% resistance is working way too well right now

Feedback and Suggestions
21

The correct and objective way to quantify the two affixes is to use the “absolute” mitigation amount.

Using an already mitigated value for comparison makes the result subjective and will not give a consistent result to accurately quantify the two.

Your looking to maximize the total mitigation, as a percentage of the total incoming damage prevented, not measure the percentage gains from the last point of mitigation to the next.

For example; saying you have 50% resistances and adding 25% more resistances will give you 50% more mitigation is a fallacy. You still only have 75% total mitigation.

1 Like
22

Take any viewpoint you like.

If you can reduce damage taken by 75% by getting 75% resit getting 75% is super mandatory and taking only 50% resist is straight idotic… choice = 0 … i never seen any poe build without max ele res not even 50% …

In LE only taking 50% resist (or even 0%) can be totaly viable… hooray choice!

3 Likes
23

I agree with that. I think the only thing that makes resists in LE less mandatory is the fact that other mitigation stats are so good.

I did notice in the rogue stuff with Glancing Blow that it now only reduces by 35% instead of 50%. When did that happen? Was that at the same time as the Armour rework?

24

@darkdeal No, that was in 0.8.

I think you’re conflating objective/subjective with absolute/relative. I’m also not sure you can really call maths subjective just because it disagrees with your viewpoint. It can be unhelpful, it can be misleading & it can be flat out wrong, but I’m not sure it can be subjective.

But you’d lose 50% less HP with 75% resist compared to 50% resist (in GD/PoE), so comparing the two it is correct to say that 75% resist is 50% more effective at mitigating damage than 50% resist. It may not be entirely helpful, but it is an accurate statement when you are comparing two things.

1 Like
25

Rather than looking at the raw damage, you can also look at it in terms of how much margin for error is afforded, by means of the number of hits tankable:

Suppose 1k HP, hits do 200 damage:

“Typical” resistances:
0% = 5 hits to kill
50% = 10 hits to kill
75% = 20 hits to kill
80% = 25 hits to kill
90% = 50 hits to kill

LE resistances in alvl 75+:
0% = 2.85 hits to kill
50% = 4 hits to kill
75% = 5 hits to kill
(for comparison:)
80% = 5.26 hits to kill
90% = 5.88 hits to kill

One of these approaches clearly gives greater increasing returns than the other.

1 Like
26

I will concede the argument and accept this rebuttal. This is yet another reason that other forms of mitigation seem better than resists in a lot of cases. Just so some aren’t confused though, monster damage was tuned down in LE to compensate. Poe/GD monsters do a great deal more base damage than LE by comparison.

I still think the LE system “feels bad man”. Resists seem more like ‘penetration reduction’. :smiley:

27

I was referring to the conclusion drawn by the individual, not the math itself. If the argument is that going from 50% to 75% resists is 50% more mitigation (relative to the mitigated value), and that 50% “feels” like more of an overall value than say, 25% mitigation from armor (because your viewing it in relative gains and not absolute), then that view is subjective because it isn’t backed up by the math. If you want to reach an objective conclusion for which affix is better for overall effective health, you need to use absolute values. Maybe I misunderstood the point being made. Sorry for any confusion.

I wasn’t implying it was inaccurate, I was saying it was an irrelevant point of reference when comparing the total effective health gained from two different affixes. Again, sorry for any confusion.

1 Like
28

Yeah, resists aren’t as impactful with the way that the LE system works compared to others, thus increasing the value of other defenses, and I can understand LE resists feeling more like a tax to offset innate penetration as opposed to an actual defensive layer.

In my opinion, I like the idea of reducing the impact of resists since LE has quite a number of possible defenses (HP, armor, dodge, 7 resists, critical reduction/avoidance, block, ward, and arguably glancing blows) with only 4 affixes per item to fit in what you want. Set resists obviously help a lot by both using prefixes and being more efficient, but making it reasonable to play without maxed resists seems like a fine objective in a vacuum.

Personally, I dislike how POE punishes hybrid defenses in various ways (base values for single-defense armors are much higher than multi-defense armors, effectiveness of armor is relative to incoming damage and thus offers little protection without focused investment, passive tree doesn’t really reward getting varied defenses [except for defense-conversion characters, but then that undermines wanting hybrid defenses], jade/granite flasks trivialize actual armor defensive values in many cases, etc.). It reduces defensive gearing to just maxing resists and then stacking your choice of armor/evade/ES (necessary “in most cases” disclaimer, since POE has many system quirks).

1 Like
29

I couldn’t disagree more. In LE resists are just another option, you can dabble in them a bit here or there or forgo them entirely and still end up with a pretty solid character defensively.

Meanwhile classical resists are straight up a tax. Capping resists is absolutely mandatory, you cannot make a viable endgame character without them. The game is balanced around you having them capped and not capping them will lead you to taking massively more damage.

Looking at GD, having no resists (-50%/-25% vs 80%) will make you take 7.5/6.25 times the damage you would at cap, in PoE, you’d be taking 6.4 times the damage (-60 vs 75%). This will lead to you getting one shot by pretty much any elemental damage and cannot be made up by any other defensive stats. And dabbling in them isn’t really an option either since even going from 60% to 75% will reduce incoming damage by 37.5%. All at the cost of one affix. Why would you ever NOT take that? Especially when other mechanics come nowhere near being so effective.

Regardless I can see why at first glance it seems like you’re making up for penetration rather than actually gaining anything, but that’s the case in other games as well since having capped res is expected and the baseline but that’s not something that’s not obviously knowable at first glance. The issue of it feeling bad at first glance is something that can be fixed with just changing up wording instead of the whole system.

30

Truth is that going from 50% to 75% really is more than a +50% damage reduction.

Let me explain, what i think is misleading you is that you are treating percents as flat numbers.
I think that using a flat 100 monster damage brings to misleading and makes 75% resists appear like it is a 75 flat value then used to perform a formula like 100 - 75, which is not correct:
The real operation is not 100 - 75 = 25, → the real operation is 100 * 0.25 = 25

Percentages are very different than flat/raw values, percents can lead to crazy scalings and needs to be looked from the EHP angle (to normalize it into raw/non percent) to understand how strong it is, it needs to be evaluated as the whole HP + Resist formula ← that is Effective HP (EHP)

Let me (hopefully) show how strong percent resist shows to be when correctly displayed.
I will use some more “spurious” values and put a couple constraints:

STEP 1 Primary stats: life and resist
. Life is fixed, i choose 9000hp to make it harder to confuse it with “100” values
. Res is variable

9000hp 50% resists → EHP is 9000 / 0.5 = 18000hp
9000hp 75% resists → EHP is 9000 / 0.25 = 36000hp
9000hp 80% resists → EHP is 9000 / 0.2 = 45000hp
9000hp 90% resists → EHP is 9000 / 0.1 = 90000hp

Without much doubt:
**From 50% to 75% resists the EHP value has doubled **
**From 80% to 90% resists the EHP value has doubled **
^This is very important to look at it this way, because what follows is what happens in games

STEP 2 Next stats: damage dealt/taken in a single hit
. Damage dealt is also fixed. There are thresholds of damage that we can take and are directly dictated by the percent resists.

What it means in practice:
**9000hp 75% resists will survive hits of up to 36000 **
versus
**9000hp 90% resists will survive hits of up to 90000 **

Or the other way around:
**More than 36000 monster damage is will kill 9000hp 75% res **
versus
**More than 90000 monster damage is will kill 9000 90% res **

^36k vs 90k damage difference

STEP 3: DPS and damage healed + health sustain
This is what I kinda think ARPGs do wrong with few exceptions.
In LE monsters deal huge slams, scaling is out of whack, once you stack 3 mobs spamming killer slams you get x3 fuckd up
In PoE oneshots + exp loss are deliberate and by design to kill bots and macros/scripts (IMO of course). Monsters are also oneshotted by players, final bosses included are nearshotted in PoE.

GD seems to be one where they do it right, chars HP and EHP are well within control of players, monster packs size and damage is scaled right and all within their ilvl and you will know when you got dpsed down to death. The dps system is so well tuned and understood that GD has healer monsters no problem HEH.

31

Generally its best to use percentages when you can when talking about damage reduction. Its easier to compare. Keep actual damage numbers out.

32

Ive played all 3 games a lot and when doing lvl 100 monoliths with a damage modifier or two/three some of the mobs in LE can be pretty lethal, even with capped resistances/high HP/capped block etc. Ive had a few instances on my Lowlife low resistance Lich with 4.8k ward taking 3.5k damage instantly from a couple of mobs

Poe’s mobs are generally pretty lethal overall plus the way the view is designed mobs rush at you from small distances plus things like strongboxes spawning 20 mobs on you at once.

Grim Dawn monsters suffered so many nerfs from early access to their first expansion - I remember when Ultimate first released getting one shot often with capped res and over 10kHP etc because the OA/DA formula was so harsh against the player, Crate adjusted it many times to the point it just became too harsh against the monsters

LE system is ok but I dont think putting modifiers on bosses is a good idea such as Enrage, makes bosses like Emperor ridiculous due to that AoE charge up time

33

Perhaps my post was unclear, but I agree with what you’re saying here :slightly_smiling_face:. On the surface, LE resists can feel like a tax to offset monster scaling, but in practice, the way it’s done allows for actually being able to end up with using multiple layers of defense instead of being pushed into picking a few to focus on while ignoring other options (like in POE).

It’s kind of funny that EHG went with their approach to make it more intuitive for math-light players without much ARPG experience, and it’s seemingly causing more confusion for veterans of other ARPGs :sweat_smile:. Maybe using different terms of art instead of “resistance” and “penetration” would be a good idea.

1 Like
34

Ah my bad, I got to gush a bit about the GE resist system at least. It really is a breath of fresh air in the genre. And yeah a different name might help people see it in a different light.

35

The reason that I and others say LE resist feels like a tax rather than gaining something is because of the penetration system of the game. At level 75+ zone levels, you can never have more than 0 resist.

Imagine it like this.

Other game; Every point of resist is like someone giving you a dollar. You are gaining money. In the end, you have 75 dollars.

LE; Every zone level is like someone taking a dollar from you. Every point of resist just prevents that someone from taking a dollar. In the end, you still have 0 dollars.

That is why the LE system has the “feels bad man” about it. It is just a psychological thing and I am sure renaming the things from resist/penetration to something else would alleviate some, or all, of that.

36

And because of the penetration, if you’ve got 1 stack of shred on you (-2% resist), you take 2% more damage than if you didn’t (102 damage compared to 100 damage). If the area-level penetration wasn’t a thing & you had 1 stack of shred on you, you’d take 8% more damage (27 compared to 25 damage) compared to if you didn’t. All of this is just what Zaen said above.

Why is it logical to drop 2% resist but take 8% more damage? Does that “feels good man”?

As the devs have said before (& has been reiterated many times), they implemented the penetration system so that a decrease of 1% compared to cap means the player takes 1% more damage (compared to cap). Nice & simple.

1 Like
37

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.