I’ve heard a lot of smart players suggest potency starts at 100. But that’s inconsistent with anecdotal experience and with abilities or modifiers based on potency. Does anyone have documentation that establishes this as true or false?
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.
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.
My information is based on datamined information from near the beginning of the game. Those posts all say the same thing. It’s tenacity minus potency. There is nothing added to potency. The only modifier in the calc is the min 15% chance. It seems like the reason the 100% potency idea comes up is because people try to explain the mechanisms as if the debuff is checking to see if it lands. Basically from the debuffs point of view. My understanding is that the check is from the characters point of view. Can it avoid the debuff. From that point of view, there is only one tenacity check. And coding wise it’s very simple to set a min value to any check, so it doesn’t require two checks. It’s one calculation to get the value needed and then a “roll” to see if it’s successfully avoided.
All of this is second hand info though. I did none of the research and am just repeating what others who did the research said. There’s an article on https://gaming-fans.com/2017/05/understanding-potency-tenacity/#:~:text=PsychoPoet,%20author%20of%20our%20popular%20speed%20optimization,%20offense/CC/CD,
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.
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%.
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.
And so on. But it's always only one check.
Chance to resist is not the end of the story though. It's then checked against the random number generated to see if that instance lands or not based on it's chance to land. The result has to be a yes or no. As I have said below the "check" is not the same as a second calculation, it was a way to explain what might be coded as that was the OPs request. The poor performance of things like tuskin momentum or large numbers of dots in conquest suggests this is a problem area on low end devices. There are many ways to code the sequencing of the "checks" to determine if the answer is "yes" or "no" that will have quite different impacts on the performance of the application. On very old main frame devices it was often better to run the calculation split into components. Ie rather than doing 1+2+3=6 you would do 1+2 =3 then 3+3=6. (Grossly simple example). That's what I was trying to convey , not an independent second calculation. Probably my bad for the confusion.
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.
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.
