30 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Prior to release, we were told that DA2's mechanics would be more transparent than DAO's mechanics, in that it would be easier for players who were interested in that sort of thing to dig down and find them.

So where are they?  How do damage calcuations work?  Both for Hawke and for his enemies.

[mesmerizedish]

I remember being told that. I want to know as well. I want to see how each of my spells/talents breaks down, where each part of the damage calculation is coming from, etc.

[caradoc2000]

A combat log would be pretty nice to have.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I want to be able to plan ahead as to where to spend Attribute points, but I also want to know how enemy damage works so I can make tactical decisions based on friendly fire.

Knowing how much damage I do is only half of the equation. I need to know how much damage they do, as well.

[mesmerizedish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Knowing how much damage I do is only half of the equation. I need to know how much damage they do, as well.

Enemies do "a lot less ©."

[aethernox]

The damage formulas are all fairly easy to discern. The only things that I didn't understand were the scaling mechanisms for your attack, defense, armor, and resistances, relative to your level. Those would be helpful, though it would probably be easy enough to discern them as they are.

[Lemen]

Damage is simple enough, at least for mages. All spell damage (except for walking bomb, I think) is a multiple of your base damage. BaseDmg = StaffDmg + (Magic-10)/2.

So if your staff damage is 20 and you have 50 magic, your base damage is 20+(50-10)/2 = 40.

A spell like chain lightning does 3.14 x BaseDmg, so it'll do about 126 dmg.

By the way, anyone else notice the dmg multiplier for chain lightning is pi?

[IN1]

By the way, anyone else notice the dmg multiplier for chain lightning is pi?

No, it is a bit higher, in fact: 3.14182996749878.

[Lemen]

I stand corrected

[Fruit of the Doom]

I am more bugged by the attacks that don't work like they say they do or omit certain features. Like the Winter's Grasp upgrade adding AoE and Arcane Wall only adding 5% resistance to allies.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lemen wrote...

Damage is simple enough, at least for mages. All spell damage (except for walking bomb, I think) is a multiple of your base damage. BaseDmg = StaffDmg + (Magic-10)/2.

So if your staff damage is 20 and you have 50 magic, your base damage is 20+(50-10)/2 = 40.

Wait, so which staff I have equipped affects my spell damage?

That's new.  Did they document that somewhere? 

And again, that's just mages.  The other classes are different, and the enemies are different again.  I'd like BioWare to provide us will all of the combat mechanics so we can learn them and make decisions accordingly.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 15 avril 2011 - 07:12 .

[TheTouch]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lemen wrote...

Damage is simple enough, at least for mages. All spell damage (except for walking bomb, I think) is a multiple of your base damage. BaseDmg = StaffDmg + (Magic-10)/2.

So if your staff damage is 20 and you have 50 magic, your base damage is 20+(50-10)/2 = 40.

Wait, so which staff I have equipped affects my spell damage?

That's new.  Did they document that somewhere? 

And again, that's just mages.  The other classes are different, and the enemies are different again.  I'd like BioWare to provide us will all of the combat mechanics so we can learn them and make decisions accordingly.

I think he means the damage done by the staff.  I'm not sure, but I want to say that 2 points of Magic adds 1 damage per hit with a staff (same as Strength does for warriors, and Dexterity for rogues).  The only way staves can add to your spelldamage is if they have spelldamage as an extra stat on them.

Modifié par TheTouch, 15 avril 2011 - 08:44 .

[aethernox]

Base damage, for all classes, is Weapon Damage + (.5 * (primary stat - 10)).
Primary stats are Strength, Dexterity, and Magic for warriors, rogues, and mages, respectively.

For all abilities, Damage is equal to (x * base damage) * y, where x is a multiplier that is purely dependent on the spell/talent at hand, and y is secondary damage modifiers like Galvanism or +% fire damage gear.

[rabbitchannel]

aethernox wrote...

Base damage, for all classes, is Weapon Damage + (.5 * (primary stat - 10)).
Primary stats are Strength, Dexterity, and Magic for warriors, rogues, and mages, respectively.

For all abilities, Damage is equal to (x * base damage) * y, where x is a multiplier that is purely dependent on the spell/talent at hand, and y is secondary damage modifiers like Galvanism or +% fire damage gear.

Source?

[aethernox]

My ability to do simple arithmetic?

It's not like this behaviour is obscured. Christing god, how hard is it to see that every two points of Magic increases your Damage stat in the Abilities menu by 1, or to see that spell damage increases linearly with magic?

What kind of source do you want? It's not documented in the game or associated manual, as far as I'm aware, and I'm not willing to waste money on a poorly-written guide that probably doesn't include most of the game's math. I have a feeling that the ability damage modifiers are located within the guide, but I don't know about the base damage calculation.

[rabbitchannel]

Just checking if you derived it yourself or if you got it from an official source. Actual damage output never seems to reflect the listed base damage. No need to get upset and pretentious.

[aethernox]

Presumably, damage is subsequently reduced by damage resistance, magic resistance, armor, and elemental resistance. Damage may be further affected by the target's rank, but I don't know. Further damage calculations actually are obscured.

I haven't looked closely at how Attack, Defense, Armor,  Elemental Resistances, and Physical/Elemental Force are calculated, because they're big/sneaky numbers and I'm lazy, but at the very least I know that +%attack/defense/armor/elemental resist don't increase the physical numbers from which those stats are derived. Rather, it affects the actual %attack/defense/etc. value. Which makes it really super good.

Apologies for seeming upset. I am a bit pretentious, though. Oh well.

[mesmerizedish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lemen wrote...

Damage is simple enough, at least for mages. All spell damage (except for walking bomb, I think) is a multiple of your base damage. BaseDmg = StaffDmg + (Magic-10)/2.

So if your staff damage is 20 and you have 50 magic, your base damage is 20+(50-10)/2 = 40.

Wait, so which staff I have equipped affects my spell damage?

That's new.  Did they document that somewhere? 

And again, that's just mages.  The other classes are different, and the enemies are different again.  I'd like BioWare to provide us will all of the combat mechanics so we can learn them and make decisions accordingly.

Warriors' and rogues' talents are similarly dependent on weapon damage.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Warriors' and rogues' talents are similarly dependent on weapon damage.

That would make sense; they're actually attacking with the weapon (though I don't think DAO did this).  But the staff as a necessary conduit to channel magical energy is a contradiction of the established lore.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 16 avril 2011 - 06:51 .

[mesmerizedish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That would make sense; they're actually attacking with the weapon.  But the staff as a necessary conduit to channel magical energy is a contradiction of the established lore.

Well, being forced to wield a weapon at all times is just a gameplay mechanic.

Beyond that, from a lore perspective, I imagine that a magical staff would enhance whatever spells are cast through it, which is why it has an effect on spell damage. At least, that's my in-universe rationalization for it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Well, being forced to wield a weapon at all times is just a gameplay mechanic.

But that doesn't require that they tie that weapon to spell damage.  They either made a conscious decision to do that, or they just built one system for all the classes and didn't care whether it made any sense.

Beyond that, from a lore perspective, I imagine that a magical staff would enhance whatever spells are cast through it, which is why it has an effect on spell damage. At least, that's my in-universe rationalization for it.

An in-universe rationalisation needs to work for both games, though, and that one does not.

The universe didn't change.

[mesmerizedish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But that doesn't require that they tie that weapon to spell damage.  They either made a conscious decision to do that, or they just built one system for all the classes and didn't care whether it made any sense.

They wanted you to want to upgrade your weapon. So yes, it was a conscious decision to tie power (spell/talent) damage to weapon damage.

An in-universe rationalisation needs to work for both games, though, and that one does not.

The universe didn't change.

But the game did. It's a different game, with different rules. Health and stamina were also changed. How does that make you feel?

[Sylvius the Mad]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

They wanted you to want to upgrade your weapon. So yes, it was a conscious decision to tie power (spell/talent) damage to weapon damage.

You already have incentive to upgrade your weapon.  A new weapon might have better bonuses on it, plus it will do more damage with the detault attack.

And one of the reasons I like the old system was because a new staff might be better than the old staff in some ways, but less good in others.  Increasing auto-attack damage but lowering your Magic attribute is a trade-off, and it's a trade-off that DA2 never asks you to make.

But the game did. It's a different game, with different rules. Health and stamina were also changed. How does that make you feel?

Having new rules that require different character behaviour (carrying a weapon) is one thing.  Those rules don't break the setting - they just constrain gameplay.

Having the physical laws of the setting change breaks the setting.

Health and Stamina still represent the same thing, and they still get consumed or regenerated in basically the same way.  I don't see the similarity.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 16 avril 2011 - 07:07 .

[mesmerizedish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You already have incentive to upgrade your weapon.  A new weapon might have better bonuses on it, plus it will do more damage with the detault attack.

And one of the reasons I like the old system was because a new staff might be better than the old staff in some ways, but less good in others.  Increasing auto-attack damage but lowering your Magic attribute is a trade-off, and it's a trade-off that DA2 never asks you to make.

I think it is, actually. Staff damage is often secondary to the properties on the staff. Higher weapon damage is not a guarantee that your damage output will be higher.

Having new rules that require different character behaviour (carrying a weapon) is one thing.  Those rules don't break the setting - they just constrain gameplay.

Having the physical laws of the setting change breaks the setting.

Health and Stamina still represent the same thing, and they still get consumed or regenerated in basically the same way.  I don't see the similarity.

Health and stamina were partly dependent on level before. Now they're not. Spell damage was not dependent on staff damage before. Now it is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Health and stamina were partly dependent on level before. Now they're not.

That's not a difference in kind, though.  The combat encounters are designed around that (and since the combat mechanics are asymmetrical, there's no way to measure the actual difference between the two systems.

Spell damage was not dependent on staff damage before. Now it is.

that is a difference in kind, as before my ireball damage was determined by the caster only.  Now suddenly the caster can somehow become less good at casting Fireball by equipping a different staff.

That makes about as much sense as Shepard suddenly becoming a lousy shot when I injure my wrist.