Resistance needs to be converted to resistance rating

I too prefer Percentage based resists. Its easy to understand. I dont see what is wrong with Diablo 2s method of reducing Resists down by a set amount each difficulty. I dont think that was a bad game design at all. It worked great.

"

gh0un wrote:

Sorry but your post is full of shit, because:

What you are describing is exactly how current armor works.
If an armor says 100 armor, you have absolutely no clue about how much damage reduction 100 armor grants, unless you look into your character sheet.

So? Just because the armor uses a rating system I should want everything to use a rating system? No. I don't want resists to use a rating system, because I don't like it. NOT wanting it to be bad doesn't make me full of shit. It makes me NOT want it to be bad.

I like clear easy to understand numbers. 5% lightning resist is an easy to understand number. 123 lightning rating is not easy to understand.

What's better, 5% lightning, or 10% lightning? See that was easy to understand.

What's better, 123 lightning, or 456 lightning? Yes, that's easy to understand which of the two is better, but it doesn't tell me HOW MUCH BETTER, nor does it tell me what it actually does.

"

gh0un wrote:

Percentage is easy to understand.

Im pretty sure you dont calculate anything when you are picking up equipment with armor on it, and the same will be true for resistance stuff.
The new item has more rating than my old? Equip it.
Its straightforward.

The change would give GGG a lot more control over early game magic damage, aswell as late game magic damage.

Since you've already resorted to name calling, I'll do it in turn here and call you an idiot for saying you never calculate anything when you pick up new gear. Of course you do. You look at the gear and decide if it's worth updating compared to what you are wearing. That's calculation. I calculate all the time if new weapons are worth it or not, because they have lots of %spell-this and %physical-that.

I swap them in and in an effort to decide if it's actually better than the combination of +%s that I have on my current gear. The difference here is that I can actually try to hit specific bench marks with resistance if I want to. It's easier to plan for things like that.

I NEVER enjoyed WoW's "rating" system. Having to remember that 42 crit rating was 1% was stupid. It was also stupid that as you leveled up, those ratings became less effective. That's stupid. Just flat out stupid.

My magical armor of 5% fire resistance should NOT be less effective because I grew more powerful. That's a horrible system.

Math nerds may get ecstatic over crunching ratings numbers in their head, but if you want to appeal to the masses, you don't introduce stupid mechanics like that.

I hate ratings systems.

- edit -

Furthermore, you haven't proven your case that it's easier to balance. All granulating it out 100x more does is make it less beneficial to people finding gear. Instead of seeing that it is 1% more resistance, I have to wonder what that 54 rating actually does. Is that even a percentage? I don't know. Now I have to even do more swapping of gear to see if it's worth it.

Back to proving your case - as you balance skills, you have no way of knowing if I even have ANY resistance. How does it make it more beneficial to have to granulate over 10000 points compare to over 101 different values? It doesn't. There's nothing that indicates it will work better. It only makes it more convoluted for the player.

But feel free to try to convince me. I await your mystery-math that's somehow going to prove that 0-100 can't be as effective as 0 - 10000. Because all I have to do is throw another decimal place on the other side of the equation, and my 0-100 is just as easy to balance as your 0-10000.

"

Kabraxis wrote:

"

gh0un wrote:

Diablo 2 tried to circumvent this by decreasing the players´ magic resistance by a fixed amount for each new difficulty level.
Thats just bad design, and everyone knows it.

LOL. Its good design and i hope that GGG will introduce res penatly in PoE too.
Decrease resists curse (give it to mobs) and aura (on boses) will also make game more challenging without:

"Whats you Fire Res m8? 5658466,5 Fire Rating lol"

BIG NO to rating resists, percentages are classic and you have sosmething to achieve (MAX)

You think flat %Res is a good mechanic AND you think that the Res penalty in D2 was good design.

So either you're 2 years old. Or you're a complete idio.
D2 resistance penalty was NOT good design. It was lazy design using horrendously outdated mechanics (because skills without attribute scalar is broken btw). That penalty only existed because you COULD get max resistance with literally two pieces of gear at the end of normal (boots+amulet can easily hit 75% resistances). Resistance ratings were introduced into games for a reason. It's better design and easier to balance.

Anyone else think notevenhere is a 10 year old that contradicts his own post twice in less than 2 posts?
Notevenhere might not even be here, and no one would notice.

"

Autocthon wrote:

"

Kabraxis wrote:

"

gh0un wrote:

Diablo 2 tried to circumvent this by decreasing the players´ magic resistance by a fixed amount for each new difficulty level.
Thats just bad design, and everyone knows it.

LOL. Its good design and i hope that GGG will introduce res penatly in PoE too.
Decrease resists curse (give it to mobs) and aura (on boses) will also make game more challenging without:

"Whats you Fire Res m8? 5658466,5 Fire Rating lol"

BIG NO to rating resists, percentages are classic and you have sosmething to achieve (MAX)

You think flat %Res is a good mechanic AND you think that the Res penalty in D2 was good design.

So either you're 2 years old. Or you're a complete idio.
D2 resistance penalty was NOT good design. It was lazy design using horrendously outdated mechanics (because skills without attribute scalar is broken btw). That penalty only existed because you COULD get max resistance with literally two pieces of gear at the end of normal (boots+amulet can easily hit 75% resistances). Resistance ratings were introduced into games for a reason. It's better design and easier to balance.

Glad that atleast some people understand the logic behind it, and actually see that D2´s way of doing it was actually a badly done band aid.

"

Autocthon wrote:

So either you're 2 years old. Or you're a complete idio.

Or you actually enjoyed D2, and liked the fact that you could get negative resistances that made you in fact super-vulnerable to a type of magic.

"

gh0un wrote:

Anyone else think notevenhere is a 10 year old that contradicts his own post twice in less than 2 posts?

Please point out where I contradict myself. Or just resort to name calling.

You do know that not everyone on the internet is going to agree with you, right?

"

notevenhere wrote:

"

Autocthon wrote:

So either you're 2 years old. Or you're a complete idio.

Or you actually enjoyed D2, and liked the fact that you could get negative resistances that made you in fact super-vulnerable to a type of magic.

Stop posting, its embarassing.
If it wasnt bad design, blizzard would surely use the same method for diablo 3, but they too actually changed to a rating based system.

A rating based system makes it easy to make early encounters hard, but counterable by good equipment, without making later encounters trivial.

For example, merveil is considered tough for some classes now.
With a rating based system, you could make merveil deal double the amount of cold damage, without making it impossible to balance out with gear.

Lets say the 20% cold resistance rings granted 20 cold resistance rating instead.
Lets say at level 15, 20 cold resistance translates to something like 35% cold resistance.

If people go to merveil unprepared, they will get slaughtered by the double cold damage we just gave her.
However, if they wear two of these rings, they have 70% cold resistance and are safe against her attacks.

In the current system, this would mean that you have already easily maxed out on cold resistance, even in later stages of the game, thats why these rings dont actually grant 35%, but much less than that.

In a rating based system, this wouldnt mean anything for later stages of the game, because its a rating.
If it grants 70% resistance against merveil at lvl 15, it doesnt mean that it will grant 70% resistance against water elementals at lvl 20.

That is the purpose of a rating system.
You can make challenging encounters early on in the game, that encourages you to pick your equip purposefully, at the same time it doesnt screw over late game.

It also ensures that there is always better resistance gear to pick up.
Currently you can easily get maxed out on all resistances in normal difficulty.

This is good game design.
Not some fixed penalty bullshit from 10 years ago.

"

I don't want to have to stop and calculate how much 1235444 fire resistance means in percentage.

"

You look at the gear and decide if it's worth updating compared to what you are wearing. That's calculation. I calculate all the time if new weapons are worth it or not, because they have lots of %spell-this and %physical-that.

You actually got 4 contradictions in your two posts, but if you cant even find one on your own, its really not worth talking to you.

"

notevenhere wrote:

"

Autocthon wrote:

So either you're 2 years old. Or you're a complete idio.

Or you actually enjoyed D2, and liked the fact that you could get negative resistances that made you in fact super-vulnerable to a type of magic.

That's what %based curses are for.

Rating on gear -% on spells (or +% either way).

The negative resists built into the game were a band aid. They didn't exist because it as good design, they existed because the devs added resistances effectively as an afterthought. EVERY OTHER MECHANIC IN THE GAME was a points system, even the skill point system was points based with level based diminishing returns (not enough points in your primary attack, too bad you're screwed).

And then there was this one system... tha tcould get maxed resistances in LITERALLY two good items. An A5 hell mod player had -70 base resists. Boots+Amulet could crest over 80 resist on their own (you could get basically that amount by end of normal with a shield+boots combo too). In hell mode +resists was basically the only thing you worried about and could easily max it without really trying too hard with a few good items. Or just throwing RalOrtTal in a shield and picking up a good pair of rings. I think even with -50 resists in nightmare my necro is sitting at something like 60% resist all right now and that's without any real attempt to get resist gear.

All the good gear in the game trivializes the resistanc system anyway so it's not like the system was all that effective at making the game difficult. I ended normal with over 120% +resist gear. Can you actually call that a good system?

"

gh0un wrote:

"

I don't want to have to stop and calculate how much 1235444 fire resistance means in percentage.

"

You look at the gear and decide if it's worth updating compared to what you are wearing. That's calculation. I calculate all the time if new weapons are worth it or not, because they have lots of %spell-this and %physical-that.

You actually got 4 contradictions in your two posts, but if you cant even find one on your own, its really not worth talking to you.

There are no contradictions there. Stop taking it out of context. Just because you put half of it in bold doesn't invalidate the entire sentence.

"

I don't want to have to stop and calculate how much 1235444 fire resistance means in percentage.

You bolded the wrong half of that sentence in an effort to win an argument you've already lost.

I said I don't want to have to translate from rating numbers to percentage. Nothing I've said is a contradiction. Learn to read.