Average unweighted resistance of mobs.

[Besserwisser]

I've seen quite a few posts mentioning how prevalent resistance vs. certain damage types is, so I decided to make a rough estimate. I calculated the average resistance of minions, lts and bosses. Here's the results:

<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
Sm 5.14%
Le 7.14%
Fi 2.57%
Co 3.33%
En 2.56%
Ne 2.58%
Ps 6.04%
To 6.64%
</pre><hr />
Here's if you add AVs, GMs, Underlings, Objects and other crap:
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
Sm 5.95%
Le 7.66%
Fi 3.03%
Co 3.72%
En 3.22%
Ne 3.13%
Ps 5.18%
Ps 6.89%
</pre><hr />

[Siolfir]

[ QUOTE ]
Ps 5.18%
Ps 6.89%

[/ QUOTE ]
:confused:

Also, I think a weighted average would probably significantly rearrange the numbers you came up with.

[Besserwisser]

The last one is of course Toxic, I copy/pasted the psionic value to get the formatting right, remembered to change the number but not the name.

[YuriFoxfirega]

Faskinating, but can you do one to calculate the total percentage of the mob-base that has X or Y resistance next? :3

If you give a nerd a spreadsheet... it'll just ask for you to calculate another scenario.

[Besserwisser]

Percent of all mobs that has some form of resistance vs. damage type (including AVs and stuff).

<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
Sm 16.80%
Le 18.75%
Fi 9.54%
Co 11.94%
En 13.17%
Ne 10.95%
Ps 10.55%
Ps 11.43% </pre><hr />

[YuriFoxfirega]

One internet for you, dear sir. &lt;3

[Pippy]

This looks like it must've been a lot of work! A couple of questions, though:

(1) In terms of how long it takes to kill stuff, you want to look at the quantity 1/(1-R), with R being resistance. The damage admitted is proportional to 1-R, and the time to defeat is inversely proportional to the damage you do. (Basically, having 1/(1-R)=1.10 would imply that you have to spend ~10% longer than you would if there were no resistance.) This becomes importance because just averaging the resistances doesn't sufficiently account for the effect of high resistances.

Can you run numbers on that?

(2) Have you given any thought to the best way to weight the mobs? As difficult as this step is, I think it's necessary if you're going to be able to use the results to look at balance changes -- i.e., the (alleged) S/L disadvantage, etc.

[Kelenar]

[ QUOTE ]
(2) Have you given any thought to the best way to weight the mobs? As difficult as this step is, I think it's necessary if you're going to be able to use the results to look at balance changes -- i.e., the (alleged) S/L disadvantage, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

That one would be a pain. If Herostats or something could log the individual enemies somebody personally damaged, and you managed to log that information for dozens of characters levelling from 1-50 in a variety of ways, it might be meaningful. (And even then, I suspect it'd have problems like the differences between hero and villainside, or that people regularly avoid certain groups like Malta.) Otherwise, it would really just be a guess.

[Bill Z Bubba]

All three charts show fire being the big winner with lethal the loser.

Suck it, scrappers!

...

waitaminute... that's mean. Good thing we get crits!

[Elaith]

Just to add another set of numbers to the mix, do you have how often/average strength of weakness too or just resistance? Or was that already factored in to the tables?

[Sarrate]

I think it'd be interesting if you did a level breakdown (say, every 10 levels?), since low level critters generally have very little resistance, with it becoming more and more common as you get higher.

Not sure what your source information is (Culex's spreadsheet?) or how time consuming that would be.

[Culex]

[ QUOTE ]
how time consuming that would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is taking A LOT and will not be completely complete for next update. People have asked for this for a long time so finally I have been working on doing it.

[Besserwisser]

This took close to no time at all for me, the time was all Culex's. I used her spreadsheet and would credit her if I had remembered where I got it from.

The weighting I'd use is the same I'd use for the enemy damage calculation, based on how many Story Arcs a villain group exists in. The tricky part is Minions, Lts and bosses, since the HP ratios that I feel would be important varies with level.

Don't think I'll bother though, I've cancelled my account since I'm tired and need a break, so unless they've changed it so that people who cancelled their account can still post there's not much point in doing it.

[Culex]

Okay, there you guys go, updated spreadsheet with level range limiters in groups of 10. Should be sufficient enough.

(And also I'm a chick)

[Besserwisser]

Fixed.

That there is hella convinient. Awesome job, Culex.

[Castle]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, there you guys go, updated spreadsheet with level range limiters in groups of 10. Should be sufficient enough.

(And also I'm a chick)

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, how did you handle critters with multiple sources of resistance and/or toggles (Toggles being notorious for only one critter in a spawn being allowed to use a toggle at once, and then, only for 15 seconds at a time...)

[Catwhoorg]

[ QUOTE ]
(And also I'm a chick)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you Maam!

[Besserwisser]

From what I can tell she just made a note of it and didn't include them in the calculations. Luckily there's not that many that has toggles that produce resistance numbers that vary with damage type.

[crusader8466]

[ QUOTE ]


(And also I'm a chick)

[/ QUOTE ]

Lies! Everyone knows their is no girls on the internets. Only guys, guys pretending to be girls, and cops pretending to be kids.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, there you guys go, updated spreadsheet with level range limiters in groups of 10. Should be sufficient enough.

(And also I'm a chick)

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, how did you handle critters with multiple sources of resistance and/or toggles (Toggles being notorious for only one critter in a spawn being allowed to use a toggle at once, and then, only for 15 seconds at a time...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Castle, the chart she posts seem to list a raw resist and if you hover over the critter it then shows how low high resistance goes with the toggles up. Carnie Strongmen, for instance, show 1.2 lethal damage (denoting weakness) and if you hover the value it notes .7 with Temp Invulnerability.

[Aramar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, there you guys go, updated spreadsheet with level range limiters in groups of 10. Should be sufficient enough.

(And also I'm a chick)

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, how did you handle critters with multiple sources of resistance and/or toggles (Toggles being notorious for only one critter in a spawn being allowed to use a toggle at once, and then, only for 15 seconds at a time...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Not meaning to thread-jack, but I assume you mean MOST creatures' toggles, or else Spectrals appear to be heavily bugged (just finished a fight where three Spectral Demon Lords in a single spawn all kept their toggles up for well over a minute).

[InfamousBrad]

Wow, that is every bit as bad as I thought it was.

Castle, is there any chance we can get lethal damage attacks boosted, across the board, to make up for the fact that they're almost universally resisted?

[Cuppa_LLX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, there you guys go, updated spreadsheet with level range limiters in groups of 10. Should be sufficient enough.

(And also I'm a chick)

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, how did you handle critters with multiple sources of resistance and/or toggles (Toggles being notorious for only one critter in a spawn being allowed to use a toggle at once, and then, only for 15 seconds at a time...)

[/ QUOTE ]

of of curiosity

feeling threatened, inspired, ammused, or encouraged by people like her?

[MrQuizzles]

Maybe now people will believe me when I tell them that Toxic is one of the most resisted damage types in the game.

[Myrmydon]

[ QUOTE ]
All three charts show fire being the big winner with lethal the loser.

Suck it, scrappers!

...

waitaminute... that's mean. Good thing we get crits!

[/ QUOTE ]

Scrappers have access to Fire now, Bill. :)

[Culex]

Castle, Starsman explained what I did, yeah. People can do what they like: they can assume an enemy is toggled...naked of toggles...the hover-over notes on specific cells will also note when an enemy contains an effects-others power like Fortitude, and what it does. If an enemy has MULTIPLE effects, well they're all in the same note box. The notes only consider the cell in question, like Ranged Defense or Hold Resistance or Lethal Resistance. As well as any issues of mez resistance like holds lasting half as long as normal. Pretty simple! I didn't want to overclutter it with extra entries, plus I really suck at spreadsheet things involving anything more complicated than formulas of +-*/ stuff. SO notes and "do it in your own head with what you think is appropriate" are my tactics.

[PC_guy]

[ QUOTE ]
(And also I'm a chick)

[/ QUOTE ]

Girls play this game?!?!?!?...

...

...

COOTIES!!!!

[SkarmoryThePG]

QR:

Brain, stop reading the thread title as 'unladen'

[SablePhoenix]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, that is every bit as bad as I thought it was.

Castle, is there any chance we can get lethal damage attacks boosted, across the board, to make up for the fact that they're almost universally resisted?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this would be a good thing. Or perhaps, since they're, you know, cutting and piercing, they could have a certain percentage of their damage be unresistable, or something, to simulate their armor-piercing nature.

[YuriFoxfirega]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, that is every bit as bad as I thought it was.

Castle, is there any chance we can get lethal damage attacks boosted, across the board, to make up for the fact that they're almost universally resisted?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this would be a good thing. Or perhaps, since they're, you know, cutting and piercing, they could have a certain percentage of their damage be unresistable, or something, to simulate their armor-piercing nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like, say, perhaps... -Def in a lot of them? :eek:

[Starsman]

This may help me champion the "Armor Breaker" system.

The idea is a single target attack on every melee set (yes only melee sets) that will "break" resistances on a single target for a limited amount of time. The method:

Detoggle + Resist Cap set to zero to a specific damage type. If you are MA, you set the resist cap to Smashing to zero. If you are katana, you set the resist cap to lethal to zero, etc etc.

This makes sure no one does more damage than base against foes without resistance but helps break the resistance disadvantage in a single target fashion.

The effect should be added to the worst DPA ST attack in the set. Intentionally, it should not be optimal to do this on a power you would normally use in an optimized attack chain.

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
This may help me champion the "Armor Breaker" system.

The idea is a single target attack on every melee set (yes only melee sets) that will "break" resistances on a single target for a limited amount of time. The method:

Detoggle + Resist Cap set to zero to a specific damage type. If you are MA, you set the resist cap to Smashing to zero. If you are katana, you set the resist cap to lethal to zero, etc etc.

This makes sure no one does more damage than base against foes without resistance but helps break the resistance disadvantage in a single target fashion.

The effect should be added to the worst DPA ST attack in the set. Intentionally, it should not be optimal to do this on a power you would normally use in an optimized attack chain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds neat in theory, but I can already see huge problems with this.

First, putting it on a "poor DPA attack" won't matter. Builds would become catered to reaching the magical recharge number required to turn their melee character into a "PermaBreaker". You'd have to set the debuff period so short to compensate that it would become a useless attribute for this purpose, which leads into my next issue...

Stacking Breakers. Or more specifically, stacking a damage type that a breaker... breaks. You run your melee in, hit your breaker, and the rest of the team spams the appropriate attack. If this doesn't concern you, then perhaps the next will...

Rotating Breakers. Here, you stack your damage similar to the Breaker Stacker group, except once one break wears off, the next in the rotation uses it, which effectively keeps the target at 0 resistance to whatever damage you're focusing on. It honestly won't matter which you focus with here because the resistance would be 0 regardless.

In effect, this turns what is usually a more solo-oriented type of character into a character that not only solos well, but can group with others "solo-ers" and completely rip AVs a new one without trying. Not implying that it was impossible/difficult before, but this would utterly trivialize it without much thought involved.

[SpaceNut]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, there you guys go, updated spreadsheet with level range limiters in groups of 10. Should be sufficient enough.

(And also I'm a chick)

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, how did you handle critters with multiple sources of resistance and/or toggles (Toggles being notorious for only one critter in a spawn being allowed to use a toggle at once, and then, only for 15 seconds at a time...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Castle, if this is the case, then the Possessed Scientists are either broken or just not obeying the rules. I fought a group of Earth Melee/FF Possessed Scientists in the Portal Corp parking lot yesterday, and despite having 2 level 30 Acc IOs in my attacks, I ended up with less than 9% chance to-hit, apparently due to their overlapping dispersion bubbles.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
First, putting it on a "poor DPA attack" won't matter. Builds would become catered to reaching the magical recharge number required to turn their melee character into a "PermaBreaker". You'd have to set the debuff period so short to compensate that it would become a useless attribute for this purpose, which leads into my next issue...

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, PermaBreaker is not what I attempt to avoid, instead I aim for it. Bad DPA attacks already are in very low recharge. Spamming them all the time just lowers your DPS, they tend to have bad damage/cast time ratios. Adding them to your attack chain lowers your dps, spamming them, in some cases, destroys it. This means that going into "armor breaker" mode would still result in lesser DPS than doing your normal attack chain against a regular foe. If the resist was low enough, like 5%, you may even be lowering your output relative than just sucking in the lower damage and keep going normally.



[ QUOTE ]
Stacking Breakers. Or more specifically, stacking a damage type that a breaker... breaks. You run your melee in, hit your breaker, and the rest of the team spams the appropriate attack. If this doesn't concern you, then perhaps the next will...

[/ QUOTE ]

As noted: breaker is meant to be perma. Setting the Resist Cap to zero can't be taken any lower. 5 Armor Breakers on to of each-other would still keep the resist cap at zero.

[ QUOTE ]
completely rip AVs a new one without trying.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like saying that fighting an AV that does not has resist to my damage type would be as easy as not trying. However, I actually would make the Armor Breaker behave different with AVs, where it perhaps only sets the cap to 20% against AVs.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, there you guys go, updated spreadsheet with level range limiters in groups of 10. Should be sufficient enough.

(And also I'm a chick)

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, how did you handle critters with multiple sources of resistance and/or toggles (Toggles being notorious for only one critter in a spawn being allowed to use a toggle at once, and then, only for 15 seconds at a time...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Castle, if this is the case, then the Possessed Scientists are either broken or just not obeying the rules. I fought a group of Earth Melee/FF Possessed Scientists in the Portal Corp parking lot yesterday, and despite having 2 level 30 Acc IOs in my attacks, I ended up with less than 9% chance to-hit, apparently due to their overlapping dispersion bubbles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you didn't aggro two overlapping spawns? A group is a spawn, if you got 2 groups, each can have one toggle up.

[Peacemoon]

Psi resist has to be worse then lethal. Lethal may have a broader variety of mobs who possess resistance, but mobs who are resistant to psi are usually VERY resistant to psi. Sometimes be as much as 50%.

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First, putting it on a "poor DPA attack" won't matter. Builds would become catered to reaching the magical recharge number required to turn their melee character into a "PermaBreaker". You'd have to set the debuff period so short to compensate that it would become a useless attribute for this purpose, which leads into my next issue...

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, PermaBreaker is not what I attempt to avoid, instead I aim for it. Bad DPA attacks already are in very low recharge. Spamming them all the time just lowers your DPS, they tend to have bad damage/cast time ratios. Adding them to your attack chain lowers your dps, spamming them, in some cases, destroys it. This means that going into "armor breaker" mode would still result in lesser DPS than doing your normal attack chain against a regular foe. If the resist was low enough, like 5%, you may even be lowering your output relative than just sucking in the lower damage and keep going normally.



[ QUOTE ]
Stacking Breakers. Or more specifically, stacking a damage type that a breaker... breaks. You run your melee in, hit your breaker, and the rest of the team spams the appropriate attack. If this doesn't concern you, then perhaps the next will...

[/ QUOTE ]

As noted: breaker is meant to be perma. Setting the Resist Cap to zero can't be taken any lower. 5 Armor Breakers on to of each-other would still keep the resist cap at zero.

[ QUOTE ]
completely rip AVs a new one without trying.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like saying that fighting an AV that does not has resist to my damage type would be as easy as not trying. However, I actually would make the Armor Breaker behave different with AVs, where it perhaps only sets the cap to 20% against AVs.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't explain your idea very well, then.

I was never talking about normal foes with my points. Normal foes fall over to melee easily enough that it won't matter. Your dismissal of the player's ability to cater their build around a single power is also pretty naive. Isn't there a saying that goes "If your attack chain isn't Headsplitter &gt; Headsplitter &gt; Headsplitter, then you need more recharge"?

At worst, you'd have builds that cycle between the breaker attack and one, or maybe two, "filler attacks". With an AV's resistance to your damage down to 0, it will far outpace the normal DPS chains that let you solo certain AVs. In fact, this will let every melee character have the capability to solo any AV, something that's generally designed to be a group thing.

Intending on it to be permanent only compounds this problem, since there is no need to put multiple breakers on the team if a single one can keep it going forever on their own. Before, this might have just been limited to select builds (albeit, a build that everyone who can afford it would have), but with it perma out of the box, that need is gone. This also invites groups to stack heavily on certain damage types just to take advantage of what I feel is something really broken to begin with. Grab a melee, find out his primary, and load up the rest of the team with characters who share his "breaker type".

And yes, I know you said you'd balance it different for an AV, but by then, what would be the point? These classes, in a group, have the tools needed to pump out the DPS required to kill them, so why would they need the boost?

[Jibikao]

I am more surprised by

Ps 6.04%
To 6.64%

So much for "exotic" damage type when robots have huge resistance on them. The thing with Psi and Toxic is that the mob either has a lot of resistance against them or very very little (or nothing).


And poor Lethal....

[YuriFoxfirega]

[ QUOTE ]
I am more surprised by

Ps 6.04%
To 6.64%

So much for "exotic" damage type when robots have huge resistance on them. The thing with Psi and Toxic is that the mob either has a lot of resistance against them or very very little (or nothing).


And poor Lethal....

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't get why people say 'poor lethal'.

Considering that a large portion of Scrapper primaries (Claws, Broadsword, Dual Blades, Katana, Spines*) do Lethal damage and most people state that Scrappers solo exceptionally well, often to the point of being broken (Werner, BillZBubba, Shredmonkey [Though I somehow think Shred's DM, isn't he?])...

We can reasonably conclude that Lethal damage is fine, it's the poor mobs you should be feeling sorry for. &gt;.&gt;

EDIT: Oops, forgot my *. Spines actually does most of it's damage as Lethal, with only a portion actually coming up as Toxic, usually as a DoT added onto the damage.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
I am more surprised by

Ps 6.04%
To 6.64%

So much for "exotic" damage type when robots have huge resistance on them. The thing with Psi and Toxic is that the mob either has a lot of resistance against them or very very little (or nothing).


And poor Lethal....

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been said for a long time that Psi and Toxic were the most resisted damage types in the game by players that are not obsessed with "but smash/lethal suxors"

[Sarrate]

[ QUOTE ]
Considering that a large portion of Scrapper primaries (Claws, Broadsword, Dual Blades, Katana, Spines*) do Lethal damage and most people state that Scrappers solo exceptionally well, often to the point of being broken (Werner, BillZBubba, Shredmonkey [Though I somehow think Shred's DM, isn't he?])...

We can reasonably conclude that Lethal damage is fine, it's the poor mobs you should be feeling sorry for. &gt;.&gt;

[/ QUOTE ]

Scrappers aren't the only AT to deal Lethal damage. The lower you go on the damage totem pole, the bigger a problem this becomes.


As for the Armor Breaker system - I don't like it. If a critter is designed to be hard to kill, this can completely circumvent that. (ex: Recluse with the Red Tower up.) That reduces the options a developer has for designing content.

[YuriFoxfirega]

Fair enough there, but if Lethal was near as bad off as people claim it is, then Scrappers wouldn't be doing nearly as hot as they are.

It's frequently over-stated.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
You didn't explain your idea very well, then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very likely, I just skimmed through the basics. I went through a lot of detail a long time ago, but that thread has long been purged.


[ QUOTE ]
Isn't there a saying that goes "If your attack chain isn't Headsplitter &gt; Headsplitter &gt; Headsplitter, then you need more recharge"?

[/ QUOTE ]

And if the attack chain goes Slash &gt; Slash &gt; Slash &gt; Slash, then you need a better build, or player... or get the heck out of Outbreak already :eek:

[ QUOTE ]
I was never talking about normal foes with my points. Normal foes fall over to melee easily enough that it won't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider Bosses and Lts normal foes, and there are plenty with insane resistances. CoT Arch-Mages, are listed on that chart as having 75% resist to all damage types. Many rikti

Slash, would be the BS power I would suggest be made Armor Breaker. Many players don't even take the power seeking optimal attacks. Most Rikti have 30% resist against smash/lethal/energy that gives other sets an extreme advantage in the high end game.


[ QUOTE ]
At worst, you'd have builds that cycle between the breaker attack and one, or maybe two, "filler attacks". With an AV's resistance to your damage down to 0, it will far outpace the normal DPS chains that let you solo certain AVs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd force the duration to 10 seconds. That would force quite a drop in DPS to be able to sustain it permanently solo. As for AVs i already corrected that detail on taking that only as down as 20%

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, this will let every melee character have the capability to solo any AV, something that's generally designed to be a group thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would it? Marauder (just piking a drastic example from that chart) resists 50% of all smash damage, but he takes full damage from lethal/fire/cold/energy/negative/toxic and even takes bonus damage from Psionic.

How would that make suddenly "soloing the AV" trivial if (assuming setting the cap to zero and thats not what I propose) it would put the Smashing sets at the same level as the lethal ones?



[ QUOTE ]
Intending on it to be permanent only compounds this problem, since there is no need to put multiple breakers on the team if a single one can keep it going forever on their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is if there are mixed player types. A smashing set woud just break smashing resistance. A lethal set would just break lethal resistance, etc etc.



[ QUOTE ]
Before, this might have just been limited to select builds (albeit, a build that everyone who can afford it would have), but with it perma out of the box, that need is gone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure what you mean. If you mean -res, it actually is weaker against foes with resitance than against regular foes. Not that the -res proc (that is only available to certain lethal sets in a reliable manner) was too expensive anyways. It is dirt cheap.

[ QUOTE ]
This also invites groups to stack heavily on certain damage types just to take advantage of what I feel is something really broken to begin with. Grab a melee, find out his primary, and load up the rest of the team with characters who share his "breaker type".

[/ QUOTE ]

Share his damage type I understand, share his breaker type I don't. As noted, there is no use in stacking it.



[ QUOTE ]
And yes, I know you said you'd balance it different for an AV, but by then, what would be the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that certain AVs are insane on their resistance. Akarist is an Arch Mage so he has 75% resistance. Quite a few pretorians have 50% resistance. Lowering this to 20% would make a huge difference.


[ QUOTE ]
These classes, in a group, have the tools needed to pump out the DPS required to kill them, so why would they need the boost?

[/ QUOTE ]

Very specific group compositions which this game designers insits should not be required outside of specific content (LRSF, SMTF.) Besides, to overcome 50% resistance you would need about 200% worth of damage buffs or -100% damage resistance. It is easier to kick your smashing members in favor of non-smashing ones than to find the specific defender/defender combos that can yield those buffs/debuffs.

With Armor Breaking, those buffs still enhance damage as they would with any non-resistant AV.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the Armor Breaker system - I don't like it. If a critter is designed to be hard to kill, this can completely circumvent that. (ex: Recluse with the Red Tower up.) That reduces the options a developer has for designing content.

[/ QUOTE ]

It can be setup precisely to be useless in situations like that. The amount of such situations is not that high to customize the Armor Breaker not to work there.

[Icesickle]

[ QUOTE ]
All three charts show fire being the big winner with lethal the loser.

Suck it, scrappers!

...

waitaminute... that's mean. Good thing we get crits!

[/ QUOTE ]

and fire melee and FE......

[EvilRyu]

[ QUOTE ]
This may help me champion the "Armor Breaker" system.

The idea is a single target attack on every melee set (yes only melee sets) that will "break" resistances on a single target for a limited amount of time. The method:

Detoggle + Resist Cap set to zero to a specific damage type. If you are MA, you set the resist cap to Smashing to zero. If you are katana, you set the resist cap to lethal to zero, etc etc.

This makes sure no one does more damage than base against foes without resistance but helps break the resistance disadvantage in a single target fashion.

The effect should be added to the worst DPA ST attack in the set. Intentionally, it should not be optimal to do this on a power you would normally use in an optimized attack chain.

[/ QUOTE ]I like this idea. I could get behind it 100% if it only had one thing added to it. Make sure AVs/Heroes/GMs are not immune to this. What I hate more than nothing else in this game is to fight an av and they use their tier 9 and I am pretty much stuck doing 0 damage for the next 3 minutes. Seriously no one should have 100% resistance cap. If there could be a way to hell at least do 10% damage I'd be happy instead of being totally useless for 3 minutes.

[EvilRyu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Considering that a large portion of Scrapper primaries (Claws, Broadsword, Dual Blades, Katana, Spines*) do Lethal damage and most people state that Scrappers solo exceptionally well, often to the point of being broken (Werner, BillZBubba, Shredmonkey [Though I somehow think Shred's DM, isn't he?])...

We can reasonably conclude that Lethal damage is fine, it's the poor mobs you should be feeling sorry for. &gt;.&gt;

[/ QUOTE ]

Scrappers aren't the only AT to deal Lethal damage. The lower you go on the damage totem pole, the bigger a problem this becomes.


As for the Armor Breaker system - I don't like it. If a critter is designed to be hard to kill, this can completely circumvent that. (ex: Recluse with the Red Tower up.) That reduces the options a developer has for designing content.

[/ QUOTE ]Having stupidly high resitances doesnt make the critter hard to kill it just becomes an exercise of frustration. I already skip content that has extreme lethal resistance in the 40s. If I had this breaker thing I could see myself doing all the story arcs in the game.

[Sarrate]

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough there, but if Lethal was near as bad off as people claim it is, then Scrappers wouldn't be doing nearly as hot as they are.

It's frequently over-stated.

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, you're right. However, I will say that when lethal resists are bad, they can be really bad:

<ul type="square"> Malta - all their lethal resistances are either 25% or 50%, averaging at 32%. Smashing (second most resisted) varies between 20% and 30% averaging at 22%.
Anti-Matter/Neuron's minions - they all have 25% res to lethal.
Psychic Clockwork - all resist lethal between 15% to 30% (avg 23%)[/list]

Granted, those are the most extreme examples that I could come up with off the top of my head, but I hope you understand what I'm saying. Full missions (or heaven help you, arcs) with nothing but highly resistance enemies is where "lethal sucks" really rings true.

(Man do I hate Tina Macintyre's arc on lethal characters. Ungh...)

[YuriFoxfirega]

Considering some of the stuff I've done with my Dark/Psi defender, I'd have to say that 25% resistance is outright laughable. I cringe every time I'm expected to do missions with Council/5th Column, Arachnos, or Banished Pantheon with her because even with Tar Patch, it's just plain ridiculous how hard my stuff gets resisted.

I've been on the end of the resistance shaft when it comes to certain enemy groups, so I can sort of understand what you mean, but it's by far not the most damaging thing ever.

Even heavily lethal-resistant EBs, I've torn through on my Scrappers. It just takes me a while longer then I normally could otherwise, and I'm usually gasping for breath at the end of it. Often times, it can be a closer thing then I'd like. I don't doubt, however, that I could likely achieve the same feat on a Blaster or Defender (in the case of the defender, eventually; Probably after I stop crying about the prospect).

Psi-resistant EB, though? Screw that, I'd rather go solo Tyrant with an empty Insp tray.

[JupiterMoon]

there's a couple CoT bosses post 40 that i've run into (mage bosses) that had 50% smashing resistance

[YuriFoxfirega]

[ QUOTE ]
there's a couple CoT bosses post 40 that i've run into (mage bosses) that had 50% smashing resistance

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically a different story; Smash gets a bad rep for resistance, too, and I do believe the few things that do resist it hard... also resist Lethal just as hard, though in some cases a bit less.

However, for some reason, Super Strength is considered an awesome farming set for brutes, and it does almost entirely Smashing damage. And, in a similar note, I've seen people achieve ridiculously high damage numbers with Knockout Blow, on targets that should by all rights be fairly resistant to Smashing damage (Requiem and Romulus come to mind).

Not to downplay the resistance woes of Smashing (or to an extent Lethal), as they are fairly prevalent. But they're frequently over-stated.

Doesn't mean they don't suck in the few cases they're actually justified, though (lookin' at you, Miss Liberty).

[Sarrate]

[ QUOTE ]
Considering some of the stuff I've done with my Dark/Psi defender, I'd have to say that 25% resistance is outright laughable. I cringe every time I'm expected to do missions with Council/5th Column, Arachnos, or Banished Pantheon with her because even with Tar Patch, it's just plain ridiculous how hard my stuff gets resisted.

I've been on the end of the resistance shaft when it comes to certain enemy groups, so I can sort of understand what you mean, but it's by far not the most damaging thing ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only character I have that deals heavy psi damage is my Illusion/Thermal Controller (lvl44 iirc), but I don't play her much. There are situations where psi is heavily resisted, no doubt - I just have more experience with lethal which is why I commented on it.

[ QUOTE ]
Even heavily lethal-resistant EBs, I've torn through on my Scrappers. It just takes me a while longer then I normally could otherwise, and I'm usually gasping for breath at the end of it. Often times, it can be a closer thing then I'd like. I don't doubt, however, that I could likely achieve the same feat on a Blaster or Defender (in the case of the defender, eventually; Probably after I stop crying about the prospect).

Psi-resistant EB, though? Screw that, I'd rather go solo Tyrant with an empty Insp tray.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, here you're comparing a Scrapper vs a lethal resistant EB to a Defender vs a psi resistant EB. I'm sure if you swapped the ATs (psi Scrapper vs a psi resistant EB, lethal Defender vs a lethal resistant EB) it would seem like lethal is getting the shaft more that psi.

That's why I mentioned Scrappers not being the only lethal dealing AT. As the difference between your dps and enemy regen shrinks, kill speeds go through the roof. (When I ran my partially IOed Fire/Stone Tank through Tina / Maria's arc, any EB she fought with Unstoppable was a 3 minute time out. It was impossible to out damage their regen. Not sure if a Scrapper could have beat them through it, but I wouldn't be surprised.)

[edit: I know that last anecdote was smashing, not lethal, but Unstoppable has equal resistance to both.]

[YuriFoxfirega]

Actually, I was specifically thinking of my Psi/Men blaster in the end there, in relation to Psi-Resistant EBs. I really do not look forward to running into one of those on her, because I know I'm pretty well screwed in that situation. &gt;.&gt; Even with the higher ranged damage modifier and Defiance backing me up.

[Sarrate]

Ahh, okay. The only character you mentioned was your Dark/Psi Defender. I have no experience with Psi Blasters, so I'm in no position to comment.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there's a couple CoT bosses post 40 that i've run into (mage bosses) that had 50% smashing resistance

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically a different story; Smash gets a bad rep for resistance, too, and I do believe the few things that do resist it hard... also resist Lethal just as hard, though in some cases a bit less.

However, for some reason, Super Strength is considered an awesome farming set for brutes, and it does almost entirely Smashing damage. And, in a similar note, I've seen people achieve ridiculously high damage numbers with Knockout Blow, on targets that should by all rights be fairly resistant to Smashing damage (Requiem and Romulus come to mind).

Not to downplay the resistance woes of Smashing (or to an extent Lethal), as they are fairly prevalent. But they're frequently over-stated.

Doesn't mean they don't suck in the few cases they're actually justified, though (lookin' at you, Miss Liberty).

[/ QUOTE ]

Perception of performance and actual performance are two oddly different things. In many situation perceived performance is more valued than real performance.

KoB is one of the heaviest hitting attacks in the game (the 20 second rechage type) combined with always available Build Up damage (From rage) it will always hit harder than anything else, about 40% harder. That will, off course, make KoB with rage, against a foe that has 30% resistance, hit as hard as Total Focus does against a non resistant foe.

But then you have to analyze Total Focus recharge in 20s, and even if KoB does the same damage it recharges in 25 seconds (one of many prices SS pays for Rage) plus all other attacks available to fill in are less than stellar. At the end of the evening, SS is hit as hard by resist as any other set, it just gets the psychological satisfaction of seeing one big number on screen every so often.

[YuriFoxfirega]

[ QUOTE ]
Ahh, okay. The only character you mentioned was your Dark/Psi Defender. I have no experience with Psi Blasters, so I'm in no position to comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

No worries, it was a failure of information on my part.

The problem with Psi-Blast, I do believe, is that for a ST-heavy set, it does mediocre ST damage (in that it doesn't really have a heavy hitter like Blaze or Bitter Ice Blast; All 4 of it's attacks have considerable range and are available early) combined with anemic AoE damage by itself (Mental Manipulation makes up for that; See note later) makes it a pretty poor set for the most part.

In a comparison: Fire Blast does ~343 damage in 3.67s. Psychic Blast does ~363 damage in 4.77s and requires 4 attacks, whereas Fire Blast only takes 3. Ice Blast does ~306 in about 3.77s base. While Psychic Blast is clearly doing more damage, it's also taking 24% longer then Fire Blast and 21% longer then Ice Blast. Provided you have all 4 attacks slotted up to use, and both Ice Blast and Fire Blast actually have solid AoE damage on top of that.

Mental Manipulation is actually fine, and has good mitigation and AoE damage thrown into it. Not many people complain about Mental Manipulation, really.

(Sidepoint: If we drop one attack [Will Domination] from Psy, we get 286 damage in 3.67s, which puts it about on par with Ice Blast for damage, but not enough to really replace it. Especially not with it's anemic AoEs.)

[Brimstone Bruce]

[ QUOTE ]
However, for some reason, Super Strength is considered an awesome farming set for brutes, and it does almost entirely Smashing damage. And, in a similar note, I've seen people achieve ridiculously high damage numbers with Knockout Blow, on targets that should by all rights be fairly resistant to Smashing damage (Requiem and Romulus come to mind).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it looks like neither Romulus nor Requiem have any inherent resistances to Lethal or Smashing damage. Looks like many AV's work that way, especially of the non-Praetorian/Freedom Phalanx variety.

[YuriFoxfirega]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, for some reason, Super Strength is considered an awesome farming set for brutes, and it does almost entirely Smashing damage. And, in a similar note, I've seen people achieve ridiculously high damage numbers with Knockout Blow, on targets that should by all rights be fairly resistant to Smashing damage (Requiem and Romulus come to mind).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it looks like neither Romulus nor Requiem have any inherent resistances to Lethal or Smashing damage. Looks like many AV's work that way, especially of the non-Praetorian/Freedom Phalanx variety.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Huh. I appear to be in error, then. I always thought at the very least that Requiem would.

The more you know~. *Muzak!*

[Brimstone Bruce]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, for some reason, Super Strength is considered an awesome farming set for brutes, and it does almost entirely Smashing damage. And, in a similar note, I've seen people achieve ridiculously high damage numbers with Knockout Blow, on targets that should by all rights be fairly resistant to Smashing damage (Requiem and Romulus come to mind).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it looks like neither Romulus nor Requiem have any inherent resistances to Lethal or Smashing damage. Looks like many AV's work that way, especially of the non-Praetorian/Freedom Phalanx variety.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Huh. I appear to be in error, then. I always thought at the very least that Requiem would.

The more you know~. *Muzak!*

[/ QUOTE ]

More like "Culex's spreadsheet ftw!" ^_^

I first noticed this when my Katana scrapper was critting for ridiculous amounts of damage on Rommie.

[_Laxx_]

Breaking your quotation parade. I detest when people do that because they frequently take what is said out of the context of where it was placed and reply to each sentence like's an individual point lost in a vacuum. It's also more annoying to read, especially when my reasoning for coming to a certain conclusion is taken away just so you can try to counter my point without having to take my reason into account, instead preferring to take that reason on as a single, different idea. Ugh.

I consider Bosses and LTs normal foes also, but you pulling fringe cases that support your point don't really help you. Melee classes already tear these guys apart, albeit some faster than others. I don't really see your point. My Claw/Regen never had trouble with any Rikti Boss, and the only Rikti she's had trouble with to date is the EB that spawns in one of the RWZ arcs... and I still "soloed" him (I did have Faultline, Fusionette, and that one psychic Rikti guy, but they mostly concentrated on the ambushes). For another example, my Energy/Energy Blaster managed just fine solo as well. Even at 30% resist to both of my damage types, BU and Aim just punch that much damage through that it doesn't matter in the end.

You're still coming at this from the angle that people aren't going to optimize their build to take advantage of whichever power you put the Breaker on, and it's skewing your arguments. Either you're underestimating peoples' ability to game a system with such a huge perk for gaming, or you really think your system is infallible. I can't tell which is more foolish, to be honest. You're looking at this at an angle where people are just going to incorporate this attack either at only certain times or just ignore it. You're sorely mistaken here.

If you can't see how taking what was previously a more difficult AV to take out with just Smashing, and stripping him of that, isn't making that AV more soloable by *every* melee, I don't know what to say. I'm truly at a loss for words, here. My point about the AVs, that you seemed to want to miss, is that they're intended to be group content. Making every AV more soloable for melee characters only runs counter to the design, and it also alienates everyone else. Certain builds of various ATs can solo certain AVs, so don't try to use this as a counter. Not one single build can easily solo every AV in the game, to my knowledge. With "Breaker" going, every single melee character has a giant leg-up in this department regarding any AV that previously gave them trouble specifically because of their resistance to their damage type.

You're getting confused because I'm referring to a character's "Breaker Type" by the type of damage they "break". If you stack your team with Smashing because you carry a "Smash Breaker", you won't need any other damage type because every other type will do less damage. Trying to tell me that a group would rather take two or three smashers to remove more resistances is the ideal scenario you'd prefer to envision because it removes the heavy stacking element that this game tends to thrive on (read: stacking turns you into gods -- why would you NOT do it?).

You're missing the point on a lot of what I'm saying because you insist on viewing each sentence in a vacuum -- like some random passerby said it with no context, and it's really annoying.

Oh, and trying to tell me that you need a specific group to kill an AV (other than high-end content such as the STF and LRSF which, by the way, both have been beaten with unorthodox teams before anyway) is laughable and I'd ask if you're playing the same game that I am. Grab any team that knows they're going to take down an AV or GM, and with just a couple of debuffs/buffs, you'll do it. I'm reminded of the time a group of about 10 heroes couldn't take down Kronos by themselves until I grabbed my TA Defender. One Disruption Arrow and one Acid Arrow later, he started falling like a rock.

Specific teams? Please.

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, for some reason, Super Strength is considered an awesome farming set for brutes, and it does almost entirely Smashing damage. And, in a similar note, I've seen people achieve ridiculously high damage numbers with Knockout Blow, on targets that should by all rights be fairly resistant to Smashing damage (Requiem and Romulus come to mind).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it looks like neither Romulus nor Requiem have any inherent resistances to Lethal or Smashing damage. Looks like many AV's work that way, especially of the non-Praetorian/Freedom Phalanx variety.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Huh. I appear to be in error, then. I always thought at the very least that Requiem would.

The more you know~. *Muzak!*

[/ QUOTE ]

More like "Culex's spreadsheet ftw!" ^_^

I first noticed this when my Katana scrapper was critting for ridiculous amounts of damage on Rommie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't crits ignore resistance anyway? Honestly, I never bothered to confirm but I always thought they did.

[Castle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, there you guys go, updated spreadsheet with level range limiters in groups of 10. Should be sufficient enough.

(And also I'm a chick)

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, how did you handle critters with multiple sources of resistance and/or toggles (Toggles being notorious for only one critter in a spawn being allowed to use a toggle at once, and then, only for 15 seconds at a time...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Castle, if this is the case, then the Possessed Scientists are either broken or just not obeying the rules. I fought a group of Earth Melee/FF Possessed Scientists in the Portal Corp parking lot yesterday, and despite having 2 level 30 Acc IOs in my attacks, I ended up with less than 9% chance to-hit, apparently due to their overlapping dispersion bubbles.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are LOTS of exceptions. I did not mean to imply that all groups have this issue, or even that it is considered an issue with all the entities that DO have it.

[YuriFoxfirega]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, for some reason, Super Strength is considered an awesome farming set for brutes, and it does almost entirely Smashing damage. And, in a similar note, I've seen people achieve ridiculously high damage numbers with Knockout Blow, on targets that should by all rights be fairly resistant to Smashing damage (Requiem and Romulus come to mind).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it looks like neither Romulus nor Requiem have any inherent resistances to Lethal or Smashing damage. Looks like many AV's work that way, especially of the non-Praetorian/Freedom Phalanx variety.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Huh. I appear to be in error, then. I always thought at the very least that Requiem would.

The more you know~. *Muzak!*

[/ QUOTE ]

More like "Culex's spreadsheet ftw!" ^_^

I first noticed this when my Katana scrapper was critting for ridiculous amounts of damage on Rommie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't crits ignore resistance anyway? Honestly, I never bothered to confirm but I always thought they did.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can tell, Crits are just as much affected by resistance as everything else is. Some crits just seem higher, especially on powers with damage set to delays (Gambler's Cut, Strike[I think? Been so long since I actually checked names on my Claws/Regen], Shadow Maul) display the crit as one solid number (often the sum-total of the full damage, adjusted for resistance; With dual-damage types like Dark Melee, this can sometimes mean the crit is higher then the sum total) rather then as smaller, seperate numbers.

I notice this a lot when I get a crit off Gambler's Cut. Or I did before I slotted it so heavily with procs. Now, I can barely tell when I fire it off, to be honest...

[Sarrate]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't crits ignore resistance anyway? Honestly, I never bothered to confirm but I always thought they did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Crits used to ignore resistance in PvP, but resistance always effected crits in PvE. (Crits are resistible in PvP now, too.)

[TwilightPhoenix]

I have to agree the breakers would be abused to no end. For example, you suggested Broadsword's breaker to be Slash. Sure, a lot of people skip that, but it wouldn't be hard to work into an attack chain. Especially mine, which uses it twice as it's current optimum level (though everyone doesn't use my build). Mine is Headsplitter &gt; Disembowel &gt; Slash &gt; Hack &gt; Slash, which means I would get to fire it off twice with my current chain without compromising my DPS. I'm pulling something like 136 at the moment. I know, that's not amazingly high, but I still need several hundred million inf worth of more IOs. But even still, I do have enough DPS to solo some of the AVs. With a breaker, I'd be able to nail every AV in the game with my unfinished build (RNG permitting).

Not to say people shouldn't be able to solo AVs, however. I've always thought they were meant to be soloable since they spawn for one person on invincible. I'm under the impression that, if they were meant for groups only, they'd only spawn for a group.

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't crits ignore resistance anyway? Honestly, I never bothered to confirm but I always thought they did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Crits used to ignore resistance in PvP, but resistance always effected crits in PvE. (Crits are resistible in PvP now, too.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. 5 years and I still learn things. Cool.

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to agree the breakers would be abused to no end. For example, you suggested Broadsword's breaker to be Slash. Sure, a lot of people skip that, but it wouldn't be hard to work into an attack chain. Especially mine, which uses it twice as it's current optimum level (though everyone doesn't use my build). Mine is Headsplitter &gt; Disembowel &gt; Slash &gt; Hack &gt; Slash, which means I would get to fire it off twice with my current chain without compromising my DPS. I'm pulling something like 136 at the moment. I know, that's not amazingly high, but I still need several hundred million inf worth of more IOs. But even still, I do have enough DPS to solo some of the AVs. With a breaker, I'd be able to nail every AV in the game with my unfinished build (RNG permitting).

Not to say people shouldn't be able to solo AVs, however. I've always thought they were meant to be soloable since they spawn for one person on invincible. I'm under the impression that, if they were meant for groups only, they'd only spawn for a group.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that on any difficulty other than Invincible, AVs downgrade to an EB when solo. Invinc is specifically for those people who want that extra challenge, and the game isn't designed around this difficulty setting.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
Breaking your quotation parade.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hopeless. :eek:

[ QUOTE ]
Trying to tell me that a group would rather take two or three smashers to remove more resistances is the ideal scenario you'd prefer to envision because it removes the heavy stacking element that this game tends to thrive on (read: stacking turns you into gods -- why would you NOT do it?).

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh... you actually thing this thing would stack? I think i said it several times alredy, it would not. It SETS the resist cap to a specific level for a period of time. Stacking does not lower it further, it may just keep it there but not lower it further.

[ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point on a lot of what I'm saying because you insist on viewing each sentence in a vacuum -- like some random passerby said it with no context, and it's really annoying.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I get your previous statement correctly, this is going to be extremely ironic.

[ QUOTE ]
other than high-end content such as the STF and LRSF which, by the way, both have been beaten with unorthodox teams before anyway

[/ QUOTE ]

The funniest part is you are doing the same minus the quotes. I said that is the only content the devs intended it on, I didn't say it's is so. And you go on a full paragraph on ignoring that tiny word... wow. One that actually goes on to say how you needed a specific AT to come help a team of 10 to kill Kronos... talk about contradictions!

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to agree the breakers would be abused to no end. For example, you suggested Broadsword's breaker to be Slash. Sure, a lot of people skip that, but it wouldn't be hard to work into an attack chain. Especially mine, which uses it twice as it's current optimum level (though everyone doesn't use my build). Mine is Headsplitter &gt; Disembowel &gt; Slash &gt; Hack &gt; Slash, which means I would get to fire it off twice with my current chain without compromising my DPS. I'm pulling something like 136 at the moment. I know, that's not amazingly high, but I still need several hundred million inf worth of more IOs. But even still, I do have enough DPS to solo some of the AVs. With a breaker, I'd be able to nail every AV in the game with my unfinished build (RNG permitting).

[/ QUOTE ]

If your attack chain has pauses then it's not a full attack chain right now. If it does not have pauses (currently) then Slash would indeed have a subtle effect.

However, you would not get to kill all AVs just because all get capped at 20% resistance (even landing it twice does not take it further, it's a cap set, not a stacking debuff.) That still will do nothing against AVs with self heals, avs with increased regen, extremely high defense that makes you miss too much even with tohit buffs, or foes with HP buffs. Basically the only thing you will be able to solo now may be what the other guy already solos. But you still will face 20% resist he wont be facing.

[Jibikao]

It seems like a very logical and easy thing to do is just to tune down some of the mob's lethal and psionic/toxic resistance to balance the sets out more?

Unless it has been proven that Primarily Lethal Damage sets perform BETTER than others (hence the need for more lethal resistance to counter), I see no logical reason why the game has to "punish" lethal resistance especially in end-game contents.

I can name 2-3 groups that have superior lethal resistance consistently and it is really unfair:

1. Malta is a famous one
2. Crey Tankers. Holy !@#$!#. Do they have high lethal (and smashing) resistance??! They must have at least 40-50%. And it is annoying even the Crey Tanker minions have that much lethal resistance.
3. Longbows. All of them have about 15% resistance to lethal. Unlike Arachno group, lethal damage is good against Mu and Widows so you can pick your fight first on a team. (although Arachno also has many robot-type!)

(some Ritki have good lethal resistance too)

Why can't they just tune down lethal resistance a bit to balance out? Is it really that hard to do?


PS: Oh and I think Rome Warriors have pretty high lethal resistance too. Yikes... it seems like all major story line tends to have more lethal resistance.

[Siolfir]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Breaking your quotation parade.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hopeless. :eek:

[ QUOTE ]
Trying to tell me that a group would rather take two or three smashers to remove more resistances is the ideal scenario you'd prefer to envision because it removes the heavy stacking element that this game tends to thrive on (read: stacking turns you into gods -- why would you NOT do it?).

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh... you actually thing this thing would stack? I think i said it several times alredy, it would not. It SETS the resist cap to a specific level for a period of time. Stacking does not lower it further, it may just keep it there but not lower it further.

[/ QUOTE ]
I get the issue that the breaker itself won't stack, but doesn't affecting the resistance cap also affect the amount that -resistance powers are going to affect the mob?

For instance, instead of only getting -15% from Sleet against a 50% resistant mob, you'd get the full -30% because the capped resistance that it's using to resist the debuff with is 0.

After addressing that or showing why that isn't a concern, I wouldn't see a problem putting it (as a balance issue) on Tankers - although thematically I think it fits better on Scrappers and Stalkers. It would provide an additional avenue that they're helping the team instead of just a relatively small amount of damage and saying "hey, look at me!" I don't think that putting it on a high DPS AT would really be needed, since they already have a means of counteracting high resistance simply by hitting harder.

As for lethal vs psi... many lethal sets have -defense associated and can slot Achilles' Heel procs. I'd personally say that lethal has less of a problem despite the resistance being more widespread. The only reason psi seemed desirable was PvP when most sets had no way of dealing with it.

[Jibikao]

[ QUOTE ]

As for lethal vs psi... many lethal sets have -defense associated and can slot Achilles' Heel procs. I'd personally say that lethal has less of a problem despite the resistance being more widespread. The only reason psi seemed desirable was PvP when most sets had no way of dealing with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

and because of this, AH procs are super hard to buy now... at least on Virtue.

So lethal damage is now balanced by "proc"? How about tuning down some of super high lethal resistance to make it fair? Wouldn't that be easier than hoping every player is rich or lucky enough to put some AH procs?

I mean the answer to balance resistance imbalances is RIGHT THERE... just tune it down on some of them! There is no need to be fancy and throw in specific procs to make it "fair".

[_Laxx_]

Hopeless is my middle name. Also: Pointless, Worthless, and Pathetic. But that's neither here nor there.

Apparently you aren't reading me properly. I never once mentioned stacking the Break, I mentioned stacking the damage that the Break is designed to Break. I guess you need an example, but I don't know why... so here it is: Katana Scrapper to Break Lethal, backed up by a ton of other Katana, Broadsword, Dual Blades, or even AR users to take advantage of the 0% (or in your revision, 20%) Lethal resist number. Do you get it now?

Or, if you're still confused, bringing in a Fire Scrapper/Tanker to break Fire Resist, and stacking the rest of the team with a plethora of Fire-based offense... even including Fire Control! Does this help you any?

I'm also not doing the same thing, minus the quotes.. I'm just being forced to counter each of your points individually because of your insistence on your rebuttal tactics. My paragraphs all center around the central idea and build upon my response, hopefully taking a few of your break-ups into it to condense my post into something far more readable.

My example regarding the Titan is not a contradiction, by any stretch of the term. I clearly stated that any group who knows they're going to take on an AV or GM would prepare for it, and that usually means bringing along at least one debuff/buff suited to the task. Any character capable of lowering the Titan's resist or regeneration would have sufficed -- I just happened to be on my TA defender, saw they were having trouble, and helped out. My one character turned the tide of the battle; hardly a specialized team by any means. Your proposal of giving melee characters a specific Resistance Debuff shifts their focus in a team from being damage machines to being damage/debuff machines who just so happen to debuff the very damage they deal normally, which makes them even better at dealing damage to the point that you won't need anything else to kill anything.

In effect, you're making a solo-centric AT into an AT that only solos extremely well (somehow becoming better at it than before!) while simultaneously being the "best" debuff character you could bring to any mission/TF where you have a tough challenge in the end. This pushes Defenders completely out of the picture for the most part for absolutely no reason while encouraging a team composition that consists of damage types that only seek to capitalize on your Breaker's particular Breaker Type.

EDIT TO ADD: And Siolfir brings up a good point regarding additional -resist from other sources that I hadn't taken into consideration. +Resist naturally resists -Resist. When you strip a target of its +Resist using a Breaker, any -Res from another source will taking full affect, which would be incredibly ridiculous against "tough" opponents. Granted, this is still achieved with SuperTeams already, but this Breaker concept has the potential to, no pun intended, break the game wide open since it's not limited to a certain set, but instead, an entire AT. This is even more true when you consider the fact that many melee sets share damage types, namely Katana, Broadsword, Axe, Dual Blades, Claws, and Spines.

[Siolfir]

[ QUOTE ]
and because of this, AH procs are super hard to buy now... at least on Virtue.

So lethal damage is now balanced by "proc"? How about tuning down some of super high lethal resistance to make it fair? Wouldn't that be easier than hoping every player is rich or lucky enough to put some AH procs?

[/ QUOTE ]
I said it was balanced with psi in that regard. You'll note that while psi is resisted by fewer mobs, the amount it is resisted by on those mobs places it as more resisted than smashing overall. Psi also doesn't have the same -resistance proc availability that most lethal sets do.

As for the availability of those procs... I've never had trouble getting them when I was trying, and I currently have 5 already built in base storage. I think you're not trying very hard if you feel as though they're some super-rare that you can't count on getting if you wanted to. May I suggest leaving a bid up for more than 10 seconds at a time?

Edit: yes, the resistances could be looked at across the board, but I never tried to address that in my previous post. I was simply saying that lethal sets have workarounds to deal with what they encounter that other sets won't necessarily have.

[Sarrate]

[ QUOTE ]
and because of this, AH procs are super hard to buy now... at least on Virtue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note: The AH is cross server. There is no "Virtue market." All of us use the same one.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]

For instance, instead of only getting -15% from Sleet against a 50% resistant mob, you'd get the full -30% because the capped resistance that it's using to resist the debuff with is 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can run a test to see how this would go, can't do it right now though.
I THINK it would result in Sleet doing -30% against that specific type of damage. I personally think that is cool and "teamwork."

If it also works as I think, using it on an AV (where I suggest it sets the cap to 20%) that has 50% resist would make him use 20% resistance against the debuff reducing sleet to -24%. At this point it becomes =50% - 24% = 26% and since the AV is caped at 20 the result of that one debuff is nothing.

If the AV had 42% resist, the same thing would end in him being lowered to 18%.
If the AV had 40% resist, the same thing would end in him being lowered to 16%.
44% resist would net still in 20% resistance so again, no benefit from sleet.

What I have to test is if resistance past the cap would apply against the debuff, if it does not, then what I posted here holds true.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently you aren't reading me properly. I never once mentioned stacking the Break, I mentioned stacking the damage that the Break is designed to Break. I guess you need an example, but I don't know why... so here it is: Katana Scrapper to Break Lethal, backed up by a ton of other Katana, Broadsword, Dual Blades, or even AR users to take advantage of the 0% (or in your revision, 20%) Lethal resist number. Do you get it now?

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean as opposed to simply stacking the damage type the AV is not resistant to in the first place (current case?) Because if that is a "problem" we already have it.

Does that help you any?

[ QUOTE ]
I clearly stated that any group who knows they're going to take on an AV or GM would prepare for it, and that usually means bringing along at least one debuff/buff suited to the task.

[/ QUOTE ]

Knowing what to do means knowing who to bring, gotcha. That is a prefect example on how this game allows any group to use good skill to take down any content. :eek:

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently you aren't reading me properly. I never once mentioned stacking the Break, I mentioned stacking the damage that the Break is designed to Break. I guess you need an example, but I don't know why... so here it is: Katana Scrapper to Break Lethal, backed up by a ton of other Katana, Broadsword, Dual Blades, or even AR users to take advantage of the 0% (or in your revision, 20%) Lethal resist number. Do you get it now?

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean as opposed to simply stacking the damage type the AV is not resistant to in the first place (current case?) Because if that is a "problem" we already have it.

Does that help you any?

[ QUOTE ]
I clearly stated that any group who knows they're going to take on an AV or GM would prepare for it, and that usually means bringing along at least one debuff/buff suited to the task.

[/ QUOTE ]

Knowing what to do means knowing who to bring, gotcha. That is a prefect example on how this game allows any group to use good skill to take down any content. :eek:

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh. So those times when I'm fighting Infernal with a single Controller, two Fire Blasters, a MA Scrapper, and a Stone Tank... and taking him out anyway was stacking? This is more often the case in my experience. I also wasn't aware that bringing a single debuffer was such a hard thing to do, but maybe I was wrong?

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
Huh. So those times when I'm fighting Infernal with a single Controller, two Fire Blasters, a MA Scrapper, and a Stone Tank... and taking him out anyway was stacking? This is more often the case in my experience. I also wasn't aware that bringing a single debuffer was such a hard thing to do, but maybe I was wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

But that makes no sense... why don't they exploit the AV's weakness to Damage Type X right now as they would do if one person was able to lower resist type Y to 20%?

Why would they never do now what they would do then even if its entirely viable? :confused:

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Huh. So those times when I'm fighting Infernal with a single Controller, two Fire Blasters, a MA Scrapper, and a Stone Tank... and taking him out anyway was stacking? This is more often the case in my experience. I also wasn't aware that bringing a single debuffer was such a hard thing to do, but maybe I was wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

But that makes no sense... why don't they exploit the AV's weakness to Damage Type X right now as they would do if one person was able to lower resist type Y to 20%?

Why would they never do now what they would do then even if its entirely viable? :confused:

[/ QUOTE ]

Because your change would change the fundamental rules of the game for reasons I've detailed earlier.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
Because your change would change the fundamental rules of the game for reasons I've detailed earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]

But my change would just remove 5% smash/lethal/fire/tox resist from Infernal (who has 25% resist).... as he stands he takes normal damage from energy/negative/psionic and even bonus damage from cold!

Why not just bring a lot of cold users to take him down fasto, like they will do if Armor Break existed?

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because your change would change the fundamental rules of the game for reasons I've detailed earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]

But my change would just remove 5% smash/lethal/fire/tox resist from Infernal (who has 25% resist).... as he stands he takes normal damage from energy/negative/psionic and even bonus damage from cold!

Why not just bring a lot of cold users to take him down fasto, like they will do if Armor Break existed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again: reasons I detailed earlier. I'm not going to repeat all my lasts posts to you.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]

Again: reasons I detailed earlier. I'm not going to repeat all my lasts posts to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I'll accept your previous statements that went down to the devs just not wanting many sets to be useful at all even in teams when facing AVs due to specific resistance that target them as useless.

After all, it would be an exploit to allow these players to be useful to those teams, because they all decide to team together without a regen/resist debuffer or damage buffer in the team. We can't have that.

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Again: reasons I detailed earlier. I'm not going to repeat all my lasts posts to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I'll accept your previous statements that went down to the devs just not wanting many sets to be useful at all even in teams when facing AVs due to specific resistance that target them as useless.

After all, it would be an exploit to allow these players to be useful to those teams, because they all decide to team together without a regen/resist debuffer or damage buffer in the team. We can't have that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love when the person I'm debating with finally devolves into this mode. It makes it so much easier to do what I'm about to do, which is move on to something more interesting and worth my time.

Enjoy yourself.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Again: reasons I detailed earlier. I'm not going to repeat all my lasts posts to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I'll accept your previous statements that went down to the devs just not wanting many sets to be useful at all even in teams when facing AVs due to specific resistance that target them as useless.

After all, it would be an exploit to allow these players to be useful to those teams, because they all decide to team together without a regen/resist debuffer or damage buffer in the team. We can't have that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love when the person I'm debating with finally devolves into this mode. It makes it so much easier to do what I'm about to do, which is move on to something more interesting and worth my time.

Enjoy yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

After you.

[Stargazer]

[ QUOTE ]
If you mean -res, it actually is weaker against foes with resitance than against regular foes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on how you look at it.
The absolute decrease in Resistance is reduced if the target already has (unresistable) Resistance, but the relative increase in damage is the same regardless of the Resistance of the target (barring interference by caps).

Personally I tend to think of it as resistable Resistance debuffs being equally "strong" (having an equally "strong" effect) regardless of the pre-existing Resistance of the target (again, barring interference by caps), and unresistable Resistance debuffs being "stronger" against targets with higher pre-existing (unresistable) Resistance.

[Stargazer]

[ QUOTE ]
This may help me champion the "Armor Breaker" system.

The idea is a single target attack on every melee set (yes only melee sets) that will "break" resistances on a single target for a limited amount of time. The method:

Detoggle + Resist Cap set to zero to a specific damage type. If you are MA, you set the resist cap to Smashing to zero. If you are katana, you set the resist cap to lethal to zero, etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from the effect this has on mobs that have been given higher Resistance to be tougher to defeat with a particular damage type (an effect that could in several cases be undesirable), this could also cause trouble with entities that have been made *immune* to certain damage types in order to make it impossible to destroy them (or limit the ways in which they can be killed).

Sure, you could potentially set up exceptions for each of these cases, but the number of such cases is not insignificant.


My initial feelings is that the number of cases where the change would be desirable *and* have a significant effect would be relatively low, and the number of cases where it would be undesirable would be relatively high.

[EvilRyu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Huh. So those times when I'm fighting Infernal with a single Controller, two Fire Blasters, a MA Scrapper, and a Stone Tank... and taking him out anyway was stacking? This is more often the case in my experience. I also wasn't aware that bringing a single debuffer was such a hard thing to do, but maybe I was wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

But that makes no sense... why don't they exploit the AV's weakness to Damage Type X right now as they would do if one person was able to lower resist type Y to 20%?

Why would they never do now what they would do then even if its entirely viable? :confused:

[/ QUOTE ]

Because your change would change the fundamental rules of the game for reasons I've detailed earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]So you like being useless for an entire 3 minutes when an av hits their tier 9?

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you mean -res, it actually is weaker against foes with resitance than against regular foes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on how you look at it.
The absolute decrease in Resistance is reduced if the target already has (unresistable) Resistance, but the relative increase in damage is the same regardless of the Resistance of the target (barring interference by caps).

Personally I tend to think of it as resistable Resistance debuffs being equally "strong" (having an equally "strong" effect) regardless of the pre-existing Resistance of the target (again, barring interference by caps), and unresistable Resistance debuffs being "stronger" against targets with higher pre-existing (unresistable) Resistance.

[/ QUOTE ]

The -resist in question you can add to certain builds is, as far as I understand, a resistible random -20 resist. If the foe has 20% resist, that will be a -18 resist that takes the foe to 4 resist.

This means your damage is increased by 14.2% relative to what the original target would had been against that target, instead of the 20% you would had against a no-resistant foe.

May be a subtle difference at 20%, but the relative effectiveness is weaker and magnifies drastically the more resistance the foe has. Direct damage buffing can be much more effective at some point, it all depends how much damage buffing we talking about, though.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This may help me champion the "Armor Breaker" system.

The idea is a single target attack on every melee set (yes only melee sets) that will "break" resistances on a single target for a limited amount of time. The method:

Detoggle + Resist Cap set to zero to a specific damage type. If you are MA, you set the resist cap to Smashing to zero. If you are katana, you set the resist cap to lethal to zero, etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from the effect this has on mobs that have been given higher Resistance to be tougher to defeat with a particular damage type (an effect that could in several cases be undesirable), this could also cause trouble with entities that have been made *immune* to certain damage types in order to make it impossible to destroy them (or limit the ways in which they can be killed).

Sure, you could potentially set up exceptions for each of these cases, but the number of such cases is not insignificant.

My initial feelings is that the number of cases where the change would be desirable *and* have a significant effect would be relatively low, and the number of cases where it would be undesirable would be relatively high.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned in a later post that we can make units that are meant to be hard or impossible to kill immune to the effect. 100% resistance cases are easy exceptions as you just tell the debuff to only apply if the target's resistance is not 100%.

Cases where the critter is intentionally hard for everyone also can be easy as you can make a bit more complex equation that compares all resistances to see if they are all the same value.

Cases where the critter is intentionally hard only for one set, is a bit more complex. Most cases are plainly conceptual, actually, as far as we know every case is conceptual unless stated by the devs. Not sure how this policy stands these days but I recall an interview with Statesman noting how they designed all the critters based on pure concept, and assign powers accordingly. Not "what we want this guy to be strong at."

The most recent confirmation I get on this is a statement by Castle on how the writers wanted the arachnoids to be extremely hard, but were only forced to tone them down due to how much they ended up using them. That's another note that shows how the writer decides what the foe does and does not. It would be interesting to hear from Castle, though, if there are any encounters that are intentionally designed to be hard to kill by specific power sets due to balance decisions.

[Arcanaville]

[ QUOTE ]
This may help me champion the "Armor Breaker" system.

The idea is a single target attack on every melee set (yes only melee sets) that will "break" resistances on a single target for a limited amount of time. The method:

Detoggle + Resist Cap set to zero to a specific damage type. If you are MA, you set the resist cap to Smashing to zero. If you are katana, you set the resist cap to lethal to zero, etc etc.

This makes sure no one does more damage than base against foes without resistance but helps break the resistance disadvantage in a single target fashion.

The effect should be added to the worst DPA ST attack in the set. Intentionally, it should not be optimal to do this on a power you would normally use in an optimized attack chain.

[/ QUOTE ]

My gut instinct is to say that this sort of thing is usually undesirable for game design reasons.

Every feature in a game design should have a very well-defined purpose to it, and those features should function in a manner consistent with that purpose. The purpose to resistances is to actually make the target resistant to that damage: if you don't want the target to be resistant, you don't give it the resistance. In this case, the armor breaking system appears to be a way for one game designer to override the intentions of another game designer: designer X adds resistances to mob A, designer Y adds the ability to break those resistances into powerset B.

So I want to make a critter - it could be an AV, it could be something else - that is actually *supposed* to be highly resistant to damage. Lets say its Lord Recluse in the STF. What's my option: add a "Immunity From Armor Breaking" feature and tag the critter with it? Does the other designer then add a special "Armor Breaking Immunity Override" ability into the powers to compensate for my compensation? This sort of game mechanical duelling implies a lack of overarching oversight of the game mechanics.

This appears to me to be a case of intent subversion. It would be one thing if there was some specific intent that the current game couldn't satisfy, that Armor Breaking could. If, say, there are cases where the devs actually want to make a critter highly resistant to a type of damage, except not always, in precisely the ways that Armor Breaking allows, then it would make sense to me. But if its only there because we want to handwave the resistances in the game as a "mistake" then I think its bad game design. It *feels* to me like the intent of the feature is to say "we don't trust the devs to assign resistances correctly, but we can't stop them, so lets add a feature to make their resistance settings essentially meaningless so we no longer care what they set a critter's resistances to."

[Stargazer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you mean -res, it actually is weaker against foes with resitance than against regular foes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on how you look at it.
The absolute decrease in Resistance is reduced if the target already has (unresistable) Resistance, but the relative increase in damage is the same regardless of the Resistance of the target (barring interference by caps).

Personally I tend to think of it as resistable Resistance debuffs being equally "strong" (having an equally "strong" effect) regardless of the pre-existing Resistance of the target (again, barring interference by caps), and unresistable Resistance debuffs being "stronger" against targets with higher pre-existing (unresistable) Resistance.

[/ QUOTE ]

The -resist in question you can add to certain builds is, as far as I understand, a resistible random -20 resist. If the foe has 20% resist, that will be a -18 resist that takes the foe to 4 resist.

This means your damage is increased by 14.2% relative to what the original target would had been against that target, instead of the 20% you would had against a no-resistant foe.

May be a subtle difference at 20%, but the relative effectiveness is weaker and magnifies drastically the more resistance the foe has. Direct damage buffing can be much more effective at some point, it all depends how much damage buffing we talking about, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

It'd still be a 20% increase in damage taken. ((1-4%)/(1-20%) = 1.2)

If they had 50% Resistance they'd only see a 10% decrease in Resistance, but the increase in damage taken would still be 20% ((1-50%+10%)/(1-50%) = 1.2)

With (unresistable) Resistance resisting resistable Resistance debuffs, the effect is that the relative increase in damage taken remains the same even if you change the (unresistable) Resistance to Resistance debuffs.

[EvilRyu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This may help me champion the "Armor Breaker" system.

The idea is a single target attack on every melee set (yes only melee sets) that will "break" resistances on a single target for a limited amount of time. The method:

Detoggle + Resist Cap set to zero to a specific damage type. If you are MA, you set the resist cap to Smashing to zero. If you are katana, you set the resist cap to lethal to zero, etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from the effect this has on mobs that have been given higher Resistance to be tougher to defeat with a particular damage type (an effect that could in several cases be undesirable), this could also cause trouble with entities that have been made *immune* to certain damage types in order to make it impossible to destroy them (or limit the ways in which they can be killed).

Sure, you could potentially set up exceptions for each of these cases, but the number of such cases is not insignificant.

My initial feelings is that the number of cases where the change would be desirable *and* have a significant effect would be relatively low, and the number of cases where it would be undesirable would be relatively high.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned in a later post that we can make units that are meant to be hard or impossible to kill immune to the effect. 100% resistance cases are easy exceptions as you just tell the debuff to only apply if the target's resistance is not 100%.

Cases where the critter is intentionally hard for everyone also can be easy as you can make a bit more complex equation that compares all resistances to see if they are all the same value.

Cases where the critter is intentionally hard only for one set, is a bit more complex. Most cases are plainly conceptual, actually, as far as we know every case is conceptual unless stated by the devs. Not sure how this policy stands these days but I recall an interview with Statesman noting how they designed all the critters based on pure concept, and assign powers accordingly. Not "what we want this guy to be strong at."

The most recent confirmation I get on this is a statement by Castle on how the writers wanted the arachnoids to be extremely hard, but were only forced to tone them down due to how much they ended up using them. That's another note that shows how the writer decides what the foe does and does not. It would be interesting to hear from Castle, though, if there are any encounters that are intentionally designed to be hard to kill by specific power sets due to balance decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]Honestly I dont think they were it just sort of ended up like that. My guess is that they did it to keep the melee folk in check. Either way I still dont fight the arachnoids because the time taken to kill the bosses can be extreme if you dont have a good debuffing set like poison. They just dont realize how much content people are actually avoiding do to the annoyance factor that the stupid resistances and regeneration rates critters have. It be nice if castle went over a few factions a month and check resistances and made them more fair across the board unless there was some thematic reason for the resistance (ie:mu guardian energy resistance). That would go a long way to making the end game stuff more enjoyable.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
It *feels* to me like the intent of the feature is to say "we don't trust the devs to assign resistances correctly, but we can't stop them, so lets add a feature to make their resistance settings essentially meaningless so we no longer care what they set a critter's resistances to."

[/ QUOTE ]

Close! I actually don't trust the writers to make these choices and they have been hinted already in the past to be the ones that decide what type of things critters do. It's (for what I have gathered) up to the power guy to do them within a realm of balance while pleasing the writer's desire.

[Stargazer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Aside from the effect this has on mobs that have been given higher Resistance to be tougher to defeat with a particular damage type (an effect that could in several cases be undesirable), this could also cause trouble with entities that have been made *immune* to certain damage types in order to make it impossible to destroy them (or limit the ways in which they can be killed).

Sure, you could potentially set up exceptions for each of these cases, but the number of such cases is not insignificant.

My initial feelings is that the number of cases where the change would be desirable *and* have a significant effect would be relatively low, and the number of cases where it would be undesirable would be relatively high.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned in a later post that we can make units that are meant to be hard or impossible to kill immune to the effect. 100% resistance cases are easy exceptions as you just tell the debuff to only apply if the target's resistance is not 100%.

Cases where the critter is intentionally hard for everyone also can be easy as you can make a bit more complex equation that compares all resistances to see if they are all the same value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be vary of using an equation to determine when the Armor Breaking should function.
What if I want to give a 75% resistance to all for say 30 seconds?
What if I specifically want to give a 75% resistance to Smashing for 30 seconds?

If some form of Armor Breaking would be added (which I'm not convinced is a good idea, and I'm even inclined to believe that it's a bad idea in a general case), I'd probably prefer that its function is determined by a flag rather than some equation.



[ QUOTE ]
Cases where the critter is intentionally hard only for one set, is a bit more complex. Most cases are plainly conceptual, actually, as far as we know every case is conceptual unless stated by the devs. Not sure how this policy stands these days but I recall an interview with Statesman noting how they designed all the critters based on pure concept, and assign powers accordingly. Not "what we want this guy to be strong at."

The most recent confirmation I get on this is a statement by Castle on how the writers wanted the arachnoids to be extremely hard, but were only forced to tone them down due to how much they ended up using them. That's another note that shows how the writer decides what the foe does and does not. It would be interesting to hear from Castle, though, if there are any encounters that are intentionally designed to be hard to kill by specific power sets due to balance decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It *feels* to me like the intent of the feature is to say "we don't trust the devs to assign resistances correctly, but we can't stop them, so lets add a feature to make their resistance settings essentially meaningless so we no longer care what they set a critter's resistances to."

[/ QUOTE ]

Close! I actually don't trust the writers to make these choices and they have been hinted already in the past to be the ones that decide what type of things critters do. It's (for what I have gathered) up to the power guy to do them within a realm of balance while pleasing the writer's desire.

[/ QUOTE ]


If the writer concept is to "make this critter tough against Smashing/Lethal", and the power designer is concerned that this concept would have unbalancing effects when taken to extremes, why let it go to extremes in the first place? Why not just give them 20% S/L Resistance instead of 75% S/L Resistance?

If a writer specifically asks for 75% Resistance (which would seem to be an oddly specific "concept"), then effectively bypassing that Resistance would seem to be subverting what was asked for. Wouldn't it be better to just refuse giving them 75% Resistance instead?

On the other hand, if a power designer *wants* to give something 75% Resistance, why take that option away from them (or at least significantly limit it)?

[Arcanaville]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It *feels* to me like the intent of the feature is to say "we don't trust the devs to assign resistances correctly, but we can't stop them, so lets add a feature to make their resistance settings essentially meaningless so we no longer care what they set a critter's resistances to."

[/ QUOTE ]

Close! I actually don't trust the writers to make these choices and they have been hinted already in the past to be the ones that decide what type of things critters do. It's (for what I have gathered) up to the power guy to do them within a realm of balance while pleasing the writer's desire.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the story writers are allowed to go anywhere near the powers spreadsheets. They can probably ask for something to be stronger or weaker, or to be conceptually strong against fire or cold, but its ultimately up to the powers designers to implement that request and have the final responsibility for powers balance.

[TwilightPhoenix]

Let's stop looking at AVs by themselves with this feature. How about we look at something that's supposed to take many many people to take down? Let's say... Hamidon? If I recall correctly, Hami has 75%+ resists to all. What happens if you add armor breaking? Hami becomes horrifically easy. 50 heroes beating on one target with only 20% resistances? Yeah, it's not going to last that long, no matter how much health you give it. You'll wind up trivializing content that's supposed to take lots of players and coordination to take down. Of course, you could make them "immune", but then we wind up with Arcana's post.

And for trivia, going back to my last post, the attack chain is gapless and has AH procs on Slash and Disembowel. So, you'd be looking at even less than 20% resist on whatever AV I or anyone else with a similar attack chain and build was attacking.

Also, I have to ask, what if the AV only has 15% resistance to the armor breaker's damage type? Does armor breaker simply not work, making it pointless? Or is the resistance broken down to zero? What if the target (AV or otherwise) has only 9% resistance?

[FieryDove]

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't get why people say 'poor lethal'.

Considering that a large portion of Scrapper primaries (Claws, Broadsword, Dual Blades, Katana, Spines*) do Lethal damage and most people state that Scrappers solo exceptionally well, often to the point of being broken (Werner, BillZBubba, Shredmonkey [Though I somehow think Shred's DM, isn't he?])...


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah! Nerf Scrappers next!

Not everyone plays scrappers, in fact I play 0 melee characters, they are boring. imho

I have always wanted more bang on other lethal users however. But I won't hold my breath...Eh, whatever.

(PS to others, yes girls play this game too.) :p

[ryu_planeswalker]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's stop looking at AVs by themselves with this feature. How about we look at something that's supposed to take many many people to take down? Let's say... Hamidon? If I recall correctly, Hami has 75%+ resists to all. What happens if you add armor breaking? Hami becomes horrifically easy. 50 heroes beating on one target with only 20% resistances? Yeah, it's not going to last that long, no matter how much health you give it. You'll wind up trivializing content that's supposed to take lots of players and coordination to take down. Of course, you could make them "immune", but then we wind up with Arcana's post.

And for trivia, going back to my last post, the attack chain is gapless and has AH procs on Slash and Disembowel. So, you'd be looking at even less than 20% resist on whatever AV I or anyone else with a similar attack chain and build was attacking.

Also, I have to ask, what if the AV only has 15% resistance to the armor breaker's damage type? Does armor breaker simply not work, making it pointless? Or is the resistance broken down to zero? What if the target (AV or otherwise) has only 9% resistance?

[/ QUOTE ]

That may not be a problem, I believe that Hami Hard Caps Debuffing at 5%(as in, he will only ever lose 5% of anything) so a Resistance debuff in that manner may be laughed at by him.

[Stargazer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's stop looking at AVs by themselves with this feature. How about we look at something that's supposed to take many many people to take down? Let's say... Hamidon? If I recall correctly, Hami has 75%+ resists to all. What happens if you add armor breaking? Hami becomes horrifically easy. 50 heroes beating on one target with only 20% resistances? Yeah, it's not going to last that long, no matter how much health you give it. You'll wind up trivializing content that's supposed to take lots of players and coordination to take down. Of course, you could make them "immune", but then we wind up with Arcana's post.

And for trivia, going back to my last post, the attack chain is gapless and has AH procs on Slash and Disembowel. So, you'd be looking at even less than 20% resist on whatever AV I or anyone else with a similar attack chain and build was attacking.

Also, I have to ask, what if the AV only has 15% resistance to the armor breaker's damage type? Does armor breaker simply not work, making it pointless? Or is the resistance broken down to zero? What if the target (AV or otherwise) has only 9% resistance?

[/ QUOTE ]

That may not be a problem, I believe that Hami Hard Caps Debuffing at 5%(as in, he will only ever lose 5% of anything) so a Resistance debuff in that manner may be laughed at by him.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no such thing as a "general debuff resistance", all attributes have their separate resistance.
In the case of Hamidon, it has 95% resistance to damage types. It does also have high resistance to some other attributes, but those are not at 95% (some are higher, some are lower).

In this case we happen to be dealing with an aspect of damage types, but if you implement Armor Breaking in such a way that its net effect is affected by resistance, then it would not be able to function as described.
Basically, it would not be able to have its intended effect in the very cases it was intended for.

[Chazzmatazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, there you guys go, updated spreadsheet with level range limiters in groups of 10. Should be sufficient enough.

(And also I'm a chick)

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, how did you handle critters with multiple sources of resistance and/or toggles (Toggles being notorious for only one critter in a spawn being allowed to use a toggle at once, and then, only for 15 seconds at a time...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Castle, if this is the case, then the Possessed Scientists are either broken or just not obeying the rules. I fought a group of Earth Melee/FF Possessed Scientists in the Portal Corp parking lot yesterday, and despite having 2 level 30 Acc IOs in my attacks, I ended up with less than 9% chance to-hit, apparently due to their overlapping dispersion bubbles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you didn't aggro two overlapping spawns? A group is a spawn, if you got 2 groups, each can have one toggle up.

[/ QUOTE ] I think what you were actually dealing with was overlapping (or stacked mag) -toHit from multiple Earthquakes (not a toggle).

[Culex]

Castle already posted that not all enemies obey this 'rule.' The Portal Corp scientists certainly do not. You can easily end up with 3-4 overlapping Dispersion Bubbles from one spawn.

[Fleeting Whisper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't crits ignore resistance anyway? Honestly, I never bothered to confirm but I always thought they did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Crits used to ignore resistance in PvP, but resistance always effected crits in PvE. (Crits are resistible in PvP now, too.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. 5 years and I still learn things. Cool.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm a bit late to this thread, but according to City of Data, [Exploding Shuriken] (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Mastermind_Pets.Genin_3.Aimed_Shot) and [Fire Blast] (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Mastermind_Pets.Oni.Fire_Blast) used by Genin and Oni deal non-resistable crits in PvE :)
(Use Smoke Flash on the pet, of course, and only those two attacks are non-resistable)