Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Sword Modal counting as active, intended?


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#41
dunehunter

dunehunter

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2482 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Gold Backer
  • Fig Backer

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.



#42
theBalthazar

theBalthazar

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1132 posts
  • Location:France
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

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.



#43
Psychovampiric Shield

Psychovampiric Shield

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 94 posts

 

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 by Psychovampiric Shield, 15 June 2018 - 01:51 PM.


#44
shadowbunker

shadowbunker

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 33 posts

 

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 by shadowbunker, 14 June 2018 - 09:27 AM.


#45
shadowbunker

shadowbunker

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 33 posts

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 by shadowbunker, 14 June 2018 - 08:41 AM.


#46
Loren Tyr

Loren Tyr

    (7) Enchanter

  • Members
  • 858 posts

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


  • illathid, Boeroer and Dr <3 like this

#47
Boeroer

Boeroer

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 12989 posts
  • Location:Bucharest, Romania
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!
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 by Boeroer, 14 June 2018 - 11:13 AM.

  • illathid, Loren Tyr and Epimetreus like this

#48
Sifjar

Sifjar

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 77 posts
  • Location:Saint Petersburg, Russia
  • Steam:Sifjar

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



#49
Kohwalter

Kohwalter

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 82 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

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



#50
shadowbunker

shadowbunker

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 33 posts

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.


#51
theBalthazar

theBalthazar

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1132 posts
  • Location:France
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Personnaly I prefer games where all abilities can shine more or less. In most situation (all ?), auras cannot be justified, with theses absurd stacking rules.

 

So I am perhaps naïve. But even with a massive nerf (again accuracy 5 -> 3) + All stack = will be better for me.

 

230+ defense unoptimized like Dune say.... The rules doesn't protect us from haxx visibly... So it is a false excuse.

 

It is even a problem, penetration and accuracy can't go at the same level.

 

Why 20 in all defenses for the fighter ? In the current situation, 10 is more legitimate. Why 50+ of deflection but 5 unfortunate accuracy don't stack : p Why obsidian, why ?

 

My main issue with this choice is that is counter-intuitive. Optimal players will don't pick the thing, and casual gamers will take it naively and supress it 80 % of time, without know the thing...


Edited by theBalthazar, 15 June 2018 - 10:11 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users