Sapphire
Member
|
I think it's fine to have that as a penalty. On the surface without context, one could argue it's not always useful. However, in the bigger picture when you add the context of what types of monsters that harm is actually beneficial to use on, and then consider how harm's power scales as mob element scales more and more towards zero, a penalty is warranted.
Let's say we have the 8 standard elements, and harm. (yeah yeah there's more ) Most monsters have at least 1 element to 100%+, making harm element the worst option vs using the monster's weakest element. But there's more to this picture than that. Monster's elements range from even into the negatives all the way to a cap of 200%.
So if we drop all monsters that have anything above 90%, what's left are monsters that are 90% or lower to everything.
From here, as you scale downwards towards zero, the power of harm grows and grows and grows and grows and grows.
In other words, using harm vs a monster with 80% resist is a 12.5% boost compared to whatever element is 80%. If the monster has all 50's, using harm is a 80% boost compared to using the element the 50% is to. . And it grows and grows the lower monster resists move towards zero. As a result, the types of monsters that you'd use harm on kind of become trivial, and become more and more trivial the further towards zero their resists go..just because you carry harm. So really, what's the point in making a monster with all 10% when the player can bypass it with a single harm item, or even worse, an item that can toggle to harm mode? Harm is more powerful than what people wish to give it credit for, despite it being the worse choice vs a standard model monster.
I think the penalty then, is warranted. Monster design space by lower and lower resists is just negated via harm unless they actually make harm element not be 100%...
I believe this is a classic case of allowing the name of the penalty to distract from actual real life gameplay implications. The brain says "wait a minute, it's not actually always useful" and "so that penalty must go away" It's a bad name for the penalty, is all.
It's more akin to being a compression penalty, in that you don't need to cover all of your elements if you so choose not to and it will be worse vs some monsters but good vs others. Again, calling it always useful is bogus. But the penalty is warranted.
< Message edited by Sapphire -- 3/9/2024 20:03:14 >
|
Printable Version
Icon Legend
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread
