Hi, can I ask what the basis of the changes (.15% to .25%) to damage multipliers on the Damage 2.0 Tables might be?
In my testing (both before and after seeing the changes you applied), I have found that the .15 values gave me very accurate results (and in fact ran into some related difficulty after relying upon the numbers in the All Tab which were not consistent with the other tabs). Unless there were patch notes or DE-related discussions that indicated a change to this value, which may not in fact have yet been implemented, I would propose that the related values are left at .15 and not .25.
For reference, the affected interactions (based on what I can tell) are Impact -> Proto Shield, Puncture -> Shield and Alloy Armor, and Slash -> Fossilized and Ferrite Armor.
What I based my changes on was the fact that the codex shows resistances and weaknesses as +, ++, +++, and -, --, ---, respectively. Being that everything else is in multiples of 25%, I was assuming that it was more likely that someone had a typo when entering the numbers.
Rather than bug the admins, or debate which is true, I'll be testing ONE of those values myself: Using an unmodded Boltor Prime against Corpus Shields, I'll see if the respective damage numbers are 44 (.25) or 48 (.15)(48.4 gets rounded down because it's a health type) and report back my findings.
I actually got 50 damage (I forgot that normal shields have a 50% weakness, rather than 15 or 25), which actually DOES indicate the 15% you meantioned. I'm going to run this by DE and see if this is a bug or intended.
Thanks for looking into it. I haven't extensively (at all) tested all the damage types, but at least the ones mentioned above did seem to consistently behave as expected with that 15% value; in fact I'm not sure where the 15% came from originally, if only because as you stated the Codex has a maximum 'resolution' of only 25%.
I also haven't undone your edits because I'm not completely confident in what the best way of making all these values consistent (and accurate, across damage types I haven't tested) might be yet, but once (if) I do, I'll likely go ahead and make new edits to reflect the more accurate values as appropriate (rather than also undoing any extra changes you made).
I was the first to edit the page to be 15%. I came across it on a third-party damage calculation site and did my own testing to verify, which you can find at Thread:580687. I know this is forever later but I thought I'd try to leave a paper trail. I'm going to edit the current page to reflect 15% and hope the game in fact did not change it to 25% since that research was done.