Vulnerability

"
DeathTouch wrote:
I'm trying to figure out how the 40% Increased Damage from DoT effects would figure into Righteous Fire DPS. Is the 40% DoT added to other DoT's in the passive tree when calculating DPS or is it calculated based on the DPS of RF when it's cast?

Trying to determine if gloves with Vulnerability on Hit is more effective (i.e. does more damage) than Elemental Weakness on Hit (Level 10) or not. Any RF users here know?
the damage boost from this curse is multipicative to your passives and aditive to shock stacks because it is modifying damage "taken".

Curse on hit would need something to trigger it and it is not aoe.
Due to how Resistances work, though, Elemental Weakness is invariably better when it matters.

A monster with 50% Resists takes 50% Base Damage per Second. 40% Increased DoT Damage bumps that up to 50 * 1.4 = 70% Base. Not bad.
Reducing their Resistance by 40% (lv11 Ele Weakness), they are left with 50 - 40 = 10% Resists, thus taking 90% Base Damage per Second. Better.

A monster with -50% Res takes 150 * 1.4 = 210% Damage or 190% Damage. Vuln is only slightly stronger, but it's also against an enemy that is already taking loads of Damage due to negative Resistances so it hardly matters.
"
soul4hdwn wrote:
"
DeathTouch wrote:
I'm trying to figure out how the 40% Increased Damage from DoT effects would figure into Righteous Fire DPS. Is the 40% DoT added to other DoT's in the passive tree when calculating DPS or is it calculated based on the DPS of RF when it's cast?

Trying to determine if gloves with Vulnerability on Hit is more effective (i.e. does more damage) than Elemental Weakness on Hit (Level 10) or not. Any RF users here know?
the damage boost from this curse is multipicative to your passives and aditive to shock stacks because it is modifying damage "taken".


Thanks for the info.

"
soul4hdwn wrote:
Curse on hit would need something to trigger it and it is not aoe.

I'm using these:

As a Righteous Fire user I just cyclone in with Soul Taker, hitting mobs and triggering Vulnerability and EE (lightning damage on ammy). Everything melts instantly from the RF burn...

"
Vipermagi wrote:
Due to how Resistances work, though, Elemental Weakness is invariably better when it matters.

A monster with 50% Resists takes 50% Base Damage per Second. 40% Increased DoT Damage bumps that up to 50 * 1.4 = 70% Base. Not bad.
Reducing their Resistance by 40% (lv11 Ele Weakness), they are left with 50 - 40 = 10% Resists, thus taking 90% Base Damage per Second. Better.

A monster with -50% Res takes 150 * 1.4 = 210% Damage or 190% Damage. Vuln is only slightly stronger, but it's also against an enemy that is already taking loads of Damage due to negative Resistances so it hardly matters.


With my build, anything I hit gets -50% fire resist right off the top with EE. I have two on Hit gloves that I've been trying out:


Because fire resistance on monsters is situational, it's pretty hard to tell whether EW provides more damage than Vuln. Most mobs die so fast it's impossible to tell the difference. A few boss fights in maps seems as those EW may provide more damage but I need to find a boss who doesn't move so I can time how long it takes to die with each curse...
IGN: DrunkBarbarian / SupernalScion
Last edited by DeathTouch on Mar 30, 2014, 3:43:42 PM
yeah that trigger gem would be an AoE cast, but viper's point still stands for "which is stronger" question. cycloning into a mob to turn on EE while enabling the movement for RF is reasonably smart. you can have a lot of trigger gems with cyclone too for anything else.
This may seem like a huge change to a lot of players and is probably out of the question this far into the game, but why is Vulnerability not a red gem with STR as the primary required stat?

Hear me out. This gem has major connections to Physical/Stun/DoT (Fire is str based) and block and stun recovery. If someone can tell me a few good reasons this is a blue gem with int as the only requisite I would be happy to listen.

Would greatly appreciate this gem being red, and it just feels like it should be, if not purely for the reasons above then for the sheer fact that we lack STR/Red gems. Some may argue curses in general are more geared to intelligence by design, I just find that to be a weak argument.
I somehow agree with that. At the very least it could be mixed str/int. This way str builds could have an offensive curse that is not too hard to level. Dext has proj weakness for offense, and temp chain is mixed for defense so easy to level as well. Str just has nothing.
Ranger builds list: /917964
When two witches watch two watches, which witch watches which watch?
If the witches watching watches watch the same watch while you watch which witch watches which watch, they switch watches; then, the watch switching witches watch which watch you watch.
Watching witches watch watches is not for the faint of heart...
"
Udnya wrote:
This may seem like a huge change to a lot of players and is probably out of the question this far into the game, but why is Vulnerability not a red gem with STR as the primary required stat?

Hear me out. This gem has major connections to Physical/Stun/DoT (Fire is str based) and block and stun recovery. If someone can tell me a few good reasons this is a blue gem with int as the only requisite I would be happy to listen.

Would greatly appreciate this gem being red, and it just feels like it should be, if not purely for the reasons above then for the sheer fact that we lack STR/Red gems. Some may argue curses in general are more geared to intelligence by design, I just find that to be a weak argument.
Strength is associated with stun and dealing more damage though hitting things harder - strengthening yourself. Weakening the enemy instead accomplishes a similar mechanical effect, but is thematically different, and fits better with int. The physically feeble magic user who can curse others to drain them of their better strength is a common fantasy trope that fits well with the thematic associates of int, while strength has thematic ties to strong warriors and systems of honour, which in many cases run counter to the associates of a vulnerability curse - the common tropes people think of are the barbarian with a system of honour, who actively seeks out strong opponents to fight, and would never use magic to weaken them and remove the challenge. The primary strength curse, Warlord's Mark, is thus the one which doesn't weaken the enemy, but rewards you for defeating them at their full strength.

Mechanically, having it in int lets it be equally accessable to both strength and dex characters who invest in int for support - anyone using physical damage/stun (strength) or DoT (dex) can weaken the enemy's ability to mitigate those by reaching into some int to allow them to use the magic - thus providing a tool which helps distinguish a pure strength character from a strength/int one, and the same for dex. It's also very useful with minions, which tend to int, without being too powerful with the primary int means of damage dealing.

Yes, this does mean that curses in general are less likely to align with strength and more with int. Curses are an int thing, primarily. That said, while it doesn't currently have an attribute, and you shouldn't expect to ever get a gem for it, I personally consider Silence to be a strength associate curse.

Fun fact: I designed the original set of 8 curses (Temporal Chains, Elemental Weakness, Warlord's Mark, Punishment, Enfeeble, Critical Weakness, Projectile Weakness, Vulnerability) - Chris, Jonathan and Erik left (for PAX, iirc) and asked me to come up with some ideas for what debuffs they could give and put them in as prototypes for testing when they returned. Beyond the mechanic of casting with an AoE and applying a debuff to each thing in the AoE, the only specific guidance I was given was Russell insisting we had to have one like Iron Maiden from D2. In the end, all 8 I designed got put in the game, with only one major change - I'd had Warlord's Mark as "Drain Essence" in int (granting power charges, of course). Chris and the others correctly identified it as the one which thematically made a lot of sense as strength. It was decided at the time that Vulnerability definitely belonged in int.
None of the others even changed their name, so I'm responsible for us having so many things called "X Weakness", for which I'm sorry. I ran out of creativity in the naming when they were prototypes and when they were going in no-one suggested anything better to switch any too, so we stuck with them. Other people didn't seem as bugged by it as me.
Last edited by Mark_GGG on May 27, 2014, 9:44:54 PM
I can see some of your points and thank you for the lengthy and personalized reply! Cool to see some of the insight into the design of the game and yeah I guess overall it would be a little too simple if it were a pure Str gem. It would be a no-brainer for any strength based build to use as default. Just wish it were red with a good chunk of Int or Int/Dex required ;) Thanks for the reply once again, and I think the names of the curses being straight forward is a good thing. The terms Vulnerability and Enfeeble draw a mentally accurate picture when you learn what they do, but the Weakness curses seem good to not have verbose names for very specific mechanics, they don't need names like Elemental Frailty, Big Hit Susceptibility (crit weakness) and, That Curse of Lack of Ballistic Depth Perception (proj weakness). Keep up the great work on such an amazing game.
"That Curse of Lack of Ballistic Depth Perception" is the best thing I've read this week, thanks for that.
I still think given time we might have come up with better names, more in line with "Vulnerability" etc. For example, I think Flamability, Conductivity and Frostbite are better than just Fire/Cold/Lightning Weakness.
Idk, I think those curses with a more technical application should be more accurately descriptive. I think you've got it right, I don't know what else you would call them.

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info