Accuracy – The Last Remnant of Action?

"

konfeta wrote:

"

Why ? Sure no one wants this game to bea dead easy one for sure.

Interesting. Why are you equating the desire to remove an obnoxious mechanic with desire to make the game easier?

Simply it would be. Because there would have a lot skills to spent on your hand if accuracy does not exist for sure, just think. I've nothing to add furthermore, and i find it very much needed skill.

This way there's a much wide variety of creating characters is possible. And i am sure no one would ever want to play in a limited variety of world.

I don't have anything against accuracy as a concept but PoE version of this mechanic is flawed.

It's flawed because player is forced to have good (80%+) chance to hit otherwise game becomes unplayable.
With lower (average like 75%) to hit chance he would run out of flasks, he could not crowd control (no stunlocks) because virtually every minute he'll get a missing spree.
In other arpgs where accuracy concept was present (say D2) it was just a matter of choice.
Either get nice to hit chance (more dex) and lower dmg (less str) output or other way around.
It was gain with some trade off.

Also to hit/missing is pretty unequally treated here.
You could adjust (boost) your to to hit chance because it depends booth on your attack rating and target lvl but you can't boost your chances to avoid being hit (make attacker miss more often)
since it depends only on your and attacker lvl (with mobs).
Personally I don't like stats/values that just describe something (and they are hidden like this) and can't be changed or adjusted by any means by a player.

Examples.
take some your mid/high lvl char (50+) to twilight strand normal take off all stuff and check how many times you are gonna be hit (with zero armor unless you invested in some passives).
About once per 20-30 mobs attacks.
Naked :>

I wonder how it will work in PvP with say 50 lvl vs 70lvl.
I expect a torrent of whines then (unless accuracy mechanic is gonna change in .9.3).

"

Simply it would be. Because there would have a lot skills to spent on your hand if accuracy does not exist for sure, just think. I've nothing to add furthermore, and i find it very much needed skill.

Interesting position. It would make the game easier because with removing accuracy the developers will forget to redesign/rebalance the passive tree to compensate.

You know what, they should stop adding new skill gems. Cause doing that makes the game easier. And they should never raise the level cap. That will make the game too easy as well. And the new class? Forget it, it will just bring in overpowered skill combinations that makes this game a cake walk!

"

This way there's a much wide variety of creating characters is possible. And i am sure no one would ever want to play in a limited variety of world.

Name one build that intentionally ignores accuracy on a physical attack focused character. Accuracy, by the nature of the aggravation suffered from attacks blatantly missing, is an attribute that you are forced to take.

Adding accuracy effectively increases your damage output and fuels things like charge gain, flask refill, status effects. It is a non-choice. Never was, never will be. This isn't build variety, nor does stacking accuracy make you intelligent, nor does its existence make the game more challenging. It simply enforces a certain build requirement on physical classes that they cannot compensate with aggressive skill (for example, a spellcaster can overcome a more limited mana pool by actively herding more enemies into an AoE attack; accuracy does not allow for such player agency).

Hell, due to the pace of the game, one could easily make the argument that it reduces skill by lowering the amount and variety of aggressive, tactical play. Accuracy also disproportionately punishes slower attacks - if you only have 70% chance to hit, the choice between 1 swing a second and 3 swings a second is statistically biased towards the faster swing speed; a bias that can at best be minimized and never reversed.

At the very least rework it into a glancing hit system since that would require minimal mathematics to rebalance the passives.

Having one extra modifier really makes the character so hard to manage?

This game is already very simple (well for anyone having played ARPGS before, I'm sure others will learn soon). And still requests to make it even more simple (thus making it "easy" - what BrecMadak was saying I believe).

Character management wont be as simple as in your average MMORPG, where all the items have copy-paste stats and "ranks" so even smallest kids cannot go wrong without thinking (not saying they cannot - I'm sure there will be some kids that won't find accuracy a problem in PoE ;P).
Instead there will be lots and various characteristics and mods on items, one of them being accuracy.

Youre saying its a must have? You cannot refill flasks without accuracy?

I want to see you refilling your flasks without damage or without armor (this would work in Softcore - when you get teleported to town upon death you refill your falsks I believe) etc. Great argument.

Accuracy is a choice you make. And yes sometimes it will be better than alternative damage increase, sometimes not. Thats how you balance your character. You don't have to do that in every game, yes. As I said if youre looking for simplified "ranked" items, which require no though to choose, theres youre average MMORPG.

The ONLY WAY the current accuracy/evasion ratios can be made fair is IF there is similiar spell intensity/spell resist ratios.

"

nermind wrote:

Having one extra modifier really makes the character so hard to manage?

No. It's just a shitty modifier. It's unfun and the mechanics are annoying.

Replace it with something better. Hell, I love complexity, replace it with 2 things that are better.

"

bilbobeastlybaggins wrote:

The ONLY WAY the current accuracy/evasion ratios can be made fair is IF there is similiar spell intensity/spell resist ratios.

Were all looking forward to what 9.3 will bring (:

"

aimlessgun wrote:

"

nermind wrote:

Having one extra modifier really makes the character so hard to manage?

No. It's just a shitty modifier. It's unfun and the mechanics are annoying.

Replace it with something better. Hell, I love complexity, replace it with 2 things that are better.

Suggest those 2 things please (=

Otherwise: theres no fun or unfun modifiers. Theres fun or unfun characters. Modifiers are a way of building them. If only fun for you is hitting every single hit (sry youre actually doomed max is 95%) then youre maxing accuracy, if its THAT important. Theres your fun (=

"

konfeta wrote:

...

Adding accuracy effectively increases your damage output and fuels things like charge gain, flask refill, status effects. It is a non-choice. Never was, never will be. This isn't build variety, nor does stacking accuracy make you intelligent, nor does its existence make the game more challenging. It simply enforces a certain build requirement on physical classes that they cannot compensate with aggressive skill...

Isn't this true in exactly the same way for increased damage with a weapon type, increased attack speed, and increased melee damage? Just as you could base a build on increased attack speed and increased axe damage and make a character that hits super hard -on those rare occasions when he/she does hit and only with axes, you could also base a built on 95% accuracy and a boatload of increased attack speed -ignoring increased physical damage completely- and the character would perform every bit as poorly as the previous example without accuracy. Removing accuracy would only further railroad characters into being built exactly the same to be viable... Every point would then have to go into increased damage or speed.

I guess I just have difficulty understanding why it is such a problem that the game is requiring you to choose either to hit harder, hit faster, or hit more often. What others are asking for here is to remove one of only three choices that you can reasonably make with your character's base attack stats.

"

This game is already very simple (well for anyone having played ARPGS before, I'm sure others will learn soon). And still requests to make it even more simple (thus making it "easy" - what BrecMadak was saying I believe).

The onus of difficulty in an ARPG lies in monster design and combat, not character building. Until GGG finally implements robust monster archetypes, group composition, randomization, abilities, etc. this game is going to be very easy to play. Removing or adding an attribute type is a drop in the ocean compared to those things in terms of actual game difficulty. So why not let the consideration of eliminating randomized player frustration take charge for the moment?

"

Youre saying its a must have? You cannot refill flasks without accuracy?

I want to see you refilling your flasks without damage or without armor (this would work in Softcore - when you get teleported to town upon death you refill your falsks I believe) etc. Great argument.

It is a fantastic argument, as long as you don't strawman it.

If I play by minimizing armor, I make a conscious choice that I do not want to get hit, I compensate in the act of my playing by kiting, dodging, target prioritization, tactics, reflex, skill (however rudimentary they may be in this game).

If I play by minimizing damage, I make a conscious choice that I am maximizing safety and slowing down the game play. I can use the window of safety to round up more enemies, I can take greater risks with facetanking certain types of attacks.

If I play by minimizing mana, I make a conscious choice that forces me to maximize efficiency of my attacks. Alternate spells ideal for situation, etc.

Such decision points further exist within classes of attributes. Within damage output, choice between damage and attack speed carries gameplay ramifications. Mana pool vs. restoration rate. Etc.

If I minimize accuracy, I make a conscious choice to... enjoy the satisfaction of well placed/timed hits missing. The glorious skill gained reward inherent in getting more consecutive hits than the RNG expected you to get in a chain of 10 hits. The exhilaration of losing a fight because the RNG decided that you should miss 3-4 in a row. I compensate for it... by playing safer in every way possible because RMG in asymmetrical games such as this one translates that the player is statistically at a disadvantage. Points of failure are statistically guaranteed to occur and you have to play under the assumption that they will, i.e. not play in manner that such points of failure lead to overall failure such as death, i.e. play a more boring Path of Exile.

Minimizing accuracy is a choice that is toxic to your gameplay. An attempt to compensate for it is eroded by the excessive RNG you inject into your game by choosing it.

"

Suggest those 2 things please (=

Glancing hit system replacing total evasion is one very simple solution if the idea of accuracy must remain. Tightening the randomization range from excessive extremes is a very simple solution to such problems.

Reforming the idea of Chaos damage into armor penetration properties. GGG wants to differentiate between weapon types?

Or hell, why not physical damage types? Tie it in with the above concept of armor penetration.

Or introducing a very simplistic combo concept - dexterity characters could be aligned with an attribute that allows you to gain progressively more damage for prioritizing fewer enemies at a time - more of this "neo-accuracy" translates into a growing damage bonus for hitting fewer targets at a time. Could be an interesting way to differentiate them from being "Walking Witch Nuke, only physical damage."

There are probably plenty of interesting character building oriented things GGG can do - and they don't need to be designs that clash with the general idea of what direction an RPG takes by adopting an "Action" sub-genre. And, hey, GGG have proven themselves to be creative, and are no strangers to asymmetrical class fundamentals (see evasion vs. damage reduction vs. energy shield).

Surely, they can come up with something better than an abstraction that exists as a compensation for lack of real time player input, the lack of which the action part of the ARPG was supposed to solve in the first place?>

"

konfeta wrote:

The onus of difficulty in an ARPG lies in monster design and combat, not character building. Until GGG finally implements robust monster archetypes, group composition, randomization, abilities, etc. this game is going to be very easy to play. Removing or adding an attribute type is a drop in the ocean compared to those things in terms of actual game difficulty. So why not let the consideration of eliminating randomized player frustration take charge for the moment?

Okay, so lets make the game easier, because its already easy. Another great argument. Also everything else is only assumptions about what the future game is going to bring. And character building is HUGE part of ARPG - without the addiction that is loot hunting even D2 wouldn't be half the game it is.

"

konfeta wrote:

It is a fantastic argument, as long as you don't strawman it.

If I play by minimizing armor, I make a conscious choice that I do not want to get hit, I compensate in the act of my playing by kiting, dodging, target prioritization, tactics, reflex, skill (however rudimentary they may be in this game).

If I play by minimizing damage, I make a conscious choice that I am maximizing safety and slowing down the game play. I can use the window of safety to round up more enemies, I can take greater risks with facetanking certain types of attacks.

If I play by minimizing mana, I make a conscious choice that forces me to maximize efficiency of my attacks. Alternate spells ideal for situation, etc.

Such decision points further exist within classes of attributes. Within damage output, choice between damage and attack speed carries gameplay ramifications. Mana pool vs. restoration rate. Etc.

If I minimize accuracy, I make a conscious choice to... enjoy the satisfaction of well placed/timed hits missing. The glorious skill gained reward inherent in getting more consecutive hits than the RNG expected you to get in a chain of 10 hits. The exhilaration of losing a fight because the RNG decided that you should miss 3-4 in a row. I compensate for it... by playing safer in every way possible because RMG in asymmetrical games such as this one translates that the player is statistically at a disadvantage. Points of failure are statistically guaranteed to occur and you have to play under the assumption that they will, i.e. not play in manner that such points of failure lead to overall failure such as death, i.e. play a more boring Path of Exile.

Minimizing accuracy is a choice that is toxic to your gameplay. An attempt to compensate for it is eroded by the excessive RNG you inject into your game by choosing it.

I think I'm getting it - youre not happy that your min-max approach that normally works for you isn't working in PoE? Because you cannot minimise accuracy and still be effective? Maybe that good after all, you might learn something new in PoE ;)

Still I don't see any difference between minimizing damage in favor of defense or minimizing accuracy in favor if defense for example. Either way you end up killing nothing but having good defense. So I'll still call this argument "great". If you minimize accuracy you made a conscious choice that you will miss as often as the character screen says. If thats boring for you, well you just screwed yourself, but try to blame a statistic for it.

"

konfeta wrote:

Glancing hit system replacing total evasion is one very simple solution if the idea of accuracy must remain. Tightening the randomization range from excessive extremes is a very simple solution to such problems.

Reforming the idea of Chaos damage into armor penetration properties. GGG wants to differentiate between weapon types?

Or hell, why not physical damage types? Tie it in with the above concept of armor penetration.

Or introducing a very simplistic combo concept - dexterity characters could be aligned with an attribute that allows you to gain progressively more damage for prioritizing fewer enemies at a time - more of this "neo-accuracy" translates into a growing damage bonus for hitting fewer targets at a time. Could be an interesting way to differentiate them from being "Walking Witch Nuke, only physical damage."

There are probably plenty of interesting character building oriented things GGG can do - and they don't need to be designs that clash with the general idea of what direction an RPG takes by adopting an "Action" sub-genre. And, hey, GGG have proven themselves to be creative, and are no strangers to asymmetrical class fundamentals (see evasion vs. damage reduction vs. energy shield).

Surely, they can come up with something better than an abstraction that exists as a compensation for lack of real time player input, the lack of which the action part of the ARPG was supposed to solve in the first place?>

Those are not bad ideas. Still glancing blows just sounds like varying Armor, only making less differences between classes, and making Duelist some double-armored freak (= I find that less fun.

I like the "less targets - more damage" idea, but I think that could have its own place along side accuracy ;-)