Matt516

The Might bonuses are always multipliers, so if it feels like a particular ability or set of abilities does too much damage even when the Might is set very low, the problem is likely with the base damage values on those abilities. First of all, thanks for the thread reply. I'm very excited about what you guys at OE are trying to do with PoE, and I think a lot of the breaks from the standard are very interesting, with the potential for some really unique and rewarding mechanics. On to the reply. I agree, in most cases. Do you think there's something to be said though for the complaint that the difference between a low MIG and high MIG character (in terms of damage) is too small? That's one of the most common complaints I've seen, and it's also something that cannot be solved by tweaking the base values down (would only make it worse, actually).

Good post! Some of your numbers on the benefits of Accuracy and Might are a bit off though. I did the detailed math in this thread (and it was subsequently corrected and improved by the community) if you're interested: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67761-dps-vs-accuracy-deflection-heres-the-maths-enjoy/

Well, I'm just going by gameplay experience. I'm looking at BB Fighter's Accuracy score and yes, it's lower than my Rogues's, but when I've got both of them meleeing on the front lines, I'm not noticing any difference. Any number crunchers out there? Can someone tell me exactly how significant a 7 point accuracy score difference is in this game? Because that's what it is between my Rogue's and BB Fighter's. Here's the maths: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67761-dps-vs-accuracy-deflection-heres-the-maths-enjoy/?p=1490531 Your 7 points in Accuracy is worth 7-9% dps, or about 4 points of MIG. Quick correction - due to a math error someone pointed out in that linked thread, that 7-9% is actually worth about 6-7 points of MIG. Seems unintuitive, but because the MIG and Accuracy dps modifiers are multiplied, the value of a marginal increase in one (Accuracy or MIG) is actually dependent on the current value of the other. See the thread for more details. Anyway, just wanted to correct that. Carry on, all.

You need to check out the "Muscle Wizard" thread. You might find it entertaining.

Neither does decimal point, spreadsheet balance. actually, we could benefit greatly from some spreadsheets explaining what is actual going on in combat. nevertheless, we don't recall asking for such. ironic perhaps, you is the guy asking for power, which is most easily measured with hard numbers. Gromnir is more interested in relative fun and feel o' usefulness. HA! Good Fun! I've actually got a spreadsheet in the works that will calculate average dps given various different factors such as Accuracy, Base Damage, DT, Might, etc. Damage is only one small part of combat, obviously, but it should at least help people understand the mechanics and balance a bit better.

Thanks for this. It shows that the system is a bunch of overly complex horse****. Who thought it would be a good idea to combine crits, hits, missing and grazing into one stat? they might as well have just made it a simple damage modifer like might. That stats have two simple damage modifiers and everybody can use every weapon. Great. Deprecate it. To be honest, I don't mind this system at all. You could make a similar plot for any similar system in an RPG - THAC0, for example. The only major difference is that this system includes a 4th category - "graze" - in addition to the traditional "hit/miss/crit". There's really nothing particularly odd about this system lol - and it's not super complex. As for making Accuracy a simple damage modifier, that wouldn't really be the same thing (and wouldn't be nearly as interesting). It is still an individual roll for every attack, which means that on the small scale (i.e. individual battles) you'll still see things like lucky crits, unlucky misses, all the things we love (and sometimes hate) about any general RPG "roll-to-hit" system. What my plot does is weigh the different possible outcomes by probability to obtain an equivalent simple damage modifier that will hold when you average a lot of attacks together. So you see - making it a simple damage modifier (a suggestion that could be applied to literally any game that includes a "roll-to-hit" system btw) wouldn't really be the same thing. Rolling to hit and miss adds more of a simulation aspect, as well as some RNG. I like having the flavor of simple damage modifiers and modifiers "to-hit" as well. You had similar complaints in a few of the other threads as well, if I recall correctly. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're (generally) so negative on these forums because you really really want the game to be good (as opposed to just trolling). If that's true, then we share a common interest - to make the game as good as can be. In the interest of helping the game be better and in fostering productive discussion that can actually potentially change the game for the better - please don't let this thread descend into another negative spiral of arguing and complaining. I've presented the math here and you don't like how they've done it. Fair enough. Do you have any suggestions for how they could improve it?

I actually just posted something that would fit in very well as a response to this here: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67467-no-bad-builds-a-failure-in-practice/?p=1492653 TL;DR - I agree. "No bad builds" doesn't mean "less fun because easy", it means "more playstyle options". At least if done right - and that's what we Beta testers are for.

I agree - I really like what they've done with the attributes. As I've mentioned once before somewhere else (I've forgotten where), the PoE attribute system seems to lend itself better to creating more "story-like" and diverse characters. What do I mean? Well, the PoE attribute system does one thing that really really sets it ahead of the D&D attributes IMO: It divorces attributes from classes (for the most part). A fighter is no longer a high STR character by definition, a mage is no longer high INT by definition, and a rogue is no longer high DEX by definition. This can't be anything but a good thing. It gives the player more options and allows for more varied builds. I'll now explain what I meant by "story-like" character.... I love fantasy fiction. I think it's great. But there are some character archetypes that just don't really exist in D&D based games, at least not well. In PoE, you can make an old, wizened fighter who isn't as strong as he used to be but whose years of experience have allowed him to outmanuever his enemies and disrupt their attacks. If you tried to do this in BG, you'd just.. not. A fighter without 18 STR, but who still intends to do damage, is bad. In PoE, you can make a wizard whose sheer magical talent allows him to cast incredibly powerful spells (and maybe even fights with a sword), but who lacks finesse and control. Harry Dresden, anyone? Anyway - the point I'm trying to make is that the attribute system in PoE seems to have been built from the ground up to not make any one attribute vital to the proper functioning of any one character class. And this is a good thing. At least IMO. EDIT: Before people start talking about D&D 3e and 4e to prove me wrong, read this. I know there are abilities in the later editions that allow a high DEX fighter to use that instead of STR for the to-hit bonus, and to benefit from INT if they want to play control. But please remember 2 things: 1) The BG games (which people generally hold up as the ideal for PoE to emulate) were not based on the later editions - they were based on 2e. So if you want the attributes to be more like BG, you want classes to be defined by one or more vital attributes - because that's exactly how it was in BG. 2) Even taking the later editions of D&D into account, the PoE system is still miles better in terms of allowing varied builds. "No bad builds" doesn't mean that there aren't any good builds. At least, that's not how you should take it. "No bad builds" means that if you have some kind of crazy weird idea for a character and playstyle, you can try it out and it probably won't suck. There will always be optimal builds, even with this system. The limited amount of math I've done so far on how the various stats affect damage has told me that much. And that's fine - the min/maxers can go and have a grand old time figuring out the optimal build. But your fun in min/maxing a build isn't taken away by someone else's ability to try something crazy and not have it completely suck. If anything, the increased variety of viable builds means that it's even harder to min/max and figure out the optimal build - which should be a good thing if you're the kind of person who enjoys min/maxing haha. Instead of just pumping your character's class stats and getting the best gear, you actually have to put some thought into what you want your playstyle to be. And that... is a good thing for the game. It makes it deeper and at the same time more accessible. PoE's stat system is great. It just needs a lot of tweaking on the numbers (and maybe RES and PER).

By the way - new and improved DPS calculation post is in the works. Will take DT into account, include many more plots, and also address the concerns and errata people have mentioned thus far. I'm hoping that this new and improved calculation post can be used as a quick reference to help steer conversations about mechanics and stats (as they affect damage) in a more factually and mathematically grounded direction. I (like everyone in this forum) want the game to be as great as can be - and our feedback about mechanics and stats is only as valuable as our understanding of how they actually affect our gameplay. At least, that's my $0.02. EDIT: This probably won't be coming for a few days. Will take some time to get right. Is there interest in something like this though? Have y'all enjoyed having this first set of calculations as a reference and would you enjoy having a more comprehensive set?

Uhh... that's not right. Going from +0% to +30% is a 30% increase (Duh!) but going from -15% to +15% is roughly a 35% increase. The change may be the same in absolute terms, but it makes a bigger difference in the latter case. Can't adjust for that. Can you provide an example calculation? I don't think you're correct: I'm pretty sure the difference between 0.85x and 1.15x will be exactly the same as the difference between 1x and 1.3x. The difference is the same in absolute terms, but relatively it's different, and you can't just compensate for that by adjusting the base stats. Let's assume the base health for a character is 100, 3 CON gives +0% health and 18 CON gives +30% health. Raising CON from 3 to 18 would raise the health from 100 to 130. That's a 30% increase, right? So what if 3 CON meant -15% health and 18 CON +15% instead? At 3 CON the health would be 85 and raising CON to 18 would raise health to 115. That's the same 30 point increase in absolute terms, but it's also relative 35.3% increase ((115 - 85) / 85 = 0.353). Now, we could compensate by upping base health to 118 instead of 100. Then 3 CON (-15%) would give the same 100 starting health as before, but now 18 CON (+15%) would give 136, which is more than 130. So no, going from -15% to +15% is not the same as going from +0% to +30%. My bad - you are 100% correct that because changing base health would be required to get the same starting or ending point (when adjusting the bonus frame), and because the bonuses (boni) then depend on the new base health, it is indeed impossible to change the framing of the % difference between small and large stats while still preserving both the same absolute ranges and the same % bonus difference. Good catch. I really do need to stop making statements based on nebulous half-math done in my head. My mistake was due (once again, actually) to a failure to take the principal being multiplied by the percentage into account when accounting for differences between percentages. Pesky algebra. That said. I do think that most people who are asking for the stats to be framed as going from negative to positive modifiers (instead of constantly growing modifiers) aren't generally doing so because they have thought the math through - they are wanting it because that's how D&D did it. At least that's the impression I've gotten, because I've never seen anyone say "such-and-such would be better because then if you had a base of X and bonuses (boni) of Y and Z, you'd have values of A and B instead of C and D." That's why I've kind of been knee-jerking every time someone suggests it - because I would prefer that suggestions about mechanical changes be based on wishes about the mechanics, not general random preferences. Of course, there is certainly something to be said about how the framing affects the player's experience. It may be that for many people, a -/+ system just feels subjectively better than a +/++ system - even when the numbers are the same in the end. Which is certainly something to take into account when designing something that is ultimately designed to provide the player with a rewarding experience. However. There is a potential pitfall with that approach. Say OE did want to go to a -/+ system instead of a +/++ system for the stat bonuses. Let's use the same base=100, boni=0-30% as our example. If they wanted to preserve the number range (100-130) while making the bonus system -/+, they'd have to change the base to 115 and the boni to -/+13%. This is interesting, because although the number range is still 100-130 (so nothing has changed from a mechanical standpoint), the subjective values of the boni have decreased. In fact, it follows fairly easily once you're thinking about it correctly (thanks again, Caerdon) that if you want the maximum subjective values for the boni with a given target number range, the best way to do that is with the +/++ system. What is one thing people have been complaining about endlessly (in regards to the stats)? That the boni are too small. Could it be that OE prefers the +/++ system specifically because it yields larger subjective values for the boni, thereby making people feel better about their stats? Hmm..

Uhh... that's not right. Going from +0% to +30% is a 30% increase (Duh!) but going from -15% to +15% is roughly a 35% increase. The change may be the same in absolute terms, but it makes a bigger difference in the latter case. Can't adjust for that. Can you provide an example calculation? I don't think you're correct: I'm pretty sure the difference between 0.85x and 1.15x will be exactly the same as the difference between 1x and 1.3x.

Where does your information that piercing damage ignores 10 DT come from? From what I've seen and read, different armor suits will have different % weakness to different damage types - but other than certain very specific weapons (one dagger I know of) I don't think there's anything that says piercing just gets to ignore flat DT. It should ignore a % of DT equal to the armor's weakness to that damage type, right?

I think you are right, though I'm not sure if your conclusions are entirely correct. I'll elaborate in a bit, but basically, I don't think DEX bonuses (boni) are always stronger than MIG bonuses (boni). Will elaborate in below paragraphs, but first a few words about how I messed up and how you caught it. I certainly intended the calculation to be done as per "2)", because "1)" is just nonsense to any sensible way of calculating the damage. I think I screwed up in some of my later assertions and calculations - though I believe the accuracy of my initial plot is unaffected by this. My statements on comparing MIG and DEX are affected, however. I'll have to look over the math again tomorrow night when I have the chance (on mobile until then, so not ideal) and adjust if necessary. It looks like because the bonuses (boni) from DEX and MIG are multiplied together, the marginal benefit of an increase in one attribute (in terms of true damage) ACTUALLY depends on the value of the OTHER bonus. Fascinating. Try your example again with the base bonus from MIG already at 1.2, for example. In that case, the true damage increase (numberswise) from a 1.5% increase in DEX is actually MORE than the increase from a 2% increase in MIG. Or if you try it with the base bonus from MIG at 1, but the base bonus from DEX at 0.85, the same 2% and 1.5% increases yield a higher true damage increase for the 2% MIG increase. These trends continue and are very clear: the value (in real damage) of a marginal % damage increase from one attribute is directly (and linearly, I *think*) dependent on the magnitude of the % damage multiplier from the other attribute. Very, very nice catch - thanks. Long and the short of it is - my plot and table are still right as far as your expected dps from DEX (well, accuracy minus deflection technically) goes, but I was completely incorrect about being able to then compare those bonuses (boni) from MIG and DEX in a vacuum. The actual value of a marginal increase in one depends on what the already existing value of the other one is - the higher the other bonus is, the more valuable a marginal increase in the first bonus will be.

Blame this on D&D 4E which Josh is a big fan of. Nope. I've played loads of RPG systems since 1984. I think it would be incredibly naive to call Josh a big fan of any one particular system. He strikes me as someone who picks systems apart and picks what works best for the story and setting it needs used in.I have no problem whatsoever with other people being able to build fighters and rogues and any class at all with nothing but point and click usage. I don't believe they should expect everyone else in the gaming community to share their point of view, to the point that no other play option is available. 4e just balanced in a far to rigidly structured way, to the point where combat ground out and RP was stifled. For D20 PnP play, 13th Age does a far better way of balancing classes without rigidity or slowing combat or stifling RP. 13th Age just wouldn't translate to PC very well, nor do earlier iterations of D&D. D&D is not a good system for a computer game at base usage. The sheer number of auto-win options is just plain silly. Difficult fight? Reload until the big bad fails the Death save vs your auto-win ability. Very few PnP systems are good for PC. The Runequest use of skill to increase skill idea worked well for Morrowind etc but the rest of the system wouldn't translate well. Warhammer FRP 1E and 2E is a great, gritty PnP game but would be naff on PC as well (imagine a RPG with enforced translation of RTS spells). The Dark Eye is probably about the best on PC but even that needs tweaked for optimal use on a PC game. I'm incredibly glad that Obsidian are doing their own system with a mix of ability use and recovery options. Finally someone comes out and says it! The D&D systems are not ideal for CRPGs. Not at all. Does no one remember how incredibly RNG the combat in BG was? It was fun, sure - but it was also about reloading if one of your characters took an unlucky crit and got gibbed, or if you just didn't roll well enough in general. There was so much RNG that it hurt the tactical nature of the game. Sure, tactics still mattered - but you could lose or win through no fault of your own as well simply due to a string of lucky or unlucky dice rolls. I guess what I'm saying is: D&D has had some great systems, but not all of them are well suited for CRPGs... Especially not 2e, which BG was based on. So we should maybe think about taking off our rose colored glasses where BG is concerned. It was an incredible game, and remains so to this day. But the combat had a lot of weaknesses, and I think PoE can improve on some of those.

GOG or BG:EE from Steam will save you the trouble. O_o

That can't be. You're still bleeding off Health when getting hit. This tactic ought to whittle down your fighter's Health plenty quick. If it's not then something weird must be going on. Yeah, I'm not sure if you're talking about the same thing as everyone else, Mayama. Stamina isn't the problem - health is. And there is currently no spell or item to recover health other than resting. That is what seems counterintuitive to me, tbh. I would much rather see divine healing spells heal health instead of stamina. Or a mix. I dunno. The whole "I can heal you temporarily with divine power, but only a good night's sleep will really do you any good" shtick just seems absurd when you really think about it.

Caerdon, I'm going to have to respectfully (but very strongly) disagree. The base level and the fact that all the attribute bonuses (boni) are, in fact, bonuses (boni) doesn't mean anything. You could just as easily raise the base level of each derived statistic to the current max from attributes, then have any attributes below the max give a penalty. The end result would be EXACTLY the same statistics at any given attribute level as there is now, just with a different framing. Which is why people need to stop using the fact that all the attributes give "bonuses" (boni) to argue that the attributes don't make a difference. Get away from that. It literally means nothing. The only important thing is the difference between the lowest and highest attribute. Differences are all that matter. So yes, doubling the curve WOULD matter quite a bit. Even if the base values were adjusted to compensate, the difference in damage between MIG 3 and MIG 18 would still be double of what it is now. And that's significant - and it's all that matters from a mechanical and mathematical standpoint.

PrimeJunta, if you're not familiar with Major Armstrong from the Fullmetal Alchemist series, you should look him up. He's the best embodiment of a "muscle wizard" who "casts with his muscles" that I've ever seen in a fictional universe. It's kind of hilarious.

It would only start again in another thread, better let it grow in a controlled enviroment. This was a great topic but it's functionally dead now... :/

Is that correct though? That would be an awfully complicated way of applying the bonus. Any reason it wouldn't just be the much simpler 1.30 * base damage ---> 1.32 * base damage? (for 15 MIG to 16 MIG) EDIT: I might understand what you're saying - you're calculating the percentage damage increase an additional point of MIG gives you from your previous MIG-adjusted damage. Fair enough. But the same thing would apply to the increases in damage from DEX/Accuracy (I'm pretty sure) so I don't think it makes a difference. The values I've calculated for Accuracy dps increase are relative to base, as is the 2% value for MIG. So MIG is still 2X the damage increase of DEX at the 5-45 point disparity mark and 1.33X the damage increase of DEX at the <5 point disparity mark. Actually, it's far more important than you realise. At Acc = Def, increasing Acc by 1 point is a 76.5%/75% = 2% gain.Sound familiar? Again though, that's not a fair comparison. If your current value is 75 of base and you increase it by 1.5 of base, of course that will be larger relative to your current value than increasing something that's already 130 of base by 2 of base will be. But that doesn't matter. The actual damage increase in terms of real damage numbers (i.e. actual dps) is based off of your base damage, which means the only fair way to compare the bonuses from dexterity and might is to compare the bonuses based on base damage. Which is conveniently how they are already expressed in my calc and in the rules. There's no need to try and get super clever with this - the math for comparing the two bonuses (boni) isn't complicated.

Love that suggestion! Thanks for making use of the spreadsheet to test and suggest tweaks - that's why I made it public. Also re: stats impact - I've done some thought about it and I think I've changed my mind. The numerical values for the stats do need to be tweaked in the upwards direction. Though I do wish people would stop making the framing error where they think that (for example) -15%-15% is fundamentally different from 0%-30%... it isn't. Not if the base values of whatever the stat in question that is affected by that attribute (damage, health, etc) are adjusted accordingly. The important thing is the difference between the lowest and the highest bonus, not whatever arbitrary reference point is attached to it. That said, (as I mentioned) I do think those bonuses differences should be considerably higher. If MIG is tied to damage, 3 MIG should have much less damage than 18 MIG. I'd venture to guess the sweet spot would be around 75% difference in damage between the two. That said, you couldn't use the same treatment for all the attributes. Each would have to be looked at on its own, and perhaps a few altered in more than just numerical ways.

That's a question in a vacuum. I would assume that if they significantly boosted the Weapon damage bonuses from might, that they would also boost the spell-based bonuses from intellect, the accuracy/critical bonuses from Dex etc., thus every class build can find a way to battle on equal terms with a Might-build, thus maintaining balance without insulting us with these placebo stats as they currently are which don't really do much to any build. Still not a fan. People are underestimating the difference 30% makes. Jack that up to 60% and jack everything else up accordingly and you now have characters who are completely and utterly defined around their stats. I think the bonuses (boni?) could probably stand to be a little larger. But not much.

Not a fan of the idea. MIG is already too strong. Make this change and characters without MIG can't compete, damage wise. Characters without CON are paper. Characters without INT have hyper short duration skills. Etc. I think people are overreacting - the differences made by attributes are just about right in my opinion.

Is that correct though? That would be an awfully complicated way of applying the bonus. Any reason it wouldn't just be the much simpler 1.30 * base damage ---> 1.32 * base damage? (for 15 MIG to 16 MIG) EDIT: I might understand what you're saying - you're calculating the percentage damage increase an additional point of MIG gives you from your previous MIG-adjusted damage. Fair enough. But the same thing would apply to the increases in damage from DEX/Accuracy (I'm pretty sure) so I don't think it makes a difference. The values I've calculated for Accuracy dps increase are relative to base, as is the 2% value for MIG. So MIG is still 2X the damage increase of DEX at the 5-45 point disparity mark and 1.33X the damage increase of DEX at the <5 point disparity mark. It's quite possible I've missunderstood how the increased average DPS from higher Dex would scale proportionally. It's like the 2% MIG increase - it scales with base damage. And both happen at the same time (multiplicative percentages). So if you have X base damage, and 15 MIG, and 20 more Accuracy than enemy Deflection, your expected damage is X * 1.3 * 0.975. If your MIG goes up one, expected damage is now X * (1.30 + 0.02) * 0.975, and if your Accuracy then goes up two, expected damage is now X * (1.30 + 0.02) * (0.975 + 0.02). Properties of multiplication being what they are (distributive property in this case), these two "2%" damage increases are equivalent (regardless of which order they are multiplied in or what order they are applied).

You're kidding me. Doesn't that come out to, like, less than +1 point of damage per point of Might if you're using a *greatsword*? In a game where friggin level 4 spiderlings have 150 health? I hope I'm not the only one here who's cringing at these nearly worthless penny-increment stats. Change of plans. I'm gonna roll up a 3 might, 3 dex Fighter first thing in the morning and see if I can't STILL hold my own in melee against BB_Fighter and BB_rogue in a damage contest. Each small point has a small effect, but they add up. Would you really prefer the MIG bonuses (boni?) to instead be huge, such that characters without high MIG would be completely outclassed by those without it? Also important to remember that these are percentages. You won't see much effect at the beginning of the game - but as you get more powerful weapons, your base damage (and the benefit of your MIG) goes up. I know this is an unpopular opinion, but having done the math, I really think MIG is fine. To use a comparison to D&D ( ), each 2 points of STR beyond 12 (or was it 10?) gave you 1 bonus damage. I know damage and health numbers were a bit smaller, but still - it's not like they had a ludicrously massive effect. The effect of MIG is a bit toned down from what the effect of STR was in D&D, but not too much. If the effect of MIG was higher, it would further devalue characters who don't pump it. We already consider MIG the strongest stat by far. Let's leave it alone.