questions about burning effect

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

2) You can't light the same thing on fire twice at the same time. It shouldn't be stackable.

Not true.

You can increase the temperature.

"

overpowdered wrote:

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

2) You can't light the same thing on fire twice at the same time. It shouldn't be stackable.

Not true.

You can increase the temperature.

Yes, you should be able to adjust the thermostat on your weapon.

Are you seriously trying to make realistic examples in an un-realistic game?
No because if this is a real game, how is a weapon supposed to deal elemental damage anyway?
It's perfectly reasonable to think that a fire mage can cast hotter and hotter fire spells as he gets better at it. And thus, more heat = more burn.

And by fix, I meant remove the 'double resists check' that's happening currently.

"

Illedran wrote:

And by fix, I meant remove the 'double resists check' that's happening currently.

There's not "double" resistance effect. There is a single check against the fire damage you hit with, then a single check against the burn damage. They are separate sources of elemental damage, even though the damage of one is determined by the other.

Yeah so, assuming a foe has something like 50% fire resist...

600 damage crit gets lowered to 300.
Ignite is applied, dealing 100 damage every second for 4 seconds, but it checks for resistances again, thus dealing 200 damage overall, instead of 400 like it should, since the first hit was calculated with resists already.

Another good reason not to invest into burn passives and fire in general.

Its a bit weired, but its good!

With this double reduce its worth to debuff the enemy.
My AoF Marauder uses +100% Burndmg.
My Curse of Elements reduces the resistance by 43%.
Thats a remaining resistence of 32%, lets say 1/3.

On none Fire resist enemys its an increase of the initial by 43% and additional 43% for the burn.

"

Illedran wrote:

Yeah so, assuming a foe has something like 50% fire resist...

600 damage crit gets lowered to 300.
Ignite is applied, dealing 100 damage every second for 4 seconds, but it checks for resistances again, thus dealing 200 damage overall, instead of 400 like it should, since the first hit was calculated with resists already.

Another good reason not to invest into burn passives and fire in general.

In another word, burn dmg is calculated upon fire damage taken instead of fire damage on the stat screen. This make perfect sense and I'm sure all other effects (freeze/chill/shock) duration is also determined upon damage taken. This allow player to effectively counter that aliment with proper resists (in term of PvP)

If you want it the other way, burn damage will overlap with a true dmg mechanics which chaos/poison dmg has already taken (chaos resist is far and few).

Not everyone has to take every passive, burn damage passive are not bad if your build has synergy with it. Or you can sacrifice the curse currently using and opt for elemental weakness.

It is already calculated on damage taken! >_>

Ignite deals 4/3 of the damage dealt over 4 seconds. I just think that the DoT part shouldn't be mitigated since the damage dealt with the hit that triggered Ignite was reduced already.

(Of course, making it stack would actually make a DoT more useful in a game where stuff dies in 0.5 seconds anyway)

"

Progammer wrote:

In another word, burn dmg is calculated upon fire damage taken instead of fire damage on the stat screen. This make perfect sense and I'm sure all other effects (freeze/chill/shock) duration is also determined upon damage taken. This allow player to effectively counter that aliment with proper resists (in term of PvP)

No that's not how it is at all. I can only assume you didn't comprehend what the thread is saying fully. The burn damage isn't based on the fire damage taken because the resists are being applied twice. Other effects do not deal damage and cannot be compared. Even if you do compare it — the chill/freeze/shock is based off the damage dealt — not the damage dealt then your resistances again to see if you get frozen or not. If the damage dealt after resistances meet a certain % threshold of the player's health, then the target is shocked/chilled/frozen depending on the % of the player's health that the damage dealt. It doesn't reduce that % by the resists again, and it shouldn't because it doesn't make any damn sense!

"

Progammer wrote:

If you want it the other way, burn damage will overlap with a true dmg mechanics which chaos/poison dmg has already taken (chaos resist is far and few).

No. Chaos damage is generally non-resistible (and goes through energy shield) that's what makes it unique from the elements. The fact there are DoTs that deal chaos damage is a side-issue.
Fire damage, while also dealing DoT on critical, is still resistible. 75% fire resist (in a scenario without double resist) means you take 75% less fire damage, which means the burning is 75% less as well because it's based off the fire damage — it's not avoiding any resistances at all. 100% fire resist means you'd take 0 burn damage — saying it ignores resists is absurd.

"

LadyDevimon wrote:

Its a bit weired, but its good!

I disagree. Certainly sometimes it's more advantageous for the player, but that doesn't make it good. Due to the nonlinear scaling of damage it makes the damage dealing potential very random: sometimes dealing lots of damage to some targets, sometimes dealing practically none; that is a bad design philosophy.

@Xapti

No resist is being applied twice, its being applied independently to 2 source of damage. 1 is the initial hit, 2 is for the fire damage, calculated from dmg taken from the initial hit. And as I said, if you bumb your cold resist, you take less dmg from cold, mean less % of your health and less frezee overall.

Also, there is chaos resist on unique armor.