Sword Modal counting as active, intended?

[shadowbunker]

I have heard of a lot of things.

That doesn't mean that they are the one and only acceptable truth.

 

If Deadfire put modals into the passive category I wouldn't object. I'm sure you can make a case for that and bring forth some good arguments. But on the other hand I can also see why you might want to put it into the active compartment. I simply said that I find it "ok" that modals are actives since you have to actively trigger them. I didn't say that this is the only and undisputable way to do it. You can agree or disagree, but no need to get cheeky.

 

Counter-intuitive design causes impact on user experience.

When it is such design, no justifications can make it acceptable...

You cannot change users' instinct with arguments.

 

And it seems you think that "modals are passives" and "modals are actives" are both acceptable.

If that is the case - why the game's mechanics force you to treat modals as actives?

The game punish players who think modals are passives at first sight.

 

If you know what a toggled-passive is,

Let me put the statement here -

"Players who experience this game, with knowledge of toggled-passive in mind, are to be punished by the game"

Can't you see how bad it is?

 

Ad a random bystander and someone who has no stake in any of this I'd say you definitely started off with the cheeky passive agressive tone

That is wrong. My first statement and shadowbunker's response:

Intentional. All modals are actives (since you can actively trigger them I think that's ok).

If OB Devs used similar method for classification then well we're all screwed.

Which implied that my opinion on this is something that is stupid and following this will screw all people over.

 

Your thought process has the same mistake as creationist does and sorry I'm allergic to that.

 

Your statement works like this:

You learnt that modals are actives - You are able to provide a justification for that (i.e. you actively trigger them) - You concluded that it is OK.

 

This is basically picking facts favorable to the conclusion.

It is bad because it makes you miss out the whole picture.

Edited June 13, 2018 by shadowbunker

[shadowbunker]

I definitely agree that the mechanics in both PoE and PoE2 are just not adequately explained (though Obsidian is hardly the only studio guilty of this unfortunately *glares at Fallout 4*).

 

However, I don't see how (@Crumbleton) modals are "clearly passive in nature". Mechanically, it's something you have to turn on; for some of the modals you may just want to turn them on and leave them there (which arguably means they're badly designed; if pretty much always you'd want them on they probably shouldn't have been modal), but it still is something you have to choose to do and can change at any moment.

 

Similarly, conceptually, the modal can be seen as a particular fighting stance or whatever that the character chooses to adopt at a particular moment. Taking a more aggressive or defensive posture, prioritising specific strikes, etc. So from the perspective of the character this is also a decision being actively made. Whereas the passive abilities tend to be things that are either some skill that has simply improved (eg. weapon style abilities) or an attribute that has been honed, or they are more reactive / conditional skills (which in part you can perhaps also see as a general skill, eg. sneak attack reflecting a rogue's ability to see opportunities to take advantage of an enemy being distracted etc.).

 

So both conceptually and mechanically, to me it does feel more natural to classify modals as active rather than passive. At least given the need to do so at all of course. Because personally I probably would prefer them to just be lump modals into their own category for stacking purposes, don't have them stack with each other but do stack them with active. Maybe some might need to be toned slightly in that case, but for the most part that's hardly going to be game breaking (and eg. Warrior Stance definitely could do with being able to stack with actives).

 

FYI toggled-passives or "permanent passives at will", but I think that does not answer your comment.

 

Conceptually...let's say I'm a lazy vegan (at will - I can eat meat without mental breakdown)

I have two abilities here:

- Stay lazy: do everything in a lazy way

- Vegan: only eats veggies in every meal

 

1. I've been "staying lazy" and "being a vegan" recently. I'm typing (lazily) right now. Does it count as "multi-tasking" ?

2. I've been eating veggies only in every meal recently. I'm not eating right now. Am I a vegan right now?

 

"Stay lazy" is basically any auras or Warrior stance,

(well we cannot "stay focused" permanently IRL so R.I.P. focus aura)

"Vegan" works just like Cleave stance.

Edited June 13, 2018 by shadowbunker

[shadowbunker]

Yes but why Obsidian doesn't explain that ?

 

Because Obsidian wants poe to be featured in an AVGN episode. That explains all.

Edited June 13, 2018 by shadowbunker

[Loren Tyr]

FYI toggled-passives or "permanent passives at will", but I think that does not answer your comment.

 

Conceptually...let's say I'm a lazy vegan (at will - I can eat meat without mental breakdown)

I have two abilities here:

- Stay lazy: do everything in a lazy way

- Vegan: only eats veggies in every meal

 

1. I've been "staying lazy" and "being a vegan" recently. I'm typing (lazily) right now. Does it count as "multi-tasking" ?

2. I've been eating veggies only in every meal recently. I'm not eating right now. Am I a vegan right now?

 

"Stay lazy" is basically any auras or Warrior stance,

(well we cannot "stay focused" permanently IRL so R.I.P. focus aura)

"Vegan" works just like Cleave stance.

 

 

I'm not sure what repeating the phrase "toggled-passive" is intended to achieve. The fact that apparently modals are considered as such in some other games does not imply that they are or should be in PoE. Mechanically, there is no general argument to consider them 'active' or 'passive' or something else (if nothing else, since what being considered as such actually means will itself depend on the rest of the game mechanics). 

 

To also address your earlier statement: "Players who experience this game, with knowledge of toggled-passive in mind, are to be punished by the game". No, they are not. Players who come to this game expecting things to work in the way they do in some other games may find those expectations being confounded, but that is hardly punishment. If you play a new game and don't bother to learn anything about its mechanics, that's your own responsibility. Things like armour work differently as well; it's actually quite different even going from PoE1 to PoE2. So why would 'stacking' or 'active vs passive effects' be any different in that regard? And frankly, although the game could definitely be much clearer on its mechanics in many respects, the fact that modals are considered active is mentioned explicitly in the in-game Stacking entry. You can disagree with that choice and reasonable arguments can certainly be given against it, but it being done differently in other games is not such an argument.

 

As for your rather bizarre example, I'm not sure what to make of that to be honest. If I had to classify them in terms of game abilities, without question I would consider both laziness and veganism to be passive. They are both more or less persistent and permanent traits/dispositions/convictions of a person. These can change over time of course, but certainly not at will; you cannot start and stop being a vegan at a whim, for example. Whereas you can easily change from one fighting stance to another, which is what those modals represent and how in a general sense it would work in real life (in combat and elsewhere). In combat, I would assume any competent fighter (of whatever kind) is able to adopt different strategies and fighting styles depending on circumstances, on the opponents they're facing and their weapons, etc. What works against a single heavily armoured opponent is wildly different from what works against fighting three unarmoured ones, for example. 

 

 

And by the way, though I care very little for veganism as such I feel I should point out: being a vegan definitely isn't equivalent to "eats only veggies every meal"

[Boeroer]

You can disagree with that choice and reasonable arguments can certainly be given against it, but it being done differently in other games is not such an argument.

This.

 

I can understand that some people might think that weapon modals or modals in general belong to passives - sort of - but that doesn't mean that the case is clear. As I said: I think it's ok that they are considered to be actives because you can find reasonable arguments for it. You can also find some reasonable arguments for the passive side. So since this isn't a crystal clear case it's presumptious to say that no justification makes it acceptable. I have made my points clear and Lore Tyr did and they seem to be reasonable and thought through. Yours are basically just "but it's passive elsewhere". I won't elaborate on that weird comparison to creationism or that fruitless analogy to vegans. Only that comparisons and analogies should be used to make things clearer, not to confuse.

 

I'm not even voting feverishly for "modals have to be actives" - it's only understandable for me they are considered such in Deadfire. Loren Tyr's suggestion to put them into a seperate category would be my preferred solution as well. It IS not so cool that proficiencies don't stack with other modals since they seem to be something different (because they are no "real" abilities but proficiencies).

Edited June 13, 2018 by Boeroer

[Crumbleton]

I'll parrow previous replies saying I don't care what it's classified as whether active or passive as long as it more intuitive.

 

If they made it so when you frenzy your modal turns off it would be intuitive and actually make some sense.

 

On a side note they need to take a look at the action speed malus modals they're incredibly harsh.

[Boeroer]

If they made it so when you frenzy your modal turns off it would be intuitive and actually make some sense.

That sounds nice - but often only a part of an active ability gets suppressed. In PoE at least that worked with all modals that were mutually exclusive: switching on one would deactivate the other.

 

But a more obvious visual feedback would indeed be nice.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Boeroer

[Crumbleton]

 

If they made it so when you frenzy your modal turns off it would be intuitive and actually make some sense.

That sounds nice - but often only a part of an active ability gets suppressed. In PoE at least that worked with all modals that were mutually exclusive: switching on one would deactivate the other.

 

But a more obvious visual feedback would indeed be nice.

Yeah you still get the deflection malus I believe or no?

[Beanna]

You lose the penetration bonus from Tenacious because the modal has priority and still get the deflection malus obviously. So it's a lose/lose situation, better to simply turn off both sword and sabre modal, which for a martial class, is some very silly design imo.

[dunehunter]

Did some test with wizards, so Llengrath's Safeguard's +20 deflection stacks with other +deflection spells, so with Safeguard + Arcane Veil you get +70 deflections. I thought active abilities doesn't stack but now I'm totally confused.

 

20(base)+ 57(level) + 10(resolve) + 20(safeguard) + 50(arcane veil) + 7(cloak of greater deflection) + 10(breastplate) + 12(large shield) + 8(legendary) + 6(sword/shield style) + 15(brolars phalanx) +15(faith and conviction) = 230 deflection.

 

So you can get 230 deflection with arcane veil or 220 with double image.... Or even 245 deflection with that engagement ring...

Edited June 14, 2018 by dunehunter

[Boeroer]

That's because Llengrath's Safeguard adresses another "value" than deflection-only buffs. Like in PoE +X to all defenses is in another group than +X to deflection (code wise) and thus slips through. So it's not only Llengrath's Safeguard - but everything that addresses +X to Y(all) universally will stack with +X to Y(1) and Y(2). It's not intuitive and silly and either needs to be mentioned/explained right in the tooltip or needs to go.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Boeroer

[dunehunter]

That's because Llengrath's Safeguard adresses another "value" than deflection-only buffs. Like in PoE +X to all defenses is in another group than +X to deflection (code wise) and thus slips through. It's not intuitive and silly and either needs to be mentioned/explained right in the tooltip or needs to go.

 

So Borrowd Instinct and Arcane Veil stacks too?

[Boeroer]

I guess. But Borrowed Instinct should not stack with Llengrath's Safeguard. That is really a good example where the stacking rules need rework or a lot more explanation.

[dunehunter]

I guess. But Borrowed Instinct should not stack with Llengrath's Safeguard. That is really a good example where the stacking rules need rework or a lot more explanation.

 

Yeah I tested an you r right, Borrowed Instinct doesn't stack with Safeguard, but it stacks with other +deflection spells.

 

I always thought +all defense spell doesn't stacks with +deflection ones, but it's not true, a bit confusing

Edited June 14, 2018 by dunehunter

[Boeroer]

It is, I agree. Not so much for me because it works like on PoE - but that's not really a proof of quality when it comes to consistent stacking rules...

[dunehunter]

With all these edge case you can use to stack deflections, an unoptimized Arcane Knight can easily reach 230+ deflection, i do think the deflection stacking is a problem, but since untouchable tank is also viable in PoE 1, guess it will continue in DF.

[theBalthazar]

Personnally I have a simple rule. A simple feeling :

 

I take an ability, I want an effect, even a little bonus/malus.

 

It is psychological perhaps (or what you want), buts to me it is works better.

[Guest Psychovampiric Shield]

 

I find many of them quite useful actually.

 

But yes, it is intentional and supposed to happen this way. They have to be activated, hence being classified as active; it also says so in the in-game cyclopedia. Though I imagine for example the melee-deflection bonus of quarterstaff does stack with other active general deflection bonuses, so in practice it depends a bit.

The staff modal gives deflection only vs melee weapons which is different from the common deflection buffs which have no restrictions, so they stack.

 

The weapon modals are mostly garbage anyways....

There are a some modals which give a lasting debuff and you can switch them on/off - they're ok. Blunderbuss modal (powder burns) can be used without penalty if you're resistant to perception afflictions. The deflection penalties (sword/estoc) don't make a big difference because there are many ways to increase deflection. The accuracy penalties for ranged weapons (hunting bow/pistols) are less harsh because you have items with ranged accuracy (Acina's Tricorn/Ring of the Marksman) to compensate, while the dps gains are huge. Great sword/ arquebus modals are ok for alpha strikes... The ones who penalize damage/recovery are bad however.

 

Damage-reducing modals seem to me quite intriguing, e.g. club for cipher to whack enemies when they come close to reduce will and then trun them.

 

EDIT: another interesting combo: morning star fortitude debuff + Xoti's Blessed Harvest.

Edited June 15, 2018 by Psychovampiric Shield

[shadowbunker]

 

FYI toggled-passives or "permanent passives at will", but I think that does not answer your comment.

 

Conceptually...let's say I'm a lazy vegan (at will - I can eat meat without mental breakdown)

I have two abilities here:

- Stay lazy: do everything in a lazy way

- Vegan: only eats veggies in every meal

 

1. I've been "staying lazy" and "being a vegan" recently. I'm typing (lazily) right now. Does it count as "multi-tasking" ?

2. I've been eating veggies only in every meal recently. I'm not eating right now. Am I a vegan right now?

 

"Stay lazy" is basically any auras or Warrior stance,

(well we cannot "stay focused" permanently IRL so R.I.P. focus aura)

"Vegan" works just like Cleave stance.

 

I'm not sure what repeating the phrase "toggled-passive" is intended to achieve. The fact that apparently modals are considered as such in some other games does not imply that they are or should be in PoE. Mechanically, there is no general argument to consider them 'active' or 'passive' or something else (if nothing else, since what being considered as such actually means will itself depend on the rest of the game mechanics). 

 

To also address your earlier statement: "Players who experience this game, with knowledge of toggled-passive in mind, are to be punished by the game". No, they are not. Players who come to this game expecting things to work in the way they do in some other games may find those expectations being confounded, but that is hardly punishment. If you play a new game and don't bother to learn anything about its mechanics, that's your own responsibility. Things like armour work differently as well; it's actually quite different even going from PoE1 to PoE2. So why would 'stacking' or 'active vs passive effects' be any different in that regard? And frankly, although the game could definitely be much clearer on its mechanics in many respects, the fact that modals are considered active is mentioned explicitly in the in-game Stacking entry. You can disagree with that choice and reasonable arguments can certainly be given against it, but it being done differently in other games is not such an argument.

 

As for your rather bizarre example, I'm not sure what to make of that to be honest. If I had to classify them in terms of game abilities, without question I would consider both laziness and veganism to be passive. They are both more or less persistent and permanent traits/dispositions/convictions of a person. These can change over time of course, but certainly not at will; you cannot start and stop being a vegan at a whim, for example. Whereas you can easily change from one fighting stance to another, which is what those modals represent and how in a general sense it would work in real life (in combat and elsewhere). In combat, I would assume any competent fighter (of whatever kind) is able to adopt different strategies and fighting styles depending on circumstances, on the opponents they're facing and their weapons, etc. What works against a single heavily armoured opponent is wildly different from what works against fighting three unarmoured ones, for example. 

 

 

And by the way, though I care very little for veganism as such I feel I should point out: being a vegan definitely isn't equivalent to "eats only veggies every meal"

 

I've already stated that the phrase does not answer your comment - so, what bothers you?

And the term was brought to the table when Boeroer said modals' switch are actively triggered and thus "doesn't fit the criteria of being "passive"".

If it doesn't fit, how was it possible that people invented the phrase and made it common enough among gamers? 

I am not forcing the term into this game, Boeroer was denying its existence, don't mix it up.

 

And the active/passive stacking design has a key difference from other things you mentioned.

One property of counter-intuitive design is that it cannot be fixed by learning.

Consider the following example:

In a random game, you press "A" to confirm, press "B" to cancel. Fair enough right?

But in the crafting menu or whatever, sorry, you should press "B" to confirm and "Y" to cancel.

Now the player have learned it,

Is it players' own responsibility mixing it up from time to time?

Is it players' own responsibility finding it irritating and feel punished?

 

It is the exact same thing happening on us who naturally feels modals are passives.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, we define it by its effect -

in this case, it is zero-cost, it lasts indefinitely, so we think it's a passive (I hope that is a fair definition to you.)

 

Actives don't stack, passives stack, right? (let's pretend it's that simple.)

And then boom! We got shocked by the modals which doesn't stack. 

In this case, modals become an *Exception* in the rule to us (us=who feels it should be passive).

Exceptions are bad, exceptions that go directly against normal case are very bad.

(i.e. free lasting effect is passive vs free lasting effect is active, and "B" is cancel vs "B" is confirm)

 

As for the example, if you do not agree with the base assumption (that those things are changeable at will),

of course it doesn't make any sense to you - that is not how example works.

you can easily change from one fighting stance to another, which is what those modals represent and how in a general sense it would work in real life (in combat and elsewhere)

Did you watch too much Jackie Chan? No stances doesn't change by BGM.

And sorry I cannot agree on your example in general - fighting strategies are passives in my opinion. 

Once we're good enough to practice it, it's there.

 

Now, there is one thing I'm curious about:

If rings can be equipped / unequipped in battle #FrodoBaggins,

you gain its effects through an explicit action (pick it and equip it), it is gained totally at will.

Does that makes rings' effect active too?

Edited June 14, 2018 by shadowbunker

[shadowbunker]

Yours are basically just "but it's passive elsewhere"

Wait what

(And IMO the passive effects should be the main part of an ability, 

not the triggering method. But it's not an important point.)

Yes, but auras are passive. Yes ... A passive is a "bonus without intervention, without overtime". Zealous aura is that.

 

 

And as if it wasn't for pointing out that, an active trigger doesn't necessarily make things not fit as passives! Jesus Christ

 

But that's only an issue with displaying info properly, not with my argument that modals can be considered actives because you have to actively trigger them. That doesn't fit the criteria of being "passive".

Seriously, you've never heard of toggle-able passives?

 

And if you didn't get my statement - you think this isn't a crystal clear case (i.e. inconclusive),

then the game shouldn't judge and shouldn't put it into game rules.

Being inconclusive doesn't mean all players are neutral to it.

 

If you're neutral or luckily sides with the Devs, nothing goes wrong;

if you're unlucky, this design hurts as bad as "press down to jump".

Of course we can git gud and get used to it, but it doesn't change the fact that it hurts player experience.

Edited June 14, 2018 by shadowbunker

[Loren Tyr]

Yeah, whatever. Maybe try again once you've mastered, you know, coherence. I really cannot be bothered with... whatever this is. 

[Boeroer]

Count me in - I've said my piece and I think it was understandable enough if one doesn't choose to be pigheaded. Bye.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Boeroer

[Sifjar]

Good to know. Started new game as Devoted Battlemage with sword. Will keep an eye on modal from now on

[Kohwalter]

Or you can just download a mod that makes modals stackable with everything else... no big deal

[shadowbunker]

Or you can just download a mod that makes modals stackable with everything else... no big deal

Or we can make such mod ourselves as it's not that hard - and guess what,

The json gamedatabundle clearly shows that "active/passive stacking rule" is a complete illusion.

 

To be fair, this time the game's screwed up logic favors the player instead.

 

Background: Mr. Voltron's "Sword Singer" thread mentioned that,

Mith Fyr's +15% lash stacks with Eternal Devotion's +10% lash (so as shared flames).

 

The findings: If we look at the two dmg lash source below,

 

1. Mith Fyr

from abilities.gamedatabundle ("Chant_Aefyllath_Ues_Mith_Fyr")

 

The game data clearly defines it as an active ability & a modal with flags: "IsPassive": "false", "IsModal": "true",

The corresponding +15% dmg lash is from statuseffect "Aefyllath_Ues_Mith_Fyr_SE_BurnProc" in statuseffects.gamedatabundle,

"StatusEffectType": "BonusDamageProc",

"BaseValue": 0.15, "DynamicValue": {"Operator": "Add"}, "DamageTypeValue": "Burn",

And these are the key fields that makes the +15% burn dmg lash.

 

2. Eternal Devotion

("Eternal_Devotion", it's the one with no subclass effects)

 

Again it is an active ability by design without question: "IsPassive": "false",

The corresponding +10% dmg lash for 15 seconds is from statuseffect "Eternal_Devotion_SE_MinorBurnDamage"

"StatusEffectType": "BonusDamageProc",

"BaseValue": 0.1, "DynamicValue": {"Operator": "Add"},

"Duration": 15, "DamageTypeValue": "Burn", 

 

Both looks like non-stacking active abilities. And guess what, the dmg lash stacks.

 

 

For reference - the truly non-stacking active ability modal,

Zealous Focus ("Zealous_Focus")

"IsPassive": "false", "IsModal": "true",

+5 Acc comes from Status Effect "Zealous_Focus_SE_Accuracy"

"StatusEffectType": "AllAccuracy",

"BaseValue": 5, "DynamicValue": {"Operator": "Add"}, "DamageTypeValue": "All",

 

It is a modal just like Mith Fyr Chant does, but it doesn't stack.

 

MAYBE the Devs screwed it up when making Chants not directly related to its effects, but through phrase entries:

Chant_Aefyllath_Ues_Mith_Fyr (active modal) has StartingPhrasesIDs

pointing to Aefyllath_Ues_Mith_Fyr (a phrase that don't have much properties defined)

Aefyllath_Ues_Mith_Fyr has StatusEffectsIDs

pointing to Aefyllath_Ues_Mith_Fyr_SE_BurnProc

 

And somehow the game forgot the dmg lash is from an active modal...? Just a speculation.

While modals like "Zealous_Focus" and "Sword_Half_Sword" directly mentions the Status Effects they carry.

For a proper code design, this should not lead to difference in-game.