Average unweighted resistance of mobs.
By
Aramar,
Posted on: 2009-05-19 19:15 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
[ 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. 
[ 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.
[/ 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?
Main Hero : Annilixxion -- Lv50 Blaster
Main Villain : Menkaura -- Lv41 Mastermind
@Laxx
"You will bend to my will, with or without your precious sanity." --Dragon Mage
[ 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? 
[ 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?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because your change would change the fundamental rules of the game for reasons I've detailed earlier.
Main Hero : Annilixxion -- Lv50 Blaster
Main Villain : Menkaura -- Lv41 Mastermind
@Laxx
"You will bend to my will, with or without your precious sanity." --Dragon Mage
[ 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 ]
[ 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.
Main Hero : Annilixxion -- Lv50 Blaster
Main Villain : Menkaura -- Lv41 Mastermind
@Laxx
"You will bend to my will, with or without your precious sanity." --Dragon Mage
[ 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 ]
[ 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.
Main Hero : Annilixxion -- Lv50 Blaster
Main Villain : Menkaura -- Lv41 Mastermind
@Laxx
"You will bend to my will, with or without your precious sanity." --Dragon Mage
[ 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.
[ 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 ]
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 ]
[ 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?
[/ 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?
Bump and Grind Bane/SoA
Kenja No Ishi Earth/Empathy Controller
Legendary Sannin Ninja/Pain Mastermind
Entoxicated Ninja/PSN Mastermind
Ninja Ryukenden Kat/WP Scrapper
Hellish Thoughts Fire/PSI Dominator
Thank You Devs for Merits!!!!
[ 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 ]
[ 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 ]
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."
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ 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.
[ 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.
Bump and Grind Bane/SoA
Kenja No Ishi Earth/Empathy Controller
Legendary Sannin Ninja/Pain Mastermind
Entoxicated Ninja/PSN Mastermind
Ninja Ryukenden Kat/WP Scrapper
Hellish Thoughts Fire/PSI Dominator
Thank You Devs for Merits!!!!
[ 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 ]
[ 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)?
[ 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.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
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 ]
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.) 
[ 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 ]
[ 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.
[ 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.