(DPS) vs (Accuracy - Deflection). Here's the maths. Enjoy.

[Matt516]

 

Something to take into account is that the actuall bonus damage increase of raising Might by 1 point isn't actually 2% of your current damage, but 2% of base damage

You're kidding me. Doesn't that come out to, like, less than +1 point of damage per point of Might if you're using a *greatsword*? In a game where friggin level 4 spiderlings have 150 health? I hope I'm not the only one here who's cringing at these nearly worthless penny-increment stats.

 

 

Change of plans. I'm gonna roll up a 3 might, 3 dex Fighter first thing in the morning and see if I can't STILL hold my own in melee against BB_Fighter and BB_rogue in a damage contest.

 

 

Each small point has a small effect, but they add up. Would you really prefer the MIG bonuses (boni?) to instead be huge, such that characters without high MIG would be completely outclassed by those without it?

 

Also important to remember that these are percentages. You won't see much effect at the beginning of the game - but as you get more powerful weapons, your base damage (and the benefit of your MIG) goes up.

 

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but having done the math, I really think MIG is fine. To use a comparison to D&D ( ), each 2 points of STR beyond 12 (or was it 10?) gave you 1 bonus damage. I know damage and health numbers were a bit smaller, but still - it's not like they had a ludicrously massive effect. The effect of MIG is a bit toned down from what the effect of STR was in D&D, but not too much. If the effect of MIG was higher, it would further devalue characters who don't pump it. We already consider MIG the strongest stat by far. Let's leave it alone.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Matt516

[Matt516]

 

 

Something to take into account is that the actuall bonus damage increase of raising Might by 1 point isn't actually 2% of your current damage, but 2% of base damage, so if you're at Might 15 rasing to 16 its only a (132/130=1,0154) 1,54% actual damage increase. So it's possible the current balance between Dex and Might is actually fine. (Though I still think all attributes could stant to have a lot more impact).

 

Is that correct though? That would be an awfully complicated way of applying the bonus. Any reason it wouldn't just be the much simpler 1.30 * base damage ---> 1.32 * base damage? (for 15 MIG to 16 MIG)

 

EDIT: I might understand what you're saying - you're calculating the percentage damage increase an additional point of MIG gives you from your previous MIG-adjusted damage. Fair enough. But the same thing would apply to the increases in damage from DEX/Accuracy (I'm pretty sure) so I don't think it makes a difference. The values I've calculated for Accuracy dps increase are relative to base, as is the 2% value for MIG. So MIG is still 2X the damage increase of DEX at the 5-45 point disparity mark and 1.33X the damage increase of DEX at the <5 point disparity mark.

 

 

It's quite possible I've missunderstood how the increased average DPS from higher Dex would scale proportionally.

 

 

It's like the 2% MIG increase - it scales with base damage. And both happen at the same time (multiplicative percentages). So if you have X base damage, and 15 MIG, and 20 more Accuracy than enemy Deflection, your expected damage is X * 1.3 * 0.975. If your MIG goes up one, expected damage is now X * (1.30 + 0.02) * 0.975, and if your Accuracy then goes up two, expected damage is now X * (1.30 + 0.02) * (0.975 + 0.02).

 

Properties of multiplication being what they are (distributive property in this case), these two "2%" damage increases are equivalent (regardless of which order they are multiplied in or what order they are applied).

Edited August 23, 2014 by Matt516

[Stun]

Each small point has a small effect, but they add up. Would you really prefer the MIG bonuses (boni?) to instead be huge, such that characters without high MIG would be completely outclassed by those without it?

That's a question in a vacuum. I would assume that if they significantly boosted the Weapon damage bonuses from might, that they would also boost the spell-based bonuses from intellect, the accuracy/critical bonuses from Dex etc., thus every class build can find a way to battle on equal terms with a Might-build, thus maintaining balance without insulting us with these placebo stats as they currently are which don't really do much to any build. Edited August 23, 2014 by Stun

[limaxophobiacq]

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but having done the math, I really think MIG is fine. To use a comparison to D&D ( ), each 2 points of STR beyond 12 (or was it 10?) gave you 1 bonus damage. I know damage and health numbers were a bit smaller, but still - it's not like they had a ludicrously massive effect. The effect of MIG is a bit toned down from what the effect of STR was in D&D, but not too much. If the effect of MIG was higher, it would further devalue characters who don't pump it. We already consider MIG the strongest stat by far. Let's leave it alone.

 

As Stun said, it's not about wanting to increase the effect of Might, but to increase the effect of all attributes.

 

Compare Constitution in DnD (2e & 3e) and PoE: In DnD the difference between 10 Con and 20 is +5 Hp/level, almost doubling HP for fighters (5.5 hp/level average) and nearly trippling it for wizards (2.5 hp/level average). In PoE the difference between a 10 and a 20 in Con is the difference between +20% and or +40% Stamina/Health, at most a fifth of the difference it makes in DnD.

 

The difference between Con 10 and Con 20 in PoE is the same as the difference between Con 10 and Con 12 in DnD 3e/3.5e.

 

This seems true for all stats, they've basically limited attributes to values between 8 and 12 and then made that scale pointlessly granular.

Edited August 23, 2014 by limaxophobiacq

[Answermancer]

 

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but having done the math, I really think MIG is fine. To use a comparison to D&D ( ), each 2 points of STR beyond 12 (or was it 10?) gave you 1 bonus damage. I know damage and health numbers were a bit smaller, but still - it's not like they had a ludicrously massive effect. The effect of MIG is a bit toned down from what the effect of STR was in D&D, but not too much. If the effect of MIG was higher, it would further devalue characters who don't pump it. We already consider MIG the strongest stat by far. Let's leave it alone.

 

As Stun said, it's not about wanting to increase the effect of Might, but to increase the effect of all attributes.

 

Compare Constitution in DnD (2e & 3e) and PoE: In DnD the difference between 10 Con and 20 is +5 Hp/level, almost doubling HP for fighters (5.5 hp/level average) and nearly trippling it for wizards (2.5 hp/level average). In PoE the difference between a 10 and a 20 in Con is the difference between +20% and or +40% Stamina/Health, at most a fifth of the difference it makes in DnD.

 

The difference between Con 10 and Con 20 in PoE is the same as the difference between Con 10 and Con 12 in DnD 3e/3.5e.

 

This seems true for all stats, they've basically limited attributes to values between 8 and 12 and then made that scale pointlessly granular.

 

 

I agree with this to some extent. I also frankly think it's a mistake to even let players lower their stats down to 3. The reason is because it creates a huge range that they have to balance around, so I think naturally it become too granular and each point becomes diluted.

 

Remember, the design intent is that every build is viable (but not equally good). How do you balance a character with 3 Mig vs. a character with 18 Mig and still have them viable if each point is really significant?

 

I am starting to think they should cut the range to 8-18 or at most 6-18, cut the number of points accordingly so that you can only have 18 in one, two if you dump everything else maybe, and then make each point much more significant. Obviously they'd also have to do whatever fixes they have in mind to bring Res and Per in line.

 

Assuming they don't implement increasing costs for more points, they could give players 8's in all stats and around 20-24 points to spend and then you might actually have to make some real choices (and buff each stat appropriately so that the range is similar, possibly bigger even than it is now but within a spread of 10 instead of 15 points).

[Matt516]

 

Each small point has a small effect, but they add up. Would you really prefer the MIG bonuses (boni?) to instead be huge, such that characters without high MIG would be completely outclassed by those without it?

That's a question in a vacuum. I would assume that if they significantly boosted the Weapon damage bonuses from might, that they would also boost the spell-based bonuses from intellect, the accuracy/critical bonuses from Dex etc., thus every class build can find a way to battle on equal terms with a Might-build, thus maintaining balance without insulting us with these placebo stats as they currently are which don't really do much to any build.

Still not a fan. People are underestimating the difference 30% makes. Jack that up to 60% and jack everything else up accordingly and you now have characters who are completely and utterly defined around their stats. I think the bonuses (boni?) could probably stand to be a little larger. But not much.

[limaxophobiacq]

 

 

Each small point has a small effect, but they add up. Would you really prefer the MIG bonuses (boni?) to instead be huge, such that characters without high MIG would be completely outclassed by those without it?

That's a question in a vacuum. I would assume that if they significantly boosted the Weapon damage bonuses from might, that they would also boost the spell-based bonuses from intellect, the accuracy/critical bonuses from Dex etc., thus every class build can find a way to battle on equal terms with a Might-build, thus maintaining balance without insulting us with these placebo stats as they currently are which don't really do much to any build.

Still not a fan. People are underestimating the difference 30% makes. Jack that up to 60% and jack everything else up accordingly and you now have characters who are completely and utterly defined around their stats. I think the bonuses (boni?) could probably stand to be a little larger. But not much.

 

 

60% difference in damage from Might 3 to Might 18 would have seemed rather minimal to me to be honest before I saw that it doesn't even do that in project eternity. If you leave an attribute at it's minimum value I'd have assumed your character would be pretty much hopeless at whatever that attribute governs, if you max it out your character should be incredible at it. Giving attributes twice the effect they have right now still isn't that, but it at least means characters with average vs extreme values are differentiated, rather than only extremely high value vs. extremely low values actually being noticable.

[Doppelschwert]

Thanks for the graph.

 

It should be noted that given a fixed enemy, the individual classes start on different points along the horizontal axis in this graph, where more accurate classes start off more to the right.

 

This implies that, given that the increase of DPS is monotonically decreasing from left to right, classes with low initial accuracy profit the most from dexterity, while classes that have high initial accuracy have diminishing returns, in a sense at least.

 

In particular, if for example a fighter and a wizard increase their accuracy by five (while still fixing the enemy), the gap between their expected DPS will monotonically decrease up to the point where both crit all the time.

 

EDIT: Obviously, the increase of DPS is not monotonically decreasing from left to right.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Doppelschwert

[Karkarov]

I still don't think it is as simple as you are making it out for a couple reasons.

 

1: Grazes reduce your damage by a huge amount like 50% or more.  Getting one less graze every 10 attacks will have a very noticeable effect long term.  Might doesn't do anything to reduce Grazes, and a Graze versus a normal hit is not a shift of 1% more dps.  This point also applies to crits too.

 

2: We are assuming the Wiki's data is correct in the first place.

 

3: This is pure theoretical math and not based on actual in game data collection.  Years of WoW has taught me theoretical math is never as good as standing in front of a combat dummy for thirty minutes with a calculator.

 

I am not saying your post is poo poo, or that it isn't accurate.  Only that it is not seeing the big picture and not based on in game hard data.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Karkarov

[Azrael Ultima]

 

Something to take into account is that the actuall bonus damage increase of raising Might by 1 point isn't actually 2% of your current damage, but 2% of base damage, so if you're at Might 15 rasing to 16 its only a (132/130=1,0154) 1,54% actual damage increase. So it's possible the current balance between Dex and Might is actually fine. (Though I still think all attributes could stant to have a lot more impact).

 

Is that correct though? That would be an awfully complicated way of applying the bonus. Any reason it wouldn't just be the much simpler 1.30 * base damage ---> 1.32 * base damage? (for 15 MIG to 16 MIG)

 

EDIT: I might understand what you're saying - you're calculating the percentage damage increase an additional point of MIG gives you from your previous MIG-adjusted damage. Fair enough. But the same thing would apply to the increases in damage from DEX/Accuracy (I'm pretty sure) so I don't think it makes a difference. The values I've calculated for Accuracy dps increase are relative to base, as is the 2% value for MIG. So MIG is still 2X the damage increase of DEX at the 5-45 point disparity mark and 1.33X the damage increase of DEX at the <5 point disparity mark.

 

Actually, it's far more important than you realise. At Acc = Def, increasing Acc by 1 point is a 76.5%/75% = 2% gain.

Sound familiar?

[Ainamacar]

I still don't think it is as simple as you are making it out for a couple reasons.

 

1: Grazes reduce your damage by a huge amount like 50% or more.  Getting one less graze every 10 attacks will have a very noticeable effect long term.  Might doesn't do anything to reduce Grazes, and a Graze versus a normal hit is not a shift of 1% more dps.  This point also applies to crits too.

 

Take a look at the spreadsheet, the 50% from graze is taken into account.

 

I'm very much OK, in the context of offense, with Dex granting less marginal dps than Might if there is an interesting tradeoff with status effects.  As I understand it, most status effects are applied (or activate the separate attack to see if they apply) as long as an attack doesn't miss.  Thus, reduced average damage for increased chance of applying a status effect.  That is a classic tradeoff, and one that has to be managed carefully since in some games lockdowns make dps ultimately trivial.

 

So, for me the question is whether the damage vs. status effect trade off is, on average, both significant and interesting.  There is no objective "correct" balance for damage vs. effects, and in practice it can depend on play style.  For example, some characters might go for all dps all the time, while others try to apply status effects much more frequently.  One could play around with how grazes impact effect duration, for example.  (I'm unclear on whether it does at the moment.)  Someone might reasonably give up nontrivial dps if they can, on average, expect to apply debuffs more reliably.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Ainamacar

[Doppelschwert]

I agree with Ainamacar. The different slopes from the left to right can be summarized by the following list, where increases in terms of base damage for the attacks that change is given in brackets.

 

- Some Misses becoming Graces (0 -> 0.5)

- Some Misses becoming Hits (0 -> 1)

- Some Misses becoming Critical Hits (0 -> 2)

- Some Graces becoming Critical Hits (0.5 -> 2)

- Some Hits becoming Critical Hits (1 -> 2)

 

Graces are taken into account and for the mean value over 100 attacks, this is clearly comparable to increases in the 1% region.

 

I wouldn't even call this theoretical math. It's just math.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Doppelschwert

[Oneiromancer]

 

 

 

Each small point has a small effect, but they add up. Would you really prefer the MIG bonuses (boni?) to instead be huge, such that characters without high MIG would be completely outclassed by those without it?

That's a question in a vacuum. I would assume that if they significantly boosted the Weapon damage bonuses from might, that they would also boost the spell-based bonuses from intellect, the accuracy/critical bonuses from Dex etc., thus every class build can find a way to battle on equal terms with a Might-build, thus maintaining balance without insulting us with these placebo stats as they currently are which don't really do much to any build.

Still not a fan. People are underestimating the difference 30% makes. Jack that up to 60% and jack everything else up accordingly and you now have characters who are completely and utterly defined around their stats. I think the bonuses (boni?) could probably stand to be a little larger. But not much.

 

 

60% difference in damage from Might 3 to Might 18 would have seemed rather minimal to me to be honest before I saw that it doesn't even do that in project eternity. If you leave an attribute at it's minimum value I'd have assumed your character would be pretty much hopeless at whatever that attribute governs, if you max it out your character should be incredible at it. Giving attributes twice the effect they have right now still isn't that, but it at least means characters with average vs extreme values are differentiated, rather than only extremely high value vs. extremely low values actually being noticable.

 

 

The main problem is that having a crippling low dexterity or being as smart as a brain damaged goose reflects in no way in combat or the world. Having 3 intellect doesn't make you a blabbering idiot in dialogues (correct me if I'm wrong) or bad at using abilities, it just means your abilities duration and area is a bit smaller than someone who is five times as smart as you, literally. Having 3 dexterity still means you are pretty accurate in melee if you are a warrior or a rogue: you completely dumped an attribute and you're still good at the thing that attribute governs.

 

Having all attributes be useful to all classes is a nice idea in theory but if you have multiple characters people will naturally gravitate towards specialized roles and away from generalist builds using all of those attributes, especially if the game doesn't really care that much if you do or do not.

 

If you want an awesome priest you just have to pump intellect and might, dump everything else and keep him at range: even if he will have lower health, or accuracy, or concentration or interruptig chances than someone with a more balanced build he doesn't really care because it's still good enough.

 

Six base points in resolve still gives you almost +20% concentration, five base points in dexterity still gives you five accuracy which isn't much less than fifteen, ten points into constitution gives you 20% health/stamina which is stil good enough and isn't going to give you much less health than a priest pumping his con all the way to twenty until you reach endgame. And then you probably won't care much anyway, unless you're playing in path of the damned mode, as the game will be balaced around someone with average values, not people stacking health.

 

People would dump intellect, wisdom or charisma in IWD not just because they were useless but also because there were absolutely no penalty for doing so. In IWD2 this problem still existed but was less prominent. Why? Because dumping Intellect meant you would lose skill points and access to some talents. Dumping Wisdom lowered your will, crippling your already low saves if you were a martial class. It wasn't pretty and it didn't really solve the problem (charisma was still useless to almost every class) but it was still something.

 

The problem is that it feels like the game (and who designed the attributes) didn't really want the attributes in the first place. It feels like the classes are supposed to behave and be balanced around certain basic values decided by the designer and anything else is more flavor than a real difference. You can make attributes give higher values or force a higher minimum base value for attributes, but it's still just trying to patch up a flawed system that wants to look like D&D but doesn't want to be like it (which I understand because, popularity aside, it isn't that good). I know that the whole point of the six attributes is to cater to nostalgia and what people are used to, but if the system has to suffer for it it isn't worth it, imo.

[Bazy]

Also a lot of abilities apply status effects or bonus effects. If you miss = no status effect. Thus increasing the value of dexterity. 

[NeV3rKilL]

I have been playing a little bit with the sheet and I think that instead of nerf Might, i really hate nerf things, nerfing makes the games bored, rather I would chose an increase on the crit damage to 225%.

 

With this change, crit damage move from 150% to 225%

The curve is the next:

 

 

With these numbers we get:

 

 

Instead of the regular:

 

We changed the curve making Acc vs Might not a win win for the might, if not with the 225% crit damage, accuracy is better in a zone and might is better in other zone.

 

Further more we all love to make insane crits :D.

 

PD: If you do not understand the tables we can say that Might increase damage in 2%. Right now dext(Accuracy) is giving a benefit of 1,5% max in the damage.

Edited August 23, 2014 by NeV3rKilL

[Doppelschwert]

I thought critical damage is already 2x the normal damage?

[Matt516]

Love that suggestion! Thanks for making use of the spreadsheet to test and suggest tweaks - that's why I made it public.

 

Also re: stats impact - I've done some thought about it and I think I've changed my mind. The numerical values for the stats do need to be tweaked in the upwards direction.

 

Though I do wish people would stop making the framing error where they think that (for example) -15%-15% is fundamentally different from 0%-30%... it isn't. Not if the base values of whatever the stat in question that is affected by that attribute (damage, health, etc) are adjusted accordingly. The important thing is the difference between the lowest and the highest bonus, not whatever arbitrary reference point is attached to it.

 

That said, (as I mentioned) I do think those bonuses differences should be considerably higher. If MIG is tied to damage, 3 MIG should have much less damage than 18 MIG. I'd venture to guess the sweet spot would be around 75% difference in damage between the two.

 

That said, you couldn't use the same treatment for all the attributes. Each would have to be looked at on its own, and perhaps a few altered in more than just numerical ways.

[sophismata]

Comparing base damage alone is misleading, it is very important to compare progressive, relative damage values.

 

The framing / reference error is annoying, but ultimately meaningless. Doesn't really affect game-play.

[Matt516]

 

 

 

 

Something to take into account is that the actuall bonus damage increase of raising Might by 1 point isn't actually 2% of your current damage, but 2% of base damage, so if you're at Might 15 rasing to 16 its only a (132/130=1,0154) 1,54% actual damage increase. So it's possible the current balance between Dex and Might is actually fine. (Though I still think all attributes could stant to have a lot more impact).

Is that correct though? That would be an awfully complicated way of applying the bonus. Any reason it wouldn't just be the much simpler 1.30 * base damage ---> 1.32 * base damage? (for 15 MIG to 16 MIG)

 

EDIT: I might understand what you're saying - you're calculating the percentage damage increase an additional point of MIG gives you from your previous MIG-adjusted damage. Fair enough. But the same thing would apply to the increases in damage from DEX/Accuracy (I'm pretty sure) so I don't think it makes a difference. The values I've calculated for Accuracy dps increase are relative to base, as is the 2% value for MIG. So MIG is still 2X the damage increase of DEX at the 5-45 point disparity mark and 1.33X the damage increase of DEX at the <5 point disparity mark.

Actually, it's far more important than you realise. At Acc = Def, increasing Acc by 1 point is a 76.5%/75% = 2% gain.

Sound familiar?

Again though, that's not a fair comparison. If your current value is 75 of base and you increase it by 1.5 of base, of course that will be larger relative to your current value than increasing something that's already 130 of base by 2 of base will be. But that doesn't matter. The actual damage increase in terms of real damage numbers (i.e. actual dps) is based off of your base damage, which means the only fair way to compare the bonuses from dexterity and might is to compare the bonuses based on base damage. Which is conveniently how they are already expressed in my calc and in the rules. There's no need to try and get super clever with this - the math for comparing the two bonuses (boni) isn't complicated.

[NeV3rKilL]

I thought critical damage is already 2x the normal damage?

 

Crits are x1.5 damage. You can find it here:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63207-update-39-non-core-classes-cooldowns-attack-resolution-damage-vs-armor-and-a-tileset/

[Azrael Ultima]

Again though, that's not a fair comparison. If your current value is 75 of base and you increase it by 1.5 of base, of course that will be larger relative to your current value than increasing something that's already 130 of base by 2 of base will be. But that doesn't matter. The actual damage increase in terms of real damage numbers (i.e. actual dps) is based off of your base damage, which means the only fair way to compare the bonuses from dexterity and might is to compare the bonuses based on base damage. Which is conveniently how they are already expressed in my calc and in the rules. There's no need to try and get super clever with this - the math for comparing the two bonuses (boni) isn't complicated.

That would only be correct if (1)Total Damage = Base_Damage*(1+Might*2%) + Base_Damage*Acc_Modifier or some variation thereof.

(yes, this would result in double base damage, but this is merely for illustration, i'm only interested in the damage differences when changing stats)

 

For (2)Total Damage = Base_Damage*(1+Might*2%)*Acc_Modifier it's the other way around.

 

Don't get to stuck up on the absolute values.

 

For an example: 100 DPS base, 0 Might, Acc = Def

(1) base: 100*1 + 100*0.75 = 175

(1) Might +1: 100*1.02 + 100*0.75 = 177, 2 damage increase

(1) Dex +1: 100*1.02 + 100*0.765 = 176.5, 1.5 damage increase

 

(2) base: 100*1*0.75 = 75

(2) Might +1: 100*1.02*0.75 = 76.5, 1.5 damage increase

(2) Dex +1: 100*1*0.765 = 76.5, 1.5 damage increase

 

Despite the gain from Dex being seemingly lower, the actual damage increase is identical. On a high evasion enemy, increasing Dex is likely much more valuable than increasing Might. What your diagram is missing is a graph showing the actual damage gain from the Dex increase.

 

In other words, it's quite likely people are currently heavily underestimating the value of Dex.

[Matt516]

I think you are right, though I'm not sure if your conclusions are entirely correct. I'll elaborate in a bit, but basically, I don't think DEX bonuses (boni) are always stronger than MIG bonuses (boni). Will elaborate in below paragraphs, but first a few words about how I messed up and how you caught it.

 

I certainly intended the calculation to be done as per "2)", because "1)" is just nonsense to any sensible way of calculating the damage. I think I screwed up in some of my later assertions and calculations - though I believe the accuracy of my initial plot is unaffected by this. My statements on comparing MIG and DEX are affected, however. I'll have to look over the math again tomorrow night when I have the chance (on mobile until then, so not ideal) and adjust if necessary.

 

It looks like because the bonuses (boni) from DEX and MIG are multiplied together, the marginal benefit of an increase in one attribute (in terms of true damage) ACTUALLY depends on the value of the OTHER bonus. Fascinating.

 

Try your example again with the base bonus from MIG already at 1.2, for example. In that case, the true damage increase (numberswise) from a 1.5% increase in DEX is actually MORE than the increase from a 2% increase in MIG. Or if you try it with the base bonus from MIG at 1, but the base bonus from DEX at 0.85, the same 2% and 1.5% increases yield a higher true damage increase for the 2% MIG increase.

 

These trends continue and are very clear: the value (in real damage) of a marginal % damage increase from one attribute is directly (and linearly, I *think*) dependent on the magnitude of the % damage multiplier from the other attribute. Very, very nice catch - thanks.

 

Long and the short of it is - my plot and table are still right as far as your expected dps from DEX (well, accuracy minus deflection technically) goes, but I was completely incorrect about being able to then compare those bonuses (boni) from MIG and DEX in a vacuum. The actual value of a marginal increase in one depends on what the already existing value of the other one is - the higher the other bonus is, the more valuable a marginal increase in the first bonus will be.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Matt516

[Caerdon]

Interesting discussion, guys. I think I've made some errors as well when calculating the effects of DEX, so I'll have to take another look at things later.

 

Though I do wish people would stop making the framing error where they think that (for example) -15%-15% is fundamentally different from 0%-30%... it isn't. Not if the base values of whatever the stat in question that is affected by that attribute (damage, health, etc) are adjusted accordingly. The important thing is the difference between the lowest and the highest bonus, not whatever arbitrary reference point is attached to it.

 

Uhh... that's not right. Going from +0% to +30% is a 30% increase (Duh!) but going from -15% to +15% is roughly a 35% increase. The change may be the same in absolute terms, but it makes a bigger difference in the latter case. Can't adjust for that.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Caerdon

[Azrael Ultima]

Long and the short of it is - my plot and table are still right as far as your expected dps from DEX (well, accuracy minus deflection technically) goes, but I was completely incorrect about being able to then compare those bonuses (boni) from MIG and DEX in a vacuum. The actual value of a marginal increase in one depends on what the already existing value of the other one is - the higher the other bonus is, the more valuable a marginal increase in the first bonus will be.

That was basically the point.

 

It just so happens that that increase is exactly the relative damage gain from the attribute, precisely because they are multiplied.

To be specific, it is due to multiplication of real numbers being commutative. It doesn't matter which part of the calculation sees a relative x% increase, it will increase the result by x%.

 

I think the high gain range for Dex could stand to be a little larger, but it is by far not as weak as it looks at first.

 

Your calculations weren't wrong, as such, just incomplete.

[Matt516]

Interesting discussion, guys. I think I've made some errors as well when calculating the effects of DEX, so I'll have to take another look at things later.

 

 

Though I do wish people would stop making the framing error where they think that (for example) -15%-15% is fundamentally different from 0%-30%... it isn't. Not if the base values of whatever the stat in question that is affected by that attribute (damage, health, etc) are adjusted accordingly. The important thing is the difference between the lowest and the highest bonus, not whatever arbitrary reference point is attached to it.

Uhh... that's not right. Going from +0% to +30% is a 30% increase (Duh!) but going from -15% to +15% is roughly a 35% increase. The change may be the same in absolute terms, but it makes a bigger difference in the latter case. Can't adjust for that.

Can you provide an example calculation? I don't think you're correct: I'm pretty sure the difference between 0.85x and 1.15x will be exactly the same as the difference between 1x and 1.3x.