Something I notice about AR vs EVA

"

CanHasPants wrote:

We've done the max res thing to death; additive bonuses that scale to 100% mitigation are a bad idea, and they were removed from the tree for good reason.

I am, however, in favor of converting a small portion of AR into elemental mitigation. This effect is multiplication with resists and can therefore scale without approaching full mitigation.

I think they just need to have +Max res be a thing, but they need to flip their damage calculations around.

Right now, if you have 100% elemental resistance, you're immune to that element. That's bad. It needs to be an asymptotic curve, and not a linear one. Instead of the calculations reading "You take X% less elemental damage" it should be "Elemental damage reduced by X%."
That way - you can never be immune to elemental damage. Clearly the forumla and numbers around those calculations would need overhauling, but isn't that what the game needs? Bless it's socks, there are some design choices that just won't work for the current direction this game is going, and need to be rethought.

Armor needs to turn a portion (the higher armor, the higher portion) of elemental damage into a DoT.

Makes sense with GGG's argument why armor worse against bigger hits vs. smaller ones. (> "If you get hit by peashooter wearing armor, you wouldn't feel much. Against catapult however...")

I'm sure if you get hit with a flamethrower wearing armor you wouldn't suffer as much damage instantly as you would without it, but the armor would get hot and burn you over time.

That way you'd still end up taking as much damage as currently but you could fight against with flasks, regen, leech etc.

"

Grughal wrote:

Armor needs to turn a portion (the higher armor, the higher portion) of elemental damage into a DoT.

Makes sense with GGG's argument why armor worse against bigger hits vs. smaller ones. (> "If you get hit by peashooter wearing armor, you wouldn't feel much. Against catapult however...")

I'm sure if you get hit with a flamethrower wearing armor you wouldn't suffer as much damage instantly as you would without it, but the armor would get hot and burn you over time.

That way you'd still end up taking as much damage as currently but you could fight against with flasks, regen, leech etc.

Duuuude...while I imagine that would be a pain in the ass to code, I'd be down for that in a heartbeat!

Best Out-There solution I've heard in a while.

I'm on board as well, it's quite an innovative idea.

Meh. I feel like this is quite a good suggestion in the world of Immortal Call, but I'm not at all confident it would be a good idea in other environments. And since I don't think the IC metagame is healthy, I feel like the suggestion is tailored to a situation which should be going away, and as soon as possible.

Although the defense scheme in PoE is kind of fucked up by nature. I could probably write a whole article on it.

Actually here: http://diablom.incgamers.com/blog/comments/mad-prophecies-2-defensive-skills. Close to the article I would write. He refers to defensive skills, but it really applies to defenses in general. Either no one needs them (PoE), or everyone does (which can't happen in PoE because the defenses are too different).

The only defense which sometimes matters in PoE is ES, and never as an addition to life, but invariably as a replacement. ES builds invariably trade away that red EHP pool for power of some sort. Either that or trade the ES for mana (and then sometimes the mana for more Life).

The ONLY use for defenses from an ARPG design perspective is to adjust situational difficulty. By which I mean: imagine your typical ARPG zombie. For ranged it's no threat at all, really slow, kite all day. For melee, getting hit is a real possibility. So you give melee a bunch of some anti-Zombie defense for free or cheap, and give ranged little or none. Now you have zombies that don't hurt melee too bad but one-shot ranged fools who kite bad. But even in that case, melee isn't really specing into it... you want it to just kind of happen. Maybe melee has some limited option to spec a little more into it if they want, but you want a good amount of the defense to be free, and the rest of it cheap.

Another example: Flameblast channeler. By "channeler" I mean actually standing still for a good bit, not dabbing. Hard to sidestep projectiles, even obvious ones, while doing that. So maybe some kind of specific anti-ranged defense for dedicated channeler builds. Although "channeler" is generally much more niche than "melee" in ARPGs.

Another example: fixed thorns damage reflected per hit. The faster-hitting builds would be effected disproportionately. Etc.

So here are the game design steps:
1. For each type of monster (or build, in PvP), identify the ways players would avoid the damage from that threat completely. For example, "kite me" for zombies, "sidestep me" for projectiles, etc.
2. For each identification in #1, create separate damage type.
3. For each build which, by its nature, has issues complying with the standard avoidance steps, give it a semi-exclusive availability to a defense which makes that specific damage type less of a threat.

In PoE there is no evidence any of these steps were even briefly considered.

Outside of that, a somewhat standardized life pool without special defenses should be the primary measure of survivability. Specialized defenses should only apply to specific problem situations.

A strength keystone to match CI and Acro does seem lacking. Here's the best I came up with that I just dug out a notepad file:

Living Stone
Armour applies to elemental damage
Cannot deal elemental damage

Either that or the second mod replaced with "x% less elemental resistances" if trading off offense for defense isn't gonna be fun at all.

Since physical scaling has a huge elemental component, no one in their right mind would ever take that keystone.

Maybe a few in their wrong mind.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Since physical scaling has a huge elemental component, no one in their right mind would ever take that keystone.

Maybe a few in their wrong mind.

Oh ok then, lets take the acrobatics approach. It's now 50% less instead. Or 25% less. Or 0%.