 'fixed' Wahai Poraga and made it attack 3 nearby enemies instead of 1, is it easy to extract & apply to my game just this mod without everything else?

Hi, I am trying to figure out a Tactician / Streetfighter solo build. The idea is some times getting flanked on purpose to get the extra crit dmg but other times avoiding it to get Brilliant and refill the resources. I'm trying to avoid the flank-immune gear for now. I was wondering if I could apply Break The Bell's dazed in AOE with WotEP. It failed in my tests but I had read in the forums [1] [2] [3] these weapons generally propagate ability effects. Does anyone know? I was also hoping I could apply Shadow Step's paralyzed in AOE with WotEP, Hand Mortar, etc, but again I couldn't. I have read in a very old post it got nerfed, any idea if it is true? I was able to test that I can propagate Mule Kick's disoriented, Blinding Strike's blinded and Power Strike's stunned in AOE, at least that is something. Thank you! *Edit*: I just tested Break The Bell with Wahai Poraga and it did apply dazed to 2 enemies, which is nice. Sadly it doesn't seem to work with Shadow Step. Same with Shadow Step into Clear Out :(.

@Elric Galad I guess we can't use 1% HP instead of 5% right? imo 25% would be too much, also a Death Godlike would like to sit below 25% but above this BDD %, so that it only triggers when really necessary. I would then suggest, when you receive dmg under this 1% or 5% HP, you receive a brief fixed-time immortality (Prevent Death) that cannot be extended by SoT, etc (like the mod discussed for Brilliant in the other thread)? So 2 effects: - Effect1 that is extendable and just waits for this HP % to be reached to trigger Effect2 and remove itself - Effect2 that is not extendable (fixed-time) and gives immortality like Prevent Death

That's great news (not dying if you go from 6% to 0 in 1 hit). I am wondering, could 1% be used instead of 5%? If so I think it would emulate the 1 HP condition well enough, as 1% of a typical health pool of say 400 HP would be 4HP. I really like it, good idea it keeps BDD in its separate niche. Giving BDD healing effects would wrongly make it a healing competitor (plus the shield idea suits perfectly the Death Godlike). About the 2nd question, I am playing a Troubadour/Bloodmage and "Her Courage" blocks 10 pts of Blood Sacrifice damage

I personally would also prefer a tweak where BDD is no longer exploitable and only apply penalties when your HP goes to 0 but not if it doesn´t. Perhaps in line with @Boeroer suggestion and @Elric Galad Proposal3, a one-time effect that heals to 50% HP and have a 50% chance to get a wound? Wouldn't 100% HP be too much? Good point about thecnical feasibility. Few questions come to mind: How does BDD technically achieve its immortality effect then? are its conditions/code not readable/reusable for modding? Also "when taking damages under 5% health" does it mean that if you are at 6% HP and in 1 attack are brought to 0 this wouldn´t save your life? Or if you are at 4% and are brought to 3%, BDD would trigger under this "when taking damages under 5% health" condition?

I like it! Simple but making the resource management interesting in a no-rest playthough Would X be high like 6-10? Otherwise if it is like 3 it might be too much. I see another potential issue when Berath Challenge is off and you repeatedly engage then scape within the same encounter, making it count as several encounters? Not sure if you would like it, a bit of a crazy idea, but an alternative could be that once per the combat you have to achieve something extremely difficult to get it (but it must also not be trivializable or tedious). Combat games like Street Fighter comes to mind, where if you achieve a difficult combo of your attacks (x2, x3...) you unlock a super power. In Deadfire perhaps you would have to achieve in a quick row an enormous amount of absolute or percentage-wise damage/healing or buff/debuff time (or also tank an enormous amount of damage). I said it... a bit crazy! I also personally like the Cycling Spell Tiers idea the most. No idea about the issue with PL3. To me 1 spell / 6s sounds reasonable if it is at a high cost (1 resource / 6s for martial classes sounds bad in comparison though). I would have expected that the drinker would be fully aware of the drawbacks and not use it if he/she has 3 injuries and has no more Adra Potions, but I agree if that happened it would suck a lot !

Hi guys, I thought I could write a separate post to make this suggestion. Not sure you will like it but I hope it sounds interesting to you as it does to me. Thinking about wounds, I have been wondering ... What if BDD was reworked in a way that you still survive if your HP reaches 0 but every time this happens you get a wound (the one corresponding to the attack that was lethal) and if it is the 4th wound you die instead? To avoid getting 4 wounds too quickly and instadie with sth silly like Minoletta Minor Missiles, every time your HP reaches 0, BDD could either reset your HP to 50-100 HP or give you very brief immortality (not invulnerability because you should still be affected by debuffs). Thinking about it I like the 2nd option more, like 3 secs immortality. What do you guys think? do you like the idea? this could encourage you to carry 20 Adra Potions in your quick slots and survive max 60 deaths (lol, better pay attention to your wounds!), or encourage you to try to counterplay and heal yourself and keep your HP high whenever possible. (All of this assuming that currently you don´t die even if an enemy specifically causes you a 4th wound, which looks correct according to this clip with Belranga at 2:03:35)

I was thinking that could be the case but I was not sure, if so then it sounds superb to me

If only Fatigue was used for this, I am wondering ... if you drink a 2nd Potion of Enlightenment are you not penalised because you already have Fatigue from the 1st one? Or should it become worse, what would be your opinion?

About the Potion of Enlightment, I thought about a possible change today: Would people like it if the potion gave a random wound as a drawback? This would force people to use Adra Potions together with this Potion of Enlightenment (not sure how big of a functional change it could be). There could be times where you would rather wait until the 2nd or 3rd wound before using the Adra Potion to cleanse them (which may be risky if the enemies can inflict wounds), but other times where the 1st wound you get is awful for your build so you immediately use an Adra Potion. Thematically one could imagine that this happens because the user gets extenuated beyond the limits of his/her body, because this potion drains the very last bit of phyisical or soul energy from a random part of the body where there was no energy already. Just a crazy idea don't hate me for it, but I couldn't help posting it here

Thanks for looking it up Noqn, please find below the final translation ("Luminar" in spanish means a virtuous person, didn't know it, nice)

Ahh, that explains it. I don't have PoE 1 unfortunately But if it is in the bestiary then maybe any of you who have PoE1 could find its translation by accessing the spanish version of the bestiary?

In spanish: "Destilado a partir de los cerebros disueltos de Iluminados Vithrack e infundido con la esencia implacable de un Anímata de adra, este brebaje llena al usuario con conocimientos maravillosos y perseverancia inagotable." Sorry I couldn't find what "Luminaries" means, is it a specific type of enemy in PoE? otherwise what synonyms does it have? "celebrity" perhaps?

My personal opinion is that I would love the idea of getting a few ticks of Brilliant (or resource regeneration in general) every time I achieve something difficult, which I really really have to work for, and thematic / core for the class. But this is just my dreamed implementation (easy to say but hard to implement I know), I obviously don't imply that this is how it should be modded, what you guys have achieved is already incredible. For example, I wonder whether it could be interesting to make Tactician only regenerate resources every time he is not flanked but he just interrupts an action of an enemy who is flanked (interrupting the enemy recovery doesn't regenerate anything). Or for example, a beserker regens resources every time during rage when he/she crits back quickly an enemy who critted him/her. Or a ranger everytime he crits/kills 2 enemies with the same projectile (so you have to move around and sacrifice DPS to regen resources). Or a rogue every time he just dodges an attack thanks to Escape / Shadowing Beyond / etc, and every time he/she hits with an ability an enemy who he/she had previously applied 3 afflictions to. I know I know, I'll stop dreaming now do it in PoE3 pls Obsidian!

Kudos to you guys, I think this sequential tier3-tier6-tier9 brilliant is a great idea. 2 questions though: - Is it like Blood-Sacrifice that for tier3 you regain 1 spell from lvls 1-3 giving priority to lvl3, for tier6 you regain 1 from lvls4-6, etc? - And if e.g. you have all your spells refilled in tier9 and you get a tier9 brilliant tick do you get a spell from the tiers below e.g. tier6? Perhaps a couple of suggestions, which aren't necessarily compatible with each other and which can be left for later when you finetune it if too underpowered: - make it every 3s instead of 6s, so every 6s you'll have regained {2/3 of a tier3 spell, 2/3 of a tier6 spell and 2/3 of a tier9 spell}, and so it will have taken ~9s to get a lvl9 spell ? - improve the sequence if brilliant is kept during long periods, by doing tier3>tier6>tier9>tier9... or tier3>tier6>tier9>tier6>tier9... instead of tier3>tier6>tier9>tier3... ? Ahh, and a final question please: - how does this new brilliant work for martial characters? does it also give 1 resource, then 2 resources then 4 resources similarly to this tier3>tier6>tier9 sequence for spellcasters? Again congrats for the great work guys!