Arcanaville

[ QUOTE ]
The replies here speak for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

They certainly do. They tell me that some people have unimaginably unrealistic expectations.

I'm not sure what I could say I didn't already say in the Freakshow thread, except to reiterate that I believe personally that the vast overwhelming majority of reasonable players do not begrudge NC for making exclusive cool giveaways during promotional events.

While you should be responsive to your customer base, I think you also need to decide if you intend to be a slave to their most extreme demands. The banning of exclusive promotional giveaways in marketing campaigns is in my opinion an extreme demand: it would be an extreme demand from any customer base of any business. Someone mentioned "saving face" as if this was some massive blunder they need to correct. But collapsing on this issue wouldn't save face in my own eyes personally: it would cost them greatly. It would imply that the future of the game I play can be held hostage much more trivially than I think is warranted.

While you're factoring in the opinions of all of your other customers, that's the opinion of this one specific customer. This is not simply a choice between one option that angers some customers, and another option that doesn't. Its a choice between one option that angers some customers, and another option that costs you respect with a different set of customers. I have no idea how large either segment is, but they do both exist.

[ QUOTE ]
I really just dont see the point in charging for every little thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither do the devs. Which is why they don't. When they start charging to use the trains, I might get more concerned.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand why they'll make this option available but still, why do this when you can earn it easily in the game?

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt I will use the feature (I don't respec very often at all, period) but if that was the only consideration, then at least for me I earn ten bucks in the real world much faster than I can earn enough inf to buy a respec recipe in the game. I'm sure there are lots of casual players with personal incomes high enough to consider buying a respec for a character a non-issue in terms of the cash, while increasing their entertainment level with a character they would rather not grind the influence to purchase a respec recipe for.

Heck, if Positron decides to start renting out his in-game avatar as a sidekick for a day for ten bucks, I'd do it just to complete that Justiciar badge that keeps mocking me.

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be forgetting that people ALWAYS complain. People are complaining now because of the lack of information being given. And people will complain when the information is released. And people will complain when the next issue is released. There will always be disputes. Here are the options:

Release the information and have people complain about it.


or

Keep it a secret and have people complain about the pace of the issues and lack of new content.

I'd choose the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

The two choices are release advance information that may be incorrect about things that haven't been finalized yet and have lots of people complain about being given incorrect information, or release information only when its set in stone, and have very few people complain about the lack of continuous and immediate access to information.

I'd choose the latter. So does practically everyone else on Planet Earth that is in a position to make that decision.

[ QUOTE ]
Having more people on the team is kind of a double-edged sword. We've found ourselves setting out to do things that we would have never considered before because we simply didn't have the people to do it. Now that we do, we're really reaching for some pretty high hanging fruit. Player created missions is only one of the things you guys have heard about...but there are some other big things also being worked on as well. Things that haven't been announced yet.

Chew on that for a while. We've announced player created missions. What do you think we might be working on that we didn't feel comfortable announcing yet?



[/ QUOTE ]

You might feel comfortable about it, but every time I ask pohsyb when he's going to be done with the player-created mission editor already he keeps saying "shut-up shut-up shut-up shut-up SHUT-UP!" So maybe you should give us a hint about something you're working on, just in case he blows a fuse before I13 and you have to take all the sharp objects out of his cubicle.

Tell them about that thing. You know, the thing with those things. That thing.

[ QUOTE ]
Ahem... while it may not "speak volumes" why are there less subscibers now than a year ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

The animated breasts in AoC probably cost us 35% of the under-21 market in the blink of an eye.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is stopping you from saying "Hey, great idea. I like it. I have nothing to really add other than to show you that you're not alone in what you want"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe its too long to type? /signed means the same while requiring less words .

[/ QUOTE ]

The community reps are trying to encourage discussion. In effect, they are suggesting that /signed doesn't mean "great idea, I like it." They are saying /signed means "great idea, I like it, but I can't be bothered to state why, or I don't even know why but I still think its very important that others know this fact."

The problem here is that its very unlikely that the devs will implement any player idea *precisely* as described. So although you might think that expressing your general support without any rationale for why ought to be taken into consideration by the devs, since you aren't saying why you like it, the devs can't be sure you'll like their version of it. So that vote of confidence in the idea doesn't help them much. Telling them *why* you like it is a lot more helpful: its something they can factor into any attempt to implement the idea, or for that matter other ideas that aren't even related to it they might be working on.


I doubt seriously that /signed will get you banned (I know its technically prohibited). But the community reps are actively trying to discourage such posts in general. I also think that contrary to some earlier discussion, there is a significant difference between "/signed" and "I like it for the same reasons poster X likes it." Both look repetitive, but one of them delivers a lot more information to the devs than the other. I suspect that "I think this idea would improve my game play for all the reasons the previous poster mentioned" is going to be tolerated a lot more than "/signed."

Of course, it would be nice if you actually meant it, and weren't just trying to cut and paste a reply. If you agree with five of the reasons the previous poster mentioned, but not the other two, you should say so rather than just attempting blanket agreement. That's probably what the devs most want to hear.

[ QUOTE ]
I will give some examples, if they do not get deleted.
These are examples and may or may not reflect my own opinions.

I don't think Niv should be posting what come across as supportive comments on NSFW links.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe it would be appropriate to make claims about what *anyone* should be posting about, unless the post itself is a violation of the forum rules. Its probably not explicitly barred by the rules, but in this case if you feel she is encouraging posts that themselves violate the forum rules you should actually report her and the post she is replying to.

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion Ex Libris spends too much time pandering to niche groups and not enough to the overall community.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Pandering" is incindiary, but outside of that I believe specifically commenting that the community reps should address certain underappreciated issues is within the bounds of the forum rules.


[ QUOTE ]
I think the mods show favoritism towards certain members of the community.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this would be out of bounds without some really serious statistical proof. An anecdote would not fit that criteria.


[ QUOTE ]
I think Lighthouse's avatar should be in 3-D and we should all get free 3-D glasses when we sign up for the game or else he sucks as a community rep.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Lighthouse's avatar should be in 3-D and all players should get 3-D glasses to appreciate it" is a suggestion. Its acceptable. "Otherwise he sucks" is not acceptable, anymore than it would be for me to say "Devilchilde should love Invuln tankers or he sucks as a player." That's clearly a violation of the forum rules.


[ QUOTE ]
Man Koschej is crazy for playing a warshade, admitting to it, and then starting a thread about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably just within the limits of the forum rules. Its not a comment about moderator action because its not a moderation act. And Koschej is pretty crazy. But some other people might consider that insulting, and you should probably avoid statements like this in the general case.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I'll be the first to admit that I'll be as happy as anyone else to not have to see all 25 threads upset at the EM Nerf at the top of the forums 24/7. However, are we still allowed to post disagreements with dev decisions as long as it's done in a calm, courteous and nonflamable manner?

I'm being serious here. I'm really not trying to be a troll. I'd really like someone to tell me:

1) Yes, it's ok to disagree with the devs as long as you're not trolling/flamming/insulting/being a wacky nutcase/whatever else.

OR

2) No. You are not allowed to disagree with any redname on these forums.

I know this may seem kinda silly, but from what I've read in this thread it's starting to look to me like the answer might very well be #2.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read nothing in the thread that would lead me to believe that disagreeing with the devs would be disallowed. If I did read such a thing, I would currently be disagreeing with it. In fact since the updated rules specifically state:

[ QUOTE ]
Negative feedback can be very useful, provided that it is presented in a civil, factual manner. Tell us what you don't like and why and how you feel it could be improved. Posts that are insulting and rude may be deleted, no matter how valid the ideas behind them may be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how anyone could possibly deduce that objective criticism would be censored.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe its not unreasonable to suggest that since calls for nerfs are much more likely to spark unproductive controversy on the forums, calls for power reductions should be held to a higher standard than calls for buffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you'll be held responsible for how other people reply to your post....

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't those statements a bit contradictory? If you say I need to be held to higher standards if my post is suggesting something a lot of people won't like, then I've got to change my bahavoir according to how other people will reply to my post.

But then, a 'higher standard' is not the rule. The rule is NO posting such things. And the reason for the rule is that some people can't respond to such posts in a respectable way, even if the post itself is well thought-out. I don't like being censored because somebody else has anger management problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rule is no "Nerf X!" threads. There is no rule banning the discussion of powers and entities that might not fit the current balance requirements of the game. If I discover that Dragon's Tail was given a 10x critical, I suspect mentioning that fact will not get me into trouble, even though technically I'm asking for a power nerf (because its a bug fix). If I suggest that the animation for Barrage needs to be slowed down to better convey power, I don't think I will get into trouble for that either, even though I'm asking for a cast time nerf (because its a suggestion to improve an animation subjectively). Even if I were to explicitly state that, say, blaster ranged attacks should not be unresistable in PvP, I doubt I would get into trouble if I presented a strong enough case in the right way. I could, for example, go the other way around: I could present a case that attempted to determine *what* the unresistable portion of ranged attack damage *should* be, based on some line of reasoning. If that reasoning led to the number "zero" that would not explicitly be a Nerf X thread (because here I'm discussing the balance metrics of the game).

Suppose that none of those possibilities existed for a particular poster. Perhaps they are simply not sufficiently aware, or simply don't have the inclination to make a post that detailed. In that case, stating the observations without making conclusions would also probably be within the limits of the rules. State *why* you think Shivans are too powerful, not your conclusion that they should be nerfed. "Shivans allow players to solo AVs even if they lack the damage output to do so ordinarily; is there any reasonable cost that is balanced for that type of temporary ability" is at least an open discussion. "Shivans need to be nerfed because they so obviously are broken" is not really an interesting point of discussion.


If I were to start a thread that said "unresistable damage should just be taken away from blasters because its too powerful the end" I'm pretty sure that thread would have an extremely short shelf life. Assuming people didn't think I was being funny.


You're not being held responsible for how people will respond to your post. The devs are automatically decreeing that "Nerf X" threads are simply too incindiary to be permitted: they don't actually *care* how people respond to your specific post: they're stating their intention to blow it away regardless of how players respond, as a general principle. Even if players respond politely. But if you do not post such a thread, you're not going to be held responsible if you post a perfectly reasonable thread and someone *else* turns it into a flame war. You won't be banned just for being an unwilling launchpad (at least I'm assuming that's true).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"NERF X!" threads are removed for much the same reason as "I'm leaving" threads. They can turn into threads with little or no constructive information.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like this rule at all. Some things ARE overpowered and need a few whacks from ye'olde nerf bat. How are we supposed to point those out? "All powers of players and NPCs need to be cranked up heavily in order to match the Shivan temp power - or do something I can't talk about that would be effectively the same but much more simple."

The fact that these kinds of posts CAN turn into nasty threads really just isn't fair. Can I not post suggestions unless I'm sure all the folks responding will be responsible??

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe its not unreasonable to suggest that since calls for nerfs are much more likely to spark unproductive controversy on the forums, calls for power reductions should be held to a higher standard than calls for buffs. If you want to say "Buff Barrage" you're unlikely to cause a major forum war. "Nerf Air Superiority" will, which means if you think Air Superiority is overpowered, its your responsibility to make an extremely strong and well-supported argument for that.

I don't think you'll be held responsible for how other people reply to your post, although if the thread goes nowhere the thread itself will probably get whacked.


And by the way, I would only consider a temp power like the Shivan temp power to be "overpowered" if it satisfied at least one of the following:

1. It allows a player to level significantly faster than average.
2. Its benefit is significantly out of line with the time and energy it takes to gain it.
3. Its presence trivializes end-game content to a higher degree than the highest capabilities of the strongest possible teams without it.
4. It confered an overwhelming advantage in PvP
5. Its capabilities can be exploited to be much higher than originally designed.

I don't think I can make an unambiguous case for any of those to be true.

Its not important if you agree with those criteria: what's important is that most people don't even state their criteria. I think the *biggest* problem with discussions about "overpowered" features of the game and "balance" in general is that most people treat both terms' definitions as self-evident, and don't bother to define them directly. As a result, arguments are easy to form when everyone is using completely different definitions of what those terms mean.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have not read the entire thread yet, just the announcement. Has this already happened, or have they announced that they're going to do it?

They already merged accounts once before. So only accounts activated after that date would have had limited access. So that alone isn't a huge step. However, NC Soft's web site is STILL selling the games individually.

Now, what exactly does this announcement mean? Is it JUST another account merging, "if you had only one side, now you have both"? Or are they giving all characters full access to either side of the game?

Either way, this is the death knell for the game I enjoyed. City of Villains, already all but abandoned in the last two years, will now never see exclusive content again. It's time to finally accept the facts, and cancel my account. *MY* game is dead.

[/ QUOTE ]
For a guy who's pretty skilled with satire, I must say that this post is really clever

Because there's no way you can be serious about what you wrote.

[/ QUOTE ]

My faith in humanity is unbroken.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a reason for the rejoicing in Paragon City and the Rogue Isles. It is official – NCsoft has completely merged the two games into one game universe.
...
Paragon City and the Rogue Isles have always been a part of the same game universe.
...
the benefits of a unified City of Heroes game.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hopefully this announcement will finally make it clear that developers do not favor one side or the other. (I know, slim chance at that).

[/ QUOTE ]

The devs hate villains so much, they finally decided they couldn't allow them to have a stand alone game anymore.

[ QUOTE ]
<QR>

My views on the merger: it makes sense. It removes the artificial barrier between CoH and CoV in terms of player purchases and makes it a lot easier to sell CoH/V moving forward - you have only to buy one box /code.

Now: why?

First off, mission creation. The mission creation system should allow you to create missions for either side - it's the same toolset, just a different destination. This sees dedicated hero / villain players able to create content for the other side and then be able to test it.

Secondly, it opens the doors for side switching. This suddenly extends the life of any lvl 50 character - they flip sides, experience the game from a different angle - and would bring a huge boost to CoV as all the lvl 50 heroes suddenly go bad. Ouroboros will get absolutely pounded during this period too.

Thirdly, it becomes easier to develop for CoH/V moving forward since they are now the same game. Yes, the Rogue Isles needs more dedicated zones, but the player base (especially with side switching) now warrants spending that time on it.

... of course, one alternative could be side switching AND ATs no longer being linked to sides, but it depends on when you can flip to the other side. A lvl 2 flipping point could possibly work, a lvl 10 flipping point would be less popular, a 'start a MM in Atlas Park' would probably be most popular but require the most work.

Fourthly, a market merge isn't needed if you can (easily)switch sides.

Finally, it is very likely this combination of CoH and CoV sees coop missions become a lot more common. Plus a new box expansion at I13 to put CoH/V out on the shelf before some of its competitors get there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if literal side-switching is coming soon, but a related possibility I can see is cross-zoning. The devs could make hero-side missions that take place in the Rogue Isles, and vice-versa, and heroes and villains would in effect be playing in the same zones, not entirely different from running opposite-side missions in Sirens or Warburg. It would in effect double the amount of game area that each player could roam in, without diluting the playerbase any further into a larger number of actual zones.

There is an obvious story conceit available to implement this from a story-perspective. For every contact that currently exists hero-side and villain side, the devs could script in its anti-contact. Villains get to run the version where the villain triumphs, and heroes get to run the alternate version where the heroes stop them (philosophical question: is the anti-Phipps arc one where the hero prevents a lot of nastiness from happening, or is the anti-Phipps arc the one where the hero tries but ultimately fails to stop a lot of nastiness from happening?)

[ QUOTE ]
What some call 'fluff' and I call my 'credits' are there for a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion, this needs no explanation.

[ QUOTE ]
This is how Vet Rewards should work....

You get a choice between Sands of Mu or the Ax as normal, but then you get to choose from Nem staff, the wand OR which everpower you didn't pick the first time. That would mean at 54 months, you'd get to choose from two NEW powers or the remaining two you didn't pick before. What ever power you passed up should always be available the next time you unlock a vet power, but there should ALWAYS be two more new ones.

Did I explain that as horribly as I think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whta I've suggested in the past is that the devs make a "veteran melee power pool" and a "veteran ranged power pool" and add powers to each as necessary. Make the veteran rewards grant one choice from the appropriate pool. So if they decide to add some new snazzy veteran attack, newer players will still have a shot at them before they grow old and die. The advantage older players will have is that they will have more *selections* but not necessarily a better set of selections which means there is less of a problem adding overly interesting veteran attacks.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The pictures on the 54 month page of the Blackwand look wrong. They look like the pictures from when the power first came out and it resembled the temp power for killing Ghosts in Croatoa. The Blackwand in-game now is a black trident-looking staff with purple/black swirling.

And in a few months I can have BOTH the Nemesis staff AND the Blackwand on the same character? WOW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes... you too will have THREE attack powers that MISS more than HALF the time and for which you don't have room on your power tray for anyway!!

You can start celebrating now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would hope that anyone that has subscribed for long enough to get the 54 month veteran reward will have learned by then what the accuracy of the veteran powers are, and how the new tray system works.

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the endurance drain and recovery debuff - one application pretty much does nothing. And it takes a little time for a second application to come through. And then what happens is the mob stops attacking for a few seconds. And honestly, it's like they take a break for a swing. Instead of attacking, they act like they just did, and then attack you again. Energy Drain alone doesn't amount to much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Critters recover endurance pretty much the same as we do: 5% every 3 seconds. That's 5 points for minions, 7.5 points for LTs, and 10 points for bosses.

They also burn endurance much like we do, only more for any given attack: players burn about 5.2 endurance per DS of damage, while critters burn 7.0. As a very rough rule of thumb, critters burn about 1.5 eps per (single target) attack they have, or about 4-5 endurance per 3 second interval per attack.

Being drained to zero can significantly impair the damage output of a minion, and usually an LT, for all critters that have more than one usable attack. Critters with more than one usable attack burn more endurance than their natural recovery can power, so zeroing out endurance does in fact significantly reduce their rate of attack. In some cases, it can cut critter damage in half even with no -recovery debuffs combined. In fact, being drained without going all the way to zero can eventually impair any multi-attack critter, although whether it happens fast enough for minions (or at all for bosses) is debatable.

Critters with only one usable attack are much more difficult to impair with drains (without -recovery), however.

[ QUOTE ]
Things already done to help Energy Aura:

VEATs

Purple inspirations

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither of those things were "done to help" Energy Aura. For that matter, Lucks predate energy aura.


[ QUOTE ]
Things I'd like to see changed in the set:

Same thing I want for Invulnerability - passives that are are at worth slotting. 12.5% resist would be lovely (with 15% for energy).

Conserve power or energy drain to show up earlier (i.e. - before Stamina does)

[/ QUOTE ]

The "passive power problem" is, in general, a wider scope problem than Energy Aura. The simple fact is that given the current way powers are designed, passives are going to be weaker than toggles. And numerically smaller equals lower slotting efficiency. They will always, under this scheme, be "not worth slotting" for a large number of players in the general case.

The conserve power argument might have legs, though: I used it successfully on Willpower. I think a strong case can be made for either of conserve power or energy drain to swap places with cloak (my preference would be energy drain, since it would be at least nominally replacing the damage mitigation of cloak with drain, *and* adding endurance, while conserve power would add endurance efficiency but not replace the damage mitigation of cloak with anything).

[ QUOTE ]
I recorded a demo of RWZ Challenge but it doesn't show any of the UI (target, chat etc.). Is that info there and just hidden? Or do you need to specify it shows when you first record the demo?

I wanted to post it so peeps could see the RWZ Challenge.

Did a board search but didn't see the answer. THx.

[/ QUOTE ]

Demorecords don't record the UI. To see the UI, you'd need to video cap the game (using something like fraps, say).

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps Castle is waiting to see the ramifications of the Stalker buffs on PvP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps Castle can't code, and therefore can't fix the bug himself.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Had reported last week on the test server that the Mini 2 and Mini 3 skirts have the slits on the front and back now instead of the sides so that the character's underwear is clearly visible. Checked today's update and sure enough now the same issue is happening on the live server. Don't know if there are any other clothes items this happens on. I have bugged it on both servers. FYI

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the report. We looked into it here and have not been able to reproduce it. PM me with the server and character name of a character affected by this and we'll try and track it down.

[/ QUOTE ]


You might want to check with Nivienne about this. It's supposedly a known bug.

[/ QUOTE ]

Castle doesn't even work in the art department. I think he's just trying to beef up his screensaver library.

Castle: Please send me your character name, the server you're on, and a screencapture of the issue, prefereably in 1280x1024, and I'll look at it. Into it, I meant look into it. The problem: look into the problem. Not the skirt of course.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Send out a mass email to every single character that exists on every single server? I'm going to guess yes, that would be so hard.

Maybe we can get pohsyb to add a /countdown command that brings up a countdown clock in the console that shows the time to next server shutdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about a simple Message of the day?

[/ QUOTE ]

Too simple for pohsyb. The countdown clock should have adjustable size and translucency, and it should be skinnable to display the time to server shutdown in Klingon.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Couldn't you send in-game emails in advance about non-scheduled maintainence to everyone if you know it's going to occur. Not just post it in obscure forums that most people don't even know about?

[/ QUOTE ]If people don't know about the official City of forums it's not because they are obscure, it's because they choose to be ignorant. The official site and forums has always been the source ot get info, including a link at the log in screen and in game tips on the load screens saying such things.

[/ QUOTE ]I think that's missing the point - would it really be so hard to email people ingame in advance to notify of non-maintaince schedules? I don't think so. And actually, I doubt most people are choosing to be ignorant, they probably just don't have any idea that the information exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Send out a mass email to every single character that exists on every single server? I'm going to guess yes, that would be so hard.

Maybe we can get pohsyb to add a /countdown command that brings up a countdown clock in the console that shows the time to next server shutdown.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the trick. All damage resistance is typed. Which type is used debuff resistance?

[/ QUOTE ]

To put it simply: the correct one.

What we call "damage resistance" is actually resistance for a set of attributes normally associated with damage types: Smashing, Lethal, Fire, Cold, Energy, Negative, Toxic, Psionic. These are "attributes" and there exists something called "resistance" to any change to any of those attributes.

Every attribute has a number of "aspects" one of which is "Res." So there exists an attribute called "Smashing" and it has an aspect called "Res." This is what most players call "Smashing Resistance."

What does smashing res(istance) do? It acts to reduce the effects of anything that attempts to change the Smashing attribute. Specifically, it acts to reduce the effects of anything that attempts to change *any aspect* of the Smashing attribute. When someone delivers Smashing damage to you, they are attempting to change your smashing attribute, in effect trying to lower it. All of the "damage type" attributes are linked to your health bar, so reducing your smashing attribute ultimately reduces your health.

But "Smashing Resistance" doesn't just affect damage: it acts to resist *any* change to *any* Smashing aspect. So if you attempt to *increase* the smashing attribute, smashing resistance would also resist that.

Any attempt to increase or decrease the Smashing Res aspect is, in effect, an attempt to alter the smashing attribute. Smashing resistance will act to reduce that change. This means, in effect, if you have smashing resistance, and someone tries to *buff* your smashing resistance, that *buff* would be resisted: it would be reduced.

At least, it would if the buff was resistable. Most player buffs are unresistable. They are unresistable specifically *because* the intent is to always get the full benefit of the buff: players don't want to resist beneficial effects. But resistance debuffs are usually resistable, and therefore resisted.

Which resistance is used to resist Resistance debuffs? Well, basically, the correct one. When someone debuffs your "resistance" they are actually debuffing Smashing resistance, Lethal resistance, Fire resistance, etc. The same thing is true when they buff your resistance to damage: its actually each individual type that is buffed or debuffed. If your smashing resistance is debuffed, your smashing resistance resists that debuff. If your lethal resistance is debuffed, your lethal resistance resists that debuff. Each individual effect is resisted separately.

(What is being buffed when your *damage* is buffed? That is the aspect called Str or strength. If you buff Smashing Str, you are buffing Smashing Strength, and all powers that "affect" Smashing are boosted in strength. That's what causes damage buffs to increase the damage of your attacks: by increasing the Str of all the damage types, all attacks - that act on those types - increase in strength in response.)

This effect has been confirmed with in-game measurements many times, and is also consistent with how the game engine works. Since a resistance debuff is actually a bunch of resistance debuffs put together, and since each individual debuff component is a change to an attribute (smashing, lethal, etc), then the resistances of those attributes *must* resist the debuff. That's the very definition of an attribute's resistance.