Still no fix to phy reflect...(waiting for GGG reply) why are you encouraging bad play styles?

Content Removed by Admin: See Forum Guideline F
GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
Last edited by Bex_GGG#0000 on Sep 9, 2013, 3:19:34 PM
still bumping until reply.
The only game you need to win at is on the internet.
Send in a support ticket :)
"Another... Solwitch thread." AST
Current Games: :::City Skylines:::Elite Dangerous::: Division 2

"...our most seemingly ironclad beliefs about our own agency and conscious experience can be dead wrong." -Adam Bear
40% armor on the screen means nothing, its based on a monster hitting for 800 ave dmg

You doing 30k+ RAW physical on a crit (common for flicker) means even 20k armor, wont do jack with a single reflect mob.

with flicker CI VP, you can also have 1000% life leech, if a hit outdoes your entire pool before you heal again, you are dead.


Theres one solution for you --> Immortal call, for the occasional reflect mob. For reflect maps you can try it with increased duration.


Also check out this post by jsn006

Spoiler
Hey guys use this to calculate if you will die to reflect or not. Poutsos might want to add to original post. I'm 100% sure this is how it works.

Open your character screen, and look at 'main hand total physical damage' under 'main hand total combined damage' Take the biggest number range. Lets say it is 3000

Now take your crit multi. Lets say around 800%

so 3000 x 8 = 24000 (and nearly double this with a perfect 20/20 CW curse btw, BUT we are not using that vs reflect :P) This is the biggest PER HIT damage you will deal.

Now single reflect is currently 17% so 0.17 x 24000 = 4080
Double reflect is 17+18% = 35% so 0.35 x 24000 = 8400

(Attempting double reflect is nuts tho, I would just use LS or discharge or skip)

Now many of you might think this is where vuln / abyssus comes in, wrong this is the armor calculation part. Because of the way the armor formula works, we cannot multiply by abyssus / vulnerability yet. Because armor negates less with more damage, unlike elemental resists it is not flat x% per y armor. Also those 2 effect damage *taken*, which is calculated after mitigation, like burn damage and shocks.

So now we assume we only have granite, and a perfect one to round things up and keep them simple - so 6k armor. And also 3 end charges:-

We are using the single reflect example - 4080 physical damage is being reflected at us

Effects of 6k armor vs 4080 damage =
6000 / 6000+(12x4080) = 6000 / 54960 = 10.9 % + 3 endurance charges = 22.9% reduction

So we take 0.771 x 4080 = 3145 damage

Now poutsos is telling me abyssus extra damage taken effects this, so a perfect abyssus will bring this to 3145 x 1.5 = 4717.5 ~ 4718 damage taken

What this means is if you have 4719 ES (well 4718 since 1hp is taken into account too) you will survive, as long as your leech is enough to get back that 4718 es in the subsequent hit.

We will need 4718 / 24000 = 19.66% life leech. Around 20-21% to be safe.


you prolly want 5+k es and 25%+ leech if you have 40k raw on a crit ...

and dont even bother doing double reflect without immortal call
"
Ashwin wrote:

Drawing a parallel, how many of us have actually seen, spoken to, or given feedback to the developers of super mario? or say, doom. Yet, those were revolutionary games. Reason being, the game had a free reign without having to be stifled by player feedback. To see whether a game is successful or not, the first measure is Time (with a capital T). It needs to stand the test of time. During this period, if it starts changing too much, before we know it, it would have digressed from the very foundations it was designed on, leading to the failure of the game.


I agree with your point, but it DEFEINTELY needs to be tempered with a couple caveats:

1) If "public forums" had been around in the days of doom and Super Mario, I will 100% guarantee you they'd have been filled up with the same nonsense as this, and every other, forum. "BFG is overpowered!" (duh?). "Level 7-3 is stupid, and I hate having to be forced to use a warp pipe to get by it!".


2) The total player count of doom needs to be addressed. While it may have very well been the #1 most popular "shooter" of it's day, the total population of people playing video games at all (and the age/maturity level of said people) was way different at that point. "Common Knowledge" is that people who whine and moan about a game are a small % of it's total population, but a small % of a large number is still a large number... all concentrated into a single forum.


3) Super Mario and Doom were
"
Ashwin wrote:
revolutionary games

is true, as they more or less codified what is now an entire genre. We are on a... what would this be now, 5th generation Dungeon Crawler? There is no more dazzlement about this type of game, and everyone and their mothers will have played at least one other one before this, so their take on what it *should* be is already jaded.






That all said, I agree that the reflect mechanic is fine. If it weren't for that, a geared Burning Discharger in this game would be just as "2-button immortal" as a geared Hammerdin was in D2. This game has areas that need improvement, but the segment of the population that is so well geared they can clear high level maps with a single button press having only a single potential difficulty point isn't one of them. Therefore, I don't forsee this email the OP is asking for coming.




(And yes, I used the term "Dungeon Crawler", because I hate the term ARPG... it's too broad. However, guess whether or not I will make a forum thread demanding an email reply from GGG about it ;p)
#1 rule of official forum boards of every video game ever: use the forums to relay info, gather suggestions, or the rare narrow-focused Poll; but NEVER as "feedback".

#2 rule: Never say the #1 rule in an official capacity. Let some guy on the forums say it, leaving yourself plausible deniability.
Last edited by themousemaster#2051 on Sep 6, 2013, 11:21:30 AM
Content Removed by Admin: See Forum Guideline C
Last edited by Bex_GGG#0000 on Sep 9, 2013, 3:20:14 PM
Content Removed by Admin: See Forum Guideline C
Wise words buff -> balance <- nerf , need to happen , deal with it
Last edited by Bex_GGG#0000 on Sep 9, 2013, 3:20:31 PM
working as intended no fix needed they have nerfed reflect many times already.

~SotW HC Guild~

Have you tried lowering your physical damage output?

I am a firm believer in having a good balance of physical to elemental damage (50/50 might be ideal).

If you want to do massive physical damage, then you will have to have a plan to deal with physical reflect mobs that doesn't involve spamming your main skill(s).

*Leaves thread before gets mad and has to rage at other peoples' posts*
TY to those who called me out on my BS on these forums. There is no benefit to being so selfish as to fail to acknowledge others' differing beliefs of what "should be" or believe your own opinions so supreme as to be factual and thus dismiss others' opinions as being somehow a lie or delusional.
Last edited by Perfect_Black#6704 on Sep 6, 2013, 8:31:38 PM
Hi

Reflect is a stupid mechanic, feels like a monster cop out skill especially if you attempt a EK build with hatred and hrimsorrows, getting one shotted by phsy and ele reflect is BS, but I wouldn't be so against reflect damage if GGG just had a flask effect that could negate a percentage of reflect, might take a while though took forever to get staunching and warding(which are awesome).

There is no balance to this mechanic like any other game I have played with reflect damage oriented monsters; I am sure though, unlike the other games I have played, GGG will tinker with it till it is balanced, in what order it will be re-worked though is the question?

cheers
Conan: Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.
Never dance with the Devil because a dance with the Devil could last you forever...
-I thought what I'd do was,I'd Pretend I was one of those deaf mutes-
Nullus Anxietas:)

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info