Crit Multiplier is the most broken thing in the game

"

beefnuggy wrote:

"

OP is from D3

Too obvious.

Those who play other ARPGs have more to offer in a feedback thread.

Yeah terrible feedback IF you played d3 all you will see between the nodes of that game are people wanting shit to be nerfed because they have an inferior complex like go look at it right now.

Like a fucking warzone down their a field of fucking terrible whiners.

"

torturo wrote:

Swords were lighter than people imagine, the most "knightly" hand and a half (bastard sword) was around 1.8kg. average. One hand swords were around 1.2-1.4kg.
Such a weapon can't crush, or cut hardened metal and will be damaged during process, making it it useless.

This is quite wrong. Swords are designed such that the majority of the mass is near the hilt, allowing it to gain exceptional rotational momentum towards the tip, with minimal levering by the hands. Swords didn't often cut--it is far too mechanically inefficient and even more so as a weapon wears down. They were used primarily defensively (push, parry, pin, and such), while offensively larger swords (the sorts upwards of 3.2 kg) used crushing force to break apart skin and bone beneath the impact, while smaller swords were used to penetrate in closer quarters. The size and balance of a larger sword make it optimal for directing crushing force beneath a narrow edge. Even against armour (mind you, full plate armour being exceptionally rare, and even then...) that force still has to go somewhere, i.e. through the body.

The swords I'm referring to (like some of the PoE 2Hers) were used primarily to break through a wall of shields, where one full momentum swing and leap were all the weapon needed to get its job done, and that was to knock the front line of a formation over, break arms beneath dented shields, trample, etc... Aka, turn the front line of a formation into casualties to expose the rest to an advancing melee. There wasn't much "knightly" anything, the majority of weapons being damaged during a conflict and repaired afterwards. Ever hear of straightening your sword?

Also, note, a casualty does not mean dead (though it certainly can); merely unable to fight.

Edit: Note: I'm not terribly well versed in the history or physics of combat, but this much at least I know to be true from those who are.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

torturo wrote:

Swords were lighter than people imagine, the most "knightly" hand and a half (bastard sword) was around 1.8kg. average. One hand swords were around 1.2-1.4kg.
Such a weapon can't crush, or cut hardened metal and will be damaged during process, making it it useless.

This is quite wrong. Swords are designed such that the majority of the mass is near the hilt, allowing it to gain exceptional rotational momentum towards the tip, with minimal levering by the hands. Swords didn't often cut--it is far too mechanically inefficient and even more so as a weapon wears down. They were used primarily defensively (push, parry, pin, and such), while offensively larger swords (the sorts upwards of 3.2 kg) used crushing force to break apart skin and bone beneath the impact, while smaller swords were used to penetrate in closer quarters. The size and balance of a larger sword make it optimal for directing crushing force beneath a narrow edge. Even against armour (mind you, full plate armour being exceptionally rare, and even then...) that force still has to go somewhere, i.e. through the body.

The swords I'm referring to (like some of the PoE 2Hers) were used primarily to break through a wall of shields, where one full momentum swing and leap were all the weapon needed to get its job done, and that was to knock the front line of a formation over, break arms beneath dented shields, trample, etc... Aka, turn the front line of a formation into casualties to expose the rest to an advancing melee. There wasn't much "knightly" anything, the majority of weapons being damaged during a conflict and repaired afterwards. Ever hear of straightening your sword?

Also, note, a casualty does not mean dead (though it certainly can); merely unable to fight.

Edit: Note: I'm not terribly well versed in the history or physics of combat, but this much at least I know to be true from those who are.

except for a few piercing weapons like the rapier, no they weren't. Their center of balance was along their blade at least a few inches from the hilt.

Did you notice that the blades have a small area that wasn't sharpened just past the hilt? Just past that point where they began to sharpen the blades was often the center of balance which was where the blade could balanced with ease and just slightly past that being the intended point of impact for cutting implements and often the widest part of the blade (look at a scimitar for example).

But as hard as you might swing it, the force was relatively low as it would be neigh impossible to wield and would shatter the wielder's arm more then it would harm an actual armored target (would need a wooden or otherwise pliable haft to absorb the force and to amplify it as well). To do actual damage with a weapon using pure kinetic energy you need all the mass in the head of the weapon and for it to have a pliable half to act as a lever to amplify the force and to absorb it so your own arm isn't broken.

Try swinging a lead pipe and hitting a brick wall, you can feel that force going right up your own arm... rememeber the laws of physics after all, the energy your impacting them with is equally used in resisting the energy your own arm is moving with so that force moves both ways.




edit - don't actually swing a lead pipe at a wall unless shattering your wrist sounds like a great idea

We're kinda really getting off topic here, but...

"Majority of their mass." The statement implies that the distribution of mass nearer to the hilt is denser than of the length of the blade. Nonetheless, this does mean the same thing: the center of balance is nearer the hilt as opposed to the center of the length of the weapon. . . thereby reducing the amount of levering required by the hands to generate greater rotational momentum along the tip. Note, nearer to != at the location of.

We said the same thing, basically, though specifically I am not talking about rapiers, or scimitars, but true "two handed great swords," presumably the closest accurate description of PoE's impractical design and mass distribution among their 2Hers (certainly, we don't have any half and a half or "knightly" long swords, just look at them). Again, I am no expert, but afaik the most practical application for these weapons was to lever them over one's shoulder and allow the momentum to pull the weilder forward a step, and drop the weight of the blade's rotational momentum to fall upon, and break, the front line of a formation. After that, the weapon's grip could be inverted, and spread to that "dull" area you mentioned beyond the hilt, and wielded for all practical intents, like a pole arm. Ergo, why the bladed portion of the weapon is just barely greater than half it's length.

At least, this is how it is told to me by a friend who's profession is black smithing, and who's study is primarily aligned with the warfare tactics of the Landsknechte (he's a proper SCA nerd and rather celebrated by the community).

Compare with PoE's 2H swords, which by all appearances have absolutely no practical use. Assume our exiles are of supernatural strength and stamina, and their application can best be described as the very same crushing action mentioned above. The grip doesn't look terribly efficient for thrusting actions, and definitely not for cutting (aka, our 1Hers).

Reverting to on topic: That, to me, sounds like crit multi.

Edit: But that and $0.75 won't even get me a cup of coffee. We have no real definitions to work off of to translate PoE's unreal mechanics into real world mechanics. Merely, I'm stating, to me it seems "accuracy" is making contact against a moving target, "crit chance" is skillfully delivering that contact towards a vital area*, and "crit multi" is the weapon's capacity to inflict maximum harm to that area. In this case, our "great sword's" vital area* is likely between the neck and clavicle where it will make certain death upon a solid blow.

Edit 2: Also, not much force is necessary. It not like swinging a lead pipe against a brick wall; the human body is much softer than a brick wall, and most common forms of armour did not do much to change that. At least not against the kind of action described above, where redirecting the directional force of the swords blade would still hurt like a mother. Even then, the human body collapses under much less force than a brick wall. They are not the same.

The mention of levering and rotational momentum merely means that in the case of a sword, it is much more efficient to deliver that force than with, say, an oversized axe.

I'll repeat, swords were never intended to bash with. Forget about the movies, they do it wrong.

It was absolutely forbidden to receive with the edge (there's a one span long part of the sword above the guard, called ricasso, or forte, or strong, you parry with), as you damage the weapon. Or you have to receive with the flat, that's another requirement.
It was forbidden to bash on shields, or heavy armor, as you damage the weapon.
You may cut the low armored/unarmored parts of the body.

Notched swords stop cutting anymore.
Want a useless weapon in the middle of the fight? Bash with it.

Swords, in a difference of sabres, were repaired by cold grinding. Heavy notched swords often couldn't be repaired at all. An expensive weapon gone.

Sword is a versatile weapon that may cut and thrust. Though, the heavier the armor went, the more thrusting was preferred, as it became the most efficient way (if not the only) to damage the opponent.

Take a look at Oakeshott's typology and the evolution of the swords.

Maces and axes do what you think swords did.

P.S.

No, mass is not concentrated near the hilt. You will feel weapon heavier that way.
It's distributed all along the sword. From the pommel to the point. It's called balance. Well balanced sword feels lighter when you wield.

"

Its not that daggers are broken, its Crit multiplier making everything in the game that can crit is broken.

No you are wrong. crit mult is balanced around a mediorcre crit chance of 30-50%.
If you reduce crit mult than 90% of spell builds would be total crap. leaving only flameblast, incinerate and maybe discharge as endgame viable spells.

The problem clearly are weapons with such high base crit chance that you can easily reach 80++% crit chance AND still get as much base dps as other low crit chance spells/weapons AND benefit from flat base dmg on gear!

500 DPS weapons with 9+% base crit chance and 1.7 APS... are the problem.

Crit mult is fine with swords, maces, claws... basically with everything except well, you know it... daggers and maybe harbinger bows...

so...

"

azraelb wrote:

"

Its not that daggers are broken, its Crit multiplier making everything in the game that can crit is broken.

No you are wrong. crit mult is balanced around a mediorcre crit chance of 30-50%.
If you reduce crit mult than 90% of spell builds would be total crap. leaving only flameblast, incinerate and maybe discharge as endgame viable spells.

The problem clearly are weapons with such high base crit chance that you can easily reach 80++% crit chance AND still get as much base dps as other low crit chance spells/weapons AND benefit from flat base dmg on gear!

500 DPS weapons with 9+% base crit chance and 1.7 APS... are the problem.

Crit mult is fine with swords, maces, claws... basically with everything except well, you know it... daggers and maybe harbinger bows...

so...

There is an old problem here. People only get those crit levels if they are in non-HC leagues or are suicidal in a HC league. Since I play HC only, I will never ever get even close to 80% crit levels because that means that I gave up on basic survivability. People are sensationalist. There are people in these forums who claim dagger/shield have all the defenses a person could want and still put out 300k dps with 80% crit. No no no.

You can still have good dps, but you can't also have amazing defenses. It's just not possible. Just try it. Make a 75%/75% block/spell block spectral throw character and give me 80% crit with a 10.2% Bino's. Now somehow do that with Lightning Coil and somehow still keep max resists and that high dps and 80% crit. And now do that in a HC without spending 500 exalts.

None of that is possible.

And I find it funny that bow builds can do the exact same thing with high crit and people dont' complain about that. Or how about spells? Oh ya. Those things. People just love to qq and focus on the popular topic. It's called band wagoning or circle jerking, as reddit likes to call it. One person starts to complain, people jump on without even reasoning it out themselves. This is why political brain washing and evangelism and cults work.

^ I agree that crit multi itself is not the issue; I disagree that it is the weapons themselves. I do believe crit multi plays its part though.

Concisely, it's the dex/int tree's access to accuracy, attack speed, increased damage, crit multi, and crit chance--all enablers to develop the highest possible DPS. Each of these elements play their own parts, but directly targeting the items only leaves more legacy stains in the game.

In regards to crit multi specifically (or any of these elements really, but for this thread...) I do not see why all weapons must have the same base critical multiplier. Applying varying degrees of efficiency in stacking crit multi (and again, those other elements) instead of just stacking all benefits on one archetype, I think would go a long way. When they all share the same behaviors, obviously the weapon with the biggest numbers is going to be the no-brainier best.