Why do Tanks still get multiple hits? (in General)

Now physical damage is linear, why can tanks hit multiple times?

Why DX?

Because if we nerf it, tanks will go back in power, and we'll be right back where we started.

Why DX then?

Tanks have linear damage. Is this damage based on them landing one hit per round or more? If it's based on two per round, Tanks landing 4 hits per round (which they will versus any non tank) are doubling thier damage.

It's not like Tanks are going to 'miss' a single hit any more. Unless it's versus another tank...

typo?

"Because if we nerf it, tanks will go back in power, and we'll be right back where we started."

From what I'm seeing at low levels, even landing a single hit Tanks are doing more damage than Mages.

"DD spells now do 1/3 damage at low levels (was 1/2), and approach normal damage as the lvl increases." from changelog.

Thats why low level tanks do more damage in 1 hit. And why multiple hits? Because tanks also have the chance of missing. Especialy when you through in evasion, DB, UC, and the AoI. A mages DD is going to hit everytime, and some DD spells (FB CoC) will hit the entire group at once.

"And why multiple hits? Because tanks also have the chance of missing"

But do they really? I don't mean dropping from four hits to three, but not being able to hit at all.

And this only really is a problem for tanks fighting tanks. Enchanters and Mages, even with DBs, can't relaistically reduce a tanks chances of landing a single blow to zero.

IT might be technically possible. DBs large enough to cancel out weapon pth (as they are the same cost). Evasion/Dex large enough to get equal dex to Tank (so that's 50%).

AoI and -pth from evaion to try to cut into that 50% change from equal dex maybe? But then we're ignoring ToA granted pth and dex.

It's quite viable to tank versus tanks fights to be a single blow a round each. Is this what tank damage is ballanced on? Or does it take into account you'll be landing three, four or even the fives hits we're seeing on some minions.

Granted, DD will hit every time, and we're ignoring damage reduction here, but DD only hits once per round. The largest FB in the game hits once for an average of 1.5 Million damage (Maybe a little more?). There are larger MPBs out there, that can hit more times per round.

DD damage was reduced at low levels, and Tanks also get a WA to allow them to pump weapons linearly without a PR increase. Which help most at low levels. Why do they still get the chance to hit more than once per round?

Increase EC's power. Either raise the level it can affect or split it into two separate spells, EC:ST and EC:DX. This would give non NW mage teams at least a fighting chance of levelling the playing field.

More info. The MBP is 1,885,171 from MijØlnər (I assume).

Let's assume this is equal to the MPB of the highest FB in the game (I'm sure Sute posted that his was around that).

The FB can only hit once, MijØlnər maybe up to five times.

How to get that back down to one hit?

MijØlnər's plus is +177. The largest pair of DBs in the game could deal with that (at +180).

That leaves DX.

Anubis has a Dex of 825,020. Training Dex/Evaion to equal that would then give Anubis a 50% chance to hit you for one attack. The -pth given by your Evasion would do little with the size of DBs you'd be using.

Then there's the +20 Evasion from a AoI, to bring you to -200pth, which would then give anubis a (around) 30% chance to hit you once per round.

But, I've forgotten to include the ToA, which increases DX and pth. Enoguh to at least counter your AoI, if not more.

At best case, if you match the increased dexterity, Anubis is down to 50% damage. But you've had to spend a hell of a lot of XP on Evasion/Dex to get there.

Why are you calling physical damage linear? My understanding is that it is linear with strength and linear with damage multiplier. Add that together and you see that physical damage is better than linear, darn near exponential in a few of those upper level cases ;).

Another related question is: why aren't the costs for AG/CoI upgrades linear?

"My understanding is that it is linear with strength and linear with damage multiplier."

Nope.

"Add that together and you see that physical damage is better than linear, darn near exponential in a few of those upper level cases ;). "

linear x linear = quadratic, not exponential. But what you really have in CB is (not linear) x (not linear) = linear.

Yes, I'm aware that linear and linear doesn't make for exponential. That was a crack on the size of some of the weapons out there. Sorry, it was a bad joke :(

Hi jonathan!

I was just curious about you...How good are you in maths?
Good enough for CB ?

(well i am interested in that matter because i am a researcher in maths...)

Hehe this is funny almost a year of playing this game and i finally see a "Tanks are over powered" thread. I mean come on guys before it was mages are over powered with their linear DD spells. Now that a tank is brought even with a mage its overpowered? how? Sure tanks get multiple hits, FB and CoC hit the entire group at once, seems pretty balanced to me.

tanks can also miss, try fighting snk with those dbs, see how many hits you get

and in comparing krangs hammer vs those dbs, also compare the respective nw of the 2 items

(At high level) Versus a tank without ToA, mages aren't nearly in as bad position. Versus ToA there's no way you're going to reduce their hits under 2 unless there's a massive networth difference between the characters.

Oh yeah it was only the lower level of DD that was reduced. Around 100k i believe is when full damage is dealt. So that big Single Fire Ball Mage that used to cook your tank team before it got to melee, probably still does.

FB Mage + FF = 2 hits per minion. A ToA non archer might hit 6 times in ranged. Looks even to me there. Now if they use an ax or ex bow, then probably they'll hit only 4 times. there is all kinds of scenarios to look at. Pick the one that suits your cb style.

"Fireball is capable of doing 5 times the damage that is listed as it's effect" yes thats versus a single minion. But if my tank manages to survive 'till melee then let me get double or even triple hits. Yeah the mage gets one hit that doesn't miss but it does 5 times the damage.

That "5x" damage could really be considered FB and CoC's normal damage. Less minions simply mean the damage is proportionately broken up (and unfortunately against 2 or more minion ToE teams it becomes that much less effective).

And it should be noted that even when a FB or CoC is focused on a single minion, that damage is still less or maybe equal to a single swing by a similar sized tank.

Guys, the largest DD in the game, it's single damage to a single minion is roughly equal tot he largestMPB in the game.

Yet the MPB can land possibly five times in a round, and therefore do five times the damage.

Is that really balanced?

Physical damage used to not be linear, in CB1, until Dd damage formula was changed for CB2, DD could not keep pace with massive weapons.

Physical damage wasn'tlinear, but had the possiblity to land multiple times to counteract this.

Now it's linear and still have multiple attacks.

Nothing in the game, NOTHING, can now put out the same potential damage output as a tank. You have to be a tank of equal size and gear to stand an even chance.

Is that balanced?

OK I will drag out a bullet point highlight of my many and numerous posts on mage over powering, such that if you have forgotten them, they should be reminded while bashing the new tank change.

1) Mages get their damage from exp thusly do not need CB2 to cause damage.

2) Mages are able to make USD while the tanks are not required but encouraged to spend USD.

3) Mages never miss.

4) Mages can concentrate and dominate.

I have paragraphical text behind each point, but ommitted them for sake of simply reminding people of old points well hashed.

We are now more balanced than ever. If an advantage swung to tanks, it is much smaller of an advantage than the one mages previously enjoyed, thusly we are more balanced.

Sorry sefton I disagree. Nothing can compete with a tank except an equallt geared tank.

1) it's also a curse. Mages don't need CB2/USD to pump thier damage, but don't have the choice to do so if they wanted.

You can also now build a competent tank without needing any CB2/USD by using UC.

3) Tanks never miss. Versus non Tanks. Not only that, but versus non tanks, their damage is scalled up by the amount of extra hits they do have, which won't miss.

4) So can a Single Tank with a ToA.

I'd also like to highligh that the WA allows smaller tanks to grow far more rapidly than anything else, as every other has to increase their PR to increase their damage, leading to less rewards than a tank using their WA.

4) A mage HAS to concentrate XP on damage.

My 1.2million fireball does about 300K damage on a single minion in the first round (so about 430K max), i had to use 50% of my XP to do that much damage. A similar sized tank can throw XP into anything defensive he/she wants, have 4 minions, and have tons of AC and still do that much damage.. per hit. And tanks don't have to deal with AMF/Mage Shield/Friendly Fire/Trollskin Armors.

Shake brings up a good point I had forgotten.

DD also get's penalised in the ranged rounds.

mages dont have to spend cb$ on weapons thats true, but they can therefore spend it on defensive items which do help vs tanks. mages with the nw in armor some of these tanks have could be quite formidable

"FB Mage + FF = 2 hits per minion. A ToA non archer might hit 6 times in ranged. Looks even to me there. Now if they use an ax or ex bow, then probably they'll hit only 4 times. there is all kinds of scenarios to look at. Pick the one that suits your cb style."

K, lets assume that the FB and FF are the same size, and the AXBow hits for the same damage as the FBs. Also, assuming no archery, that the tank has BL and a melee weapon (that for ease does the same damage as the AXBow and hits twice per round as well.)

In Ranged the FB+FF would do;
480 damage (70+70+80+80+90+90)

In Ranged the AXBow would do;
400 damage (100+100+100+100)

So the mage wins out there. But if the fight goes one more round;

FB+FF total damage: 680 (480+100+100)
Tank total damage: 720 (400+160+160)

From then on, there is no way the Mage can keep pace.

I can't remember how much damage archery adds anymore, but if you used archery with a bow that hit twice per round (and did the same average damage per hit as the FB you face) Archery would come out on top during range, and the DD would never catch up in melee.

"mages with the nw in armor some of these tanks have could be quite formidable"

Not really. The Mage armours (AG and CoI) have prohibative upgrade costs.

i said in armor, not mage armor

Heavy AC armour? In which case their DD will be reduced significantly. Or things like MCMs/EBs?

4) A mage HAS to concentrate XP on damage.

umm yeah the ratio for a SFBM has always been 1/3 hp then max FB kill them quick before melee begins even with the ranged penalties it wasn't a problem then why is it now.

Because the largest DD spell damage to a single target in the game is roughly the same as the largest single target MPB. But the MPB can land more than once.

You always have a choice, it's just how wisely your hard earned USD is spent. I agree with Joe to a certain degree at some point mages pretty much stop adding to gear, where tanks never do. Regardless, start a NCB single tank, play it and equip it until your NCB is done, then tell me how easy it was to get there.

You cannot build a high level tank competently is your are spending 1/4 or greater of your exp on your weapon (UC) I think and have posted prior to the change that UC is GREAT at lower levels.

You can make a mage training only HP and FB and do well, nothing you will ever do will allow a tank to train but two total items, and thusly mages can concentrate WAY more than any sort of tank, even a single tank with ToA (dont forget that tanks pretty much require archery or BL which is a function of ST, to keep that touted 3 round of range I spend a lot of exp on archery, and my ST grows without me wanting it to from the ToA)

Lets add to the growing list:

Weapon allowance, Tanks have to choose where to emphasize or if to go balanced. Tanks have to consider how much to spend, and have to be careful not to spend too much or gain to much PR by exceeding the weapon allowance. The mage is not so limited and can simply choose to add more to their attack at will.

I think saying how come multiple hits are allowed is like asking how come fireball hits all my minions at once, or how come I have to protect my rear end from magic missles, or how come a base decay can take half my hit points with a minimal investment. The multple hits is a great counter-balance to these advantages.

Tanks have new respect, new power and I can totally understand how you feel about your investment doing less than it did. I'm certain Ranger can relate with axbows, I certainly can with the link of tattoos to PR, the link of NW to PR, the removal of camping, and the long dark time that was the mages kicking massive rear with minimal effort. I applaud this change, think it has breathed a new life into CB, and I am still stunned anyone would feel differently.

Let me ask you this GL, a new player asks you how should I start? What would you say? It used to be a REAL easy question.

yes, it _can_ or it can hit not at all, you look at extreme cases of nw differential, but with similar amount invested in defensive items, such as dbs, tanks might not hit at all. i think if anything its more balanced, mages just have to spend there cb$ more wisely now

very well spoken sefton, /me give a round of applause

"Let me ask you this GL, a new player asks you how should I start? What would you say? It used to be a REAL easy question."

:) Single Tank. Same as CB1.

You don't need extra minions, just as much HP, Str, Dex and BL (or archery) as you can plow into one minion.

And the biggest weapons you can afford.

[quote]You cannot build a high level tank competently is your are spending 1/4 or greater of your exp on your weapon (UC) I think and have posted prior to the change that UC is GREAT at lower levels.[/quote]

I'm not sure that's a fair assupmtion now. At the changes my UC damage increased by around 2.5 (I think). With the inherant defense of UC and damage to rival (at least) mages, I think it's quite possible to have a competitive high level UC tank.

"I think saying how come multiple hits are allowed is like asking how come fireball hits all my minions at once, or how come I have to protect my rear end from magic missles, or how come a base decay can take half my hit points with a minimal investment. The multple hits is a great counter-balance to these advantages."

Sorry to post these thoughs in seperate posts. :(

I don't agree. The counter to FB/CoC hitting all minons is the damage is reduced by the amount of minions hit. That's the counter ballance.

MM is something to spice up the party order. It's counter balance is it does the least damage of all the DD spells.

Decay is unique anyway. Yes it does half your current hit points, but it's counter is that it can never kill a minion.

What's the counter balance to multipel tank hits? What's the draw back of hitting more than once? Ignoring other spells/abilities (like getting more GA backlashes...)

"Weapon allowance, Tanks have to choose where to emphasize or if to go balanced. Tanks have to consider how much to spend, and have to be careful not to spend too much or gain to much PR by exceeding the weapon allowance. The mage is not so limited and can simply choose to add more to their attack at will"

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. A mage is limited by the fact that any amount of increase also increases PR, no matter how little or large they chose to spend on their attack. Agreed, it doesn't limit choice, but then they have no choice to limit.

Tanks don't have to bother choosing until they exceed their WA limit, then do they decide to keep pumping thier weapon to do more damage and get a PR increase, or stay balanced and keep inside thier WA (which grows with them, so they can conitune to increase their wepaon without increasing thier PR, just slower than they had to reach the cap).

At least tanks have a choice there. Choice must mean less limitation.

"I certainly can with the link of tattoos to PR, the link of NW to PR, the removal of camping, and the long dark time that was the mages kicking massive rear with minimal effort. I applaud this change, think it has breathed a new life into CB, and I am still stunned anyone would feel differently."

Fifth! :D

I agree. something needed to be done. FB (and DDs as a whole) were more powerful than Tanks for a long time. I just feel balance was being reached, and this has just tipped the scales again.

For a long time I argued that linear DD increase was overpowered and there would come a time weapons could never keep up.

I've nothing agianst equalling the balance, but this is no longer equal. Tanks have it all.

OK GL I wont go point by point, just take my favorite one. The answer on how to start. You said same as CB1, a single tank, buy the biggest weapon you can afford, and go to town.

So I train as much into HP DX ST and BL as I can and rent a 100K NW katana, and I come back to you a day later and say, hey that start strat sucks, I can't beat anyone, now I can't afford to heal, isn't there a better way.

Previous answer, train HP and FB. Click 1/2 max on FB, click train. Click 1/2 max HP max FB click train, rinse repeat, you rule. Save all your money, purchase nothing.

Also I trained as much BL as I trained HP, and I wanted to do a lot of damage so I trained 2x DX into ST. I wanted to be heavy AC so I got the double chain mail and the heaume. I thought it matched my steel shod boots. I equipped a bow, and a shield and my DX went way down. How do I get the number after my BL to say 1.00 it seems stuck no matter how much I train. What about these bolts, they have better base but my bow can't seem to shot them right? Should I upgrade my ammo at the blacksmith, how do I forge?

Answer previously, purchase nothing, nothing you can buy will do you any good right now. Same for rental, do nothing, this will do you fine until you need to add an enchament. No ratios, you click 1/2 max FB then train, 1/2 max HP max FB and click train everytime. No skills you do not need them yet. Do not waste your exp.

The complexity alone is the answer to why tanks should strike multiple times, you make it sound so easy it is not, mages sound easy because they are.

How about a characteristic equal to ST/DX that would allow mages a chance to cast at a faster rate (multiple times per round)? Maybe a Mental Concentration aspect.

This would help balance the potential damage dealing abilities while also diluting the amount of XP trained for mages as tanks already have from training DX and STR. You could also throw a defensive enchantment for this like distraction/disturbance that would be a balance maybe at similar levels to the current EC or Evasion. Heck maybe both distraction and disturbance.

Many options for gear to deal with and against those things.

IF Jon ever includes my wonderful idea I want the first in game 'Tin Foil Hat' to block mental drain!

You can't argue that a strategy shouldn't be good because its not complex. The downside to those simple strategies is that they're easily counterable. ToE = death of fireball/coc. Heavy AC back wall = death of magic missile. A ToA can't really be countered. You can try to fight down a tank's P2H but the ToA will always come out ontop of that battle. A Vorpal Blade also can't really be countered. And its because of AMF that mages are almost forced to go ToE. Imagine if there was an "amf-like" spell that worked against tank strength.

I never thought mages were superior. They were my easiest targets before the change (while playing a tank), and the top 2 characters were (and still are obviously) tank teams before the change. Neither of them were very anti-mage either ironically.

But I am not saying because a strat is simple it cant be good, what I am saying because a strat is complex it can have advantages over a non-complex one inherent to the system, by virtue of the complexity.

The counter to the ToA is of course magic. If the ToA doesnt train AMF but instead trains DM to counter GA, then Magic hits them fully and without fail everytime. Five minions (with tat) could hit and do full damage everytime. If they train AMF you train GA, now everytime they hit for massive damage some of it goes right back to them. They are ToA so they have NO TSA, NO MgS, so they are totally unprotected item wise. They might have big DB's wont dodge your FB. The checks and balances are already there, it is just NOW we can start talking about tanks again, because they are viable alternative MAYBE even a better alterative, but if you go there they are a lot more work, don't get me started on ammo......

ToA tanks don't need to counter anything now. They do 2-3x the damage of a mage even in ranged. The damage is so high its not feasible to train GA to counter (as if it was much of a counter to begin with). ToE Mages are more armorless than a ToA tank generally is. And tanks have a clear damage advantage while being able to dedicate far more xp towards hitpoints or extra spells/stats.

Not to mention VA, which mages have no way of obtaining.

Starting out, yes. Tanks are fun, hard, and educational.

I, for one, am not talking about starting out (and wonder why everyone always returns to the "what would you tell a newbie"...) Who cares what you would tell a newbie? Odds are good they aren't staying, will sell out once their NUB is over, or will get high up and then restart with an NCB and some _real_ knowledge.

So let's stop talking about what you would tell a newbie. It is a facet, yes, but it isn't what _every_ _single_ _fracking_ _thread_ should devolve into.

Let's talk about the full spectrum of CB: high and low, newbies and veterans, CB1ers and CB2ers.

Well first I am not sure if you have ever played a tank and had GA used against you, I have, at many levels, and I had to train DM on my new strat over AMF because of it. I had to at least look at the AMF/DM split TAB had to see if maybe I could do something about the GA being used against me as I was all AMF with Gyaxx and fighting in the top 10. Pretty much covers the full range, granted there have been changes to things inbetween the span, but nothing significant with GA. So I am not sure where you are basing your GA doesn't work from, but I disagree.

Not sure how ToE mages have less armor than a tank, as far as I am concerned watching the ToE in action and using one, its better than all the armor on my biggest wall.

My single mage didnt wait around for VA to come into play and when it did my ToE ate so much damage the actual absorbtion was a lot less than against non-ToE mages.

I guess you were never overwhelmed by my FB. *wink* Oh, I turn heads, baby! Goats see me, they freeze, and they tip over. YES THEY DO!

Well Sut, QB of ours, I went there because this is a hot topic. It is a topic so hot that the creator of the game created a thread about the topic.

Who cares about what you would tell a new player? I do. I would hope you would give them any help they asked for. The predisposed attitude of they aren't staying, will sell when the NUB is gone, or will restart a more intelligent NCB is the heart and root of the reason they do not stay, you fulfill your own prophecy.

I will also suggest that trend stops, that the trend will decrease. That more and more will invest NUB money into gear instead of hording it for USD.

I would think that so many threads dissolve into it makes the proof of how important it is, and how much it is on the mind of the CB land.

The fact that you do not care about new players seems to put you in the minority, not the majority. This I am thankful for. Anyone from a DJ to a shoe salesman will tell you, new business is the lifeblood, old accounts keep the doors open, new accounts bring in the profits. We need new players, we need them to stay. Without them, we are truly CB1 all over again.

And lastly, it was one of many points I brought up, and I choose to continue it because it is a hot topic. I have posted on many threads today that did not dissolve into new players, so I can personally account for a couple that did not. Perhaps the idea that every thread goes there is a tad strong.

Oh I complained vigorously and verbosely about mages and their FB's and how they were over powered and need to be cut back. If I wanted to look back I bet I could come up with 10-15 paragraphs of complaints and arguments about magic and FB and how it was over powered. Heck I even went there and used the over powered Single FB mage with ToE and did quite well, but it was so boring I wanted to commit character suicide versus play it for another day (let alone the 3 weeks I had to wait for the NCB, but thats another thread) I was used and abused by magic even with 100's of millions in NW of camped gear. People were neutralizing my camping advantage by clicking train FB. Those days are over, now you will need to put a little thought into it, you want to beat the ranged physical attack I will be bringing....see you there.

It's funny, I never said I didn't care about new players.

I react to new players the same way I react to children, new people at work, friends, people I meet, etc. etc. I lead by example. If they ask me a question, I answer. But I don't go out of my way to make policy or mentor a new player. There's no mystery as to why that is -- it's how I like to be treated, and is how I was treated on CB1. I learned on my own, looking at examples, and grew my own team. The last of the pure "catcher-uppers", or so I'm told.

What will impress a newbie the most is a tight game. I don't believe in "catering". I don't believe in "entitlement". I believe in "balance" across the board.

I've already posted my idea (complete with a link to the FIRST time I posted the idea) on the retention thread. Jonathan isn't biting. That's his perogative. I know better than to push too hard or question him. The man's a genius and he doesn't need my help (I'm lazy to a fault anyway) in any case.

But do please stop casting aspersions on my character and/or attitude towards new players, no matter how subtle those aspersions may be. Just because I don't have very many newbies shouting "sUkTeh ruulz!" in chat doesn't bother me in the slightest. I rock. I always have and I always will. I'm Sutekh the fricking Destroyer. (Don't forget to read the Archives...)

First off, you walked into the thread, not me, I was here talking away how I like the new changes I do not think tanks multiple attacks are over powered. I made several arguments from several points of view. GL made several well thought out counters. Instead of countering everyone one of them again, I choose one to counter, on a topic that seemed to be of high interest.

You first post was not about the topic, it was about how every post ends up talking about starting out, when clearly if you read the whole thread it is one of many points. It is in fact your post that helped continue this vein of conversation.

Then you said, "I, for one, am not talking about starting out (and wonder why everyone always returns to the "what would you tell a newbie"...) Who cares what you would tell a newbie? Odds are good they aren't staying, will sell out once their NUB is over, or will get high up and then restart with an NCB and some _real_ knowledge."

Granted you do not come out and say, I do not like new players. But if I picked out 100 random CB players and asked them to say if you liked or disliked new players from that statement, the majority would make the same inference I did. I understand the inference can be incorrect, but none the less, you can see logically how I got there.

The aspersions you speak of are as subtle as the ones you cast first. Again I was just talking away about how I think there is more balance now and do not see the tank multiple attacks as over balanced, and instead of saying your wrong, you say your dumb for using new players as a point of view.

I know we always end up butting heads like that, and I know we always shake hands afterwards, but regardless, it baits me, I bait you, a reflex I guess :)

*munches popcorn*

P.S. I kind of like your change to the NUB idea. I mean the end result should be the same, but the effort should be greater to get there. Seems pretty balanced to me.

Since the changes were made, a great deal of the mage population switched to tank. Only the true hardcore mages-at-heart have stuck with it. I think the results speak for themselves..

As for individual opinion of what is overpowered/underpowered.. we could argue forever as long as numbers are never presented for proof. However, without even speaking from my opinion on the subject, I'd say the proof is evident.

Sefton, The difference between what you state and what I state is the very definition of "aspersion".

I never make it a personal attack against you, Seft. I simply asked why the thread was talking about what it was talking about. I think you rock. I always have. I would never say...well, I would never attribute _any_ specific thought or action to you. That's something people I don't care for do, so I don't do it. I talk strongly about the topics at hand, but if you take that personally, that's _you're_ problem. However, when you state, directly to Sutekh, that he is not a fan of new players, there's only one word for that: "lie". Apply whatever logic you want -- it's still a lie. (and if you need clarification, the simple solution is to _ask_).

The bottom line is that I care about new players (and CB) in a way that is different than yours. That's OK. I get to be different. It's probably related to the fact that I rock so absolutely hard so absolutely all the time. You do too! Go rock! Just stop saying things about me that are patently untrue! We'll get along famously, I promise!

As for "butting into this thread".... Gosh, sorry. I'll just stop posting. Wait, who'm I kidding? I'm not going to stop. I'm not going to stop because I rock so very completely! No one can make me stop! look, I have free will! It's free!

New players: Go rock. Just go on and rock out. There are no wrong moves, and anyone who makes fun of your team or strategy will have to answer to me. Read my posts -- ne'er truer words have been spoken. What I do is "put up". Not for certain directions or specific courses of action -- for people. If anyone gets out of line I will call them to the mat like I always do. I do it to a fault. I've defended idiots. I've trusted scammers. I've remained loyal when I should have turned and ran. But I'll call out the inconsistent. I'll call them out at High Noon even if it means taking a bullet myself. Doesn't matter who the person is (might even be me on a bad day! Showdown against my own bad self!). I love you new players. Stay. Stay forever. Ask me anything you want and I will be there. CB needs you, I need you. I want to see supermodels wrestle around in a big pool of new players. And when they are done I will help the new players out of the wrestling pit and let the supermodels sit there. Screw supermodels, because I love new players. So just go be yourselves. Make a tank. Make a mage. Make a guy who just stands there in steel-shod boots. That ROCKS! Enjoy your time here. Enjoy life! Don't forget to floss! Unicorns love you too, but not as much as I do! Remember that NSFY is the funniest ombudsman you have ever encountered. If you see Todd, kick him in the shin for me. If you see Roonie, remember to WOOF! Tell Bast she has nice shoes. One time I took my car in for an oil change and they checked my tires for FREE! Post a lot in forums! Learn proper grammar and spelling -- eloquence is important, and it might even get you a super model! Wait, screw that! It might get you more NEW PLAYERS! Because that's even better!

Nerevas, just for the record -- my fight list didn't change much. I see some ranged attacks being much more potent, and I have some fears for the future, but overall the change doesn't seem _so_ overbearing... Some of my concern is due to the fact that people I trust are concerned. I don't follow closely enough to trust only myself.

Sefton, glad you like the NUB BA idea. I like it too *smile*.

novice, as ever, enjoy your popcorn. *grin*

I think we need some kind anger management therapist in our forums.

Can this be implemented?

Wonder how much that gonna cost us =).

Why, is someone angry? *smile*

And I likewise, have to call you out as well. I have to admit your ability at rhetoric is truly amazing, its worth reading for the prose alone, so, no YOU rock, but, You say,

"I talk strongly about the topics at hand, but if you take that personally, that's _you're_ problem."

The topic at hand is "Subject: Why do Tanks still get multiple hits?" and the originator of the topic though multiple posts believes that tanks are over powered because of the recent changes and they have multiple attacks. I made multiple posts on the subject myself on that very topic. If we picked what you have talked strongly about so far I do not think it would be the topic at hand, which is my point all a long, debate me about the topic (are tanks over powered now?), not what avenue I choose to show my point of view.

Yeah, but GL started the topic... I happen to know he couldn't care less if I take liberties (he's done the same to my posts, and he and I talk, too).

I didn't stay on topic. My bad. I also didn't say anything about Sefton, specifically, that was untrue. I was still talking about generic circumstances.

...And I'm not sure I am good at rhetoric. You flatter me too much, Seft. The word is generally more aptly called "sophistry". *wink*

verbal prestidigitation

Is that a fancy term for "talks too much?" *smile*

Perhaps, but bear this out for me Sut.

--Sefton, July 12 2006 7:57 PM EDT I ask how would you tell a new player to start

--Pit Spawn, July 12 2006 7:58 PM EDT on topic

--edyit, July 12 2006 8:05 PM EDT thank you

--QBGentlemanLoser, July 12 2006 8:24 PM EDT GL answers starting out question

--QBGentlemanLoser, July 12 2006 8:28 PM EDT another good counter to a previous point

--QBGentlemanLoser, July 12 2006 8:31 PM EDT another good counter to a previous point

--QBGentlemanLoser, July 12 2006 8:35 PM EDT another good counter to a previous point

--QBGentlemanLoser, July 12 2006 8:38 PM EDT another good counter to a previous point

--Sefton, July 12 2006 8:58 PM EDT I pick new players specifically again to counter with GL

--babbler, July 12 2006 9:05 PM EDT nice suggestion

--Nerevas, July 12 2006 9:24 PM EDT another well thought out not about new players counter

--Sefton, July 12 2006 10:00 PM EDT my counter to Nervas

--Nerevas, July 12 2006 10:23 PM EDT Nervas comes back on his point

--QBsutekh137, July 12 2006 10:27 PM EDT you say how come we always end up talking about new players

--Sefton, July 12 2006 10:34 PM EDT me still countering Nervas not talking about new players because I didnt see your post

--QBsutekh137, July 12 2006 10:36 PM EDT verbal prestidigitation

--Sefton, July 12 2006 10:46 PM EDT Me casting aspersions

--Sefton, July 12 2006 10:55 PM EDT me whining about the past

Who else could you possibly speaking to but me? This is why I took it personally. It was not on topic and logically had to be directed to me. Out of the blue. I was still in a groove having fun countering Nerevas when it popped in there. Had to re-read it to make sure then scroll back up and see if I missed a post or two. So I stopped what I was doing and here we are :)

Sorry GL for taking the same liberties, I STILL think tanks multiple attacks are well balanced by a varierty of factors.

;) NP guys!

It's early, I 'm tired, I was up late last night (why I rambled into five posts and didn't make a concise single answe). >_<

I'll get back to you in a while guys.

I just want to ask again, what is the counter balance to multiple hits?

I'll get back to the newbie question soon.

Nov. Was that salted or sweet popcorn? ;)

The counter is becoming a tank yourself =)

never a bad plan, join um. I did it with SMFB ToE. Trust me you will have a lot more fun with a viable tank. And a mage tank team IS now doable, or at least worth trying, because now your tank will no longer lag behind your mage. Before your tank would be 90% of your expenditures and get you 40% of the battle. Now it just might be 60% of it!

The combinations for a viable team, with mixed mage and tank attacks are now much larger than before. This is good for everyone. Will all mages teams have a tougher time than before, yes. Should all mage teams have a tougher time, yes. Why? Because the tank introduces the most complex variables into the game. Tell me it doesn't. Some people just never bothered introducing it because mages were better. I do not blame them, I joined them. And to allow for tanks to be a part of the equation as a team member, you need to give them what they train more DX for, the chance for an extra hit. Take away multiple attacks, and DX and + on weapon almost becomes moot in any fight BUT with another tank. This cannot be good.

People think single ToA's will dominate, they won't. The will until they run into Decay or GA. Take your pick. ToA has no protection, no MgS, you almost always use DB's. You have to go all out AMF or DM, you stick around playing I am an enchanter tank and you are no longer the power you were. You have to add a minion, but thats just one or the other AMF/DM, so now you either add another or pick a wall or who knows!

And thats what I mean. Tanks are not easy, but they are a lot more fun. GO TANKS (and multiple attacks are what help make them viable)

What multiple hits?
I'm lucky if I can hit someone once!

Another Tank Nov? I'm sure you multi-batter everything else! :P

“OK GL I wont go point by point, just take my favorite one. The answer on how to start. You said same as CB1, a single tank, buy the biggest weapon you can afford, and go to town.

So I train as much into HP DX ST and BL as I can and rent a 100K NW katana, and I come back to you a day later and say, hey that start strat sucks, I can't beat anyone, now I can't afford to heal, isn't there a better way.

Previous answer, train HP and FB. Click 1/2 max on FB, click train. Click 1/2 max HP max FB click train, rinse repeat, you rule. Save all your money, purchase nothing.

Also I trained as much BL as I trained HP, and I wanted to do a lot of damage so I trained 2x DX into ST. I wanted to be heavy AC so I got the double chain mail and the heaume. I thought it matched my steel shod boots. I equipped a bow, and a shield and my DX went way down. How do I get the number after my BL to say 1.00 it seems stuck no matter how much I train. What about these bolts, they have better base but my bow can't seem to shot them right? Should I upgrade my ammo at the blacksmith, how do I forge?

Answer previously, purchase nothing, nothing you can buy will do you any good right now. Same for rental, do nothing, this will do you fine until you need to add an enchament. No ratios, you click 1/2 max FB then train, 1/2 max HP max FB and click train everytime. No skills you do not need them yet. Do not waste your exp.

The complexity alone is the answer to why tanks should strike multiple times, you make it sound so easy it is not, mages sound easy because they are.”


First of all, I don’t see the relevance bwtween 'whatever strat I give to a new player' and 'Tanks are now overpowered due to the recent changes and their ability to land multiple hits'.

That being said, my original answer to your question was over simplified. I took the liberty of doing such knowing who it was I was debating the point with. ;)

I don't think I really need to spell out all the advice I'd give a new player, like don't buy a DCM. Ever. And my first question would be 'What do you want to get out of CB?' Being competitive is a lot more complex than fighting for fun. ;)

As for complex, both Mages and Tanks can get as simple or as complex as you want. Tanks can 'simply' train HP, Str, Dex and buy a weapon. That's basically all that is needed. Mages train HP and DD. That's basically all that is needed for them. Enchanters, well, they just train an enchantment. ;)

Then you can start to get more complex. But as you've said, complex or simple doesn’t equate to good.

The complexity of a Tank is the reason they are allowed to out damage everything else? I don’t agree with that. Tanks can be simple. They can be easy. Mages can be complex.

For example, what Skill do you trian? Easy, Evasion. What ratio of Evasion do you train? Do you use DB with it, or Eb? DB' won't stack, Eb' will increase your Evasion skill. Out of the 4 DD spells, which one is for you? What tattoo do you use? ToE or a Familiar? Or even a TJK? If it's a DD Familiar, which one? Which will complement the DD you chose? Now you've got a DD familiar do you actually train PL instead of Evasion? Isn't a ToE better for AMF backlash? How do you forge? Armour, do you even bother with it? Shields? Do you add an enchantment? If so when?

But this of course can be boiled down to 'Train HP and FB, you’ll see results'. Just as I had boiled down 'be a Tank, you’ll see reulsts'. These can both be expanded upon with time and experience.

Tanks at the moment can easily (simply?) equal the damage an equivalent Mage could do, with one swing of their weapon. But, they and only they, get the opportunity to double, triple, quadruple (or more) their damage. Nothing else comes close to this.

CB is more complecated for newer players, strats are usually dumbed down until people get more of a groudning. Take CB1. Train a single tank until 500MPR. Don't train anything else until then. Because the starter strat in CB1 was simple, doesn't mean it wasn’t the most powerful to begin with there (There was a reason everyone was told to do it. Simple and the most effective), and nothing has changed here.

If two new characters were created side by side, one a mage the other a tank, and fought the same amount of battles, the Tank would be able to grow faster and get better rewards. Simply because the tank can increase their 'power' without increasing their PR via the wepaon allowance. The mage has no such luxury.

*Grumble*

I take all that time and still forget to mention something. :(

I like multiple hits. I don't like single hits able to do so much damage though.

And I don't like the WA. What's the point? Tanks need NW to compete. Mages need to trian a DD to compete. But they get their PR increased (well MPR, but at the least PR is equal to MPR...) with every point of DD trained.

Plus, weapons should have different PR weights.

I'm wondering something GL. I read "most" of what was said through this post and have wondered one thing.

How do you expect a Mage to not get hit multiple times when they have no trained dex? That is like trying to say a person with no eye-hand coordination could compete at the same level as someone with great eye-hand coordination at the same game and have a chance at competing.

If you expect to not get hit multiple times then you are required to do something to stop the dex gap. Plain and simple. That would be EC, DB, Dex. Something.

Also if you are trying to compare most powerful blows of a person that has most exp trained in one stat to a person that has exp trained in two, plus the networth to get their weapons to that point. That is an insane comparison.

Try this. Get a mage with the same networth as a tank and then compare how things are. If the two teams are even halfway smart in where they spend their net-worth things will be a lot closer than you would care to think. I am just saying, you are comparing some of the largest weapons in the game at how much net worth? They should hit for that damage. If a mage spent that much on DB's I bet they wouldn't get five hits against them. So try comparing things that are the same, not things that are so drastically different. Then see if that is a closer thing to balanced.

Oh and a side note. My punctuation, spelling and paragraph breaks are probably all off, but I just got home from work and am tired and wanted to get this written before I headed off. So please forgive me Bast.

:) NP! ;)

Maybe it was false to compare the top weapon to the top DD, but I still tihnk it's a valid description of damage.

I like multiple hits, I want Mages to get hit multiple times by Tanks.

I just want some balance back. Tanks do too much damage with multiple hits.

OK quick example.

Me (PR / MPR: 84,396 / 60,115) versus Fett (PR / MPR: 85,778 / 84,630)

No ranged wepaon so I'll ignore ranged.

"Melee Combat
Awen's Fireball hit Fett [8013], Talhearn [2803]
Awen absorbs damage [2803]
Talhearn's Magic missile hit Fett [7435]

Fett gashed Talhearn [13443]
Awen absorbs damage [7200]


Awen's Fireball hit Fett [8380], Talhearn [2892]
Awen absorbs damage [2892]

Fett carved into Talhearn [13509]
Awen absorbs damage [7200]"

MY two minions, both together, do equivalent damage to a single hit from Fett. Fett has small NW (NW 635,520) and no Tattoo. Compared to my 17 Million NW.

Plus I'd set Tal up with a fairly large Evaison.

If Fett had either used a ToA, or hard a larger wepaon, or I didn't have evaison, just an extra hit per round would have neary doubled the damage I could do. Hell he has nearyl no AC (31 odd). Give fet another 16 million to catch up to my NW, and I wouldn't be able to touch him...

Give him a ranged weapon and I might not be able to beat him as he is...

How about UC?

Isyne is my size (PR / MPR: 82,498 / 67,604) with a NW: $1,806,658.

In melee;

Kiia crunched Talhearn [17715]
Kiia crushed Talhearn [25154]

Kiia pulverized Awen [25406]
Kiia crushed Awen [31918]

Two hits per round, each individual hit more than both my minions put out. Two hits (in the case of the second round) 57,324 compared to my 15-17K...

Ballanced?

"Also if you are trying to compare most powerful blows of a person that has most exp trained in one stat to a person that has exp trained in two, plus the networth to get their weapons to that point. That is an insane comparison."

Just to get back to this. OK, the MH was massive. But, for Joe, the largest FB in the game to equal a double hit from that MH, he would have to double his DD to somewhere around 6 Million! 9 Million for a triple hit!

That it my point.

A couple of extra things.

"yes, it _can_ or it can hit not at all, you look at extreme cases of nw differential, but with similar amount invested in defensive items, such as dbs, tanks might not hit at all. i think if anything its more balanced, mages just have to spend there cb$ more wisely now"

The upgrade cost of DB -pth equalts the upgrade costs of the big weapons pth. They equal each other out.

Then, you have to deal with the two hits from dex. There is no NW way (if you want to also include the NW cost of a wepaons X) to match the Tanks Dexterity. They will hit once, possibly twice.

As for GA. If you want to include that, you must accept VA as it's counter. You face GA as a Tank, you have VA to overcome it. Plus Armour.

DD get's damage by GA as well, yet has nothing to counter it (bar armour). DD also gets damage by AMF, yet has nothing to counter it (from skills/spells alone).

GA is easier for Tanks to deal with than Mages.

Oh and don't forget VA can take you over your max HP total, and can be gotten in an un reducable form from two wepaons.

with no assosiated PR increase. >_<

:D

Major point!

Maybe I should bold this.

Tanks have to spend cash above anything els ein the game on weapon X.

This should mean that overall, their other equipment values is less than equivalent teams.

To balance this, they can hit more than once per round.

This I have no problem with at all. It think it's great!

But, at the moment, the extra attacks are not needed to balance things, they just unbalance the game. That is my problem.

Hmmm how about making each sucessive physical hit do less damage?

The Counter Balance for Tanks is AS/GA. If you can absorb that damage and return it via GA, you can sit back and watch a tank kill himself fast, especially ranged Tanks.
Also magic is highly effective vs ToA Tanks because of their low AC. I don't see what the big deal is with Tanks getting to many hits, they've always gotten the same amount of hits and dished out more damage than most mages, the only difference now vs then is that now, weapons have been made better.

Talking to yourself GL? First sign of madness you know,,,,,,,

Too much better Mikel. AS/GA is a great combo. Stops Mages as well as tanks.

VA lowers the impact of GA.

ToA tanks have roughtly the same AC as Mages.

" Take away multiple attacks, and DX and + on weapon almost becomes moot in any fight BUT with another tank. This cannot be good."

DX and + is already moot in any fight but with another tank. It gives automatic extra attacks. This cannot be good. ;)

"Talking to yourself GL? First sign of madness you know"

I know! :D We've had Air Con installed in the office today! I'm cool and can actually think. ;) Well apart form being tired by staying up till 1AM writing five posts to sefton. ;)

Was starting to feel everyone was haivng a CB holiday apart from me tohugh. Felt all left out! ;)

Tanks get multiple hits on mages in melee because the mage doesn't belong there. If your mage is fighting too far into melee it's not working to it's best and deserves a multiple "thwack" :)

Tell that to CoC and Decay G....

They have no choice but to get involved in melee. ;)

As for complex, both Mages and Tanks can get as simple or as complex as you want. Tanks can 'simply' train HP, Str, Dex and buy a weapon. That's basically all that is needed. Mages train HP and DD. That's basically all that is needed for them. Enchanters, well, they just train an enchantment. ;)

I still disagree with the premise. Tanks are not simple. You are not complaining about the tank that trains an even HP ST and DX and equips a weapon, he is not winning any fights. Conversely my HP FB mages is oh wait excuse me, was kicking everyone's butt. You try to make it simple but without Archery to give a third total range round or Bloodlust to do extra damage in melee, that tank will be a threat to no one, except maybe other simple tanks. Just adding a weapon wont cut it, you have to add armor, you have to consider 1 handed vs 2 handed, weapon and shield and bow or crossbow. That simlpe tank is getting creamed, and the simple mage is not. It is that simple.

If two new characters were created side by side, one a mage the other a tank, and fought the same amount of battles, the Tank would be able to grow faster and get better rewards. Simply because the tank can increase their 'power' without increasing their PR via the wepaon allowance. The mage has no such luxury.

NOT if the mage buys BA they wont. If the mage buys ba and the tank is forced to do the same to keep up, then his weapons and armor are not getting his money and I disagree and say the mage will have much more power, so I add to your example the more realistic fight the same amount of battles and SPEND the same amount of money, then I bet its a wash. The Mage will have more MPR the tank will have better gear, but I do not think the tank would be significantly stronger. The mage can take every ounce of money earned and reinvest it in BA, never losing money, never gaining money. The tank first have to work out ammo, then his gear, then if there is anything left (and without NUB there will not be) buy BA.

Tanks are not simple and if you provide simple instruction for their creation they will not be the great threat that you worry about. Only those like myself fully capable of leveraging every advantage from every one of the many aspects of tanks, will be a worry, and yes you should worry about us, now.

Mages and tanks on the same path fighting the same amount of fight diverge as soon as the tank reloads and the mage buys BA. Its that straightforward. At which point I think the mage will be able to buy enough extra BA to compete with his weapon (FB) to stand up to the same tank. Will the tank win, I'm not truly sure. I would like to say yes, but I bet it would be close.

Sef. Then consider the Tank that already has all the equipment he needs, and spends BA like the Mage. Easily come to with a 'vet' restarting a NCB charcater.

Both buy all daily BA, yet the tank gets betters rewards therfore earning more money to ever increase his stuff and more XP to get a higher MPR.

Also, consider the examples of the two fights I posted. I can't compete damage wise with those to physical damage dealers.

"I still disagree with the premise. Tanks are not simple. You are not complaining about the tank that trains an even HP ST and DX and equips a weapon, he is not winning any fights. Conversely my HP FB mages is oh wait excuse me, was kicking everyone's butt."

Sef, respecfully, I think you are still in a 'pre' change mindset. You mage did kick butt. Now, he won't kick as much. Now, a simple even HP/Str/Dex no skill Tank can win fights.

If I didn't want to change my current NCB I'd be happy to build a Tank like that and show you. ;)

DX and + is already moot in any fight but with another tank. It gives automatic extra attacks. This cannot be good. ;)

Not true, my new tank has 80K more DX than any non-training opponent. With +28 on the bow I just recently started getting an assured second hit, and with all the DB's, evasion AoI's, and the like its really not assured yet. Once I get to the usually triple strikes, then it gets interesting, but it has taken me about lets say conservatively 75K MPR to get to the point where Im striking twice every ranged round and occasionally a third time, against people who haven't put 1 exp into DX. If I switched to say ToE from ToA, I wouldnt even get second hits in ranged or melee.

So it is by no means automatic and it is by no means as easy to achieve as you say it is. OK let me caveat and say, I have done NO experiments with UC and cannot speak to the automatic nature of their offense or the ease to get there. If you want to nerf UC, go right ahead :) Im sure the groundswell of support.....heh.....yah I couldn't finish it, you would get run out of town on the next train. UC fans have been trying to get their UC to be competitive for 2 years now, and if they finally did it, I bet you take that advantage from their cold dead hands.

Anyway, the point is, tanks are not plug and play. They never will be. No matter how simply you state it, they still have a million complex questions. A mage is not the same, while there would be tweaks to make them better, purchase NOTHING but BA train 1/2 FB then 1/2HP max FB would work, will still work, just not as well, and used to rule without the slightest variation.

I think that complexity, the non-automatic nature of tanks, is an excellent counter to the advantage of multiple high damage attacks.

To take a middle ground, before the changes to tank damage the tank with all the toys and money to buy BA ruled the roost anyway. See TAB, Krang etc.

The biggest change here has been to allow the more average tanks a chance to compete. I'm not a USD player, which financially has meant that I've never stood a chance of competing with a tank. I simply have never been able to raise a weapon over a certain point due to lack of funds. The new upgrade system/costs means that I can plow finances into a weapon in the same way I would upgrade a DD spell. This means that if I fight enough I can actually make a decent and competetive tank from day one, hopefully into the upper levels. I will still not be able to compete with a morg that is 30x the size of mine...yet....;)

GL you do not need to a NCB to build a simple tank and fail with it, the NCB wont do you any good, and if the tank is a restart so is the mage. If you want to compare two apples make sure they are both apples. Since we all know until recently mages had an extreme advantage, the mage has more from his restart than the tank. The tank is still waiting for his weapon allowance to catch up to the 5mil NW Morg and 10mil NW exbow from his last tank. In about a month of constant fighting he should get there....maybe, actually make that 2 months. So all the while the tank is renting or using a secondary weapon, one that he knows he will drop as soon as he is able to switch, again, the point is made a tank cannot do anything simple, not even start over, a mage can.

So I go back to and still assert, that all things being equal, a single, non-tattoo wearing mage and a single non-tattoo wearing tank, started today, and fought the same amount of battles, and both characters could spend up to what they earned on anything they want (gear or BA) its pretty close to a wash as far as who wins, and IF we force them to train simple, 1/4 3/4 on the mage and 1/3 1/3 1/3 on the tank, the mage will win. I bet the overall contest will be decided by small things, like can my tank gear mage bust or an extra plus on the ranged weapon.

I again assert that balance has returned, and yes maybe swung a little to the tank side of the balance sheet, but not as far as you suggest GL, and for as long as mages ruled, not undeservedly either.

LOL any imbalance is an imbalance Sef. Tanks don't deserves to be 'uber' just 'cuz mages were 'imba' for the last year. It's still not balanced.

I don't think we're going to sway each other.

Please take a look at the two fight examples I posted though. I have a far larger NW, and am of same size, yet I can't compete with the damage they are putting out.

I'll still say that a new Mage starting the same time as a Tank will have a slower progression, as the Tank (whatever weapon he uses, be it whip or a rented katana) can use his growing WA to up his damage without upping his PR allowing him to get better rewards for fighting up, than the Mage would get.

And again, if we look at the high end, for Joe to equal a two strike from Anubis, Joe would have to train an extra (at least!) 3 million levels in FB. To equal a triple, an extra 6! I hope you don't think that's balanced.

I agree Tanks needed something, you'll not hear me saying otheriwse! ;)

Just to hammer this home. (Assume XP cost doesn't increase.)

It has taken Hubbell about 4 months to get the FB he has. That equals a single hit from Anubis' MH.

To equal a double hit, Sutekh would have to play for (assuming no HP is spent) another three months to earn a FB that big.

Anubis gets it for having a dex larger than his opponent. Which could be trivial facing a 20 dex minion.

To equal a triple would require in total, another 6 months of playing.

I did look at your two examples, you are trying to make a pre-change strat work the same after the change. It will not. You will need to rethink where you train and how you train. If those same mages had a large AS/GA (one even covered by a RoS) then that would be a different fight. If your mages added a base decay (assuming no AMF) or an apporpriate Decay (with an AoI) then that is a different fight. Yes you will need to change. Yes, that change that decrease in exp will hurt you. But, after adjustment, should do just fine. Welcome to Carnage Blender and torment tanks have enjoyed from the beginning, watching the changelog blow apart their hard won strategies, the fact that mages finally got it in the rear neither surprises or saddens me.

GL, comparing my FB to a melee weapon is a slightly skewed comparison. I get three rounds before he gets to swing. Compare it to the biggest ELB in the game. Do ranged weapons hit as hard and grow as fast as melee weapons? If so, then yes, me having to triple my DD would be a tough row to hoe.

Another issue to consider is the experience cost on high-level stats. A tank can get massive STR and DEX trained natively for only 14 experience per level. That works till around something in the lower 1 million range. After that, its 15 points per level. Doesn't sound like much? Well, 1 more point on 14 is a 7% increase. I have to spend 7% more experience than the average tank does. (The largest STR in the game is still well within the 14 points per level range.)

So, I am already having to spend an extra 7% in experience to combat the growth in STR, and the tank can continue to pump its weapons (with a PR allowance to boot!). Once an Elbow gets large enough, GL is correct -- I essentially have to grow my DD 2 or 3 times bigger, plus the 7%, plus I am increasing my PR straight up.

Is that imbalanced? I have no idea. I couldn't touch Crisis (or any of the big tanks) before, and I can't touch them now... But GLs battle comparisons are interesting, to say the least (can you do more ranged testing, GL?)

The largest ELB in the game gets triple hits of 1 million+ on me. That's a big bow, though. If I made myself some DBs worth 100 million, how often would he hit me? Thos boots would probably be, what, +200? That would nuke the ELB's pth, and eat away at a bit of dexterity, though he would probably still land doubles.

Maybe that is part of the issue -- let's not even talk triples. There's no need, since doubles are really very easy to get, even if I were to wear huge DBs against huge ELBs, the dexterity on the tank would still yield a great deal of doubles. I would have to double my FB to compete with that.

Now, DBs that size on a big juicy tank...YUMMY! But I'm with GL -- I don't want the only way to "balance" something to be to have to become that thing. That's not balance in my eyes.

"I did look at your two examples, you are trying to make a pre-change strat work the same after the change. It will not. You will need to rethink where you train and how you train. If those same mages had a large AS/GA (one even covered by a RoS) then that would be a different fight. If your mages added a base decay (assuming no AMF) or an apporpriate Decay (with an AoI) then that is a different fight. Yes you will need to change. Yes, that change that decrease in exp will hurt you. But, after adjustment, should do just fine. Welcome to Carnage Blender and torment tanks have enjoyed from the beginning, watching the changelog blow apart their hard won strategies, the fact that mages finally got it in the rear neither surprises or saddens me"

Sef, come on, I bounced my pre change strat off you. It was Decay/CoC. I had options then. I've *had* to change to FB/MM as I just can't live long enough into and in melee to make Decay/CoC work now.

As I said,change to achive balance was required. This isn't balance and a 'swing the other way' can't be justified. I'm sure it feels great, but it's not fair...

"GL, comparing my FB to a melee weapon is a slightly skewed comparison. I get three rounds before he gets to swing. Compare it to the biggest ELB in the game. Do ranged weapons hit as hard and grow as fast as melee weapons? If so, then yes, me having to triple my DD would be a tough row to hoe."

*shrug* I was just going by the largest MPB I could find. I tihnk we'll have to wait a little whie until someone trains Archery with a massive ELBow to get a ranged version of that. ;)

"Once an Elbow gets large enough, GL is correct -- I essentially have to grow my DD 2 or 3 times bigger, plus the 7%, plus I am increasing my PR straight up."

That's it! ;)

"Is that imbalanced? I have no idea. I couldn't touch Crisis (or any of the big tanks) before, and I can't touch them now... But GLs battle comparisons are interesting, to say the least (can you do more ranged testing, GL?) "

Yo. I'll go find someone my size with a bow.

"The largest ELB in the game gets triple hits of 1 million+ on me. That's a big bow, though. If I made myself some DBs worth 100 million, how often would he hit me? Thos boots would probably be, what, +200? That would nuke the ELB's pth, and eat away at a bit of dexterity, though he would probably still land doubles."

You've got a big FB. ;)

"Maybe that is part of the issue -- let's not even talk triples. There's no need, since doubles are really very easy to get, even if I were to wear huge DBs against huge ELBs, the dexterity on the tank would still yield a great deal of doubles. I would have to double my FB to compete with that."

That's the focus of my worries!

"Now, DBs that size on a big juicy tank...YUMMY! But I'm with GL -- I don't want the only way to "balance" something to be to have to become that thing. That's not balance in my eyes."

Exactly. ;)

Maybe the more direct question is one for Jonathan: When the physical weapon damage was increased (and the subsequently reduced to 40% of its initial buff), were multiple hits considered in that equation?

It is fairly obvious that the buff was somewhat a "guess", since the buff was reduced directly afterwards (and Jonathan was even asking for data points so he could get a handle on where things were at. I just want to know if he was still looking at blow by blow or combined damage-per-round.

Yes, GL...when we see more of a return to Archery we can get a better feel for whether or not the remaining mage advantage (full ranged firepower) is still an advantage...

OK, quick Ranged example;

Vicige PR / MPR: 105,270 / 85,805 Net Worth: $5,493,911

Awen's Fireball hit Jena [766], Sukia's familiar [1343], Sukia [1501]
Talhearn's Magic missile hit Sukia [5334]


Jena hit Talhearn [13634]
Awen absorbs damage [10800]
Sukia's familiar takes damage from his own Magic missile (1392)!
Sukia's familiar's Magic missile hit Talhearn [9034]
Awen absorbs damage [9034]

Awen's Fireball hit Jena [909], Sukia's familiar [1341], Sukia [931]
Talhearn's Magic missile hit Sukia [8963]

Jena shot Talhearn [13679]
Awen absorbs damage [10800]
Sukia's familiar takes damage from his own Magic missile (1591)!
Sukia's familiar's Magic missile hit Talhearn [6448]
Awen absorbs damage [3334]

R.I.P. Sukia

Awen's Fireball hit Jena [1377], Sukia's familiar [3611]
Talhearn's Magic missile hit Sukia's familiar [12273]

Jena struck deep into Talhearn [17959]
Sukia's familiar takes damage from his own Magic missile (1790)!
Sukia's familiar's Magic missile hit Awen [12152]

R.I.P. Awen, Talhearn

Ignoring the other familiars damage, I could barely keep up with a single hit from Compound Bow + Archery + BG. If a second hit had landed, there's nothing I could do to keep up.

Hmmm well if you are doing decay/CoC on a 4 minion team, with SF it should be

Wall
Decay Mage with AoI
CoC Mage
Enchanter
SF minion


The enchanter should train DM and GA and wear a SF
The mage should add some AS to his HP and FB
The wall should be a mage buster with MgS
Stick a TSA on the enchanter
PL the wall with just HP and PL (you can do a little sweeper ST and DX with melee)
The Decay mage should be HP and Decay.

Now my single tank has a problem, even if I have 4 milion multple attacks, there will still be a decay mage and a SF minion in melee against me at a minimum. All the cash and exp I trained into DX and DB's is cut in half as the dodge side doesnt work against either opponent. The decay cut me in half, the SF puts me away. This is of course partly due to the fact that my massive damage has been GA's back to me. There is a counter to every strat. Yes, focusing like this could leave me vulnearable to other strats besides tanks, again welcome to the blender.

You could eat a single ToA for breakfast with.

Wall - HP PL
Decay mage with AoI
Enchanter - just GA
Enchanter - Just AS and a SF (I would put the SF in front of the enchanter to protect from MM, but if you just want to slaughter ToA's then put him in back and protect him from ranged attacks)

A single ToA is in trouble anyway he turns, if he has DM its a lot smaller than your GA, so even with it, he is taking massive damage from his own attacks plus taking the full force of Decay and Magic Missle, with no damage occuring to them from their attacks. He goes AMF then your big ole GA and big ole AS come into play. Now you are creating HP from thin air and making everyone he takes from you really hurt. Either way, chance for survival not good.

Thats a pure magic team that would do real well against single ToA tanks. Change to that, and then tell me mages are not viable.

Yes your single mages no longer stand up to single single tanks, that I will give you and I for one to not feel it is unbalance to be like that. Certainly more balanced than the reverse that used to be true.

Versus Nymandus (14th largest ELB in the game, I would estimate around 20-25 million NW? Nymandus would have to confirm):

4 battles, he never missed, triples every time for an average per-blow damage of 256K. That's 768K of damage per round. In Round One, my FB does between 1 million and 1.5 million damage to a low-armored person. Once he gets his ELB to around 50-60 million NW (and some STR pumping), he will be even with me I would guess (and that's just one minion of a four-minion team -- he already draws with me and I had to remove him from my fight list yesterday...). If he were a single tank I would venture to say he might already be matching me with a 25 million-dollar weapon (plus ammo costs).

Again, I can't say I am seeing imbalance, but I can say I am seeing GL's point. *smile*

Sefton, yes, I agree with your assessment. However, 4-minion teams, in general, can eat single minion teams for lunch. I don't want to be forced into 4-minion automatically. On another thread, you said your "optimum" number of minions has been 3. Can you build a team that stops an uber ToA archer with only three minions?

Also, a note about my Nymandus post... Not sure why, and it's a bad habit, but I have gotten in the habit of thinking, "Pffft, a 25 million dollar item is easy to get..." That's not exactly true. 25 million is a lot of cash. My eyes get warbly from seeing all the huge weapons that have been created with USD, but that's not really an imbalance, is it? USD has always screwed (oops, I meant "skewed", wait, no I didn't) the game.

Sorry, one more data point... Belg.

As far as I can tell looking at history, Belg has been four minion the whole way. MPR is 590K, so that means each minion has around 150K MPR (I know it isn't linear, etc. etc...this is an estimate). The tank wears a ToA, so I will even assume all the extra PR from the tat and equipment is on that minion, so let's say his tank has an effective PR of 300K or so. His tank is one-fifth the size of my minion in terms of total PR.

Also, his ELB is not even in the top 50 bows. So, that NW isn't much.

In 5 battles, he double-hit me three times and tripled me twice with an average blow of 150K. So, doubles are around 300K damage per round. Triples would be 450K. Doubles make sense... He does one-fifth the damage of my FB (again, assuming my FB can deal 1.5 million damage on a non-armored target) and his tank is one-fifth my size. Triples, however, will get him close to doing 1/3rd my damage even though he is only 1/5th my size. Give him Nymandus' ELB and he would probably get close to doing 40-50% my damage even though only being 20-25% my size. The weapon allowance probably wouldn't raise his PR that much even with a bigger bow.

Triples (on this data point) would get an archer close to doing twice the damage of a similarly-experienced mage. And at higher levels, triples are easy.

Suddenly I have become GL...

OK, there is one big, yet somewhat intangible, difference between mages and tanks, at least FB mages and tanks. An FB mage can kill multiple targets in one round. A single tank never-ever can. Multi-minion targets give any single-minion fits, but moreso for a tank. Yes, they get multiple hits, but if that third (or even second) hit is pummelling a corpse, it doesn't really matter.

Then again, FB has it's own set of disadvantages: friendly fire in melee, RBF reduction, multiple GA hits, etc. Like I said, a difference that is hard to quantify. Simply comparing damage outputs doesn't _quite_ get to the whole story, though I suppose it would if you compared an MM mage to a tank...

Sure Sut, granted without my 5th minion, my win is less assured. The reason I choose 3 minions starting out is, the combination of bang and rewards. It will be a 4 minion team eventually, no question about it. I do not beleive you can be looking at the top CB spot without it (or massive USD), now that camping is gone, there will be no more ShabbleFlabs single minion domination.

There are other caveats. The fewer minions I have the less likely the strat will be to do well against anyone besides a single tank, but we are not talking ultimate strats, just beating a single ToA with 3 minions.

Wall - Dodge wall, train HP DX and PL add DB's and Elven gear
(the idea being, this minion should take more than one round for a single ToA to kill)
AoI Mage - Magic missle and HP and GA
Enchanter - wears SF trains AS and DM SF to the back not front.

The order of minions attacked by a single tank is, wall, enchanter, SF minion, mage. Asuming I can get my wall to take two rounds, then, I end up with my mage and your tank in melee. I have never missed. I have made you take damage from everyone of your attacks. You either cut my AS/GA or my DD not both. I think this would do just fine, granted other mage teams will slaughter you.

The biggest DD and the Biggest MPB in the game are pretty close we have established that.... DD spells being cast suffer less of a penalty in ranged rounds than most tanks will... I go from a 400k+ MPB in melee to 45k? MPB in ranged. Granted I could choosed to use an ELB, but at best I would still only be at about half of my MPB...

Essentially Mages get 3 free rounds where they don't suffer the full wrath of the tank (with the exception of some archery only tanks) Therefore IF I survive past your ranged onslaught... I certainly should be coming back at you with those kinds of hits.

Furthermore, mages don't suffer a penalty to train Evasion or Dex... They have just chosen not to do it up till now, b/c they could pump their HP/DD and in most cases have a winning team. You look at Pitspawns old char., and my tank with a lvl 1mil ToA could not hit him.... Mages could do the same, they have just chosen not to.

Lastly, don't complain about ToA's being so powerful that you can't stop multiple hits per round (as someone was early in the forum) That is the whole reason I carry $27,877,853 worth of NW around with me.... It is a trade off just like anything else in the game. I could dump the 27mil NW into my weapon, and get 3000 extra points of dmg out of my weapon if I chose to (relatively PR free) Not all tanks use the ToA so don't act like it is a given for every player smacking you in melee rounds.

And if the PTH from the ToA is giving me an extra hit per round that is really only combating the 1/3 dmg reduction your ToE is giving your whole team (which my team doesn't get to enjoy by the way)..... Trade offs....

Anyway... I hope I don't sound like I am picking on mages too much, it's just the ammount of whining coming from the mage secition of late is really bothering my sensitive ears. All the complaints you are bringing up are things tanks have had to deal with since I started playing the game, and watched player after player scoop up a ToE (or the super creative FF) train some HP and FB, and zoom past me in score.

Guess it is time for mages to start adding some NW to their teams, and get a little creative in strat huh?

First, I hate people accusing me of whining. I hope my complaints/critisicsms are well thought out and justified, and not just an angry lash as I got 'schooled' by someone.

[quote]Essentially Mages get 3 free rounds where they don't suffer the full wrath of the tank (with the exception of some archery only tanks) Therefore IF I survive past your ranged onslaught... I certainly should be coming back at you with those kinds of hits.[/quote]

Tell that to CoC/Decay mages...

[quote]Guess it is time for mages to start adding some NW to their teams[/quote]

And how do they do that (more so than mages already do)?

Well spoken velvet, well spoken

I reckon that if you added enough into your DB's to equal a tanks overall NW (after all the other essential mage gears are at the 'optimal' levels) rather than just the weapon NW you are comparing to then you would also be combatting enough of the dex gap also except for the occassional ToA tank that is left.
By having the DB's Evasion would be a complete waste of experience, just keep pumping the exp into the spell and HP (which is much higher than a tanks) while putting the spare cash at the end of each day into the DB's, it'll likely be much closer than you expect from the analysis.

Certainly not to me GL I love this stuff, its easily half the reason I am here.

When you say tell that to the CoC/Decay mages, I say what about the ax/exbow ppl. We all know they are pretty much worthless against mages in ranged. So again as mentioned there are trade offs, your CoC/Decay will have a tough time aganst my Elbow/BG/archery but should do just fine against ax/ex Morg and BL. Whereas my archery might have a tough time against that same ex/ax bow strat.

The part you left off is an get creative with their strats. That together, makes the statement and with that I say, by adding amulets, by buying a bigger tattoo so it exceeds your max tattoo, by investing in enchantments like GA and then dropping corns on those investments, adding Decay and AG's CoI, etc etc etc. That is how they can spend more NW and be creative in their strats.

I'd still like to hear thoughts on my PR to PR, minion-to-minion comparison... Once Belg starts hitting triples more easily, he will be doing half my damage with one-fifth the power. How is that not at least somewhat questionable?

Well I will toss in then, Sut.

My answer is simple you are still using the exact same strat as before the change. Your surprise is probably equal to the surprise ranger felt when PL was added. You of all people should realize that after a major change like to expect to be able to keep exactly the same strat and still do just as well is silly. You will have to change. You will no longer be able to get by as a single mage using only an RoE. No tears here I am afraid. Now you might have to invest in a real tattoo. Yah your free lunch is over, your free exp has ended, you can no longer dominiate as a single mage with essentially no tattoo. Sorry but put a DECENT sized REAL tattoo on there, then talk to me about unbalance.

Oh I should not have to use a tattoo. Oh well then let me change my ToA to a RoE and we will see who wins now. Before I had to use a real PR gaining tattoo just to lose to your RoE fueled FB, now I do not. Again, not seeing any problem here whatsoever.

I think you missed my point(s), Sefton... First off, I don't have any tears either -- as I have said about 4-5 times now, might fight list didn't change.

I was referring to my direct comparison, minion vs minion. The tank on Belg and my single-minion Hubbell.

Belg's tank is hefting a mighty 4 million NW ELB (equipping it does not even change his PR, according to the wonderful info Belg supplied me with). And I estimate his pro-rated PR (on just the tank) to be around 300K -- one-fifth my minion's PR.

Belg's tank can get triple ranged hits on me fairly often. When he does, at 150K damage a piece, he is doing a total of about 450K per round. That is around a third of what my first-round FB does to an unarmored target (I have no AC).

So, damage to damage, his one-fifth sized minion does one-third the damage. I would guess the bulk of his PR is in his STR and DEX, and the bulk of my PR is in my DD.

That was the only point I was trying to make. No tears, no worries, and definitely staying on topic. Nothing about my RoE, or ToE, or tattoos at all. And definitely not asking for what I need to change to stay competitive. One more time: my fight list has barely budged.

Now, can you tell me your thoughts on my analysis?

And I have tried to make it very clear NOT to use the word imbalance. I have been posting data points and some quick analysis of my own. Good grief -- and you say that _I'm_ the one who goes off topic? Your "throw in" didn't have one single thing to do with the post I had just previously made (or any of them, actually...) Practice what you preach, much?

Actually, I have found a discrepancy that sort of explains it... Damage to damage, 100% percent of Belg's tank is devoted to damage -- all of his experience is in STR, DEX, and Archery, and he is wearing the tattoo for the team.

My DD (ran the numbers) accounts for about 2/3rds of my invested experience.

If I was ALL DD (not really possible, but you get my point), My FB would probably hit for 2 to 2.5 million in round one. One-fifth of that would be 400-500K, just like Belg hits me for.

GL, I know there is a lot wrong with trying to make minion-to-minion comparisons, but this seems somewhat in line with as it should be. Return on investment is the same, at least up through doubles and triples. If a tank is getting quad or quint hits, then that character has some SERIOUS money in it. Not to mention, those last three hits are pure pth, which can be countered by DBs/Evasion. Don't forget that the "tank-only" aspect of it, dexterity, can only account for doubles. Anything more than that can be countered as easily as it can be built.

What say you, troublemaker! *smile*

No I think you missed mine, you are trying to make an apple to orange comparison, and I pointed it out. You are trying to compare the damage done from a 4 minion tank team with a ToA to a single minion FB RoE. Take off the ToA, then compare OR add a ToE and then compare. Without the ToA his ST is at least half of what it is, with the ToE the damage you take will be at least 1/4 of the previously mentioned 150K.

And adding a ToE to your character does not change the damage you do one bit. I am saying that before the change with the overpowering of mages, you could easily make the case that DD was over powered based upon a comparison of Belg's ToA tank to your RoE FB minion.

Now after the change, that comparison is no longer relevant, the rules have changed, now if you wish to make an accurate comparison, you much match tattoos as much as you match stats.

Thusly, it is on topic, tanks multiple attacks are not overpowered because you are trying to make your RoE work like it did before the change. It does not. Just like Ranger's axbow didn't work after the PL change, just like my elbow didn't work after the several archery nerfs.

So to be as clear and concise as possible:

Once Belg starts hitting triples more easily, he will be doing half my damage with one-fifth the power. How is that not at least somewhat questionable?

Because you are comparing a minion with a working tattoo to a minion without one. Once you match those factors then perhaps the questionable nature of the damage he does, and the damage you do can be spoken about.

I say I LOVE trouble :)

I like your last analysis better than my own :)

Your last argument is much better than mine.

I still think its apples to oranges though!

Well that has always been a gripe for me, anyway -- the fact that tattoo PR doesn't count as much as "normal" power... Whatever that means... I WANT to be able to compare on PR. I WANT to be able to say, Hm, his PR, made up of a tattoo, bow, and some STR does X amount of damage. This other minion, using his PR, does Y amount of damage.

But you are right, it is apples and oranges because PR doesn't mean anything. We have weapon allowances, NW weightings, a pseudo-PR for tattoos...

It would have probably been easier for you to say that ALL comparisons in this game are apples to oranges, and that's what frustrates me.

But yes, my last analysis at least makes some sense to me.

Perhaps you weren't off topic, but I wanted to make clear (in retaliation to your innuendo) that I also had no tears, wasn't expecting to be RoE forever, and wasn't whining about imbalance. I never said any such things. I'm running my team the way I want, and I don't expect Sutekh-specific changes to be made. There are no slam dunks in this game.

And in all fairness back, I reacted too harshly. It just has frustrated me in reverse since about Jan of 2006 (or longer) that a RoE mage could even pretend to hang with any sort of tank, and I reacted with that frustration as much as true information, if not more so. So I do apologize for that. Its just, hmmm the audacity of mages to now argue that tanks are over powered when the reverse was so glaringly true, for so very long, prior to the change. It is hard for me to understand. And I still am not convinced Tanks are overpowered now.

I do just fine as an RoE mage, and am sure I could still find viable targets on the way up if I started over tomorrow. I couldn't possibly care less if I am beating tanks, mages, walls, Waldo, or France, as long as I can beat decent targets and grow at a decent clip.

As I said before, my only problem with tanks is that they are an easier vehicle to use USD with. That's a personal opinion (not liking USD), but it does fuel my other opinions as well.

I am not convinced tanks are overpowered either... Still waiting for GL to mull over my most recent analysis and see what he has to say. *smile*

"Still waiting for GL to mull over my most recent analysis and see what he has to say. *smile*"

Mulled over.

I think a problem with where I'm observing my new NCB charcater is the new DD reduction at low levels. It's possible that that is what I'm seeing in my fights, and but up to normal/high levels things really do even themselves out.

So why the reduction at low levels?

I still ground my heels in, that tanks get better rewards due to the WA, so why reduce low DD damage?

Mages needed to have thier reign ended, maybe I just fear that it has swung to far the other way.

Heh. This has just given me more drive to level my Mage team. To see what I can make of it in the 'higher' levels! ;) I just hope I'm able to vhange back to Decay/CoC if I want to. :)

I agree that the 1/2 to 1/3 nerf seems a bit unnecessary now.

Also, maybe the 10, 20, 30% reduction in ranged is too much? Depends on how big Archery gets. I think the tanks are going to keep each other honest on that front, and Archery may not get as big as we think. But I'd love to see Archery have the same damage reduction in raounds 1, 2, and 3 like DD has. Hey, the whole point was to make them similar, right?

And I have to ground my heels in that mages can on average purchase more BA. This alone plenty outweighs any reward advantage gained from leveraging WA to the fullest.

Sute, that's brilliant, give rnaged the same damage penalty as DD spells. Less kenetic force at longer ranges isn't there! ;)

Sef, how about teams that can buy all the daily BA and have cash left over at the end of the day? Sure the Tank spends that on their weapon and the mage gets to horde (or pump their AG/CoI till it gets too expensive), but the tank can increase the X linearly, so never has to stop!

Agreed that with low cash (maybe new starting characters) it's easier for the Mage to buy more BA than the Tank, but after a while (from length of playing, or starting over, whatever) that evens itself out.

:) anyway, I'm off to bed, I hope the downtime doesn't effect epopel too much! se you tomorrow! :D

So what there is a penalty in ranged and then once you get to melee there is an even bigger penalty, when does my ranged get to the same level as a Fireball, and since mine stops at the 3 round and now I have to use another weapon, when does the mages Fireball stop? Apples and oranges.

If you had proposed the reverse, I would have probably agreed. Earlier on because BA costs are so low, because WA is low, a tank could probably buy as much BA. GRANTED he should be saving up, but he could buy the BA instead. As we move a long the mage has LESS need to spend money on his gear (I mean is +11 a lot more effective than +10 AG's), while the tank HAS to do the opposite keep spending more and more as their items grow and grow.

And if your plan is to restart, then you should STILL make a 4 mage team and just fight him until you are happy with your bankroll, without a NUB or NCB, then retire him and start your NCB. And if game change is needed to balance out anticipated changes a user might make AFTER his current character's usefulness is done, well that is a pretty tall order. Still cant see that as a justification for the balance of more BA for mages, what you might do with your next character.

Only NUBs or previous mage team restarters have any cash on hand. Trying to balance the game based upon what someone might bring to the table from previous characters, sounds tricky to me. Might as well balance out all the USD spenders while you are at it, make Sut a VERY happy man.

"So what there is a penalty in ranged and then once you get to melee there is an even bigger penalty, when does my ranged get to the same level as a Fireball, and since mine stops at the 3 round and now I have to use another weapon, when does the mages Fireball stop? Apples and oranges."

Not at all. ;)

Give ranged weapons the 30/20/10 penalty (even introduce a new bow that has lesser penalties maybe?), and give the ranged DD (FB/MM) the same penalties as bows in melee.

A dex reduction and only casting once every two rounds.

But then, allow mages to use weapons in Melee. It would be pointless if they don't pump str, but it's an option. ;)

Leave CoC/Decay as they are. No dex penalty and fire every round in melee.

But then I've always been an advocate of getting rid of the round destinctions anyway. ;)

Or, MM fires every other round in melee, and FB fires every round (as it has the friendly fire drawback), but both give a dex penalty if used.

;)

Reduce magic in melee? Um, no, please no. I don't want this ranged-kills vs. longer-kills so incredibly delineated as to take all the fun away. I would rather have everything stay as is than have magic changed in melee. You do that and you are basically forcing a team to go TM (with just melee weapon and BL on the tank) or just T. I'm not seeing how that is going to help with team diversity.

And yes, Sefton, maybe some of the comparison is apples and oranges. But pray tell what we CAN compare without you saying "apples and oranges", "apples and oranges". Can't use PR, can't use score, can't use number of minions, can't use NW... It seems like a convenient way of just saying "Nadder nadder, there is nothing you can say to analyze this, so stop trying..."

Be careful what you wish for, or you'll find much the same on your next analysis thread, no matter how good your logic or comparisons.

/me readies a cut-and-paste macro that says, "That's apples and oranges, Sefton, give it a rest."

*Evil grin*

Ah Sute, you want a DD spell that fires in every Melee round without Dex penalty, then Train CoC. Maybe we could also have a Melee only single target DD that works like MM (or even fires from the front back!)

If we give physical ranged attacks a ranged penalty akin to the DD ones, why sohuldn't we keep it fair and have the same penalties for those ranged DDs in melee?

The justification could be something along the lines of "those spells take concentration to cast and you must be standing nearly still to cast them".

:)

I suppose we could also remove the ranged penalties from DD spells and the melee penalties from Ranged weapons instead.

With the significant reduction of Ranged damage, why do ranged weapons still have the melee penalties? Just make them uneffected by BL if used in melee combat.

*Evil grin*

I think the problem is not that tanks do too much damage or get multiple hits, but that the PRs should be weighted differently. It seems obvious to all that a tank with 1M MPR and the max possible weapons for that PR is going to whip the behind of a 1M MPR mage. As far as I'm concerned, this is perfectly fair because of the cost of said weapons - pretty large. Give him a base whip and the playing field is leveled and then some. The solution would be to come up with a better way of calculating PR that takes into account the critical way in which weapons affect the power of the character. In my opinion the PR is underestimated when the character has weapons well below there max allowed and overestimated when the weapons get far above their max allotment.

A trivial example of this is if you put a 10M hammer on a 1K character. The PR is going to be WAY above what the power level actually is.

It would be nice if PR modifications based on weapons factored in the actual affect rather than the NW, like the way armors now do. But not knowing the melee formulas I wouldn't know how to begin. I could say that the PR bonus should be based on the average increase to the minions damage and hits.

My 2 cents.

:D I've been saying that since WA was introduced. At the least, wepaons need PR weightings. A 100K NW Whip is no where near as 'powerful' as a 100K NW MH. ;)

Well Sut, I did not think I would have to explain how to hold a successful trial, such that you reduce the number of variable, so that you can speak intelligently about the results.

For instance. If one minion uses a tattoo that gains him PR the other minion you are comparing it to should as well. Thusly it removes a variable that can skew the data, because both are having the same effect applied, even if they are different tattoos.

I think trying to make ranged physical just like ranged magical is apples to oranges, and I am not certain any trial can successful create data worth investigating. The number of variables that apply to physical attacks as compared to the number of completely different variables that apply to magical attacks make it a very difficult proposition I believe. Not to say impossible, but consider you have to account for factors like AMF, number of minions targeted for FB, PL, + on armor, TSA, MgS, and a wide range of other variable when testing magic. And then account for the evasion (DB, AoI, etc), PL, Protection (sorry forgot protection in the magic too), targeted minions ST + DX, the chance to actually miss, the chance to double strike, and another wide host of variables. That is before you determine if they have a ToE or RoBF to skew the data further. Then you have to look at the physical weapon, is it a VB, or an axbow, does it have other properties that change the nature of the damage done. Then you have to look at the ammo, I mean do you want to compare your fireball to someone with a base elbow but arrow bumped to x100 +100, you might want to but the data is skewed.

There are a host of problems with making that comparison. Again not impossible, but until it is shown that all the variables are accounted for, I say the data results are less meaningful at best.

You might say none of those variable matter that much, but if you are going to compare my ranged to your Fireball and THEN try to apply that generally to all ranged, well there you go. Certainly you can make the comparison individually without accounting for all the variables, saying this minion does more damage than that minion, but then you cannot turn around and then say yah so ALL minions will follow this same pattern. It does not seem like rocket science to me to ask that you made sure the opponent wasn't using massively bumped slayers because that is atypical. And I do not think its too much to ask of us, to say are you accounting for that before you make a blanket statement about everyone.

If you simply want to say, this minion does more than that minion, then go right ahead, if you want to say this minion does more than that minion, so ALL minions of the same type will perform the same, I want to make certain all the variables are accounted for before I blindly follow down the path of yah you are right. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

GL about magical damage in melee to account for my reduced ranged damage OK I can go there. No problem with that sort of balancing, I do think it will wash out though, as in the end result will still be about the same, you will still think tanks are overpowered.

Sef, you bring up a very good point.

In order to realistically weight physical attacks with DD, we need to know not only the number of hits per round this is based on (as Sute suggested above), but also what base weapon damage Jon is using as well.

Two hits from a x1000 Whip is going to be a different damage range to two from a x1000 MH.

;)

Maybe Damage is based on the base of Great axes, in which case anyone using the top four should be, by design, doing more damage than Mages.

;)

And to toss it in there, an x1000 whip will have TONS more NW than a x1000 MH.

Like the bow in Sut's example, it is 4mil NW, but who is to say its not x1 +75 to make 4mil or x100 +1 to make 4 mil, and how can you say that those two same NW bow will cause the same damage to the same target, especially when the target is a mage with no DX and the chance for any tank to miss is small. The + is almost irrelevant to hitting the mage once, but not irrelevant to the NW.

Sefton, you are comparing apples and oranges all the way across the board. Even strapping on a non-RoE tattoo to make the minion-to-minion comparison doesn't work, because different tattoos throw different percentages of their "tattoo PR" toward offense or defense (so a damage comparison is, once again, meaningless). A ToE might be a good comparison to a ToA, but then we have the whole "overwhelming" of the ToE to consider. Belg wouldn't even scratch me if I wore a ToE (150K per blow), but an MPB from the games biggest BoNE (1.5 million per blow) would have a much larger effect.

So what I am saying here is that because tattoo PR is some sort of condensed, pseudo-PR, it makes ALL comparisons impossible. I thinks its lame, and I don't understand why it is the way it is (I never have). Wait, I do understand why it is the way it is -- to make tattoos more attractive across the board (hooray for choice reduction!)

Basically, I am agreeing with you, and am saying you might as well give up now... I will ALWAYS be able to find a way to make comparisons of two different teams be "apples and oranges" if we can't depend on total PR as a true estimate of effective "power". Heck, we shouldn't even call PR "power rating" any more -- it should be called "RD": "Reward Decider", and it means whatever Jonathan fancies it to mean on any particular day.

By the way, Seft, I appreciate the condescending tone of your message... "I didn't think I would have to explain..." Really leads to a constructive conversation!

There are a lot of things I need explained to me. I don't know everything, never have, never will, and at times, even basic concepts exceed my capacities. I'm sorry you attribute such genius to me and then speak condescendingly to me when I don't meet with your expectations. Classy!

"And to toss it in there, an x1000 whip will have TONS more NW than a x1000 MH."

Yeah, but that wasn't my point. :P NW doesn't influence damage, but those two wepaon with the same 'x' would have different damage ranges based on thier base values.

So which base is DD damage compared to?

Oh, and you point above is also why weapons should have different PR weights to suck up diferent amounts of WA space. ;)

LOL Let me shine up your halo there Sut. You do not think your previous post directly referenced to me was not dripping with condescenstion?

"And yes, Sefton, maybe some of the comparison is apples and oranges. But pray tell what we CAN compare without you saying "apples and oranges", "apples and oranges". Can't use PR, can't use score, can't use number of minions, can't use NW... It seems like a convenient way of just saying "Nadder nadder, there is nothing you can say to analyze this, so stop trying..."

Be careful what you wish for, or you'll find much the same on your next analysis thread, no matter how good your logic or comparisons.

/me readies a cut-and-paste macro that says, "That's apples and oranges, Sefton, give it a rest." "

/me readies the "he who lives in glass houses macro"

I do however, understand your frustration of PR not being an accurate description of power. From the very beginning of the PR to NW link discussion this was the foundation for virtually any pro-argument for it. And I do agree it is not living up to its billing. I also agree that comparisons are difficult in CB because of ALL the variables that come into play. I do however believe that you can make general catregory comparisons, those with a PR tattoo those without a tattoo, those with tanks, those without tanks, things of that general nature. To say here is one example of ranged and all ranged will be like it, thats different, to me at least.

Ahh but NW affects PR which affects comparitive power, which many people use to base one persons greater power over another. That x1000 whip will appear to give me greater power, because my PR will increase, than the x1000 MH. I was using it to make the point that the comparison of physical ranged and magical ranged will be difficult to get all the variables in line, because that which gives me PR doesn't necessarily give me power.

All PR is not created equal.

Exactly why Weapons need PR weighting! ;)

Just so we are clear, I have NO problem with weapon PR weighting. I think it would make PR more accurately reflect power. I do not think it will clear up any imbalance you percieve to be in place between mages and tanks, though.

Nothing I said (at least not in your quoting) is condescending, and none of it is personal. It is me asking you specific things about the topic and you discussion thereof (it's real "debate"). I'll be the first to admit my debate style is melodramatic, aggressive, and often full of bluster. But it's still real debate, and I try my best to avoid condescension (or any other tone that seems to me to be more personal in nature).

I was saying that your argument was frustrating me, not that YOU were frustrating me.

For another good example of condescension, one need look no further than your response, yet again: "Let me shine up your halo, there Sut..."

I never had a halo. I never said I did.

First of all, even if I do the same thing I dislike other's doing, that doesn't mean I don't get to mention it. "Practice what you preach" and "Clean under your own doorstep" are nice little cliches, but neither of them require us to remain silent about things, even those things we ourselves may do. If we all never mentioned things that we ourselves did, I should think that tasks such as teaching and child-rearing would be very nearly impossible.

That first point doesn't actually apply in your quote, since that quote isn't condescending. But I know I have been in the past. I was just clearing that up. What helps out a great deal when one has to buck against "practice what you preach" is saying "sorry" for the transgression (something I honestly believe you are better at than I am...though it isn't hard to be better than me in that regard. *smile*)

Now, back to the "halo" comment... Once again, you attribute something to me so that you can then make a quip about it. I know it's just a manner of speaking. It also happens to be condescending, just like:

"Hate to knock you off your high horse, but..."
"I didn't realize I would have to make it this simple for you, but..."
"You never listen anyway, but..."

Stuff like that. The set-up and the bring-down, all in one. It destroys constructive dialog, makes it hard to "read" the other person (at least when in print -- face to face it is much easier to recognize good-natured cajoling or simple sarcasm), and shuts some people down. People like myself. I think I'll take my simpleton intellect and halo with me so that you don't need to explain things to me or polish my halo any more... *smile*

Well apparently condescension is in the eye of the beholder. I think to suggest your now have a pat answer for any comparison I make is condescending, but that may be my personal belief and not universally accepted. I think it must be just me taking your melodramitic aggressive full of bluster style as condescending. Again, I am an extremely odd individual and it may be just me who takes this that way. Like your statement about New Players yesterday. Perhaps it is I who is seeing things completely different than everyone else. I will admit it is be filtered through an extremely odd brain.

The halo comment was definately a dig, because it always seems you say something, I make an inference about what you said, then I am the bad guy for making that inference, even though it is my belief that 90% of the people reading it would make the same inference. And Im not afraid to point it out, and I never will be.

Right, agreed, just because you tell me to practice what I preach, does not mean you have to do the same. Seems hypocritical to me, but certainly not a requirement.

See there are no tricks with me. I do not try to couch or hide my words in rhetoric. I mean come on, the beautiful prose filled response to your attitude to new players was if NOT condescending, certainly as sarcastic as humanly possible. Without you coming right out and saying what you mean you hide it in a paragraphical allegory, then when I get it, slam me for noticing. True its entirely possible that is completely a paranoid delusion, but its my delusion none the less, and that wont change how it makes me feel or respond.

If you think my "love for new players" paragraph was sarcastic, then...wow. You really don't get me at all. I meant every word of it. It wasn't a dig at you, it wasn't a dig at new players. It was a sincere paragraph on how I feel about new players. I felt I had to clarify my feelings, because a previous poster had posted for all to see that I "don't care about new players". Apparently I am not even allowed to try to set the record straight?

Talk about having your words turned on you. :\

Additionally, I never told you to practice what you preach. I said that _I_ am not one to follow that mantra. Yes, any time any one of us points out a mistake in others that we ourselves have made, we are being hypocritical. If you have a better solution to sharing knowledge, I'm all ears. One HAS to be hypocritical at times to point out things and try to share knowledge, especially the knowledge that is learned from the mistakes themselves. Otherwise we would ALL have to be quiet because we ALL make mistakes. Drug addict trying to help another drug addict out of the addiction? Hypocrite. An AA meeting? What a bunch of hypocrites. A parent trying to teach a teenager responsible behavior even though the parent used to party like no tomorrow? Hypocrite.

Yah I guess not, so if this is not sarcasm you want this taken literally??

"I love you new players. Stay. Stay forever. Ask me anything you want and I will be there. CB needs you, I need you. I want to see supermodels wrestle around in a big pool of new players. And when they are done I will help the new players out of the wrestling pit and let the supermodels sit there. Screw supermodels, because I love new players."

"Enjoy life! Don't forget to floss! Unicorns love you too, but not as much as I do!"

"and it might even get you a super model! Wait, screw that! It might get you more NEW PLAYERS! Because that's even better!"

I mean it is beautiful, well written and I thought very effective in saying what you meant to say. But I had no idea it was to be taken literally. So yah I totally missed it.

Here I was expecting all kinds of dialogue about all the statements I made in the previous post, and you pick the smallest one and expound on it the most, surprised again!

I am not Emily Post nor the author of the Queensbury rules, nor according to Hoyle. As you have said many times many ways, you have free will, you can do what you want. Are there times where being hypocritical is good, sure, all I said is to do one thing and tell me to do the opposite is hypocritical, I didn't say it was bad or your were bad for doing it, I said seems hypocritical to me, but certainly not a requirement. You are putting all the negative connotations on that word yourself, I did not do it.

*munches some of Novice's popcorn*

;)

Um, guys, let it go. CM each other if you really want to trade personal criticisms.

Hey, GL, stop encouraging them :)

LOL miteke, I certainly wouldn't be continuing if I had not thought GL didn't mind.

And to bring things back around again, which I prefer to do anyway.

I agree with you miteke. I do not think the problem lies in the dynamics of how a Tank attacks, I think it lies in how the respective power of each team is reflected in PR. If you want to say that tanks are more powerful now than before the change and they need some more PR added to them, I will not disagree. I do not want it added, but it is not un-reasonable.

I still dislike the NW to PR link, with passion. I dislike the concept of MPR/PR. However; if it has to be here, it should be accurate. So, perhaps that is your answer GL, not to hamsting tanks, get their PR to more accurately reflect their power.

I'm curious... How is the parenting going if you can't:

"do one thing and tell [your kids] to do the opposite."

Or do you just continuously be a hypocrite (your definition)?

Or, is it OK to tell someone to stop doing something as long as you aren't doing it at that very moment? What if you do it again in the future? Have done it in the past? At what point does "teaching through mistakes" become "hypocrisy"? (I'm genuinely asking -- it is an intriguing concept to me).

As for other comments, yeah, I always point out when people make erroneous inferences, especially if they border on bald-face lies such as "Sutekh doesn't care about new players". Sorry, I'm kind of sensitive about having erroneous inferences made, especially if they are directed specifically at my character (more on that later, after I try to better address your comments comprehensively).

Let's see...what else did I miss... Yes, I do have a pat answer for your analyses -- again, by your own defintion. If things being "apples and oranges" renders comparisons entirely useless, then yes... By that definition I have a pat answer. The type of answer that is akin to "Ah well, tomorrow is another day." and "Hey, it's just a game..." Such statements are indelibly true -- they just aren't all that useful. And since we have no metrics in the game to truly compare apples to apples (unless, of course, both test subjects are, in fact, exactly the same apples), I don't see how my "apples and oranges" response could be inaccurate?

Other comments... Oh, odd brain and no tricks. OK... Sounds great! Not sure what it has to do with me or the topic at hand, but viva la odd brain! I too have oddities about my person and have disdain for tricks. (I guess that's why I didn't respond to that particular part...we are in agreement.)

Final comment: You are right, I turn inferences around on people. There are a few ways to get around that:

-- Don't make inferences about my personal beliefs, preferences, or responsibilities.
-- Ask me directly (non-publicly) about anything you aren't sure of (again, in relation to things that speak to my character/attitudes). This shows a great deal of integrity and respect in my eyes: using communication effectively to assure correct representation of another person.
-- If inferences remain, at least form the inferences as questions if you feel you have to post them. I will be glad to clarify publicly (as I tried with my "new player" love paragraph, but apparently I was too late/ineffective).

I wish to make clear that I am talking about inferences/speculation/assumptions about things that are of a _personal_ (not personal as in private, personal as in "of or having to do with a human being") nature. You can assume all day about how Protection works, or damage formulae, etc. etc. If I disagree, I will post my thoughts about those things. Those things aren't people -- we can talk all day, and even say disparaging things about them: I hate you Protection! You suck!). I only take issue with inferences made about people (e.g. "You are a fool for using Protection" (no, you never said that, I was just making a relation to my previous Protection example)). Not so much because I worry about people's feelings, simply because there is a much better way to discover information when it comes to people. Just ask them. *smile*

OK back to this real quick.

First off, if I got too personal, for that I am sorry. I always enjoy verbal sparring. I will always think more highly of you than you do of yourself, which is half the reason we get to these places. So, again I apologize it was not meant to disparage your character, it was meant to get more clarity from your words.

Personally I define any word by that which the person I am talking to will understand what I mean.

The dictionary defines the word as, "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness."

The word in general I define as "doing one thing one way, then telling someone else to do the same thing the opposite (or at least different way)." As I said the word is neither good nor bad, and a person who is hypocritical is not by MY defination a bad person, he is someone who does one thing one way and tells someone else to do it differently. The time frame is irrelevant to me, and the word is of course neutral, so I have no problem applying it to the future or the past. The interesting thing about future application is, it truly does not occur until the hypocrisy is in the past :)

OK apples to oranges is accurate, still doesn't make a pat answer less condescending.

Odd brain simply shows I realize I am a human being capable of being incorrect, and that my own experiences, feelings, and beliefs color how I perceive what others say. I was trying to condense.

Anyway, lets not change tanks attacks, lets change how their power is reflected in their PR.

Cool! That would def help. :)

Tanks that are showing at my power level and beating me should probably increase in power, explaining why they're beating me. :D

LOL I love that logic GL!!! Makes perfect sense to me.

I too apologize for any time my demeanor is too brusque, dismissive, or condescending.

That is an acceptable definition of hypocrisy, but it doesn't really cover it. For example, let's say I don't believe in God at all, but know a lot about religion. And let's say a child comes to me and asks me about God. I will tell that child everything I can, as honestly as I can, without trying to sway that child with my own beliefs. Even if they ask "Should I believe in God?" I would not say, "No, don't believe, because I don't believe." I would remain silent, or even say, "If you want to believe, you should."

Am I being a hypocrite in the above exchange? It could be interpreted as me professing a belief that I do not have. In essence, even any sort of modesty or self-deprecation could be considered hypocrisy, since one may be professing something one does not fully believe. I guess in that instance it would be hypocrisy, or "false modesty", though I think we all have times when we are modest (especially to make other people feel good) because there is simply no need to say anything otherwise.

You are right, "hypocrisy" is just a word. As with most words, it can end up meaning anything if you think about it long enough. *smile*

As I said, I too have an "odd brain".

Yes, I am on board with making PR more of a meaningful rating for tanks, and would even like to see tattoos properly represented in the total.

I am not certain I can attirubute hypocrisy to meer words. I mean to me it is deed and deed alone that creates the truth of it. As in you example about God. I do not think if you state facts or even legends that are general accepted as the way in which you told them, and then someone later realizes you do not believe those facts, that truly gets into hypocritical. I think you have to do something. For instance, tell me God doesn't exist, and only the sheep of society attend church, then let me catch you there Easter Sunday. But if you say to me, I might go to church or I will go to church, until you actually go, I do not think you are being hypocritical.

Obviously the dictionary definition leans more to your sort of thinking, in that virtually any profession of belief through word or deed that is insincere is hypocritical.

I was honestly surprised by the dictionary definition. Happens to me all the time, based upon conversations and context I alter my definition, and pretty soon, my definition is either a lot larger or a lot more narrow than the dictionary. Since many people apply negative connotations to words, you tend to alter your own internal definition, in this case I made my own defintion much more narrow, so I would apply it less, and not offend as easily. (which PS failed in a previous post somewhere, sorry)

I do agree about the actions, very much, and your example is dead-on. "being a hypocrite" is easier to see that it is to define the word "hypocrisy, I guess. *smile*

Incidentally, I think that is why I tend to lead by example... Too often my words get full of themselves or end up being hurtful, whereas if I just do my own thing and someone wants to follow that, it's all good.

So, we are OK that tanks hit multiple times (it's part of the fun), and what this means is that Evasion and DBs are probably more important than ever.

What about all the tweaks that have been made over the last year to balance things (reducing mage DD at lower levels, adding pth to ToAs, etc -- I can't even remember all of them). Do they need to be revisited, not for balance sake, but just for simplicity sake? Now that damage has equalized, do all of these other little changes still apply? I'm asking you guys because I know for a fact you know ToAs a lot better than I do (I've never even owned one...)

I just recently realized that all the this is overpowered that is overpowered posts (of which I am the author of several) are really about PR instead. How powerfully they effect their peers. When something is overpowered, really it means the impact on PR is under represnted, which allows a character to be more powerful than its peers. Seems to me if that portion if brought into line, then those which gain positively from a change will have to fight higher on the food chain, and people will not think the change was overpowered.

Long answer, above, short answer if PR truly reflects power, then I am not certain any previous change needs to be reversed or revisted.

Not to say it is bad to think of it, and not to say I didn't miss anything, but Im a HUGE fan of if it is working leave it alone. Seems like those changes are still working to me, I am using a ToA. My new NCB ToA tank is a lot more powerful than the old one I had on Gyaxx at the same stage. But I think that with the newest change that is to be expected.

Good points all around.

OK GL this one is for you, I am taking one for the team. Maybe I will get lucky some people will not notice this post, and then I can feel good without getting penalized. (not likely, but with all the other smoke and mirrors in this thread, some might have given up on it)

Sefton - 3 minions Wall ToA Tank Enchanter
Score / PR / MPR: 666,838 / 180,192 / 126,467
greater than 3.5x score to PR ratio

Waits for the nerfs to begin.

Sef, don't worry about that, take a look at 'The Clash' Score / PR / MPR: 648,779 / 173,910 / 126,655. That's 3.7 times PR! :P

And I'm sure there are others doing better than Johnny! ;)

yah but everyone likes Johnny

psht thats nothing right after the change look at my jump in score :D

http://www.carnageblender.com/directory/party-power-graph.tcl?opponent_id=72917&include_score_p=1&include_mpr_p=1

around 750k score with 150k pr thats score as 5 times pr :P

And you're not loved Seft? Rubbish! :P

PR is not absolute anyway. A decent strategy, even if the person running it doesn't realise it, is all about chipping away at the opponent's PR. At least that's my take on it. All the spells, weapons and items are all just names. In the end if you're doing it right you're just accumulating means to chip the other guy's PR down.


I don't think tanks are overpowered at all at the moment. They're just stronger all round rather than a small minority as a result of inflated NW. I've said it earlier in this thread somewhere, what we're seeing now is the possibility of average gameplay creating a fairly successful tank. Whereas before you either had to be playing a fantastic game or piling on the USD. Seft, you're right that to do it really well takes a bit more in depth thinking than say an FB mage, but you can still create a pretty good tank now and run with it, without worrying about funds so much.

I'm loving the ability to boost my weaponry in the same way as boosting a DD spell.....

I was enjoying beating up your char Johnny, now I have seen your pr I just feel crappy :(

Yeah, but we are talking about some folks who are great at finding good targets...(you guys aren't exactly chopped stream (liver rhymes with river, and a river is a stream!) There are more targets, so one can expect 3x fairly regularly (mages were getting it, that's for sure).

No nerfs, Sefton... Your ratio doesn't matter till your score is north of 1.7 or 1.8 million. (currently) Wait, that's probably just my new player hatred talking... :P

Johnnywas:

"The biggest change here has been to allow the more average tanks a chance to compete. I'm not a USD player, which financially has meant that I've never stood a chance of competing with a tank. I simply have never been able to raise a weapon over a certain point due to lack of funds. The new upgrade system/costs means that I can plow finances into a weapon in the same way I would upgrade a DD spell. This means that if I fight enough I can actually make a decent and competetive tank from day one, hopefully into the upper levels. I will still not be able to compete with a morg that is 30x the size of mine...yet....;)"

"They're just stronger all round rather than a small minority as a result of inflated NW...Whereas before you either had to be playing a fantastic game or piling on the USD."

In classical economics, dollar amounts are removed from analysis charts and replaced with wealth, or, "buying power". If I give every person on the planet an extra dollar, no one has gained anything. "Buying power" is your wealth relative to the rest of the world. If everyone's coffers increase, buying power remains constant.

Prior to any changes, people that spent USD ruled, because you had to spend USD to be competitive. Now, immediately after the change, you can compete without spending USD. Great, right? Yes, except that the cost of the tank has been lowered for everyone, including USD spenders. So, after a sufficient amount of time has passed such that things can level out, people that spend USD will still have massively higher NW teams than those that don't. When that happens, your non-USD-based character will be just as underpowered compared to USD-powered characters as before. To think otherwise is fallacious. If increasing NW is easier for you, a non-USD spender, it's also easier for the USD spender.

I'll draw a comparison to BA spending. If you want to gain ground on opponents above you in, say, the Top 20 range, you have to fight like a madman. If a person above you has fought, say, 100 more battles than you, and fights 5 battles daily, you need to fight at least 6 battles daily to start gaining ground. Let's say that Jon gave people more BA per day. Now, that person above you is fighting 10 battles per day. You have to fight at least 11 to gain ground.

This is an issue that I faced once my NCB ran out. I need to fight more per day every day or I will lose ground. I will never catch up to anyone. Heck, that's the whole reason for the NUB/NCB to begin wtih. It's very hard to gain ground when everyone is fighting so much.

Now, apply that to NW. Previously, a USD spender would spend, say, $1m NW per day and gain 10k PR (all numbers made up). For a non-spender, he might be able to get 10% of that, spend 100k per day and gain 1k PR. It's a losing battle. Now, because of the new changes, now it's easier for you to gain PR by spending cash (linear upgrade model). So, you can spend 100k per day still and gain 10k PR. Wow, big increase! Awesome! However, your opponent also maintains his previous spending of $1m per day and gains a whopping 100k PR (again, all numbers are purely for illustration). You're still not spending as much.

Tying back to the buying power analogy, just because prices dropped doesn't mean your buying power increased. Your buying power will always be lower than the buying power of a USD spender. Always.

Tying back to the BA analogy, when that spending becomes easier, the gap you have to chase becomes larger.

So, there are two issues (which I probably should have stated at the beginning): lower prices don't let you buy more relative power, but they do increase the power gap between you and your USD-spending counterparts.

The linear weapon damage model did not address ANY of that. It in no way addressed any factors relating to the ease of a USD-spender to excel faster and farther. To that end, there is still a minority/majority gap.

(although, it's important to note that buying CB is hard right now, as massive piles of cash were instantly poured into the AoAC and weapon upgrades... still, USD typically buy anything, regardless of cost. At least, I do.)

(This was an extremely long response to a rather small point in this thread............. I guess I should have just started a new thread...)

Regarding the PR discussion...

The system was originally geared to keep score near PR. The variance thereof is a good indication of the accuracy of the PR calculation. But as some have pointed out, there is a large gap between PR and score. However... it is not attributed to an invalid PR calculation. That is not to say that the PR calculation is correct... just that it isn't _incorrect_ based on 600k score vs 150k PR. The reason you see that discrepancy at the lower levels is that you have the NCB. Any halfway-not-stupid NCB strategy will have you climbing extremely quickly. And, since there are so many abandoned, half-baked characters at those low to midrange levels, your score will soar.

I was using a rather poor strategy on my first NCB character, and I ended it with 1.5M score and 700k PR with 500k MPR. No big deal. The real test is what happens in the Top 40 or Top 50. Taking me as an example, my score and PR are quickly converging. The real competition, as it were, has begun.

That said, there is a problem with PR not representing power accurately. PR weighting is not the answer, however. PR already has a built-in system to leverage out its weight. That is, NW. This then calls into question the nature of the NW calculations. For instance, a Whip at +100 will cost a king's ransom. A BoNE will be much less. That should be reversed. A piece of junk weapon should cost pennies to improve, whereas a valuable rare should be extremely expensive to improve. Changing the cost will affect the resultant PR, and alleviate the issues.

I first learned of this oddity in this game (compared to any other game of this nature) when Sefton explained to me that armor wtih a higher base AC is cheaper to upgrade. I was astounded at that concept, thinking that an ultra rare Adam should be ultra-expensive to upgrade. Not so. Similarly, a whip shuld cost next to nothing to get to +100, because even at +100, it's useless. It doesn't.

THAT'S why PR doesn't truly reflect power. PR is based off of NW, which is not proportionate to power. If it were, a hard leather armor would be cheaper to upgrade than a MCM. A whip would cost pennies, while a BoNE would make you broke after one PTH.

Adding PR weighting to weapons is just changing the magnitude of the inaccurate calculation. It's still stemming from an inaccurrate assumption -- that higher NW = More Power. What you really should do is make that equation true -- make more NW equal to more power.

And yes, I am insinuating that the PR weighting added to armor is just as inaccurate as it would be for weapons. If $20m poured into one piece of armor needs to be "weighted" so that it comes closer to the PR of $20m poured into another piece of armor, then in reality, the cost of those two armors is just weigh off. Skew the cost (NW) of the item instead, and you have no need for PR weighting.

Nightstrike,

I'm well aware that USD spenders now can upgrade their weapons even more than I can. But my point was based more around the fact that I can now run a proper tank team. Previously there was an upper limit that I would hit where I just didn't have the cash to continue upgrading. No upper limit now......The USD guys may still be able to run faster, but now I can keep going as well.....

It doesn't matter (hence my "buying power analogy"). The end result is the same: Your buying power remains unchanged. You will still hit a wall where the amount you have to put into your weapon is too great. Sure, you can increase the X by a few points, but the people ahead of you are increasing their X by a heck of a lot more, widenening the gap between you. Your competitiveness is based on your relative power to those around you. They will still be growing at a faster rate, and thus nothing about how you can play has changed in that regard. Once things settle out, you will be in the same situation where you can't grow *relatively*.

Maybe that's the discrepancy. Growing your character relative to yourself has no meaning. Sure, you can constantly add upgrades to your weapon, of that there is no argument. However, the relative size of your weapon to those around you will constantly decrease. THAT has meaning. That also remains unchanged.

Unless you're facing Mages, whos 'buying power' hasn't changed one jot. ;)

Nah, there is a difference. Before I hit a wall where I literally could not add to it. Which meant my char could not grow any further because I could not up my damage enough to rise. Meanwhile the USD guys just kept on going.

Now, ok, they will still be a certain point ahead but I won't have to stop. I understand your point completely and to a point I agree with you but...

I've been super competetive with the strats that only rely on XP (1.7 million score with a single UC tank was probably my finest moment) but I've never had the opportunity to try out a weapon strategy before. I've always wondered how well I'd be able to do if I had one of the decent weapons, now I've got a chance to find out....

Well... now you've got a chance to think that you're adding power. You can feel like you're bettering your character, when in actuality, you're slipping further and further behind.

You can spend BA every day, just as your competitor can. You can spend more, and narrow the gap; you can spend less, and widen the gap. However, there's a limit to how much BA you can spend in a day, and we all face the same limit.

There's zero limit to NW increases. So, yes, you can spend some to keep the gap from widening as much, but it will always be widening. Compared to prior to the change, it will be widening more in the scenario of both of you spending cash as opposed to the scenario of one of you spending cash. Why? Easy... in the old method, one person increased at a slow rate, while one person stayed constant. Observe the following:

The previous growth was non-linear. I think it was a natural log function, but I'll put the scale as far into your favor as I can, and call it a square root function. So, if you hit a wall and could not increase NW, it'd be some constant C. Your opponent would be growing at some function x^1/2. Integrating both and taking the difference yields a gap margin of the function 2/3*x^3/2 - Cx.

Now, the new system yields two linear graphs, one growing faster than the other. The first, your opponent's, will be linear (x) multiplied by some positive constant K. Yours will be simply x. So we have Kx versus x. Integrating both and subtracting yields a gap margin following the function of Kx^2-x^2, or (K-1)x^2. (K-1) will be a new constant L, or Lx^2.

That leaves two graphs for the growing gap margins. Let's compare the speed of the gap margin growth:

2/3*x^3/2 - Cx
Lx^2

If you're familiar with this type of math, you know that polynomial growth comparisons are easy. First, constants and all lower-ordered terms drop out. If the remaining terms have different exponents, then the coefficients don't matter, either:

x^1.5
x^2

The function with the largest exponent grows fastest. So........... x^2, or the difference of two linear graphs, is a much faster growth potential than the difference of the fastest possible growing graph (square root) and a constant graph.


I hope this explains things.

Well, just to throw in my two cents, I have to disagree with one of the points you made Nightstrike. You argue that CB has a vast inaccuracy because rare items are easier to upgrade than common items. To switch them to your 'correct version' theory would require no less than the complete reseting of the CB weapon system.

Say Adams were changed to updrade how a HLA upgrades now, and the HLA was as easy to BS as an Adam. Guess what? Everyone dumps their Adams, which instantly become common, and HLA's get snapped up. Easy to upgrade! No penalties! The common items, the lower they are, become the most rare. So instead of having a [40] + (70) item with lots of penalties, everyone will be using a [6] + (70) item. Sure, they can use the Adam for the higher base, but the advantage for most players would lay with HLA. All armor would fall prey to this.

Rare items are easy to forge, yes. That is part of what makes them rare. You use a rare item because it has advantages over common items. If you take away the advantages to rares, they just become tomorrow's Double Chain Mail.

Besides, you argue that making lower items easier to upgrade would hurt USD spending teams, or at least slow them down. Nope, they would just buy HLA's and upgrade the snot out of them too.

The only place your theory of reversing rarity on items could work would be with weapons. Still, this would instantly make the VB the best weapon in the game. It has a *slightly* lower base damage, but it would be easier to BS than the big 4. Axbow's would be used as ranged killers over ELB's, since although they have a slightly lower base they would be easier to upgrade. And yes, people could upgrade whips really big. Which would allow new players to waste all their cash on something they think might someday be good, while the rest of us know any respectable size of BoNE would beat a whip x100+100. Dare you to prove me wrong ;)

So in conclusion: rares are rare for a reason. Whatever item is easiest to upgrade will be highest in demand and most rare.

I haven't kept up with the forum, so if this has been covered already pardon me.

Tanks get multiple hits to offset the way dmg is inflicted by DD. A FB can kill two of my minions in one round. Melee attacks will tripple strike a minion starting a round with 1 hp, and be forced to wait a full round before attacking the next target. There are fights where I see a PL minion stop absorbing dmg (meaning very little HP remaining) and later I tripple strike them for 900k dmg (total). Where I could have 2 minions with 200k hp left and both die due to a midsized FB strike.

That being said which is better, 900k dmg to a non-dmg doing target who has little to no remaing life, or 200k dmg to 2 minions, ending their lifespan?

I agree with VP.

Tanks can take out 1 minion a round at most with direct damage.

Mages can take out up to 4.

There is a defense vs tanks getting multiple hits--> DB's. And with the change letting DB's lower the dex Pth if they are higher than a weapons Pth, the balance is there.

JW: I made a graph to illustrate just how great this difference is between then and now:

The pink line is a graph showing the growing gap between you and the USD-spender using the new weapon model. The blue line is the growth of the same gap using the old model. Still like the new way better?

Nightstrike.... although that is a pretty graph, what you fail to take into account is that USD spenders (I assume) don't spend money on CB just because they don't know what else to do with it. They spend the money to keep an advantage. There will be no need for the kind of USD influx your pink line demonstrates, therefore the pink line will look just like the blue only a few degrees higher on the x axis.....

Hence non USD players now have a chance to stay competitive.

To be completely honest with you NS, I'm only really concerned with my own upgrade power. I've just managed (thanks in part to a naming) to add nearly 5 million to the NW/power of my Morg in 3 weeks. That might have happened before but it wouldn't have been long before the next upgrade would start to become too expensive for me to pay for.

Maybe the USD guys are pumping their own weapons at the same rate as me, I don't know. And yes, they still can boost 'unnaturally' their weapons in future. But as Velvet says, they're not doing that all the time, they're also spending on other things too (if they're spending at all) - because after all it's the X on weapons that have changed. Armours still have the expensive upgrades and as for the + on the weapons - the higher you go the more important that is and that costs a lot....

So damage wise I still consider myself able to play catch up.

Nice graph though! :)

Night: we all know USD spenders have an advantage, and it looks like it will always be that way. They had one before the change, and they still have one.

Might as well say it. The reason tanks have multiple hits is so they don't automatically lose because another tank has slightly higher DX. Gives them at least a chance to hit.