Balancing Casting Ciphers with Strength/Resolve

[Erik-Dirk]

The strength/resolve change has badly affected the hybrid classes, most notably the druid and cipher.

However the druid can reasonably dump either strength or resolve while still performing well in the other area and are arguably a very strong hybrid to begin with (Once casting is fixed). 

Base class ciphers however require strength regardless of role they are to fill making them much harder to build.

 

Solution: Link soul whip directly to focus generation and base soul whip on resolve, however soul whip is still applied to total physical damage to prevent might being a total dump stat.

 

 

eg 1. Strength 10 = 100%

         Resolve  14 = 40% + 12%

                          = 100 * 52 =  52% of damage generates focus

 

eg 2. Strength 6 = 88%

         Resolve  18 = 40% + 24%

                          = 88 * 64 =  56% of damage generates focus

 

Keep in mind that the second example would actually do less damage but generate more focus so strength is more important than it seems.

 

 

 

Also to make it possible to balance base class ciphers with single class it may be necessary to make soul whip not apply to any attack which uses another classes resources e.g. rage etc 

 

 

 

 

eg 2. Strength 6 = 88%

         Resolve  18 = 20% + 24%

                          = 88 * 44 =  38% of damage generates focus

[AndreaColombo]

Why would you want to nerf Ciphers more by making Soul Whip not apply to other classes’ abilities? It would positively kill off the only good synergy left for melee/Cipher multiclass combinations. At that point not only will single-class Ciphers be generally bad; multiclassed ones too.

Edited January 12, 2018 by AndreaColombo

[Erik-Dirk]

Balance: the plus 40% damage as well as another armor piercing talent is going to make it kind of hard to make a viable single class without opening up seriously overpowered multi classes.

If you take steps to bring single and multi class somewhat down to the same level you can then more easily apply a general buff to the class. E.g. Carnage generates no focus but all basic attacks generate 3x more focus.

 

But your right that suggestion probably belongs in a "why would you choose single class" thread

Edited January 12, 2018 by Erik-Dirk

[Ninjamestari]

How about you just reduce the effects of min-maxing by introducing a point-buy with diminishing returns, like the one in NWN? I mean, if you really want to get rid of the most ridiculous min-max builds, there's a tool already for doing just that, also it will benefit hybrid classes in a way that they'd get higher overall stats if you begin to min-max anyway.

[AndreaColombo]

Min/maxing is a play style like any other. It shouldn’t be prevented or punished. Rather, a good system should be designed so that min/maxing isn’t the only way to be powerful (or necessarily the best.)

 

Limiting player options in RPGs isn’t generally great. People have different taste and like to play differently.

[Ninjamestari]

You really have no clue about what you are talking about. Min-maxing for maximum power is a direct consequence of having different stats and different classes; some stat will always be more powerful for certain classes than some other stat, and creating absolutely ridiculous characters that shouldn't even be able to exist in the game world doesn't really add anything to the game, it takes away from the game. People having different tastes doesn't mean you ram everything you can find in the kitchen on the same platter as a dish, you sell a different product to different people. I want the stats in my games to reinforce the fantasy, and I don't give a flying **** about enabling min-max builds that aren't really any fun to play with anyway. You don't pick min-max builds because you you find them interesting, you like min-max builds because it makes the process of creating the most powerful character simple for you and you don't have to be afraid that your character isn't going to be powerful when you do that. You don't like to plan and think in complex terms, hence you like the simplicity of min-max.

[AndreaColombo]

This would normally be where I'd leave it at, but since you’re making it personal: You have no idea what my likes and dislikes are, and whether or not I min/max (hint: I don’t.) Please don’t put words in my mouth that were never spoken.

Edited January 12, 2018 by AndreaColombo

[Ninjamestari]

This would normally be where I'd leave it at, but since you’re making it personal: You have no idea what my likes and dislikes are, and whether or not I min/max (hint: I don’t.) Please don’t put words in my mouth that were never spoken.

 

So you're even more clueless about what min-maxing is than I thought. Here's a hint for you: I'm a powergamer, I aim for the most powerful build there is for the class I roll, and that means min-maxing the **** out of the stats if it's just possible. I like the challenge of being able to tweak my stats for optimal performance, and systems that allow straight-up min-maxing make it so ridiculously easy that it is simply disgusting. Don't argue a case if you don't represent it, chances are you don't know what you're talking about. If you don't min-max or powergame, then don't speak for the people who do.

[AndreaColombo]

Well, you got me there. You have me all figured out. I must clearly bow to your superior knowledge and argumentative skills.

Edited January 12, 2018 by AndreaColombo

[Ninjamestari]

Or perhaps you simply should have a little humility when talking about stuff you know you're ignorant of instead of virtue-signaling your tolerance of other people's preferences, especially when said people aren't even a part of the conversation. It's funny how you flip over about me 'putting words in your mouth' when you're doing it yourself on such a grand scale.

[Erik-Dirk]

On the off chance that you didn't pick up on this.

You didn't win that argument Ninjamestari.

AndreaColombo mentally tallied your forum trolling points and decided your really not worth it.

[Ninjamestari]

On the off chance that you didn't pick up on this.

You didn't win that argument Ninjamestari.

AndreaColombo mentally tallied your forum trolling points and decided your really not worth it.

 

There wasn't an argument to begin with, all Andrea even 'added' to the conversation were meaningless platitudes and empty sentiment. And now you're just showing colors and adding even less than he did. Whatever his failings were, what you're doing is simply disgusting.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Ninjamestari

[daven]

Do you have to be so aggressive in nearly every post you make?

[vanyel54]

and creating absolutely ridiculous characters that shouldn't even be able to exist in the game world

 

I did not know that there was a higher law governing the creation of characters. You do what the game allows you to do.

Oh and if you could stop using words like "ridiculous", "lazy" we could discuss more calmly.

[Ninjamestari]

Do you have to be so aggressive in nearly every post you make?

 

Not sugarcoating everything doesn't make me aggressive.

[Erik-Dirk]

 

Do you have to be so aggressive in nearly every post you make?

 

Not sugarcoating everything doesn't make me aggressive.

 

So apparently this is ok for you but not for me? Or is it just when your bearing the brunt of it that being direct is totally unacceptable or "simply disgusting" 

 

How many posts need to devolve into these sorts of discussions before you consider that maybe your the problem?

[Raven Darkholme]

 

Do you have to be so aggressive in nearly every post you make?

 

Not sugarcoating everything doesn't make me aggressive.

 

Sounds more like you don't know how to express yourself without insulting others, a common predicament of people with low self esteem.

 

@topic

In PoE 1 Soul Whip damage was multiplicative, Might only additive, how is that resolved in PoE2?

If Strength is only additive the cipher wouldn't need it as much and could split their stats between ST/RE/IN (I would imagine IN works similar to PoE1 and is actually the most potent stat out of the three?)

[Ninjamestari]

 

 

Do you have to be so aggressive in nearly every post you make?

 

Not sugarcoating everything doesn't make me aggressive.

 

So apparently this is ok for you but not for me? Or is it just when your bearing the brunt of it that being direct is totally unacceptable or "simply disgusting" 

 

How many posts need to devolve into these sorts of discussions before you consider that maybe your the problem?

 

 

What you and I are doing is different. You're not even part of the discussion, yet you come here brandishing, declaring victors while adding zero to the overall discussion. At least Andrea had a stance, even if he didn't have a point, you don't even have that, you just have a chip on your shoulder.

[Erik-Dirk]

 

 

 

Do you have to be so aggressive in nearly every post you make?

 

Not sugarcoating everything doesn't make me aggressive.

 

So apparently this is ok for you but not for me? Or is it just when your bearing the brunt of it that being direct is totally unacceptable or "simply disgusting" 

 

How many posts need to devolve into these sorts of discussions before you consider that maybe your the problem?

 

 

What you and I are doing is different. You're not even part of the discussion, yet you come here brandishing, declaring victors while adding zero to the overall discussion. At least Andrea had a stance, even if he didn't have a point, you don't even have that, you just have a chip on your shoulder.

 

I started the topic and witnessed you derailing yet another thread through your profound lack of social skills and I called you out on it.

The fact that one person has left the discussion and others have jumped in to ask you to change your tune should suggest that maybe you need to change the way you conduct yourself.

 

 

 

Might is multiplicative in deadfire so has a much bigger impact now.

[Ninjamestari]

I started the topic and witnessed you derailing yet another thread through your profound lack of social skills and I called you out on it.

The fact that one person has left the discussion and others have jumped in to ask you to change your tune should suggest that maybe you need to change the way you conduct yourself.

 

Might is multiplicative in deadfire so has a much bigger impact now.

 

My tune depends on the kinds of arguments I face, and I'm not responsible for other people derailing the topic by complaining about my 'tune'.

 

What do you mean by multiplicative? Might in PoE was already a percentage bonus already, which in essence is multiplicative. A 30% bonus is the same as multiplying by 1.3

Edited January 12, 2018 by Ninjamestari

[MortyTheGobbo]

I would like to remind everyone of the saying about playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what you do, it's going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and fly away triumphantly. So there's no real point.

[Ninjamestari]

I would like to remind everyone of the saying about playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what you do, it's going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and fly away triumphantly. So there's no real point.

 

It's a funny saying, especially on the occasion it comes out of the beaks of pigeons.

[MaxQuest]

Solution: Link soul whip directly to focus generation and base soul whip on resolve, however soul whip is still applied to total physical damage to prevent might being a total dump stat.

 

eg 1. Strength 10 = 100%

         Resolve  14 = 40% + 12%

                          = 100 * 52 =  52% of damage generates focus

 

eg 2. Strength 6 = 88%

         Resolve  18 = 40% + 24%

                          = 88 * 64 =  56% of damage generates focus

 

Keep in mind that the second example would actually do less damage but generate more focus so strength is more important than it seems.

Did you mean:

> ex1: STR 10 RES 14 => 1.00 dmg coef. / 52% focus gen. coef. => swing for 100 base dmg results in 100 dmg and 52 focus

> ex2: STR 06 RES 18 => 0.88 dmg coef. / 64% focus gen. coef. => swing for 100 base dmg results in 88 dmg and 56 focus

 

or:

> ex1: STR 10 RES 14 => 1.00 dmg coef. / 52% focus gen. coef. => swing for 100 base dmg results in 100 dmg and 52 focus

> ex2: STR 06 RES 18 => 0.88 dmg coef. / 56% focus gen. coef. => swing for 100 base dmg results in 88 dmg and 49.2 focus

 

---

Regarding Might in PoE1: it's damage coefficient was additive with other damage coefficients.

E.g: you have 20 MIG and crit with a superb weapon:

- a swing that would deal normally 30 damage, will deal 30 * (1 + 0.3 + 0.5 + 0.45) = 67.5 instead.

[Ninjamestari]

Regarding Might in PoE1: it's damage coefficient was additive with other damage coefficients.

E.g: you have 20 MIG and crit with a superb weapon:

- a swing that would deal normally 30 damage, will deal 30 * (1 + 0.3 + 0.5 + 0.45) = 67.5 instead.

 

 

And now they all multiply? Hmm.... That's quite a boost to damage, in your example it would translate to around 85 damage. Can you get multiple multipliers for spells as well or is that limited to weapon attacks?

[MaxQuest]

And now they all multiply? Hmm.... That's quite a boost to damage, in your example it would translate to around 85 damage. Can you get multiple multipliers for spells as well or is that limited to weapon attacks?

Hard to tell.

 

1. In damage tooltip: all intermediate steps are presented as additive.

2. On the other hand you can only arrive to the final value (shown in the same tooltip): if all(*) damage coefficients are additive, while MIGHT is applied separately, afterwards, in multiplicative manner. This was confirmed by BMac here, while #1 is likely to be an UI problem.

3. Have to note though, that by looking at source code, all such damage coefficients seem to be aggregated... in additive manner. Nevertheless, I would rather trust an Obsidian dev, than my ability to read and comprehend the decompiled code. oops, was inspecting old dll.

 

(*) (According to final result in damage tooltips) Grazes are multiplicative now as well. Although we haven't arrived to formula that would match the displayed end result.

Edit: Have figured how damage is actually computed now. More about it here.

Edited January 14, 2018 by MaxQuest