Vulnerability

Question, does the 40% burning damage work like example A or example B

ticks of 100 base burning with 30% increased from passives

A) 100 x 1.3 x 1.4 = 182

or

B) 100 x 1.7 = 170
"
Zaanus wrote:
Question, does the 40% burning damage work like example A or example B

ticks of 100 base burning with 30% increased from passives

A) 100 x 1.3 x 1.4 = 182

or

B) 100 x 1.7 = 170

A) This would be case if vulnerability said "Cursed enemies take 40% more damage from Damage Over Time effects"

B) This is the right idea. Combine all 'increased' bonuses and apply them.

*edit*
oops. Combine all your 'increased' bonuses, but enemies damage adjustment applies separately. Thanks for clarification Mark.
Last edited by Lo4f on Mar 5, 2012, 10:04:16 PM
"
Lo4f wrote:
"
Zaanus wrote:
Question, does the 40% burning damage work like example A or example B

ticks of 100 base burning with 30% increased from passives

A) 100 x 1.3 x 1.4 = 182

or

B) 100 x 1.7 = 170

A) This would be case if vulnerability said "Cursed enemies take 40% more damage from Damage Over Time effects"

B) This is the right idea. Combine all 'increased' bonuses and apply them.
Not true, as they are not applying to the same thing. There's a difference between modifying damage dealt and modifying damage taken.

increased burning damage applies to how much DPS is set in the burning debuff when it's created. It modifies how much damage you put on the enemy in your burn.

"take increased damage from damage over time effects" applies each game tick to the amount of damage actually taken by the buff for that time interval. It's changing the amount of damage the enemy gets dealt by the burn they now have.

It's impossible for them to stack additively because they apply at different times to (slightly) different things, and are not in the same stats set (you have your stats, the enemy has their stats. they are separate).

I'll probably change it to "more" for now since that'll be more intuitive to some players - you don't need to know this stuff to understand it (and it matches the similar "take more physical damage",) but if we eventually do have other increases to damage taken from degen, it will stack additively with them, not multiplicatively, and will need to be changed back.

If you have a stat which increases your damage, and the enemy has a stat which increases the damage they take, those stats will not (and can not) stack additively - the increased/more distinction describes how stats stack with other stats of the same kind which are applying to the same thing, which is not the case here.
Where one stat is applied when you're working out how much damage you deal, and another is applied when that damage is dealt to work out how much enemy actually takes, those are different (although similar) things being changed and it's impossible for those to be additive with each other, although stats on each side can and often are additive with each other.
Last edited by Mark_GGG on Mar 5, 2012, 9:43:11 PM
I am kind of wondering why this skill is Intelligence based. It seems to benefit a Strength user way more than a caster. I don't think I'd ever use this on a witch unless it was a melee/wand witch. Even then I am not sure. I am sure end game I'd have enough Int to level it but with my current gear ~level 60 marauder, 1 day+ played and I don't have the required intelligence.
TLDR: From a witches point of view, Vulnerability is at absolute best the 2nd best DoT curse after elemental weakness, but probably not even hex masters should use it for that. The DoT vulnerability would be more useful as a % increased damage to energy shield and the entire gem changed to DEX since witches don't deal physical for the most part, and those who do (wand witches) don't deal significant DoT damage.


Some quick theory crafting comparing this curse to other curses using the biggest DoT spec currently available, aka the best case situation for the DoT portion of Vulnterability:

lvl 60 Fire witch:
700% crit damage, 230% burn damage, 30% crit rate, 500 average damage fireball deals 8166 on a critical hit against a 0% resist standard mob with no curses, or 2975 total on an average hit including burn damage.

Vulnerability:

lvl 1 (40%) - 3360 average hit or 12.9% increased damage
lvl20 (60%?) - 3640 average hit or 22.3% increased damage


Elemental Resist:
lvl 1 (30%) - 3640 average hit or 22.3% increased damage
lvl 20(50%) - 4200 average hit or 41.1% increased damage


Critical Weakness:
lvl 1 (5%) - 3387 average hit or 13.8% increased damage
lvl 20(7%) - 3552 average hit or 19.3% increased damage


* Only your most powerful burn effect is active. This hurts Vulnerability the most of the three curses in chain cast situations because you might not get any of the increased damage, where with elemental resist you get the bonus to non crits, and crit weakness you get the critical damage multiplier bonus itself.

* Adding resist to a mob tilts the favor to Elemental Resist more dramatically the more resist a mob has.

* Hex Masters may find it useful when temporal chains isn't needed, but that is filling a mighty small niche for a skill.

* Maybe there are more DoT skills coming that will fill out a summoner/dot witch play style?
"
Zaanus wrote:
* Maybe there are more DoT skills coming that will fill out a summoner/dot witch play style?

It would appear that there are, though it sounds like more of a melee style attack: http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/22527

Also, it was recently recently revealed here that burning damage essentially "double dips" from the fire resistance value, making highly fire resistant mobs take far less burning damage, while monsters with negative resistance take much more burning damage. This makes elemental weakness an even better choice for burning damage.
Urist McDwarfy has been happy lately. He admired an exceptional ARPG recently. He took joy in slaughter lately. He has been attacked by the dead recently.
Check out the Path of Exile wiki: http://en.pathofexilewiki.com
Feedback after this point is for 0.9.7
Balance & Design
I think this makes a lot more sense to be str-int than just int.

I hate being unable to use it as a marauder, duelist, or str/phys-spec templar. Even when specced into like 80 int, Ican only get it up 7 levels or so, which isn't too helpful.

Warlord's mark doesn't help for damage dealing, and hence isn't desirable for everyone (especially those who already have leech)


There's also a chance to stun on this skill, but it would make more sense to be stun threshold reduction, no?

The increased damage this curse gives is significantly less than that of elemental weakness; I think it makes sense to make the amounts equal by buffing vulnerability or reducing elemental weakness.
Fresh cakes for all occasions.
Delivery in 30 eons or less
Call 1-800-DOMINUS
Remember - 'Dominus Delivers'
"
Xapti wrote:
I think this makes a lot more sense to be str-int than just int.

Yes, i'always questioned this gem why it is blue, and not str instead. This gem is much more suitable for those who prefer close quarters i can say.

"
Xapti wrote:
The increased damage this curse gives is significantly less than that of elemental weakness; I think it makes sense to make the amounts equal by buffing vulnerability or reducing elemental weakness.

True, 'elemental weakness' currently is too overpowered compared to projectile weakness, vulnerability, and critical weakness. Btw i think 'critical weakness' is the one which is the weakest of the three, right ?
"This is too good for you, very powerful ! You want - You take"
Last edited by BrecMadak on Apr 4, 2012, 5:57:19 PM
Unavailable


For those interested in what the +Quality effect is (enemies take more physical dmg).

Now for personal feedback, I'm playing a lv40 wand witch (lesser multi-projectile+soul siphon) taking plenty of physical wand dmg nodes (which in turn gives me some elemental dmg), but having playing with both lv 1 versions of this curse and elemental weakness the latter still feels to help me clear mobs faster :( I'm guessing this has to do with the fact that when elemental resistances on mobs go negative they get additive damage where as it's more difficult to reduce their physical reduction to a negative value.

In terms of future prospects, I can imagine this gap will widen even more as I start chasing the + elemental dmg nodes like elementalist and fire/lightning/cold walker. In summary, from my personal experience this curse is not a priority or even a competitive choice to the physical wand witch which seems to be one of the niche markets that this curse should fit for.








Some items in this post are currently unavailable.
MightyZealot the Wand Witch
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
zeal·ot/ˈzelət/
Noun:

A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.
Last edited by MightyForest on Apr 21, 2012, 5:18:05 PM

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info