Sexy Lethal (not smash)!

[arthurh35353]

So the biggest flaw with smash and lethal is that it is heavily resisted by a lot of mobs, but just raising damage on it is bad, as that would just have you use that extra damage on mobs that don't resist S/L of course.

 

So let's turn it around. Make 10% to 20% of most Smash and Lethal Resistances (barring level differences and it can't give you a negative resistance level). So it's a buff against the foes that its considered a negative against... but does not actually effect mobs without S/L resistances at all.

 

(Added thought) And perhaps make it scale a bit to not make AV/GM fights too easy.  Full 10% unresisted S/L damage against minions/pets/lieutenants only only 5% against bosses and 2.5% against EB/AVs/GMs.

Edited March 3, 2021 by arthurh35353
More clear explanation.

[Replacement]

I think you're missing a word or 3 in your 2nd paragraph.  I think it's saying 10-20% of S/L should be flagged irresistible?

 

[SwitchFade]

Honestly, i don't really notice my toons that do "S/L" damage being all that much weaker to those that do exotic damage.

 

For example, my Katana/SR scrap is very powerful. Likewise my DB/EA Stalker. I'm not opposed to a review and improvement of S/L, IF the damage type is severely underperforming, but i really would like a quality set of data to be sure this is the case.

 

Currently, my S/L toons seem ok, even though i know that many foes resist this type more than others. I'll reserve an opinion to review data. =D

[arthurh35353]

17 minutes ago, Replacement said:

I think you're missing a word or 3 in your 2nd paragraph.  I think it's saying 10-20% of S/L should be flagged irresistible?

 

I updated it a few times as I thought through it. But I don't see any negatives against it other than it might be sort of tricky to program implement, but easier than updating the resistances of all mobs.

[ScarySai]

I'm pretty sure lethal sets, particularly the newer ones like Savage and the reworked version of claws were intentionally tuned up a bit to compensate for lethal damage.

 

Smashing damage isn't actually that highly resisted.

[Galaxy Brain]

1 hour ago, ScarySai said:

I'm pretty sure lethal sets, particularly the newer ones like Savage and the reworked version of claws were intentionally tuned up a bit to compensate for lethal damage.

 

Smashing damage isn't actually that highly resisted.

Lethal definitely is resisted a lot as it is both commonly resisted AND when it is resisted it is often significantly so. Few enemies are also specifically lethal weak.

 

On the flipside, while Smashing is often resisted, it is also usually less resisted than lethal is value wise (while many enemies have SL res in equal amounts tied together, many have specifically high lethal res of like 50% while some may resist smashing by like 20/25%). Many enemies also have specific weaknesses to Smashing such as Robots (which ironically laugh at lethal). 

 

TBH, I would rather there be many more enemies where them being "unarmored" makes them take more damage from lethal attacks. After all, why call it "Lethal" at all if it doesnt tear people up?

[Apparition]

I know @Captain Powerhouse mentioned something in 2019... I want to say around summer or autumn 2019?... anyway, that he planned to rebalance damage type resistances among all of the mobs.  Of course, that would be a huge project, so I don't know if it's still planned or sidelined.

[Razor Cure]

I really really notice Lethal vs robots..it is just SO painful to try kill anything. It really stands out on things like Citadel and Hess, where the rest on the Council get shredded by lethal, while the robots just laugh. Even more jarring because gonig up against an 'armoured' or seemingly robot AV (Vandal and Burkholder), the lethal attacks actually do close to 'normal' damage, because the Avs have lower resists to account for more hp.

Smashing..not so much, as others mention. I cant think of any specific mobs that feel painful to fight on Smashing toons, it is often less damage than I feel it 'should' be.

 

Compare these two sets (and I play a LOT of scrappers, who have about the best S/L damage) to other exotic types like Fire or the new Energy Melee. Fire melee (and blast) basically do great damage ALL teh time, even versus fire demons, which makes zero sense. Obviously fire has no real secondary effect, but even so.

Then the new EM. Has anyone comes up again a SINGLE mob type with Em, and thought 'wow, my attacks are super resisted here!' Because I know my EM scrapper hasnt. Its just amazing damage, all the time. WITH great secondary effects.

The S/L sets often have really good secondary effects, but that can make the poor (in some cases) damage stick out even more. My katana scrapper goes BAM on a robot with GoldenDragonly, jumpnig 5 foot in teh air and slamming them down. Wow, thats GOTTA hurt. Oh, he took 80 damage.

 

Looking at the newer sets (some of them), TW and StJ, both have a -res power. And Staff gets -res via combos. I think giving the S/L sets a -res one one power would help quite a bit. Likewise, Lethal really should have at least a few attacks that can make something bleed, with perhaps an unenhanceable, irresistable chance for DoT. Smashing..well..isnt as bad, so not sure what that could get.

 

[Riverdusk]

Yep, having just played a ton of war mace, I can't say I notice too many issues with smashing damage.  With lethal I definitely notice it.   We just fight too many dang robots in this game (and psi feels that even worse).

 

 

 

 

[BrandX]

StJ was awesome on a Scrapper.

 

However, that said, I take it part of the superhero tropes.  Maybe not lethal as much, but surviving smashing (blunt force trauma) is pretty standard superhero fair.

[arthurh35353]

I'm not sure that a minor -Res to Lethal would be the best fix, as it would be... well... resisted right along with Lethal damage. That's why I mentioned a small amount of lethal damage would be unresistable, basically rebalancing lethal damage sets (ranged or melee) so that they perform a bit better. Might even help sets that are 'okay' but do partial lethal damage.

[Tigraine]

21 hours ago, arthurh35353 said:

So let's turn it around. Make 10% to 20% of most Smash and Lethal Resistances (barring level differences and it can't give you a negative resistance level).

Yeah, I can't make heads or tails out of that sentence.  It looks like it ended too early, as though there should have been something after the closed parenthesis and before the period.  Or maybe before the open parenthesis?

[arthurh35353]

I thought I had cleared up my thought on it. Basically, a small amount of Lethal (but maybe not Smash) damage is marked unresistable. Maybe 10% to 20% to push the damage versus mobs closer to the other types (Energy, Dark, Fire, Cold, etc) in effectiveness. It would still scale versus level and would be (maybe) lower against Elitebosses and higher.

 

This is to improve Lethal damage sets so they compare in effectiveness against non-lethal power sets.

[Galaxy Brain]

15 hours ago, arthurh35353 said:

I thought I had cleared up my thought on it. Basically, a small amount of Lethal (but maybe not Smash) damage is marked unresistable. Maybe 10% to 20% to push the damage versus mobs closer to the other types (Energy, Dark, Fire, Cold, etc) in effectiveness. It would still scale versus level and would be (maybe) lower against Elitebosses and higher.

 

This is to improve Lethal damage sets so they compare in effectiveness against non-lethal power sets.

This is basically the same as lowering S/L res by that amount across all enemy types

[arthurh35353]

1 hour ago, Galaxy Brain said:

This is basically the same as lowering S/L res by that amount across all enemy types

Yes, but hopefully a little easier to work with and gives a twist on 'lethal being lethal'.

[BrandX]

1 hour ago, arthurh35353 said:

Yes, but hopefully a little easier to work with and gives a twist on 'lethal being lethal'.

 

I wouldn't want that to happen to Invulnerable for instance, which should be just as resistant to lethal as smashing.

[arthurh35353]

19 minutes ago, BrandX said:

 

I wouldn't want that to happen to Invulnerable for instance, which should be just as resistant to lethal as smashing.

This is a PvE change. Right now Lethal damage is slightly underperforming vs. mobs because they tend to have a higher level of lethal resistance.

[Galaxy Brain]

I would much rather lethal be a much more all or nothing damage type.

 

The name is *LETHAL*, blades, bullets, everything meant to tear through flesh, it makes sense that itd be the most defended against just like in days of old (well also now with bullet proof material, etc). Id rather it be the case where if an enemy is not armored, then lethal should hit MUCH HARDER than not. 

[arthurh35353]

4 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I would much rather lethal be a much more all or nothing damage type.

 

The name is *LETHAL*, blades, bullets, everything meant to tear through flesh, it makes sense that itd be the most defended against just like in days of old (well also now with bullet proof material, etc). Id rather it be the case where if an enemy is not armored, then lethal should hit MUCH HARDER than not. 

That's actually showcased by lethal defense as how the devs portray it. It literally pings off you to no effect (not all defense is misses, sometimes it's just no effect.)

[Uun]

There are quite a few factions that are weak to lethal damage - Carnies, BP chamber/husks, DE mushrooms, Hydra, Rularuu wisps, Vahz abominations/cadavers, Zombies. Personally, I think having foes resistant to certain damage types adds challenge to the game. The game does NOT need to be made easier.

[Alchemystic]

I'm gonna have to pass.

 

Sure, smashing/lethal is one of the most resisted types of damage, but it's also the most common, so it makes sense. There are few powersets that deal 'raw' smashing/lethal damage, and those that do have additional effects to increase their effectiveness. 

[arthurh35353]

51 minutes ago, Uun said:

There are quite a few factions that are weak to lethal damage - Carnies, BP chamber/husks, DE mushrooms, Hydra, Rularuu wisps, Vahz abominations/cadavers, Zombies. Personally, I think having foes resistant to certain damage types adds challenge to the game. The game does NOT need to be made easier.

There are some that are weak to lethal (or more accurately, not strong against it) but they have their own strengths. This idea does not actually increase any damage to those at all. It only slightly increases damage to the (on balance across mobs) those that have lethal resistance that are statistically shown to make lethal damage under perform against.

[Uun]

1 hour ago, arthurh35353 said:

or more accurately, not strong against it

No, less accurately. The factions listed take extra damage from lethal by design. Take a look at the spreadsheet linked below. It lists resistance by damage type for all the factions/enemies (as of 2008).

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20070309030440/http://www.culex.us/ig/CHres.xls

 

1 hour ago, arthurh35353 said:

It only slightly increases damage to the (on balance across mobs) those that have lethal resistance that are statistically shown to make lethal damage under perform against.

Working as intended. Hard no. Lethal damage doesn't need a buff.

[arthurh35353]

16 minutes ago, Uun said:

No, less accurately. The factions listed take extra damage from lethal by design. Take a look at the spreadsheet linked below. It lists resistance by damage type for all the factions/enemies (as of 2008).

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20070309030440/http://www.culex.us/ig/CHres.xls

 

Working as intended. Hard no. Lethal damage doesn't need a buff.

So they are designed to work less effectively than non-lethal sets? Suck it up?

[PeregrineFalcon]

If I want more damage I can go with Fire or Energy Melee. If I want more defense then I can go with Broadsword/Katana.

 

I always figured that balance was done on purpose by the devs.