Damage Over Time Changes - More Information Part 2
|
These changes are really not that hard to understand. The major change was very easy to understand. These other posts are just minor details.
I am still curious about some items and if wordings will be changed. Ex: facebreakers have more unarmed physical damage. Will this be somehow reworded to affect unarmed base physical damage? Otherwise the base/added dmg of facebreakers is laughably low and poison/ ignites/bleeds will tickle |
|
" Yes, this is much easier to understand. Let's do examples based on the exact images provided to illustrate the difference. I would like to point out here, though, that a huge part of the issue in these threads is simply informational. People assume that they understand what 'double-dipping' means when they don't. This is exacerbated by the fact that 'double-dipping' is a term whose name creates a lot of confusion. A much better name for the concept would be 'quadratic scaling'. Let's say we are using Fireball and it does 100 damage base. Let's also say that I currently have 50% Increased Fire damage. This applies to both the 'hit' and the 'dot'. Please GGG put these on separate lines on the skills. This should be doable now. By the Old System chart, there is no way to show a DoT because it relies on a factor external to the character (the Mitigation of the enemy affected). Old way: Base Fire Damage: 100 Attacker Stat Modifiers: +50% Inc Total Fire Damage: 150 Enemy Mitigation: 25% (Assumed) Fire Damage Taken: 112.5 Base Ignite Damage: 22.5 per second Attack Stat Modifiers: +50% Inc Total Ignite Damage: 33.75 per second Enemy Mitigation: 25% Ignite Damage Taken: 25.3125 per second Old Total: 112.5 'Hit', 25.3 per second 'DoT' New Way: Base 'Hit' Damage: 100 Ignite Percentage: 40% Base Ignite Damage: 40 per second Attacker Stat Modifiers: +50% Inc Total 'Hit' Damage: 150 Total Ignite Damage: 60 per second Enemy Mitigation: 25% 'Hit' Damage Taken: 112.5 Ignite Damage Taken: 45 per second New Total: 112.5 'Hit', 45 per second 'DoT' So, this simple example shows that the New Way improves overall damage if it all applies to both DoT. (Really, it is showing that in this case the enemy mitigation is hurting your attack more than your damage scaling is helping it under the old system.) So let's take a slightly more complex example. Same everything, except I also have +100% Increased Spell Damage, which does not affect my Ignite. Old Way: Base Hit Amount: 100 Attacker Stat: +150% Total Hit Amount: 250 Enemy Mitigation: 25% Hit Damage Taken: 187.5 Base Ignite Amount: 37.5 per second Attacker Stat: +150% Total Ignite Amount: 93.75 per second Enemy Mitigation: 25% Ignite Damage Taken: 70.3125 per second Old Damage: 187.5 Hit + 70.31 per second DoT New Way: Base Hit Amount: 100 Base Ignite Amount: 40 per second Attacker Hit Stats: +150% Attacker Ignite Stats: +50% Total Hit Amount: 250 Total Ignite Amount: 60 per second Enemy Mitigation: 25% Hit Damage Taken: 187.5 Ignite Damage Taken: 45 per second New Damage: 187.5 Hit + 45 per second DoT Now the old way is better in terms of damage. The issue GGG has been facing is that the old system scaled quadratically with the ratio of damage bonuses to damage penalties. The new system scales linearly with the same. The net effect is that, all else being equal, high-end builds that relied on the quadratic scaling are, indeed, going to be nerfed into the ground. However, all else is not going to be equal. I could do a third example where I have an extra 100% DoT damage and the numbers become almost equal to the new 100% example. (It would be 112.5 Hit + 75 per second DoT, which is not as good as 100% spell damage, but it's close.) When you consider that GGG is likely to make DoT damage scaling easier to get than Hit damage scaling, it seems that this is an inherently more balanced system. TL;DR version: 'Double Dipping' refers to quadratic scaling of damage multipliers and is very difficult to balance appropriately. There is a huge difference between x^2 scaling and 2x scaling, which is (aside from corner cases) the limit to the scaling of multipliers to your damage under the new system. Anyway, I may come up with a graph that shows the difference between them. It will likely be a linear/quadratic curve, but it may help some. |
|
|
From all this i understand that Bleed/Poison will have much greater % from base damage than it is now.
Otherwise even if you add clusters which gives MORE/MORE/MORE... Bleed/Poison will still be useless! If Bleed/Poison based ONLY on BASE hit DAMAGE and there are no Inheritance tags, NEW Bleed/Poison will not have 8% but 100%+-. And new Bleed/Poison build will intentionally will take clusters which Increase only tags related to Bleed/Poison. But still i can't see any normal build which will be only dependent on Bleed/Poison damage, ignoring original damage. |
|
" 'increased/more chaos damage' will still scale poison, and theoretically 'increased/more physical damage' will still scale bleeds. (Not 'increased physical attack damage', but 'increased physical damage', which may not exist anywhere yet.) Something that GGG needs to do is to make very clear (in reserved game terminology) what affects only the initial hit of a skill, and what affects the DoT, and what affects both. I suggest 'Hit' and 'Ailment', respectively. So 'increased physical Hit damage', etc. 'Attack' would be preferable but it already is a reserved term (meaning a skill whose damage is based off of one or more equipped weapons). |
|
|
The old method of scaling was broken. A fire hit of 1000 damage would apply a DoT that did 10% of the initial hit for 4 seconds after. The total would be 1400 damage.
If you had 900% increased burning damage, the hit would deal 10,000 damage and the Dot would scale from the initial hit, and multiplied again by +900% for a total of 50,000 damage(10k from the initial hit and 40k from the burn). Under the new system the initial hit would still be 10,000, but the DoT would only be 4000, not 40,000. This is a good change. The old system made no sense when your increases reached high levels. |
|
" Hey, thanks for the detailed post. One question tho - did you apply the spell damage to the ignite here (it says +150%)? Assuming this is no burning vortex, spell damage didn't double dip to my understanding. |
|
" I did. I was unsure as to whether it did--I am not perfect--but if it does not, then simply assume that 100% of the Hit increase you have does not apply to the DoT in the new system but not the old. Anyway, to give a tabular difference in what the Old System vs. New System entails, check out the following: %Inc is the total modifier that you have that applies to both Old and New; mitigation is assumed 25% in all cases. OH is Old Hit, OI is Old Ignite, NH is New Hit, and NI is New Ignite. Base Hit is 100, as above. %Inc OH OI NH NI 0 75 11 75 30 50 112 25 112 45 100 150 45 150 60 150 187 70 187 75 200 225 101 225 90 250 262 137 262 105 etc. You can see that, outside of a factor that applies to only the hit or only the DoT, the new ignite is always 40% of the Hit. Thus, the ignite is fixed relative to the hit. OTOH, under the old system, the ratio of the ignite to the hit is not fixed. Rather, it scales in a quadratic fashion. One implication of this is that the new system can never recreate the curve seen in the old system, even with massive buffs. You can overshoot or undershoot, but it cannot match the curve. In the high-end cases, this almost always implies a nerf. (I am not saying that this is 'bad'; I am simply stating the case.) If anyone has any specific questions on how modifiers would interact in any specific scenario, just ask. Just provide the base damage to me so that it is a straightforward application of the diagrams provided by GGG. |
|
" " I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how damage modifiers have been getting applied. The reason its called double dipping is because the damage multipliers apply to the base hit AND the DoT. IE, if you have a Physical/AoE skill supported by Poison, adding Concentrated Effect increases both initial hit taken by the mob AND the damage over time effect. Look at the following example, based on a 100 damage (physical/aoe skill) supported by poison and conc effect. You seem to think it works like the following: 100 damage hit * 1.5 (conc effect) = 150 physical damage 150 * .08 damage per second * 2 seconds = 24 poison damage 150 + 24 = 174 total damage That's NOT how it currently works. It's actually: 100 damage hit * 1.5 (conc effect) = 150 physical damage 150 * (.08 dps * 2 secs) * 1.5 = 24 * 1.5 (conc effect) = 36 poison damage 150 + 36 = 186 total damage 12 point difference might not seem like a lot, but keep in mind that was only with 1 support gem more multiplier, and ignoring and increased multipliers. Let's do the same calculate with 200% worth of more multipliers. Your way: 100 damage hit * 3 = 300 physical damage 300 * .08 damage per second * 2 seconds = 48 poison damage 300 + 48 = 348 total damage poison damage accounts for 16% of the total damage (which is what you'd expect, since its 8% of hit damage per second * 2 seconds) Actual way: 100 damage hit * 3 = 300 physical damage 300 * (.08 dps * 2 secs) * 3 = 48 * 3 = 144 poison damage 300 + 144 poison damage = 444 total damage poison damage accounts for 32% of the total damage It's double dipping because your damage modifiers increase both the base hit AND the DoT effect. With the way people have been stacking damage multipliers, it's possible for the poison damage to actually account for the majority of your damage (example, hit for 100 physical damage, deal 300 chaos damage as poison). Last edited by qwe4rty#1317 on May 11, 2017, 11:29:56 AM
|
|
" hmm it applies to the hit and it applies to the ignite that in my book is double dip sure it doesn't apply 2 times to the ignite anymore but now its 40% instead of 20% of the base fire damage and they said they are gonna buff fire passives in the tree so i will be flameblasting some more as usual feelsgood. Last edited by mirificel#1224 on May 11, 2017, 11:32:32 AM
|
|
" Then your book needs to be updated, I'm afraid. |
|
