Forums › English Language Forums › General › Suggestions

Recherche

Why Double-Specialized Damage Weapons Can Work

6 Réponses [Dernière contribution]
ven, 10/04/2013 - 20:11
Portrait de Draycos
Draycos

Argent Peacemaker and Sentenza used to have split damage types and for some reason that was taboo. Here's why, statistically, dual-special damage is doable:

Piercing/Shadow

Strong: Gremlins, Beasts
Neutral: Fiends, Jellies
Weak:Constructs, Undead

Piercing/Elemental

Strong: Undead, Fiends
Neutral: Constructs, Beasts
Weak: Jellies, Gremlins

Elemental/Shadow

Strong: Jellies, Constructs
Neutral: Gremlins, Undead
Weak: Beasts, Fiends

Two super-effectives, two neutrals, two ineffectives, just like with pure special damage.

ven, 10/04/2013 - 20:17
#1
Portrait de Whimsicality
Whimsicality

That's not how damage works.

ven, 10/04/2013 - 20:20
#2
Portrait de Whimsicality
Whimsicality

The damage reduction multiplier is higher than the damage boosting multiplier. Retro AP would not be effective on constructs, as the piercing resistance reduces more damage than the elemental weakness boosted.

ven, 10/04/2013 - 21:50
#3
Portrait de Zeddy
Zeddy

Dual-special damage didn't work that way at all. For that matter, pure special doesn't work that way either.

Old Radiant Sun Shards, depth 24

  • 466 piercing/elemental damage.
  • 263 damage versus undeads.
  • 196 damage versus beasts.
  • 124 damage versus slimes.

Combuster, depth 24

  • 473 elemental/normal damage.
  • 270 damage versus undeads.
  • 198 damage versus slimes.
  • 128 damage versus gremlins.

Graviton Vortex, depth 24

  • 332 shadow damage.
  • 266 damage versus gremlins.
  • 201 damage versus beasts.
  • 43 damage versus undeads.

At first, it would seem RSS behaves a lot like Combuster. However, let's apply Max damage bonus. And, oh, let's use Deadly Cloak while we're at it. This equates to a 124% * 140% = 173.6% damage modifier.

Old Radiant Sun Shards, depth 24

  • 809 piercing/elemental damage.
  • 612 damage versus undeads.
  • 391 damage versus beasts.
  • 325 damage versus slimes.

Combuster, depth 24

  • 821 elemental/normal damage.
  • 624 damage versus gremlins.
  • 559 damage versus beasts.
  • 332 damage versus undeads.

As you can quite plainly see, compared to Combuster , RSS had two families it was strong against and four it was weak against while Combuster has four families it's strong against and two it's weak against. Of course, this shows itself best at large amounts of base damage.

Still, I see no reason why they had to be removed while split-normal weapons didn't. The split normal weapons are plainly overpowered, and a lot, if not all of it has to do with the split-damage nature of them.

sam, 10/05/2013 - 06:03
#4
Portrait de Geosmin
Geosmin

I wish we could have kept those split-abNormal types, because I rather like how they act as "anti-types," with which OOO could do fun themed things like, say, a Shadow damage weapon that inflicts Freeze and a "Radiant" damage weapon that inflicts Fire, as well as more practical things like offering weapons whose damage types dovetail with other single weapons.

I too am failing to see plausible reason to remove the anti-types from the game; I can understand changing to a more familiar type out of fear of making an adjustment and getting it wrong, but since the change came with the epic Shard Bomb overhaul I can't see such fear as a plausible explanation. I'm very nearly sure I recall correctly that LD was introduced before the big change, so does any one here have much memory of how the old RSS and Jelly guns fared there? Were they way outta line, (or, rather, outta point cloud with just barely enough bias to force a linear regression if you push hard enough?) compared to whichever weapons people currently complain about seeing every clone and its grandma using?

The numbers provided for unboosted damage are a bit different from what I've been imagining they'd look like. I expected that, when adjusted for overall greater monster family resistances, anti-types would behave most similarly to half-Normal types, except that I would have predicted that intermediate values would fall noticeably lower in that range. Instead, to me the actual numbers look like those for half-Normal, without that difference.

Do your data show that the disparity in benefit from damage boosts for big-hit, half-Normal weapons like most swords relative to closest single-type counterparts is much milder than the disparity in proportionate boost between hitspammers (like Cutter, Jelly guns & Autoguns) and heavy-hitters? I did not consciously notice a difference for half-Normal vs. single-bar types when I was bringing swords to almost every level, but I was struck by how dramatically my Autoguns gain compared to my other weapons.

sam, 10/05/2013 - 06:32
#5
Portrait de Little-Juances
Little-Juances

And where's the suggestion? This seems like an arsenal discussion. X_X

dim, 10/06/2013 - 09:57
#6
Portrait de Draycos
Draycos

Well, yeah, certain enemies have massively increased resistance towards their "defended" type, sure. That's another issue and I hate that too.

Just saying, ideally, if boost/reduce modifiers were equal across the board, double-special weapons are a realistic idea.

Créé avec l'aide de Drupal, un système de gestion de contenu "opensource"