Wizard: Firethrower Gloves vs. Gauntlets of Accuracy

[Livegood118]

Firethrower Gloves: +2 Dex, +2 Explosives, +1 Arcana, +1 Evocation Power levels

Gauntlets of Accuracy: +3 Accuracy

Thoughts?

[AeonsLegend]

Well the Firethrower gloves give more stats. If you use evocation it's much better than the Accuracy boost, if you don't it's still better to be faster than to have 3 points accuracy more. I mean if you can't hit your target without the accuracy gloves, chances are you're not going to hit them if you do have the +3 either. Early the +3 is a better stat because it's a raw stat increase rather than a %. Later on when your stats are really high you're better off with % increases. The value of the +3 accuracy lowers with every level you gain. At level 1 even with 10 perception you have a base accuracy of 30. This means that +3 is an increase of 10%. When you're level 20 and you have a base accuracy of 87 the +3 is only a 3,4% increase.

[Livegood118]

Is it correct to measure the value of accuracy through relative percentages? 

My thinking was along the lines that the value of accuracy can only really be determined through reference to the defences of enemies you encounter, and possibly the kinds of spells you're using and the extent to which grazes / hits / crits have effects on those spells. Accuracy is always naturally more effective against tough enemies that have high defences.

OTOH I can see how the firethrower gloves would possibly give a more consistent benefit over time. 

[AeonsLegend]

Your to hit chance is actually also a %. The only way to see the value of this stat increase is to have it in %. There's other items that increase accuracy by 5 or 10 which are better. The +3 is not worth losing a valuable glove slot over in my opinion. Spellcasters are screwed with accuracy on their abilities because they don't gain a bonus through some passives and none from weapons. This is why characters that use weapons have an edge over spellcasters in being able to hit the enemy. If you have a hard time hitting your enemies with a spell caster then you should focus on shredding resistances first. There's all sorts of negative status effects that lower defenses. 

[Boeroer]

Over the course of the whole game 1 point of ACC translate to (very roughly) 2% dps increase.  So +3 ACC would mean 6%.

+2 DEX will give you +6% Action Speed. While this is not exactly the same it's sort of comparable. So with the +2 DEX alone you're somewhat on par when it comes to dps - not even looking at stuff like better reactivity, better Reflex, better chances of unlocking dialogue options through increased DEX and so on. It's also less dependend on enemies' stats.

Then, if you are using Evocation spells, the +1 PL alone is better than +3 ACC. PL will give you +1 ACC, +5% multiplicative(!) dmg bonus, +5% multiplicative duration and +0.25 PEN for your Evocation spells.

So I would always prefer the Firethrower Gloves unless I'm doing a very specific build tha needs all the dps it can get (e.g. something with Swift Flurry or a Skald or whatver).  
 

[Elric Galad]

1 hour ago, AeonsLegend said:

Well the Firethrower gloves give more stats. If you use evocation it's much better than the Accuracy boost, if you don't it's still better to be faster than to have 3 points accuracy more. I mean if you can't hit your target without the accuracy gloves, chances are you're not going to hit them if you do have the +3 either. Early the +3 is a better stat because it's a raw stat increase rather than a %. Later on when your stats are really high you're better off with % increases. The value of the +3 accuracy lowers with every level you gain. At level 1 even with 10 perception you have a base accuracy of 30. This means that +3 is an increase of 10%. When you're level 20 and you have a base accuracy of 87 the +3 is only a 3,4% increase.

Well, at 20 level you're much more likely to face foes which very high defenses. I value +3 accuracy roughly as +6-9% damages, but with the idea that it works better against hardest foes. Also +% dammages are better with spells than weapons since weapons get a ton of additive vonus. Accuracy is great with Debuff and Crowd COntrol, so I you want to use this too, accuracy might be better.

Still, Firethrower are better because of the Evocation and Dex bonus.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Elric Galad

[AeonsLegend]

5 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

Over the course of the whole game 1 point of ACC translate to (very roughly) 2% dps increase.  So +3 ACC would mean 6%.

+2 DEX will give you +6% Action Speed. While this is not exactly the same it's sort of comparable. So with the +2 DEX alone you're somewhat on par when it comes to dps - not even looking at stuff like better reactivity, better Reflex, better chances of unlocking dialogue options through increased DEX and so on. It's also less dependend on enemies' stats.

Then, if you are using Evocation spells, the +1 PL alone is better than +3 ACC. PL will give you +1 ACC, +5% multiplicative(!) dmg bonus, +5% multiplicative duration and +0.25 PEN for your Evocation spells.

So I would always prefer the Firethrower Gloves unless I'm doing a very specific build tha needs all the dps it can get (e.g. something with Swift Flurry or a Skald or whatver).  
 

Still don't understand this explanation. It's just not true. If I roll a 51 then I hit my enemy. Adding 3 accuracy has no effect whatsoever. It doesn't increasy anything. DPS = Damage per Second. I hit an enemy with 54 including the +3 then I have the same as 60, same as 80 same as 99. It does not matter. The change is only based off of rolls of 28-30, 48-50 and rolls of 97-99. That's only 9 out of 100. But you can't calculate this as 9% because it is only for those exact rolls. It is completely unreliable. Bad luck I will not get any value out of this item in an entire fight.

Anything that affects DPS is something that increases this in a reliable way. A +3 accuracy may help, but at higher levels this is neglegeable.

[Livegood118]

OK so I did a bit more thinking about this, and I think spell schools are quite relevant.

Here are most of the "Good" offensive spells from each school that aren't buffs, summons or summoned weapons:

Conjuration: Chill Fog, Binding Web, Wall of Flame, Wall of Draining
Enchanting: Expose Vulnerabilities
Illusion: Dazzling Lights, Miasma of Dull Mindedness, Ryngrim's Enervating Terror, Gaze of the Adragan, Wall of Many Colours, Freezing Rake
Transmutation: Slicken, Combusting Wounds, Arcane Dampener, Pull of Eora Bitter Mooring, Freezing Pillar
Evocation: Lots of them! Particularly, the big two Level 9s - Meteor Shower and Salvo

Now, accuracy is much less relevant for Pulsing AoEs because they repeatedly re-apply themselves and can also be stacked pretty easily. Same principle applies with wall spells - the swinginess from decreased accuracy is less of a concern.

If we take pulsing spells and wall spells out of the equation that leaves:

Expose Vulnerabilities, Dazzling Lights, Miasma of Dull Mindedness, Ryngrim's Enervating Terror, Gaze of the Adragan, Freezing Rake, Combusting Wounds, Arcane Dampener, Bitter Mooring

So it's effectively a choice between +3 accuracy with these spells, or +2 Dex and much more effective Evocation spells (including +1 accuracy from +PL) overall.

Seems like Firethrower gloves win on balance then if you're guiding principle is that if something's dead it doesn't need to be CCd.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Livegood118

[Boeroer]

50 minutes ago, AeonsLegend said:

Still don't understand this explanation. It's just not true. If I roll a 51 then I hit my enemy. Adding 3 accuracy has no effect whatsoever. It doesn't increasy anything. DPS = Damage per Second. I hit an enemy with 54 including the +3 then I have the same as 60, same as 80 same as 99. It does not matter. The change is only based off of rolls of 28-30, 48-50 and rolls of 97-99. That's only 9 out of 100. But you can't calculate this as 9% because it is only for those exact rolls. It is completely unreliable. Bad luck I will not get any value out of this item in an entire fight.

Let me repeat myself once more:

 

 

1 hour ago, Boeroer said:

Over the course of the whole game 1 point of ACC translate to (very roughly) 2% dps increase. 

After release we had some forum users here who filled whole spreadsheets with data about rolls, enemies and so on and concluded that +1 ACC is roughly a 2% dps increase on average.
This is an apporximation and doesn't look at specific enemies, builds and situations. It's just a number so you can quickly compare stuff. At the beginning of the game +1 ACC has a higher impact than +2%, later is has lower impact. But that doesn't contradict that the overall increase can be roughly estimated at 2% just in order to have a simple value for a first quick estimation.

 

53 minutes ago, AeonsLegend said:

Anything that affects DPS is something that increases this in a reliable way.

Maybe that's your personal definition, but dps is simply a value per time unit. I can look at a long time sample or a shorter one. If I'd average my dps over the whole playthrough then even a one-time damage spike leads to an increase of overall dps I did over the course of the game. And be it even so tiny. 

1 hour ago, AeonsLegend said:

A +3 accuracy may help, but at higher levels this is neglegeable.

 I didn't oppose your statement about the negligibility of +3 Accuracy at higher levels at all.  Why are you arguing about this?

[Boeroer]

59 minutes ago, Livegood118 said:

Seems like Firethrower gloves win on balance then 

Yes. Also because flat +3 ACC really loses impact later on. Unless you really want to to stack as much ACC as you can possibly get for certain special builds.  

If it would be +3% ACC - now that would be a whole different beast...

[AeonsLegend]

2 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

After release we had some forum users here who filled whole spreadsheets with data about rolls, enemies and so on and concluded that +1 ACC is roughly a 2% dps increase on average.
This is an apporximation and doesn't look at specific enemies, builds and situations. It's just a number so you can quickly compare stuff. At the beginning of the game +1 ACC has a higher impact than +2%, later is has lower impact. But that doesn't contradict that the overall increase can be roughly estimated at 2% just in order to have a simple value for a first quick estimation.

But this exactly is the reason why you cannot use it to say it is an increase of 2%. Depending on circumstance you get no value out of this and you cannot compare it to things that always give value. you have a hard time hitting things and this +3 pushes you over the edge. Then I say worth picking it up. You also have to keep in mind that even if you use upscaling, a lot of enemies end up with stats around 40-70. That's very low near the end of the game and makes any buff to accuracy worthless and doesn't translate to 2%. We've had this discussion before and it simply is not possible to aggregate a hard increase from something that is a: circumstantial, b: is based on chance, c : depends on your level and d: depends on the difference between you and your enemy. There's so many variables involved that even hinting at a hard number is purely theoretical and has no value in the actual game.

[Boeroer]

Wait: do you know what "average", "very roughly" and "just to have an easy number" mean?

Again: I'm not arguing about the different impact a point of ACC has over the course of the game. 

I really think you need to read more carefully. You have a tendency to counter arguments that weren't made. 

Edited April 5, 2020 by Boeroer

[Elric Galad]

There is also a random Factory about +% damages, and that's overkills. What matters is the number of hits, so a meager bonus damages can also result in no gain.

Also one should not build a characters for those foes with stellar defenses. You're going to kill 40-70 defenses foes quickly enough anyway.

[AeonsLegend]

53 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

Wait: do you know what "average", "very roughly" and "just to have an easy number" mean?

Again: I'm not arguing about the different impact a point of ACC has over the course of the game. 

I really think you need to read more carefully. You have a tendency to counter arguments that weren't made. 

Don't patronize me Boeoer.

[AeonsLegend]

1 hour ago, Elric Galad said:

There is also a random Factory about +% damages, and that's overkills. What matters is the number of hits, so a meager bonus damages can also result in no gain.

Also one should not build a characters for those foes with stellar defenses. You're going to kill 40-70 defenses foes quickly enough anyway.

Overkilling is actually quite an interesting subject. Critting is important, but I always felt that for instance Bloody Slaughter isn't as strong as it appears to be. I didn't do the calculations, but I'm sure it isn't as effective 100% of the time as you will likely kill something without a crit at low health anyways. The more damage you do and the lower the enemies total hp, the less value this thing gives. Unless of course you can trigger something on other enemies on crit.

[Elric Galad]

Just now, AeonsLegend said:

Overkilling is actually quite an interesting subject. Critting is important, but I always felt that for instance Bloody Slaughter isn't as strong as it appears to be. I didn't do the calculations, but I'm sure it isn't as effective 100% of the time as you will likely kill something without a crit at low health anyways. The more damage you do and the lower the enemies total hp, the less value this thing gives. Unless of course you can trigger something on other enemies on crit.

Blood Slaughter is nice if you specifically target low health foes to get the kills. Given that barbs have good interaction with On Kill effect, I think it is still valuable BUT less than what its shining numbers would make you hope.

[Noqn]

3 hours ago, AeonsLegend said:

Still don't understand this explanation. It's just not true. If I roll a 51 then I hit my enemy. Adding 3 accuracy has no effect whatsoever. It doesn't increasy anything. DPS = Damage per Second. I hit an enemy with 54 including the +3 then I have the same as 60, same as 80 same as 99. It does not matter. The change is only based off of rolls of 28-30, 48-50 and rolls of 97-99. That's only 9 out of 100. But you can't calculate this as 9% because it is only for those exact rolls. It is completely unreliable. Bad luck I will not get any value out of this item in an entire fight.

I like to look at Accuracy as pushing the entire attack resolution table one notch.

Say that Attack Defense differential is 24. You'll get 6% Miss, 20% Graze, 50% Hit, 24% Crit.
Increasing your Accuracy by 3 will give 3% Miss, 20% Graze, 50% Hit, 27% Crit.

You've effectively "replaced" 3 Miss rolls with 3 Crit rolls.

  <- Attack - Defense = 24
  <- Attack - Defense = 27

[AeonsLegend]

6 minutes ago, Noqn said:

I like to look at Accuracy as pushing the entire attack resolution table one notch.

Say that Attack Defense differential is 24. You'll get 6% Miss, 20% Graze, 50% Hit, 24% Crit.
Increasing your Accuracy by 3 will give 3% Miss, 20% Graze, 50% Hit, 27% Crit.

You've effectively "replaced" 3 Miss rolls with 3 Crit rolls.

  <- Attack - Defense = 24
  <- Attack - Defense = 27

True, but you do need to look at your average roll. If this is in the middle of the yellow part of this bar you can be sure that the value of extra accuracy is almost non existent.

[Noqn]

Ah, I wasn't making a statement about DPS calculations, I just think it's comforting to visualise accuracy like this.

[Boeroer]

19 minutes ago, AeonsLegend said:

True, but you do need to look at your average roll. If this is in the middle of the yellow part of this bar you can be sure that the value of extra accuracy is almost non existent.

And nobody actually tried to claim otherwise so far.

[Livegood118]

Maybe I'm a bit thick and not getting something here: Can someone explain to me why +3 accuracy becomes less valuable later in the game?

I appreciate that +3 accuracy is a smaller relative percentage of your overall accuracy in later parts of the game (e.g. +3 accuracy is an additional +10%  if you have 30 accuracy, but is only an additional 5% if it brings 60 accuracy to 63 accuracy). 

However, in an absolute sense the bonus remains the same irrespective of your existing accuracy (it's still +3 Accuracy).

Ultimately, where any additional accuracy bonus puts you on the accuracy equation (from miss to graze to hit to crit) compared to where you otherwise would have been without the bonus seems to be what really matters here rather than accuracy as a relative percentage? Additionally, it would seem to me that considerations arise from the kinds of things you're using your accuracy for, and the extent to which something might be affected by accuracy swings. 

So for example, if you're casting a wall spell you're not going to care if 2/40 ticks miss. But if you miss a fireball two times because the accuracy equation swung against you, that's a bigger deal.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Livegood118

[Livegood118]

Is the argument here that the general ratio of PC / NPC's accuracy vs. enemy defences later in the game tilts more favourably towards the former? As such, if you add accuracy, less misses are becoming grazes and less grazes are becoming hits etc ...

I think that argument intuitively makes sense for characters that attack with weapons (e.g. +15 accuracy from legendary, +10 from skills), but for spellcasters I'm not quite so sure?

Edited April 5, 2020 by Livegood118

[Boeroer]

No, you got it figured out pretty well.

The reason why +3 Accuracy feels less valuable later in the game is that the ratio of your ACC/enemies' defenses becomes bigger and bigger because your ACC rises faster than your enemies' defenses. Not only because of level progression but also because of abilities (more ACC buffs/ defense debuffs), items, consumables etc.

Or in other words: in the early game often your ACC is lower than the enemies' defenses while in the late game it's often higher. 

Edit: well - you gave the answer yourself while I was writing, hehe.
Casters also can benefit from ACC buffs and debuffing the enemy. Also the spells (as abilities) scale accuracy while auto attacks do not. So it's not that much different after all.  

Edited April 5, 2020 by Boeroer

[Livegood118]

OK great that makes sense now.

It would be interesting to see some sums on hard data from creatures stats on POTD in the game. Still not totally convinced for spells, though I'll look out more often now  

Something else I've been mulling over is that it may actually not be worth debuffing enemies in a lot of cases if you can just cast the spell you'd originally planned on casting twice. Guess it depends on the circumstances / how much bang for your buck you get for teammates from the debuff.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Livegood118

[Boeroer]

If debuffing and damaging spells come from the same caster and the same spell tier: maybe.

But if you can debuff let's say Reflex with a low level Miasma so that your Freezing Rake has a better chance to hit...?

Also often it's way faster to debuff + cast damaging spell if the debuffer and the damage dealer are not the same character. I mean that's also true if they both would cast damaging spells - but maybe you have a guy that has decent debuffng capabilites but only mediocre damage (e.g. low MIG) or your spells come with a debuffing affect and damamge (often Druid).

And usually debuffs last a lot longer than for one damaging cast. Several damaging casts (also from more than one caster) can profit from one debuff.

See Chillfog: one lvl 1 cast for a very long Blind which makes landing several spells that follow easier. It has a big impact on most encounters (not only because of the blind, but still). 

Edited April 5, 2020 by Boeroer