They do, but this is a genre-specific thing. PoE & D4 are the same. If a modifier is a “more” modifier then that means it is its own separate modifier which is not summed up with all other similar modifiers. It just is. If that 5% you mention was 5% increased then yes, it would treated in the way you describe. But a 5% more modifier is always 5% more, no matter how many of them there are. This is why more modifiers are so powerful & generally much smaller numerically.
Yes, because those 5%s are all increased not more.
Do D4 and PoE also notate: “+x%” in the description of “more” modifiers? The ‘+’ is not doing what it should be doing. If anything it should be ‘×1.05’ instead of ‘+5%’. The math doesn’t math otherwise.
Increase:
Base 5% × [1+(6×5%)] = 5%×1.3 = 6.5%
More:
Base 5% × 1.05⁶ = 5% × 1.34 = 6.7%
Edit: Even if ‘+’ somehow implied they’re multiplied together before being applied to the base. The next logical step would be “ah, now I add the result to the base for: 5% (base) + 5%⁶ = 5% + 1.56Ε⁻⁸ = 5.0000016%”
D4 does, or maybe they put an x at the end or something, but then D4 also calls them “increased” rather than “more”. Basically D4 believes it’s big enough to call a well defined thing a different name, just like D3 renamed uniques to lehendaries.
But, to be a standard, by definition it needs to be standardized and you said:
I found a dagger in the PoE2 planner on Maxroll that had “30% increased crit chance” and I could add “+5-15% Crit Chance” to it, but there was no actual stat display for me to see how that affected my stats.
GD and TQ use your OA vs the enemy DA to calculate crit chance iirc.
I couldn’t find any other way to verify that the “standard display method” for “more” is “+x%”
This tooltip reads: “Critical Chance: +3%”
The +3% is actually “×1.03ⁿ” where n the number of “Critical Chance: +3%” modifiers you have. All “Stat: +x%” are actually “Stat: ×1.x” and the ‘+’ is deceiving as there is 0 addition going on. Hence why I said the tooltips need updated for clarification.
Edit: and I swear if you reply and say “that ‘Crit Chance: +3%’ is +3% to your base crit chance” I’m going to scream, because that’s literally what I said at the start of this discussion.
Just as a small addendum to the “genre convention” thing.
GD does has something similiar. Just the other way around. Resistence Reduction.
It has 3 types.
Type 1: Flat reduction. It stacks with itself. Additive.
Worded as: “-X% [Type] Resistance”
Type 2: Percentage reduction. Does not stack with itself (only highest source gets applied). Multiplicative.
Worded as: “X% Reduced Target’s [Type] Resistance”
Type 3: Non-Stacking Flat reduction (only your highest source gets applied). Additive.
Worded as: “X Reduced Target’s [Type] Resistance”
Type 1 and 3 are additive.
Type 2 is multiplicative.
Every Type stacks with other types.
They get applied in order 1-2-3.
As far as I can remember Sacred also had no “more” modifiers for crit but a crit rating with weird math that prevented it from getting to 100%. Sacred 2 had “Chance for critical hits +X%” but no idea how it worked under the hood.
Torchlight had “+ X critical hit chance” I think. Without %.
Almost always I had to relearn the wording the games used for stuff like this. I think it may be a stretch to call it a “convention”, but thanks to the popularity of PoE it may well become one.
No. It’s added to the base crit chance (usually 5%). So if you had just that node and 100% increased crit chance you would have a chance to crit of 16% (5+3=8 x 2).
Nope. Try it with a nekkid character & a melee weapon with +x% melee crit. Without anything else, the melee crit chance on your characters screen will be 5% + whatever the x is.
Yeah, thatfair, but crit multi is different, I’m not sure there are any sources of % increased crit multi. Also, my reply was more generic & talking about increased versus more modifiers in general. Apologies if I confused you.
Lol you’re fine. I’m glad we’re on the same page though. If the tool tip says: “Stat: +x%” it’s flatly added to the base stat to later be affected by “increased” and “more” bonuses. [Note: I know the “Increased” and “more” modifiers are applied in sequence to the (base+flat modifiers), but I can’t remember which comes first lol. So my examples below are based on “there’s only Increased” or “there’s only More”, since the idea should remain the same.
“Increased Stat by: x%” = (Base Stat + Flat Modifiers) × (1+n%), where n is all “Stat Increased by x%” modifiers added together.
“x% more” = (Base Stat + Flat Modifiers) × [(1.xⁿ)×(1.yⁿ)×(1.zⁿ)…], where n is the number of “% more” modifiers
Now how those stats are applied to the actual damage calculation is entirely dependent on what stat it is.
I hope that’s right now lol. I don’t have a tooltip example for how “% more” is written in game, but the idea should be the same.
Due to commutation it doesn’t matter. 234 = 432 = 243 etc.
Yes.
Not quite. If you remove the n, then yes → (Base Stat + Flat Modifiers) × (1 + more #1) × (1 + more #2) × (1 + more #3) × (1 + more #4) … The in-game game guide explains this.
Maybe? The game sums up all of the % increased modifiers (by element, note, this also increases the 4% increased damage that you get from the skill’s stat) and applies them as one modifier then applies all of the % more modifiers separately. Then rolls for a crit & if it succeeds multiplies by the crit multi figure. This figure is then modified by any armour or resistance or other damage taken modifiers (positive or negative) to get damage dealt.
The n was more for conciseness, if you had x=5%, y=3%, and z=8%; and you had 8 different sources of x, 2 sources of y, and 6 sources of z. You could shorthand that calculation as = = (Base Stat + Flat Modifiers) × [(1.x⁸)×(1.y²)×(1.z⁶)] = (Base+Flat) × (1.05⁸×1.03²×1.08⁶) = (Base+Flat)×(1.48×1.06×1.59) = (Base+Flat) × 2.49
Instead of = (Base+Flat) × (1.05×1.05×1.05×1.05×1.05×1.05×1.05×1.05×1.03×1.03×1.08×1.08×1.08×1.08×1.08×1.08)
Basically, as long as the “more” percentage is the same then 1.05×1.05 = 1.05²
Edit: Math is fun, kids! (genuinely, I love math. I’m bad at probability and statistics calculations, but I still love the “clean”-ness of math. No messy: “how did thr mathemetician feeeeeel while writing that equation?”)
Furry muff. I didn’t like maths but still managed to (barely) get through a physics degree. I don’t consider the stuff I do in my job (accounting) maths.
