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

[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.

 

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.

 

 

The difference is the same in absolute terms, but relatively it's different, and you can't just compensate for that by adjusting the base stats.

 

Let's assume the base health for a character is 100, 3 CON gives +0% health and 18 CON gives +30% health. Raising CON from 3 to 18 would raise the health from 100 to 130. That's a 30% increase, right?

 

So what if 3 CON meant -15% health and 18 CON +15% instead? At 3 CON the health would be 85 and raising CON to 18 would raise health to 115. That's the same 30 point increase in absolute terms, but it's also relative 35.3% increase ((115 - 85) / 85 = 0.353).

 

Now, we could compensate by upping base health to 118 instead of 100. Then 3 CON (-15%) would give the same 100 starting health as before, but now 18 CON (+15%) would give 136, which is more than 130.

 

So no, going from -15% to +15% is not the same as going from +0% to +30%.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Caerdon

[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.

 

 

The difference is the same in absolute terms, but relatively it's different, and you can't just compensate for that by adjusting the base stats.

 

Let's assume the base health for a character is 100, 3 CON gives +0% health and 18 CON gives +30% health. Raising CON from 3 to 18 would raise the health from 100 to 130. That's a 30% increase, right?

 

So what if 3 CON meant -15% health and 18 CON +15% instead? At 3 CON the health would be 85 and raising CON to 18 would raise health to 115. That's the same 30 point increase in absolute terms, but it's also relative 35.3% increase ((115 - 85) / 85 = 0.353).

 

Now, we could compensate by upping base health to 118 instead of 100. Then 3 CON (-15%) would give the same 100 starting health as before, but now 18 CON (+15%) would give 136, which is more than 130.

 

So no, going from -15% to +15% is not the same as going from +0% to +30%.

 

 

My bad - you are 100% correct that because changing base health would be required to get the same starting or ending point (when adjusting the bonus frame), and because the bonuses (boni) then depend on the new base health, it is indeed impossible to change the framing of the % difference between small and large stats while still preserving both the same absolute ranges and the same % bonus difference. Good catch. I really do need to stop making statements based on nebulous half-math done in my head.

 

My mistake was due (once again, actually) to a failure to take the principal being multiplied by the percentage into account when accounting for differences between percentages. Pesky algebra.

 

That said. I do think that most people who are asking for the stats to be framed as going from negative to positive modifiers (instead of constantly growing modifiers) aren't generally doing so because they have thought the math through - they are wanting it because that's how D&D did it. At least that's the impression I've gotten, because I've never seen anyone say "such-and-such would be better because then if you had a base of X and bonuses (boni) of Y and Z, you'd have values of A and B instead of C and D." That's why I've kind of been knee-jerking every time someone suggests it - because I would prefer that suggestions about mechanical changes be based on wishes about the mechanics, not general random preferences. 

 

Of course, there is certainly something to be said about how the framing affects the player's experience. It may be that for many people, a -/+ system just feels subjectively better than a +/++ system - even when the numbers are the same in the end. Which is certainly something to take into account when designing something that is ultimately designed to provide the player with a rewarding experience.

 

However. There is a potential pitfall with that approach. Say OE did want to go to a -/+ system instead of a +/++ system for the stat bonuses. Let's use the same base=100, boni=0-30% as our example. If they wanted to preserve the number range (100-130) while making the bonus system -/+, they'd have to change the base to 115 and the boni to -/+13%. This is interesting, because although the number range is still 100-130 (so nothing has changed from a mechanical standpoint), the subjective values of the boni have decreased. In fact, it follows fairly easily once you're thinking about it correctly (thanks again, Caerdon) that if you want the maximum subjective values for the boni with a given target number range, the best way to do that is with the +/++ system. What is one thing people have been complaining about endlessly (in regards to the stats)? That the boni are too small. Could it be that OE prefers the +/++ system specifically because it yields larger subjective values for the boni, thereby making people feel better about their stats? Hmm..

Edited August 24, 2014 by Matt516

[Matt516]

By the way - new and improved DPS calculation post is in the works. Will take DT into account, include many more plots, and also address the concerns and errata people have mentioned thus far. I'm hoping that this new and improved calculation post can be used as a quick reference to help steer conversations about mechanics and stats (as they affect damage) in a more factually and mathematically grounded direction. I (like everyone in this forum) want the game to be as great as can be - and our feedback about mechanics and stats is only as valuable as our understanding of how they actually affect our gameplay. At least, that's my $0.02.

 

EDIT: This probably won't be coming for a few days. Will take some time to get right. Is there interest in something like this though? Have y'all enjoyed having this first set of calculations as a reference and would you enjoy having a more comprehensive set?

Edited August 25, 2014 by Matt516

[DrBrian]

There a few points in favor of dexterity these maths can't take into account.

 

On-hit status effects: Stunned or dazed for example. I'm expecting most of these to not be directly associated to the damages inflicted. The more often you will hit the enemies, the more often they will be afflicted by the debuff.

 

Avoiding overkill: assuming you have the options to have 50% chances to hit for 100 damages or 100% chances to hit for 50 damages a 101 hp enemy, on average the second option is more effective. Of course it also requires to take damage threshold and penetration into account complicating further the calculations.

 

Crit multiplier variables: it is likely some percs and weapons will increase this, making critical hits and consequently dex more valuable.

[Bester]

By the way - new and improved DPS calculation post is in the works. Will take DT into account, include many more plots, and also address the concerns and errata people have mentioned thus far. I'm hoping that this new and improved calculation post can be used as a quick reference to help steer conversations about mechanics and stats (as they affect damage) in a more factually and mathematically grounded direction. I (like everyone in this forum) want the game to be as great as can be - and our feedback about mechanics and stats is only as valuable as our understanding of how they actually affect our gameplay. At least, that's my $0.02.

 

EDIT: This probably won't be coming for a few days. Will take some time to get right. Is there interest in something like this though? Have y'all enjoyed having this first set of calculations as a reference and would you enjoy having a more comprehensive set?

 

Yes. Do it.

[Ganrich]

Yup, I am on the edge of my seat.  Definitely get another post started when you can.

[Stun]

EDIT: This probably won't be coming for a few days. Will take some time to get right. Is there interest in something like this though? Have y'all enjoyed having this first set of calculations as a reference and would you enjoy having a more comprehensive set?

Considering all the likes and commentary you received from your initial graphical analysis, I'd say absolutely.

 

Plus, it's why we're here. When discussing the function of the Beta, Josh Sawyer instructed us to "throttle the mechanics". Well, what's what you're doing. So keep doing it.

[Helm]

Capture.JPG.

Thanks for this.

 

It shows that the system is a bunch of overly complex horse****. Who thought it would be a good idea to combine crits, hits, missing and grazing into one stat? they might as well have just made it a simple damage modifer like might.

 

That stats have two simple damage modifiers and everybody can use every weapon. Great.

 

Deprecate it.

[Answermancer]

 

Capture.JPG.

Thanks for this.

 

It shows that the system is a bunch of overly complex horse****. Who thought it would be a good idea to combine crits, hits, missing and grazing into one stat? they might as well have just made it a simple damage modifer like might.

 

That stats have two simple damage modifiers and everybody can use every weapon. Great.

 

Deprecate it.

 

 

It's really not that complicated and I think Accuracy is one of the better stats in the game. I agree that others need work but Accuracy work really well in my opinion.

[Matt516]

 

Capture.JPG.

Thanks for this.

 

It shows that the system is a bunch of overly complex horse****. Who thought it would be a good idea to combine crits, hits, missing and grazing into one stat? they might as well have just made it a simple damage modifer like might.

 

That stats have two simple damage modifiers and everybody can use every weapon. Great.

 

Deprecate it.

 

 

To be honest, I don't mind this system at all. You could make a similar plot for any similar system in an RPG - THAC0, for example. The only major difference is that this system includes a 4th category - "graze" - in addition to the traditional "hit/miss/crit". There's really nothing particularly odd about this system lol - and it's not super complex.

 

As for making Accuracy a simple damage modifier, that wouldn't really be the same thing (and wouldn't be nearly as interesting). It is still an individual roll for every attack, which means that on the small scale (i.e. individual battles) you'll still see things like lucky crits, unlucky misses, all the things we love (and sometimes hate) about any general RPG "roll-to-hit" system. What my plot does is weigh the different possible outcomes by probability to obtain an equivalent simple damage modifier that will hold when you average a lot of attacks together. So you see - making it a simple damage modifier (a suggestion that could be applied to literally any game that includes a "roll-to-hit" system btw) wouldn't really be the same thing. Rolling to hit and miss adds more of a simulation aspect, as well as some RNG. I like having the flavor of simple damage modifiers and modifiers "to-hit" as well.

 

You had similar complaints in a few of the other threads as well, if I recall correctly. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're (generally) so negative on these forums because you really really want the game to be good (as opposed to just trolling). If that's true, then we share a common interest - to make the game as good as can be. In the interest of helping the game be better and in fostering productive discussion that can actually potentially change the game for the better - please don't let this thread descend into another negative spiral of arguing and complaining. I've presented the math here and you don't like how they've done it. Fair enough. Do you have any suggestions for how they could improve it?

Edited August 25, 2014 by Matt516

[Sensuki]

Crit multiplier variables: it is likely some percs and weapons will increase this, making critical hits and consequently dex more valuable.

Battle axes.

 

Also people don't forget that Might doesn't just affect Damage, it also affects Healing, whereas Dex only affects Accuracy.

[sb5]

On top of that there are traits that give you specific weapon accuracy, compared to no traits increasing your weapon damage flat, correct me if I'm wrong. That changes the values of the individual stats slightly.

[Ganrich]

Fighters get access to Weapon Specialization that is a damage increase. They get that at level 4 I do believe. Where all classes (except wizard, cipher, and chanter because of bugs I believe) get Weapon Focus at level 3 and that increases accuracy.

[Helm]

 

 

Capture.JPG.

Thanks for this.

 

It shows that the system is a bunch of overly complex horse****. Who thought it would be a good idea to combine crits, hits, missing and grazing into one stat? they might as well have just made it a simple damage modifer like might.

 

That stats have two simple damage modifiers and everybody can use every weapon. Great.

 

Deprecate it.

 

 

To be honest, I don't mind this system at all. You could make a similar plot for any similar system in an RPG - THAC0, for example. The only major difference is that this system includes a 4th category - "graze" - in addition to the traditional "hit/miss/crit". There's really nothing particularly odd about this system lol - and it's not super complex.

 

As for making Accuracy a simple damage modifier, that wouldn't really be the same thing (and wouldn't be nearly as interesting). It is still an individual roll for every attack, which means that on the small scale (i.e. individual battles) you'll still see things like lucky crits, unlucky misses, all the things we love (and sometimes hate) about any general RPG "roll-to-hit" system. What my plot does is weigh the different possible outcomes by probability to obtain an equivalent simple damage modifier that will hold when you average a lot of attacks together. So you see - making it a simple damage modifier (a suggestion that could be applied to literally any game that includes a "roll-to-hit" system btw) wouldn't really be the same thing. Rolling to hit and miss adds more of a simulation aspect, as well as some RNG. I like having the flavor of simple damage modifiers and modifiers "to-hit" as well.

 

You had similar complaints in a few of the other threads as well, if I recall correctly. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're (generally) so negative on these forums because you really really want the game to be good (as opposed to just trolling). If that's true, then we share a common interest - to make the game as good as can be. In the interest of helping the game be better and in fostering productive discussion that can actually potentially change the game for the better - please don't let this thread descend into another negative spiral of arguing and complaining. I've presented the math here and you don't like how they've done it. Fair enough. Do you have any suggestions for how they could improve it?

 

I don't agree.

 

It doesn't make sense to have two attributes that do nothing else than multiply the damage output of all weapons for all classes for all builds for all everything.   There is no such thing as a high crit or high accuracy build for specific classes who have specialized in specifc weapons, or anything of the sort, in this game. You just pump up might and/or dexterity and watch the DPS of all weapons rise. I'm not impressed. And I am just scratching the surface of what is wrong with this system and its placebo attributes.

 

What I meant when I wrote that it is overly complex: The system is indeed not super complex at all, it is one of the simplest systems I have ever seen, just more complex than it needs to be. For example, it doesn't make sense that there is a graze category. You either hit and cause high damage/low damage or you miss.

 

I am indeed very critical, because what we were promised was flushed straight down the ****ter by a game designer who hates Baldur's Gate, has really no idea what he is doing and obviously dislikes good game design (which Sawyer would proclaim is something only for grognards). Even Dragon Age: Inquisition will have more complex gameplay mechanics than Pillars of Eternity... those "damn Bioware grognards".  

Edited August 25, 2014 by Helm

[Mayama]

I am indeed very critical, because what we were promised was flushed straight down the ****ter by a game designer who hates Baldur's Gate, has really no idea what he is doing and obviously dislikes good game design (which Sawyer would proclaim is something only for grognards). Even Dragon Age: Inquisition will have more complex gameplay mechanics than Pillars of Eternity... those "damn Bioware grognards".  

 

What you were expecting was something like AD&D because thats the system what baldurs gate used. The system in PoE is way more complex than AD&D which is basicaly as simple as it can get.

[Helm]

 

I am indeed very critical, because what we were promised was flushed straight down the ****ter by a game designer who hates Baldur's Gate, has really no idea what he is doing and obviously dislikes good game design (which Sawyer would proclaim is something only for grognards). Even Dragon Age: Inquisition will have more complex gameplay mechanics than Pillars of Eternity... those "damn Bioware grognards".  

 

What you were expecting was something like AD&D because thats the system what baldurs gate used. The system in PoE is way more complex than AD&D which is basicaly as simple as it can get.

 

Sawyer is/was gloating about how he is the messiah of RPG mechanics. I was expecting something better than AD&D actually, not necessarily even similar, just better. Or at least just as good.

 

All I am seeing now though is a system that has less depth than the system in Dragon Age: Inquisition.

[Answermancer]

What I meant when I wrote that it is overly complex: The system is indeed not super complex at all, it is one of the simplest systems I have ever seen, just more complex than it needs to be. For example, it doesn't make sense that there is a graze category. You either hit and cause high damage/low damage or you miss.

 

I am indeed very critical, because what we were promised was flushed straight down the ****ter by a game designer who hates Baldur's Gate, has really no idea what he is doing and obviously dislikes good game design (which Sawyer would proclaim is something only for grognards). Even Dragon Age: Inquisition will have more complex gameplay mechanics than Pillars of Eternity... those "damn Bioware grognards".  

 

 

Yeah well lots of backers don't agree with your assessment of what is good game design.

 

And grazes are there to smooth out damage so that it's not always an all or nothing spiky curve where half the time you do no damage at all and half the time you do a bunch. It's particularly frustrating when daily abilities miss and are wasted doing nothing. Personally I prefer it this way, you can disagree if you want but it's not bad design, it's just different.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Sounds like they could reduce the Might bonus to 1.5% or lower and that might help a bit with it seeming overpowered.

 

Personally, I don't believe that Might is overpowered, but I do think Dexterity could be improved a bit more.  The difference between 10 and 20 Dex is 10 points of Accuracy, which is only equivalent (sort of -- not exactly due to how Grazes/Crits work) to +2 in D&D terms.

[Infinitron]

 

Sounds like they could reduce the Might bonus to 1.5% or lower and that might help a bit with it seeming overpowered.

 

Personally, I don't believe that Might is overpowered, but I do think Dexterity could be improved a bit more.  The difference between 10 and 20 Dex is 10 points of Accuracy, which is only equivalent (sort of -- not exactly due to how Grazes/Crits work) to +2 in D&D terms.

 

 

What about the inverse issue? That is, that a character with 3 Might does too much damage? And ditto for the other stats and their respective effects.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Infinitron

[J.E. Sawyer]

Sawyer is/was gloating about how he is the messiah of RPG mechanics.

 

I don't believe I've done that.  The mechanics I've engineered for PoE were largely based on my experiences watching a wide variety of players run through the RPGs I've worked on from Icewind Dale to F:NV.  E.g.: wild damage curves and all or nothing effects regularly frustrate a lot of people.  Graze was added to normalize those effects over time.  The Miss/Graze/Hit/Crit windows are always the same and I don't think they're notably more complex than variable Crit ranges, Crit multipliers, and rolling to confirm in 3.X.

[J.E. Sawyer]

 

What about the inverse issue? That is, that a character with 3 Might does too much damage?

 

The Might bonuses are always multipliers, so if it feels like a particular ability or set of abilities does too much damage even when the Might is set very low, the problem is likely with the base damage values on those abilities.

[coffeetable]

Sawyer is/was gloating about how he is the messiah of RPG mechanics. 

link plz

[Yonjuro]

 

Sawyer is/was gloating about how he is the messiah of RPG mechanics.

 

I don't believe I've done that.

 

 

 Wait a minute...does this mean you're NOT the messiah of RPG mechanics???!?

 

 Crap.

 

 The search continues.

[Matt516]

 

 

 

 

What about the inverse issue? That is, that a character with 3 Might does too much damage?

The Might bonuses are always multipliers, so if it feels like a particular ability or set of abilities does too much damage even when the Might is set very low, the problem is likely with the base damage values on those abilities.

First of all, thanks for the thread reply. I'm very excited about what you guys at OE are trying to do with PoE, and I think a lot of the breaks from the standard are very interesting, with the potential for some really unique and rewarding mechanics.

 

On to the reply. I agree, in most cases. Do you think there's something to be said though for the complaint that the difference between a low MIG and high MIG character (in terms of damage) is too small? That's one of the most common complaints I've seen, and it's also something that cannot be solved by tweaking the base values down (would only make it worse, actually).

[PrimeJunta]

The Might bonuses are always multipliers, so if it feels like a particular ability or set of abilities does too much damage even when the Might is set very low, the problem is likely with the base damage values on those abilities.

 

I think we're dealing with a psychological effect here at least partly. It just feels "wrong" that dumped stats still give bonuses, even if they're small. I have a feeling that if you set the zero point to 10 and applied the adjustments as negatives below and positives above, a lot of people would be happier even if it ended up in the same place.

 

(I do think the abilities ought to have more impact in absolute terms as well; I don't really feel I'm missing much from my dump stats or gaining much by pumping them. I would like it to sting if I dumped something to 3 so I'd have to adjust my tactics accordingly.)