Base potency 100
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 tha...
Forum Discussion
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.
You have missed the point (understandable as the conversation pivoted from how does it work to how is it coded)
Okay, maybe you mean "steps" in a coding sense, and maybe the conversation did "pivot" but in your earlier comment you were using the word "check" not "step":
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 ,
If you really mean coding steps and not separate checks, then you should probably go back and edit this comment so that you don't confuse people. There is no second check.
