re: Item Loot, err, Spell Resists!

[Cid]

Originally Posted by Bazia [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

thats the problem retard the only people who can get appropriate resist now are the people fully decked in endgame resist gear

make the shit classic so i dont have to eat draughts just because im not in full vp/trak/other shit

Well, retard, do you think the advantage the gear gives those people is going to magically disappear? And if you cannot get at least 3 of the 5 resists to over 120 you're not trying hard to do so. Shamans can make potions that last 30 mins and add 25 to a resist and these potions stack with resist buffs.

I said, quite clearly, that these changes will in fact give the casual player greater longevity. (That means living longer.) But you are going to find that it works both ways and 80% of the server has a caster who will be less effective in pvp. Living longer is always good, but if it adversely causes you to do less damage to your opponent then all you achieved was a few more seconds to gate or zone plug.

If you think those VP geared casters you want to kill so much haven't been leveling and decking out melee alts in VP gear in preparation for changes like this you're naive. Those people spent 6 months farming on an essentially dead server and some spent hundreds to thousands in real money buying items. You need Van Hellsing and a wooden stake, not better resists.

[Nizzarr]

150/75/0 is pretty much classic resists.

I really dont like putting all spells in the same resists bucket though. What about spells with two components that had double resists checks like stuns with damage, roots with damage, dots with damage(shaman dots), enchanter DD/stuns etc

[Lasher]

One thing to take note on is certain spells that just seemed to always land or a great deal. I played an ench on live and yes MOST MR spells didnt do shit against an ok geared toon, except chaotic feedback. I used that spell from 1999 to 2003. Like a 30 dmg nuke, interupt spell. I hate to see that spell get thrown in with root and snare. Its always been a fun spell because it landed but wasnt over powered since it was just an interupt and not like a long stun and the dmg was so low

[Alecta]

Originally Posted by Lasher [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

One thing to take note on is certain spells that just seemed to always land or a great deal. I played an ench on live and yes MOST MR spells didnt do shit against an ok geared toon, except chaotic feedback.

I know folks mentioned that a low level wizzie nuke functioned the same with with low resists (and perhaps a pally stun?).

If we can get a list of those spells I can take a look at them together.

[Pudge]

Originally Posted by Nizzarr [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I really dont like putting all spells in the same resists bucket

yes. If this graph were to be used for nukes, i think it would be way too much... outright resisting nukes over 50% of the time at 95 fire resist (at least in kunark, maybe this is OK in classic). But Alecta, I'm thinking if it "resists" here, then it will have a partial check? With the partial check itself having a range at which it would be fully resisted?

I think spell classes should be individually tweaked - like disease was hard to resist, poison not as hard, fire/cold nukes on the same page i think? and magic nukes didn't land as well as fire/cold (but maybe due to everyone having this resist pumped). -- i don't know maybe they were all in reality on the same curve but it didn't feel that way..

Also please put in the "low level spell" mods - low level spells always landed easier (some were basically unresistable). Useful for many classes, the low level spells could paradoxically be some of the best, like the low level enchanter nukes that have stun component..... always kept the lowest level, and sometimes the lowest 2 levels (2nd lowest resisted more), of my nuke up - dealt like 30 damage but that stun was what was important. Lower level spells landing were a real utility, and pretty balanced even, because they were low level so the effects weren't that harsh.

As for the graph: Alecta, I think for Classic your curve looks good, as long as when it gets "resisted" it goes to the partial check, and isn't getting straight up fully resisted. Then the Partials function becomes more important - i'd like to see the curve for that. I think the main thing with Null's code is however he's doing partials they don't appear to reduce much damage.


My overall fear is that casters will be turned into giant gimps that get steamrolled. But since this system can be tweaked on the fly, it's not that bad of a thing to experiment.

Suggestions:

Classic: Alecta's
P1. 165
P2. 60
P3. 50

Kunark: Inbetween
P1. 170
P2. 90
P3. 45

Velious: Null's
P1. 190
P2. 270
P3. 15

[Technique]

Originally Posted by Nizzarr [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I really dont like putting all spells in the same resists bucket though. What about spells with two components that had double resists checks like stuns with damage, roots with damage, dots with damage(shaman dots), enchanter DD/stuns etc

That was an absurd aspect of the Live resist mechanics which rendered several spell lines useless. The only way it would make sense for multi-component spells to be given resist checks for each component would be if each component could actually be resisted independently of the others without affecting the spell as a whole.

No one in support of more involved, tactical PvP in this game can argue that 300-400+ mana, 5-6s cast time, curable shaman DoTs should be twice or thrice as easy to resist simply because of a front-loaded DD that accounts for 1/10th to 1/20th of the spell's actual damage and the addition of some poison/disease counters.

Or that MR-based enchanter nukes that have 8-second cooldowns should be twice as easy to resist simply because they have a 1 millisecond stun attached to them.

Or that an MR-based cleric stun with a 24-second cooldown should be twice as easy to resist simply because it also does ~150 dmg.

Because of the slow regeneration of hp/mana and no/very limited mana recovery options, it's not really possible to "roll with the punches" in EQ PvP. A lucky resist or a nuke landing for full can decide the outcome of a fight. Reducing all spell lines that aren't pure nukes to all-or-nothing events dictated by random chance only reinforces this unfortunate fact.

I suggest that all spells with multiple components should have a single resist mod determined by their most significant effect. So, in the case of an enchanter's Dementia it should be the 450-point DD, not the 1ms stun. A cleric's Enforced Reverence, the stun and not the 166-point DD. A druid's Ice, the 408-point DD and not the FR debuff. And a shaman's Pox of Bertoxxulous, the 1340-point DoT, not the 67-point DD and the 9 disease counters.

Of course it would still be possible to outright resist these spells, but in the same manner that pure nukes can be outright resisted, not with a bonus because of components that have little to no bearing on a player's decision to cast the spell in the first place.

[Agatha]

anything having to do with slow is broken as fuck, bard snare with the slow component, broken as fuck, slow landing almost every time on someone with 150mr, broken as fuck.

[Lasher]

Is it velious that all debuff resist spells do 1.5 in pvp?

[Pudge]

heh. lasher i had my post sitting here overnight basically, then i post and see we both remember that shitty enchanter nuke the same way, and how good they actually were.

don't remember if that debuff thing was associated with an era. it might have just been a feature of sullon

[Pudge]

Originally Posted by Alecta [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Currently the partial curves look something like this:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

(though there are some additional checks not represented that let high roll nukes land for full).

So if you eyeball it:

RESIST	LOW 	HIGH (DAMAGE %'s)
75	92%	100%
100	73%	100%
125	61%	93%
150	52%	84%
175	45%	77%
200	40%	71%
225	35%	67%
250	32%	64%

I'm additionally looking at critical failures for pure nukes, where you will fully resist them at the rate of 1.2% per resistance point. (9% @ 75fr, 18% @ 150fr, 30% @ 255 fr).

So my questions are:

1. What do you think the partial resist curves should look like (feel free to bust out paint)?
2. What do you think as far as outright resists on pure nuke spells?
3. And for the inevitable "Make it classic" folks, please define your remembrances of classic. In terms of questions 1 & 2 above.

Thanks for inputs. This thread will be moderated & off topic posts deleted.

ah, i found this. looking at the graph, I'd say the "partials" area is way too condensed - give it some room to breathe, have partials land for a wider range, by dragging that bottom blue line down considerably. and also adding the "critical failure" (as well as keep the high-roll full damage) feature. (I'm still assuming a "resist" on the OP graph actually means "roll for a partial")