A Case Against the Base Resist Chance
Let me preface this post by clarifying that I love this game and appreciate the work the devs put in to improve the player base's experience. Characters kits and game mechanics have come a long way si...
Forum Discussion
"Rath_Tarr;c-2248803" wrote:"DarthWeevil2;d-243884" wrote:
Of course, strategy is a major component. Players who lose battles due to basic misunderstanding of the correct strategy and blame the loss on RNG are not included. That said, an experienced, well-versed player can prepare, practice, and execute a counter as well as possible strategically, yet fail because the negative effect they critically needed is limited at an 85% rate of landing.
If your strategy can be unrecoverably foiled by one resist then you need a better strategy.
Is the GAS/Ahsoka P2 mission not an example of a strategy being more or less unrecoverably foiled by one resist? And I'll agree with you that most viable counters don't totally fall apart because of one resist, but they can go from, say, 58 banners to 49 really quickly for no reason other than RNG not liking you (I'm speaking specifically of competitive game modes such as TW, TB, and GAC rather than game modes like arena where a loss isn't 'permanent', so to speak). Lots of GACs are won or lost on these margins and I don't understand why you'd want the 15% base resist chance deciding it.
I certainly wouldn't want to win a GAC because my opponent tried a smart counter to my team and either lost fully or dropped a lot of banners due to a poor resist happening at the wrong time. I'd want to win because I trapped them with better planning and squad placement.
