puerility

i mean, it's explicit assuming you already know the damage formula and the very particular way GGG words things. but for newer players, it's not an unreasonable guess that reduced reflected damage is its own separate term in the formula. if the question is "you take 100% reduced reflected damage; how much reflected damage do you take?" and the answer isn't "none", that's kind of a trick question

But if a player doesn't know these modifiers stack additively (which is described in the in-game help system), they wouldn't think they had 100% (or higher) reduced in the first place, because that didn't come from a single modifier. In the case in the OP, there's a 60% reduced and a 50% reduced, and those can only be seen as combining to 110% reduced if you either know or assume these modifiers stack additively, which at the very least implies the possibility that other things also stack additively with them.

if the question is "you take 100% reduced reflected damage; how much reflected damage do you take?" and the answer isn't "none", that's kind of a trick question

The game never poses that question to the player. In this case it's asking "If you have 50% reduced reflected damage taken and 60% reduced reflected damage taken, how much do you take?", and then "what about if you also have 30% increased damage taken?"

puerility

i mean, it's explicit assuming you already know the damage formula and the very particular way GGG words things. but for newer players, it's not an unreasonable guess that reduced reflected damage is its own separate term in the formula. if the question is "you take 100% reduced reflected damage; how much reflected damage do you take?" and the answer isn't "none", that's kind of a trick question

But if a player doesn't know these modifiers stack additively (which is described in the in-game help system), they wouldn't think they had 100% (or higher) reduced in the first place, because that didn't come from a single modifier. In the case in the OP, there's a 60% reduced and a 50% reduced, and those can only be seen as combining to 110% reduced if you either know or assume these modifiers stack additively, which at the very least implies the possibility that other things also stack additively with them.

if the question is "you take 100% reduced reflected damage; how much reflected damage do you take?" and the answer isn't "none", that's kind of a trick question

The game never poses that question to the player. In this case it's asking "If you have 50% reduced reflected damage taken and 60% reduced reflected damage taken, how much do you take?", and then "what about if you also have 30% increased damage taken?"

iTob191

I think puerility meant that it's not obvious that "reduced reflected damage taken" and "increased damage taken" stack additively because they could be in different "categories" (reflected damage increases and normal damage increases) and applied at different times in the calculation. Just like "increased damage" and "increased damage taken (on the enemy)" stack multiplicatively (correct me if I'm wrong) even though they both use the term "increased" because they are applied at different times.

I think puerility meant that it's not obvious that "reduced reflected damage taken" and "increased damage taken" stack additively because they could be in different "categories"

This is true, but neither is obvious that they would not stack additively - I am not arguing at all that the exact result is obvious to a new player, only that it is not unreasonably outside expectations - having already learned or assumed that the two reflected damage modifeirs stack additively, it would be unreasonable to assume nothing else could possibly stack additively with them, so the possibily that something can do so should not be a complete surprise to the player.

Just like "increased damage" and "increased damage taken (on the enemy)" stack multiplicatively (correct me if I'm wrong)

Only because you specifically asked, because this is extremely nitpicky: Those do not stack multiplicatively, they technically do not "stack" at all. In practice, however, their combined effect on the end result result of removing monster life is close to multiplicative stacking in most cases. They are fundamentally modifying two different values, which are usually related but in extreme cases may not have anything to do with one another. "increased damage" is modifying your base & added damage to get your total minimum and maximum damage you will attempt to deal. When you hit something you roll a value between that minimum and maximum, and that value is then affected by all the enemy's mitigation to get a value of damage they take. "increased damage taken" modifies that value. But that might be entirely unrelated to the damage you tried to deal, for example if you try to deal chaos damage to a character with CI but wearing Crown of Thorns - your increase to damage applies to your minimum and maximum chaos damage, then you roll a value in that range, then that gets thrown away but a new 25 physical damage value is created, and the damage taken increase applies to that.

iTob191

I think puerility meant that it's not obvious that "reduced reflected damage taken" and "increased damage taken" stack additively because they could be in different "categories" (reflected damage increases and normal damage increases) and applied at different times in the calculation. Just like "increased damage" and "increased damage taken (on the enemy)" stack multiplicatively (correct me if I'm wrong) even though they both use the term "increased" because they are applied at different times.

I think puerility meant that it's not obvious that "reduced reflected damage taken" and "increased damage taken" stack additively because they could be in different "categories"

This is true, but neither is obvious that they would not stack additively - I am not arguing at all that the exact result is obvious to a new player, only that it is not unreasonably outside expectations - having already learned or assumed that the two reflected damage modifeirs stack additively, it would be unreasonable to assume nothing else could possibly stack additively with them, so the possibily that something can do so should not be a complete surprise to the player.

Just like "increased damage" and "increased damage taken (on the enemy)" stack multiplicatively (correct me if I'm wrong)

Only because you specifically asked, because this is extremely nitpicky: Those do not stack multiplicatively, they technically do not "stack" at all. In practice, however, their combined effect on the end result result of removing monster life is close to multiplicative stacking in most cases. They are fundamentally modifying two different values, which are usually related but in extreme cases may not have anything to do with one another. "increased damage" is modifying your base & added damage to get your total minimum and maximum damage you will attempt to deal. When you hit something you roll a value between that minimum and maximum, and that value is then affected by all the enemy's mitigation to get a value of damage they take. "increased damage taken" modifies that value. But that might be entirely unrelated to the damage you tried to deal, for example if you try to deal chaos damage to a character with CI but wearing Crown of Thorns - your increase to damage applies to your minimum and maximum chaos damage, then you roll a value in that range, then that gets thrown away but a new 25 physical damage value is created, and the damage taken increase applies to that.

caquaa

While i understand how it works, the question is why? Can't this just be changed from "reduced" to "less" (or just make it not additive)? Seems like an unnecessary complication. I'm sure it's not your call, but would be nice to simplify some of this .

If these modifiers used "less", then the 50% less and the 60% less would combine to an effective total of 80% less (you'd still take 50% of 40% of the damage, for 20%), not 110%, and no amount of stacking such modifiers would remove all of it completely.

caquaa

While i understand how it works, the question is why? Can't this just be changed from "reduced" to "less" (or just make it not additive)? Seems like an unnecessary complication. I'm sure it's not your call, but would be nice to simplify some of this .

If these modifiers used "less", then the 50% less and the 60% less would combine to an effective total of 80% less (you'd still take 50% of 40% of the damage, for 20%), not 110%, and no amount of stacking such modifiers would remove all of it completely.

Erreconerre

What about "You take X% reduced extra damage from crits", does that one also add up with increased damage taken mods?

It's a horrible pile of lies that technically doesn't actually modify damage, but the damage multiplier applied to damage from being a critical strike, in a way unlike anything else in the game.

What it actually does is look at the enemy's total critical strike multiplier (default 130% for monsters), subtract 100% from that to leave only the part which makes the damage higher (30% for monster with no crit modifiers), apply a percentage reduction to that value (e.g. 10% reduced from this stat would reduce the 30 to 27), then give the original 100% back and treat that as the critical strike multiplier to use for this hit.

The design reason it works that way makes sense - it shouldn't be able to make critical strikes damage you less than non-critical strikes, and 100% reduced extra damage taken from crits should just make them the same as non-crits - but I don't like how it's inconsistent with everything else.

I dearly hope to one day be able to burn it to the ground and replace it with something that isn't such a super special snowflake and which we can describe accurately without extending the description text to a paragraph.

Erreconerre

What about "You take X% reduced extra damage from crits", does that one also add up with increased damage taken mods?

It's a horrible pile of lies that technically doesn't actually modify damage, but the damage multiplier applied to damage from being a critical strike, in a way unlike anything else in the game.

What it actually does is look at the enemy's total critical strike multiplier (default 130% for monsters), subtract 100% from that to leave only the part which makes the damage higher (30% for monster with no crit modifiers), apply a percentage reduction to that value (e.g. 10% reduced from this stat would reduce the 30 to 27), then give the original 100% back and treat that as the critical strike multiplier to use for this hit.

The design reason it works that way makes sense - it shouldn't be able to make critical strikes damage you less than non-critical strikes, and 100% reduced extra damage taken from crits should just make them the same as non-crits - but I don't like how it's inconsistent with everything else.

I dearly hope to one day be able to burn it to the ground and replace it with something that isn't such a super special snowflake and which we can describe accurately without extending the description text to a paragraph.

My-Life-For-Auir

Completely off topic but why is the term 'recently' used to describe different values of time.

I.e. the Warcry Mastery that gives 20% increased Damage for each time you've Warcried Recently is 8 seconds, however almost every other example of 'Recently' I can find is 4 seconds.

Completely off topic but why is the term 'recently' used to describe different values of time.

It isn't (or if it is somewhere then that's a bug).

I.e. the Warcry Mastery that gives 20% increased Damage for each time you've Warcried Recently is 8 seconds, however almost every other example of 'Recently' I can find is 4 seconds.

That is definitely set to be 4 seconds in the code. Are you seeing this count a longer amount of time in-game?

My-Life-For-Auir

Completely off topic but why is the term 'recently' used to describe different values of time.

I.e. the Warcry Mastery that gives 20% increased Damage for each time you've Warcried Recently is 8 seconds, however almost every other example of 'Recently' I can find is 4 seconds.

Completely off topic but why is the term 'recently' used to describe different values of time.

It isn't (or if it is somewhere then that's a bug).

I.e. the Warcry Mastery that gives 20% increased Damage for each time you've Warcried Recently is 8 seconds, however almost every other example of 'Recently' I can find is 4 seconds.

That is definitely set to be 4 seconds in the code. Are you seeing this count a longer amount of time in-game?

sirgog

Surely this would be simpler if "Critical Strike Multiplier" was replaced as a stat by "Critical Strike Bonus Damage Multiplier". Base values 150%/50% for players, 130%/30% for monsters.

Then "35% Reduced damage from crits" can become "Hits against you have 35% reduced critical strike bonus damage multiplier"

Would make it easier for players to understand the interactions.

This is one of several potential changes to that system which have been discussed in the past as options for the long term. Personally I am in favour of something similar to this change, although it would certainly have consequecnes to other things that would need worked out if we ever do it.

sirgog

Surely this would be simpler if "Critical Strike Multiplier" was replaced as a stat by "Critical Strike Bonus Damage Multiplier". Base values 150%/50% for players, 130%/30% for monsters.

Then "35% Reduced damage from crits" can become "Hits against you have 35% reduced critical strike bonus damage multiplier"

Would make it easier for players to understand the interactions.

This is one of several potential changes to that system which have been discussed in the past as options for the long term. Personally I am in favour of something similar to this change, although it would certainly have consequecnes to other things that would need worked out if we ever do it.

Karindanslav

Slightly off-topic, but since you mentioned that increases and reductions to damage taken apply after mitigation, does physical damage taken reduced (by immortal call for example) count as prevented for purposes of calculating regeneration from Juggernaut's Untiring? And how does Untiring interact with Petrified Blood or Steelskin?

I don't remember the keyword prevented having a specified definition. Thanks in advance.

For physical damage specifically, we store the pre-mitigation value in the damage package so it can be referenced. The amount of damage "prevented" is the amount by which the actual physical damage taken differs from that pre-mitigation value of physical damage to deal.

So basically anything which lowers the amount of physical damage taken counts as preventing, with the specific exception of "damage taken as" modifiers, which apply before mitigation, and intentionally also before the pre-mitigation value is stored (because you didn't prevent that damage, you just took it as a different type).

And how does Untiring interact with Petrified Blood or Steelskin?

It doesn't, neither of those affect the amount of damage taken - they change what and how much you lose as a result of taking the damage, but they do not affect how much damage you take.

Karindanslav

Slightly off-topic, but since you mentioned that increases and reductions to damage taken apply after mitigation, does physical damage taken reduced (by immortal call for example) count as prevented for purposes of calculating regeneration from Juggernaut's Untiring? And how does Untiring interact with Petrified Blood or Steelskin?

I don't remember the keyword prevented having a specified definition. Thanks in advance.

For physical damage specifically, we store the pre-mitigation value in the damage package so it can be referenced. The amount of damage "prevented" is the amount by which the actual physical damage taken differs from that pre-mitigation value of physical damage to deal.

So basically anything which lowers the amount of physical damage taken counts as preventing, with the specific exception of "damage taken as" modifiers, which apply before mitigation, and intentionally also before the pre-mitigation value is stored (because you didn't prevent that damage, you just took it as a different type).

And how does Untiring interact with Petrified Blood or Steelskin?

It doesn't, neither of those affect the amount of damage taken - they change what and how much you lose as a result of taking the damage, but they do not affect how much damage you take.

Erreconerre

Sorry, I feel like a brought up a touchy subject lol

Nah, you're fine, I just dislike the misleading description on that specific stat because it implies it stacks with other things that it really doesn't.

Erreconerre

Sorry, I feel like a brought up a touchy subject lol

Nah, you're fine, I just dislike the misleading description on that specific stat because it implies it stacks with other things that it really doesn't.

MoeFantasy

I'd rather to have reduce reflect damage taken to be function like reduce extra dmg from crits.

That would mean it did nothing, because there isn't a critical strike damage multiplier applied to the reflected damage for it to modify.

And that wouldn't change any of what's complained about in the rest of this thread because increases to that stat are still additive with reductions to it.

MoeFantasy

I'd rather to have reduce reflect damage taken to be function like reduce extra dmg from crits.

That would mean it did nothing, because there isn't a critical strike damage multiplier applied to the reflected damage for it to modify.

And that wouldn't change any of what's complained about in the rest of this thread because increases to that stat are still additive with reductions to it.

Quakstab

What it actually does is look at the enemy's total critical strike multiplier (default 130% for monsters), subtract 100% from that to leave only the part which makes the damage higher (30% for monster with no crit modifiers), apply a percentage reduction to that value (e.g. 10% reduced from this stat would reduce the 30 to 27), then give the original 100% back and treat that as the critical strike multiplier to use for this hit.

Would over 100% reduced lead to negative values or is there a cap? Example: 110% reduced:

130-100=30, this is reduced by 110% (30*1.1=33) and ends with -3 (30-33). [Potential cap to 0] Then 100 is added back which would be 97%.

This would make crits deal less damage than non crits which is not intended as far as I understood. So I assume there is a cap to prevent this but for brevity sake was omitted in the explanation above. Is this correct and more than 100% reduced doesn't change anything?

The amount of extra damage can't be negative. In general, reducing things by values greater than 100% in PoE is prevented from negating the value.

Quakstab

What it actually does is look at the enemy's total critical strike multiplier (default 130% for monsters), subtract 100% from that to leave only the part which makes the damage higher (30% for monster with no crit modifiers), apply a percentage reduction to that value (e.g. 10% reduced from this stat would reduce the 30 to 27), then give the original 100% back and treat that as the critical strike multiplier to use for this hit.

Would over 100% reduced lead to negative values or is there a cap? Example: 110% reduced:

130-100=30, this is reduced by 110% (30*1.1=33) and ends with -3 (30-33). [Potential cap to 0] Then 100 is added back which would be 97%.

This would make crits deal less damage than non crits which is not intended as far as I understood. So I assume there is a cap to prevent this but for brevity sake was omitted in the explanation above. Is this correct and more than 100% reduced doesn't change anything?

The amount of extra damage can't be negative. In general, reducing things by values greater than 100% in PoE is prevented from negating the value.

Abdiel_Kavash

Would "Enemy critical strike multiplier against you is reduced by x%" work?

That would allow reducing the critical strike multiplier lower than 100%, which is undersirable for this stat, and is more expensive for performance.

Abdiel_Kavash

Would "Enemy critical strike multiplier against you is reduced by x%" work?

That would allow reducing the critical strike multiplier lower than 100%, which is undersirable for this stat, and is more expensive for performance.

Abdiel_Kavash

Thanks, it seems that I have previously missed the point of your post with the calculations (subtracting 100% and then adding it back at the end), I see why it is so convoluted now.

As a random thought, it has occurred to me that the player's critical strike multiplayer can be lower than 100%, at least as of this league, with the mirrored negative values on jewelry. Does this lead to any capping or unintended consequences, or is it just "buyer beware" (i.e. your crits will do less damage than non-crits)?

"buyer beware" (i.e. your crits will do less damage than non-crits)?

Pretty much this.

Abdiel_Kavash

Thanks, it seems that I have previously missed the point of your post with the calculations (subtracting 100% and then adding it back at the end), I see why it is so convoluted now.

As a random thought, it has occurred to me that the player's critical strike multiplayer can be lower than 100%, at least as of this league, with the mirrored negative values on jewelry. Does this lead to any capping or unintended consequences, or is it just "buyer beware" (i.e. your crits will do less damage than non-crits)?

"buyer beware" (i.e. your crits will do less damage than non-crits)?

Pretty much this.