Wanda and acid rain?

[Yuuko]

4 hours ago, WhackE said:

except you're missing the point, the original poster only posted the calculations for one night armor, and incorrectly stated what they said as fact. you're misunderstanding what I said.

The number of night armor was not stated.  If we applied 1 to both Wanda would still come under Wilson because after the night armor's durability they would both only have their remaining health, and Wanda has a lot less RAW health then Wilson.  So its kinda a moot rebuttal to "Wanda is as tankier then Wilson."  The examples are always based on unlimited armors though, and I assume most people play with enough armor to counter the damage they would receive without taking RAW hits.

fwiw when I give the comparison I usually compare her to Maxwell instead of Wilson, and specify that Maxwell would need 4 night armors to burn his health at 95% resist.

[lenship2]

even maxwell has 1500 effective health with enough night armours

i just don't really enjoy when people justify wanda being "tanky" with night armour, cuz she still dies really really easily with her 37 health while old (and even with 150 health when young, you're constantly losing it and its usually hard to outheal incoming damage without having a krampus sack full of ageless watches)

i assumed infinite night armour durability in my calculations, as i know a majority of the time i (and many others) would carry 3-4 night armours with me anywhere

[WhackE]

10 hours ago, Shosuko said:

The number of night armor was not stated.  If we applied 1 to both Wanda would still come under Wilson because after the night armor's durability they would both only have their remaining health, and Wanda has a lot less RAW health then Wilson.  So its kinda a moot rebuttal to "Wanda is as tankier then Wilson."  The examples are always based on unlimited armors though, and I assume most people play with enough armor to counter the damage they would receive without taking RAW hits.

The number of night armor was not stated, exactly, so you're agreeing with me, because as I have said before the original poster only included calculations for 1 night armors worth of effective HP and not correctly at that. You still seem to be misunderstanding my post.

I am not saying "Wanda is as tankier than Wilson" that was never my argument nor what I was trying to imply. 

[Yuuko]

26 minutes ago, WhackE said:

The number of night armor was not stated, exactly, so you're agreeing with me, because as I have said before the original poster only included calculations for 1 night armors worth of effective HP and not correctly at that. You still seem to be misunderstanding my post.

I am not saying "Wanda is as tankier than Wilson" that was never my argument nor what I was trying to imply. 

Where did they include only 1 night armor in calculations?  I believe their math is correct, and presumes multiple armor for both parties.

Wilson has 150 health, and each year on Wanda is 2.5 effective health.  With night armor this gives Wilson an effective health of 3000.  Yes he will need 5-6 night armor to get this maximum benefit.  At 65 Wanda is old age with 37 effective health, at 73 years (when Wanda can rewind without losing old age) she is at 17 effective health.  This means Wanda floats between 350 and 750 effective health while wearing night armor.  A night armor has only 525 health so in order to get the 750 effective health Wanda would also need multiple night armor.

Unless you're referring to the person who originally posted this "Wanda is tankier then Wilson" thread, but that is a whole different matter.  They didn't limit anyone's armor either, they just compared Wanda @ 95% protection with night armor vs Wilson @ 80% protection with football helmets.

On 6/3/2023 at 1:38 PM, lenship2 said:

i just wanna point out real quick that old wanda with night armour only has an effective 750 health (and loses 75 of it per minute), while a wilson with the same armour has 3000 effective health

 

[Mike23Ua]

I could be very wrong about this but sometime back ago I made a suggestion that if a game content update could benefit or hinder a particular characters playstyle that Klei should let it. This post got a like react from one of the Devs, so I am going to assume that is why certain characters (such as not being able to use Bernie in Enlightenment) are intentionally designed in a way so that their perks and playstyle go against the content that’s added.

This would explain why Wolfgang’s Double Damage gets Ignored for Planar Defense, Why Bernie Can’t be Used in Enlightened Areas, And why Wanda and Acid Rain don’t go well together.

[Spino43]

5 hours ago, Mike23Ua said:

I could be very wrong about this but sometime back ago I made a suggestion that if a game content update could benefit or hinder a particular characters playstyle that Klei should let it. This post got a like react from one of the Devs, so I am going to assume that is why certain characters (such as not being able to use Bernie in Enlightenment) are intentionally designed in a way so that their perks and playstyle go against the content that’s added.

This would explain why Wolfgang’s Double Damage gets Ignored for Planar Defense, Why Bernie Can’t be Used in Enlightened Areas, And why Wanda and Acid Rain don’t go well together.

So you are saying that a character should be locked out of 1/2 game content whenever acid rain happens? 

Willow should get new lunar perks for Bernie.

As for wolfgang, it's fairly safe to say he will keep getting nerfed.

And I am not even asking acid rain to be nerfed to the ground/removed, I just ask for her to have a way to combat it, locking a character's sole mean of healing isn't exactly funny. 

[mr. brj]

On 6/3/2023 at 4:38 AM, Spino43 said:

Should there be another way for wanda to combat this?

No, you see, when Wanda becomes a resource sink it is okay because giving tedious downsides to strong characters is completely fair.