Here are the gem details for the reworked Arc Skill!

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

"

JoeShmo wrote:

I then posed the question about whether the bonus was local or global, as relative terms, because that could mean either:

(( 100 + 105% ) x Increase damage modifier ) x More damage modifiers
(( 100 x Increase damage modifiers ) + 105% ) x More damage modifiers
100 x Increase damage modifiers x ( 105% + More damage modifiers )
100 x Increase damage modifiers x ( 105% x More damage modifiers )

I dont think there is such a thing as local and global in these sort of mechanics, its just a more multiplier.

Theres never such a thing as "+ more damage modifiers". Theyre always multiplicative, and with multiplying it does matter where they come in the chain because its always the same outcome.


9 x 100 x 10 x 1000 = 9,000,000

1000 x 9 x 100 x 10 = 9,000,000

100 x 1000 x 10 x 9 = 9,000,000

10 x 100 x 9 x 1000 = 9,000,000

they never add with other more multipliers, no source of a more multiplier ever adds with another or is summed and then applied in any fashion afaik, if you have 5 support gems and they all have a more multiplier on them none of them add together, its multiplied 5 times and it doesnt matter what order, If you have frenzy charges thats 1 source of a more multiplier, arcane surge, any source doesnt matter where its from theres no local or global cause it wouldnt make any difference. Theres no "+" when it comes to them, its all just "x".

There isnt really stuff in brackets like base x increase x (more multipliers) when it comes to mores. The only thing summed is all the increased damage stats, they get added to become 1 big multiplier, but once uve taken that as 1 final figure its just

base x increased x more x more x more x more...

ongoing for however many mores you have sources of. There will be a chain of when things are applied, but it doesnt actually effect the outcome.


base x more_A x more_B x increased x more_C

base x increased x more_A x more_B x more_C

base x more_C x more_A x more_B x increased


afaik the second one is correct but it does not matter to the final outcome, they all will result in the same number because theres no bracket situations, just straight multiplying the base figure over and over and over.

Frenzy is 1 source of more damage that is = to 4% for each charge, and this will also presumably be 1 source of more damage that is = to 15% for each remaining chain. These are simply single sources of more damage that are a "% per X variable". Thats the best way to think of them imo, not as internally additive sources (plural) but as simply a single source that is proportional to a given variable. That gets rid of the confusing idea that theres some kind of additive nature to them hence them being an exception to how 'more' works.

I get your sentiment, but there is a difference in order of operations.
--- TLDR; at the bottom ---

If it's:

(( 100 + 105% ) + Increase damage modifier ) + More damage modifiers

Then it's different than:

(( 100 + Increase damage modifiers ) + More damage modifiers ) x 105%

-----

First One: (( Base damage + per chain multiplier ) increased by the sum of damage increasing modifiers ) increased by sequential "more" multipliers in a multiplicative manner.

((((( 100 + 105% ) + 80% ) + 30% ) + 20% ) + 50% =
((( 205 ) + 80% ) + 30% ) + 20% ) + 50% =
((( 369 ) + 30% ) + 20% ) + 50% =
(( 479.7 ) + 20% ) + 50% =
( 575.64 ) + 50% =
( 863.46 )

That is how it should work, on paper.

------

Second One: (( Base damage increased by the sum of damage increasing modifiers ) increased by sequential "more" multipliers in a multiplicative manner ) increased by "more" damage multiplier.

((((( 100 + 80% ) + 30% ) + 20% ) + 50% ) + 105% =
(((( 180 ) + 30% ) + 20% ) + 50% ) + 105% =
((( 234 ) + 20% ) + 50% ) + 105% =
(( 280.8 ) + 50% ) + 105% =
( 421.2 ) + 105% =
( 863.46 )
...wait, no ....
( 526.2 )

"What?" ...I know.

That is one of the important parts of whether the "15 more per chain" is factored into the spell locally or globally, and whether the "more" part of it is actually multiplicative.

( 421.2 ) + 105 = 526.2 is a valid outcome, based on logical sequence.
Is it probable? Not likely, given presumed understanding of how things are calculated, but it does beg the question of whether it could or should work like that. This is the problem with wording things as they are in the game, with things like "increase" and "more" being loosely defined based on what GGG says ...rather than logistical or pre defined meaning.

Now, the real kicker, is the multiplicative part....

Let's take the first segment again:

((((( 100 + 105% ) + 80% ) + 30% ) + 20% ) + 50% =
((( 205 ) + 80% ) + ( 30% x 20% x 50% ) =
(( 369 ) x ( 54% ) ?
(( 369 ) x ( 78% ) ?
(( 369 ) x ( 33.3% ) ?

All 3 of the ? are Multiplicative outcomes, depending on how you do the multiplication part:

( .30 + ( .30 x .20 ) + (( .30 + ( .30 x .20 )) x .50 ))
or
( .50 + ( .50 x .30 ) + (( .50 + ( .50 x .30 )) x .20 ))
or
( .50 + .30 + .20 ) / 3

Have I made you confused? Do I sound like I'm just making things up now? Of course.
But that's the inane confusing thing when people spout or take things for granted when it's stated something is either "multiplicative" , or any other made up term definition.

My favorite made up equation though, is:

.50 + ( .50 x .30 ) + ( .50 x .30 x .20 ) =
.50 + ( .15 ) + ( .03 ) =
( 68% )

369 x 1.68 = 618.24

The one you were probably looking for at the very start of this.

And in my opinion, the wrong way of designing stat outcomes.
And on a tangent, why physical reduction via armor is such a terrible stat.

-----------------


TLDR;

I understand how it works, I just find it convoluted and questionable from time to time, which is why I'll occasional ask a question that might seem stupid at first glance, but has some merit.

"

JoeShmo wrote:

I get your sentiment, but there is a difference in order of operations.

no there isnt.

"

JoeShmo wrote:

I get your sentiment, but there is a difference in order of operations.
--- TLDR; at the bottom ---

If it's:

(( 100 + 105% ) + Increase damage modifier ) + More damage modifiers

Then it's different than:

(( 100 + Increase damage modifiers ) + More damage modifiers ) x 105%

-----

First One: (( Base damage + per chain multiplier ) increased by the sum of damage increasing modifiers ) increased by sequential "more" multipliers in a multiplicative manner.

((((( 100 + 105% ) + 80% ) + 30% ) + 20% ) + 50% =
((( 205 ) + 80% ) + 30% ) + 20% ) + 50% =
((( 369 ) + 30% ) + 20% ) + 50% =
(( 479.7 ) + 20% ) + 50% =
( 575.64 ) + 50% =
( 863.46 )

That is how it should work, on paper.

------

Second One: (( Base damage increased by the sum of damage increasing modifiers ) increased by sequential "more" multipliers in a multiplicative manner ) increased by "more" damage multiplier.

((((( 100 + 80% ) + 30% ) + 20% ) + 50% ) + 105% =
(((( 180 ) + 30% ) + 20% ) + 50% ) + 105% =
((( 234 ) + 20% ) + 50% ) + 105% =
(( 280.8 ) + 50% ) + 105% =
( 421.2 ) + 105% =
( 863.46 )
...wait, no ....
( 526.2 )

"What?" ...I know.

no you were right with 863.46, they both end up the same. Youre confusing yourself by adding a ton of brackets and writing it as +%. There is no need for +% or () anywhere, its simply A x B x C x D.

youre taking it as multiplying the base, but then taking the figure of multiplying the initial base and then using that number additively at the end of the calculation after all the other multipliers. Why? There is no logical reason to do that, to make a calculation at one part of the chain and then take the result and add it in later so that it doesnt get boosted by all the other multipliers in the chain, that makes no sense.

There is no local or global to the spell with a more multiplier, that entire thought process is faulty. If it multiplies the base damage first before the other multipliers or it gets calculated after the increased damage multiplier with the other more multipliers, theres a technical answer yes or no to that, but it makes 0 difference on the final sum because it is simply a string of multiplication. The order does no effect the outcome, each multiplier is applied and then the end result is multiplied by the next one.

"

JoeShmo wrote:

( 421.2 ) + 105 = 526.2 is a valid outcome, based on logical sequence.

no its not, youre confusing yourself. It clearly states more damage, that is always a multiplier, it is never an additive amount in this manner. theres nothing logical about multiplying the base damage, but then using that figure additively at the end of the calculation where that figure does not go through the other multipliers.

"

is it probable? Not likely, given presumed understanding of how things are calculated, but it does beg the question of whether it could or should work like that.

it shouldnt, and it couldnt, and i see no reason to question either of those things.

"

This is the problem with wording things as they are in the game, with things like "increase" and "more" being loosely defined based on what GGG says ...rather than logistical or pre defined meaning.

theyre not loosely defined, they have predefined meanings given by GGG, they always mean the same thing, they always work the same way. There is no deviation, there is no confusion, there is no ambiguity, they have hard set meanings within the games jargon and they obey them.

"

Have I made you confused?

youre confusing yourself.

"

ut that's the inane confusing thing when people spout or take things for granted when it's stated something is either "multiplicative" , or any other made up term definition.

we can take for granted how things work because they consistently follow the defined ways they are worded and it is all very simple to follow. Sources of increased are additive with each other, sources of more damage are not, everything multiplies the base. It really is as simple as that. Theres no concept of global or local with this stuff, and the order makes no difference to the outcome. If its applied directly to the base at the start or used further along the chain does not effect the result, the exact order its calculated behind the scenes is mere trivia.