Matt516

Not sure what you mean - my graph reflects Might from 3 to 18 and all possible meaningful values of Accuracy (since Accuracy - Defense is what actually matters).

Matt, I don't doubt your math as presented whatsoever, but where in this is it factored that ACC is a prerequisite for DAMAGE, while DAMAGE is not a prerequisite for ACC. The fact that ACC is necessary to hit is built into the core of my calculations. The entire marginal benefits curve is plotted on the "Accuracy - Defense" axis. Obviously if your Accuracy is less than their Defense by 95, you won't hit. That's perfectly reflected in the math as a 0% marginal benefit in Might at that point (the leftmost side of the graph). If you can't hit them, more Might won't help you. That point is not in dispute. At all. As I have said time and time again: when Accuracy is much less than enemy Defense, Accuracy is better for increasing DPS. What I am saying is that if your Accuracy is already roughly equal to or greater than their Defense, you benefit more from Might. And that's a fact. I've said it multiple times. If Accuracy < Defense, Accuracy helps more. If Accuracy > Defense, Might helps more. The issue is that your statements seem to be based on some bizarre assumption that if you don't pump Perception, you can't hit anything. How is this true, exactly? We're not starting from Accuracy - Defense = -95. In general, we're starting from Accuracy - Defense of roughly around 0, plus or minus 20 (the base Deflections range from 5 to 25 and the base Accuracies range from 5? to 25). The base values are relatively in the same range (meaning Accuracy - Defense is going to be closeish to 0, plus or minus 20), and then are modified by various factors (talents, enchantments, buffs, level difference, shields, etc). So I see absolutely no reason to frame the discussion as if the difference between pumping Perception and not pumping Perception is the difference between missing all the time and hitting all the time. It's not. Not at all. The statement that "ACC is a prerequisite for Damage, while Damage is not a prerequisite for ACC" is meaningless. Sure, it's kind of true.. I guess..... sort of... in a very specific context... but it doesn't have any bearing on the current discussion. We're talking about Accuracy vs Might. And this is how it is: one point in either of those stats increases your raw DPS by some percentage of the base DPS. That's how the math works. That's how the system is set up. I'm not idealizing some complicated heat transfer or fluid mechanics problem with broad assumptions here - I'm literally just doing the algebra. For reference, here is an old "Marginal benefits of Accuracy and Might across from ACC-DEF" plot. It's not updated for the new 0 point of Might at 10, but I'll try to get one that is updated up tonight if y'all want it. Only thing that will change is that the marginal benefits of Accuracy will go down a bit since the Might bonus has been nerfed. The statement that "PER outshines MIG on every single level" is just incorrect, pure and simple. In general, if your Accuracy will already be equal to or greater than their Defense without putting points into Perception, those points are better spent on Might (provided pure DPS is your goal). And if your Accuracy will already be lesser than their Defense without putting points into Perception, it benefits you more to invest in Perception. This leads to a system where very Perceptive characters are skilled at hurting enemies with high Deflection, and very Mighty characters are skilled at hurting enemies with low Deflection. Provided there isn't a serious skew one way or the other (really high Deflection enemies or really low Deflection enemies), this means that Perception and Might are balanced. Each is better in a different situation.

Barbarians have always had really low base Deflection, Fiebras. Also, you said that single target spells shouldn't be able to graze because reflex, fortitude, and will all exist to defend against those spells. But grazing is exactly how those defenses defend against the spells! Maybe I misunderstood you but that statement doesn't seem to make sense..

The role playing concerns you express are certainly valid, though not universal. I personally have no problem with the idea that a more intelligent fighter is better able to deflect attacks against them. It makes perfect sense to me. I'm not saying that you are wrong, just that there is a valid case to be made the other way and that it's not a given that Deflection does not make sense on Intellect.

Or to apply it to your example (again assuming Might = 10 and ACC-DEF = 0), 1 point in Accuracy gives you a 1% increased chance to do 1.5 * 35 damage before DT, so 0.525 average increased damage per attack. Note that I'm choosing ACC-DEF = 0 because it is the BEST CASE scenario for Accuracy. Compare that to a 2% increase of the base damage to 35.7, which (when you average out the attack resolutions with their probability) also leads to a 0.525 average increased damage per attack. I promise - I've thought this through.

Well it's actually 2% to every damage roll. You could express it as 2% of "average" damage though I suppose. Nothing wrong with that. Let's roll with that. Compare that to a 1% increased chance to crit and a 1% decreased chance to miss, which is the absolute best case scenario for the marginal benefit of a point in Accuracy. Your average damage per hit has gone up by (0.01*1.5 - 0.01*0) of your base damage, or 1.5% of your base damage. Of course, that 2% and 1.5% can't be compared directly - since the Might bonus and effective Accuracy bonus are interdependent, you actually have to multiply each marginal benefit by the value of the other attribute's effective DPS multiplier. Assuming Might = 10 and Accuracy - Deflection = 0, that gives us a 100% Might multiplier and a (0.45*0.5 + 0.45*1 + 0.05*1.5) = 75% Accuracy multiplier. So when all is said and done, the true marginal DPS benefits from 1 point in Might and 1 point in Accuracy when ACC-DEF = 0 and Might = 10 are actually both 1.5%, strangely enough. They are entirely equivalent. Only difference is the Might bonus helps on every attack and the Accuracy bonus is RNG-based. But mathematically (and over many many battles) they equate to the EXACT same DPS increase. DT doesn't affect this, because the DPS loss from DT is a constant equal to attack speed * DT. Again, this is assuming you're not doing minimum damage. That's an edge case that I can go into but isn't really super important because both Might and Accuracy help in that case. So.... Yeah. The marginal DPS benefits of one point in Might or Accuracy are actually equivalent when ACC-DEF = 0 and Might = 10. As previously mentioned, as ACC-DEF rises the marginal benefit of Might becomes better (and vice versa).

Yeah, grazing on spellcast is not fun. I don't know if spells are genuinely UP because of it, but it certainly doesn't "feel" good pretty much ever. I guess it's better than completely whiffing though. xD

Replying to Razsius from last page - the Might bonus is applied BEFORE armor. So (provided you're not in the "min damage" regime) the extra damage from one additional point of Might isn't dependent on DT. There's where the differences in our calculations were haha. Understandable. But I promise you, it's applied before armor.

Nipsen, you're welcome to disagree with anyone about anything - that's your right. But Sensuki knows what he's talking about. And Intellect doesn't do anything except raise Deflection, AoE, and Will. Plus help with Intellect checks. That's all. There no hidden mechanics with extra damage reduction or some such.

MATLAB is a horrible programming language... I kind of loathe it actually. Numpy and Scipy for me > But all the gotos in that code freaks me right out. All I can say is "who does case 5 work for?' I wonder if it's and enum and the compiler killed the name for the goto point. For most programming, yes. xD For math and engineering though - it is wonderful. You won't hear me speaking badly of the program that kept me from evaluating 36 integrals and derivatives by hand last night. ;P

That's because you're doing your math wrong, most likely forgetting variables. Nope. I'll elaborate when I get back to my computer in a few hours.

Haha I haven't had a huge amount of time to playtest the newest build beyond some basic bug identification, but I'll certainly let you know if/when I find any!

It's just like Skyrim! EDIT: Yeeahh, they should probably rework some of the variables so the disc fills much faster the closer you are to the enemy. That'd solve the oddness a bit.

They're just confused. Raise INT, that should fix it.

Yeah all the feedback and various UI displays and mouseovers are still borked. It'll be easier to figure out where all of that comes from when they finally get the UI worked out. Seems to break in new ways each patch even as they fix the old problems. xD

Real programming languages make me sad. Declaring every single variable every time.. MATLAB is much better.

Welcome to the darkside Indira. Looks like D3 had a great effect on you. They have to lock the attributes in once the game is released. No more changing attributes. If they did, that would mean changing things like game manuals having to be constantly updated. Characters that you're currently playing 6 months after release now play differently because all the attributes changed? Your tank fighter is no longer a tank because you just got a Steam update. No thanks. And it'd be better for Obsidian to squash more important bugs than changing the whole system because Josh saw a Youtuber making an OP build and killing something in 5 seconds. But there will always be OP builds no matter how much is changed. You can even create OP builds with S&M's system. Whatever system is implemented, it won't stop the powergamers finding ways to min-max and make OP builds. Haha true. That said, what y'all are all describing is simply PoE's version of the classic "glass cannon" build - if the game is balanced properly, these characters will still tear through everything... but also drop very quickly if targeted. Therefore requiring extra tactics and micromanagement to make work. EDIT: But yeah. Attributes need to be locked in before release to be sure. My personal prediction *looks into crystal ball* is that the boni will increase to +3% and +2 respectively. While I'd personally still prefer that they adopt Sensuki and I's system (switch Deflection and Duration basically) from an RP and general "feel" perspective, I think the current system is "good enough" from at least a purely balance perspective. Probably.

HI Sens! I don't think Perception raises the Might bonus for damage and healing. Perception solely increases accuracy and range and with more accuracy it is indisputable that you hit more frequently. Sorry, this probably isn't immediately evident if you aren't familiar with my spreadsheets and graphs haha... he was talking about the effective increase. Basically, if you hit more often (and crit more often), your Might bonus is worth more in terms of true DPS. Similarly, if you do more damage with each strike (AKA Might bonus), the additional DPS from hitting more often and critting more often is actually greater. You're right, it's not a direct modifier - but it is an effective modifier that can be (and has been) quantified precisely.

I wonder if it's because increasing Perception not only increases DPS through increasing Accuracy but also raising the Might bonus at the same time. Well but that works both ways. Increasing Might raises the Accuracy bonus at the same time as well. Same for Speed, in fact (though the effect of DT makes Speed the worst of the 3 in terms of DPS increasing).

From what I've read, the melee/ranged split in base Accuracy is gone. Kaput. All classes now have the same base proficiency with ranged and melee weapons. Or so I've heard. A bit of an odd change IMO, though not one I mind particularly. I'm fairly indifferent on the matter.

The one you posted looks to just be the base weapon damage roll before any modifiers.

I'm still a bit confused as to why Perception (Accuracy) is all the sudden perceived to be so much more powerful... it should be on par with Might, especially if the Deflection of enemies has been nerfed across the board (since that would mean most attacks would fall in the positive ACC-DEF range where Might is more powerful than Accuracy). Are people just not testing with Might as well? Or are the heaps of Accuracy-boosting spells and modals tricking people into thinking it's their high Perception that's producing great results instead of just balls-high Accuracy, of which Perception is only a small contributor? Anyone mind trying two versions of the same character, with the only differences being that one has 10 PER and 18 MIG, and the other has 18 PER and 10 MIG? Keep using all the same abilities, etc. The Might character should be on par with the Perception character. Unless enemies just have Deflection that is much higher than your average Accuracy. It really comes down to the relative value of Accuracy vs Deflection, to be honest.

Of course you can't do that. IQ isn't a representation of your math skills. You will, however, become better at math. The brain can(and should) be trained, same as the rest of your body. Actually, IQ does go up with practice and training because it's based on a test and actually isn't a great representation of "pure" mental ability, not that we're even sure that that means. Not that I'm trying to make any kind of point with this. Just ramblin.

I'm a guess... damageBase = ( ( Lower end of weapon damage range + rand(1) * (Higher end - Lower end) ) * Might multiplier * Attack resolution multiplier ) damageReduced = ( damageBase - DT ) * (1 - DR) if damageReduced < 0.1 * damageBase damageFinal = 0.1 * damageBase else damageFinal = damageReduced end

Actually no it really doesn't. It is blatantly low res and looks pixelated. That said this is easy to do with custom portraits. You just start with a very large image, make the "large pic" a full body shot, then make the "small pic" just a focus on the head and shoulders. Here is a concept image I just tossed together to show what I mean. Original image I used in the top right, and the portrait and status screens are pasted in as well. That's a seriously awesome portrait. Did you pull it from some collection? Source?