Fixing Terminology For Tooltips

[Cyrus1]

I am trying to make a guide for a build and as I am doing it I realized how terrible the nomenclature for tooltips and scaling terminology is in Last Epoch. The result is a mess that makes it very hard at a glance to look at your stats and figure out when something is a upgrade or not.

Hence I am making this request to EHG for season 3-cycle 1.3 to redo all their tool tips to make things less confusing.

Base Damage:

Replace this term with The variable of (A), which is always coloured white. Instead of flavour text on a skill. Show the skills A value

Added Damage

This stat is confusing as it does not explain how many sources of ADD you add or where you add it too.

Rename this source to: {B= x(A)>} where xA is replaced by the layer to the equation where an example is shown to the player as: and replace the name as Base Power Gained

In this example layer 1 is=10

Player should be provided in game guide of all the possible layers, and each layer should be Color coded. When a player has no increase to a layer, display a xA(NULL=0) in red so that they know their build is not benefiting from that layer.

V= A + ([B= 10+ xA3 + xA4)]

This solves the problem of confusion since you can see in a log {yes add damage logs} so we can hit the dummy and test stuff!

**Increased damage **

Poor wording. Rename increased to Multiplayer (don’t be creative when dealing with math equations)

Source of multiplayer should be displayed as (Vx(A)), where each multiplier is its own layer and the player can see all the multipliers, even ones that are not active:

Eg: (VxA + VxB+ VxC).

Multiplier Buffs

Name these Zx(A). And show them to the player even if they are not active.

**Damage Effectiveness **

The terminology is confusing as it does not communicate at all what it functions as.

Replace the term as Base Power Boss Limit
Communicate to the player that 50% effectiveness as variable (Pe)

Final tooltip display

V= [A + [[B=[xA1+ xA2+ xA3] X (Pe)]] [VxA+ VxB + VxC]] X [Zx(A)] x [Zx(B)]

Now let’s use a fake example. I use a spell doing 20 fire damage damage. I got +20 + 60 and + 30 spell power gain.

I have a multiplier of 110% to spell, a 50% multiplayer to fire.

I have a multiplying buff of 40%.

V= [20 + (20 + 60 + 30 + [null=0] …. X [1 + 1.1 + 0.4 + (null=0) ….] X (1 + 0.4 + (null=0)….]

By looking at this I now see that I am benefiting from these sources but I am missing these. So I should add them if possible. The confusion is gone.

Each of the damage sources should be a unique equation that you can see.

I hope that sort of communicates what I am suggesting. Explaining it is kind of hard

[Llama8]

@Cyrus1

Replace this term with The variable of (A), which is always coloured white. Instead of flavour text on a skill. Show the skills A value

Why? A is an entirely fabricated thing that has no bearing in how the damage is calculated. Also, base damage is not a variable.

@Cyrus1

This stat is confusing as it does not explain how many sources of ADD you add or where you add it too.

Why is it confusing? The tooltips don’t detail the amounts of added damage in any way, they provide the end result (ish).

@Cyrus1

{B= x(A)>}

I can see this is going to be one of “those” conversations. Why is A in brackets, what is it being multiplied by & what is the greater than symbol for?

I do agree that examples should be given, but that’s about it.

@Cyrus1

In this example layer 1 is=10

Why?

@Cyrus1

Player should be provided in game guide of all the possible layers, and each layer should be Color coded. When a player has no increase to a layer, display a xA(NULL=0) in red so that they know their build is not benefiting from that layer

Adding new terminology (layers) is unlikely to be helpful, but colour coding the segments of the damage calc is a good idea, as would the tooltip being a static popup that you can interact with via mousing over bits of the damage calc equation to provide more details.

That said, providing the full calc probably wouldn’t help non-maths-inclined people understand it.

@Cyrus1

V= A + ([B= 10+ xA3 + xA4)]

This solves the problem of confusion since you can see in a log {yes add damage logs} so we can hit the dummy and test stuff!

If we ignore the problem that the equation has about as much to do with how damage is calculated as my upper body does to Henry Cavill’s, you’re mixing two very different thing, better damage tooltips & damage logs. Added damage doesn’t need to be logged as it’s not a thing that can vary when the damage is calculated. It would only vary if you had a temporary buff that provided flat damage, or switched out your weapon.

@Cyrus1

**Increased damage **

Poor wording. Rename increased to Multiplayer (don’t be creative when dealing with math equations)

It’s not poor wording. Increased & multiplicative have defined/accepted meanings in arpgs. Just because Blizz decided to ignore the rest of the genre with D4 when it did its damage modifiers doesn’t mean that’s how everyone else does it.

Also, are you sure you mean multiplayer? What difference does other people playing with you make to the damage calc. I’m not sure you have the necessary precision to talk about maths. Ironically given the quote.

@Cyrus1

Source of multiplayer should be displayed as (Vx(A)), where each multiplier is its own layer and the player can see all the multipliers, even ones that are not active:

No, you’re talking about a more modifier, nit an increased modifier.

@Cyrus1

**Damage Effectiveness **

The terminology is confusing as it does not communicate at all what it functions as.

It’s not, it’s the effectiveness of the added damage. It, quite literally, does what it says on the tin.

@Cyrus1

Replace the term as Base Power Boss Limit
Communicate to the player that 50% effectiveness as variable (Pe)

But it has nothing to do with bosses, nor is it a limit. If you’re going to critique a thing, it’d help if you understood the thing. At the moment it feels like you’re just adding in a word salad that has nothing to do with the concepts you’re talking about.

@Cyrus1

By looking at this I now see that I am benefiting from these sources but I am missing these. So I should add them if possible. The confusion is gone.

All you’ve done is add in a bunch of "null"s to show that there are no more modifiers. You’ve not changed the equation to explain it differently. Hell, I can’t remember the graphic they give in the game guide, but I don’t think it’s much different to that, except it’s a static image rather than a nice interactive thing.

@Cyrus1

Explaining it is kind of hard

Not really, it’s a nice simple equation.

I’d give you 4/10, at least you tried.

[DJSamhein]

@Cyrus1

season 3-cycle 1.3

Next one will be Season 2, with patch 1.2 (we’re currently on season 1.1.7). Cycles are gone.