Resistance needs to be converted to resistance rating

"

BrecMadak wrote:

@Autocthon: he doesn't worth Autocthon, even a wall had it understood by the time, he is just bullshitting and trying his best for "not to understand" on purpose or he is a real idiot.

You and gh0un did your bests so far and very clear on this problematic situation, but he resists in a pointless manner obviously.

If i were you, i wouldn't waste my time replying him further.

"

Autocthon wrote:

I can answer the qustion: In games which use a rating system (not explicit stacking percentages) use a forumla similar to this game's armor forumla. Doing so allows them to pick a damage value and tune it in such a way that it doesn't get overshadowed by extremely high resistances. That is EXACTLY how physical damage on bosses works in this game. It also lets the devs tune the *other* way because the more resists a player has the less effect it has on the damage they take from the boss. You eventualy hit a diminishing returns point where more resists are basically useless. However resists *lower* than a threshold resist (but above a lower threshold) conversely aren't majorly impacted compared to the threshold. This gives "slosh room" for resistance values and allows a wider degree of resistances to be effective without needing to balance the game at a 75% explicit resistance cap (because resists are cheap in an additive % system compared to a rating system as per armor).

Consider that if the devs balance the game at 50% resists. A character who has only 25% resists is taking 50% more damage (and that's 50% of a relatively massive damage value in order to be meaningful at 50% resists). Whereas a player who has hit 75% resists is taking HALF what the 50% resist value (probably relatively trivial damage unless the 50% value is still relatively large damage). In a rating system (I'll use a rating to % conversion because I'm lazy) if you have the formula Damage=(R/(100+R))*(Initialdamage) you have very flexible thresholds for resistance values, and WIDE thresholds at that (much wider than % thresholds) where you have multiple resistance values giving the same basic DR, with diminishing relative returns the higher your resists get. Alternatively a formula like Damage=(Resist*InitialDamage)/(Resist+InitialDamage*4) works like this game's armor, providing defenses based on exactly how much damage you take. This allows trivializing low damage enemies, but also allows a "graded" threshold for damage taken as enemy damage increases. It also NATURALLY (without artificial addition of flat -resist which is more of a hurdle than an actual challenge) forces a player to constantly upgrade resistances.

"

Silty wrote:

Okay, I concede, you exposed the flaws of the current system. However, I have faith that the devs may have multiple ideas on how to fix it. The only requirement is that it should be turned into a system which requires balance, rather than a system which penalizes for not completely maxing out the stat.

Either way, the more important question all along is - how do we get the devs to at least hear us out on this subject? Do we post another thread somewhere else where we think they will read it?

"

sparkle wrote:

A rating system for each individual element is not very good. I'm assuming by rating system, we are talking about something that takes our defensive stat compared to the enemies offensive stat. Its typically bad because it makes hard fights that you could otherwise handle impossible simply because of an arbitrary level difference. Likewise, it turns easy but potentially lethal fights(if you make mistakes) against underleveled monsters into something so trivial that its annoying. I've been looking at D3 inferno streams from guys like Kripp and thats exactly what it amounts to.

D2 was imperfect, and yes, the increasing value of resistance as you get closer to the cap is a real problem, but all that requires is a simple math fix. Silty had the best solution on page 9. Damage received = damage / (1 + res). Then you always have 1 simple number to go by. You wouldn't even need a hard cap since its impossible to have total damage reduction. If you want to talk about ease of balance, its easiest to balance against something simple that also has diminishing returns.

Some people have said that if you find a +resist% ring at lvl 14, you are set for the game. Well, that isn't entirely a bad thing. It makes the loot exciting from level 1. If all your equipment is only going to last 2-3 levels, then the game is really just a grind to get to a high level as soon as possible. If you can get things that last awhile, every drop has exciting possibilities. And if your lvl 14 ring is so good that you wouldn't ever trade it for max level loot, then that is a simple problem of high level loot not having enough extra modifiers.

"

notevenhere wrote:

The fact that you've pointed out that "they show rating in percent for armor" already shows that you have no idea at all why there's no difference as far as balance is concerned between your proposed "rating system" and a flat percentage based system.

In both cases you still are balancing around a specific percentage as your "safe" value for fighting each boss.

It doesn't matter how you display it, you are balancing it the same exact way! The very fact that you even CAN display it as a percentage just shows that you have no concept of how a rating system translates into balance, and why it would somehow magically be better than flat percentages.

Therefore, a flat percentage system is BETTER because in addition to being EXACTLY THE SAME as far as balance goes, it's also infinitely easier to understand for the average Joe.

"

Autocthon wrote:

You continue to completely fail to understand the difference here.

Why is armor a rating system? If explicit % systems are SO much easier to balance and use why isn't armor just explicit % values that stack additively. You OBVIOUSLY do not understand the math of % resistance systems.