So I'm trying to math out some builds for Evelynn and Malzahar, who both deal with scaling %Health Damage as Magic Damage. Recently Chaox of TSM has been playing Elise, another %Health Magic Damage champ, by stacking Magic Penetration on her through Haunting Guise, Sorcerer's Shoes, and Abyssal Scepter (-48.5+10% Magic Penetration and -20 Magic Resist Reduction) usually resulting in negative Magic Resist.
I'm wondering how spells like Agony's Embrace, Null Zone, and Neurotoxin/Venomous Bite scale once an opponent's Magic Resist hits negative values? Some numbers would be helpful.
So I'm trying to math out some builds for Evelynn and Malzahar, who both deal with scaling %Health Damage as Magic Damage. Recently Chaox of TSM has been playing Elise, another %Health Magic Damage champ, by stacking Magic Penetration on her through Haunting Guise, Sorcerer's Shoes, and Abyssal Scepter (-48.5+10% Magic Penetration and -20 Magic Resist Reduction) usually resulting in negative Magic Resist.
I'm wondering how spells like Agony's Embrace, Null Zone, and Neurotoxin/Venomous Bite scale once an opponent's Magic Resist hits negative values? Some numbers would be helpful.
</td></tr></table>
All Reduction effects occur before Penetration effects. That is to say, it's very difficult to get a champion to negative resistances, since Penetration cannot go beyond 0.
Say I have the items you listed, and the enemy has 80 Magic Resist.
-20 from Abyssal: 60
-48.5 from various pen stats: 11.5
-10% from mastery: 10.35
10.35 / (100 + 10.35) ~= 0.09
So the enemy would take 9% reduced damage from your attack.
Negative resistances are possible in certain situations (Starcall is the most prolific example). In this case, ignore penetration (since you're already below 0). Go through the same equation as though it were a positive number, but now it is increased damage.
Say I have -20 Magic Resist.
20 / (100 + 20) ~= 0.17
I take 17% increased damage.
What's important to note here is that whether your damage is flat or percentage (like Elise Q) doesn't matter. You always do the same thing: you generate a base damage value, and then you scale it according to mitigation.
While you're here... I always wanted to say, I still think that formula is a bit strange on negative resistances...
I understand why you can't use the same formula and just insert negative numbers (dat singularity at -100) but the thing that annoy me slightly is, that it's easy to show that the lower somebody's resistance is originally, the better penetration/reduction becomes... which in itself means the more penetration/reduction you already have, the better it becomes!
However, with this formula it actually starts getting LESS effective, once you passed the point of 0 resistance. And it's everything but a smooth function, in fact it's one hell of a jump.
a slightly unrealistic example:
100 reduction against 300 res => from 1/4 damage to 1/3 damage = 33.3% damage increase
100 reduction against 200 res => from 1/3 damage to 1/2 damage = 50% damage increase
100 reduction against 100 res => from 1/2 damage to ful ldamage = 100% damage increase
100 reduction against 0 res => from full damage to 4/3 damage = 33.3% damage increase
Wouldn't it be at least slightly more intuitive if you made it so -10 res = 10% more damage taken? This way it would still actually fall slightly once you hit negatives, but it wouldn't be a jump but a smooth curve.
Edit: I know, negative resistances occur really really rarely... But still, it feels unintuitive, to me.
Edit2: Ok, did a mistake there... since a part of that reduction is still in the "postive" values, the exact point of when it starts falling depends on the amount of reduction... and it IS actually pretty smooth, not quite a jump as I thought it was... I'm still wondering why the decision was to have it be this way... It's also a bit confusing how theoretically with minus infinity resistances you "only" take double damage.
</td></tr></table>
It's an interesting point, and, with regards to its potential balance implications, the long and short of it is that it's honestly not a very important part of our mechanics, and it thus doesn't get considered (or abused) all that often.
If we were to interpret the value gotten out of our current negative stat equation as "EHP scaling", where -100 MR would be 50% Magic EHP from base, and if we convert EHP into damage scaling, then we would in fact reach your -10 MR = 10% damage increase idea (it's pretty interesting how the end result is a linear relationship).
Still, it's sort of making a mountain out of molehill, and I don't foresee us making any changes to it.
This runs counter to everything I've read. From my understanding, The formula, once it becomes negative, simply becomes 1% per negative magic resist.
Also, that would be, if the formula stays as it is for the -not- negative MR...
-20 / (100 + -20) = x
-20 / 80 = x
-25% = x
Otherwise the math doesn't fit the formula itself!
</td></tr></table>
Like I said: "Go through the same equation as though it were a positive number, but now it is increased damage."
If piece-wise functions make you ill, you can write:
Negative MRes and %Health Damage?
I'm wondering how spells like Agony's Embrace, Null Zone, and Neurotoxin/Venomous Bite scale once an opponent's Magic Resist hits negative values? Some numbers would be helpful.
I'm wondering how spells like Agony's Embrace, Null Zone, and Neurotoxin/Venomous Bite scale once an opponent's Magic Resist hits negative values? Some numbers would be helpful.
Say I have the items you listed, and the enemy has 80 Magic Resist.
-20 from Abyssal: 60
-48.5 from various pen stats: 11.5
-10% from mastery: 10.35
10.35 / (100 + 10.35) ~= 0.09
So the enemy would take 9% reduced damage from your attack.
Negative resistances are possible in certain situations (Starcall is the most prolific example). In this case, ignore penetration (since you're already below 0). Go through the same equation as though it were a positive number, but now it is increased damage.
Say I have -20 Magic Resist.
20 / (100 + 20) ~= 0.17
I take 17% increased damage.
What's important to note here is that whether your damage is flat or percentage (like Elise Q) doesn't matter. You always do the same thing: you generate a base damage value, and then you scale it according to mitigation.
I understand why you can't use the same formula and just insert negative numbers (dat singularity at -100) but the thing that annoy me slightly is, that it's easy to show that the lower somebody's resistance is originally, the better penetration/reduction becomes... which in itself means the more penetration/reduction you already have, the better it becomes!
However, with this formula it actually starts getting LESS effective, once you passed the point of 0 resistance. And it's everything but a smooth function, in fact it's one hell of a jump.
a slightly unrealistic example:
100 reduction against 300 res => from 1/4 damage to 1/3 damage = 33.3% damage increase
100 reduction against 200 res => from 1/3 damage to 1/2 damage = 50% damage increase
100 reduction against 100 res => from 1/2 damage to ful ldamage = 100% damage increase
100 reduction against 0 res => from full damage to 4/3 damage = 33.3% damage increase
Wouldn't it be at least slightly more intuitive if you made it so -10 res = 10% more damage taken? This way it would still actually fall slightly once you hit negatives, but it wouldn't be a jump but a smooth curve.
Edit: I know, negative resistances occur really really rarely... But still, it feels unintuitive, to me.
Edit2: Ok, did a mistake there... since a part of that reduction is still in the "postive" values, the exact point of when it starts falling depends on the amount of reduction... and it IS actually pretty smooth, not quite a jump as I thought it was... I'm still wondering why the decision was to have it be this way... It's also a bit confusing how theoretically with minus infinity resistances you "only" take double damage.
If we were to interpret the value gotten out of our current negative stat equation as "EHP scaling", where -100 MR would be 50% Magic EHP from base, and if we convert EHP into damage scaling, then we would in fact reach your -10 MR = 10% damage increase idea (it's pretty interesting how the end result is a linear relationship).
Still, it's sort of making a mountain out of molehill, and I don't foresee us making any changes to it.
Also, that would be, if the formula stays as it is for the -not- negative MR...
-20 / (100 + -20) = x
-20 / 80 = x
-25% = x
Otherwise the math doesn't fit the formula itself!
If piece-wise functions make you ill, you can write:
f(x) = x / (100 + |x|)
Where || denotes absolute value.