Do we really need seekers? (in General)
July 18 2006 6:05 PM EDT
With the recent changes to combat, shifting to tanks, why do we really need seekers?
What do they really accomplish? Tanks should now be able to keep up with mages by the new linear upgrade to their weapons.
With the removal of cooldown, I see people equipping seekers for defense. C'Mon!!!
Let's see a bit of love for the mages. Remove those seekers. If seekers are to stay, then make only seeker bolts and not arrows. Especially with mega ELB's out there.
Imagine an item that lets MM target the highest Str character.
Just my 2 cents :)
July 18 2006 6:08 PM EDT
I got to agree. I have always run tanks, but I just don't see the point in letting the tanks get an even larger edge over the mages. It makes multi-minion mages harder to do by letting the only source of damage be targeted immediately. axbow/exbow to hit tanks is one thing... but I wouldn't want my mage being hit 9 times in ranged by an archery tank... Just saying...
Sure, remove dbs, the ToE and umm both the AG and the CoI and we have a deal.
July 18 2006 6:31 PM EDT
OK, if tanks give up their MgS, TSA, TG, HOE, DB, TOA and TOE. Thats a very fair trade IMO.
July 18 2006 6:45 PM EDT
I got a better idea. Keep everything but the next Supporter item is RING OF IMMORTALIT (all caps of course).
The effect. Equipped minion can't die. How about that lol!?
I'd like to establish what seekers were introduced for in the first place, since without knowing this it's a little hard to say if we no longer have need of them. Decay seems like a good reason for seekers to exist, as does the AoI. Without seekers there is no way to prevent a decay mage coming from the back from hitting a single ToA tank, which seems another good reason to keep them around...
July 18 2006 6:50 PM EDT
Well, with the introduction of AoI, the Seekers gained a little bit of use. But it seems to me that a single tank using archery can just completely destroy and mage team in the game with seekers. And alot of tank teams too!
LOL the poor maligned seekers. Have you tried keeping a decent seeker arrow inventory since the removal of camping? I cannot do it. I get them in bunches if I am lucky, otherwise you pay through the NOSE for them. Plus, you have to have 10 gentleman's agreements to not overbid, just so you do not drive the price to over 5X NW. They are expensive and difficult to maintain, more so than ever. Shoot Ranger you overbid my 1,111 bid on seekers to 4,111 and you won them because I wasn't going to pay that price.
In the end, anyone who relies on seekers to win will have problems (right now I rely on them to win some fights and I have some problems)
Lets assume 6 arrows a fight (way low). 160 fights is 960 arrows, lets say 4 times a day, so thats 3,840 seekers. If you buy your BA forget about it. Seekers police themselves by a) being spawned into auctions and b) there are not enough of them.
I think this is the second kill seekers post I have replied to if not the third. I did not see their removal as necessary or wanted then, and I still do not see it.
Mages had their year, now tanks get one. VIVA LA TANKS!
July 18 2006 6:51 PM EDT
Well AMF is a great counter to decay and any single tank should not be without that spell.
Perhaps the AOI should give a chance that the target will be rendered "invisible" to the seekers.
July 18 2006 6:51 PM EDT
As an alternate solution to abolishing them, why not set their base attack to like 6? To get both EXTRA damage and hitting mages seems a bit much. Slayer for damage, Seeker for seeking... not both.
July 18 2006 6:54 PM EDT
Well, as I see it now: With seekers there is no way for a mage team to get to the top. Especially if they are equipped for defense. Just look at Mikel's character. With seekers equipped solely for defense there is no way I can beat him. Without seekers, I can easily beat him as I should with my MPR advantage and current setup vs his.
OK so maybe a single tank should have AMF, maybe. But then if you are suggesting that a single tank HAS to have AMF because there is no alternative, that is bad. If its either seekers or AMF, then that is choice (not that seekers are an easy choice) and choice is good.
VIVA LA TANKS and choice!
July 18 2006 6:57 PM EDT
I would think 5 rare melee weapons, 3 rare ranged weapons- triple that in armor... and I think you got choice Sefton...
Effective defense has sadly left the building....
for a mage team to take the top with the current makeup of things you would essentially have to have an EC on par with, if not larger than the current attribute leader.
July 18 2006 7:01 PM EDT
.... and then GA makes it all useless..
mages may have left the building, but my defense is working well.
July 18 2006 7:06 PM EDT
Mages have left the building. The recent changes have skewed the game greatly to the tanks. That is ok with most of us. However, for those who persist to play mages, seekers are far too powerful. All tanks have to do is equip them for defense (which a lot of tanks already do) and rewards for mage teams hit the toilet as they have to fight lower than they already do. A vicious cycle ensues.
Personally I think the ToA needs a nerf more than anything, it had been through so many levels of adjustment to balance it out, I can't believe it doesn't need a tweak after doubling weapon damage.
Without Mikel's ToA, his seekers are not going to do much more than rub one of your mages the wrong way a couple times. Personally I think the ToA's PTh needs to be about halved.
July 18 2006 7:11 PM EDT
Even with my DB's at +112 plus the +20 for the AOI, Mikel hits me on average 7 times with his ELB. That is more than enough to kill my mage easily in missile. Even if he severely injures my mage, his AMF will finish me quickly once I start to cast COC.
C'MON lets show mages a bit of lovin!
July 18 2006 7:13 PM EDT
ToA barely keeps up with ToE as it is...
Isn't this what PL is for?
So you'll hit my Mage, my PL minion will suck that damage up and let my Mage live to kill you.
bullpucky, the ToA combined with anything like a decent weapon will rip through a ToE team unless the ToE team also has EC.
Here is MY mage love,
(please read **** warning before performing ANY actions)
full text search forums for "mages overpowered" and count the responses.......
Then do "Fireball overpowered"
And those are just the EXACT text matches, if you were then to permutate all the possible variations.....
****(seriously do not do it, the server load is immense and pointless to all get the same overbearing results)*****
You will see mages got LOTS of love, reams of it.
My point is, this is the exact opposite of what has been going on with tanks vs mages for over 12 months.
VIVA LA TANKS!
P.S. by comparison tanks overpowered yields surprising small results......
Bah! We all knew Mages were overpowered, but that doesn't make it right to now have Tanks overpowered! ;)
What's the last line of the song?
"The slave starts by desiring freedom, but ends up wanting to wear the crown"
July 18 2006 7:27 PM EDT
Try a search on "TOA overpowered" and you will find tons of responses.
CB has always had shifts in one direction then the other. Right now it is tank blender. Seekers really skew that balance.
July 18 2006 7:27 PM EDT
NERF THE SEEKERS!
Just reduce their base damage, and we all get what we want.
But if mages were overpowered and now they are not, wouldn't tanks by default have to be overpowered. Is there not either equality or overpowering. And sure one could argue (I would not agree with them) that a perfect balance is possible or desireable, most people have trouble balancing their check books, let alone the hundreds if not hundred thousand variables that make up CB's strategy.
And to further my () point. Why should someone who can simply invest time into their strat be equal to someone who has to invest time and money (NOT USD, CB2 $) into theirs to be successful.
Tanks are tough to run, they have lots of annoying things you have to deal with LIKE ammo, LIKE archery/bloodlust ratios, LIKE bumping X on ranged or + on melee, and LIKE having to actually hit their target to name a few. They should IMHO be more powerful than an equal PR mage.
Wow. That's all I have for this one, just "wow".
July 18 2006 7:42 PM EDT
All I can say is that while a balance is desired, it will never be accomplished. Partly due to the dynamic nature of cb. It is like a living thing, growing all the time.
However, the recent change last month has greatly skewed the pendulum towards tanks.
Seekers are mostly used in defense as they are rare ammo. That alone is quite a detriment to mages as they have to choose their fights more carefully and often have to fight lower and get lower rewards. If people would use seekers only when they attack that would be one thing.
Perhaps seekers should only work when one attacks. When one defends they should function as normal arrows, since you do not "use" ammo while defending. That might be a nice balance.
July 18 2006 7:44 PM EDT
One other thing I forgot to mention.
As a mage, a COI and AG's do not give AC now. That further makes mages vulnerable to seekers. Imagine if your TSA or TG would not give AC.
I have to admit, there have been many reasonable suggestions here. Reducing the base, changing function during attack and defense, etc. If I felt that a change was needed I could see both of them as balancing suggestions. So if Jon says I will change seekers, I would say change the base. That's reasonable. But until then, I still do not think a change is needed.
now that is a good idea ranger
I'd love to see the base fall out of bonus items...Base 10 no bonus gauntlets here we COME!
Well if you rely on the AC from your AG's and CoI to defeat a tanks ranged attack.........
And I put my TSA on my enchanter, and I have TG's on my wall.
My tank has BG's and a ToA.
So I really wouldn't mind all that much I mean, I use the TG's only for their armor and would LOVE an armor only Hand gear BTW, and the TSA is just for the magic blocking to reduce the straight through damage from the PL absorbtion.
I understand your point though, but I do not think lack of AC in the AG and CoI makes it very well.
"Perhaps seekers should only work when one attacks. When one defends they should function as normal arrows, since you do not "use" ammo while defending. That might be a nice balance."
That's a brilliant suggestion.
"With the removal of cooldown, I see people equipping seekers for defense. C'Mon!!! "
Please be careful... the last thing we want is to have cooldown reinstated.....
"Imagine an item that lets MM target the highest Str character. "
Sounds like an awesome idea, actually...
"Perhaps the AOI should give a chance that the target will be rendered "invisible" to the seekers.""
A somewhat good suggestion, except that the AoI is a supporter item.
"Isn't this what PL is for? "
I thought so. Ranger, with a small amount of PL on your enchanter, wouldn't that solve the problem? A PL of 30,000 would cost 294,941 XP and would absorb 54,000 points of damage (I really just wanted to use the XP Cost calculator I made... hehehe)
About this whole "seekers should only work when attacking" idea..
I've always understood seekers to be essentially used to keep clan point stealing mages off tank killing teams back for defense. I never really saw anyone using them for offense for any length of time up top.
How many people in the top 10 have consistently used seekers for fighting? Why would you base your offensive strat around a hard to get item like seekers?
July 18 2006 8:45 PM EDT
Now now, I have worked hard to get my ST over 2 mil. And I'm approaching 2 mil as my MPB. The damage I do in ranged dropped drastically when I didn't get to rent the top Elb in the game not that I'm complaining about who has it now. And don't forget that the dex difference gap between us is also Huge. DX: 1,626,606 vs -52,607 (my EC). You are going to need every + on those DB's that you can, my Elb is a +100+ Weapon. So they practically cancel each other out leaving the Tank with his Dex/ST advantage vs your massive ToE.
MgS don't give AC either and I pretty much have to have at least one of those equipped.
July 18 2006 8:47 PM EDT
PL is very good, however I notice when I had it on my enchanter it did die from the PL. Then I lose the 1 round "blocker" that the enchanter was good for.
I will try it again. I am still uncertain if a minion can/should die solely from absorbing the PL damage. Can someone clear that up?
July 18 2006 8:48 PM EDT
You're winning again.
/me runs off to up his 'x' on his elb.
July 19 2006 1:14 PM EDT
I would have to say seekers being equiped soley for defense is ridiculous.... I know noone likes the word cooldown anymore, but... a cooldown solely for ammo would begin to rectify this.
From an offensive standpoint, seekers fall into the paper/rock/scissors basis of CB perfectly. Anyone choosing to use seekers as a genuine part of their strategy on offense, is making a trade off for other items they could be pumping cash into, therefore, if they allow you to beat certain characters, so be it.
Just my 2 cents
July 19 2006 1:30 PM EDT
How is equipping them for defense such a bad thing? As we just saw, PL takes away their purpose. So what now? Is PL 'overpowered'?
July 19 2006 7:09 PM EDT
Even if you use PL, seekers are incredibly powerful letting you bypass walls by targetting the much much less defended mage behind them. It still gives a huge advantage.
July 19 2006 10:37 PM EDT
PL would killify FOD... PL minion absorbs a small amount of damage so the original minion is still alive :P
July 20 2006 6:02 AM EDT
Seekers are an important part of CB. I have used them consistently for attack and defence (my clan will remember me asking them to supply me if they came across any - way back). It is a way a Tank with no cash to spend can even the balance up with the NUB/NCB mage characters.
Ranger will remember a time not long ago when I was only able to beat his 'new' character if I equipped seekers - they can tip the balance often.
July 20 2006 6:09 AM EDT
I used seekers a lot when I was running single minion UC guy... they are pretty much the only way a single tank can hope to fight against some of the multi minion mage teams, especially if there is a wall in the way.
And let's not forget that FB and CoC mages hit the whole of a team at once; admittedly for a weaker attack, but there is no direct comparison for a tank where that spread attack is concerned.
July 20 2006 6:09 AM EDT
I will agree Seekers were an important part of CB. However with the new changes especially the linear upgrade of the x on weapons, are seekers now needed?
July 20 2006 6:16 AM EDT
To answer your question directly, I think yes there is a need for them. They serve a good purpose, especially since the intro of the AoI. They are very very useful for single tanks.
The fact is that they are very rare, and expensive. Not many people choose to rely on them. Doing UC I bought as many as I could and the money I spent on them over the course of my NCB could have bought me a Morg!
And as for defensive purposes....and? It's not like a mage switches off that pesky spread attack when you're asleep!
I do understand your view on this though, I hated seekers when I ran a multi minion mage team. Teams I could beat if they had normal ammo equipped killed me dead with them. But....back to paragraph 2....
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001rGr">Do we really need seekers?</a>