The reason is simple: reliability.
If I let a character spend 4.5s cast time and 3.0s recovery on something; it better be reliable. And a priest spending 7.5s on a 1s Prone vs Fortitude in 1.5 AoE, doesn't really strike me like a good bargain. Not to mention that with such a cast time, it can hardly be used as a timely interrupt.
As for Warding Seal - it's probably one of the last spells, a spell-damaging priest will use. I mean, only after all those Shining Beacons, Cleansing Flames, Storms, Symbols and Hand of Weal and Woe. Imo, having an extra accuracy won't make this seal OP; but it's one way to make it more competitive; plus this will provide consistency with the previous seal. And similar thinking goes for Searing.
And now regarding systematic approach: lets be realists here, changing 1 value in gamedatabundle takes less than 1 minute; i.e. it is much faster than dive in the code and try to figure out why hazard spells have such limitations, make the chances, and double-check if it doesn't throw off-balance any other hazard effects, or even breaks them, if their caster is not defined.
it's a hack. I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I end up doing hacks all the time in my day job. But fixing game issues by layering hacks on top of that does not make for a better game design, it makes for a more complicated game design, especially considering the realities of coding where you are likely also making it more fragile.
Also: seals can be cast out of combat and stick around for a long time; ever since PoE1 that has basically been their point. Warding Seal is not the best spell in later levels to cast in combat but remains a great spell to cast out of combat (even sometimes better than Searing Seal because Warding Seal's smaller aoe doesn't cause curious people to walk over it while you're sneaking). The only seal that I could see an argument for adjustment is Repulsing Seal, because laying a prone trap out of combat is extremely underwhelming and in-combat faces a tough competition to Pillar of Faith, which does damage and has a longer range. But in effect PL scaling already helps Repulsing Seal quite a bit because it gets +2 acc/PL on top of prone-ing on a graze, two benefits that do not accrue to Pillar of Faith. So... eh
Imho, for a quick, yet already beneficial change, enabling just perception is enough. Because scrolls will stop missing that often; while high-ranked spells will still have a better accuracy.
This is my problem with unsystematic changes like this. I don't think you're broadening your perspective enough and combined with other comments it seems you might have a personal bias on making effects more consistent (e.g. accuracy/reliability) versus enabling a broad spectrum of options (the core PoE philosophy). You seem to be mostly just focused landing offensive effects. It still leaves might and intellect as dead stats for people who want to use non-hostile consumables, even though those stats are supposed to be otherwise universal. Enabling might and intellect on top of perception will not break explosives or potions, and will it make it more viable to split your skill points a bit more instead of basically having to invest everything into explosives or alchemy just to get enough PL scaling to use a poison or grenade decently in mid-late game. Yes, scrolls will probably need a rebalancing - frankly the fact that you get arcana/2 PL scaling on top of more powerful effects (that are already gated by a high arcana) is broken game design, but selectively enabling perception will meaningfully skew gameplay choices in the name of "reliability" (hellooooo scrolls of gaze of the adragan).
Yet I can hardly agree with your argument, because I didn't suggest the same scalling as in PoE1. For reference:
- current: 10
- suggested: 6 + 2 * character_level
- PoE1: 10 + 3 * (character_level - 1)
At lvl 16, this would be: 38 vs 55
The fact that it's weaker than PoE1 isn't a good enough metric to suggest that it's "balanced." For one: Deadfire and PoE1 have different level progressions. Plus, no other heal in Deadfire scales with character level, it would still make the moon godlike effect stupidly good. In PoE1 the character scaling was an attempt to keep it relevant into the late game, and it was too good (and it wasn't unique; Holy Radiance also scaled with character level and combined with disposition scaling was stupidly good). With your suggested scaling you are supplanting PL scaling mechanism with character level scaling - adding more cognitive load about exceptions being made to systems that are allegedly universal. And at level 20, you're talking 46 healing per health "unit", totaling 138 health over a hard fight (and you haven't mentioned whether or not it's influenced by might, and either answer to that question is a bad answer). That is a huge amount of healing to get for free (especially with might scaling) - and at any given health "unit" 46 healing alone is still the strongest instantaneous heal effect in the game outside of consumable scrolls or potions. This is in contrast to PoE1 where however good Moon Godlikes were, you still had things like Restore Critical Endurance so while at any discrete health level the moon godlike healing was huge, it was not unique. The lack of any comparable healing in Deadfire would make it all the more powerful.
In addition, Deadfire--unlike PoE1--has a mechanism to try to keep things relevant as you go higher in levels: PL scaling. This should be the universal way that we make things stronger as you progress to minimize cognitive load and exceptions. You could make an argument that the moon godlike healing shouldn't be based on any class-specific progression, at which point there is precedent in the game for using a special single-class PL progression for these cases (and the fact that it's not more widely used in place of character-level scaling is a poor design decision to me).
It is weak because of the fixed value of "10".
It is weak because PL scaling is weak when you only have one or at most two effects that scale. There is precedent here in that carnage still gets +10% damage/PL (and it used to be more generally the case where effects that did not jump or have multiple projectiles got +10%/PL, but in a move that continues to baffle me they nerfed this almost across the board, making multi-projectile/jump effects all the more powerful). A moon godlike that has an AL0 of 10 with +10% healing/single-class-PL with might scaling would be more powerful and more consistent with the existing rules of the game.
Because some things make sense to scale closer to hp progression.
I disagree. If you were limited to the same abilities at level 1 when you got to level 20, then yeah, sure. But one of the consequences of getting higher level in a game like this is you get more options. So an AL1 restore or AL3 nature's balm do not need to scale proportionally to health as you get up to level 20 to still be useful at level 20 - instead of being your only heal, they increasingly becomes part of a larger toolkit of options.
But let's take the Improved Critical and examine the "+10% Crit Damage" in 3 scenarios:
1). Fighter with 15 MIG, superb weapon, using Penetrating Strike. On crit that's: 2.05 damage coefficient that becomes 2.15. That's a +4.8% damage increase... which occurs only on crit.
2). Rogue with 10 MIG, superb weapon, sneak attack + deathblows, devastating blow vs 25%hp. On crit that's: 4.7 that becomes 4.8. And that's a +2% damage increase... which occurs only on crit.
3). Wizard with 18 MIG, 7 PL casting a rank 4 spell. On crit that's 1.64, which becomes 1.74. That's a +6% damage increase. But than again, what's your crit rate in a challenging encounter?
There's a couple of interrelated issues here. The first is that these are funges of math, because you're not actually looking at the net effect.
Case 1: a fighter with might 15, superb weapon, penetrating strike is better seen as having a graze/hit/crit coefficient of .87x, 1.85x, and 2.1x which become .87x, 1.85x, and 2.2x with improved crit. This can be as little as a +0% increase in net damage (in cases where you can never crit) to as much as ~3% (in cases where you always crit). So in this respect I think you're overstating the effect.
Two: at the same, you're understating the effect. Flat damage increases are rare and because of their unconditional nature they should be limited in scope. Comparison: fighters get Weapon Mastery, which grants a +5% damage increase. Under the same scenario, this averages out to be a ~2% net damage increase on weapons you are proficient with. This seems quite perfectly in line with the magnitude of effect you get Improved Critical from some of these talents you're talking about. In one important way improved critical is even better, because it impacts spells which are otherwise extremely hard to boost damage-wise.
Re: potent empower, I could maybe follow along that potent empower needs a buff or accurate empower needs a nerf because as it stands they are roughly in line with each other, but accurate empower is more generally useful than either potent or penetrating (or even lasting). I would probably advocate nerfing accurate empower a bit (+8 acc instead?) and making lasting empower effect durational effect instead of just afflictions/inspirations (many martial classes will have very few of these making this talent all the more marginal).
Having a chance to look at some other things more deeply:
1. Please do not adjust deflection bonuses. Deflection is already a weird stat because of its increasing returns and its general murk/meaninglessness for many non-optimized-for-deflection character builds. I don't think +4 -> +6 meaningfully makes this more generally useful and only helps out the high deflection builds all the more. If you want to make it more generally useful, maybe adding a hit->graze chance would be better (high deflection builds aren't going to be hit all that much anyway).
2. I think this is way too good. In even slightly metagamed scenarios this basically seems like it can mean a fighter is immune to crits. I also have to ask - what is the purpose of this change? Is it just trying to de-murk % chance of happening effects? Because this does not seem like it's explicitly intended as a nerf or a buff but rather a lateral change.
3. I think we should be really really careful about making it easier to regenerate class resources. Same with paladin Virtuous Triumph, and arguably this is an easier condition to meet/metagame. I don't see any systematic polish reason why these should be buffed - I personally argued for so long to make existing effects weaker over several patches.
1. please no. Riposte is already a weird ability in that it is either virtually useless or extremely powerful. Instead of leaning into this more by providing what is essentially a win-more effect, i'd rather flatten this variability (that basically mandates metagaming) and provide a % riposte chance on grazes as well (even if lower than the % riposte chance on miss).
2. What would Perplexing Sap do? I think Sap is fine as it is, Perplexing Sap is fundamentally broken though. I would and have happily taken Sap as a skill, but after one ugly run where I discovered just how borked Perplexing Sap is, I will never upgrade. (maybe Perplexing Sap should be a redesign and that redesign could mean knocking the opponent asleep and when they wake they are hobbled and confused. A developer noted on my reported bug for Perplexing Sap that this was on their list of abilities that need a revisit so they are aware that it is also broken, but I'm guessing they just can't spare the time to retool it.)
4a. (lol at paying special attention to the cipher interaction. not judging, i paid special attention to the priest suggestions.)
5. I actually don't think it's too big a deal that flanked suppresses low stacks of confounding blind (mentioned as such in the bug forum thread), but this change smells to me like another hack, because it's possible that the designer who implemented this ability forgot that flanked suppresses confounding blind's early effects (or maybe flanked was added into perception affliction later in design and the interaction here was forgotten). I don't have another good suggestion though unless we're willing to go really strong or change the effect altogether, because with the current flanked/perception afflction/stacking system the ability at its core just doesn't work. (Go really strong: make each stack -10 deflection, so the first hit is equivalent to flanked, and it's all upside from there, cap at like 5 stacks. Change the effect altogether: one stack is -1 AR. So the first hit is a no-op (since Flanked also provides -1 AR), and it's all upside from there, though less generally obscenely strong as the previous suggestion)
1. I fully agree that Kalakoth is way too weak, but I prefer a less-murky debuff (to me it's murky because it's a bunch of effects that don't seem like they are connected) of just a deeper accuracy penalty.
2. Ghost Blades is fine as is. It is a party-friendly effect that also debuffs. It does not need a buff.
3. Probably better to shrink cast time. The effect and duration seem like in a good place for AL2, it is just weird that it has such a lengthy cast time considering basically every other wizard buff. I feel like this spell got missed in that one patch where they shrunk cast times for litanies/prayers and even Eldritch Aim.
Edited by thelee, 06 March 2019 - 09:57 AM.