# Someone explain some people's exaggerated resistance numbers

I’ve seen posts rather often, that I think are exaggerating resistances when discussing them to others. I was at work today, and came across a post (and not my first) saying the difference between 80% resistance and 82% is 10% damage reduced so they were implying how important getting even the slightest more resistances helps so much. But, Grim Dawn resistance reduction is linear (a straight line) the damage difference between 80 and 82 is only 2% in the end. Where is the 10% these people say coming from?

I’m curious is it like an article I read when Windows XP stopped being supported. The article reported the # XP infections increased 50%. Then, when looking at the numbers in fine print you find out the infections went from 2 to 3. Yes, 3 is 50% more than 2 and then you find out per 1000 computers. So this article seeing infections go from 2 per 1000 to 3 per 1000 reported a 50% increase in infections. Is that similar to what is often stated about resistances for Grim Dawn when people report large percent reductions for tiny percent increases? Thanks

As it is easy to get 80% resistance for all damage types except physical, the remaining 20% damage is your baseline (and the damage you actually receive). If you can raise your maximum by 2%, then you reduce the remaining damage by 10%.

5 Likes

math son!!!

Interesting… I don’t know why but I understand what you said and it makes sense. I’m not a smart man. Thank you

it’s not about being smart, it’s just about chosing the baseline for caculation, so don’t worry