questions about burning effect

"

Xapti wrote:

You still don't seem to be getting what I'm saying. be it 75% cold resist or 75% fire resist: 75% cold resist, the cold damage is reduced to 25%, and hence it's cold special effect is also 25% power, just like you said.

For fire, the damage is reduced to 25%, but then the fire effect is reduced to 6.25% — that is NOT RIGHT.

Now I get your point. You're saying it seems unfair for fire compared to cold and lightning.

Then this basically boil down to opinion, For me, fire has an extra advantage of triggering no matter the damage (cold/light will not trigger if duration <300ms). Also fire is the only element to have a support gem that increase the chance for it: Ignite with more than 40% chance maxed (compared to lightning with max 20% chance from passive and cold max 7% chance from +cold gem). Also if you can get their resists to negative, burn damage also gain an unfair advantage.

So in essence, if you're building to rely on the burn "extra" effect, you will be getting elemental curse anyway and abuse its unfairness. On the other hand, if you're not focusing on burn damage, changing the entire game mechanics for the fairness of an "extra" effect will get you negligible dmg anyway.

Damn server crash killed my reply

"

Progammer wrote:

Then this basically boil down to opinion, For me, fire has an extra advantage of triggering no matter the damage (cold/light will not trigger if duration <300ms). Also fire is the only element to have a support gem that increase the chance for it: Ignite with more than 40% chance maxed (compared to lightning with max 20% chance from passive and cold max 7% chance from +cold gem).

That's no excuse to have trashy mechanics. If burn is too strong, it's damage should be lowered. Frankly I think burning shouldn't always apply regardless of damage either. I think it's silly that targets are burned even if one deals only 0.001% of their health fire damage to them. Just like cold/freeze and lightning/shocked, the minimum % of target's health should have to be dealt to apply the effect, whatever that number is (5% maybe?); That's something else they should fix.

"

if you can get their resists to negative, burn damage also gain an unfair advantage.
So in essence, if you're building to rely on the burn "extra" effect, you will be getting elemental curse anyway and abuse its unfairness.

Yes, that's what I've been saying (the beneficial-to-user part). There are two sides to it, one sucks for the user, the other is great for the user. Either way (and especially because both ways exist), it's a BAD mechanic.

"

On the other hand, if you're not focusing on burn damage, changing the entire game mechanics for the fairness of an "extra" effect will get you negligible dmg anyway.

It's not changing the entire game mechanics. It's fixing a problem that shouldn't have ever existed in the first place in my opinion. Like I said— I don't see how to look at this aside from as a bug.

I don't know what you mean by the last paragraph. I'm not talking about a player's personal gains or losses. What's important is having a proper mechanic that isn't simultaneously useless and overpowered at the same time — not to mention simply illogical.

I concur, it's a stupid mechanic and needs to be fixed. You resist fire, and therefore drop the burn amount, why would you resist the burn effect when it's already been nerfed by your resistance.

I'm with you on this one xapti. This seems patently absurd to me because it results in two bad outcomes:

a) Feast or Famine effects. The power of the burn veers from being absolutely absurd on negative resist targets (quadratic returns from -resists) to absolutely worthless on high resist targets. This is, in my opinion, generally symptomatic of something that is wrong. It seems silly to have the overwritable unique effect of fire damage particularly vulnerable to resistance, especially when fire resistance is probably the most common mob resist (those damn skeletons).

b) Lack of conceptual clarity - this might just be me, but I considered the possibility of this and immediately wrote it off as absurd for precisely the reasons xapti has been stating. To see that it's actually the case is really disconcerting.

The useless semantic argument of "is it one lot of damage hitting or two" is utterly worthless. The question is, "is this a desirable way for this game mechanic to work"?

In my opinion, no. Nerf base burn damage, remove the resistance check on the burn. Normalise the returns from burns so that characters who use burn as their primary damage source can get reasonably consistent returns and not have these absurd edge-cases where I'm 1-shotting rare zombies with a single dagger stab and taking 3000 years to burn down a regenerating reisstance aura skeleton.

"

WhiteBoy wrote:

"

Illedran wrote:

Please fix Ignite :( Remove this silly double resist check and make it stackable.

That doesn't make any sense.

1) If you can resist fire damage, you can resist damage caused by being on fire. Elemental resistance should apply to all sources of elemental damage.

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

Going by your logic; Last time I checked, people couldn't even summon fireballs or icespears. Remove those gems.

About burning effect:

I hate that there's a burning effect when there's minimum damage being delivered. If you crit a mob and the only fire damage you got is like 2-4 from a ring, it will burn, yet for negligeable damage. In PvP, it would be hard to distinguish between threatening burning and "false" burning. Maybe make a threashold where you have to deal at least a % of the mob life as fire damage to trigger the burning ?

Also, in general, as much as "Shock" is overpowered, "Burning" is very underpowered. Maybe buff it to deal 50% of the damage per the initial hit per second, instead of 33%. And/or, make the duration variable on the %life of damage done by the initial hit, like freeze and shock.

So. In light of this. Who thinks the middle class should be Thread Necromancer? It seems popular.

Does this mean that burn damage is also affected twice by shock?


Edit: that is if the fire resistance is still double dipped for ignite damage, since it turns out this thread is quite old. Anyone know?

I'm not sure what you mean by "twice by shock" but if you shock a target, the burn damage will be amplified while they are shocked. Shock can stack up to three times, so burn damage can be upped by up to three times as well. If you hit a triple-shocked target you will do more base burn damage, which will be raised also by the shock debuff while it is in effect.

By twice I mean that the initial hit is boosted by shock, therefore the damage over time is also boosted, and then the damage over time is boosted again by the shock.


For example. Target is not shocked. Burn damage is normal.

Target is triple shocked. Burn damage is almost 5 times normal (2.2 x 2.2)




If this is the case then I definitely want to try making a build that takes advantage of this. burn passives + searing touch = +150% burn damage. Triple shock = 384% more burn damage. -50% enemy fire resistance = 125% more burn damage. Vulnerability = 40% more burn damage.

Say you have a 1200 damage fireball. Normally it would do 400 damage per second when it ignites an enemy. With the above modifications, it would be increased to 400 * 2.5 * 4.84 * 2.25 *1.4 = 15,246 damage per second.

Did I screw something up? I dont think I did....