Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

Deadfire Polishing Thread

MaxQuest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Phenomenum

Phenomenum

Posted
Posted

Yesterday i've seen one interesting build, based on Ripost:

 

"♥♥♥♥Holy Slayer

Role: Tank/DD/Mostly an♥♥♥♥♥hole

Race: Human or Orlan. Just so we have max Resolve.

Subclass: Streetfighter / Shieldbearer of st. Elcga. This class doesn't fight in the conventional sense so most subclasses aren't really useful here. Any paladin class would do and Streetfighter is mostly about getting bonus sneak attacks & crit damage, not about recovery time.

Attributes (Background – Aedyr or Ixamitl - Laborer): 17-10-3-18-10-20

This is a bit of a memebuild. If that's not obvious from the name, lol. So the Rogue class has a very peculiar skill that's called Riposte. You're missed in melee so the opponent receives a free punch to the face as a reward – what's not to like? In PoE, it was very tempting but also inefficient – enemies have plenty of accuracy, Rogue has no deflection so being missed often is nigh impossible. Through introduction of multi-classes in PoE 2, Riposte became much more usable. However, this build is not about honest Riposte. Instead, we're banking on another weird factor – through the course of the game, you'll be finding plenty of items that give +20 or +25 of deflection against Disengagement. They all stack. There are also the spells and the perks which, when combined, will give you something like 240 deflection. If not more. Enough to be 100% missed by the absolute majority of foes. And then, well, you run into the enemies, they engage you, you run back, riposte in process... You tip-toe across the battlefield like a total ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and, somehow, people are dying. It works better solo than in the full squad (it's easier to guarantee that people will actually aggro onto you) but even there it's a great experience to try out."

 

...so is this true that Disengagement attack triggers Ripost?

Boeroer

Boeroer

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yes, but disengagement attacks don't fire reliably in Deadfire.

 

I did the exact same thing in PoE with Badgradr's Barricade by the way.

 

It works, but after a few fights it's so tedious to always have to move your char in and out of engagement that it's no fun. For me at least. Easier to just hit people where you stand and get additional Riposte every now and then.

 

You can do the same more effectively with Blade Turning by the way.

Edited by Boeroer

Deadfire Community Patch: Nexus Mods

MaxQuest

MaxQuest

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  On 3/12/2019 at 12:23 PM, Phenomenum said:

...so is this true that Disengagement attack triggers Ripost?

Yeap. Riposte only cares for the incoming attack to be a melee attack, and to target deflection.

 

Also, iirc Disengagement attacks have a 2s cooldown on same target. So even if the rogue has 240 deflection vs disengagement attacks, that's 1 riposte attack vs same target not more often than 6.66s (with current values) or 4.0s (with suggested values if enemies only graze and miss) or 8.0s (if enemies only miss with their DE attacks).

Meanwhile enemies still perform non-disengagement attacks.

 

So dunno... it's strong if you build for it; but that micro plus the fact that it is useless vs enemies without engagement slots, limits the usefulness of this dis-riposte approach.

 

P.S. Although if someone wants to kill that build, we can take Boeroer's suggestion for Blade Turning and apply it here; i.e: moving temporary disables riposte.

  • Like 1
Boeroer

Boeroer

Posted
Posted

Yeah maybe I changed my mind about that. :) Because I guess the main purpose or idea of Blade Turning might be to trigger it when things go south and then safely leave the engagement of enemies. If you disable it on movement you are in a situation where you will have to keep it up or die. Or use Flagellant's Path or so.

 

Don't have a better solution though. Maybe just leave it be?

Deadfire Community Patch: Nexus Mods

Phenomenum

Phenomenum

Posted
Posted (edited)

@MaxQuest

 

  Quote
6. buff flails' Arcing Blows passive from 10% miss-to-graze to 30% miss-to-graze.

 

Disciplined Barrage (PL 1) (or another Aware Inspiration) + Confident Aim (PL 2) + adjusted Arcing blows = 80% Graze-to-Hit + 30% Miss-to-Graze conversion + conversion from Perceprion buff.

 

Looks a bit OP, no?

 

  Quote
Don't have a better solution though. Maybe just leave it be?

 

:grin:

Edited by Phenomenum
Boeroer

Boeroer

Posted
Posted (edited)

Conversions don't stack additively. Get checked one after the other until it triggers or all are checked. So 50% and 30% don't result in 80% but 65% (for example).

 

Also there's always only one conversion happening. So no miss --> graze --> hit

Edited by Boeroer
  • Like 1

Deadfire Community Patch: Nexus Mods

MaxQuest

MaxQuest

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
  On 3/12/2019 at 1:42 PM, Boeroer said:

Yeah maybe I changed my mind about that. :) Because I guess the main purpose or idea of Blade Turning might be to trigger it when things go south and then safely leave the engagement of enemies. If you disable it on movement you are in a situation where you will have to keep it up or die. Or use Flagellant's Path or so.

 

Don't have a better solution though. Maybe just leave it be?

I think the possible shenanigans with repeated dissengagement and making enemy to hit himself are kinda cheesy; especially in Turn Based mode.

 

But I agree, that running away from melee range when you have Blade Turning, should block 1 attack from each enemy that engaged you, before breaking onMovement.

 

  On 3/8/2019 at 9:41 AM, Ensign said:

- I don't think there's anything resembling a 'polish' solution to make Priests (and to an extent Druids) feel as good as Wizards at spell casting.  At face value you can balance the lack of flexibility with more raw power per spell, but that's not going to buy you much at typical levels of play.  Adding something like grimoires is a non-starter in my mind - between the lack of depth in the spell lists that quickly turns all priests into clones, and the enormity of the workload that would be needed to seed a bunch of holy symbols or whatever into the game in a way that would feel organic...you're not getting that without a pretty massive rework.

  Boeroer said:

A trinket named "Book of Prayers " that only adds the Prayer and Linany spells and gives them +1 PL could be a thing.

I have tried to mod such a trinket. And it is quite straightforward. Specifically:

- create a custom grimoire with these 2-4 priest spells

- add +1 PL to protection spells

- change icon

- set restriction to priest only

and that's it.

Although, the book is right-clickable, and the prayer spells can be viewed in grimoire view.

 

Also it's easy to make such trinkets not grimoire-based. But in this case these spells won't count towards 2-spells-per-rank-per-encounter limit, and will appear on the bar (and not in priest spells).

 

 

Stuff like "+1 illusion, -2 fire, -2 electricity" - is even easier. And adding such items to shops, containers and enemy creatures is not hard either (just may be time consuming for getting there, getting the id, and testing after the game restart - AND DEADFIRE IS DAMN SLOW TO START/LOAD).

 

P.S. Although I have no idea how to mod stuff like: "bonus for casting a spell that you both know and is in your grimoire/trinket".

 

  On 3/8/2019 at 7:52 AM, Ensign said:

 

  On 3/8/2019 at 6:42 AM, Boeroer said:

RES 3% to 5% doesn't work. Simply because at the cap of 35 RES you would have a reduction of 125%...  :blink:  Even 4% wouldn't be ok since you would end up at 100% meaning immune to all timed harmful effects - because it not only shortens afflictions but also stuff like self damage from Scared Immolation, Berserker Frenzy etc.

For some reason I thought this got fed through the same double inversion as everything else.  Of course it doesn't, and 3% is what you want in that case.   >_<

 

Ugh, what bad design for the stat to have increasing returns on both effects.

 

The hostile effects duration reduction from Resolve, actually goes through the same system like everything else, and is getting inverted))

 

For example you have 35 Resolve (-75% duration) and Ring of the Solitary Wanderer (-35% duration).

step_sum = [1 - 1/(1 - 0.75)] + [1 - 1/(1 - 0.35)]

step_sum = [1 - 1/0.25] + [1 - 1/0.65]

step_sum = -3 + -0.538 = -3.538

 

final_coef = 1 / (1 - step_sum) = 0.22

 

So a 10s hostile effect would get reduced to 2.2s

 

P.S. Here's a related post.

---

 

The thing is, as already mentioned by other posters and you included: it has increasing returns.

 

That's probably because "each point in Resolve, above 10, decreases hostile effects duration."

doesn't sound as weird as "each point in Resolve, above 10, increases hostile effects duration decrease."

 

But at 43 resolve (if we forget about the cap for a moment) there is a huge difference between:

> duration = base_duration * (1 - 0.99)

> duration = base_duration / (1 + 0.99)

 

  On 3/12/2019 at 1:43 PM, Phenomenum said:

Disciplined Barrage (PL 1) (or another Aware Inspiration) + Confident Aim (PL 2) + adjusted Arcing blows = 80% Graze-to-Hit + 30% Miss-to-Graze conversion + conversion from Perceprion buff.

 

Looks a bit OP, no?

Imho it's fine.

As Boeroer already mentioned, these effects are not taken in additive manner, but one after another. So it won't be 80% graze to hit, but 65%.

 

Plus, flails were suggested to be buffed from 10% miss-to-graze to 30% miss-to-graze. And this is not related to aware/confident_aim because a miss cannot be converted to graze AND after that to hit. (edit: ah, Boeroer already added that ^^)

Edited by MaxQuest
  • Like 1
Phenomenum

Phenomenum

Posted
Posted (edited)
  Quote
Conversions don't stack additively. Get checked one after the other until it triggers or all are checked. So 50% and 30% don't result in 80% but 65% (for example).

 

Also there's always only one conversion happening. So no miss --> graze --> hit

  Quote
Imho it's fine.

As Boeroer already mentioned, these effects are not taken in additive manner, but one after another. So it won't be 80% graze to hit, but 65%.

 

Thanks for explanation - i have no more questions (damn, i always forget about this tricky math).

Edited by Phenomenum
Taudis

Taudis

Posted
Posted
  On 3/12/2019 at 11:53 AM, MaxQuest said:

 

  On 3/9/2019 at 10:03 AM, Kaylon said:

Adding PL scaling to phrases looks perfectly fine for me.

What exactly do you mean (or want to achieve) by "adding PL scaling" to chants?

 

Don't speak for Kaylon but since I've also advocated for it, the goal for me here would be to:

a) Normalize scaling. Having some class abilities scale off character level while others scale off PL is unnecessarily confusing.

b) Reinforce the single class/multiclass dynamic. Having a mutli Chanter's phrases be just as potent as a single classed Chanter's phrases takes away from the SC Chanter.

c) Fix The Dragon Thrashed. PL scaling grants PEN, making this no longer a trap option. Fairly minor but considering it was an iconic phrase in PoE1, it would be nice if it wasn't totally useless.

d) Increase viability of options. PL scaling means extra duration and being able to get more uptime makes it more viable to have 2-3 phrase Chants in your songbook. A lot of phrases are basically stuck in the zone of "Is this better than 100% uptime on Mith Fyr or Ancient Memories?" and for most builds the answer is no.

 

 

RE: Riposte, Blade Turning, and Disengagement

I played a Skald/Trickster in TB who wore Gipon Prudensco, which makes disengagement attacks auto-miss. The benefit-to-cost on actually micro-ing your way through grabbing engagement and repeatedly disengaging isn't worth it. The proc chance isn't currently high enough to spend your time doing it, and that's coming from the perspective of someone who could benefit from the attacks (via crits to build phrases).

 

Maybe you could put a huge stride penalty on Blade Turning? It would limit the amount it could be abused in TB but still allow you to escape engagement. That mightt have some issues in RTwP, though, if the enemies you're trying to escape easily just catch you. Is the system capable of making it break after a certain distance moved? Because that would also limit abuse while allowing the current defensive options.

  • Like 1
thelee

thelee

Posted
Posted

re: disengagement attacks and riposte (btw Taudis, totally didn't know that Gipon Prudensco implements disengagement immunity as 100% miss) - I did find it useful for one of my streetfighter builds to have a melee weapon and a blunderbuss, so in a pinch I could run away just as the enemy wound up an attack, triggering an (out of range) attack which had a small chance of riposte firing my blunderbuss and giving me a free refresh on powder burns. Not generally useful, but was useful for big single-enemy fights where this was easily micromanaged and gave me higher dps than having to constantly stand out of range to reload my blunderbuss every ~15 seconds (instead I would basically get one reload for "free" every four cycles).

 

re: chant scaling - i personally don't even care if duration scales (just let the linger mechanic override it), i just want one less odd scaling exception in the game. you would have to rebalance some chants because right now you get +1 acc per character level, and this would drop down to +9 for a single class chanter+prestige or +6 for a multiclass chanter for an AL1 and then down from there (not to mention losing the damage/healing boost of +5% every odd character level).

MaxQuest

MaxQuest

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
  On 3/12/2019 at 3:42 PM, Taudis said:

a) Normalize scaling. Having some class abilities scale off character level while others scale off PL is unnecessarily confusing.

b) Reinforce the single class/multiclass dynamic. Having a mutli Chanter's phrases be just as potent as a single classed Chanter's phrases takes away from the SC Chanter.

Aha, so the point is not to "add scaling" but to "normalize" it.

I've took a look at Dragon Thrashed: https://i.imgur.com/h5ALu0i.png

 

And yeah, it looks that it considers the herald as single-class. Plus Dragon Trashed has AbilityLevel 1 in gamedatabundles. Hence that (9-1) * 5% = +40% damage bonus

 

I do agree, it should use class PL instead. And AbilityLevel set to 5. For consistency.

But... this will decrease that bonus to: (7-5) * 5% = +10%

 

  On 3/12/2019 at 3:42 PM, Taudis said:

c) Fix The Dragon Thrashed. PL scaling grants PEN, making this no longer a trap option. Fairly minor but considering it was an iconic phrase in PoE1, it would be nice if it wasn't totally useless.

Are you sure that Dragon Thrashed doesn't get +0.25 PEN for every second character level at the moment?

 

In either case, I do agree that it was indeed pretty iconic. And although we don't need it to be as strong as in PoE1... at the moment, even tripling Dragon Trashed damage won't bring even to half of it's past glory.

 

That said I would welcome the increase of base damage from 4 to 6. And additionally changing it from apply burn OR slash DoT (at random) to apply burn AND slash DoT. This change will furthermore increase the total damage by ~+50-70% (I mean that total damage won't get doubled, because atm DT_burn and DT_slash seem to stack with each other anyway: https://i.imgur.com/MVzbBQH.jpg)

 

  On 3/12/2019 at 3:42 PM, Taudis said:

d) Increase viability of options. PL scaling means extra duration and being able to get more uptime makes it more viable to have 2-3 phrase Chants in your songbook. A lot of phrases are basically stuck in the zone of "Is this better than 100% uptime on Mith Fyr or Ancient Memories?" and for most builds the answer is no.

Brisk Recitation aside, chants have: 6s (fixed) chant duration + 3s (influenceable) linger duration.

 

I am rather neutral on PL affecting chants duration.

- on one hand it's consistent if PL is increasing linger (provided that chants get proper AbilityLevel).

- on the other hand, the difference won't be that big. And it's easier to remember something like "linger can be increased only by intellect".

 

  On 3/12/2019 at 3:42 PM, Taudis said:

RE: Riposte, Blade Turning, and Disengagement

I played a Skald/Trickster in TB who wore Gipon Prudensco, which makes disengagement attacks auto-miss. The benefit-to-cost on actually micro-ing your way through grabbing engagement and repeatedly disengaging isn't worth it. The proc chance isn't currently high enough to spend your time doing it, and that's coming from the perspective of someone who could benefit from the attacks (via crits to build phrases).

That's interesting. I was thinking that it would prevent disengagement attacks from being made in the first place.

 

I have took a look at "Fight Another Day" data in gamedatabundle now:

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

It looks that "Fight Another Day" grants a permanent immunity vs incoming attacks that are disengagement attacks.

So, my understanding is:

- first a disengagement attack is performed

- if it's a miss - it might trigger Riposte. If it's not a miss - it gets "imm."

Edited by MaxQuest
Taudis

Taudis

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 3/12/2019 at 4:02 PM, thelee said:

btw Taudis, totally didn't know that Gipon Prudensco implements disengagement immunity as 100% miss

 

Yup! It's actually a bit borked with enemies that do AoE damage as their auto-attack (notably the mini-Beasts of Winter in Rymrgand's realm), since you can accidentally walk into the rest of the AoE and still get damaged by the disengagement.

 

  On 3/12/2019 at 4:02 PM, thelee said:

re: chant scaling - i personally don't even care if duration scales (just let the linger mechanic override it), i just want one less odd scaling exception in the game. you would have to rebalance some chants because right now you get +1 acc per character level, and this would drop down to +9 for a single class chanter+prestige or +6 for a multiclass chanter for an AL1 and then down from there (not to mention losing the damage/healing boost of +5% every odd character level).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't you just set them up to use the same AL bonus accuracy system as Invocations/Spells? The system should be balanced around that accuracy scale. Offensive Chants napkin math:

 

Single Classed

Soft Winds: +9 PL=+9 total accuracy

Thick Grew Their Tongues: +2 AL, +8 PL=+10 total accuracy

Long Night's Drink: +6 AL, +6 PL=+12 total accuracy

Dragon Thrashed: +8 AL, +5 PL=+13 total accuracy

 

Multi Classed

Soft Winds: +6 PL=+6 total accuracy

Thick Grew Their Tongues: +2 AL, +5 PL=+7 total accuracy

Long Night's Drink: +6 AL, +3 PL=+9 total accuracy

Dragon Thrashed: +8 AL, +2 PL=+10 total accuracy

 

Hm, not quite.

 

Looks like giving offensive chants a flat +10 accuracy bonus across the board would be enough balancing to keep accuracy roughly consistent with the current character level accuracy system for a level 20 character. They'd all see a pretty big benefit at the level when they initially become available, though - specifically the +10 bonus would make each Chant more accurate than the current system does until levels ~15+ (obviously varies per chant). The higher AL chants could also end up more accurate overall once you start factoring in PL boosts.

 

More conservatively, you could give them all a +5 accuracy bonus across the board. This is a nerf at level 20 but still means each Chant is more accurate at the level you receive it. You could also mix it up and give the lower AL chants a +5 Acc boost and the higher AL chants a +10 Acc boost. Soft Winds and Thick Tongues get nerfed but I'd consider it an upgrade to Long Night and Dragon Thrashed, so maybe a net even for the class. This is all without considering duration scaling, which makes the offensive chants stronger per hit. I'd be more inclined towards giving each offensive Chant the conservative +5 bonus if duration scaling was implemented. A nerf to accuracy but each hit has more value.

 

5% healing/damage every odd level is pretty much the single class PL progression up until level 15. Factoring in Prestige you only end up 5% behind the current values (but benefit from PL boosts), so I don't actually think that scaling needs to be changed beyond increasing the base value of the higher AL abilities to fit into their slot on the PL scale. Which would look something roughly like:

 

Ancient Memories: 1hp/sec base->1.15hp/sec base

Mith Fyr: 15% base -> 18% base (does this scale, actually? I'm honestly just guessing based off FoD being a fire lash that scales)

Dragon Thrashed: 4 base damage -> 5 base damage

 

I don't personally have a problem with Multiclass losing out on damage scaling, especially if you increase base damage/healing. Once again, I'll mention that implementing duration scaling would likely help adjust for any loss in potency.

 

EDIT: Missed MaxQuest's post before posting this.

 

RE: Dragon Thrashed scaling PEN. I'm not sure, actually. I just saw posts on the forum about how it doesn't get scaling PEN. Gonna have test that.

 

RE: Fight Another Day.

Yeah, that's sort of how it works. More detailed would be:

-Auto-miss

-Check for effects to trigger on miss

-Show Imm. notifications

Didn't actually realize why those Immune notifications were popping up, actually, until seeing that game data. I could probably grab a few screenshots if folks're interested, though I won't have time to actually do that until later.

Edited by Taudis
thelee

thelee

Posted
Posted
  On 3/12/2019 at 6:11 PM, Taudis said:

Single Classed

Soft Winds: +9 PL=+9 total accuracy

Thick Grew Their Tongues: +2 AL, +8 PL=+10 total accuracy

Long Night's Drink: +6 AL, +6 PL=+12 total accuracy

Dragon Thrashed: +8 AL, +5 PL=+13 total accuracy

 

Multi Classed

Soft Winds: +6 PL=+6 total accuracy

Thick Grew Their Tongues: +2 AL, +5 PL=+7 total accuracy

Long Night's Drink: +6 AL, +3 PL=+9 total accuracy

Dragon Thrashed: +8 AL, +2 PL=+10 total accuracy

 

oh yeah i forgot about ability-level specific bonuses. it would help, but it would still be a nerf without rebalancing, as you mention.

 

also: FoD scales??? this is not counting the +PL% multiplicative damage bonus that martial abilities get to the base weapon damage roll?

Phenomenum

Phenomenum

Posted
Posted (edited)
  Quote

Looks like giving offensive chants a flat +10 accuracy bonus across the board would be enough balancing to keep accuracy roughly consistent with the current character level accuracy system for a level 20 character. They'd all see a pretty big benefit at the level when they initially become available, though - specifically the +10 bonus would make each Chant more accurate than the current system does until levels ~15+ (obviously varies per chant). The higher AL chants could also end up more accurate overall once you start factoring in PL boosts.

 

More conservatively, you could give them all a +5 accuracy bonus across the board. This is a nerf at level 20 but still means each Chant is more accurate at the level you receive it. You could also mix it up and give the lower AL chants a +5 Acc boost and the higher AL chants a +10 Acc boost. Soft Winds and Thick Tongues get nerfed but I'd consider it an upgrade to Long Night and Dragon Thrashed, so maybe a net even for the class. This is all without considering duration scaling, which makes the offensive chants stronger per hit. I'd be more inclined towards giving each offensive Chant the conservative +5 bonus if duration scaling was implemented. A nerf to accuracy but each hit has more value.

 

5% healing/damage every odd level is pretty much the single class PL progression up until level 15. Factoring in Prestige you only end up 5% behind the current values (but benefit from PL boosts), so I don't actually think that scaling needs to be changed beyond increasing the base value of the higher AL abilities to fit into their slot on the PL scale. Which would look something roughly like:

 

Ancient Memories: 1hp/sec base->1.15hp/sec base

Mith Fyr: 15% base -> 18% base (does this scale, actually? I'm honestly just guessing based off FoD being a fire lash that scales)

Dragon Thrashed: 4 base damage -> 5 base damage

 

 

Exactly my thoughts. Trough Dragon Thrashed should deal two damage types: 5 Slash + 5 Burn at the same time.

About flat Accuracy bonus: good point with one exclusion - Dragon Thrashed currently Fire keyworded and gains a +10 Acc from Ring of Focused Flame. But i guess this is not OP anyway.

Edited by Phenomenum
Boeroer

Boeroer

Posted
Posted

So far FoD's lash stayed at 20%. Just the base dmg roll scaled as usual (5% per PL).

 

Didn't notice any difference since last patch.

  • Like 1

Deadfire Community Patch: Nexus Mods

Taudis

Taudis

Posted
Posted (edited)

Whoops, yeah, that's what I get for typing this stuff from memory rather than just going into the game and testing. Ignore the stuff about FoD and Mith Fyr then.

 

RE: Dragon Thrashed and Ring of FF. Long Night's Drink should also get +10 from that BoW affliction acc helm, too, right? I feel like that sort of acc boost is already accounted for in game.

Edited by Taudis
MaxQuest

MaxQuest

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Here's the rev3 version of the preliminary list:

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Btw, would like to hear more about: Stoic Steel, Withering Blow, Pierce the Bell (upgrade) and Sacred Immolation.

 

And also what do you think if Greater Lay on Hands and Hands of Light also applied a +20% healing taken for the duration of their effect? The thing is they cost an extra zeal and talent point compared to Lay on Hands, but do they provide an enough upgrade in your opinion?

Edited by MaxQuest
Taudis

Taudis

Posted
Posted

Withering Strike should be 2 Guile, plain and simple. It follows the same formula as Blinding Strike (Acc/damage increase plus Affliction, upgrade into either DoT or extra debuff) but applies a lower tier affliction. PER afflictions automatically provide Deathblows, so there's no reason to weight a CON affliction as higher.

 

Lay On Hands upgrades giving a healing bonus is a good idea but I think just adding to their base healing is a better idea. I like the synergy with stuff like Exalted Endurance but the upgrades already increase the complexity of the ability, and sometimes it's better to keep things simpler.

 

Your current suggestions on Sacred Immolation look good for balancing.

 

Stoic Steel and Pierce the Bell seem fine to me. The most I would change would maybe be to push Stoic Steel to PL8, if you felt there wasn't enough reason to Single Class Pally.

  • Like 1
MaxQuest

MaxQuest

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
  On 3/14/2019 at 3:37 PM, MountainTiger said:

The Lay on Hands upgrades are very lackluster at the moment. I could buy either a cost reduction or a buff to the effects.

Obsidian already tried the cost-reduction path. But at 1 zeal, the upgrades are a no brainer.

That's why I am advocating for the buff route.

 

Something small, like the already mention +20% healing taken; or increase the base healing (e.g. 20 -> 25) per Taudis' suggestion.

 

  Taudis said:

Your current suggestions on Sacred Immolation look good for balancing.

Yeah, that 'eliminates' situations when you could get a longer self-damage DoT due to low resolve; or viceversa reduce the self-dot duration to minimum, and even enable a second Immolation before the first one expired.

 

But also wanted to know if you feel that 12 base duration is enough for 4 zeal cost.

 

  Taudis said:

Withering Strike should be 2 Guile, plain and simple. It follows the same formula as Blinding Strike (Acc/damage increase plus Affliction, upgrade into either DoT or extra debuff) but applies a lower tier affliction. PER afflictions automatically provide Deathblows, so there's no reason to weight a CON affliction as higher.

Makes sense.

How about the upgrades? Enfeebled and that corrode DoT are both quite potent.

But at the same time, both come with caveats:

- you can't have enfeebled right now

- the corrode DoT builds over time. And although it's most needed vs high-hp targets, such enemies usually have higher resolve.

 

  Taudis said:

Stoic Steel and Pierce the Bell seem fine to me. The most I would change would maybe be to push Stoic Steel to PL8, if you felt there wasn't enough reason to Single Class Pally.

I feel that Pierce the Bell is the weakest upgrade among those three, because the +20% damage bonus is kinda small for a rogue with sneak attack, deathblows, quality weapon and +25% innate ability bonus. Lowering enemy physical armor by 1, such that party could benefit from it, looks to be more useful.

 

As for Stoic Steel - am neutral for now. But have seen Ensign's suggestion and wanting to gather more opinions on this.

Edited by MaxQuest
Phenomenum

Phenomenum

Posted
Posted (edited)
  Quote
3. increase Immobilize penalty by adding +25% incoming miss-to-graze (vs reflex)

4. increase Paralyzed/Petrified effect by adding +25% incoming miss-to-graze (vs reflex and deflection)

 

I worry if it will be useful only for the first half of the game and only for player?

 

  Quote
5b. nerf Accurate Empower accuracy from +10 to +8

 

No. It's just a cosmetic changes. Leave it alone.

 

  Quote

7. change sabre profficiency from "+2 PEN for +50% weapon recovery" to "+2 PEN for: -15 deflection vs melee".

Reason: damage dealers are not really ok with +2 PEN for +50% weapon recovery time tradeoff. They will just use another weapon type. Unless they have the said sabre/stiletto in the main hand, and can skip recovery altogether via full attacks.

7b. change stiletto profficiency from "+2 PEN for +50% weapon recovery" to:

  • a). +2 PEN for: -15 accuracy
  • b). +2 PEN for: -10 accuracy
  • c). do not change

 

 

What about Warhammers and War Bows? They a ok?

+ I prefer to leave alone stiletto, since it's a fast weapon and Recovery penalty don't hurts bad.

 

  Quote
Cipher/Beguiler:

1. -

 

"Does Thelee is frighten you, Berath? He should." ©

I insist on flat +1.5 / 2 m. adjustment.

Edited by Phenomenum
CarrO

CarrO

Posted
Posted (edited)

I like the keyword changes, but I would only fix the very bad obvious inconsistencies (like priest spell blessing). I wouldn't add elemental keywords everywhere, it might unbalance the game.

 

I much rather have this mod be a "fix the vanilla game" rather than a "balance overhaul".

Edited by CarrO
Phenomenum

Phenomenum

Posted
Posted (edited)
  Quote
I like the keyword changes, but I would only fix the very bad obvious inconsistencies (like priest spell blessing). I wouldn't add elemental keywords everywhere, it might unbalance the game.

 

Josh, please, log in under your account.

 

EDIT: I wonder again and again about some peoples. Keyword section contains 43+ spell and abilities, and i suggest to add elemental keywords to only 6 of them.

Yet, i still reading some complains about "ELEMENTAL KEYWORDS EVERYWHERE! WE ALL GONNA DIE!". :wacko:

blea_38.jpg

Edited by Phenomenum
thelee

thelee

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 3/14/2019 at 4:51 PM, Phenomenum said:

 

  Quote

5b. nerf Accurate Empower accuracy from +10 to +8

 

No. It's just a cosmetic changes. Leave it alone.

 

as it stands, accurate empower should be basically the first empower talent that virtually anyone takes because of its superior utility compared to the other empower talents. if one is interested in re-balancing those talents (as MaxQuest signaled the intention), one should focus on reining in accurate empower rather than boosting the others. Because otherwise that's how you get power creep. And I've played D3 long enough to be traumatized by power creep.

 

  Quote

 

  Quote

7. change sabre profficiency from "+2 PEN for +50% weapon recovery" to "+2 PEN for: -15 deflection vs melee".

Reason: damage dealers are not really ok with +2 PEN for +50% weapon recovery time tradeoff. They will just use another weapon type. Unless they have the said sabre/stiletto in the main hand, and can skip recovery altogether via full attacks.

7b. change stiletto profficiency from "+2 PEN for +50% weapon recovery" to:

  • a). +2 PEN for: -15 accuracy
  • b). +2 PEN for: -10 accuracy
  • c). do not change
 

What about Warhammers and War Bows? They a ok?

+ I prefer to leave alone stiletto, since it's a fast weapon and Recovery penalty don't hurts bad.

 

yes, warhammers and war bows are ok. I don't know why these changes are being proposed, because mathematically +2 PEN for +50% is a no-brainer tradeoff for any PEN vs situation of -2 to -4. The fact that swords are able to get +2 PEN for no recovery time trade off (similar to Estoc) is an advantage that swords have that is diluted by these changes. So I still think the changes in 7/7b are unnecessary.

 

  Quote

"Does Thelee is frighten you, Berath? He should." ©

 

lololol literally did a spit take laughing

 

 

  On 3/14/2019 at 5:24 PM, Phenomenum said:

 

  Quote

I like the keyword changes, but I would only fix the very bad obvious inconsistencies (like priest spell blessing). I wouldn't add elemental keywords everywhere, it might unbalance the game.

 

Josh, please, log in under your account.

 

EDIT: I wonder again and again about some peoples. Keyword section contains 43+ spell and abilities, and i suggest to add elemental keywords to only 6 of them.

Yet, i still reading some complains about "ELEMENTAL KEYWORDS EVERYWHERE! WE ALL GONNA DIE!". :wacko:

 

it's the difference between a "Bug fix" and a "Balance/gameplay tweak." It might not matter to you, but it is eminently reasonable (even if from a game design perspective, confusing) for spells of an elemental type to lack the specific keyword if you want to bar a specific interaction. Frankly if MaxQuest made a mod right now with all the listed changes, I wouldn't use it, because I like the vanilla experience and am only interested in obvious bug fixing. Riposte being adjusted to counter on graze is to me a bug fix (from a turn-based perspective); obviously enough that I expect Obsidian to fix it themselves in the next patch (or else I will sigh in exasperation). Tweaking weapon modals is not a bug fix. I think keywords are a murkier area, but because they have real gameplay impacts, it's a reasonable perspective to have that adding extra elemental keywords does not qualify as a "Bug fix" and is instead a "balance/gampelay tweak." I think re-adjusting some priest keywords to be more sensical makes sense from a bug fix perspective (and have evidence of developer intent with Blessing with Cdiaz having confirmed it as a bug), but adding extra elemental keywords does not, unless the intent is clear. (For example, Warding Seal already has electric keyword, so its hazard effect should also have the electric keyword--or hazards in general fixed to benefit from keywords. Counter example, Spiritual Weapons do not have keyword on the ability, so it is much less clear whether or not the developers intended for the summoned weapons to benefit from keyword interactions, so adding keywords there is less of a bug fix.)

 

Back in the days of Baldurdash and fan-made BG/BG2/IWD/IWD2 fixes, people there were extremely focused on "developer intention" and would only really include a non-obviously-a-bug fix change if there was clear evidence that this was a correction to make something function more like what the developer intended (either through documentation or emails or direct messages). Not being clear about the bug fix vs balance fix situation is what leads to the Fallout: New Vegas situation where you have different "bugfix mods" and I only find one of them to be a defensible bug fix mod--yukichigai unofficial patch vs e.g. mission mojave--due to the latter's extra gameplay tweaks for non-obviously-broken things with lack of evidence of developer intention.

Edited by thelee
Phenomenum

Phenomenum

Posted
Posted
  Quote
as it stands, accurate empower should be basically the first empower talent that virtually anyone takes because of its superior utility compared to the other empower talents. if one is interested in re-balancing those talents (as MaxQuest signaled the intention), one should focus on reining in accurate empower rather than boosting the others. Because otherwise that's how you get power creep. And I've played D3 long enough to be traumatized by power creep.

 

Agreed, but does 2 points make a change? And how this falls under your "Bugfixes" definition.

 

  Quote

lololol literally did a spit take laughing

 

Just be careful - you can stuck in this state. :wowey: 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...