I Find Myself Becoming More And More Bitter As The Days Progress

[KvotheTheArcane1]

Actually read up on how Damage 2.0 works before you make that kind of statement. Unless an enemy actually *has* an armour value, then no kind of reduction is applied.

Last I checked, DE said yellow bar = armored.

 

Further, the damage reduction from armour only applies when armour is being directly damaged e.g. when you're hitting a Grineer directly. If you're hitting a shield, a health-based enemy (for instance), then no damage reduction is being applied from armour because they don't have any. The only reduction that takes place is if the elemental damage you've equipped has modifiers to the particular nature of that enemy, such as Cold damage being reduced when used against Infested flesh-based enemies (50%).

Well yeah, it's always been that way, I didn't think I needed to specify "non shield damage", and IIRC armor is not ablative so do try shooting a few armor grineer, your damage should always remain the same on the enemy. (i.e. if you're hitting for say, 10 damage, every non crit/headshot should be 10 damage). It seems like one of two things:

 

1. You damage armor and HP at the same time or

2. The number listed is the armor value (i.e. how in D1.0 grineer had 200 armor)

 

either way armor still has the same problems.

 

In the case of armour itself, the nature of the equation used to calculate damage reduction has diminishing returns, such that more armour does correlate to a linear increase in damage reduction. So scaling has, in fact, been rather neatly fixed.

...Were you around in D1.0? Because D1.0 had diminishing returns too, and that didn't seem to help. The problem with armor thus:

 

1. Armor increases effective HP by making HP take less damage.

2. Armor DR is not capped.

3. Which means the scaling has not been fixed

 

(and linear is not what you think it means because otherwise armor would hit 100% eventually, which means all (non shield since I have to say it apparently) damage is reduced by 100%.)

[OptimumBow0]

it's like this Optimum guy, have zero prespective but still is trying to prove something.

Wow. I'd try harder but I don't want to get into any mud-slinging. It's like trying to tell an Aethiest that Jesus loves them.

Well yeah, it's always been that way, I didn't think I needed to specify "non shield damage", and IIRC armor is not ablative so do try shooting a few armor grineer, your damage should always remain the same on the enemy. (i.e. if you're hitting for say, 10 damage, every non crit/headshot should be 10 damage). It seems like one of two things:

 

1. You damage armor and HP at the same time or

2. The number listed is the armor value (i.e. how in D1.0 grineer had 200 armor)

 

either way armor still has the same problems.

 

...Were you around in D1.0? Because D1.0 had diminishing returns too, and that didn't seem to help. The problem with armor thus:

1. Armor increases effective HP by making HP take less damage.

2. Armor DR is not capped.

3. Which means the scaling has not been fixed

(and linear is not what you think it means because otherwise armor would hit 100% eventually, which means all (non shield since I have to say it apparently) damage is reduced by 100%.)

What? Can you summarize this? Also, if it's relevant, does enemy armor even increase between levels or between level ranges?

[KvotheTheArcane1]

What? Can you summarize this? Also, if it's relevant, does enemy armor even increase between levels or between level ranges?

More or less, as the enemy gets higher and higher in terms of levels, it'll have more armor, which decreases how much damage it takes. (i.e. lvl 1 grineer might have say, 66% reduction while a level 10 would have 71% (using D1.0 numbers there).

[Sparrohawk]

Last I checked, DE said yellow bar = armored.

 

Nothing I said invalidated that.

 

 

Well yeah, it's always been that way, I didn't think I needed to specify "non shield damage", and IIRC armor is not ablative so do try shooting a few armor grineer, your damage should always remain the same on the enemy. (i.e. if you're hitting for say, 10 damage, every non crit/headshot should be 10 damage). 

 

That depends entirely on what portion of the damage your talking about. What proportions are the Impact, Puncture and Slash Damage? What Elemental mods are being used?

 

 

It seems like one of two things:

 

1. You damage armor and HP at the same time or

2. The number listed is the armor value (i.e. how in D1.0 grineer had 200 armor)

 

either way armor still has the same problems.

 

I don't follow your reasoning, nor how what you say translates to armour having a problem.

 

 

...Were you around in D1.0? Because D1.0 had diminishing returns too, and that didn't seem to help. The problem with armor thus:

 

1. Armor increases effective HP by making HP take less damage.

2. Armor DR is not capped.

3. Which means the scaling has not been fixed

 

(and linear is not what you think it means because otherwise armor would hit 100% eventually, which means all (non shield since I have to say it apparently) damage is reduced by 100%.)

 

Yes, I was around for Damage 1.0.

 

The two points you make do not indicate that armour scaling is problematic. Actually read the damage 2.0 information under Armour on the wiki. A lack of armour cap is far less relevant, as an enemy with (hypothetically) 1000 armour is not 10x more effective at reducing armour as an enemy with 100 armour. 

 

And I found a typo in my earlier post, which has been fixed. I can see how you may have become confused as it was contradicting my earlier statement. I'll repost the statement here:

 

In the case of armour itself, the nature of the equation used to calculate damage reduction has diminishing returns, such that more armour *does not* correlate to a linear increase in damage reduction. So scaling has, in fact, been rather neatly fixed.

[KvotheTheArcane1]

That depends entirely on what portion of the damage your talking about. What proportions are the Impact, Puncture and Slash Damage? What Elemental mods are being used?

It doesn't matter, I'm saying go shoot an enemy who can take a few bullets, pick grineer lancers for example, shoot them with an unmodded gun, each shot until they die should do the exact same damage.

 

I don't follow your reasoning, nor how what you say translates to armour having a problem.

Armor scales forever, and that's not a problem?

 

The two points you make do not indicate that armour scaling is problematic. Actually read the damage 2.0 information under Armour on the wiki. A lack of armour cap is far less relevant, as an enemy with (hypothetically) 1000 armour is not 10x more effective at reducing armour as an enemy with 100 armour.

...but they are more effective, because armor multiplicatively increases HP (i.e. 50% armor means 50% more HP). Is armor scaling better now? Yeah, it takes longer for it to get stupidly high, and fewer units have it, but it's still there.

 

In the case of armour itself, the nature of the equation used to calculate damage reduction has diminishing returns, such that more armour *does not* correlate to a linear increase in damage reduction. So scaling has, in fact, been rather neatly fixed.

It never was linear. The difference between a lvl 1k and 2k enemy (using grineer lancer) in armor in D1.0 was 0.2% (99.68 vs 99.88 DR), but the gap is over 50k in actual armor. Meanwhile, the difference between a level 1 and level 2 enemy is roughly 0.88%, but it had a change of 2 armor. (lvl 1 was 200 armor, level 2 was 202)

 

So again, it still has the same problem, it's just not as widespread as it was D1.0.

[OptimumBow0]

Well, DE gave us a way to virtually bypass armor: Corrosive Damage!

[Sparrohawk]

It doesn't matter, I'm saying go shoot an enemy who can take a few bullets, pick grineer lancers for example, shoot them with an unmodded gun, each shot until they die should do the exact same damage.

 

And your point?

 

Armor scales forever, and that's not a problem?

 

Nope. Because there's a limit on the level of the enemies you fight and thus the armour values they can posses; check the equation. The limited armour values are implicit within the system.

 

 

...but they are more effective, because armor multiplicatively increases HP (i.e. 50% armor means 50% more HP).

 

No. That's my point; it increases effective HP less and less as armour increases. Your statement may be true, but only at one single point along the damage mitigation curve.

 

Is armor scaling better now? Yeah, it takes longer for it to get stupidly high, and fewer units have it, but it's still there.

 

So a removal of a problem for most Infested and Corpus troops, and an alteration to the way it works (that you don't seem to fully understand) to Grineer, and you still consider it a problem? I submit that very little will ever satisfy you.

 

 

It never was linear. The difference between a lvl 1k and 2k enemy (using grineer lancer) in armor in D1.0 was 0.2% (99.68 vs 99.88 DR), but the gap is over 50k in actual armor. Meanwhile, the difference between a level 1 and level 2 enemy is roughly 0.88%, but it had a change of 2 armor. (lvl 1 was 200 armor, level 2 was 202)

 

Again, your point?

 

 

Well, DE gave us a way to virtually bypass armor: Corrosive Damage!

 

Yeah, I suspect that's a reason that type of damage is so very useful.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Sparrohawk

[KvotheTheArcane1]

Well, DE gave us a way to virtually bypass armor: Corrosive Damage!

That doesn't bypass armor, it reduces it for a short duration, and only on a proc, and procs (due to status chance) rarely happen.

 

And your point?

...I'm trying to show you, armor is not ablative like you think it is.

Nope. Because there's a limit on the level of the enemies you fight and thus the armour values they can posses; check the equation. The limited armour values are implicit within the system.

There is no limit because of ED/Survival.

 

mitigation multiplier = 1 - (Armor / (Armor + 300)) the exact formula, nothing there about a cap or a limit to armor or DR.

No. That's my point; it increases effective HP less and less as armour increases. Your statement may be true, but only at one single point along the damage mitigation curve.

 ...Which is how it's always worked. (bold/italics/underline so you'll read that)

 

So a removal of a problem for most Infested and Corpus troops, and an alteration to the way it works (that you don't seem to fully understand) to Grineer, and you still consider it a problem? I submit that very little will ever satisfy you.

...except it's still on an entire faction. All it takes to fix it is to limit the DR to say, 75% for example. Is it a problem? Yes. As big as D1.0? No. Was D2.0 supposed to fix this? Yes. Did it? Yes and no.

 

I submit you're oversimplifying my arguments (see strawman)

 

Again, your point?

You keep acting like diminishing returns was just added in D2.0, do you even know how D1.0 armor worked? Honest question there, because you don't really seem to, so I'll repeat.

 

It was always diminishing returns. Stop touting it as something new to D2.0.

 

Yeah, I suspect that's a reason that type of damage is so very useful.

Yeah, the 75% damage bonus has nothing to do with that.

 

People don't build for procs because procs rarely happen. People build for what will give them the most damage, minus a few weapons that have a decent enough proc chance.

Edited January 5, 2014 by KvotheTheArcane1

[OptimumBow0]

Yeah, the 75% damage bonus has nothing to do with that.

 

People don't build for procs because procs rarely happen. People build for what will give them the most damage, minus a few weapons that have a decent enough proc chance.

Precisely why I said it. Especially since people can find ways to mod up their elemental damage into the thousands.

 

But face it: Dmg 2.0 is an improvement upon Dmg 1.0 and is not a wholly terrible system. 

 

Blast Damage on a Shotgun was the best thing DE ever did for this game. (Oh the CROWD CONTROL!!!!)

[JerryMouse13]

Kvothe you do realize that given the wording of your argument you are in essence arguing against scaling enemies period right?

[KvotheTheArcane1]

Precisely why I said it. Especially since people can find ways to mod up their elemental damage into the thousands.

 

But face it: Dmg 2.0 is an improvement upon Dmg 1.0 and is not a wholly terrible system. 

 

Blast Damage on a Shotgun was the best thing DE ever did for this game. (Oh the CROWD CONTROL!!!!)

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, D2.0 > D1.0 in general. My only issue is armor left on grineer really, and maybe the system for newer players (as they don't have all the elements they need now that infested have been removed from the solar system)

 

Kvothe you do realize that given the wording of your argument you are in essence arguing against scaling enemies period right?

Nope, not true, enemies have to scale, and it's mostly armor I'm against because of how it works. If a grineer has 100 HP, but also has 99.9% DR, that's too much scaling. WF simply relies on scaling too much since the AI is dumber than a bag of hammers. (which is to say it's incredibly basic)

Edited January 5, 2014 by KvotheTheArcane1

[Angius]

Both OP posts upvoted so hard, that I almost broke my mouse.

 

I agree with every single sentence, every single word.

[Sparrohawk]

That doesn't bypass armor, it reduces it for a short duration, and only on a proc, and procs (due to status chance) rarely happen.

 

The duration is longer that 20 seconds, and can reduce armour to the point that it becomes irrelevant. If you look at the page for Corrosive Damage on the wiki, you'll see under Media that someone has shown that armour can be reduced by 100%. 

 

...I'm trying to show you, armor is not ablative like you think it is.

There is no limit because of ED/Survival.

 

I never said armour was ablative.

 

And frankly, if you're at the point where armour scaling is going to be ridiculous in an ED or Survival mission, the fact that you've stayed that long implies that your weapons are deadly enough to warrant some insanity. You're talking about missions that are on the very high end of the difficulty curve, and shouldn't be generalised to other situations. The fact that an extreme example can exist in the current system does not invalidate its mechanics.

 

 

mitigation multiplier = 1 - (Armor / (Armor + 300)) the exact formula, nothing there about a cap or a limit to armor or DR.

 ...Which is how it's always worked. (bold/italics/underline so you'll read that)

 

From the wiki: Scaling of enemy armor values uses the following formula:

total Armor = base Armor + (base Armor * 0.0025 * ((current Level - base Level) ^ 2.5))

The level of the enemy is coded into the equation that generates the mitigation multiplier. Hence, because things level so much more slowly than they used to, it imposes a soft, but still strict limit on the amount of scaling.

...except it's still on an entire faction. All it takes to fix it is to limit the DR to say, 75% for example. Is it a problem? Yes. As big as D1.0? No. Was D2.0 supposed to fix this? Yes. Did it? Yes and no.

 

I submit you're oversimplifying my arguments (see strawman)

 

You use the fact that it's an entire faction as a point in your favour, when two entire factions do not have this issue. Not to mention that it's not even the entire faction of the Grineer that have armour. If you want to use a strict numeric value in this way, it's not very convincing. I'm not oversimplifying anything.

 

 

You keep acting like diminishing returns was just added in D2.0, do you even know how D1.0 armor worked? Honest question there, because you don't really seem to, so I'll repeat.

 

It was always diminishing returns. Stop touting it as something new to D2.0.

 

Yes, I'm aware of how it worked. I never said diminishing returns was new to damage 2.0. What I did say is that it's implementation, considered in full with the rest of the damage system, make armour scaling far less of an issue now.

 

 

Yeah, the 75% damage bonus has nothing to do with that.

 

People don't build for procs because procs rarely happen. People build for what will give them the most damage, minus a few weapons that have a decent enough proc chance.

 

The 75% damage bonus applies to Ferrite-based enemies only. From the wiki:

 

• Cloned Flesh: Refers to all humanoid Grineers, including bosses.
• Ferrite Armor: Possessed by Lancers, Troopers, Seekers, Corrupted/Heavy Gunners, Commanders and all Grineer melee units. Humanoid Corpus bosses are also classified in this.
• Alloy Armor: Possessed by Corrupted Lancers, Elite Lancers, Eviscerators, Bombards, Napalms, Grineer bosses, Corpus Robotic bosses andStalker.
• Machinery: Includes Rollers, Regulator and Latchers.

So the damage bonus is relevant, and yet, still not as relevant given how dangerous enemies like Eviscerators are. 

 

In regards to procs: Consider that an easily killed enemy will, by definition, require fewer hits. A more difficult to kill enemy will require more hits, and probabilistically, will be more likely to suffer a proc. If you have a corrosive weapon on a heavily armoured enemy, it's quite likely that the enemy in question will suffer the very effect you need to occur in order to kill it more easily. The low status chance is in many cases illusive because there's so many chances for a proc to occur.

[JerryMouse13]

 

Nope, not true, enemies have to scale, and it's mostly armor I'm against because of how it works. If a grineer has 100 HP, but also has 99.9% DR, that's too much scaling. WF simply relies on scaling too much since the AI is dumber than a bag of hammers. (which is to say it's incredibly basic)

 

Except for the fact that in the end it doesn't matter whether or not an enemy has an EHP pool of 1000 by having a health pool of 1000, or by having 90% damage mitigation and a health pool of 100. The only thing that matters is that the EHP pool of the enemies you face is a reasonable total for the level of the mission.

 

Aside from that, the only place where armor scaling is a factor now is Grineer survival or defense (with the potential exception of bosses).

 

You are in effect complaining about the potentially infinite growth of enemies, in a potentially infinite game mode that features harder enemies over time.

[bakaxy]

Coming back to the game and there are even bigger issues than before.

 

And encrypting their data, so people can't call them out is pretty underhanded.

 

Btw my beloved infested... :(

 

p.s.: sad that Ced left his position as Com Mod because of some very bad business practices, I always respected him for what he did

Edited January 5, 2014 by bakaxy

[KvotheTheArcane1]

The duration is longer that 20 seconds, and can reduce armour to the point that it becomes irrelevant. If you look at the page for Corrosive Damage on the wiki, you'll see under Media that someone has shown that armour can be reduced by 100%. 

...for each enemy it happens to proc on, and only if it procs.

I never said armour was ablative.

 

And frankly, if you're at the point where armour scaling is going to be ridiculous in an ED or Survival mission, the fact that you've stayed that long implies that your weapons are deadly enough to warrant some insanity. You're talking about missions that are on the very high end of the difficulty curve, and shouldn't be generalised to other situations. The fact that an extreme example can exist in the current system does not invalidate its mechanics.

Mm, my bad, it was from back when we we're talking about shields, I misinterpreted it

 

And I'm not against scaling of armor, only up to a certain point since both armor and HP scale.

From the wiki: Scaling of enemy armor values uses the following formula:

total Armor = base Armor + (base Armor * 0.0025 * ((current Level - base Level) ^ 2.5))

The level of the enemy is coded into the equation that generates the mitigation multiplier. Hence, because things level so much more slowly than they used to, it imposes a soft, but still strict limit on the amount of scaling.

Ah, grabbed the wrong formula, my bad, however it doesn't impose any kind of cap whatsoever, it didn't in D1.0 and doesn't in D2.0, because the "soft cap" you're talking about was around in D1.0 too, and it didn't help there. (original being "base armor + base armor * .01 * (current level-base level) ^ 1.4").

 

You use the fact that it's an entire faction as a point in your favour, when two entire factions do not have this issue. Not to mention that it's not even the entire faction of the Grineer that have armour. If you want to use a strict numeric value in this way, it's not very convincing. I'm not oversimplifying anything.

2 entire factions which shouldn't have had it in the first place. And actually, if you checked the codex/wiki, everything does have armor, lowest being butchers/flameblades/powerfists.

 

Yes, I'm aware of how it worked. I never said diminishing returns was new to damage 2.0. What I did say is that it's implementation, considered in full with the rest of the damage system, make armour scaling far less of an issue now.

Which is what I'm saying too, scaling is less of an issue, but it's still there, and it was the reason D1.0 was changed.

The 75% damage bonus applies to Ferrite-based enemies only. From the wiki:

 

• Cloned Flesh: Refers to all humanoid Grineers, including bosses.
• Ferrite Armor: Possessed by Lancers, Troopers, Seekers, Corrupted/Heavy Gunners, Commanders and all Grineer melee units. Humanoid Corpus bosses are also classified in this.
• Alloy Armor: Possessed by Corrupted Lancers, Elite Lancers, Eviscerators, Bombards, Napalms, Grineer bosses, Corpus Robotic bosses andStalker.
• Machinery: Includes Rollers, Regulator and Latchers.

So the damage bonus is relevant, and yet, still not as relevant given how dangerous enemies like Eviscerators are. 

...and fossilized enemies (mostly ancients), so again, it's taken because it gives a +75% damage bonus, not because it reduces armor, because procs are so low they barely help kill enemies unless it's extreme (i.e. viral, since it cuts HP in half for a bit IIRC).

 

And most of the grineer have ferrite armor, so it gives a large bonus vs pretty much all grineer units.

 

In regards to procs: Consider that an easily killed enemy will, by definition, require fewer hits. A more difficult to kill enemy will require more hits, and probabilistically, will be more likely to suffer a proc. If you have a corrosive weapon on a heavily armoured enemy, it's quite likely that the enemy in question will suffer the very effect you need to occur in order to kill it more easily. The low status chance is in many cases illusive because there's so many chances for a proc to occur.

However with the chance being so low, you either need to put a lot of bullets on them for it to happen (either via shotgun method or machinegun method), but again, people take element combos for the most damage because it's the best reliable method of increasing damage (corrosive vs grineer, slash vs infested, magnetic for corpus i.e.), and the chance of procing on any single enemy is very low.

 

Vs bosses, or even some heavies, sure procs can work, but those are very few in number, i.e. I'm not gonna take viral vs infested even though it cuts HP in half, it does less damage to some of them (chargers and leapers mostly, both of which are very common), I'd much rather take say, gas than viral because it gives a damage bonus to more enemies.

 

Except for the fact that in the end it doesn't matter whether or not an enemy has an EHP pool of 1000 by having a health pool of 1000, or by having 90% damage mitigation and a health pool of 100. The only thing that matters is that the EHP pool of the enemies you face is a reasonable total for the level of the mission.

I am complaining because both HP and armor scale, with no hard cap on armor it really becomes a problem because both scale indefinitely. Again, you're blowing this out of proportion, I said my only remaining problem was with enemies having armor scaling still, and like I've said, they have reduced the amount of enemies with armor, and slowed down the scaling.

 

It does matter though if an enemy has enough armor to the point where 1% of your damage makes it through, then you'll probably run dry on ammo fairly fast.

 

Aside from that, the only place where armor scaling is a factor now is Grineer survival or defense (with the potential exception of bosses).

 

You are in effect complaining about the potentially infinite growth of enemies, in a potentially infinite game mode that features harder enemies over time.

I am in fact (not in effect) complaining because ridiculous scaling is not a proper way to do difficulty.

[JerryMouse13]

...for each enemy it happens to proc on, and only if it procs.

Mm, my bad, it was from back when we we're talking about shields, I misinterpreted it

 

And I'm not against scaling of armor, only up to a certain point since both armor and HP scale.

Ah, grabbed the wrong formula, my bad, however it doesn't impose any kind of cap whatsoever, it didn't in D1.0 and doesn't in D2.0, because the "soft cap" you're talking about was around in D1.0 too, and it didn't help there. (original being "base armor + base armor * .01 * (current level-base level) ^ 1.4").

 

2 entire factions which shouldn't have had it in the first place. And actually, if you checked the codex/wiki, everything does have armor, lowest being butchers/flameblades/powerfists.

 

Which is what I'm saying too, scaling is less of an issue, but it's still there, and it was the reason D1.0 was changed.

...and fossilized enemies (mostly ancients), so again, it's taken because it gives a +75% damage bonus, not because it reduces armor, because procs are so low they barely help kill enemies unless it's extreme (i.e. viral, since it cuts HP in half for a bit IIRC).

 

And most of the grineer have ferrite armor, so it gives a large bonus vs pretty much all grineer units.

 

However with the chance being so low, you either need to put a lot of bullets on them for it to happen (either via shotgun method or machinegun method), but again, people take element combos for the most damage because it's the best reliable method of increasing damage (corrosive vs grineer, slash vs infested, magnetic for corpus i.e.), and the chance of procing on any single enemy is very low.

 

Vs bosses, or even some heavies, sure procs can work, but those are very few in number, i.e. I'm not gonna take viral vs infested even though it cuts HP in half, it does less damage to some of them (chargers and leapers mostly, both of which are very common), I'd much rather take say, gas than viral because it gives a damage bonus to more enemies.

 

I am complaining because both HP and armor scale, with no hard cap on armor it really becomes a problem because both scale indefinitely. Again, you're blowing this out of proportion, I said my only remaining problem was with enemies having armor scaling still, and like I've said, they have reduced the amount of enemies with armor, and slowed down the scaling.

 

It does matter though if an enemy has enough armor to the point where 1% of your damage makes it through, then you'll probably run dry on ammo fairly fast.

 

I am in fact (not in effect) complaining because ridiculous scaling is not a proper way to do difficulty.

 

Kvothe I don't think you fully recognize just how inconsequential armor is in the grand scheme of things right now.

 

I just got done running a Grineer defense mission on Ceres. We only stayed 20 minutes which was just enough for us to star seeing lvl 31 enemies, the most common of which were elite lancers. Now using the formulas from the wiki, I crunched some quick numbers, and found out that a level 31 elite lacer has roughly 712 armor, or in other words 70% damage mitigation. 

 

Kvothe, I was one-shoting them with my Latron, I've only formaed this thing once, my serration is only rank 8, and my HC is only rank 6. Yet that was enough to completely trivialize the greater portion of the enemy opposition. I can only begin to imagine the levels of slaughter someone with a maxed Soma could cause.

 

So unless you're honestly telling me that lvl 200 enemies should be the same difficulty as a lvl 40 you don't have a legitimate argument at this point.

[KvotheTheArcane1]

Kvothe, I was one-shoting them with my Latron, I've only formaed this thing once, my serration is only rank 8, and my HC is only rank 6. Yet that was enough to completely trivialize the greater portion of the enemy opposition. I can only begin to imagine the levels of slaughter someone with a maxed Soma could cause.

Headshots? Other mods? the mostly puncture damage adds roughly 50% more damage, with headshots doubling that, with just those mods you'd be dealing only ~86 damage after the total calculation (base damage + only counting the puncture damage + headshots), which I find hard to believe. (or ~104 if you mean latron prime)

 

So, what was your full build is what I'm asking. Split chamber, plus HC/serration, plus corrosive I assume?

[Sparrohawk]

...for each enemy it happens to proc on, and only if it procs.

 

The fact that more difficult to kill enemies will require more shots to kill increases the likelihood of the proc.

 

 

Ah, grabbed the wrong formula, my bad, however it doesn't impose any kind of cap whatsoever, it didn't in D1.0 and doesn't in D2.0, because the "soft cap" you're talking about was around in D1.0 too, and it didn't help there. (original being "base armor + base armor * .01 * (current level-base level) ^ 1.4").

 

No, it didn't help there, because the enemies could escalate to such a level that the numeric value used in the calculations was so high as to make the mitigation ridiculous. It's why everything got scaled down as far as it did when they crunched the level variance.

 

 

2 entire factions which shouldn't have had it in the first place. And actually, if you checked the codex/wiki, everything does have armor, lowest being butchers/flameblades/powerfists.

 

 And now they don't have it; what are you arguing? 

No, not everything has armour. Only the enemies with a yellowed health bar have armour values at all.

 

 

Which is what I'm saying too, scaling is less of an issue, but it's still there, and it was the reason D1.0 was changed.

...and fossilized enemies (mostly ancients), so again, it's taken because it gives a +75% damage bonus, not because it reduces armor, because procs are so low they barely help kill enemies unless it's extreme (i.e. viral, since it cuts HP in half for a bit IIRC).

 

A new system has rendered armour scaling less of an issue, yes. Insane scaling still occurs, yes, but only in rather extreme situations, which does not invalidate the new system.

 

And you can't state why people take Corrosive damage as being solely for a damage bonus. Damage bonuses from mods are applied before damage mitigation is applied, so a 75% increase isn't that effective on an insanely armoured enemy. However, when/after the Corrosive proc occurs, the damage bonus becomes far more relevant. And if I expend half a clip of Corrosive Soma rounds on one of the tougher Grineer (for instance), that means that I've fired 50 shots, each with a 7% chance of activating the proc. The probability of a proc under such circumstances is quite high. A Soma's status chance is 7%. In order to calculate if a proc can occur at least once within 50 shots, you run the following equation:

1 - (1-.07)^50 = .97 = 97%

 

Where .07 is the proc chance of a Soma expressed numerically and 50 is the number of instances of the probability calculation occurring i.e. number of shots.

 

Therefore the likelihood of a proc occurring at least once is actually remarkably high. You'd be very unlucky not to get a proc at all. The more shots you fire, the higher the odds of getting a proc. So even a profoundly armour scaled enemy will suffer an armour reduction from a Corrosive proc that makes them more far easier to kill. A viral proc, as you note, has a similar usefulness with powerful enemies.

 

 

I am complaining because both HP and armor scale, with no hard cap on armor it really becomes a problem because both scale indefinitely. Again, you're blowing this out of proportion, I said my only remaining problem was with enemies having armor scaling still, and like I've said, they have reduced the amount of enemies with armor, and slowed down the scaling.

 

HP scaling is an issue if you have a very powerful weapon correctly modded doing massive damage with no apparent effect. I personally have never seen an occasion like this. 

 

I am in fact (not in effect) complaining because ridiculous scaling is not a proper way to do difficulty.

 

As a sole method, no, it is not. Happily, they mentioned in Livestream 19 that the AI is being worked upon and may get updated in Update 12.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Sparrohawk

[JerryMouse13]

Headshots? Other mods? the mostly puncture damage adds roughly 50% more damage, with headshots doubling that, with just those mods you'd be dealing only ~86 damage after the total calculation (base damage + only counting the puncture damage + headshots), which I find hard to believe. (or ~104 if you mean latron prime)

 

So, what was your full build is what I'm asking. Split chamber, plus HC/serration, plus corrosive I assume?

 

Standard Latron (I hate the pathetic pew pew of the prime.)

 

mods:

Max split chamber

rank 8 serration

rank 6 HC

Max Hellfire

Max stormbringer

Max Fast hands

 

damage:

40 impact

190 puncture

40 slash

489 radiation

 

 

Elite lancers have alloy armor, instead of Ferrite, so they only take 15% extra from puncture, but they take 75% extra from radiation.

 

 

Corrosive damage is actually lackluster against the Grineer in the long run. The most dangerous enemies (Napalms, Bombards, Eviscerators) are all alloy armor types, against which corrosive is neutral. The best way to go from purely damage based standpoint is radiation (which deals 75% extra damage vs alloy), and viral (which deals 75% extra damage vs all Grineer, with the exception of rollers).

Edited January 5, 2014 by JerryMouse13

[KvotheTheArcane1]

The fact that more difficult to kill enemies will require more shots to kill increases the likelihood of the proc.

Sure, the more damage they take, the more chances for a proc, but at the same time, the proc's chance is still awfully low to really be of any use.

 

No, it didn't help there, because the enemies could escalate to such a level that the numeric value used in the calculations was so high as to make the mitigation ridiculous. It's why everything got scaled down as far as it did when they crunched the level variance.

That didn't really change anything, supposedly lvl 40 is the new lvl 100, and again, they slowed down armor scaling, but they didn't really "fix" it.

 

 And now they don't have it; what are you arguing? 

No, not everything has armour. Only the enemies with a yellowed health bar have armour values at all.

D1.0 everything but maybe ~7-8 enemies had armor. And I meant grineer had armor, check the codex, check the wiki, "Ferrite armor", right there

 

And robots have a yellow bar, however I haven't tested to see if this means they have armor or not, so that might or might not be correct.

 

A new system has rendered armour scaling less of an issue, yes. Insane scaling still occurs, yes, but only in rather extreme situations, which does not invalidate the new system.

And I never said it did, but it is very noticeable once they start getting to roughly lvl 50ish (T3 defense/survival can easily get here for example).

Where .07 is the proc chance of a Soma expressed numerically and 50 is the number of instances of the probability calculation occurring i.e. per shot.

 

Therefore the likelihood of a proc occurring at least once is actually remarkably high. You'd be very unlucky not to get a proc at all. The more shots you fire, the higher the odds of getting a proc. So even a profoundly armour scaled enemy will suffer an armour reduction from a Corrosive proc that makes them more far easier to kill. A viral proc, as you note, has a similar usefulness with powerful enemies.

Yup, IF it goes off before you kill (or mostly) kill an enemy it's useful, but if they're near death, or the shot kills them, then it is not obviously, which is why people build primarily for damage over procs. Maybe in extremely high level runs it could be useful to use a proc based weapon, but for the most part it is not.

 

HP scaling is an issue if you have a very powerful weapon correctly modded doing massive damage with no apparent effect. I personally have never seen an occasion like this.

Yeah, the main area where this might be is T3 defense/survival, and even then only two, maybe 4 of the enemies have armor (shield drone, fusion moa and the two grineer enemies)

As a sole method, no, it is not. Happily, they mentioned in Livestream 19 that the AI is being worked upon and may get updated in Update 12.

Hopefully it will, I'd love to see them use some form of difficulty outside of constantly increasing numbers.

[KvotheTheArcane1]

damage:

40 impact

190 puncture

40 slash

489 radiation

Ah, right, forgot elites were alloy armor, anyways, that means each shot was dealing roughly 1.3k per shot (assuming a headshot and averaging split chamber's bonus damage, this does seem more reasonable), and that's after armor btw, before armor it'd be 4.3k roughly, so really, I'm not surprised you were one shotting them with a properly modded weapon, especially a weapon meant for single shot killing.

Edited January 5, 2014 by KvotheTheArcane1

[JerryMouse13]

Ah, right, forgot elites were alloy armor, anyways, that means each shot was dealing roughly 1.3k per shot (assuming a headshot and averaging split chamber's bonus damage, this does seem more reasonable), and that's after armor btw, before armor it'd be 4.3k roughly, so really, I'm not surprised you were one shotting them with a properly modded weapon, especially a weapon meant for single shot killing.

 

Not on headshots, bodyshots. I was seeing roughly 490 per bullet on body shots, and 900+ on headshots. Bodyshots were enough to kill them with one trigger pull provided that multishot proced.

[Sparrohawk]

That didn't really change anything, supposedly lvl 40 is the new lvl 100, and again, they slowed down armor scaling, but they didn't really "fix" it.

 

And the really high end of armour scaling was the problem, was it not?

D1.0 everything but maybe ~7-8 enemies had armor. And I meant grineer had armor, check the codex, check the wiki, "Ferrite armor", right there

 

And robots have a yellow bar, however I haven't tested to see if this means they have armor or not, so that might or might not be correct.

 

Not all Grineer use that armour type. And yes, some robotic forms have an armour value. Again, what's your point? The balance of enemies in the game don't even have the mechanic that you're annoyed about.

 

 

And I never said it did, but it is very noticeable once they start getting to roughly lvl 50ish (T3 defense/survival can easily get here for example).

Yup, IF it goes off before you kill (or mostly) kill an enemy it's useful, but if they're near death, or the shot kills them, then it is not obviously, which is why people build primarily for damage over procs. Maybe in extremely high level runs it could be useful to use a proc based weapon, but for the most part it is not.

 

Saying something doesn't happen and then relating situations when it does happen is quite inconsistent.

 

You say 'if' as if the probability of the proc going off is low. Over multiple shots, it's quite high. I don't think you understand the nature of probability. The more shots you empty into an enemy, the higher the likelihood of the proc occurring. Given that the shots fired before the proc will not do much damage, the proc's occurrence is a powerful bonus to your damage. 

 

And the fact that a Corrosive proc isn't that useful implies the exact opposite of what you're trying to argue. If a proc whose only effect is to reduce enemy armour to one-quarter its original effectiveness is considered to be not very useful is a rather telling example of armour scaling not being that big a deal. Not to mention that you've mentioned that armour scaling on high levels is where you're finding armour to be a problem. How can you find a 75% armour reduction proc to be not very useful (given the calculated probabilities I provided) when armour is such an issue? 

[KvotheTheArcane1]

Not on headshots, bodyshots. I was seeing roughly 490 per bullet on body shots, and 900+ on headshots. Bodyshots were enough to kill them with one trigger pull provided that multishot proced.

Ah, still good damage however, I can see ~980 killing a level 31 grineer.

 

And the really high end of armour scaling was the problem, was it not?

...and the really high end has been condensed down to simply have a different level number. I.e. level 40 now equals level 100.

 

Not all Grineer use that armour type. And yes, some robotic forms have an armour value. Again, what's your point? The balance of enemies in the game don't even have the mechanic that you're annoyed about.

My point is all grineer have armor of some kind.

 

You say 'if' as if the probability of the proc going off is low. Over multiple shots, it's quite high. I don't think you understand the nature of probability. The more shots you empty into an enemy, the higher the likelihood of the proc occurring. Given that the shots fired before the proc will not do much damage, the proc's occurrence is a powerful bonus to your damage.

I understand how it works, however the problem is if you can expect it once in 50 shots, then with the soma's ammo supply you can expect to see roughly 13 procs if we assume you get exactly 1 proc per 50 bullets. Again, procs, outside of very high level runs are pretty much useless, and probably even then compared to building for pure damage.

 

(Note, I am assuming you get every proc on the 50th bullet obviously, and yeah, the chance of not having gotten a proc goes down with every bullet you fire, but the chance also never hits zero)

 

And the fact that a Corrosive proc isn't that useful implies the exact opposite of what you're trying to argue. If a proc whose only effect is to reduce enemy armour to one-quarter its original effectiveness is considered to be not very useful is a rather telling example of armour scaling not being that big a deal. Not to mention that you've mentioned that armour scaling on high levels is where you're finding armour to be a problem. How can you find a 75% armour reduction proc to be not very useful (given the calculated probabilities I provided) when armour is such an issue?

I never said the corrosive effect isn't useful (it is obviously) the problem is getting it to proc. Since the chance is so low (using the previous example) once every 50 shots is awfully low, it's roughly 2 per clip with the soma. The problem is not the proc itself, but the chance for the weapon to proc.

 

So again, if I haven't made it clear, armor now is not a minor complaint, but it's also certainly nowhere near D1.0 levels as a complaint. It annoys me, mostly because I think there are better ways for it to be done (either as another HP bar, or like "old school" shooters have it (i.e. KF, armor reduces damage, absorbs some, but your HP also takes some damage too))

Edited January 5, 2014 by KvotheTheArcane1