Which of these 2 spells is worth it in the long run? (in General)
Just wanted to seek out the opinions of people who use Dispel Magic and/or AMF. If they would have had it any other way or not? Whats the pros/cons of using either spell. Which 1 has the most potential, ie.... if they were both 100K in lvl, which 1 would provide the most benefit for the team. oh yea... and how would the strategy fit? ie. 1M, 2M, 3M or 4 minions? plz your thoughts on this :D:D
In the long run, would AMF have more benefits than DM? or vice versa. :D
imo, if you want to kill tanks and others that like to cast enchantments faster, go DM. If you'd like to be an anti-mage style, go AMF. Just look at AMF's name. Pretty much, DM helps you kill faster (only works on those with enchantments, obviously) and AMF is a mage-killer. Personal opinion on which fits your strategy best.
July 17 2005 1:31 AM EDT
i think that you will also need to react to changes in the teams that you will be fighting - if most people around your level rely on DD spells, use AMF, in not go DM...
I dont think that one will be better than the other permanently, but at any given time, taking into account your opponets, one of the two will allow you to beat more tema than the other. - the tricky part is trying to figure out which is which
basically, don't be afraid to switch between the two as you advance up the ranks - it might help a lot to be versatile and react the things like *cough* change months... : )
July 17 2005 1:31 AM EDT
IMO DM is better in the short run, AMF is better in the long run.
You get more bang for your buck with AMF as the game progresses (since AMF cannot be reduced by armor whereas everything else can).
Eg: With say 0AC you may get hit by a FB for 10000k damage and your AMF may hit for 5k damage (50% return) but with 300AC you may get hit for 5k damage by the same FB but your AMF will still kick back 5k damage (100% return).
On the other hand if high NW tanks begin to dominate the game (like in CB1), there may be few high PR mages to use AMF on whereas DM will still be useful.
July 17 2005 5:23 AM EDT
I think there are several factors to consider. The first is the simple paper, scissor, rock game you play with people. This has already been mentioned above of course.
However, another point is that AMF is a spell with an effect proportionate to the DD it blocks. DM, on the other hand, is a flat 80% subtraction of it's level from the opponents ED. So, if you only have a small amount of xp to spend on your EO, then invest in DM, otherwise you will never have a AMF big enough to be of any help.
Another thing you should do is pay attention to your weaknesses and strengths. Then you must choose to either continue to specialize or choose to make your team more well-rounded. Specialization in either tank or mage busting can be good for growing faster, but all-around is a must for maintaining your score.
Therefore, try to figure out if your already heavily a tank buster or a mage buster or neither. Then if you want to further tank busting then go DM (or god forbid you go EC), and go AMF to put the hurt on mages more. But you must remember that DM is actually not really a tank buster, but more of a multi-minion buster.
You see, DM is less effective against smaller teams. Larger teams tend to have more enchantments of smaller size, this is of course when your DM excels. But you must also remember that only a few one minion teams invest in ED, and if they do, they are often only a fraction of there xp, not much to nerf with DM then. This is because most one minion teams just use a low protection of a just-large-enough VA or GA.
This may be why the DM/FB combo seems to work so well. FB is... well in all reality a really good spell against most things, but they have a harder time beating larger teams. However, as FB becomes less effective DM becomes more effective and so this balances out it's weaknesses.
Another option is to buy both putting a 5:1 ration in AMF to DM.
For example a 25000 AMF and a 5000 DM works pretty good.
Sure you are dispelling your own AMF but there are some obvious advantages to this mode when you consider VA and Decay.
Whatever you choose try to remember that bot of these spells top out at a certain point for effectiveness. AMF tops out when it reaches a 40% effectiveness. In my opinion points after this are better spent elsewhere.
Likewise DM loses effectiveness when it surpasses the typical enchantments it dispels. In addition a DM is not really worth it when dispelling a single enchantment. It really is best when knocking out multiple enchantments at a time. This is why you don't see a lot of high DMs out there.
July 17 2005 9:50 AM EDT
I was and still am under the impression that going DM by itself was best if you can kill very quickly. That is having a high elb and a TOA or using FB perferably with an oversized FF. Those are the character we now see using DM exclusively.
However, due to the recent severe nerf of the archery skill, unless you use seekers exclusively, DM is not viable for a TOA archer any more. Especially with the FB/FF/DM characters out there. It is no longer possible to kill quick enough before all the FB damage kills you.
Therefore the new idea is like that was said earlier. Use AMF with a small DM. But, personally I would wait to see what changes still occur this month before deciding on whether to go AMF vs DM vs a combo of the two.
July 18 2005 12:58 PM EDT
Ranger, there is also the recent DM nerf (aka AS change) to further tilt the balance against DM.
IMO if u use AMF a good EC is the ultimate combo to hit hard with it but if u fight lots of Tank teams relying on Haste or w/e a good DM it just depends in the long run they equal out actually
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001QjY">Which of these 2 spells is worth it in the long run?</a>