How did you break Beta 301?

[swordofthesith]

 

As a side note, am I the only one completely underwhelmed by the PoE wizard's damage.  I had BB Wizard lob a fireball at a couple beetles only to watch it miss on one and graze for 26 on another.  I honestly wanted to cry at that point.  Seriously what's the point of vancian magic at this rate.  In BG, if I threw a fireball into a group at level 5 it would have a much larger AoE as well as usually killing half the group and putting the rest into critical status.

 

Anyone got an op wizard build or are they as underwhelming as I think they are?

 

 

Pretty trash I would say. I never use my BB Wizard. My BB Warrior, BB Rogue & Orlan Rogue do all the work with a Priest spell thrown in occasionally for good measure. They need to pump up the power of Wizard spells, especially seeing as how they are per rest and not per encounter. 

Edited September 29, 2014 by swordofthesith

[Sensuki]

The Wizard is pretty terrible, at least with his currently equipped spells. The other bad thing is that spell range has been nerfed and now he has to come in close to cast, which is an awful design decision IMO.

 

meanwhile my Wizard got pwngra'd by a menpwgra

 

[Razsius]

Yea Druid spells do almost reasonable damage.

 

Edit: As a side note, any Druid build is pretty broken because of all their cc spells.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Razsius

[mutonizer]

The Wizard is pretty terrible, at least with his currently equipped spells. The other bad thing is that spell range has been nerfed and now he has to come in close to cast, which is an awful design decision IMO.

 

Gonna have to wait and see the DEX + range % boost to judge but yea, lots of spells have absurdly small ranges :/

I think it's to artificially limit pre-igniting.

[Sensuki]

Oh yeah, the BB characters all have borked health values, they have wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy more than they should. That also makes it really really easy.

[swordofthesith]

The Wizard is pretty terrible, at least with his currently equipped spells. The other bad thing is that spell range has been nerfed and now he has to come in close to cast, which is an awful design decision IMO.

 

meanwhile my Wizard got pwngra'd by a menpwgra

 

 

Menpwner hit your Wizzy for 92 damage! Holy smokes. 

[Sensuki]

Funny thing is I won that encounter easily

[Razsius]

 

The Wizard is pretty terrible, at least with his currently equipped spells. The other bad thing is that spell range has been nerfed and now he has to come in close to cast, which is an awful design decision IMO.

 

Gonna have to wait and see the DEX + range % boost to judge but yea, lots of spells have absurdly small ranges :/

I think it's to artificially limit pre-igniting.

 

 

Which is just stupid.  I was one of the guys who wanted range to be influenced by attributes but I kind of meant in a way so that with high +range my wizard could be a mobile caster cannon that could bombard enemies with a spotter not a caster who has to have +range to get outside of giving a hug distance.  Does Josh hate wizards that much or something?  They were TERRIBLE before and now they're even worse.

 

Edit: Sen i'm pretty sure health values are fine (based off their end at least).  You might be thinking BB Fighter has too much because you gave him Boots of the Long March or something.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Razsius

[Sensuki]

Oh yeah?

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68814-bb-characters-all-have-insane-health-values/

[swordofthesith]

Oh yeah?

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68814-bb-characters-all-have-insane-health-values/

 

You reckon Josh & Co are trying to extend the adventuring day with the changes to health values? 

[Sensuki]

They already changed the health values to a ratio, if you check the 301 thread it says

 

Barbarian, Monk 1:6

Fighter, Paladin 1:5

some are 1:4

some are 1:3

 

If you create a new character, your new character will have these values of Stamina:Health

 

the BB characters have ridiculously inflated health values, it should be the values on the right side of the /

[Matt516]

Replying to Razsius from last page - the Might bonus is applied BEFORE armor. So (provided you're not in the "min damage" regime) the extra damage from one additional point of Might isn't dependent on DT. There's where the differences in our calculations were haha. Understandable. But I promise you, it's applied before armor.

[Razsius]

Oh yeah?

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68814-bb-characters-all-have-insane-health-values/

 

 

Oh... bug city then.  My BB characters start with what they should.

 

 

Replying to Razsius from last page - the Might bonus is applied BEFORE armor. So (provided you're not in the "min damage" regime) the extra damage from one additional point of Might isn't dependent on DT. There's where the differences in our calculations were haha. Understandable. But I promise you, it's applied before armor.

 

So 2% of my "average" damage then?  That would still be what?  .7 damage added to the 35 modified by graze and critical.  I'm still taking that point of perception regardless .

[Matt516]

Well it's actually 2% to every damage roll. You could express it as 2% of "average" damage though I suppose. Nothing wrong with that. Let's roll with that.

 

Compare that to a 1% increased chance to crit and a 1% decreased chance to miss, which is the absolute best case scenario for the marginal benefit of a point in Accuracy. Your average damage per hit has gone up by (0.01*1.5 - 0.01*0) of your base damage, or 1.5% of your base damage.

 

Of course, that 2% and 1.5% can't be compared directly - since the Might bonus and effective Accuracy bonus are interdependent, you actually have to multiply each marginal benefit by the value of the other attribute's effective DPS multiplier. Assuming Might = 10 and Accuracy - Deflection = 0, that gives us a 100% Might multiplier and a (0.45*0.5 + 0.45*1 + 0.05*1.5) = 75% Accuracy multiplier.

 

So when all is said and done, the true marginal DPS benefits from 1 point in Might and 1 point in Accuracy when ACC-DEF = 0 and Might = 10 are actually both 1.5%, strangely enough. They are entirely equivalent. Only difference is the Might bonus helps on every attack and the Accuracy bonus is RNG-based. But mathematically (and over many many battles) they equate to the EXACT same DPS increase.

 

DT doesn't affect this, because the DPS loss from DT is a constant equal to attack speed * DT. Again, this is assuming you're not doing minimum damage. That's an edge case that I can go into but isn't really super important because both Might and Accuracy help in that case.

 

So.... Yeah. The marginal DPS benefits of one point in Might or Accuracy are actually equivalent when ACC-DEF = 0 and Might = 10. As previously mentioned, as ACC-DEF rises the marginal benefit of Might becomes better (and vice versa).

Edited September 29, 2014 by Matt516

[Matt516]

Or to apply it to your example (again assuming Might = 10 and ACC-DEF = 0), 1 point in Accuracy gives you a 1% increased chance to do 1.5 * 35 damage before DT, so 0.525 average increased damage per attack. Note that I'm choosing ACC-DEF = 0 because it is the BEST CASE scenario for Accuracy.

 

Compare that to a 2% increase of the base damage to 35.7, which (when you average out the attack resolutions with their probability) also leads to a 0.525 average increased damage per attack.

 

I promise - I've thought this through.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Matt516

[mutonizer]

...

 

Matt, I don't doubt your math as presented whatsoever, but where in this is it factored that ACC is a prerequisite for DAMAGE, while DAMAGE is not a prerequisite for ACC.

By that I mean that you need to actually hit for damage to be a factor, while you damage is irrelevant to actually hit. Also, you focus purely on DAMAGE but ACC goes way, way beyond that.

 

Discussing this whole MIGHT, PER thing in a total vacuum is great and all, but you need to take the whole system into account here and while they are too many variables for me to properly present a nice and easy formula that could convince you, the fact is: PER outshines MIGHT on every single level. 

You could cut in half PER ACC bonus and double MIGHT bonus, it would still outshine MIGHT simply because it's what's allowing you to do anything in the first place, not just damage, and with a linear curve d100 system where you have as much chance to roll a 100 or a 1, talents converting hits into crits and the like, anything that stacks the odds in your favor is more powerful than any other derivative. Most pure DPS classes will max out both, so most of this discussion is irrelevant anyway, but there you go.

 

All in all, if you're paralyzed from the neck down, it doesn't matter that you have a 12" ****, while if you're not paralyzed, any size will do the job just fine, is what I'm saying

[Fiebras]

One Wind Blight just aced my entire party in the span of about 3 seconds (actually not joking) - all were between full and 75% stamina

 

 

 

Were did you find those?

I only find Wurms in that area.

 

Incidentally:

I fought Medreth again.

BB Wizard had 8 Hits and 2 Crits.

My Druid had 4 Hits 2 Crits.

BB Fighter had 1 Hit 1 Crit (prone for most of it)

BB Priest had 8 Hits 0 Crits.

BB Rouge had 2 Hits 5 Crits. She dealth the finishing blow on 4 of them and she was the only one attacking 3 of them outside an initial Fireball.

 

I wonder how the stats will look like at the end of a run.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Fiebras

[Matt516]

 

...

 

Matt, I don't doubt your math as presented whatsoever, but where in this is it factored that ACC is a prerequisite for DAMAGE, while DAMAGE is not a prerequisite for ACC.

 

The fact that ACC is necessary to hit is built into the core of my calculations. The entire marginal benefits curve is plotted on the "Accuracy - Defense" axis. Obviously if your Accuracy is less than their Defense by 95, you won't hit. That's perfectly reflected in the math as a 0% marginal benefit in Might at that point (the leftmost side of the graph). If you can't hit them, more Might won't help you. That point is not in dispute. At all. As I have said time and time again: when Accuracy is much less than enemy Defense, Accuracy is better for increasing DPS. 

 

What I am saying is that if your Accuracy is already roughly equal to or greater than their Defense, you benefit more from Might. And that's a fact.

 

I've said it multiple times. If Accuracy < Defense, Accuracy helps more. If Accuracy > Defense, Might helps more. The issue is that your statements seem to be based on some bizarre assumption that if you don't pump Perception, you can't hit anything. How is this true, exactly? We're not starting from Accuracy - Defense = -95. In general, we're starting from Accuracy - Defense of roughly around 0, plus or minus 20 (the base Deflections range from 5 to 25 and the base Accuracies range from 5? to 25). The base values are relatively in the same range (meaning Accuracy - Defense is going to be closeish to 0, plus or minus 20), and then are modified by various factors (talents, enchantments, buffs, level difference, shields, etc). So I see absolutely no reason to frame the discussion as if the difference between pumping Perception and not pumping Perception is the difference between missing all the time and hitting all the time. It's not. Not at all.

 

The statement that "ACC is a prerequisite for Damage, while Damage is not a prerequisite for ACC" is meaningless. Sure, it's kind of true.. I guess..... sort of... in a very specific context... but it doesn't have any bearing on the current discussion. We're talking about Accuracy vs Might. And this is how it is: one point in either of those stats increases your raw DPS by some percentage of the base DPS. That's how the math works. That's how the system is set up. I'm not idealizing some complicated heat transfer or fluid mechanics problem with broad assumptions here - I'm literally just doing the algebra.

 

For reference, here is an old "Marginal benefits of Accuracy and Might across from ACC-DEF" plot. It's not updated for the new 0 point of Might at 10, but I'll try to get one that is updated up tonight if y'all want it. Only thing that will change is that the marginal benefits of Accuracy will go down a bit since the Might bonus has been nerfed.

 

The statement that "PER outshines MIG on every single level" is just incorrect, pure and simple. In general, if your Accuracy will already be equal to or greater than their Defense without putting points into Perception, those points are better spent on Might (provided pure DPS is your goal). And if your Accuracy will already be lesser than their Defense without putting points into Perception, it benefits you more to invest in Perception. This leads to a system where very Perceptive characters are skilled at hurting enemies with high Deflection, and very Mighty characters are skilled at hurting enemies with low Deflection. Provided there isn't a serious skew one way or the other (really high Deflection enemies or really low Deflection enemies), this means that Perception and Might are balanced. Each is better in a different situation.

[Captain Shrek]

Now the only question is what values of Might and accuracy are allowed by the game. May be that ought to be reflected in your graph?

[Matt516]

Not sure what you mean - my graph reflects Might from 3 to 18 and all possible meaningful values of Accuracy (since Accuracy - Defense is what actually matters).

[Captain Shrek]

So how much accuracy does one gain by one point in perception? Help me here since I haven't played the recent patch.

[Matt516]

One point in Perception = +1 Accuracy. To find how much DPS that is worth (as a percentage of base DPS), go to the region on the x-axis that corresponds to what region of Accuracy - Defense you're in and look at the blue line. The reason I graph it across from Accuracy - Defense and not just Accuracy is to normalize things. The actual worth of a point in Accuracy or Might (or any Defense for that matter) is dependent on the stats of the enemy you're fighting. Hence the normalized x-axis.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Matt516

[Captain Shrek]

Ok.

 

With a cursory look, I think the accuracy bonuses are the most important ones. At equal Def/Attack the chance of a critical is 5% (like in D&D). The chance doubles (which is a large change) if the accuracy is only increased by 5. This is UNLIKE D&D where the crit chance is independent of the AB - AC difference. This is probably broken. By pumping accuracy the player should be able to reap ridiculous benefits, as DT is irrelevent I assume on crits.

 

Now Per seems to yield only +1 to accuracy per point. But the closer the def/Attack ratio is, the larger the benefit is there from PER. So I assume that Mutonizer is actually correct, when such a case holds: He practically doubles the crit chance with his per bonuses.

 

EDIT: Addionally even when the ratio of attack/def is awawy from 1, Might adds almost nothing compared to what accuracy bonuses potentiall give you in terms of increasing the crit chance. The crit bonus is 50% which requires an equivalent of 25 Might to give you similar damage effect for that attack. The winner is pretty clear here.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Captain Shrek

[Matt516]

No.... Please read my earlier posts in this thread. That's not the correct way to look at it. A 1% increased chance to crit, coupled with a 1% decreased chance to graze, is equivalent to +1.5% damage. You cannot just compare the crit damage to the Might bonus. You have to weigh the damage by the probability of it actually happening. Yes, 1 point of Accuracy increases your chance of doing 150% damage... but it only increases it by 1%. Whereas 1 point of Might gives you a 100% chance to do 2% more damage. Then each of these resultant multipliers are multiplied by a factor from the other attribute (since if you're getting more crits your Might is giving more damage, and if your crits do more damage because of Might each point in Accuracy is worth more). That yields the final, true % DPS increase from 1 point in Might or 1 point in Accuracy. That's how it works.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Matt516

[Captain Shrek]

No.... Please read my earlier posts in this thread. That's not the correct way to look at it. A 1% increased chance to crit, coupled with a 1% decreased chance to graze, is equivalent to +1.5% damage. You cannot just compare the crit damage to the Might bonus. You have to weigh the damage by the probability of it actually happening.

 

Matt I think the DT will really eliminate the small damage bonus from might. Can you tell me what some average DT values are like? If they are comprable to usual damage values then they will wipe out the benefits of small bonuses to damage from might.

 

Also, if you read my explanation correctly, I clearly explained that the PER bonuses are relevent only close to Def/Att ratio of 1. The farther you get from that the smaller is the effect. Then may be item + talent benefits to Acc dominate. But I can not definitely side with you that Might is all that useful. I would personally keep is jsut enought to overcome DT and the rest I will pump into ACC bonuses whereever I can get them.