Base potency 100

I recall watching this really helpful Warrior video long ago on potency and tenacity values.  I believe he explains the base 100 and so it may be worth a watch still.

https://youtu.be/4Cru7AT5Dqc?si=Rg7YPoF3pFWNVEOl

I appreciate you sharing this. It’s exactly what I’m asking about. Warrior and others repeat this suggestion that there is a base 100 potency.  I don’t think there is a base 100 and he repeats in his video that this isn’t an accurate depiction of how it works but is intended to help people understand. I’m asking if anyone has something that shows it to be true. 

A characters potency is what is displayed on their character stats and any in battle changes. There’s no min starting point. 

To be clear, if the trigger is met for a debuff to be applied, then it will be applied unless the character evades the attack or resists the debuff. This could be where people think there’s a base 100% potency. L

Potency is subtracted from tenacity to get a character’s chance to resist the debuff. So 100% tenacity minus 50% potency is a 50% chance to resist.

Keep in mind, Tenacity has a min value of 15%. So if your potency reduces their tenacity below 15% then they get the minimum 15% chance to resist. The only way to remove that 15% base chance is with an unresistable debuff. 

The 100% potency is not strictly accurate but it is a way to help understand what's going on.  The starting point before tenacity and potency is that a debuff WILL be applied , as opposed to will always NOT be applied.  What this means is that if they have  10% tenacity and you have 0% potency it is 90% likey the debuf WILL be applied on first check, but there is a second check as all debuffs have a 15% chance to be resisted.  Many people assume if the tenacity is higher than the potency it will not apply , this is not the case.   There is also a second check , and again this is not a minimum 15% tenacity , it is a straight 15% chance to resist any debuffs regardless of the tenacity vs potency check.  

To work it out , take the potency as a decimal , add "1"  and subtract the decimal tenacity.   I.e 50% pot vs 125% ten = (1+ .5) - 1.25 = 25% chance to apply on first check , then 85% chance to apply on second check.  The most practical example is if you want to make sure wampa does not get stunned by iden they have to have 100% more tenacity than the idens potency after all bonuses. 

Some examples.  

100% tenacity vs 100% potency = 100% chance to pass first check 85% chance to pass second check so 85% chance to apply. 

0% tenacity vs 100% potency = 85% chance to apply 

201% tenacity vs 100% potency= 0% chance to apply 

Hope that helps. 

It's funny to compare your response to the one below. I don't think either of you are wrong. But you represent exactly what I'm trying to clear up. 

I think this is the explanation that makes sense but bothers people that understand game coding. This explanation if correct, does not mean there's a base 100 potency. And there is no proof of a two step check in anything I've seen. I believe it's actually just one check and that it can't ever be less than a 15%. 

If your looking for proof on how the code is written then your unlikely to ever get it from a developer , and no one else has legitimate access to it.  Swgoh.gg has some of the game mechanics represented , but it's still not the source code.  I and others have attempted to explain it In practical terms how it manifests to the user in the game.  Weather it's a two step or one step it's the same outcome to the user, but it's easier for most to understand so hence I went down that path.  It could be written either way , but makes no difference to the game play so not worth worrying about when a large portion of the players base are having to delete and reinstall the game just to play it.

This is not correct. 

There are not 2 checks. There is one check to resist (except in cases where a debuff cannot be resisted or in cases where the defender is immune to that debuff, and in those cases there is no check at all). 

The ONE check to resist has a percent chance to resist of (Defender's TEN minus Attacker's POT) or 15, whichever is larger. 

• If my TEN is 100 and the attacker's POT is 122, then my chance to resist is 15%. 
• If my TEN is 100 and attacker's POT is 101, then my chance to resist is 15%
• If my TEN is 100 and attacker's POT is 90, then my chance to resist is 15%. 
• If my TEN is 100 and attacker's POT is 84, then my chance to resist is 16%
• If my TEN is 100 and attacker's POT is 75, then my chance to resist is 25%. 

And so on. But it's always only one check. 

It does make a difference. 

If there are two checks and you have TEN=150% while attacker has POT=100%, then with a two check process you would have: 

First check: 50% chance to resist

Second check (if you fail to resist on the first check) = 15% chance to resist. 

The 15% only applies to the 50% of attempts that didn't resist the first time, so reduce that 50% by (0.5*0.15) and you get 50% - 7.5% = 42.5%. 

Two checks changes the odds. Two checks is not correct. There is one check with a minimum chance to resist. 

You have missed the point(understandable as the conversation pivoted from how does it work to how is it coded) .I agree It's not two calculations , it's one calculation with the result evaluated once or twice that was the the difference.  It's about the programming technique. Sometimes it's more efficient to pass the "result" twice than do a "is between" type calculation.  Either way it is well established there is a minimum 15% chance to resist.