May I ask you some questions about "spell"

Also the original thread starter did not show the Chinese translation of the game passive and gem text

Also probably solely rely on machine translation (trust me , my grandma once smuggle a Chinese-English dictionary inside the wall, who know the machine and paper version that available inside the wall, censored or distorted the meaning or not) so that it "lost in translation) and became a emotion magnet

"

neohongkong wrote:

"

Aldonés wrote:

"

Belegur85 wrote:

(Critical_Strike_Damage * Critical_Strike_Chance)

Mathmatically this part is incorrect. It should be:

"

(Critical Strike Damage * Critical Strike Damage + 1 - Critical Strike Chance)

need more () or []

I originally had it (Critical Strike Damage * Critical Strike Chance + (1 - Critical Strike Chance)), but then I realized the extra parentheses did not affect the order in which you do the math. It only makes it look cleaner.

Yes it's a a pseudo mathematical equation listed on the wiki. The variables "Critical_Strike_Damage" and "Critical_Strike_Chance" are sort of a pointer to their own formaulas on the Critical strike wiki.

CriticalStrikeChance
=
(BaseCriticalStrikeChance+AdditionalCriticalStrikeChance)∗(1+IncreasedCriticalStrikeChance)
∗(1+MoreCriticalStrikeChance)

Crit multi formula is not listed on the wiki that I can see, but I believe it would be along the same lines:

Critical_Strike_Damage
=
(BaseCritMulti+AdditonalCritMulti)

where BaseCritmulti = 150%, in general for players.

As neohongkong and Aldones are pointing out, it must be all combined for the full equation.

If anyone is confused by the math or the wording, but wants to understand it, I would suggest testing on POB. There is a box for "Crits" on the calculations page. Change some values around on the build and see how it effects the calculations. Same goes RF and spell gems. There are some exceptions, but the program is very accurate and a good way to learn which mods interact.

Yeah, PoB is a great (albeit sometimes confusing too) tool, but ideally the game (and the official wiki) ought to be helpful enough.

(Thanks for the other recommendations.)

I'm still going to disagree with the naming of things here :
things ought not be called 'base', unless you have them without any equipment on (and maybe without any passive points assigned). The character screen doesn't list any critical chance / multiplier for the default attack without a weapon equipped. So the critical chance from weapon/skill gems is not 'base'. And what happens when you dual wield (with a "strike with both weapons at once" skill) or if you have both the weapon and skill gem having critical strike chances ?

What does seem to be base is the critical strike damage stat of (+/1)50%. Which is confusingly named 'multiplier'... which is redundant, since anything with a % is by definition a multiplier ! And a multiplier to what ? Well, since the critical chance is already listed, by deduction it's critical damage, but why not just say 'damage' ?

But then PoE seems to have a bunch of these base modifiers hidden in the character sheet... which would be fine, except they are mingled there with those from passives and items, and a new player that tries to look at them later will just get lost !

Why aren't they all shown on a character's starting node ?
Two options where to place it in this picture :

It would list on hover all these base modifiers, like :
0% chance to critical strike
+50% critical strike damage
0% chance to inflict poison
-70% poison damage per second from physical hits
-70% poison damage per second from chaos hits
0% chance to inflict bleed from physical hits
-30% bleed damage per second on stationary targets
+110% bleed damage per second on moving targets
later :
-30% to all resistances from finishing Act 5
-5% XP on death from finishing Act 5
(did I get these numbers right ?)
EDIT : This will also potentially allow to have different base modifiers for different classes !
EDIT2 : probably better for most chances to start from 0% ? but then why would rarity be different starting from 100% ??

----

As for a better way to explain modifier math, how about this :

This thread has shown the (predictable) limits of the "increased" term. It only works as long as there's a single additive group for multipliers (not counting the multipliers alone in their groups that PoE calls "more").

So you get things like Increased Critical Strikes Support that looks especially weird because they are trying to reference two different additive groups :

(A+B)x(C+D)xExF

So the "increased" refers to the (A+B) one, while "to" refers to the (C+D) one (or vice-versa, since multiplication is commutative, there's no preferred order of operation). And then the "more" ones are the standalone E and F.

So what I would suggest is, instead of trying to invent new math slang with "increased", "to", "more", would be to use the already standard symbols :
'+' would be for the multipliers in additive groups
'x' would be for the standalone ones (might still be additive with exactly the same one if taken several times ?)
You'll note that this is how Diablo 4 does it, except I suggest using the standard "x2" or "/2" notation instead of their non-standard "x100%" or "x-50%" one.

But then for the multipliers in additive groups to use symbols and colors, for instance a white ⊕ for the first ("increased") additive group (but maybe more like ⨭ and ⨮ combined ?), a blue ⨹ for the 2nd additive group ("to"), a yellow ⊞ (similarly, with + tips "free") for a third additive group (which I am not sure PoE uses yet ?)...

"

And a new player that tries to look at them later will just get lost !

no. new player will deleted the game right away after looking at the passive skill tree.



The whole game is rely on external material for so long

Now that's just defeatist.

And at least some new players (like me not long ago) find the passives tree both scary but also exciting.

"

BlueTemplar85 wrote:

Now that's just defeatist.

And at least some new players (like me not long ago) find the passives tree both scary but also exciting.

The game is traditionally rely on build guide , otherwise no way a normal person would understand the game by in-game information on how damage conversion, scaling (more , increase) and how increase in lightning damage would benefit to the build when taking conversion to fire mods.


Just the drama of this thread is probably how poorly translated in-game for simplified Chinese version . I am not going to install that version but i probably install trad Chinese version to have a look on how fuck up on this game when translated , especially to non-Latin/Western/European languages

I haven't read a single build guide (unless you count the wiki/PoB ?) and finished the campaign (with melee, in ruthless ssf to boot). But I guess this is not my first dungeon runner either.

The in-game Help pages do explain the difference that PoE makes between "more" and "increased" (but forget to mention that there is "to" too).

I did have to figure out damage conversion (from physical to lightning) in my previous build (and thankfully wiki and PoB Calcs tab helped a lot there), though I'm not sure what you refer to with increase to lightning with conversion to fire ? Are there conversion from lightning to fire passives/gems ?

Any way, this sounds like there also ought to be an in-game help page talking about conversion !

Also yeah, it's a whole other level of difficulty for issues of English fluency / translation in other languages...

"

finished the campaign

the campaign is a tutorial that your can pass through via corpse walking, like keep stacking respawn until grinding the boss to die


If you not looking at any build guide and have a character cheese T16 or vanilla Shaper, then it is another story.

Oh right. Well, this doesn't work on bosses in Ruthless, which regenerate back, while not to 100%, still 40% on your death.

Still, I'll just link Day9's thoughts about this "you need a build guide / campaign is just a tutorial" stance (at that point, from his experience of ~2.5 acts and ~25 hours) :

https://youtu.be/f7b5Mc8zR7E?t=5054

The "lie" here is also probably by omission, "you need a build [if you're going to play for hundreds of hours]"... but then only a tiny fraction of players will ever get that deep in the game !

The median PoE1 player only ever gets to the end of Act 1, but then I guess it's wrong to consider, say, a player with 2 hours exactly as much as a player with 20 000 hours, so this is 'undershooting' ?

I wonder what the average (by time) PoE1 player looks like ? (If it's like other complex games, ~200 hours, probably finished the campaign ??) But then it's also wrong to consider, say, a single player with 20 000 hours to be 'worth' 10 000 players with 2 hours, so this is 'overshooting' ?

Seems like that a 'core' (?) PoE1 player ought to be somewhere between median and average... any statisticians around : is there any third formula in-between those appropriate for this discussion ?