Starsman

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This OP was singletarget only. Quills from spines was added only because it would be hitting that single target in question.

The last few posts gave just some of the reasons why it won't be me doing the aoe comparisons.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that's also why I tend to ignore Starsman's charts for AoE - he has a "typical number hit" that I don't always agree with since it tends to minimize the effect of AoE area. His criteria for attack chains was "highest DPA that's currently recharged" which is similar enough to mine that I use it for single target, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory I can just adjust one number in my chart (foe spacing) to give the results you want.

In practice I would be forced to do a full new set of charts (copies really but extra maintenance.) Sometime next month I may have something in place you would actually like, at least if that is your main issue with the current charts. I will be giving the viewer much more control over the parameters (like the spacing between foes and exact global recharge values)

Would be done much faster if i stopped playing my dominators so much... they are SO much fun with capped smash/lethal defense... they are like playing a true tanktroler!

[ QUOTE ]

3) Show statistics that show the number of people who started the mission vs those who completed it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this minus one detail: show death count instead of start count. The reason is that people can still easily go in and quit as a form of griefing to lower the start/end ratios. Just show how many ended it as a mean of displaying true popularity (some one that didnt liked it may not finish it nor recomend it) and a kill ratio would just help provide a difficulty idea (not if the arc is good or not).

Actually, an arc with high death ratios and high complete count may point at an amazing story that no one would stop playing just because they kept dying.

QR

[ QUOTE ]
Why did they let Villains play Heroic arcs, and vice vesra?

It would surely be more appropriate, and be better for immersion, storyline, ratings even ("Why'd you make my Brute save all those grannies? Fail! 1 star, dude!') to make Heroic-named arcs only playable by heroes, Villainous only playable by Villains, and Neutral cross-faction.

Eco.

[/ QUOTE ]

May had been an entirely obviated clue at the upcoming expansion. They talk a lot about shades of grey. Villains can do good things, sometimes. Heroes can do bad things too. The label is there just to give the author and the player to communicate the morality. It's up to the player to decide how "grey" his character is to engage in an arc that plays opposite to his defined faction.

[ QUOTE ]
I like the star system. While it is indeed open to abuse, it's fast and simple and has worked well for many other websites and critics in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears to have worked for many websites. Critics is another topic as they are a select group of people, usually professionals, that "would not grief" with it (some have been known to, though.)

As for websites using it, there have been plenty of articles about the opposite of grieving, companies that pay random people cents to get their products high reviews. Even in Amazon, where you would expect noise to be very low) you can easily read through the actual text reviews and notice who really owed the product and rated it accordingly. However sites like amazon use the ratings in more complex ways, they try to actually compare what you like and what you search with what other users search to find matches of taste and then recommend things you maya actually be interested on. Such a system may be beyond the scope of an MMO who's servers also must run a game real time, though.

[ QUOTE ]
Now that the devs has slowed the most abusive farming and once they delete the badge-hunters' motivations to bork the system, the star rating system should start to actually function correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

There will always be grudges even if there are no stars. People disliking each other, full SGs grudges, that have and will carry into the MA ratings. People still get rewarded with tickets by ratings and haters will keep attempting to rate down content from players they dislike intentionally so they can "burry it" with the intention of minimizing who plays and grants reviews as an attempt to hinder the author's ticket gain.

Heck, these forums offer no reward yet the star system was removed precisely due to similar grudge wars. Badges and farming will not stop star griefing, the forums themselves are testament to that.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the biggest problem people have with the star system isn't with any one-star cartels. I believe that the biggest problem is that people can't handle criticism and competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say to a point you are right. The One-star cartels used to be sort of protests, from what I have gathered. But the biggest issue will indeed be people that can't handle criticism, with the addition of those that just must take every single dispute to an extremely personal level. Heck, I dare bet if i had my arc numbers in my sig I would have loads of one stars for supporting the possibility of a PSW nerf in the Dom Buff discussion thread. I have heard of a few posters that have suffered shockwaves of low ratings after posting in controversial threads, regardless what side they take, and it has been guessed it's due to them having their arc in their signature.

As good as theoretically the star system would be, we cant really openly trust everyone to be that honest. Rating arcs should exist as an off-game thing only. Threads that rate them should still go on, would be nice to see an improved rating site (I saw one that is handled via a blog engine, nice but a bit hard to browse through.)

[ QUOTE ]

Also, such stats being available might help alert the devs, without having to read a thousand reports and petitions, to obvious farm arcs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet they do have access to those stats right now. I would not be amazed if they have reports that will note them of extreme xp gain per second and extreme debt aquisition per second between other things.

[ QUOTE ]

However, some degree of player opinion is needed, or it's pointless. It just has to be done in a way so the smallest set of outliers are diminished in importance (not discarded, diminished :P). It's about making things that people like to play, after all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say IF that was really desired (player opinion can just be wrong) either an external website for full reviews or an in game text review (no stars) spot would be ideal. Its harder to grief with text than with stars as you actually have to write something different each time. Text reviews also have the potential of remaining anonymous while giving a one spot click where the reader can just say "ignore reviews from this reviewer".

Direct imput player opinion should not drive ratings in any ways, though, other than willingly not complete the arc.

Didn't read your entire post but both there are situations for both to be superior against the other.

In a very short summary:

Healing substracts from incoming DPS
Mitigation divides incoming DPS.

If the healing available is higher than the incoming damage, then healing will be superior than any amount of mitigation. That's a simple rule and the one people just try to go for, as it's easy math. Add more heals and we will eventually overcome the incoming dps!

Mitigation can be superior than healing depending on the amount of mitigation and the incoming damage.

Example of this:
Let's assume an arbitriary 100 incoming damage per second.
Let's assume you can heal 80 damage per second coming from multiple healers.
Now lets assume you had the option of just one force field defender that is properly build to soft cap everyone's defenses. This guy is providing 90% damage reduction, only 10% of the damage goes through.

This means the multiple healers are preventing 80% of the damage while the one force fielder mitigates 90%.

Now the true problem comes with scaling. When most teams see they are doing great, they decide they can take on tougher foes. At this point damage increases. Lets say the tougher foes now deal 120 dps. The healers are still healing 80 dps, but this does not scale so now they are healing only preventing 66% of the damage, not 80. On the other hand, the force field defener is still preventing 90% of the damage, it sustained relative to the new threat.

That is why many people laugh at the "need of a healer" because the healer is only superior to mitigation as the threat stays within a defined line while the mitigation oriented defender will scale to any level of threat.

That being told the true superior way to build a team would be a combination of both. If you add heavy mitigation you still get some damage. Mitigation cant entirely eliminate incoming damage (although he can make it insignificant,) add a healer on top and he eliminates that "small" incoming damage all toghether.

Mathematically speaking, mitigation multiplies the effect of heals.

If we go to the 120 example:
Let's assume 60% mitigation.
Lets assume 60 healing per second
Mitigation lowers incoming damage to 48 dps, healing covers that dps and is left with some spare.

Increase the damage all the way to 150dps and the mitigation will lower it to 60dps where healing completely erradicates it.

So it is true that mitigation can do wonders healing can never do, it is true that provided the incoming dps is lower than the heal per second, healing can be amazing, but when you go into extremes, the best is to have both, not one or the other.

PS: A tanker MAY be able to lower the need of AoE healing and allow any one to be a "healer" with a single target heal.

[ QUOTE ]
It *feels* to me like the intent of the feature is to say "we don't trust the devs to assign resistances correctly, but we can't stop them, so lets add a feature to make their resistance settings essentially meaningless so we no longer care what they set a critter's resistances to."

[/ QUOTE ]

Close! I actually don't trust the writers to make these choices and they have been hinted already in the past to be the ones that decide what type of things critters do. It's (for what I have gathered) up to the power guy to do them within a realm of balance while pleasing the writer's desire.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This may help me champion the "Armor Breaker" system.

The idea is a single target attack on every melee set (yes only melee sets) that will "break" resistances on a single target for a limited amount of time. The method:

Detoggle + Resist Cap set to zero to a specific damage type. If you are MA, you set the resist cap to Smashing to zero. If you are katana, you set the resist cap to lethal to zero, etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from the effect this has on mobs that have been given higher Resistance to be tougher to defeat with a particular damage type (an effect that could in several cases be undesirable), this could also cause trouble with entities that have been made *immune* to certain damage types in order to make it impossible to destroy them (or limit the ways in which they can be killed).

Sure, you could potentially set up exceptions for each of these cases, but the number of such cases is not insignificant.

My initial feelings is that the number of cases where the change would be desirable *and* have a significant effect would be relatively low, and the number of cases where it would be undesirable would be relatively high.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned in a later post that we can make units that are meant to be hard or impossible to kill immune to the effect. 100% resistance cases are easy exceptions as you just tell the debuff to only apply if the target's resistance is not 100%.

Cases where the critter is intentionally hard for everyone also can be easy as you can make a bit more complex equation that compares all resistances to see if they are all the same value.

Cases where the critter is intentionally hard only for one set, is a bit more complex. Most cases are plainly conceptual, actually, as far as we know every case is conceptual unless stated by the devs. Not sure how this policy stands these days but I recall an interview with Statesman noting how they designed all the critters based on pure concept, and assign powers accordingly. Not "what we want this guy to be strong at."

The most recent confirmation I get on this is a statement by Castle on how the writers wanted the arachnoids to be extremely hard, but were only forced to tone them down due to how much they ended up using them. That's another note that shows how the writer decides what the foe does and does not. It would be interesting to hear from Castle, though, if there are any encounters that are intentionally designed to be hard to kill by specific power sets due to balance decisions.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you mean -res, it actually is weaker against foes with resitance than against regular foes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on how you look at it.
The absolute decrease in Resistance is reduced if the target already has (unresistable) Resistance, but the relative increase in damage is the same regardless of the Resistance of the target (barring interference by caps).

Personally I tend to think of it as resistable Resistance debuffs being equally "strong" (having an equally "strong" effect) regardless of the pre-existing Resistance of the target (again, barring interference by caps), and unresistable Resistance debuffs being "stronger" against targets with higher pre-existing (unresistable) Resistance.

[/ QUOTE ]

The -resist in question you can add to certain builds is, as far as I understand, a resistible random -20 resist. If the foe has 20% resist, that will be a -18 resist that takes the foe to 4 resist.

This means your damage is increased by 14.2% relative to what the original target would had been against that target, instead of the 20% you would had against a no-resistant foe.

May be a subtle difference at 20%, but the relative effectiveness is weaker and magnifies drastically the more resistance the foe has. Direct damage buffing can be much more effective at some point, it all depends how much damage buffing we talking about, though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Again: reasons I detailed earlier. I'm not going to repeat all my lasts posts to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I'll accept your previous statements that went down to the devs just not wanting many sets to be useful at all even in teams when facing AVs due to specific resistance that target them as useless.

After all, it would be an exploit to allow these players to be useful to those teams, because they all decide to team together without a regen/resist debuffer or damage buffer in the team. We can't have that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love when the person I'm debating with finally devolves into this mode. It makes it so much easier to do what I'm about to do, which is move on to something more interesting and worth my time.

Enjoy yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

After you.

[ QUOTE ]

Again: reasons I detailed earlier. I'm not going to repeat all my lasts posts to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I'll accept your previous statements that went down to the devs just not wanting many sets to be useful at all even in teams when facing AVs due to specific resistance that target them as useless.

After all, it would be an exploit to allow these players to be useful to those teams, because they all decide to team together without a regen/resist debuffer or damage buffer in the team. We can't have that.

[ QUOTE ]
Because your change would change the fundamental rules of the game for reasons I've detailed earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]

But my change would just remove 5% smash/lethal/fire/tox resist from Infernal (who has 25% resist).... as he stands he takes normal damage from energy/negative/psionic and even bonus damage from cold!

Why not just bring a lot of cold users to take him down fasto, like they will do if Armor Break existed?

[ QUOTE ]
Huh. So those times when I'm fighting Infernal with a single Controller, two Fire Blasters, a MA Scrapper, and a Stone Tank... and taking him out anyway was stacking? This is more often the case in my experience. I also wasn't aware that bringing a single debuffer was such a hard thing to do, but maybe I was wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

But that makes no sense... why don't they exploit the AV's weakness to Damage Type X right now as they would do if one person was able to lower resist type Y to 20%?

Why would they never do now what they would do then even if its entirely viable?

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently you aren't reading me properly. I never once mentioned stacking the Break, I mentioned stacking the damage that the Break is designed to Break. I guess you need an example, but I don't know why... so here it is: Katana Scrapper to Break Lethal, backed up by a ton of other Katana, Broadsword, Dual Blades, or even AR users to take advantage of the 0% (or in your revision, 20%) Lethal resist number. Do you get it now?

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean as opposed to simply stacking the damage type the AV is not resistant to in the first place (current case?) Because if that is a "problem" we already have it.

Does that help you any?

[ QUOTE ]
I clearly stated that any group who knows they're going to take on an AV or GM would prepare for it, and that usually means bringing along at least one debuff/buff suited to the task.

[/ QUOTE ]

Knowing what to do means knowing who to bring, gotcha. That is a prefect example on how this game allows any group to use good skill to take down any content.

[ QUOTE ]

For instance, instead of only getting -15% from Sleet against a 50% resistant mob, you'd get the full -30% because the capped resistance that it's using to resist the debuff with is 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can run a test to see how this would go, can't do it right now though.
I THINK it would result in Sleet doing -30% against that specific type of damage. I personally think that is cool and "teamwork."

If it also works as I think, using it on an AV (where I suggest it sets the cap to 20%) that has 50% resist would make him use 20% resistance against the debuff reducing sleet to -24%. At this point it becomes =50% - 24% = 26% and since the AV is caped at 20 the result of that one debuff is nothing.

If the AV had 42% resist, the same thing would end in him being lowered to 18%.
If the AV had 40% resist, the same thing would end in him being lowered to 16%.
44% resist would net still in 20% resistance so again, no benefit from sleet.

What I have to test is if resistance past the cap would apply against the debuff, if it does not, then what I posted here holds true.

[ QUOTE ]
I have to agree the breakers would be abused to no end. For example, you suggested Broadsword's breaker to be Slash. Sure, a lot of people skip that, but it wouldn't be hard to work into an attack chain. Especially mine, which uses it twice as it's current optimum level (though everyone doesn't use my build). Mine is Headsplitter > Disembowel > Slash > Hack > Slash, which means I would get to fire it off twice with my current chain without compromising my DPS. I'm pulling something like 136 at the moment. I know, that's not amazingly high, but I still need several hundred million inf worth of more IOs. But even still, I do have enough DPS to solo some of the AVs. With a breaker, I'd be able to nail every AV in the game with my unfinished build (RNG permitting).

[/ QUOTE ]

If your attack chain has pauses then it's not a full attack chain right now. If it does not have pauses (currently) then Slash would indeed have a subtle effect.

However, you would not get to kill all AVs just because all get capped at 20% resistance (even landing it twice does not take it further, it's a cap set, not a stacking debuff.) That still will do nothing against AVs with self heals, avs with increased regen, extremely high defense that makes you miss too much even with tohit buffs, or foes with HP buffs. Basically the only thing you will be able to solo now may be what the other guy already solos. But you still will face 20% resist he wont be facing.

[ QUOTE ]
Breaking your quotation parade.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hopeless.

[ QUOTE ]
Trying to tell me that a group would rather take two or three smashers to remove more resistances is the ideal scenario you'd prefer to envision because it removes the heavy stacking element that this game tends to thrive on (read: stacking turns you into gods -- why would you NOT do it?).

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh... you actually thing this thing would stack? I think i said it several times alredy, it would not. It SETS the resist cap to a specific level for a period of time. Stacking does not lower it further, it may just keep it there but not lower it further.

[ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point on a lot of what I'm saying because you insist on viewing each sentence in a vacuum -- like some random passerby said it with no context, and it's really annoying.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I get your previous statement correctly, this is going to be extremely ironic.

[ QUOTE ]
other than high-end content such as the STF and LRSF which, by the way, both have been beaten with unorthodox teams before anyway

[/ QUOTE ]

The funniest part is you are doing the same minus the quotes. I said that is the only content the devs intended it on, I didn't say it's is so. And you go on a full paragraph on ignoring that tiny word... wow. One that actually goes on to say how you needed a specific AT to come help a team of 10 to kill Kronos... talk about contradictions!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there's a couple CoT bosses post 40 that i've run into (mage bosses) that had 50% smashing resistance

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically a different story; Smash gets a bad rep for resistance, too, and I do believe the few things that do resist it hard... also resist Lethal just as hard, though in some cases a bit less.

However, for some reason, Super Strength is considered an awesome farming set for brutes, and it does almost entirely Smashing damage. And, in a similar note, I've seen people achieve ridiculously high damage numbers with Knockout Blow, on targets that should by all rights be fairly resistant to Smashing damage (Requiem and Romulus come to mind).

Not to downplay the resistance woes of Smashing (or to an extent Lethal), as they are fairly prevalent. But they're frequently over-stated.

Doesn't mean they don't suck in the few cases they're actually justified, though (lookin' at you, Miss Liberty).

[/ QUOTE ]

Perception of performance and actual performance are two oddly different things. In many situation perceived performance is more valued than real performance.

KoB is one of the heaviest hitting attacks in the game (the 20 second rechage type) combined with always available Build Up damage (From rage) it will always hit harder than anything else, about 40% harder. That will, off course, make KoB with rage, against a foe that has 30% resistance, hit as hard as Total Focus does against a non resistant foe.

But then you have to analyze Total Focus recharge in 20s, and even if KoB does the same damage it recharges in 25 seconds (one of many prices SS pays for Rage) plus all other attacks available to fill in are less than stellar. At the end of the evening, SS is hit as hard by resist as any other set, it just gets the psychological satisfaction of seeing one big number on screen every so often.

Sorry if this has been noted before; I don’t frequent this forum that much and didn’t see anything similar in the first few pages:

With the badge system being changed, the score system in MA seems to be the only “messed up” feature of the AE. Even without badges it’s very likely the star griefers will still be around. What I propose is to remove the star system entirely in favor of play through stats.

Make some sort of popularity score based on how many people play and finish the arc combined with total deaths inside the arc, with two divisions: lifetime and within last month. Ticket rewards for the author should be based purely on how many missions are finished but only if the arc is finished.

The idea is to give the browser only two things to see:
<ul type="square">[*]How many people are willing to go through the full thing (this many note the thing is so fun that even if it’s hard people opt to complete it.)
[*]It let’s the player know how many death’s per run are to be expected. Breaking it down by AT would be even cooler (people die in average 2 per run, and blasters die in average 5 per run, tankers don’t die at all per run, etc) only displaying the AT you are playing at the moment.[/list]
If I understand right, the goal of the MA is not to farm rewards but to aim to make an arc people enjoy while allowing players to know what they are getting into. These two stats would be way more useful than arbitrary star systems.

The star system could remain as a personal record, not a public average.

&lt;QR&gt;

Although you can see (part, no debriefing) this by clicking the mission icon in the nav bar, you still cant see the clues that tend to be loaded with information, and as noted, no one gets to see anything until the mission is accepted forcing the team to go through double waits.

This is why I hate doing TFs. Cant enjoy the thing, most end up playing like a random bunch of stuff that happens.

I read dev posts. I also read the manual and strategy guide that came with the game that noted how Controllers were "the only team centric" AT.

You know, those books they publish to told us what they intended so we didn't had to read their minds?

I think I never said the Controller was buffed to solo as a scrapper though. I said it got it's damage doubled so it was able to solo reliably without being forced to rely on the pets (that they clearly stated were never intended to begin with.)

[ QUOTE ]
As for the Armor Breaker system - I don't like it. If a critter is designed to be hard to kill, this can completely circumvent that. (ex: Recluse with the Red Tower up.) That reduces the options a developer has for designing content.

[/ QUOTE ]

It can be setup precisely to be useless in situations like that. The amount of such situations is not that high to customize the Armor Breaker not to work there.

[ QUOTE ]
You didn't explain your idea very well, then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very likely, I just skimmed through the basics. I went through a lot of detail a long time ago, but that thread has long been purged.


[ QUOTE ]
Isn't there a saying that goes "If your attack chain isn't Headsplitter &gt; Headsplitter &gt; Headsplitter, then you need more recharge"?

[/ QUOTE ]

And if the attack chain goes Slash &gt; Slash &gt; Slash &gt; Slash, then you need a better build, or player... or get the heck out of Outbreak already

[ QUOTE ]
I was never talking about normal foes with my points. Normal foes fall over to melee easily enough that it won't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider Bosses and Lts normal foes, and there are plenty with insane resistances. CoT Arch-Mages, are listed on that chart as having 75% resist to all damage types. Many rikti

Slash, would be the BS power I would suggest be made Armor Breaker. Many players don't even take the power seeking optimal attacks. Most Rikti have 30% resist against smash/lethal/energy that gives other sets an extreme advantage in the high end game.


[ QUOTE ]
At worst, you'd have builds that cycle between the breaker attack and one, or maybe two, "filler attacks". With an AV's resistance to your damage down to 0, it will far outpace the normal DPS chains that let you solo certain AVs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd force the duration to 10 seconds. That would force quite a drop in DPS to be able to sustain it permanently solo. As for AVs i already corrected that detail on taking that only as down as 20%

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, this will let every melee character have the capability to solo any AV, something that's generally designed to be a group thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would it? Marauder (just piking a drastic example from that chart) resists 50% of all smash damage, but he takes full damage from lethal/fire/cold/energy/negative/toxic and even takes bonus damage from Psionic.

How would that make suddenly "soloing the AV" trivial if (assuming setting the cap to zero and thats not what I propose) it would put the Smashing sets at the same level as the lethal ones?



[ QUOTE ]
Intending on it to be permanent only compounds this problem, since there is no need to put multiple breakers on the team if a single one can keep it going forever on their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is if there are mixed player types. A smashing set woud just break smashing resistance. A lethal set would just break lethal resistance, etc etc.



[ QUOTE ]
Before, this might have just been limited to select builds (albeit, a build that everyone who can afford it would have), but with it perma out of the box, that need is gone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure what you mean. If you mean -res, it actually is weaker against foes with resitance than against regular foes. Not that the -res proc (that is only available to certain lethal sets in a reliable manner) was too expensive anyways. It is dirt cheap.

[ QUOTE ]
This also invites groups to stack heavily on certain damage types just to take advantage of what I feel is something really broken to begin with. Grab a melee, find out his primary, and load up the rest of the team with characters who share his "breaker type".

[/ QUOTE ]

Share his damage type I understand, share his breaker type I don't. As noted, there is no use in stacking it.



[ QUOTE ]
And yes, I know you said you'd balance it different for an AV, but by then, what would be the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that certain AVs are insane on their resistance. Akarist is an Arch Mage so he has 75% resistance. Quite a few pretorians have 50% resistance. Lowering this to 20% would make a huge difference.


[ QUOTE ]
These classes, in a group, have the tools needed to pump out the DPS required to kill them, so why would they need the boost?

[/ QUOTE ]

Very specific group compositions which this game designers insits should not be required outside of specific content (LRSF, SMTF.) Besides, to overcome 50% resistance you would need about 200% worth of damage buffs or -100% damage resistance. It is easier to kick your smashing members in favor of non-smashing ones than to find the specific defender/defender combos that can yield those buffs/debuffs.

With Armor Breaking, those buffs still enhance damage as they would with any non-resistant AV.

[ QUOTE ]
I am more surprised by

Ps 6.04%
To 6.64%

So much for "exotic" damage type when robots have huge resistance on them. The thing with Psi and Toxic is that the mob either has a lot of resistance against them or very very little (or nothing).


And poor Lethal....

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been said for a long time that Psi and Toxic were the most resisted damage types in the game by players that are not obsessed with "but smash/lethal suxors"

[ QUOTE ]
Translation: His build sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know I'm arguing semantics (for some) here, as some[one] may call it: minutia, but :

His playstyle sucked.

[ QUOTE ]
Stop wasting my time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't put a gun to your head to reply. If it's a waste of time, it's you wasting it yourself.