392 Discussion

[Sensuki]

To be honest, that would probably make the pacing of combat better, and I may even end up removing grazes in my combat rebalance mod.

 

Grazes could work, but I think in conjunction with integer DR, the number ranges they are using for everything is not optimal.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Sensuki

[Killyox]

 

 

I have a larger piece to say about why the combat isn't fun and doesn't feel like an Infinity Engine game besides the camera/controls and art style, but I don't have time to write it now. More on that later.

Feelings are subjective.

 

To me POE feels very IE in regards to art. Obviously updated and higher fidelity. Bit different angle but the feel is there. Combat still needs work but I entirely disagree on the feel of art.

 

 

That's actually what he said as well. He disagrees on combat and agrees on camera/controls/art.

 

OK. I took it as combat is another thing besides art he doesn't like So small misunderstanding there.

[archangel979]

Missing means your damage range is 0 to maximum. If that's not swingy, I don't know what it is.'

 

Would you feel better about it if those grazes were actually 0's?

Stop lying. In IE games, most damage spells did half damage on miss/graze, not 0. Only when enemies had resistance to that element that damage could be 0 or very little. In PoE DR mechanic is all encompassing and as result Graze sucks for any attacks that are daily because only hit or critical are results worth getting. That also makes Accuracy even more important than in IE. Edited January 9, 2015 by archangel979

[Killyox]

I would lower graze range so less hits are grazes as well as lower crit ranges so less hits are crits. That would be a start.

[PrimeJunta]

To be honest, that would probably make the pacing of combat better, and I may even end up removing grazes in my combat rebalance mod.

 

Grazes could work, but I think in conjunction with integer DR, the number ranges they are using for everything is not optimal.

 

The grazes do so little damage I don't think they affect the pacing much at all. Grazes for status effects (very short duration) can be useful though.

 

I agree about the number ranges for "everything" -- DR and DR bypass in particular -- but I think we're dealing with a personal preference here ("I'd rather have a zero than a consolation prize"), not something that's objectively wrong with the base system.

 

But yes, still needs a loooot of tuning.

[PrimeJunta]

Stop lying. In IE games, most damage spells did half damage on miss/graze, not 0. Only when enemies had resistance to that element that damage could be 0 or very little. In PoE DR mechanic is all encompassing and as result Graze sucks for any attacks that are daily because only hit or critical are results worth getting. That also makes Accuracy even more important than in IE.

 

I love you too, archangel.

 

We were discussing missing in melee combat there though. :kiss kiss:

[Sensuki]

Grazes do significant damage when you're attacking favorable DR, also with raw damage, and on big hitting spells, and with anything that has a DR bypass also does fairly okay graze damage (especially Arbalests and Firearms).

 

Incoming grazes (from creature attacks) are also pretty serious business, too.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Sensuki

[archangel979]

 

 

Stop lying. In IE games, most damage spells did half damage on miss/graze, not 0. Only when enemies had resistance to that element that damage could be 0 or very little. In PoE DR mechanic is all encompassing and as result Graze sucks for any attacks that are daily because only hit or critical are results worth getting. That also makes Accuracy even more important than in IE.

I love you too, archangel.

 

We were discussing missing in melee combat there though. :kiss kiss:

I don't know about your reading skills but the last sensuki's image showed a spell doing between 5 and 85. Edited January 9, 2015 by archangel979

[PrimeJunta]

Jeebugs, Archangel.

 

Paraphrasing:

 

Me: "This is like when I complained about swingy damage and you [sensuki] pointed out that I need a fighter with low THAC0."

Sensuki: "You were complaining about missing, not swingy damage."

Me: "Missing means your damage range will be 0 to max. If that's not swingy, I don't know what is."

Archangel: "Stop lying, most AoE damage spells in the IE games do half damage on a save."

[archangel979]

Jeebugs, Archangel.

 

Paraphrasing:

 

Me: "This is like when I complained about swingy damage and you [sensuki] pointed out that I need a fighter with low THAC0."

Sensuki: "You were complaining about missing, not swingy damage."

Me: "Missing means your damage range will be 0 to max. If that's not swingy, I don't know what is."

Archangel: "Stop lying, most AoE damage spells in the IE games do half damage on a save."

I just reread your, Sensuki and my posts. Nowhere did you state you were talking about weapon attacks only. From what you and sensuki talked about, it was more about spells or just general attack system which spells are part of.

[PrimeJunta]

If you can't follow my conversation with Sensuki, that's your problem, not mine.

 

Anyway, I'm done derailing this thread.

[morhilane]

My 2 cents to the problem of damage rolls.

 

I see two issues: accuracy vs defenses favoring accuracy increase over defense ones because of the sliding window (it's always better to try to get more crits because the defense can't compensate) and all those damage multipliers everywhere that make pretty graphs don't necessarily turn into interesting gameplay results (but this is just math).

 

The way I see it, PoE is simply doing what every other RPGs have been doing in the last few years: DPS race design. I think it's just a side effect of trying to response to certain player feedbacks though.

[Sensuki]

I just reread your, Sensuki and my posts. Nowhere did you state you were talking about weapon attacks only. From what you and sensuki talked about, it was more about spells or just general attack system which spells are part of.

He means the convo from the Icewind Dale thread (in PE General Game Mechanics), where he was talking about swingy melee attacks, I think.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Sensuki

[PrimeJunta]

@morhilane A core issue IMO is that (1) accuracy is so crucial and (2) it's linked to a stat.

 

If they removed accuracy from the stat system and made it so you can only affect it via buffs and items, I believe a part of the problem would be solved.

 

As I've said (too many times), I don't consider the swinginess of spell damage a problem, because spells are subject to the same attack resolution mechanism as melee (accuracy vs defense), and you have the possibility both to choose which defense you're attacking and debuff defenses you want to attack. Lots of spells and specials set up specifically for this.

 

It is different than IE with its reliable fireballs, but it is not worse. You just have to play it differently. If you want your fireballs to bite, make your targets stand still first. Just like using Greater Malison to lower a target's resistance when casting a spell.

[Sensuki]

That's not what I'm complaining about man It's the magnitude of the differences. Even within a spell's own attack resolutions, results wildly vary because of how the percentile bonuses to it work. I don't like how they interact.

[curryinahurry]

As I stated earlier, the underlying design logic, is to use Melee attack resolution as the norm (a unified attack resolution).  The swingyness of magical damage should thus be handled the same way it is for melee; by offering talents like Confident Aim.  Mages could thus take a talent, a magical version of Confident Aim, that converts 20% of grazes to hits.  There could also be elemental talents that ignore DR, or Empowered Spells that guarantee a higher level of minimum damage. 

 

These are just a few options...but it requires the inclusion of a lot more talents, and picking talents at almost every level-up (in addition to class abilities)

Edited January 9, 2015 by curryinahurry

[archangel979]

As I stated earlier, the underlying design logic, is to use Melee attack resolution as the norm (a unified attack resolution).  The swingyness of magical damage should thus be handled the same way it is for melee; by offering talents like Confident Aim.  Mages could thus take a talent, a magical version of Confident Aim, that converts 20% of grazes to hits.  There could also be elemental talents that ignore DR, or Empowered Spells that guarantee a higher level of minimum damage. 

 

These are just a few options...but it requires the inclusion of a lot more talents, and picking talents at almost every level-up (in addition to class abilities)

That would make Grazes a bit better, but what about crazy critical hits?

[PrimeJunta]

That's not what I'm complaining about man It's the magnitude of the differences. Even within a spell's own attack resolutions, results wildly vary because of how the percentile bonuses to it work. I don't like how they interact.

 

Oh, okay then. I'll get me coat...

[curryinahurry]

@ Archangel

 

Critical hits could be nerfed a few different ways; the simplest might be to make Critical damage a multiplier of Might.  

 

You could start with a base Critical multiplier of 1.2 and add/ subtract 2% per point of might so that a 1 strength character does 1.0 and a 20 strength character does 1.4.  this would make Might more relevant an attribute as well.

Edited January 9, 2015 by curryinahurry

[Karkarov]

That's not what I'm complaining about man It's the magnitude of the differences. Even within a spell's own attack resolutions, results wildly vary because of how the percentile bonuses to it work. I don't like how they interact.

You do know Sensuki this is all fixed by just slightly lowering damage range maximums (they clearly didn't do it enough yet), and slightly increasing minimum damage/maybe slightly reducing damage penalty on graze.

 

It is a balance thing, we don't need to change the whole system it just needs tuning.

[PrimeJunta]

I'd try using flat numbers for damage and percentiles for DR and DR bypass. Both are understandable, and it would resolve the problem. Hit for 40 damage against 50% DR, do 20 damage. Graze for 20 damage against 50% DR, do 10 damage. It would also resolve problems like when DR bypass >= DR, armor becomes 100% useless. So, hitting for 40 damage with 50% DR bypass against 50% DR would do 30 damage.

[Sensuki]

You do know Sensuki this is all fixed by just slightly lowering damage range maximums (they clearly didn't do it enough yet), and slightly increasing minimum damage/maybe slightly reducing damage penalty on graze.

 

It is a balance thing, we don't need to change the whole system it just needs tuning.

There's a whole bunch of stuff they could do, and I haven't made any suggestions in this thread other than state that this situation likely wouldn't even have arisen if they used integer bonuses.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Sensuki

[archangel979]

@ Archangel

 

Critical hits could be nerfed a few different ways; the simplest might be to make Critical damage a multiplier of Might.  

 

You could start with a base Critical multiplier of 1.2 and add/ subtract 2% per point of might so that a 1 strength character does 1.0 and a 20 strength character does 1.4.  this would make Might more relevant an attribute as well.

No, not Might. Better to use some less useful stat.

[Karkarov]

There's a whole bunch of stuff they could do, and I haven't made any suggestions in this thread other than state that this situation likely wouldn't even have arisen if they used integer bonuses.

I agree I found uses of the percentage rolls odd too but that boat has sailed more than likely.  If it is something they can just change on the fly without having to then rebalance the whole of combat then by all means go ahead.  Somehow I doubt it will be as easy as just dividing by 20.

[curryinahurry]

 

@ Archangel

 

Critical hits could be nerfed a few different ways; the simplest might be to make Critical damage a multiplier of Might.  

 

You could start with a base Critical multiplier of 1.2 and add/ subtract 2% per point of might so that a 1 strength character does 1.0 and a 20 strength character does 1.4.  this would make Might more relevant an attribute as well.

No, not Might. Better to use some less useful stat.

 

 

Possibly, I haven't spent that much time thinking about it.  It should just make sense within the way attributes are designed.