My thoughts on the issues with combat systems

[Sensuki]

No, it follows exactly the same rules since those abilities follow the same Attack Resolution system. If your attack is going to hit anyway (ACC-DEF +6 or higher, which is 0% chance to miss, 39% graze, 45% hit and 11% crit by default), then the MIG bonus is better..

Edited November 7, 2014 by Sensuki

[archangel979]

No, it follows exactly the same rules since those abilities follow the same Attack Resolution system. If your attack is going to hit anyway (ACC-DEF +6 or higher, which is 0% chance to miss, 39% graze, 45% hit and 11% crit by default), then the MIG bonus is better..

No it is not. You always want them to hit. You don't care if damage over x battles will be greater but that you hit as often as possible. Also accuracy is always useful no matter if enemy has bad def or good def, but damage boost is better once your hit chance is greater. And over X battles you are going to fight enemies of different defenses. 

Also many abilities are CC abilities, not damage ones and Might is useless with them.

Edited November 7, 2014 by archangel979

[Sensuki]

You didn't read what I said properly (or the graph, it seems). Att ACC-DEF +6 or higher, you can't miss.

You ask yourself - how much extra DPS does +1 Accuracy give ?

The answer is on the chart.

 

+1 ACC gives a 1% chance of a better attack resolution, and at that point in the graph its a 1% chance of +50% increase in damage. The +2% Might bonus is on *every* hit that does damage, and since at that point in the graph, every hit deals damage, the Might bonus ends up being better.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Sensuki

[Lephys]

No they are not. Intelligent and wise people earn 10x more then fast or strong ones. Compare top IT company owners or businessmen  to top athletes.

All you just pointed out was that, in real life, Intelligence generally provides you a benefit that other stats do not. I'm not sure how that even addresses an imbalance. That, and where in RPG stat comparison is "how much money does this earn you?" a major factor?

[archangel979]

You didn't read what I said properly (or the graph, it seems). Att ACC-DEF +6 or higher, you can't miss.

 

You ask yourself - how much extra DPS does +1 Accuracy give ?

 

The answer is on the chart.

 

+1 ACC gives a 1% chance of a better attack resolution, and at that point in the graph its a 1% chance of +50% increase in damage. The +2% Might bonus is on *every* hit that does damage, and since at that point in the graph, every hit deals damage, the Might bonus ends up being better.

Who is talking about missing?! You don't want to waste spells on grazing as well, especially with a DT system that armors give. 

[Razsius]

I'm starting to wonder if anyone (including Sen) actually studies their combat logs or notices the floating damage numbers of their spells and physical attacks.  I remember arguing about this before with Matt that accuracy trumps all.  Not accounting for the fact that accuracy is going to help all your non-damaging abilities as well as damaging ones, it *will* help you more depending on the DT of the target.

 

Take, for example, a fireball that has a listed "hit" of 40 damage.  Which, of course, is well within the listed damage range of the ability.

 

At a listed hit of 40 damage one of Medreth's unnamed goons will have a burn DT and DR of 9 and ~20% (DR doesn't matter overly much).  The actual hit will then become 40 - 9 - 20% which will = ~25 damage (ouch I almost got halved here).  Now a graze would then look like this 20 - 9 - 20% which would then = ~9 damage.  Wait, that's interesting! That's not exactly a 50% decrease in damage between the two values after mitigation is it?  It's actually a loss of ~64% of your after mitigation hit value and less than a quarter of what you originally hit for before mitigation.  That's one gnarly graze isn't it?  That graze % will simply go up as well as long as the DT goes up.  At a value of 12 DT you're looking at ~71% damage loss on a graze of an *after* mitigation hit.  Hitting a stone beetle?  Well good luck as you'll be suffering a mere ~77-78% damage loss on grazes of an after mitigation hit.  The only good thing is that Josh is going to raise the minimum damage on grazes to 20% but it's still not exactly appealing to watch your fireball graze for 8.  The funny thing is critical % scales positively in the exact opposite direction based on the DT of the target.

 

Let's use that same fireball again.  At a listed critical damage of 60 the following occurs:

 

60 - 9 - 20% = ~41 damage after mitigation.  Well wouldn't you know it!  If we scroll up just a bit we end up realizing that it's more of a ~60% increase in after mitigation damage rather than the 50% we were led to believe.  Naturally, it scales higher as DT goes higher.  Seeing as how after mitigation values are really about the only thing a player is going to care about i'd say this is pretty bloody important.  Yet, not a few posts up I see a chart of Matt's that only seems to account for deflection - accuracy and how might performs when comparing it to accuracy at the various values.  You mean to tell me he somehow accounted for a sliding percentage loss/gain on both grazes and criticals based on DT as well as the accuracy - deflection and might values?  Experience with the 4 BB builds would tell me otherwise.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Razsius

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Absolutely correct. Well said. For anyone using spells and abilities offensively, maximizing accuracy is of utmost importance. The loss incurred by grazing will more significantly effect damage than any other statistic, even when a hit of any kind is assured. Considering that heightened accuracy also expands your critical range while minimizing your graze range, there is no question about it being the most valuable for abilities.

 

My question is, when is DR applied? Before DT, after, or irrespective?

[Razsius]

DR is applied after I believe as DT would get slightly out of hand if it was before.  The combat log would also suggest that DR is applied after.  Though it might be a bad idea to ask me right now as i'm more than a little tired.  I'm almost positive the above is how it's applied though as i have seen more than my fair share of 25 damage fireball hits and 9 damage fireball grazes (more than a little irritating I can tell you).

[Sensuki]

You're still not paying attention to the graph. The chance of your accuracy boost actually affecting the outcome of the roll is low, 1% per point to be exact. When ACC-DEF = +6 or higher, the Might bonus to damage @ 2% per point gives more flat DPS per point.

 

In that range, +10 Accuracy will yield you a 10% chance of +50% increase in damage, and a Might damage bonus of 20% will give 20% on every attack. DT and DT Effectiveness (Effective DT depending on attacks/sec) are taken into account on the graph.

 

I don't see how it's that hard to grasp for so many people.

 

In the game currently enemy defenses are around equal to or higher than the party accuracy (they were boosted in the current patch), so you will find that Perception (and points in Accuracy) are more valuable because in that range, Accuracy gives more DPS per point over time, which the graph shows. I am not disputing that currently, Perception is king.

 

In v257 and v278, the Attribute system gave +21 Accuracy with a maxed Dex (21, Orlan with White that Wends I think), classes had +10 higher accuracy than they do now and attributes gave no Deflection bonus. So back then Might was better because your Accuracy normally outclassed enemy Deflection.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Sensuki

[archangel979]

Except you are ignoring again that CC spells also need accuracy and don't need bonus damage. You are also ignoring the fact that people want reliable big spells, not those that to bigger damage on rare occasion they hit. It does not mean much if by casting that 1/day spell over 10 casts does more damage with Might, but that it does not Graze when you need it in that one important fight. 

 

Also +10 Accuracy ups the chance of not losing 50% by 10% and 10% chance to get +50% more. DT system makes Grazes terrible (Armor should not stop spells anyways, I hate that they do) and 20% bonus damage does not help it enough. 

 

As I said, on at will attacks that graph is correct and Might is better, but when you got your 1/day or 1/encounter you always want to maximize that it does not Graze, especially if it is not a damage spell/ability.

[Sensuki]

I'm talking about pure DPS bonuses from attribute actually. Non-damaging CC has nothing to do with DPS. I am not denying that if you want to dish out CC that Perception is the most important attribute most of the time.

 

You are also ignoring the fact that people want reliable big spells, not those that to bigger damage on rare occasion they hit.

 

What are you talking about? At the ACC-DEF +6 range or higher, you can't miss, and you have a 44% chance to graze, 45% chance to hit and 11% chance to crit. Over time in that situation a permanent +20% damage gives more DPS over a 10% increase of a better attack resolution. The extra accuracy only does anything if the attack resolution falls into the range where it actually pushes your roll from one attack resolution to another.

 

These rules are uniform, doesn't matter if it's a per day or a per encounter. The situation you talk about only relates to a specific encounter. Over time, you'll get a better attack resolution with +10 ACC 10% of the time (statistically anyway), whereas you will get the might bonus every time it is cast. In the cases where the roll would not have changed regardless of that +10 Accuracy, the accuracy bonus does nothing, whereas the Might does. 

 

[Doppelschwert]

 

You are also ignoring the fact that people want reliable big spells, not those that to bigger damage on rare occasion they hit.

 

What are you talking about? At the ACC-DEF +6 range or higher, you can't miss, and you have a 44% chance to graze, 45% chance to hit and 11% chance to crit. Over time in that situation a permanent +20% damage gives more DPS over a 10% increase of a better attack resolution. The extra accuracy only does anything if the attack resolution falls into the range where it actually pushes your roll from one attack resolution to another.

 

These rules are uniform, doesn't matter if it's a per day or a per encounter. The situation you talk about only relates to a specific encounter. Over time, you'll get a better attack resolution with +10 ACC 10% of the time (statistically anyway), whereas you will get the might bonus every time it is cast. In the cases where the roll would not have changed regardless of that +10 Accuracy, the accuracy bonus does nothing, whereas the Might does.

 

I think what he means with reliable is that although both attributes increase the expected dps, might leaves the variances as it is while perception effectively decreases variance. If you have a limited ressource it is nicer to have a more deterministic result in order for you to plan better around your use of the ability.

If you take this to the extreme, then the difference would be that in the perception scenario, it is more plausible that you cast a fireball in two different fights and do normal damage both times while in the might scenario, you may crit in one fight for lethal damage and grace in another damage for almost no damage. The expected damage may be the same in both cases, but the former probably feels more fair.

 

This is especially true if your ACC-DEF is negative, which may be the case when you don't invest into PER.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Doppelschwert

[Sensuki]

Depends on the rolls themselves though, the damage ranges can vary quite a bit, you could score a crit on the lowest damage roll and do less damage than a normal hit on the highest etc (stuff like that).

[Doppelschwert]

Yeah. I think the main concern is that if the enemies have high resistances, then your grace may make no damage at all, even with the might bonus. So in order to avert risk and have some definite use of your spell, you want to make sure that it hits reliably. Again, I think the DT system is the sole reason for this and I personally think that is a good thing, because it makes these choices between attributes non-trivial.

 

For physical classes which are not bound to limited abilities for damage however it may be nicer to use the might bonus for the reasons you pointed out.

[Sensuki]

There's a minimum damage value, which is being raised to 20%. If an enemy has a high DT vs a damage type just attack them with another one. I don't really use slashing weapons in the beta because they're not great vs many of the creatures/characters in armor. They're fine vs wolves, spiders and lions though I think.

[nipsen]

"The Integer DT system makes low damage/high speed weapons/spells/abilities really terrible and DT bypassing stuff like Stilettos, Maces and Estocs are without a doubt the best weapons of their type. It also makes increased attack speed worse than flat increased damage percentage."

 

Yes. They are now, after the linear might-builds were buffed. As per requests by the internet masses. ..if you remember..

[Sensuki]

Might builds are worse actually. It doesn't have anything to do with what the attributes give, the change is spawned by the 10 is 0 system, and changes to creature deflection scores. The math remains the same.

[Lephys]

DT and Grazes co-existing isn't killing anything. In a graze-less system, you either hit, crit, or miss. So, if you do 20 damage, and the enemy has a DT of 10, you're not doing much damage against him, really (compared to your potential). Now, if you crit, for 30, now you're doing relatively better, but still only as much as a normal hit would've done if he had 0 DT. If you miss, you do 0 damage. Not even "crap" damage. Just none. So, the fact that you can graze instead of miss, and still do 4 damage... that's pretty cool.

 

If you remove either one, alone, you solve nothing. Remove DT? Well, now the damage values will just be adjusted for its absence, so you'll just do less damage ALL the time, instead of only against higher DT targets (with the wrong attacks). Remove graze? Now you'll just be missing much more of the time. Yes! That zero damage tastes PHENOMENAL!

 

So, no. Just because stuff isn't tuned like it should be doesn't mean some entire mechanical component is at fault.

 

As I've said before, I think the main problem with grazes is simply that a base 50% less-than-"Hit" range on Attack Resolution might not be the optimal thing, since people consider a 50% chance to hit pretty crap to begin with. I think even dropping it 5 or 10 points would do the trick. Even if you have an average character with completely average Accuracy, and they have a 60% or 65% chance to Hit (and only a 35% chance to graze or miss) a foe with completely average defense, you've still got all the other factors, and all that variation at-play.

 

Basically, I don't think "average" equalling "hit crappily half the time" is necessary. Nothing's mandating that you should defaultly have a 50/50 chance to hurt someone unless you pump all your character creation/progression resources into boosting that a bit. Even with higher hit chances, you've got the difference between Hits and Crits, DT, which defense you're targeting, Accuracy/Defense variation between entities, damage type, buff/debuff effects, etc. I don't think we absolutely need good/bad symmetry in base Attack Resolution.

[constantine]

Has Josh/Obsidian mentionted that there are thoughts to apply changes to the engagement system?

 

Imo, engagement mechanic is 1 of the main reasons combat sucks, either make it work or remove it (or play with a mod that removes it post release)

[Sensuki]

No they haven't but I will be making a big thread about it soon, I just need to record some videos and possibly make some ability mods and stuff.