Lower INT, higher DoT DPS, it's back?

[dunehunter]

So it seems some DoT damage formula is changed back to PoE 1 version, the lower INT you have, the shorter the duration, but the total damage is same. So we have some 3 INT rogue build that benefit from this rule. I personally think this is a very stupid setting and it seems it's back in DF...

[Boeroer]

Oh no! Not that inconsistent crap again where nobody knows which DoT is working how.

 

Which abilities are affected?

 

Please file a bug report - I will chime in!

[gkathellar]

auuuuugh seriously

 

OBSIDIAN

 

*shakes fist*

[dunehunter]

Oh no! Not that inconsistent crap again where nobody knows which DoT is working how.

 

Which abilities are affected?

 

Please file a bug report - I will chime in!

 

Taste of the hunt, Disintegrate, both damage is not tied to INT, but duration tied to INT. So the lower the duration the higher the DPS is. I really don't wanna get through this again

 

Btw, graze = higher DPS

Edited June 9, 2018 by dunehunter

[Parasol_Syndicate]

So, the dimwitted are often drawn to violent occupations- because they're better at it?

[mammasaura]

For the rogue, seems only arterial strike.

 

[Boeroer]

This is such a bad change. Seriously, why? If they want to decouple non-"magic" over time damage (like woundig) etc. from INT then they should also decouple the duration from INT and not leave it at "I curse you! Because you are so smart I will die more slowly, there!"

 

But I would prefer if they just leave it like it was: consistent!

[dunehunter]

A lower stats should never has better benefit than a higher one imo.

[ErlKing]

For the rogue, seems only arterial strike.

If description is correct Arterial strike works only when enemy is moving.

[Boeroer]

@dunehunter: Exactly

Edited June 9, 2018 by Boeroer

[dunehunter]

I think the reason behind this is if both Might and INT benefit DoT spells, it gonna be too powerful, but how they handle the issue is not very elegant. 

 

My suggestion is just make either DoT per tick damage or Duration a fixed number, so DoT is only benefit from Might or INT.

[Lokithecat]

It feels like they looked at dots, and had a brain fart.

 

X dot will do 30 damage over its duration.

 

'But Timmy we don't want people with high Int to do more damage per casting with it, Int has +5% more Damage from extending the duration, and Might only has 3%.  If these both apply thats a lot of damage, and Int shouldn't be increasing damage in the first place.'  

'Well George, if we set it up, so that X dot will always do 30 damage over its active time, and still allow it to be affected by Might, that would be okay.'

'Hmm.... so if someone has High Int, or Low Int, the dot will still do the same damage, it'll just happen over different amounts of time?'

'Yes, that seems perfect, and theres no negative or balance issues.'

 

One of the earlier versions the 'per 3.0 second' part ended up getting increased by Int, which slowed down the DPS, but since the duration was increased as well, you broke even on actual damage.

All they had to do, is leave the 'per 3.0 second' part unaffected by Int, and change the overall duration with Int.  This wouldn't affect DPS, but would result in lower overall damage if you had low Int, and higher Int would get you more damage.  This would have Might affecting the DPS.  Which seems like it is supposed to work that way.

 

So, with a 30 damage over 30 second duration it is 1 DPS (say every 3.0 second ticks) ... a High stat being 15, and low being 5...

High Might, Low Int; 1.15 DPS (3.45 Damage per 3.0 Seconds), over 23 seconds totalling 26.45 Damage

Low Might, High Int; 0.85 DPS (2.55 Damage per 3.0 Seconds), over 37 seconds totalling 31.45 Damage

High Might, High Int; 1.15 DPS (3.45 Damage per 3.0 Seconds), over 37 seconds totalling 42.55 Damage

Edited June 9, 2018 by Lokithecat

[Maxzero]

I think the reason behind this is if both Might and INT benefit DoT spells, it gonna be too powerful, but how they handle the issue is not very elegant. 

 

My suggestion is just make either DoT per tick damage or Duration a fixed number, so DoT is only benefit from Might or INT.

 

How about they worry about a DoT being overpowered when we actually see a DoT that's overpowered?

 

Because at the moment it's all about direct damage.

[Lokithecat]

That bug (or really badly implemented bad idea), with Alchemy affecting 'Poison' dot spells was pretty scary...  a decent score, and you can wipe out most everything with a single Plague of Insects cast

[Insolentius]

That bug (or really badly implemented bad idea), with Alchemy affecting 'Poison' dot spells was pretty scary...  a decent score, and you can wipe out most everything with a single Plague of Insects cast

Was that fixed in 1.1?

[Dorftek]

 

That bug (or really badly implemented bad idea), with Alchemy affecting 'Poison' dot spells was pretty scary... a decent score, and you can wipe out most everything with a single Plague of Insects cast

Was that fixed in 1.1?

No, I'm pretty sure that it wasn't. I haven't tested it myself but I've been watching a streamer who's using it. He used insects and maggots then went invisible on lvl 13, this killed the Engwithan Titan on POTD upscaled.

[Raven Darkholme]

I'm not even sure if it is a bug, I think they just need to adjust the amount of powerlevels you get from Alchemy.

Right now it seems to be over 10% spell strength (dmg, accuracy, duration) per alchemy level they could just adjust it down to halfa and the spells would still be very good, but the fact that nagas, paladins and darguls are unaffected by it would balance it out.

Right now it is so strong, that everything but the immune creatures get oneshot, especially if like me you have an assassin and shoot from stealth.

So all you have to do is multiclass with something that can deal with the immune creatures (there is probably no class that can not) and boom the game is as ez mode as brilliant invocation was, especially since potions and drugs get insanely strong because of the high alchemy levels.

Spirit shield potion which is probably the most abundant potion in merchant inventories in the game can provide up to 9 armor for almost 200 seconds, making it very hard even for 1.1 potd creatures to have pen against you, overpen is pretty much impossible at level 13+. (for me SS had 7ish dr at level 13 and I had around 9 base armor).

Also the potion belt can give you any potion, some of them are just insane (ryngrims, hit qual conversion potions which give around 50% conversion with max alch) and a rogue can reset a fight easily with invis and could keep doing that until potion belt gives insane pot and only then fight)

[dunehunter]

9 Armor for 200 sec?? Awww...

[Takkik]

hope it's a bug, because all rogue abilities do some affliction, you need affliction for sneak & deathblow, so INT help you, but not if you use any DOT? They fixed invisibility but broke dot...

 

Why we can't get any accurate patch notes and have to discovert this by ourself (if this is not a bug) ? Each time a dev modify the code, he need to write down his modifications!

[Purudaya]

hope it's a bug, because all rogue abilities do some affliction, you need affliction for sneak & deathblow, so INT help you, but not if you use any DOT? They fixed invisibility but broke dot...

 

Why we can't get any accurate patch notes and have to discovert this by ourself (if this is not a bug) ? Each time a dev modify the code, he need to write down his modifications!

 

Except Persistent Distraction makes all of that irrelevant by applying 2 afflictions to all engagements passively, so by the time you get deathblows the conditions for it are always automatically met. PD should probably be nerfed to only apply the "distracted" affliction so 1 guile abilities like crippling strike and sap are actually useful beyond PL 4-5.

Edited June 9, 2018 by Purudaya

[Raven Darkholme]

9 Armor for 200 sec?? Awww...

There's not that many enemies having enough Pen vs 18 armor (and you get 18 armor wearing light armor)

[mant2si]

Cipher disintegration, when you graze with spell it will do more damage in a shorter period of time