Mechanics thread

Thanks for the info.
http://www.rainymood.com/
hello!
i have game mechanic's question.

some information:
i'm playing ranger and wanna "bow and arrows" spec, so i put skill-points into talents with attack speed with bows,prjectile damage (is it right skill if i wanna be bow-specialist?),crit with bows,etc.

so i have such question:
there are talents like "x% increased attack speed", "x% crit chance"..other words - skills without phrase "with bows". will i have a profit if i choose skills without "with bows"? Accuracy rating among them... there are accuracy with bows and simple accurace...should i put point into accuracy without bows?

thanks in advance!
bows are special in that they are neither 1 handed or 2 handed weapons. If it doesn't mention a weapon type, spell or a number of hands needed, then it also apply to bows.
Faerwin is correct, unless a skill specifically states it only works with bows/swords/etc., it works with all types of weapons.

Skills that do state a weapon or other restriction, like "while dual-wielding", "with one handed weapons", or "with axes" will only work in those situations.

One thing to note is that passives that specify two-handed weapons do not work with bows.
Skills affecting projectiles do affect bows.
Last edited by Malice#2426 on Feb 2, 2012, 12:07:34 AM
"
Malice wrote:
Modifier Stacking
Testing of the order modifiers take effect is currently not exhaustive, so there may be inaccuracies here. Especially, quality on gems is difficult to test.
In general (but not always), percentage modifiers stack additively, and integer modifiers are applied before percentages.

Imagine I have 100 life, and two passive skills that increase total life by 15%. The total bonus will be 30%, resulting in 130 life.
Now imagine I am wearing boots that give +40 life, and have a passive skill that grants +20 life. The integer bonuses are applied first, giving me 160 life, then the percentage bonuses are applied to that subtotal, for a final total of 208 life.

One exception is the quality modifier on armour and flasks (but not weapons), which applies after all other modifiers. For example:

[there was an item linked here that has since been wiped. It had +69 armour, +9% armour, and +20% quality]

This Horned Casque has a base armour rating of 428. Then the +69 is added to get 497 armour. Then the 9% bonus raises it to 541, and finally +20% quality results in 650 armour.

Quality on weapons stacks additively with other % modifiers on the weapon.


Modifier stacking for skills
Calculations for skills are slightly different, in that the damage stacks multiplicatively between gear (weapons), passive skills, and the skill itself. Modifiers from gear other than weapons are treated the same way as passive skills - they take effect after any on-weapon modifiers, and stack additively with passive skills.

For example, if you had a sword with base 10-20 damage and +50% damage, passive skills granting another +30% sword damage, and used a skill that gave yet another +40% damage, the calculation would would look like this:

Base damage: 10-20
Weapon damage: 10-20 x 1.5 = 15-30
Attack Damage: 15-30 x 1.3 = 19.5-39
Skill Damage: 19.5-39 x 1.4 = 27-55

For spells, there is no difference between on-weapon and off-weapon modifiers. Modifiers from weapons, gear, and passive skills stack additively with each other. Any modifiers on the spell or attached support gems will then stack multiplicatively with that amount.

For example, if you had a spell that did 10-20 base fire damage, passive skills granting +20% fire damage, +60% spell damage on your weapon, +10% spell damage on a ring, and +30% damage on a support gem:

Base damage: 10-20
Spell damage: 10-20 x (1 + 0.2 + 0.6 + 0.1) = 19-38
Skill Damage: 19-38 x 1.3 = 25-49
There some incorrect statements in here which have been confusing people in other threads.
All "% increased" or "% reduced" modifiers to a particular value stack additively with each other, while "% more" and "% less" modifiers stack multiplicatively. "additional" adds directly to the value (most commonly used on things like resistances), and in general "removes" or "subtracts" is I think used as the inverse of that depending on context.
The only major exception to the above that I am aware of is that "% increased" modifiers to weapon damage which are on that weapon will stack additively with ohter modifiers of the same type (if you can get multiples on the same weapon, which I'm not sure is possible at the moment), but because they modify the base damage of the weapon, they technically stack multiplicatively with other, off-weapon increases, which work off the base damage of the weapon, including the modifications from the weapon's own stats. Let me know if you have any other questions and I will do my best to clear them up.

EDIT: reworded to remove unintented nastiness, my initial post came off quite mean which I did not intend.
Last edited by Mark_GGG#0000 on Feb 2, 2012, 8:00:50 PM
So Malice's wording and such is a bit misleading. He just says 50% damage but leaving out 'increased' or 'more', as well as other specific terms like 'physical' or 'elemental', changes exactly how(and/or where) the 50% is applied. Using Malice's numbers it would be 10-20 base damage, 50% Increased Physical Damage, 30% Increased Physical Damage with Swords, and for the skill it would be either 40% 'Increased' or 'More' Damage.


Base damage: 10-20
Weapon damage: 10-20 x 1.5 = 15-30
Attack Damage: 15-30 x 1.3 = 19.5-39
(Increased)Skill Damage: 15-30 x 1.7 = 25.5-51

OR

Base damage: 10-20
Weapon damage: 10-20 x 1.5 = 15-30
Attack Damage: 15-30 x 1.3 = 19.5-39
(More)Skill Damage: 19.5-39 x 1.4 = 27-55

Is this correct?
Last edited by FaceLicker#6894 on Feb 3, 2012, 4:55:53 AM
"
FaceLicker wrote:
other specific terms like 'physical' or 'elemental', changes exactly how the 50% is applied.
What they apply to does not change how they stack, it just changes which parts of the damage they affect.
"
FaceLicker wrote:
Using Malice's numbers it would be 10-20 base damage, 50% Increased Physical Damage, 30% Increased Physical Damage with Swords, and for the skill it would be either 40% 'Increased' or 'More' Damage.


Base damage: 10-20
Weapon damage: 10-20 x 1.5 = 15-30
Attack Damage: 15-30 x 1.3 = 19.5-39
(Increased)Skill Damage: 15-30 x 1.7 = 25.5-51

OR

Base damage: 10-20
Weapon damage: 10-20 x 1.5 = 15-30
Attack Damage: 15-30 x 1.3 = 19.5-39
(More)Skill Damage: 19.5-39 x 1.4 = 27-55

Is this correct?
That looks about right, assuming by "Base Damage" you are referring to the damage range a weapon of that base type would deal if it did not have a modifier on it, and by "weapon damage" you are referring to the (modified) base damage of the specific weapon which has that local modifier on it (the damage values shown in blue on the weapon).
If I have some free time to do so over the weekend I'll come here and post some specific examples for different combinations of weapons/bonuses/skills etc and the effect they have, to help clear things up. I'm not gonna take the time to do that during working hours though, I've got more important stuff do get done for 0.9.6 :P
Last edited by Mark_GGG#0000 on Feb 2, 2012, 8:10:58 PM
Right, I didn't mean to say they stack differently but merely that where(to which values) they are applied changes accordingly. I guess I should know by now that specifics are important!

I was just using the same format Malice used, lol. Blame him if it's confusing! =P
Last edited by FaceLicker#6894 on Feb 2, 2012, 8:11:10 PM
"
FaceLicker wrote:
I was just using the same format Malice used, lol. Blame him if it's confusing! =P

"
Mark_GGG wrote:
EDIT: reworded to remove unintented nastiness, my initial post came off quite mean which I did not intend.


The blame already went off ;)

Edit: No offence! :)
[The Prison] Crawl a text-based dungeon - http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/26299
Last edited by Azhubham#4599 on Feb 2, 2012, 8:16:20 PM
"
FaceLicker wrote:
Right, I didn't mean to say they stack differently but merely that where(to which values) they are applied changes accordingly. I guess I should know by now that specifics are important!

I was just using the same format Malice used, lol. Blame him if it's confusing! =P
It's not so much as it's confusing as that there isn't necessarily a "correct" terminology to refer to this stuff, so given that I post in gold and people take my word as gospel and quote it all over the place, I want to make sure that I am interpreting your words correctly when I say "That's correct", because if we've misunderstood each other and I say it's right, or someone reading it misunderstands and sees I've said it's right, that leads to people going round quoting me elsewhere to back to interpretations which might be wrong. I try to be a bit cautious about such things, and usually check that actual code before posting to say something definitely works a particular way because I don't want to be the cause of any misunderstandings.

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info