Stupid questions for bored people
By
DMystic,
Posted on: 2009-07-25 10:30 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
>_> Since when do most foes resist toxic? Now, I don't know, because I hardly ever play em, so I have little to compare...
But they probebly DID include the information for eventual pvp, why wouldn't they?
At least now, we'll be able to change them from those bananas of doom. 
Please read my FEAR/Portal/HalfLife Fan Fiction!
Repurposed
[ QUOTE ]
Even going back all the way to Issue 1, the most commonly and in fact one of the most heavily resisted damage types by NPCs was and still is, in fact, toxic damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
??
I don't think so...
Where did you get that idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even going back all the way to Issue 1, the most commonly and in fact one of the most heavily resisted damage types by NPCs was and still is, in fact, toxic damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
??
I don't think so...
Where did you get that idea?
[/ QUOTE ]
A combination of Redtomax's and paragon wiki. And it's been a while since I checked, so I could very easily be wrong. 
Yeh I always thought Toxic and Psy were pretty much the unavoidable hazards in the game for everyone.
Please read my FEAR/Portal/HalfLife Fan Fiction!
Repurposed
[ QUOTE ]
Yeh I always thought Toxic and Psy were pretty much the unavoidable hazards in the game for everyone.
[/ QUOTE ]
Toxic and psi are pretty crumby damage types in PvE. When those two sets are resisted, they're resisted very strongly.
Using Culex's Resistance Spreadsheet, I made a post comparing enemy resistance at varying level ranges. I'm just reposting it here:
[ QUOTE ]
I went through Culex's spreadsheet a couple days ago when I saw that thread, and I pulled the following:
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>Average Damage Admitted
(To compute res, 100-number.)
All <>1 All
Sm 80% 94%
Le 76% 92%
Fi 85% 97%
Co 85% 96%
En 89% 97%
Ne 87% 97%
Ps 82% 95%
To 67% 93%
50+
Sm 76% 93%
Le 75% 90%
Fi 76% 96%
Co 80% 95%
En 85% 95%
Ne 77% 95%
Ps 63% 87%
To 63% 94%
40-49
Sm 77% 93%
Le 74% 91%
Fi 76% 96%
Co 79% 95%
En 85% 95%
Ne 79% 95%
Ps 63% 89%
To 61% 93%
30-39
Sm 82% 95%
Le 74% 92%
Fi 92% 99%
Co 80% 96%
En 93% 98%
Ne 92% 98%
Ps 70% 94%
To 62% 94%
20-29
Sm 79% 94%
Le 75% 92%
Fi 90% 98%
Co 85% 96%
En 95% 99%
Ne 92% 98%
Ps 81% 97%
To 61% 93%
10-19
Sm 83% 97%
Le 81% 96%
Fi 89% 98%
Co 102% 100%
En 95% 99%
Ne 90% 98%
Ps 111% 101%
To 61% 95%
1-9
Sm 87% 98%
Le 83% 97%
Fi 85% 98%
Co 103% 101%
En 100% 100%
Ne 86% 98%
Ps 111% 101%
To 61% 97%</pre><hr />
First column is all the entities with some form of resistance or vulnerability to the damage type. The second column counts every entity in the game within the given level range. So, for example, a lvl50 Psi user fighting resistance/vulnerable foes will be running up against ~37% resistance. For all lvl50+ enemies, that average is 87%. So it's not often resisted, but when it is, it's very significant.
---
This makes Energy look like the real winner, though personal experience is that fire is the most consistent. (The numbers could also be skewed by enemies you don't fight a lot, but do show up. Praetorians, for example, would be in this range, but outside of a few story arcs, you'll never run into them again.)
---
[edit: Oh yeah, Toxic sucks.]
[/ QUOTE ]
There we go. Thank ye, Sarrate.
Well, there's no Toxic *Defense*, so, foes have to rely on positional defense alone v. Toxic attacks. Theoretically, you should be hitting more often with Toxic which may compensate for it being more heavily Resisted.
Speeding Through New DA Repeatables || Spreadsheet o' Enhancements || Zombie Skins: better skins for these forums || Guide to Guides
The whole problem is that its listed as being rarely *resisted.* Still, that IS a valid point I hadn't considered.
Except I don't think any Player powers are purely Toxic.
Venom Grenade is all Toxic, as is Bile Spray iirc. As far as I know toxic resist is rare, its just that like Psychic, when it is resisted, it tends to be resisted heavily. (Cue the robots! We've got spines incoming!)
MM Zombies have pure Toxic attacks.
Speeding Through New DA Repeatables || Spreadsheet o' Enhancements || Zombie Skins: better skins for these forums || Guide to Guides
So I was thinking. A bad sign. And I was thinking about one of our very own melee sets. Spines.
)
The in-game description for spines states, and I quote, "Very few foes have resistance to Spine poison." Even going back all the way to Issue 1, the most commonly and in fact one of the most heavily resisted damage types by NPCs was and still is, in fact, toxic damage. Now, perhaps the actual description was aimed towards player defense sets, of which only the "newer" ones include any form of toxic resistance. The problem being that in Issue 1, PvP did not, in fact, exist in any form. Which meant that the description could not have been implying that you were going to fight other players.
So why the hell does the description say that? The only reason I can think of was to attract new players to a damage bonus by light of the fact that few opponents would have resistance to it. But why say that if it is clearly and obviously the exact opposite? And if advertising a set for its rarity in being resisted, why not mention that in the set description of something like dark melee or dark blast? Darkness being one damage type rarely, if ever resisted by NPCs. (When they did though, they resisted it a LOT.
So, again. What's up with that? Stupid, pointless question, but it's been bugging me for a long time.