Merging all Mainstats into one

General Discussion
05/09/2019 04:37 PMPosted by naksiloth
05/09/2019 04:23 PMPosted by Shurgosa
made Dex and Strength improve the exact same thing for 2 different classes


Dodge classes was about sleek recovery and test of reflexes. Instead of amping up life recovery and sustain with the damage of monsters evenly, they changed Dexterity to increase armor for straight mitigation. They listened to the fans again; possibly, Reddit or some other echo chamber asked them to do that.

All in all, there'd no way you'd outlive a serious 10-40 million raw damage blows from monsters with that scaling.

Dexterity giving dodge chance could have worked perfectly if D3's approach to difficulty settings would have been different.

Instead of letting each difficulty inflate enemies life and damage further and further, their life and damage could have started to stagnate at a certain point and the difficult could have had been increased in different ways, like enemies moving faster, having higher CC resistance, elites could spawn more often and have more elite affixes, increased monster AI, new attacks for enemies, Molten Explosions triggering faster... Then we also wouldn't have need 150 different difficulties and 10 would have probably be enough.

And if that would not have been enough for making dodge viable, then there could be legendaries and/or passive skills that for example give a bonus to all-res or armor based on your dodge chance.
05/11/2019 01:43 PMPosted by clueso

There were actually several different attribute systems during the development.
There was strength, dexterity, vitality and willpower at first. This was most like D2 with the great improvement that willpower (replacing energy) gave spell damage bonus. Then we had attack, percision, vitality, defense and willpower. And then willpower was removed. Then we got primary stat system which is the worst attribute system imaginable. When you revamp the attributes four months before launching, you get a pile crap and that is what we got.

They should have worked on the first one. Strength increases armor by % and increases weapon damage depending on the weapon type. Dexterity increases attack speed or critical hit chance and dodge and for some weapon types increases the damage as well as strength. Willpower increases resource or resource regen or reduces cooldowns and increases spell damage and ALL elemental damage (weapons with elemental damage mods). Vitality increases health and health regen. IAS, CC, and dodge would work like the armor bonus and the other attributes. It increases the attributes innate and on gear rather than giving the stat directly. This is so that a dexterity character would want to invest in dodge chance on gear instead of being able to forgo dodge chance because of high dexterity. I think it works better thematically and it is also consistent with everything else.

The reason I think that is good is because the stats are potentially useful for anyone and facilitates crossover builds (spell casting monk or melee wizard or demon hunter) and hybrid builds. A monk might take more strength than dexterity and wear some heavier armor and use a sword in combat. He might use mostly dexterity and fight with fist or staff. He might use willpower with a fire enchanted weapon and focus on spells (wave of light eg.). An elemental attack like some LTK runes would be scale with both (dexterity/strength bonus + willpower bonus).

To elaborate on the damage calculation with a bow for example, damage would increase with strength with diminishing returns but would increase with every point of dexterity. A sword would be vice versa. An mace would scale only with strength. Any elemental damage on the weapon (or done by an attack instead of spell cast) is also increased by the same calculations so strength/dexterity is restricted to doing only physical damage and is instead focused on "attacks" instead of "spells".
05/12/2019 01:30 PMPosted by UngivenFame
05/11/2019 01:43 PMPosted by clueso

There were actually several different attribute systems during the development.
There was strength, dexterity, vitality and willpower at first. This was most like D2 with the great improvement that willpower (replacing energy) gave spell damage bonus. Then we had attack, percision, vitality, defense and willpower. And then willpower was removed. Then we got primary stat system which is the worst attribute system imaginable. When you revamp the attributes four months before launching, you get a pile crap and that is what we got.

These two attribute systems were not perfect, but they still were more interesting than mainstat. I really wonder why they went the route of completely removing the attrribute system.

05/12/2019 01:30 PMPosted by UngivenFame
They should have worked on the first one. Strength increases armor by % and increases weapon damage depending on the weapon type. Dexterity increases attack speed or critical hit chance and dodge and for some weapon types increases the damage as well as strength. Willpower increases resource or resource regen or reduces cooldowns and increases spell damage and ALL elemental damage (weapons with elemental damage mods). Vitality increases health and health regen. IAS, CC, and dodge would work like the armor bonus and the other attributes. It increases the attributes innate and on gear rather than giving the stat directly. This is so that a dexterity character would want to invest in dodge chance on gear instead of being able to forgo dodge chance because of high dexterity. I think it works better thematically and it is also consistent with everything else.

This is one of the better ideas for an attribute system and definitely better than mainstat.

Such a system is indeed is closer to an RPG fantasy, but you also put offensive and defensive/utility bonuses is every single attrbiute (armor + weapon damage in STR, attack speed/crit + dodge in DEX, resource/cooldown + spell/ele damage in INT), which I find a bit problematic.

I would prefer to have the attributes more distinct:
One offensive attribute
One defensive attribute
One resource/cooldown related attribute
One utility/speed attribute

We talked about this before and I think I have found a solution to the issue that this system lacks a bit of RPG fantasy, because every character would use the attribute for increasing damage.

The solution is that every char has a different offensive attribute, while the other three stay the same.

STH classes would get Strength as their offensive attribute, which increases damage and also gives crushing blow.
DEX classes would get Dexterity as their offensive attribute, which increases damage and also gives critical hit chance.
INT classes would get Intelligence as their offensive attribute, which increases damage and also gives area damage.

The other three attribute could stay the same for all classes and the bonuses to Strength, Dexterity and Intelligence on items also would adjust based on what class is wering them, as I suggest in the original post.

05/12/2019 01:30 PMPosted by UngivenFame
The reason I think that is good is because the stats are potentially useful for anyone and facilitates crossover builds (spell casting monk or melee wizard or demon hunter) and hybrid builds. A monk might take more strength than dexterity and wear some heavier armor and use a sword in combat. He might use mostly dexterity and fight with fist or staff. He might use willpower with a fire enchanted weapon and focus on spells (wave of light eg.). An elemental attack like some LTK runes would be scale with both (dexterity/strength bonus + willpower bonus).

I think one of the better things D3 has done was that gear was no longer dependent on your attributes, which meant that you no longer had to put points into STH/DEX just to wear certain armors, shields or weapons. Making items depend on yout attributes just entangles two system that should be independent from each other.

What you suggest has too much RPG realism for my taste. RPG stuff is really great, but at a certain point RPG realism just becomes too much and too unnecessary. If you wanna play a spell-casting Monk or a melee Wizard, then there should be passive skills for that, but attributes should have nothing to do with it.

Attributes should determine if you wanna play your char more offensively, or more defensive, more agile or do something with your resource, but not what items you wear or what kind kind of damage you increase.

That can be a left to passive skills, f.e. A passive skill that gives Wizards more damage and defense when they wear a melee weapon, a passive that only increases spell damage for a Monk, a Demon Hunter passive that increases damage for gadgets and explosives but reduces the damage of arrows so you can play an engineer DH, a passive that increases your total amount of armor if you only wear plate armor pieces, a passive that increases all resistances if you only wear cloth armor etc...
Its not about RPG fantasy. There are practical reasons. It makes the loot hunting more interesting. By having your primary damage stat tied to a defensive stat you shift the value of different attributes on gear. If I am stacking strength, +10 armor is more valuable than if I were stacking intelligence because its boosted by strength attribute and becomes effectively +20 armor. The reduced cooldown from intelligence allows for active skill usage to mitigate damage for spell casters to compensate for their relative lack of mitigation.

It also allows you to balance ranged/caster versus melee. Melee benefitting from strength will need more armor than a wizard casting spells from range. Tying melee damage to armor makes it so that you can get that right amount of damage so that a wizard in melee is threatened without gimping a barbarian who is going to be expected to take 5 times or more hits.

It also could help in balancing skills. Consider a skill (serenity) that gives invulnerability for 3 seconds. Maybe a base ten second cooldown feels good. But 70% cooldown reduction would give permenant immunity. 70% cooldown reduction on something like slow time or teleport is not broken. Those scale differently and attributes should be used to modify those values so that we can have good amounts for one build without having too much for a different build.

Classifying skills as attack, or spell lets you have more utility function. I might take a spell that stuns even though my attributes buff attack damage and not spell damage. Or I could focus on spell damage and make that a damaging skill rather than a utility skill.

Additionally, it helps to give weight to build decisions. With a single offensive attribute, you are in a situation where you can radically change a skill setup and essentially have to change no gear or attributes. With my system, you got some flexibility but to change builds but some transitions are going to require new gear and attribute selection.

A reason I think this is important to have attributes influencing things like this instead of just having a passive ability or just having a legendary is it lets a player ease into a play style from the start. If I want to be a throwing barb, I just get more dexterity than strength, equip a throwing weapon and start throwing. I don't have to get to level 40 to unlock a passive for good throwing damage or find the 300th spear to get good throwing damage.
05/12/2019 05:21 PMPosted by UngivenFame
By having your primary damage stat tied to a defensive stat you shift the value of different attributes on gear. If I am stacking strength, +10 armor is more valuable than if I were stacking intelligence because its boosted by strength attribute and becomes effectively +20 armor.

Armor and resistances should work differently.
Resistances could absorb a certain percentage of the damage, while armor would do the same, but ~30% of the damage simply could go through armor and not get effected by it. Or armor could absorb a flat amount of damage.

That makes the choice between resistances, armor and dodge and other defensive modifiers (like f.e. Energy Shield/Mage Armor) interesting enough.

================================

However, what could be done would be to give each class a different defensive affix on the defensive attribute.

The defensive attribute could always give damage reduction and CC resistance, but STR classes would get additional armor, INT classes would get Energy Shield and DEX classes could get dodge, resistances, movement speed, percentage based life regeneration or whatever...

05/12/2019 05:21 PMPosted by UngivenFame
The reduced cooldown from intelligence allows for active skill usage to mitigate damage for spell casters to compensate for their relative lack of mitigation.

What if I wanna play a Barbarian who focuses on offense and cooldown reduction/resource cost reduction? With your system a Wizard who focuses on offense and cooldown would have a drastic advantage compared to a Barbarian who wants to do the same, because the Wizard can put all points her points into a single attribute, while the Barbarian has to split them into two different ones and therefore only get half the benefit.

05/12/2019 05:21 PMPosted by UngivenFame
It also allows you to balance ranged/caster versus melee. Melee benefitting from strength will need more armor than a wizard casting spells from range. Tying melee damage to armor makes it so that you can get that right amount of damage so that a wizard in melee is threatened without gimping a barbarian who is going to be expected to take 5 times or more hits.

Melee chars could and should take xx% less damage by default like it already is in D3, where Monks, Barbarians and Crusaders have 30% innate reduced damage taken.

05/12/2019 05:21 PMPosted by UngivenFame
It also could help in balancing skills. Consider a skill (serenity) that gives invulnerability for 3 seconds. Maybe a base ten second cooldown feels good. But 70% cooldown reduction would give permenant immunity. 70% cooldown reduction on something like slow time or teleport is not broken. Those scale differently and attributes should be used to modify those values so that we can have good amounts for one build without having too much for a different build.

Serenity already has an innate base effect that prevents perma-invulnerablity. Serenity only starts its cooldown once its effects expired, so no matter how much cooldown reduction you stack, you never will be permanently immune.

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I think a lot more skills/buffs should have this effect that the cooldown only starts once its effect expired, like the ultimates (Vengeance, Wrath of the Berserker, Akkarats Champion), but also stuff like Ignore Pain, Consecration etc and eventually also debuffs like Ground Stomp.

I know this is not going to be implemented in D3, but hopefully in D4. Then the balance of cooldowns and cooldown reduction would never be a problem again.

05/12/2019 05:21 PMPosted by UngivenFame
Classifying skills as attack, or spell lets you have more utility function. I might take a spell that stuns even though my attributes buff attack damage and not spell damage. Or I could focus on spell damage and make that a damaging skill rather than a utility skill.

I also like the idea of classifying skills as spells, melee attacks or as ranged attacks (a ranged attack is a ranged attack that is not a spell), but in regards to which direction you want to take a skill into, that is also something that does not belong (in my opinion) on an attribute system, but in the skill system.

Let's say you have a skill like an Electonic Fireball and there would be a skill system like the one in Last Epoch. Now you could decide where you would want to put your skill points into and in which direction you want to take the skill. Do you want to increase the damage of that spell, increase its detonation radius, reduce its resource costs or give it a chance to stun enemies or a mix of several of them?

That is a much better system than tying stuff like that to an attribute system.

05/12/2019 05:21 PMPosted by UngivenFame
Additionally, it helps to give weight to build decisions. With a single offensive attribute, you are in a situation where you can radically change a skill setup and essentially have to change no gear or attributes. With my system, you got some flexibility but to change builds but some transitions are going to require new gear and attribute selection.

I currently can't come up with examples of what you mean when you say to drastically change a build (probably because I am too tired at the moment), but I think it depends. Also, even if what you are saying is correct, I would onl see it as a minor drawback.

05/12/2019 05:21 PMPosted by UngivenFame
A reason I think this is important to have attributes influencing things like this instead of just having a passive ability or just having a legendary is it lets a player ease into a play style from the start. If I want to be a throwing barb, I just get more dexterity than strength, equip a throwing weapon and start throwing. I don't have to get to level 40 to unlock a passive for good throwing damage or find the 300th spear to get good throwing damage.

I would say if you wanna be a Throwing Barbarian, just specialize in throwing skills and put your points into throwing skills (again in the context of a Last Epoch like skill system).

Armor and resistances should work differently.
Resistances could absorb a certain percentage of the damage, while armor would do the same, but ~30% of the damage simply could go through armor and not get effected by it. Or armor could absorb a flat amount of damage.
I was under the assumption that armor would reduce physical damage type which would make up most of the melee damage. Intelligence doesn't increase resistances in this case because spell damage is likely to affect either equally. If armor reduces all damage by flat amount and resistances by % then I still see the same value in this.

However, what could be done would be to give each class a different defensive affix on the defensive attribute.

The defensive attribute could always give damage reduction and CC resistance, but STR classes would get additional armor, INT classes would get Energy Shield and DEX classes could get dodge, resistances, movement speed, percentage based life regeneration or whatever...
I think that would be an improvement but it restricts your ability to use attributes to become a cross over specialized build (eg. melee wizard). Something about just selecting (or putting points into) a passive skill to get armor from defensive stat (instead of energy shield for melee wizard) is less appealing to me.

What if I wanna play a Barbarian who focuses on offense and cooldown reduction/resource cost reduction? With your system a Wizard who focuses on offense and cooldown would have a drastic advantage compared to a Barbarian who wants to do the same, because the Wizard can put all points her points into a single attribute, while the Barbarian has to split them into two different ones and therefore only get half the benefit.
This kinda hard to explain in real terms so I'll just explain abstractly what I am imagining. Because the way skills are designed - barbarian less mana intensive, less AoE, thrives in the thick of combat and wizard having massive AoE and crowd controlling mana intensive abilities - what the barbarian loses in raw damage is completely offset by using resource intensive / cooldowns skills more often. Its almost counter intuitive but because those skill types are balanced for being less used compared to the wizard, you benefit more from reducing the costs and cooldowns compared to a wizard.

Also, what you aren't considering is barbarian getting bonus elemental damage from a wizard. It directly contributes to any elemental damage skills and any elemental damage enchantments on weapon (or other gear) in addition to the indirect contribution described above. The intention here is to calculate the damage bonus differently for the two. Wizard would have continuous increases from intelligence. The barbarian would have diminishing returns so that strength and intel increase damage output almost equally initially but after pumping intel to some amount (for example 25% of all attribute points total) further increasing it would lead to sacrificing damage for more resource reduction and to keep pace with the wizard raw damage output you would need more strength. But like I said above, when skills are designed around being used with different frequency the power factor doesn't increase the same amount with the same increase in frequency - so going 50/50 for further reducing resource/cooldown could be viable as well even though the raw damage bonus diminishes.

Melee chars could and should take xx% less damage by default like it already is in D3, where Monks, Barbarians and Crusaders have 30% innate reduced damage taken.
I think that is not a good idea because I want hybridized / cross-over builds to be viable. Throw barb, shield toss crusader would be advantaged over standard ranged class and melee wizard would be disadvantaged. Which is why your damage stat giving a relevant defensive stat is good.

Serenity already has an innate base effect that prevents perma-invulnerablity. Serenity only starts its cooldown once its effects expired, so no matter how much cooldown reduction you stack, you never will be permanently immune.
Yes it makes good sense to do something like that, on the one hand I like the idea of being able to extend duration and reduce cooldown to keep permanent buffs but it has caused some problems in D3. The point I am making though, is that invulnerability skills and hard crowd control skills can become broken with cooldown reduction (and I'm against that mechanic for crowd control skills) where as a movement skill or a nuke skill or a soft CC or temporary summons does not become broken in the same way.

I also like the idea of classifying skills as spells, melee attacks or as ranged attacks (a ranged attack is a ranged attack that is not a spell), but in regards to which direction you want to take a skill into, that is also something that does not belong (in my opinion) on an attribute system, but in the skill system.

That is a much better system than tying stuff like that to an attribute system.
I guess we disagree philosophically. I think attributes should define a character broadly and how effectively you will be able to use skills. I like the idea that attributes package together several stats instead of just having an attack stat which would be like % increased damage stat or utility stat which would be like either resource cost/ cooldown reduction.

I currently can't come up with examples of what you mean when you say to drastically change a build (probably because I am too tired at the moment), but I think it depends. Also, even if what you are saying is correct, I would onl see it as a minor drawback.
With attack, defense etc. you can completely change build (melee wizard to spellcasting wizard) without having to retool your items and base attributes. Attack is the same with both of them. That is basically what I am saying above as well.

I would say if you wanna be a Throwing Barbarian, just specialize in throwing skills and put your points into throwing skills (again in the context of a Last Epoch like skill system).
Really the same thing as the previous two statements. Throwing skills would be viable with a pure strength melee focused build (lets say its good situationally for killing a healer or spellcaster on the back line of a mob), if you shift to split 50/50 str/dex you are focused on throwing primarily since its damage has been buffed to be good enough for taking on stronger mobs. Maybe you want to throw flaming spears, intelligence and strength both affect that fire damage part (as I described earlier, dex and strength both affect the projectile part of damage), depending on what supplementary skills you use, you could go 50str/50 dex or 30 str/50dex/20intel for the same damage amount (because they add together) but have different defensive capabilities making different item affixes be appealing which was one of the goals of this type of attribute system.
That is different than having a bunch of attack attribute and filling in with defensive affixes or vice versa or going full glass cannon versus full tank mode.
05/13/2019 10:59 AMPosted by UngivenFame
However, what could be done would be to give each class a different defensive affix on the defensive attribute.

The defensive attribute could always give damage reduction and CC resistance, but STR classes would get additional armor, INT classes would get Energy Shield and DEX classes could get dodge, resistances, movement speed, percentage based life regeneration or whatever...
I think that would be an improvement but it restricts your ability to use attributes to become a cross over specialized build (eg. melee wizard). Something about just selecting (or putting points into) a passive skill to get armor from defensive stat (instead of energy shield for melee wizard) is less appealing to me.

It might seem less appealing to you, but it doesn't restrict your ability to become specialist in anything.

What if I wanna play a Barbarian who focuses on offense and cooldown reduction/resource cost reduction? With your system a Wizard who focuses on offense and cooldown would have a drastic advantage compared to a Barbarian who wants to do the same, because the Wizard can put all points her points into a single attribute, while the Barbarian has to split them into two different ones and therefore only get half the benefit.
This kinda hard to explain in real terms so I'll just explain abstractly what I am imagining. Because the way skills are designed - barbarian less mana intensive, less AoE, thrives in the thick of combat and wizard having massive AoE and crowd controlling mana intensive abilities - what the barbarian loses in raw damage is completely offset by using resource intensive / cooldowns skills more often. Its almost counter intuitive but because those skill types are balanced for being less used compared to the wizard, you benefit more from reducing the costs and cooldowns compared to a wizard. [/quote]
As you said, it depends on how skills are designed.
I would say that Seismic Slam, Whirlwind and HotA are either large AoE skills or they have to potential to be so if they were designed a bit differently. You simply could increase the base AoE on WW and HotA. You also could create a skill that is like a mix of Frenzy and Sweep Attack, like a large AoE Cleave attack that hits several times per attack at random nearby enemies.

It depends on how it is designed.

05/13/2019 10:59 AMPosted by UngivenFame
Also, what you aren't considering is barbarian getting bonus elemental damage from a wizard. It directly contributes to any elemental damage skills and any elemental damage enchantments on weapon (or other gear) in addition to the indirect contribution described above.

You are talking about skills like the D2 Sorceresses Enchant skill that casted a buff on herself or allies for additional fire flat damage?

05/13/2019 10:59 AMPosted by UngivenFame
The intention here is to calculate the damage bonus differently for the two.

I understand that, but I personally don't care about having one attribute that increases the physical damage of your sword and another attribute that increases the fire damage on said weapon.

I would just have it for convenience that there is only one attribute that increases all damage from your Barbarians weapon, no matter if it is physical or elemental.

05/13/2019 10:59 AMPosted by UngivenFame
Wizard would have continuous increases from intelligence. The barbarian would have diminishing returns so that strength and intel increase damage output almost equally initially but after pumping intel to some amount (for example 25% of all attribute points total) further increasing it would lead to sacrificing damage for more resource reduction and to keep pace with the wizard raw damage output you would need more strength. But like I said above, when skills are designed around being used with different frequency the power factor doesn't increase the same amount with the same increase in frequency - so going 50/50 for further reducing resource/cooldown could be viable as well even though the raw damage bonus diminishes.

That is more appealing for you that it is for me and that is okay, but trying to convince me that your system is better will not work, because we have different preferences.

05/13/2019 10:59 AMPosted by UngivenFame
Melee chars could and should take xx% less damage by default like it already is in D3, where Monks, Barbarians and Crusaders have 30% innate reduced damage taken.
I think that is not a good idea because I want hybridized / cross-over builds to be viable. Throw barb, shield toss crusader would be advantaged over standard ranged class and melee wizard would be disadvantaged. Which is why your damage stat giving a relevant defensive stat is good.

You definitely have a point with that, but there are also solutions for this problem.
Let's say you have a ranged Barbarian who uses Weapon Throw and Seismic Slam.The base damage for Seismic Slam could be reduced to make up for the Barbarians innate 30% less damage or at least the damage SS deals the further away the shock wave travels, which would make it more powerful in close combat range than it does against enemies that are further away.

There also could be an effect in Seismic Slams skill tree (Last Epoch style) that significantly increases Seismic Slams damage (or the damage against enemies the further away the wave travels, depending on how you design the skill), but removes, nullifies or negates the Barbarians innate 30% damage reduction.

05/13/2019 10:59 AMPosted by UngivenFame
Serenity already has an innate base effect that prevents perma-invulnerablity. Serenity only starts its cooldown once its effects expired, so no matter how much cooldown reduction you stack, you never will be permanently immune.
Yes it makes good sense to do something like that, on the one hand I like the idea of being able to extend duration and reduce cooldown to keep permanent buffs but it has caused some problems in D3. The point I am making though, is that invulnerability skills and hard crowd control skills can become broken with cooldown reduction (and I'm against that mechanic for crowd control skills) where as a movement skill or a nuke skill or a soft CC or temporary summons does not become broken in the same way.

Indeed, I am aware of that.

05/13/2019 10:59 AMPosted by UngivenFame
I currently can't come up with examples of what you mean when you say to drastically change a build (probably because I am too tired at the moment), but I think it depends. Also, even if what you are saying is correct, I would onl see it as a minor drawback.
With attack, defense etc. you can completely change build (melee wizard to spellcasting wizard) without having to retool your items and base attributes. Attack is the same with both of them. That is basically what I am saying above as well.

To a certain degree what you are saying is correct, but you might wanna use different legendaries, Runewords etc for Spellcasting Wizards than for a Melee Wizard. There might be some overlap in some of the rare/magic items that are used (assuming these would be BiS items in some slots), but it also depends on what affixes you wanna focus on.
I suggested a long time ago that STR, DEX, INT be converted to Power (POW). Their functionality will remain the same, except now there is some breathing room for RNG since there will be 2 less stat types in the pool.
this makes sense because honestly, stats are pointless anyway. the only stats that differentiate one player from another are plvls > 800. everything else is in the gear and they don't mean anything from one character to another. gear stats have only minute differences from one helm to another, and "main stat dex" is different only in name from "main stat str"
Armor and resistances should work differently.


Don't get the fever of "I know better" again. With that type of mob damage scaling game offers, you can not keep player alive with only single layer of percent based defensive mitigation. I know you never liked "17-20 different layers of difficulty" as well, but the model you try to shapen hardly any better; giving no ground for challenge, slow growth and promotes gear check as a way of progress.

There's a logarithmic math formulation behind all those defense layers and space for progress with difficulty scaling. So player who stack stats still would feel challenge and progress as they climb even so little. Mass straight absorb would feel too weak or overpowering as you go up or down on the difficulty.

If you think that'd be a reliable design, I suggest you to stack armor with your Monk and get any absorb you can find to hit up GRs; as you climb it, I assure you, you'll get one-shot'd by trash mobs sooner than expected.
Also pay attention how straight absorb abilities have a down time or a limit on the amount of damage they can endure as they may be overpoweringly good to the point of making other stats and attributes obsolete, if you were to be able to spam them non-stop.
05/13/2019 06:51 PMPosted by naksiloth
Armor and resistances should work differently.


Don't get the fever of "I know better" again. With that type of mob damage scaling game offers, you can not keep player alive with only single layer of percent based defensive mitigation.

I did not say that armor should definitely work as a flat absorb.

I was saying that armor should either be a flat absorb or that it should be percentage damage reduction but work mechanically different than resistances.
* Source below

For example:
* you get hit by 1.000 damage
* 30% of that damage goes through armor uneffected by default, meaning you take 300 damage no matter what.
* the remaining 700 damage get reduced by a percentage based on your armor value.

That is mechanically different from resistances, where damage wouldn't have an innate amount that would pierce through it., but rather everything would get reduced by a percentage.

To make up for that a certain amount of damage would pierce through armor by default, the percentage damage reduction could be higher than from resistances.

==================================================

But you are right, flat damage reduction is useless in the game that D3 currently is.

Maybe in D4 where difficulties would not just be about inflating enemies damage and health and their damage and health would stagnate at a certain point, there could be something like that armor value translates both into percentage based damage reduction and flat damage reduction at the same time, to make it different from resistances.

==================================================

* Source:

Armor and resistances should work differently.
Resistances could absorb a certain percentage of the damage, while armor would do the same, but ~30% of the damage simply could go through armor and not get effected by it. Or armor could absorb a flat amount of damage.

* the remaining 700 damage get reduced by a percentage based on your armor value.


I don't think that's how they call "absorb" in this game but okay... Absorb always offers 100% mitigation no matter what and being a bit strong it's always limited.

05/13/2019 07:46 PMPosted by clueso
But you are right, flat damage reduction is useless in the game that D3 currently is.


Not useless, but following straight absorb model simply disables player's ability to estimate a favorable effective health before tackling challenges and cause them to move even slower at the risk of getting one-shot'd.
just do away with stat point all together. lets do something rustic where you use what you find till it breaks and you either repair ir or you find a new one; scrap it for parts etc. I hope there is inspiration from zelda breath of the wild, i really appreciate the item system they used.

It might seem less appealing to you, but it doesn't restrict your ability to become specialist in anything.
I meant to say if you cross-over (melee wizard) you don't get armor from your defense stat. That is a crucial stat for melee who is taking significantly more physical melee damage compared to range and casters. That's one of the core motivations for this type of system.

05/13/2019 10:59 AMPosted by UngivenFame
Also, what you aren't considering is barbarian getting bonus elemental damage from a wizard. It directly contributes to any elemental damage skills and any elemental damage enchantments on weapon (or other gear) in addition to the indirect contribution described above.

You are talking about skills like the D2 Sorceresses Enchant skill that casted a buff on herself or allies for additional fire flat damage?[/quote]No I meant barbarian elemental damage, on his spells (eg. earthquake) and any elemental damage that is added to weapon attacks, is affected by intelligence (and also strength for weapon attacks). I said from a wizard I meant from intelligence.
After we are finished merging all main stats into one stat we can start complaining that there isn't any point to having different classes.

"Blizzard should just merge all classes into one class that way we can do anything we want without ever needing to switch classes! Brilliant!!!" /s
05/13/2019 10:14 PMPosted by UngivenFame

It might seem less appealing to you, but it doesn't restrict your ability to become specialist in anything.
I meant to say if you cross-over (melee wizard) you don't get armor from your defense stat. That is a crucial stat for melee who is taking significantly more physical melee damage compared to range and casters. That's one of the core motivations for this type of system.

It depends on how you want armor to work. Do you want armor on to reduce physical damage or all kinds of damage, etc ...

For playing a melee Wizard archetype there simply could be a passive skill that reduces your damage taken by 30% but also either reduces the damage you deal with spamable resource spending spells that are not melee attacks, which would solve this problem.

I recently created a concept art of how such a passive skill system could look like. For turning your Wizard into a melee Wizard you simply had to put a point into what is called a 'Weighty Passive' in this concept, that gives a bonus like the one I mentioned in the previous paragraph:

https://imgur.com/BAzcCAh

05/13/2019 10:14 PMPosted by UngivenFame
No I meant barbarian elemental damage, on his spells (eg. earthquake) and any elemental damage that is added to weapon attacks, is affected by intelligence (and also strength for weapon attacks). I said from a wizard I meant from intelligence.

But isn't the fantasy behind Earthquake that the Barbarian makes a powerful stomp that rips open the earth and causes a tremor? So shouldn't the damage of Earthquake not as well be based on STR because the more powerful the stomp is, the more the earth gets ripped open and therefore causing a more powerful EQ?

You see, what I am hinting at is that it would just get too unnecessarily complex if you let different skills get damage bonuses from different attributes instead of just a single one, but again, that might just be personal preference.

05/13/2019 08:07 PMPosted by naksiloth
I don't think that's how they call "absorb" in this game but okay... Absorb always offers 100% mitigation no matter what and being a bit strong it's always limited.

You are right. I just sometimes use the terms mitigation and absorb interchangeably out of convenience.

05/13/2019 10:14 PMPosted by UngivenFame
No I meant barbarian elemental damage, on his spells (eg. earthquake) and any elemental damage that is added to weapon attacks, is affected by intelligence (and also strength for weapon attacks). I said from a wizard I meant from intelligence.

But isn't the fantasy behind Earthquake that the Barbarian makes a powerful stomp that rips open the earth and causes a tremor? So shouldn't the damage of Earthquake not as well be based on STR because the more powerful the stomp is, the more the earth gets ripped open and therefore causing a more powerful EQ?

You see, what I am hinting at is that it would just get too unnecessarily complex if you let different skills get damage bonuses from different attributes instead of just a single one, but again, that might just be personal preference.

[/quote]I guess that might be the fantasy but really I think of more like the Druid 'summoning' a fissure or boulder... druids being descendant from the barbs, I see a quake barbarian as having awakened some sort of latent magical power over the earth and nature... because it doesn't make sense to have an avalanche in the plains or depths of hell (heights of heaven).

In the past for D3 I suggested something scaling the skill damage (and cost, duration, area... all the green numbers) by the different attributes and indicating that by the color of the text, red, green, yellow, purple. That was before loot 2.0 when everyone was complaining about getting intelligence on their bow etc. That could have been done with some consistency...

But this is even more consistent and less complex. It is essentially a hybridization of TL2 and D2 attribute system for damage calculation.

Strength increases ALL weapon damage. (Weapon damage + all physical and elemental damage) * attack skill damage % * bonus from strength.

Intelligence increases ALL elemental damage. Spell damage * Intel bonus for spells and for attacks, elemental damage * bonus from intel * attack skill damage % is added to the previous calculation.

Some weapons will scale with dexterity as well ie. bows, thrown weapons, knives, monk weapons, maybe sword and spears but not axes and maces and poleaxes... in that case the first formula has [...] * (bonus from strength + bonus from dexterity). Its not that complicated, two conditionals and simple adding.

Strength and dexterity were basically worthless for increasing damage in D2, but some weapons were all strength and some were a combination of the two and a few were all dexterity ... I kept that concept but changed energy to work like focus from TL2 (increase all elemental). Pure strength physical melee is as good as pure strength elemental melee is as good as pure focus elemental melee, and by adding the bonuses, splitting str/intel elemental is as good also str splitting physical/elemental is as good. Going intel and splitting physical/elemental would not be as good.

Going back to earthquake, if it did combination of physical and fire damage, depending on how you treated flat physical damage on skills (in TL2 it is considered magic and scales solely with Focus) compared to the physical damage of a weapon multiplied by skill's weapon damage %, then it could scale with strength as well without being a skill specific treatment - it would just mean that any magical themed spells couldn't do physical damage else that would probably be thematically inconsistent for (example) a druid's tornado to scale with strength. To accommodate both scenerios, physical and fire earthquake scaling with str and intel and a druids tornado being physical and maybe cold scaling with just intel then you'd have to base earthquake physical portion on weapon damage and then add fire. That would be entirely consistent.
@UngivenFame

That is all nice and good and I can understand where you are coming from, but the question is 'why'?

Why not go with a single offensive affix? The only reason I can see for that is RPG realism and RPG realism is nice to a certain degree, but it also can go too far. I think tweaking it a bit for convenience is a good middle ground, especially when you can have things like talent/perk/passive or whatever that turns your Wizard into a Battlemage.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum