Carbineer Archive
Thread: Test Results: What if the damage type isn't listed?
- Against the Mokks, the over head damage was equal to the log damage with the EE3.
- Against the Mokks, the over head damage was equal to 40% of the log damage with the DXR6.
- Against the craggy bolmas, the overhead damage was equal to 50% of the log damage with the EE3 (AP0 vs AR1).
- Against the craggy bolmas, the over head damage was equal to the log damage with the DXR6 (AP1 vs AR1).
Due to these results, I have madethese final conclusions about PvE armor piercing calculations...
- A damage type listed as a vulnerablity will allow a weapon with that damage type to completely ignore armor values, even if it has lower AP that the target's AR.
- If a damage type is not listed on the armor, the AP vs AR caclulations apply (AP1 vs AR1, etc.), but there is no further reduction (such as if there was a resistance).
There is one last scenario I wanted to test, but didn't have the time... What happens when a target has lower AR than your AP level, but is vulnerable to your damage type? For example: target has AR0, and is vulnerable to acid. What happen when I use a DXR6 on them? Straight through 1:1 ratio damage, or do I get the 1.25 multiplier for having AP1 vs AR0?
Stay tuned kids... same carbineer time... same carbineer channel.
EisMan_Buckeye wrote:
There is one last scenario I wanted to test, but didn't have the time... What happens when a target has lower AR than your AP level, but is vulnerable to your damage type? For example: target has AR0, and is vulnerable to acid. What happen when I use a DXR6 on them? Straight through 1:1 ratio damage, or do I get the 1.25 multiplier for having AP1 vs AR0?
Stay tuned kids... same carbineer time... same carbineer channel.
EisMan_Buckeye wrote:
The Gods are smiling at me... right after I posted this, I logged back in to the game and low and behold.... a shear mite soldier... AR0, vulnerable to acid. My DXR6 did not get the 1.25 damage multiplier for having AP1 vs AR0, the ratio of log damage to overhead damage was 1:1.
On a side note, THAT is the complaint the Jedi have... thier AP2 lightsabers are being negated because EVERYTHING is vulnerable to LS damage, meaning they can NEVER get the multiplier for AP2 vs AR0 or AR1. Seems it is better if you have an AP2 weapon to target something that has AR1 with 1% - 20% resistance to your damage type than something that is AR1 and vulnerable to your damage type.
Yeah, my thoughts were clouded and confused in the other thread lol. I had all that talk about the AP2 weapons (lightsabers in particular) getting hosed if they were used against a target that is vulnerable to their damage type. I made the wrong assumption that since AP2 LSs vs AR1 w/ LS vulnerability was only getting a 1:1 damage ration, that AP0 EE3 vs AR1 w/ heat vulnerability would only get a 1:2 ratio. I was wrong, and can stand up and admit it. I'm just glad we all know how it really works now. For me, I allways prefer to find out for myself rather than have someone (devs in particualr) tell me how it works.
TAfirehawk wrote:
This is what I heard as well, not what you reported in the other thread
This all matches with what the Devs have told us.....amazing they got something "right".
EisMan_Buckeye wrote:
On a side note, THAT is the complaint the Jedi have... thier AP2 lightsabers are being negated because EVERYTHING is vulnerable to LS damage, meaning they can NEVER get the multiplier for AP2 vs AR0 or AR1. Seems it is better if you have an AP2 weapon to target something that has AR1 with 1% - 20% resistance to your damage type than something that is AR1 and vulnerable to your damage type.
It certainly is a wierd system. I think they might had come up with a better system if they had thought it out more. When you consider that an energy vulnerable target takes less damage from an AP 2 laser carbine than a target with 10% energy resist you realize this system really doesn't make sense.
This actually brings up one of my concerns over the combat rebalance. I suspect armor protection is coming down and coming down a lot. However, because of the oddities in the AR/AP system, you can create armors that will cause you more damage than protection. For instance, any armor that is less than 25% energy resist will result in extra damage from laser carbines. If you were being hit by a laser carbine and had on armor with 20% energy resist, the best thing you could do would be to take your armor off. This was exactly the case in the early game when armor stunk. Everyone PvPed naked because you took more damage when you wore armor.
This is going to be interesting to see how this shakes out...
novamarine wrote:
No armor acts like vulnerable.
And there in lies the problem.....vulnerable ignores the AP of the weapon and it shouldn't. Vulnerable should just reduce all AR's to AR0 and the unlisted ones keep the AR, as previously stated.
TAfirehawk wrote:
novamarine wrote:
No armor acts like vulnerable.
And there in lies the problem.....vulnerable ignores the AP of the weapon and it shouldn't. Vulnerable should just reduce all AR's to AR0 and the unlisted ones keep the AR, as previously stated.
Bingo. That's kinda what I had in mind when I went on about the EE3 not allways being the best bet, but what I failed to see is that a vulnerability actaully AIDSa weapon that has lower AP than the target's AR, and it HURTS a weapon who's AP is greater than the target's AR.