Matt516
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Matt516
-
Can't you hire an entire party from the tavern? Or is it prohibitively expensive to do so? -
Yes. The results in this plot are completely independent of weapon styles. A 5% increase to average damage on something that hits a lot is the same as a 5% increase to average damage on something that hits slowly. When you bring DT into the mix, things could get complicated - different weapon styles do benefit differently in different situations due to the effect of DT. But I'm not interested in that. As I said, I'm only interested in weighing the change in basic dps caused by stat changes. I can compare MIG and DEX completely fairly and DT/weapon styles don't matter one bit, because the damage increase from MIG and DEX will be affected the same by that DT and weapon styles. TL;DR - DT/weapon speed doesn't matter when comparing increases in dps from DEX and MIG. Or to put it another way - the increases in dps from DEX I've calculated and the ones from MIG are applied to your dps before DT and weapon speeds start affecting dps. After these increases are applied, then your dps is further reduced by armor. It's that reduction which will be affected by DT and weapon speed. Hope that clears things up.
- 99 replies
-
-
- 2
-
-
- DPS
- Accuracy
- Attack
- Deflection
-
Tagged with:
-
Doesn't matter. Trust me. Dps is calculated as your average damage per second. Base dps is your weapon damage multiplied by your attacks per second. Changes to dps from graze/crit aren't affected by this attack speed because dps is damage per second - the time dependency is already accounted for.
- 99 replies
-
-
- 1
-
-
- DPS
- Accuracy
- Attack
- Deflection
-
Tagged with:
-
Well... DEX affects Reflex save instead of Fort save. Aaaand..... the % increases in dps I've calculated also apply to spell/ability duration increases/decreases on graze/crit, which aren't affected by MIG at all as far as I know. So for scripted interactions that take DEX, characters who want high reflexes, and characters who rely on critting with duration spells for extra duration, DEX would be better. It does seem a bit weak, still.
- 99 replies
-
- DPS
- Accuracy
- Attack
- Deflection
-
Tagged with:
-
Doesn't matter. I'm calculating dps, not damage per hit. EDIT: Ok, I'm calculating damage per hit too. Still - doesn't matter. The comparisons between MIG and DEX are the same. I'm not taking DT into account though. Too complicated and it has absolutely zero bearing on the attributes argument (MIG vs DEX and the value of Accuracy), which is the main reason I wrote this.
- 99 replies
-
-
- 1
-
-
- DPS
- Accuracy
- Attack
- Deflection
-
Tagged with:
-
Well - if I'm still lurking here (I expect I will be) I'll update it.
- 99 replies
-
- DPS
- Accuracy
- Attack
- Deflection
-
Tagged with:
-
Detailed math (and an easy to understand graph) on how Accuracy affects damage. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67761-dps-vs-accuracy-deflection-heres-the-maths-enjoy/?p=1490531
-
I give anyone and everyone full reign to reference this when arguing about mechanics. ;P
- 99 replies
-
- DPS
- Accuracy
- Attack
- Deflection
-
Tagged with:
-
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.
-
I've noticed some people asking about how much damage increase a point of Accuracy is worth. I've also noticed some people making incorrect arguments based on incorrect information. So I figured "Hey, I'm an engineer. I'll do some maths." So I did. Here's the maths. It's a plot of your average dps (relative to the base damage) versus your accuracy. Calculated using the rules given in the wiki for combat rolls as of today. . This can be used (among other things) to tell when (if anywhere - hint, it's nowhere) DEX gives you more damage than MIG. Summary below: Accuracy/Deflection within 5 points: Marginal gain/loss for 1 Accuracy: 1.5% dps (relative to base dmg) Accuracy/Deflection within 5-45 points: Marginal gain/loss for 1 Accuracy: 1% dps (relative to base dmg) Accuracy/Deflection outside 45 points: Marginal gain/loss for 1 Accuracy: 0.5% dps (relative to base dmg) There are the numbers. All other things being equal, the Accuracy bonus from DEX always gives you less dps increase than the damage bonus from MIG. When fighting enemies with Deflection much higher or lower than your Accuracy, each 2 points of Accuracy is equivalent to 1 point of MIG (where dps is concerned, that is. dps isn't everything of course). Please take this math into account when making arguments about stats, power, the value of inherent Accuracy bonuses (boni?), the value of DEX relative to MIG, etc. I'm done mathing for tonight. Peace. PS - Source file for doing your own maths: New Excel: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29325716/Pillars%20of%20Eternity%20DPS%20calc.xlsx Old Excel: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29325716/Pillars%20of%20Eternity%20DPS%20calc.xls EDIT: A quick note about why DEX, while giving less damage than MIG, isn't unilaterally inferior to it. DEX affects Reflex save instead of Fort save. This lets you dodge AoE attacks. Also, the % increases in dps I've calculated also apply to spell/ability duration increases/decreases on graze/crit, which aren't affected by MIG at all as far as I know. So for scripted interactions that take DEX, characters who want to dodge AoE attacks, and characters who are more interested in getting long duration abilities/spells by critting with them, DEX is better. There may also be one-off abilities/passives that give bonuses from DEX as well - I'd imagine the rogue will have some.
- 99 replies
-
-
- 23
-
-
- DPS
- Accuracy
- Attack
- Deflection
-
Tagged with:
-
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. Each accuracy score point decreases the chance of a miss by 1% and increases the chance of a crit by 1%. This is assuming your accuracy and the enemy's deflection are within 5 points. If your accuracy is more than 5 points above their deflection, misses are impossible and you're decreasing the chance of a graze by 1% while increasing the chance of a crit by 1%. If your accuracy is more than 5 points below their deflection, crits are impossible and you're decreasing the chance of a hit while increasing the chance of a miss. Too lazy to do the numbers on the exact increase in dps at the moment, but that should give you a good idea of how it works (according to the wiki, anyway).
-
There's no fundamental difference between all stats bonuses (boni?) and some stats giving bonuses while others give penalties. -15% to +15% and 0% to 30% are the same, provided the base value is adjusted appropriately. The only difference is in how you perceive it. So let's do away with that objection right now. There's nothing fundamentally better about all stats giving bonuses or some giving bonuses, some giving penalties. If the difference between the bonus of the lowest stat and the bonus of the highest stat is the same, that is. Only difference is in the way its framed, which doesn't make any mechanical difference.
-
I think you're referring to THIS muscle wizard:
-
Not in this demo they're not. In this demo, one non-spellcasting class can approach things exactly the same as any other. This isn't a knock on the game. They could have dispensed with the classes outright and just turned all the skillsets/talents into "talent trees", allowing a character to pick and choose at will from any of them every time he/she levels up, and the builds we're reporting wouldn't really have been a whole lot different But as it stands, the only real difference between say, a Fighter and a Rogue are the health/stamina/accuracy/D.T and saving throws. And even those can be minimized by Attributes and gear. Gotta disagree with you here. Attributes and gear can apply to both the Fighter and the Rogue - but the Fighter will ALWAYS have higher accuracy/health/stamina. That's the difference. Yeah, they can have the same bonuses - but don't underestimate the differences those base values will make. I think OE has actually struck a really nice balance with the classes. You can do unconventional things (like have a frontline wizard)... but there are still major differences between the classes that set them apart.
-
I'm taking this.
-
-
Agree on the need for more feedback, though I don't know that I've ever seen anyone who disagrees with that haha. I'm a little confused though.. How would a queue system change the feel of the combat in a negative way?
-
I don't think it's really a binary choice. How does more meaningful stats limit variety in builds exactly? The current system allows a lot more variety than a traditional system of the D&D lineage, but stats still have reasonable significant effects. If you doubled the numbers on everything, you'd still have meaningful stats and variety (though the sheer damage from Might would be kind of ridiculous).
-
Just quoting this here because it's basically my response to all the things that have been raised since I edited the original (very short) post that was in that spot. Very good point. Some AoE spells are inherently supposed to be weaker against single enemies. I think this could be preserved, though it would make tuning the bonuses more difficult. The disincentive lies when a wizard with extremely high INT is physically unable to cast an AoE spell without affecting at least himself due to the max casting range of the spell. The obvious fix to that is to make the range reference the outside of the circle instead of the center of course - but I think my idea has more tactical possibilities. ------------------------------------------------ In any case! A lot of you are making some very good points - the bit about certain spells being able to kill bosses outright if duration is buffed is especially problematic. I don't know which spell you're referring to so I can't really suggest a specific solution. All in all, I don't really have a whole lot else to say in response. Like I said - the post of mine that I quoted at the top of this one is pretty much the sum of my thoughts re: troubleshooting and OP-ness and UP-ness. I think it's a good system.. with some shortcomings. I certainly won't try to argue with every single person who points out a flaw - the proposed system would definitely have flaws. My goal here isn't ultimately to be right, but to get ideas out there for tweaking one of the currently problematic mechanics in an interesting way that also enhances the thematic appeal of the INT stat. Thanks all for your feedback and interest so far! I won't be replying to specific concerns as much from this point on, thought I will certainly keep an eye on this thread.
-
Wizards aren't the only characters with AoE abilities - I believe Barbarians also benefit from INT, and probably a few other classes as well, right?
-
To answer the questions about an increased duration being OP for DoT spells... if you were going to be able to affect multiple creatures with a DoT, and you increase the duration while decreasing the AoE so you can only hit a few, how is that OP? If the bonus values are tuned correctly, you shouldn't be doing all that much more overall damage (if any). Doubling the damage on a DoT while only hitting half the creatures isn't a net gain for the player, it's just a different tactical use of the same damage. Granted, I am using "value tuning" as kind of a panacea for most concerns - but I wouldn't be doing so if I didn't believe proper tuning couldn't actually solve these problems. The point I was trying to make is that although the numbers would need some tuning, a system like this would be tactically deeper without (hopefully) requiring a whole lot of extra time (assuming they're already planning on an adjustable AoE, which I don't really see how they could do without it). Another potential idea would be tying the duration to the number of characters affected. This could have the potential to make AoE spells really UP against tons of enemies - but again... tuning. There's no reason such a relationship would have to be linear. You could have a really powerful single-target spell, a reasonable power medium AoE spell, and a lowish power high AoE spell that then doesn't decrease further with increased characters affected. I think the concerns about overpoweredness (or underpoweredness, which haven't been raised that I've seen but are every bit as important) are good, but ultimately misplaced because with proper tuning of various values and curves, the power level of almost any system can be made to be balanced. What would be more concerning to me is the increased development time it would take to tune a system like this. From what little I've looked at it and theorycrafted about it, I don't think it would be all that complex to get "right", but then again I'm not a professional game designer so my opinion is of limited value.
-
Not necessarily. The problem you've described is entirely a tuning problem. If the values were adjusted properly, you could still get the same utility out of an X INT character's spells as you do now - just with more options. For example: Right now a 10 INT character gets a 50% increase to duration and AoE. Say you cast a buff with a base duration of 10 s and a base AoE that allows you to hit two (but not 3) of your characters with the 50% increased AoE. You now have buffed 2 characters for 15 s each. Take my system. Say that the values are adjusted such that with 10 INT, you can have the exact same spell - enough AoE to buff 2 characters for 15 s each. But you can ALSO buff 3 characters for 10 s each or 1 character for 30 s. You can have the same spells the current system gives you, but with some additional options as well. More choice. More chances for you to make interesting (and intellectual) decisions about how you cast your spells. Granted, I'm just making those values up - but I hope I've convinced you that your concern, while valid, is not inherently a problem with my system. Rather it's just a matter of tuning the values correctly (which is why I included that spreadsheet btw - so people can play with the bonus curves). Thanks for the feedback!
-
I believe the advantage of fast, light weapons would be more chances to score interrupts, as well as (hopefully) DT penetration on the really pointy ones. You may still be right re: whether the math holds up, but I don't think it's quite that cut and dry. In a well balanced system, maybe fast weapons would have more raw dps (better against unarmored) and slow weapons more single hit damage (better against armored)? We also have to take the damage types into account - DT is only effective for most armors against certain types of damage. So with a fast mace and slow sword, both having equal dps, striking against plate, the mace should do more damage. It's all tuneable, really. You're completely right that just taking DT into account slow heavy weapons seem to win out. But I think there are more factors in play that (if tuned properly by people better at this than I am) can make the system balanced overall - factors like damage type, raw dps differences, skills, etc.
-
-
Great post. I like the color highlighting. You also give a good explanation of why Might actually makes sense within the world of PoE. We must continue to speak out in defense of Might! It's a cool idea and I trust OE's world-building here.
