Anyone know whether Blood Oath damage transfer operates off of hard or soft points in patch 3.2?
Prior to 3.2 it was hard points ,but they changed the damage scaling to get diminishing returns in patch 3.2
On the one hand:
- the patch notes didn't say they were changing it from using hard points to soft points.
On the other hand:
- they didn't previously say it was just hard points - people simply figured it out, and the tool tip incorrectly implied it was soft points.
- one would think they might fix the incorrect tool tip data if they bothered to change the scaling
- one might also think if they intended only hard points they wouldn't allow the tool tip data to go above the 25% at level 20 (and it does, it showed 27% for me before I did a respec).
But then again, back to the first hand, I recently respec'ed my WarLock and he feels a little less tanky with less Blood Oath.
I previously had 20 hard points in Blood Oath, but now under the assumption it is diminishing returns and soft points respec'ed to have just 1 hard point. My WL seems a bit less tanky now, although that is subjective and I can't say 100% sure. He is still incredibly tanky, but I am noticing that I more frequently might lose 25-30% health in a tough battle than before the respec where that almost never happened. Could be random / bad luck. By the tool tips, I have only dropped from 27% xfer at level 34 to 23% at level 14 (hard point 1).
So, anyone know? Is it hard points or soft points now? I still have 11 points left I haven't reallocated or I can respec again.
8
replies
437 views
Description
Anyone know whether Blood Oath damage transfer operates off of hard or soft points in patch 3.2?
Prior to 3.2 it was hard points ,but they changed the damage scaling to get diminishing returns in patch 3.2
On the one hand:
- the patch notes didn't say they were changing it from using hard points to soft points.
On the other hand:
- they didn't previously say it was just hard points - people simply figured it out, and the tool tip incorrectly implied it was soft points.
- one would think they might fix the incorrect tool tip data if they bothered to change the scaling
- one might also think if they intended only hard points they wouldn't allow the tool tip data to go above the 25% at level 20 (and it does, it showed 27% for me before I did a respec).
But then again, back to the first hand, I recently respec'ed my WarLock and he feels a little less tanky with less Blood Oath.
I previously had 20 hard points in Blood Oath, but now under the assumption it is diminishing returns and soft points respec'ed to have just 1 hard point. My WL seems a bit less tanky now, although that is subjective and I can't say 100% sure. He is still incredibly tanky, but I am noticing that I more frequently might lose 25-30% health in a tough battle than before the respec where that almost never happened. Could be random / bad luck. By the tool tips, I have only dropped from 27% xfer at level 34 to 23% at level 14 (hard point 1).
So, anyone know? Is it hard points or soft points now? I still have 11 points left I haven't reallocated or I can respec again.
Prior to 3.2 it was hard points ,but they changed the damage scaling to get diminishing returns in patch 3.2
On the one hand:
- the patch notes didn't say they were changing it from using hard points to soft points.
On the other hand:
- they didn't previously say it was just hard points - people simply figured it out, and the tool tip incorrectly implied it was soft points.
- one would think they might fix the incorrect tool tip data if they bothered to change the scaling
- one might also think if they intended only hard points they wouldn't allow the tool tip data to go above the 25% at level 20 (and it does, it showed 27% for me before I did a respec).
But then again, back to the first hand, I recently respec'ed my WarLock and he feels a little less tanky with less Blood Oath.
I previously had 20 hard points in Blood Oath, but now under the assumption it is diminishing returns and soft points respec'ed to have just 1 hard point. My WL seems a bit less tanky now, although that is subjective and I can't say 100% sure. He is still incredibly tanky, but I am noticing that I more frequently might lose 25-30% health in a tough battle than before the respec where that almost never happened. Could be random / bad luck. By the tool tips, I have only dropped from 27% xfer at level 34 to 23% at level 14 (hard point 1).
So, anyone know? Is it hard points or soft points now? I still have 11 points left I haven't reallocated or I can respec again.
Can be used to make Runewords:
Not sure as well but I have been putting all my extra points into it on my Abyss Warlock and I feel like he is tankier. So I think the tool tip is a lie and hardpoints matter I think i remember it caps out at 40% probably read that on reddit.
LF:HRs, Perfect Gems, Perfect Amethyst, Hel, Ral, Key of Hate Key of Terror Key of Destruction. Do not ask me how much an item is worth value is perceived. Please use the price checking tool before posting an offer please.
from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gtM ... it?tab=t.0[2] Display for damage redirected to demon is wrong. Calculation is bugged and only uses hardpoints despite using a softpoint function (ln12) to calculate the damage redirection. Grants 5+2*(lvl-1) damage redirection, so the maximum obtainable is 43% damage redirection at 20 hard points. Formula for damage redirected to demon has been changed to increase diminishingly up to 30% at the maximum. The previous hard (base) points only bug is fixed.
Interesting, thanks. This document seems pretty thorough, so I imagine it is most likely correct.atari wrote: 2 days agofrom https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gtM ... it?tab=t.0[2] Display for damage redirected to demon is wrong. Calculation is bugged and only uses hardpoints despite using a softpoint function (ln12) to calculate the damage redirection. Grants 5+2*(lvl-1) damage redirection, so the maximum obtainable is 43% damage redirection at 20 hard points. Formula for damage redirected to demon has been changed to increase diminishingly up to 30% at the maximum. The previous hard (base) points only bug is fixed.
Still feels less tanky to me, but I guess is random variance.
Sadly, seems like the warlock skill trees were cobbled together without much editorial review.atari wrote: 2 days agofrom https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gtM ... it?tab=t.0[2] Display for damage redirected to demon is wrong. Calculation is bugged and only uses hardpoints despite using a softpoint function (ln12) to calculate the damage redirection. Grants 5+2*(lvl-1) damage redirection, so the maximum obtainable is 43% damage redirection at 20 hard points. Formula for damage redirected to demon has been changed to increase diminishingly up to 30% at the maximum. The previous hard (base) points only bug is fixed.
Maybe I will test / double check this. Shouldn't be too hard, although I may need to Consume my demon and kill my merc for better control. And then put all resistances at zero for easy calculations / avoiding unknown interactions / calculation order by removing items/charms.
At level 1, Blood Oath takes off 3%, so an act 1 Zombie, who's min damage is 50, would do 47-48 damage at minimum.
At level 20 (with skillers but still 1 hard point), is 25%, so any attack of 61 or lower will result in damage of 46 or lower.
Zombie attack 1 will damage at 61 or lower 1/6th of the time. Does have a second attack with higher damage, so is 1/12th.
But can just let a single Zombie attack and wait for 12-30 hits to see if he ever does an attack with damage of 46 or lower.
Zombies are slow, which is nice, but maybe a monster with more consistent damage range like a Dark Ranger would be better. In DR case
attack 1 and 2 both have 46-70.
@3%: min damage possible is 44
@25%: damage will be 43 or lower 47% of the time.
Edit.. Returned Archer even better at 28-40
@3%: min damage possible is 27
@25%: damage will be 26 or lower 50% of the time.
Edit - we have a winner. Gargoyle Trap Fireball damage is 72-77. Will only need to take a single hit to confirm how Blood Oath works.
@3%: Min damage is 68
@25%: Max damage is 58
At level 1, Blood Oath takes off 3%, so an act 1 Zombie, who's min damage is 50, would do 47-48 damage at minimum.
At level 20 (with skillers but still 1 hard point), is 25%, so any attack of 61 or lower will result in damage of 46 or lower.
Zombie attack 1 will damage at 61 or lower 1/6th of the time. Does have a second attack with higher damage, so is 1/12th.
But can just let a single Zombie attack and wait for 12-30 hits to see if he ever does an attack with damage of 46 or lower.
Zombies are slow, which is nice, but maybe a monster with more consistent damage range like a Dark Ranger would be better. In DR case
attack 1 and 2 both have 46-70.
@3%: min damage possible is 44
@25%: damage will be 43 or lower 47% of the time.
Edit.. Returned Archer even better at 28-40
@3%: min damage possible is 27
@25%: damage will be 26 or lower 50% of the time.
Edit - we have a winner. Gargoyle Trap Fireball damage is 72-77. Will only need to take a single hit to confirm how Blood Oath works.
@3%: Min damage is 68
@25%: Max damage is 58
(reasonably) Confirmed - Blood Oath scales with soft points as per the posted source.
Some caveats - I did half ass this test.
1) I didn't run a control. So if the source that indicated the Fireball damage is 72-77 is wrong, my result could be incorrect. But the results were consistent with 72-77 damage being reduced by ~25%. Most (possibly all - see below) hits resulted in 55-58 damage. I probably got about 10-12 hits in total across tests, not sure if I ever got a hit of 54 (which should be the low end of the range at a full 25%). If 72-77 is the correct base damage, it would be impossible for me to get these results at the 3% damage xfer 1 hard point I had.
2) I didn't get rid of my demon to save myself the rebind hassle, but it made the testing much less controlled and extremely chaotic. Trying to get hit with 1 slow ass Fireball, and only 1 Fireball (but not other enemies) before my Vigor aura demon lancer sprinted to instantly kill the fire trap was a pain in the ass.
There were 1 or 2 times I got significantly more than the typical 55-58 range, but everything else was so consistently in that range that I assume it was because I was tp'ing and sprinting back and forth to try to get hit with only a single incredibly slow Fireball in a bunch of monster Chaos while preventing my lancer from killing the Gargoyle Trap, and probably something else random hit me.
3) My fire resistance was -1%, not 0%, as I was too lazy to find a charm setup to hit 0% exactly. That could be why I (possibly) never got a hit with the lowest possible damage of 54. I'm not sure whether I did or didn't get as low as 54, I was mostly focused on registering whether the damage ever exceeded the maximum possible versus recording each hit. But I recall vast majority of hits being 55-57, with one or two hits of 58.
Some caveats - I did half ass this test.
1) I didn't run a control. So if the source that indicated the Fireball damage is 72-77 is wrong, my result could be incorrect. But the results were consistent with 72-77 damage being reduced by ~25%. Most (possibly all - see below) hits resulted in 55-58 damage. I probably got about 10-12 hits in total across tests, not sure if I ever got a hit of 54 (which should be the low end of the range at a full 25%). If 72-77 is the correct base damage, it would be impossible for me to get these results at the 3% damage xfer 1 hard point I had.
2) I didn't get rid of my demon to save myself the rebind hassle, but it made the testing much less controlled and extremely chaotic. Trying to get hit with 1 slow ass Fireball, and only 1 Fireball (but not other enemies) before my Vigor aura demon lancer sprinted to instantly kill the fire trap was a pain in the ass.
There were 1 or 2 times I got significantly more than the typical 55-58 range, but everything else was so consistently in that range that I assume it was because I was tp'ing and sprinting back and forth to try to get hit with only a single incredibly slow Fireball in a bunch of monster Chaos while preventing my lancer from killing the Gargoyle Trap, and probably something else random hit me.
3) My fire resistance was -1%, not 0%, as I was too lazy to find a charm setup to hit 0% exactly. That could be why I (possibly) never got a hit with the lowest possible damage of 54. I'm not sure whether I did or didn't get as low as 54, I was mostly focused on registering whether the damage ever exceeded the maximum possible versus recording each hit. But I recall vast majority of hits being 55-57, with one or two hits of 58.
Fun fact - I also "discovered" / realized that demons can open doors. I tried to trap my demon in one of the rooms by closing the doors on her, but she would just open the door and leave lol
Or maybe it's just as simple as that the Gargoyle Trap scored a critical hit. According tovarangium wrote: 1 hour agoThere were 1 or 2 times I got significantly more than the typical 55-58 range, but everything else was so consistently in that range that I assume it was because I was tp'ing and sprinting back and forth to try to get hit with only a single incredibly slow Fireball in a bunch of monster Chaos while preventing my lancer from killing the Gargoyle Trap, and probably something else random hit me.
monstats.txt, monster type "gargoyletrap" has 5% crit chance (other stationary sentries like Fire Tower and Lightning Spire have no crit chance).
I'm in CET (Central European Time)
My profile says Ladder, but I play both Ladder and Non-Ladder.
My profile says Softcore, but I play both Softcore and Hardcore.
My Holy Grail Tracker is for Offline Hardcore.
Holy Grail Death Count: 1
My profile says Ladder, but I play both Ladder and Non-Ladder.
My profile says Softcore, but I play both Softcore and Hardcore.
My Holy Grail Tracker is for Offline Hardcore.
Holy Grail Death Count: 1
Similar pages
Advertisment
Hide ads
Greetings stranger!
You don't appear to be logged in...
99
Who is online
Users browsing Forums: 
Ahrefs [Bot], 
Andre3d, Bing [Bot], DotNetDotCom.org [Bot], 
mhlg, 
Rhaegar86, 
Schinzilord, Semrush [Bot], 
username2065, Yahoo [Bot] and 392 guests.
No matches
varangium
104