CB's Damage Model (cont'd) (in General)


AdminNightStrike November 20 2006 7:12 AM EST

http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001tRC

This post is a continuation of that thread. It is sparked by something Flamey pointed out in chat: [84x11300] (+177). That's a very big hammer. It's on the order of 175m.

When I made that original post, I pointed out some things that are currently starting to happen. What this post will consist of is 1) a brief recap, 2) an illustrative parallel, and 3) a proposed solution using already established paradigms.

(1) There are two ways to increase damage: train ST, or purchase additional X on your weapon -- the latter of which is made linear to blend with the linear model of a mage training a DD spell. However, you must spend BA to train DD, whereas you must spend $$ to increase your weapon X. The underlying difference here is that BA-based growth is highly limited, whereas dollar-based growth is not.

There is a hard limit of either 2160, 1944, 1728, or 1511 BA per day depending on the size of your character. However, fight rewards are adjusted accordingly to level out the daily maximum rewards. Regardless, no matter how hard you try, you will never be able to fight more than 2,160 battles in a 24 hour period. Therefore, you will never be able to gain more than a set amount of XP in a given day. Monetary spending has no such limits. With the ability to purchase money from other players, it becomes relatively easy to amass a large wealth, and thus amass a large weapon.

This discrepancy has always been in place, but has been kept relatively under control because of the growth rate costs for weapon enhancements and for the limited targeting of most weapons (all but the SoD). I created a graph to show the growth difference between a USD-spender under the old model and under the new model, but I don't know where it is. It was, however, exponentially larger.

----------

(2) Currently, a tank based team can walk into the blacksmith and with a single click, add $54,740 worth of damage enhancements to his team. He can continue to do that all day long as long as he keeps pouring money into the game. What if a mage could walk into a store and purchase $54,740 worth of XP, trainable only into a DD stat? DAWG has 175m invested into his hammer, $88,366,000 of which is in the damage modifier. I have $175m on my character. A mage doesn't need PTH, so what if I were to spend $175m on XP that I could train into my DD spell? Heck, we'll make it even -- what if I only spend half my cash on XP and bolster my DD spell by 90 million dollars' worth? Without spending a single BA? With clicking once for every $54,740 spent? And this is ignoring the e^x growth curve for XP training costs. Imagine if I could purchase $54,740 worth of levels into a DD. Scary, huh?

----------

(3) First, if nothing else, damage modifier costs on weapons should follow the e^x curve of XP. Dollars per point equals XP per point. If nothing else, at least that would bend the straight line just a little.

The real solution, however, is to make weapon allowance useful in a whole new way -- model it after Max Tattoo. When Max Tattoo came into being, it had a definite purpose: prevent equipping a massively giant tattoo on a smaller character. A tattoo larger than max functions (and adds PR) as a tattoo equal to max. Make weapon allowance do the same thing -- a weapon over NW functions just as a weapon equal to NW, with the overage divided somehow (or not at all) between X and +. (Perhaps all of the overage could come from X, yielding possibly negative damage.) This means that weapons would be just like tattoos. Yes, you can go buy a giant one. However you cannot utilize its full potential until your MPR -- the actual work done in the game -- catches up.

QBJohnnywas November 20 2006 7:26 AM EST

NightStrike,

It was hard work hunting through all my posts and responses - so many - but I found your graph - it's in the following post:

http://cb2.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001qtV




I always thought there should be a max weapon level...

AdminNightStrike November 20 2006 7:32 AM EST

Wow! Thanks, JW :)

I remember now -- I was showing the difference in how fast the gap grows between a USD spender and a non-USD spender. The gap grows MUCH faster now, as proven by DAWG and Freed.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 20 2006 7:40 AM EST

(IMHO) Damage gained from STR should have a linear cost, but weapon 'X' shouldn't.

;)

QBJohnnywas November 20 2006 7:40 AM EST

No probs. ;)

AdminG Beee November 20 2006 8:35 AM EST

Of course, it's also possible to introduce a new weapon as a supporter item every few months that would trump the ones already in the game.
Might make it a bit less attractive to spend USD on a wep if you know that it's going to be beaten by a newly introduced piece of equipment at x times less the net worth.

There's also an argument that USD is a part of the game that's always been around. Why penalise players who are happy to use it?
Some players can't put 24/7 into the game because they're out working for the USD they use as a counter to BA burning ;)

Choices...

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] November 20 2006 8:39 AM EST



But if you play 24/7 & spend, it's not a choice, Beee. It's having one's cake and snorting the icing.

Zoglog[T] [big bucks] November 20 2006 9:01 AM EST

That has to be the best metaphor (or whatever it is) that I have ever seen.
Go Bast :D

QBRanger November 20 2006 9:54 AM EST

'Of course, it's also possible to introduce a new weapon as a supporter item every few months that would trump the ones already in the game.'

That is exactly what the VB is.

A lot of the USD spenders upped their MH to insane levels before the VB came out. Once the VB came out, they were sort of stuck in the path of using that massive MH.

But as we all know, the VB is by far the best melee weapon in the game. One of the reasons we do not have a 100M NW VB is just what Beee stated. Perhaps Jon will make yet another melee weapon that trumps even the uber VB.

AdminNightStrike November 20 2006 10:00 AM EST

"Of course, it's also possible to introduce a new weapon as a supporter item every few months that would trump the ones already in the game."

Yes, and you can always drop a giant ice cube into the ocean to alleviate global warming for a few years.... (That's a Futurama reference for those that think I'm serious. The episode featured both Al Gore AND Nixon :) )

On a more serious note, how does that address the underlying fundamental flaws? And what are the reactions to making weapon allowance a hard ceiling instead of a mild suggestion that doesn't even matter to high ranks anyway?

QBRanger November 20 2006 10:27 AM EST

Personally I am against a weapon allowance. If people want to spend and spend USD, let them.

All a weapon allowance does is make tank damage equal to mage damage, trading xp for USD.

The balance between mages and tanks was completely fine until archery was finally fixed AND seekers are used.

The VB is another story and that discussion already took place.

Instead of a weapon allowance, just remove seekers or nerf their base damage a lot and things will be back to balance.

QBsutekh137 November 20 2006 11:02 AM EST

If'n y'all want to fix this, then support the hard, hard choice: do away with transfers entirely except auctions, and make sure auctions can't be "played" (putting an item there in the middle of the night at a low buy-now to "transfer" to another player).

To me, this whole thread boils down to "No fair! USD!" But what about the folks who _don't_ use USD and run a tank. You are going to penalize those folks because other folks enhance their wealth from external sources? Someone who doesn't use USD has two rewards to pump into two halves of the linear weapon damage model. Sounds fair to me, as long as that overall damage is comparable to DD damage being grown from pure MPR.

If I were a non-USD tank runner, I'd be crying holy heck right now...

I am in support of doing away with all transfers before I would support doing away with the linear weapon/STR model of damage. That being said, I wouldn't mind that damage being toned down a big, and WA being tweaked, but those are small things that I assume Jon will balance as time goes on (he obviously has a better bird's-eye view of that type of thing...)

QBsutekh137 November 20 2006 12:26 PM EST

Though, redoing weapon allowance as a hard-ceiling tattoo-style thing sounds like a neat idea. I'm not sure the WA can be done away with (would affect lower rankers too much and quell tank offense), but a better-defined (and probably lower) ceiling sounds pretty good.

But don't change the upgrade curves for damage.

Shooto November 20 2006 12:54 PM EST

I agree with the hard ceiling for Weapon Allowance. Something has to be done to control the amount of outside influence the USD has on the game. This game shouldn't be about who can buy the best stuff but rather who has the best strategies and puts in the time it takes.

Fate November 20 2006 1:55 PM EST

i agree with ranger seekers must die! but i believe we have a balance, usd takes time to collect (a job) xp takes time too, so wats the problem? and it would be stupid to be able to buy xp because of the fact that xp raises your mpr thus your pr well grow exponentially because of all your equipment.

QBsutekh137 November 20 2006 2:01 PM EST

Well, you can sort of buy MPR by buying BA. Buying all available BA is like adding 12 hours to the day. Even better, since the BA can be used intelligently to boost clan bonus, use during high experience time, etc.

Fate November 20 2006 2:03 PM EST

but both tanks and mages can buy ba. what do you want mages to be the only characters to buy ba?

kevinLeong November 20 2006 2:24 PM EST

I disagree with the idea of creating a WA ceiling. If people want to spend USD to upgrade their stuff then thats their choice...because they're paying the deserve to get an awesome weapon. I think, however, there should be a greater impact to PR, heavily decreasing their rewards for having such a high-level weapon for a low-level character.

And get rid of/gimp seekers.

AdminNightStrike November 20 2006 2:30 PM EST

"and it would be stupid to be able to buy xp because of the fact that xp raises your mpr thus your pr well grow exponentially because of all your equipment."

Please reread my post before making comments like this.

AdminNightStrike November 20 2006 2:33 PM EST

"Well, you can sort of buy MPR by buying BA. Buying all available BA is like adding 12 hours to the day. Even better, since the BA can be used intelligently to boost clan bonus, use during high experience time, etc."

"...buying all available..." >> Sut, maybe you should reread my post as well. I'm going to give you $175m CBD on the one condition that you have to use it to fight 2,171 battles in a single 24 hour period. Do it. I dare you. I'll even through in the few hundred million dollars worth of NW I have. It's all yours.

AdminG Beee November 20 2006 2:41 PM EST

Of course if you put a WA in place then it won't be long before people are complaining that they can't get past the uber AC that the USD users sink their cash into instead.

Isn't it the case that if we're going to have a weapons cap then we're going to need to put it in place for all items?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 20 2006 2:49 PM EST

weapons cap...you kids needs need adult supervision in here...

AdminNightStrike November 20 2006 2:54 PM EST

Items with nonlinear growth model have their own built in mechanisms for limitations -- that is, the growth model.

Try training a protection to an effect of 34. Try buying a Corn that's +19.

Slashundhack [We Forge Our Own Stuff] November 20 2006 2:55 PM EST

Well I think let the rich spend their bucks how they may.What I don't understand is why Jon is getting hardly any of it.Every one needs another fridge magnet.

QBsutekh137 November 20 2006 4:14 PM EST

NS, I don't follow you...I could easily burn 2100 BA a day. I could burn 2100 BA in under an hour. I think I am missing something here.

My BA point was simply to say that MPR _can_ be purchased, in a sense, and for folks that don't need to upgrade the NW half of their damage (i.e. mages), the extra money can be put into BA. A tank has to pour more money in equipment.

That's why, to me, it still boils down to dealing with USD. There is nothing wrong with a linear physical damage model in and of itself.

QBsutekh137 November 20 2006 4:23 PM EST

Also, NS, I did read your post. Did my response get something wrong? You think the NW portion of damage should not be linear because net worth can be had from external sources, yes?

Is that not the main premise of your OP? If not, can you spell it out for me?

My "buying all available" BA point was valid as far as I know... The BA you can purchase is equivalent to 12 hours of accrual. That's all I was trying to say, and yes, I know it is something both mages and tanks can do. I'm not sure I understand why you are daring me to burn an impossible amount of BA (short of buying multiple-day allotments and hoarding the BA at the expense of lost accrual).

horseguy001 [Battle Royale] November 20 2006 4:33 PM EST

What NS is saying is there is a finite supply of BA in any given 24 hour interval. Nothing wrong with that there.

What I do disagree with is the fact that you are taking extremes. Lets look at at the opposite side of the argument here. sutekh has a trained FB of 3,300,000, and that *only* cost time and BA, no money invested there. Why should I as a tank *have* to spend my money on my weapon to get the same kind of damage output? He only has to buy BA to achieve that, I have to buy BA and pour $$$ into a weapon to stay competitive.

**disclaimer: I am NOT saying mages are overpowered or anything like that , we all know the woes of seekers or lots of anti-mage gear.

Now I know you are saying that mages don't have the option to spend their money on anything...but do they really need the option based on the possible amount of damage mages are capable of?

Or if you prefer, how competitive would a tank be spending no money on a weapon?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 20 2006 4:36 PM EST

hmm assuming a VB/ELB ToA tank, a heck of a lot...

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 20 2006 4:38 PM EST

thought you asked how much damage he'd do...

even low NW tanks can be VERY very effective, maybe not quite to the same level as low NW mage teams, but still

QBRanger November 20 2006 5:02 PM EST

When SNK had a 30M Elb and a 30M VB, using archery/BG/Seekers, he would mop the floor with Koy easily.

The seekers took out my mage in missile and he just hit my wall with his VB doing over 150k damage a hit till he cut it open like a tin can.

This was before he hired minion number 2.

With the VB, and elb and seekers, a TOA tank can easily dominate with not that high a NW.

QBsutekh137 November 20 2006 5:11 PM EST

Yes, but let's remember what else Conundrum had -- massive MPR. He was the convert of the largest single-minion mage in the game at the time. So, that lower net worth gear was backed by great MPR.

Doesn't really add or detract from any specific point, but Conundrum would have to be considered an extremely high-end tank, not just something average.

If I were to switch to a tank right now, add some decent weapons like a 30 million NW bow and 30 million NW VB, would I be any higher than I am now? Probably. But 60 million NW is a lot. I could buy two minions with that! What you call "moderate" NW only seems moderate because of some of the other huge weapons in the game. 30 million in any piece of gear is far above average.

TheHatchetman November 20 2006 5:18 PM EST

MH has highest average nw of any melee weapon at 15m, ELB has highest average nw of ranged weapons at a little over 7m. I think I'm going to go with Sutekh on this one

QBRanger November 20 2006 5:28 PM EST

Let me rephrase.

I was using SNK as his character was near Koy both MPR and NW wise.

I was using his weapons since for this level of play, they were relatively low level.

Remember the 15M average NW of MH's include all MH's in the game. Including those used by 100k MPR characters. Take a look at the average NW of the weapons of characters over 1.4M MPR and you will see 30M is not that large.

I was trying to compare similar NW's of characters and MPR's. I should have perhaps stated that earlier.

QBsutekh137 November 20 2006 5:49 PM EST

Sorry, yes, I think it was a valid comparison, especially at the high level. But, back to the topic at hand, changing the NW portion of the damage curve would affect ALL levels of play. It is true, though, that Jonathan could model a weapon ceiling to be very linear (and high) at the low end and then change the nature of it at the higher end -- the curve can be pretty much anything he would want (and deem worthy *grin*). So, the NW portion of weapon damage could be capped a bit.

I still think it is side-stepping the main issue, but perhaps there is no way to hit the issue head-on short of the ultra-radical idea of stopping all transfers. And I do also think that a weapon ceiling would simply make gear-based teams invest more in non-weapon items. Maybe combined NW needs a tattoo like ceiling? But then, what would hitting the ceiling do to make it undesirable mor ethan high PR already leads to lower rewards?

That's my long-winded way of saying I might be coming around to NS's way of thinking. *smile*

AdminNightStrike November 21 2006 2:26 AM EST

"But then, what would hitting the ceiling do to make it undesirable mor ethan high PR already leads to lower rewards? "

It's a hard ceiling. What happens when you equip a level 2m tattoo when your max tattoo is 100k?

AdminNightStrike November 21 2006 2:36 AM EST

"Also, NS, I did read your post. Did my response get something wrong? You think the NW portion of damage should not be linear because net worth can be had from external sources, yes?

Is that not the main premise of your OP? If not, can you spell it out for me?

My "buying all available" BA point was valid as far as I know... "


1) Yes, your response missed something. First, my parallel to BA was that BA purchasing is FINITE. If you spend every last possible BA every moment of every day, you cannot hit 2,161 in a 24 hour period. The most that you or anyone else can hit is 2,160. How much can a tank buy in a 24 hour period? There is no limit. The way to see this is to look at a situation where there was zero daily cap on BA purchasing. Would that be fair? It would allow you to increase your MPR limited only by your wallet. Tanks can increase their weapon X limited only by their wallets. Why not everyone else? With one click, a tank can spend $56k and put 7 x's on his weapon. He can do that as many times as desired. How many times can you click the Buy BA link and buy BA, assuming you had the cash for it? You mentioned that buying BA is like an extra 12 hours of fighting. Yes, fine. Go buy 13 hours worth. You can't. A tank can buy however much he wants on his weapon, however.

2) My suggested fix for this was not to block all transfers. This game has been about subtle changes, not wide sweeping changes. My suggested fix was also not to make the NW damage model curved any moreso than the XP model is curved (DD growth is NOT linear, despite however much Jon wants to look at it as being so. 15XP per level is more than [1-14] XP per level). NW growth should follow the same "curve". If it's good enough for DD, it's good enough for Weapon X.

3) The real crux of the suggested fix was to extend the concept of Max Tattoo to Weapon Allowance. Max Tattoo is not just a suggestion, a point past which you gain PR for your abnormally large tattoo. It was put into place as a hard ceiling, a point you cannot pass. Weapon allowance should function the same way for the exact same reasons.

Miandrital November 21 2006 3:14 AM EST

But how would you enforce the WA if it functioned like Max Tattoo? Since weapons have two components x and +, it would be extremely difficult to do so. You could arbitrarily ignore some x's and some +'s, but that could create problems for people who want one more than the other.

RaptorX November 21 2006 3:40 AM EST

I click and add X's or + to my weapon - but even after 54k increase I often don't see any difference -- it takes a lot to make a difference at higher levels. I don't have an answer, it just seems to cost a lot of money to offset mage evasion/DD damage. So right now I see much more $ being poured into ELBs so they will hit against evasion... and so far it doesn't seem to be working very well. So I think that is why I used to have a higher ranked bow than I do now -- everyone is having trouble hitting, and they already spent so much on the bow they can't stop now... it's do or die.

AdminNightStrike November 21 2006 3:45 AM EST

"You could arbitrarily ignore some x's and some +'s, but that could create problems for people who want one more than the other."

Jon's the mastermind, not me :)

Seriously, though, I'd say just store the NW internally as two values. It's trivial to calculate the amount that is due to weapon X (for instance, Dawg's is 88,336,000). Make WA affect them both separately. There is a hard limit on X, and make it work the current way for +. I'm not sure on that one, though -- it's just a suggestion.

AdminNightStrike November 21 2006 4:17 AM EST

"click and add X's or + to my weapon - but even after 54k increase I often don't see any difference -- it takes a lot to make a difference at higher levels."

When sut adds XP to his fireball, this is what he sees:

300 XP raises the FB by 20 points, which raises the effect by 13 points, which increases his damage average per hit by 9.75 points (damage ranges between 50% and 100% of spell effect).

I'm presuming he makes about 300XP in a single fight. That, and 300 makes the numbers look nice. But you can see that both methods have tiny effects. When you're hitting for 500k per strike, single digit increases are six orders of magnitude less than your total -- but that's ok. It all adds up.


----


I'd like to swing discussion back on topic with regards to treating WA similar to MT.

UltimaSpock [Forge Frog Services] November 21 2006 4:27 AM EST

assume your weapon has a nw of 100 millions and you are allowed only 50 millions.

then both + and x are used at half their level.

this does not change if a player has a high difference between + and x.

the only problem is when a player wants a very large + for high nw and a more important x for low level nw, because the above rule does not know the change

but otherwise it is very easy to add a cap to the WA.

personnaly i think WA should be completely removed, and the nw of weapons added directly to the PR. then jon has to rebalance the game so that mages and tanks of equal PR have the same power...

(i am saying this because i am a tank, and do not have enough cash to have a big weapon, so i am playing really under my theoretical PR)

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] November 21 2006 9:18 AM EST

Nightstrike asked for my opinion on the subject. The main reason I am against WA acting like MT is the inflexible nature of the capping. Let us say for instance that one person equips a Morg that is way over their WA and the Morg stats are x100 +50, how does the cap apply to those values, a percentage on both, what if one stat is 75% of the total NW? What if the morg is X50 +100, how does the cap apply to that morg where the cost to +100 is many times greater than the cost to x50.

Basically you can be certain that you might buy or upgrade your weapon in a particular ratio that is important to your strat, hit the cap, and it might alter your ratios. It can only do the capping in one way, and that way will cost you eventually.

Max tattoo works because there is only one stat to modify, the tattoo's level. A WA will not work because there are two stats to modify and no way I can see to make sure the capping occurs fairly. It will be either advantageous to the middle ground (where NW in + is close to NW in X) or to the extremes (NW in + is significantly higher or lower than NW in X)

Anytime you let a computer decide how to apply your variable NW (I can put it here, or I can put it there on the same item) then this is a bad thing.

So that's my thought. I do not mind the concpet, but I do not see how to apply it fairly across the board.

P.S. the unfortunate truth is, even a WA will not do what you want, you have to get to Sut's extreme desire of no transfers to truly accomplish your goal.

UltimaSpock [Forge Frog Services] November 21 2006 9:29 AM EST

Sefton there is something i do not understand when you say it is impossible to put a cap on the NW.

assume the cap is at 50 m NW, and you use a *50 +100 morg worth 100 m NW.

then you have to cut half the power of your MH. that is simple, isn'it?

you compute half the NW of *50 and half the NW of +100.

then the game engine simply computes the corresponding levels to reach the required NW.

you could end up with a *35 +80 MH. so what? is there a problem there?

if you build a weapon with a constant ratio between + and * , i see absolutely no problem there

So only problem is when a player wants to reverse the importance of the + and the * when varying the NW of his weapon

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 21 2006 9:30 AM EST

How about a seperate 'x' WA and '+' WA?

Or even leave '+' NW alone, as it's limited by it's curve. And just use a WA to cap the linear 'x'.

UltimaSpock [Forge Frog Services] November 21 2006 9:34 AM EST

suppress WA and directly add weapon's NW into PR

Zoglog[T] [big bucks] November 21 2006 9:34 AM EST

Ultima, you really think the server can handle all of that?
If you do then I think you're pretty stupid, it is one thing for it
to simply configure the in fight tattoo level to the same as your
max tattoo because the info easily easily available from your
character but to have to reduce the the NW of each stat on
the weapon a proportionate amount and then configure it to
the point where the NW equals the max level while also
keeping a fair ratio between the x and + from your previous
upgrades, you're asking for the impossible.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 21 2006 9:39 AM EST

US, I've asked for that in the past.

I've used arguements that unless a team fully uses its WA, then it's perforiming under 'power' to every other team of it's MPR. That PR no longer represents true Power Rating any more. etc.

WA was put in place before linear upgrade costs to 'x' and the change to weapon damage. Has the amount of WA you get been amended because of this? Or the weapon damage change made with this in mind?

UltimaSpock [Forge Frog Services] November 21 2006 9:50 AM EST

Zoglog, please be polite.

do not know it if will be computationnaly possible, but theoretically it is.

QBsutekh137 November 21 2006 9:57 AM EST

NS, what _would_ happen if a weapon is beyond a "max weapon"...unable to be equipped, or just a damage cap? A tattoo over max can still be equipped, yes? So could a weapon, it just wouldn't be worth it to do so (under your plan). I think a ton of people have already covered this...

I am all for replacing the WA with a weapon NW cap (like max tattoo), and I don't care about x and + -- that choice would be up to the weilder, choose wisely. Problem is, how does the effect of being over cap manifest itself?

If you make it actually unable to be equipped, then the x and + don't matter -- the weapon just won't be usable until the character grows. I could see that working (though am probably not thinking of a million reasons why not).

NS, I know you didn't say to get rid of transfers, I did. *smile* In my opinion, that was still on topic, and I am the master of hyperbole when it comes to drastic changes. I'll say the sky is falling to get a tiny bit of Falling Sky Insurance.

As for the fact that XP costs more as the levels rise, I tried to bring that up and got a solid "meh" from Jonathan. He basically does not think it is a big enough deal, even though tanks get to grow STR and DEX to a smaller level (the 14/15 cost range) because of having the stats split and augmented by ToAs. I, on the other hand, am left spending 16 per level every time I want to grow my offense, a 1/15 = 6.67% premium over what the tanks need to spend. I am giving a mighty HELL YES to your idea of at least making the x-cost curve match that for weapon upgrades.

On the other hand, if you give me some decent DEs or a tattoo that directly aids DD (like BBQ's augmentation idea for mages), then it wouldn't be such a big deal. As it stands now, I have no choice but to get my DD up to the 16-per-level cost, otherwise my offense runs out of gas. Imagine how slow the DD spell would grow if I had four minions? (Hint: It grew slow even when Hubbell was a singleton -- 16 hurts). My condolences to Ranger once his DD on Koy reaches 3.3 million and starts costing the 16.

The alternative is to make an item where upgrade costs are more linear and the effect is to increase DD linearly (like the weapon NW portion of a tanks damage). Wow, sounds like I am talking about FORS-Hall-Of-Fame idea #387, The Staff. But then we are all just essentially tanks running around. :\

I don't appear to be helping much, if any...

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] November 21 2006 10:00 AM EST

Spock, just for the sake of discussion, here is sort of what I mean.

Let us say you use an exbow with your enchanter, and you have pumped the + a ton, and the X very little. So lets say the stat is x10 +100. Let us say that has a NW of 10 mil and your cap is 1mil. Basically if you could do it on your own, you would want all the NW reduction to come from the + you would not want the minor amount of NW put into X10 to be reduced in any way, but the server will have to do it in some fashion and whatever fashion it is done in will be counter to someone's idea of what should be reduced and by how much.

So that is basically why I am against it in a nutshell. Suddenly a computer is making strat based decisions for you. Will it happen in every case, no. Will it happen in most cases, no, but will it happen, yes, and that is a bad thing in my opinion.

UltimaSpock [Forge Frog Services] November 21 2006 10:07 AM EST

i agree with you sefton. you can not use a cap unless you assume something.
i proposed to use a constant ratio between + and *


i said this in my first post, a cap would not be possible if a player wanted to use a varying ratio when varying the NW of his weapon.

anyway i militate to suppress WA as GL proposed it just above

QBsutekh137 November 21 2006 10:09 AM EST

Sefton, unless the weapon simply cannot be equipped. Then there is nothing to decide. *smile*

And as far as the 14,15,16 cost for levels of stats, I would be fine with it all if 14 was the max. Any sizable minion is going to get into the 14 range. But only a massive mage is going to get to 16. I suppose a ToA-less tank might get to 16 with a stat, but probably not, considering the split between STR and DEX.

At least make the max cost 15. Sixteen is not fair to MPR-based teams, and no matter what anyone thinks, 6.7% can mean a lot over the long term.

AdminNightStrike November 21 2006 10:20 AM EST

Sefton: I addressed the issue of how to manifest the WA here:

"Seriously, though, I'd say just store the NW internally as two values. It's trivial to calculate the amount that is due to weapon X (for instance, Dawg's is 88,336,000). Make WA affect them both separately. There is a hard limit on X, and make it work the current way for +. I'm not sure on that one, though -- it's just a suggestion. "

If my suggestion doesn't make sense, I can elaborate.


That said, I think that implementation is outside the scope here. The question is -- is it logical to allow tanks limitless growth potential? I declare that it isn't, and further that their growth can be limited without turning CB into the strategist.

I suggested one possible way, and I'm open to other ideas. For instance, UltimaSpock had a good idea with respect to making it a ratio. If NW is being reduced by 35%, then take 35% from the X and 35% from the +. I disagree that that is a strat decision from CB. It's really a strat decision from the player in terms of how the player decides to maintain his ratios. Remember, it's the player who is deciding to boost his NW over WA. The strat decision is in the ratio.

AdminNightStrike November 21 2006 10:22 AM EST

"NS, what _would_ happen if a weapon is beyond a "max weapon"...unable to be equipped, or just a damage cap? A tattoo over max can still be equipped, yes? So could a weapon, it just wouldn't be worth it to do so (under your plan). "

Yes. Just like Max Tattoo.

QBsutekh137 November 21 2006 10:46 AM EST

What about simply reducing the max cost for a stat level to 15, or even 14. At that point, I would agree with Jon that the differences between 1-14 are trivial, and quickly moved through for any end-game team.

If you take away the XP learning curve discrepancy, then the only question that remains is USD. I see how your idea might help, and I would even call it somewhat elegant (the symmetry to max tattoo cannot be denied, in my opinion, and symmetry is almost always a good thing *smile*).

But in a way, I still see it as being harsh on non-USD tank-runners. Imagine a tank-runner who is simply very, very good at money management -- knows how to build farms, good referral income, rentals, buy/resell at a profit, etc. And let's say that "skill" leaves the user with surplus cash. You are saying that user doesn't get to spend it on his/her weapon, simply because other folks using USD need to be reigned in. There _are_ other ways to make money (imagine if camping were still around...), and it would be a shame to penalize those, wouldn't it? As you said before, buying BA is finite. So what if someone has bought BA, raised their weapon, and still has money? They are forced to sit on it or spend it on other gear even if their strategy calls mainly for brute-force weapon offense?

Granted, I am not sure how much that would happen, not sure how much surplus money is to be had in the game.

By the way, how does this work with multiple weapons on a team? A 4 tank ranged/melee team would have 8 weapons...they all count toward the "max weapon"? Max Tattoo works in more straightforward fashion because a team can only have one tattoo...

QBJohnnywas November 21 2006 10:49 AM EST

If you really want to put a level cap on weapons and remove weapon allowance then there is a way of simplifying it. Remove the +. It's an enchantment after all, so turn it into a ED (giving tanks yet another choice, another thing to train!). Remove DBs while you're at it, and convert evasion to an ED as well. Then you have weapons that are purely about the damage, making it much easier to apply a cap.

Meanwhile the two enchantments are natural counters to each other. Mages don't have to spend huge amounts on DBs, but can train the new evasion, and DM together to nullify the PTH. Tanks then have to rely more on dex and strength to do their job.

Kong Ming November 21 2006 10:57 AM EST

Maybe just lower the WA and the excess will be reflected in PR?

AdminNightStrike November 21 2006 11:51 AM EST

"By the way, how does this work with multiple weapons on a team? A 4 tank ranged/melee team would have 8 weapons...they all count toward the "max weapon"? Max Tattoo works in more straightforward fashion because a team can only have one tattoo... "

Weapon Allowance already accounts for multiple weapons. All NW's are added together.

AdminNightStrike November 21 2006 11:55 AM EST

"So what if someone has bought BA, raised their weapon, and still has money?"

What do you do when you run out of things to spend money on?

I go back to point 2 of my original post. What if you could buy as much BA as you wanted to? Do you complain when you've bought 503 BA and still have cash left to buy more? How do you feel when your DD growth is limited by the game, despite you having extra cash and time to spend?



What if there was a mechanism where you could click a link to Buy XP. It costs $7,080 for 15 XP. No strings attached. Would that be fair?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 21 2006 12:00 PM EST

i had high hopes for cb2. i dreamt of a pure game with little or no usd influence, but with the nub or similar bonus to allow late-comers to play catch-up. cb2 has been a disappointment for me, it seems to be more usd based than cb1 was (at least in cb1 the rewards were better so everyone had more money inherently).

i would support the weapon allowance idea or hell even the no transfers idea. i just think that something needs to be done to reign in this problem. even as simple a solution as making some of the dd stat increasing items (alatar's gloves) use a linear and fixed cost per level of boost like the x on weapons. the last is my least favorite idea as it really doesn't address the runaway net worth issue, it just gives mages a way to play that game also.

QBsutekh137 November 21 2006 12:12 PM EST

I hear you, dudemus... The whole first year of CB2 was a disappointment for me in that regard, especially with the CB1-to-CB2 dollar trading. I finally pseudo got over it. *smile*

NS, I understand building the ceiling out of multiple weapons is doable, but then implementing the damage reduction gets really, really hairy. Which weapon gets reduced the most? X or +? You can say all you want that implementation is up to the master, but sometimes the devil in the details is a demon big enough to make the project non-feasible.

Imagine a tank team, 8 weapons, over the weapon allowance. Currently, that would just mean the team's PR is higher, so rewards are worse (under a known mechanism already implemented). Now, that mechanism would have to somehow reduce damage across all weapons (or something) because the cap has been breached. A "macro" property has now become "micro"... That's not easy to implement.

For all we know, Jonathan thought of the "Max Weapon" idea before he even made the NW/PR linkage, but couldn't see clear to try to make it work. So, he just went with weapons adding to PR (minus the allowance). Tweaking the current WA would be far, far easier than what is being proposed with the Max Weapon concept, and would have similar effects, wouldn't you agree?

Though, the other thing your Max Weapon helps with is in avoiding the Top Ten reward exemption. At this point, the top teams can be almost as large as they want. With an effective Max Weapon concept, big weapons would affect more than just rewards -- they might even affect win/loss.

AdminG Beee November 21 2006 1:45 PM EST

G Beee, November 20 2006 2:41 PM EST
Of course if you put a WA in place then it won't be long before people are complaining that they can't get past the uber AC that the USD users sink their cash into instead.

Isn't it the case that if we're going to have a weapons cap then we're going to need to put it in place for all items?

--

To me it doesn't appear as straight forward as many are suggesting. Am I missing something?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 1:55 PM EST

This is all pie in the sky stuff Beee, not much has made sense since NS decided he was going to spend 175 mil on a mage team...

QBsutekh137 November 21 2006 2:25 PM EST

NS is simply trying to make a more elegant, more accurate weapon allowance, and has put forth the idea of making the weapon allowance actually be a "Max Weapon" ceiling, much like Max Tattoo. If the weapons on a team exceed the maximum weapon allowance, damage will stop increasing. How that stoppage would be implemented, and how multiple weapons would be affected is a cause for some implementation consternation.

NS's reasoning is sound. If nothing else, his point about stats costing 15 or 16 experience points per level vs. only 14 or 15 for most tanks (due to the split on STR and DEX and the fact that the ToA allows growth outside of intrinsic training) cannot be denied. I feel that pain directly, having the only stat in the game that requires 16 points per level to train. My point on that was to make the maximum cost for stats be 14 or 15 points per level, and never higher. That way, the high-end of the training curve is equal for mages and tanks alike.

From there, the argument has become somewhat about USD... The fact that a tank can have essentially limitless damage output while MPR-based damage cannot be purchased in any way. I would augment NS's point by saying that even buying more minions is not really the same as buying damage output. Adding a minion later in the game is usually reserved for defensive or enchantment purposes, not damage output. I bought a very large minion recently, and there was no way that minion could have contributed to actual damage. The experience he came with only amounted to a single 730K-level stat. That would be worthless for DD, and even more worthless for a tank (due to lack of dexterity). I agree with NS on all of this, except I worry about non-USD tank folks.

And I don't think we need a "max" on ALL items...the NW/PR linkage handles everything else. In fact, I proposed earlier that trying to make a Max Weapon may already be too difficult to make separate from the NW/PR linkage, as the devil in those details is a mighty, mighty Lucifer.

That's a summary of the thread from my POV...

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 2:29 PM EST

So another group of mages doesn't want to have to train EC?

miteke [Superheros] November 21 2006 2:31 PM EST

I don't want to return to the days where we had to have the right sized equipment for your characters.

My suggestion is that when the dmg of the weapon is 'larger' than the strength of the character, or the pth is 'larger' than the dex of the character, the bonuses give diminishing returns. So you still get a benefit out of the larger weapons but it becomes less and less significant to add plusses to the weapon the farther it outstrips the minion's stats.

QBRanger November 21 2006 2:33 PM EST

You know Novice, I would certainly train EC on my character if it stopped tanks from still doing tons of damage.

Even a tank with 500k Str will do tons of damage. Hell, 250k str will still do enough damage to kill most non tank/wall minions in 1 round.

If EC gave tanks damage back like AMF does, certainly I would train it.

However it does neither and with TOA tanks out there, there is not enough xp for me to train EC and have a viable DD spell left.

For tanks, sure EC is good since you try to drop their dex below yours. For a mage, who gives a darn about dex. 1M vs 500k dex, big deal, you still get 2 dex PTH hits.

So PLEASE, get over the EC thing. For a mage team, esp a team that chooses to use DM, EC is not viable at all for the xp.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 2:35 PM EST

EC and evasion are at least as effective as AMF...take a walk...

QBsutekh137 November 21 2006 2:42 PM EST

Novice, maybe you should walk to another thread. *smile* I don't necessarily disagree with you, but NS's point isn't to compare enchantments. He is comparing damage output.

And if you want to start comparing other things, like enchantments/items/skills on a tank vs. mage outlook, haven't we already covered that? Even hard core tanksters have agreed that there are more "mage busting" gears (especially defensively) and more tank-friendly choices out there (EDs, STR-boosting armors, skills, tattoos, etc.). Are you sure you want to have a mage-defense vs. tank-defense discussion? All Ranger would have to say is "seekers", and he will have already mentioned an item for which there is no mage-against-tank counterpart.

QBRanger November 21 2006 2:42 PM EST

And the MgS is more effective than anything mages have, even evasion.

We can play this trumping game forever.

EC is not in the same league as AMF. AMF reduces damage linearly and give the mage damage. EC reduces damage fractionally and gives no damage back.

Add in the TOA tanks with their boosted str/dex and you should see EC is poor for a mage to consider. Of course if you use DM and do not use a ROS, you cannot use either AMF or EC.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 2:47 PM EST

If a tank team should have to specialize to keep from losing to mages at half it's PR, the same should be true for mages...period.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 2:56 PM EST

There is Sut, Pit proved that in chat the other day quite well...You can kill HUGE enemy tanks with an AX or EX bow before melee ever starts!

Tanks have 1 weapon choice left verses the walls going up everywhere, you have 3 DD spells that avoid them!

The items you're talking about do nothing verses tanks, we have to specialize to beat you. You get to focus money and XP, these are the primary differences between the "classes" here...

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 2:58 PM EST

and as to damage output comparisons, I've never seen a valid argument as to why a mage should be able to match a tanks damage output...

QBRanger November 21 2006 3:00 PM EST

I have never seen a valid discussion as to why mages should not do the same damage as tanks.

QBRanger November 21 2006 3:02 PM EST

And I was in chat when Pit used my axbow.

He could not take out huge enemy tanks out with it. Either GA or PL prevented that.

Yes, he did do a nice amount of damage but I do not remember it being a great battle changing item. If it was, would he have not asked for a long term loan?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 3:05 PM EST

You're either bending the truth, or weren't paying much attention...

HE BEAT Userfriendly with a 500k mpr char, KILLING THE TANK IN RANGED!


AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 3:06 PM EST

You know quite well what happened to your AX after that, it became the deciding factor in Krang VRS. Critters as I understand it...

QBRanger November 21 2006 3:14 PM EST

Actually Edyit has my axbow, Krang uses one himself. He instad his with mine. That is why I now own Leper's Drive and he owns Clumsy.

I have no idea if an axbow would help Jayuu.

As I stated, Pit never asked to use my axbow for a long term loan so I would guess other missile weapon are better for him.

Sure, he can take out Userfriendly with my axbow, but using other missile weapons obviously serve him better.


AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 3:19 PM EST

So lets see...directly after Pit pointed out how amazingly effective your AX was, DAWG insta'ed to it...interesting...*chortle*.

Flamey November 21 2006 3:20 PM EST

Pit has archery, why would he use an Axbow? to actually make his skill effective, he would have to change to BL, because the Axbow wont do anything.

Wasp [Demon Forging] November 21 2006 3:21 PM EST

How about giving mages an item in which they can dump their money into, each plus gives a very small bonus, but in time adds up, and is worthwhile... Even if it is the disliked idea of a staff. Each plus is a linear cost and adds a small percentage to damage, or even a small percentile bonus to DD, like the coi, but instead each plus gives 0.1% and it costs X amount for each plus. That way you now have an item for mages that will give them something to dump their CB$ or USD into...

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 3:24 PM EST

all roads lead to the Ring of Power!

QBRanger November 21 2006 3:38 PM EST

QBRanger (Koyaanisqatsi) 66.176.207.145 Pit Spawn (The Night Spirit) loan Leper's Drive ($49429737) November 14 2006 7:25 PM EST

He borrowed my new axbow.

DAWG traded for Clumsy a bit before that.

Care to take that *chuckle* back??

QBsutekh137 November 21 2006 3:38 PM EST

Novice, I was clear in my wording... On an item by item tank-kill-mage scenario, tanks have seekers.

On an item-based mage-kill-tank, there is...nothing. Your Pit example is a tank killing a tank. I'm pretty sure an axbow on Hubbell would be sorta useless. *smile*

Ask Bast how much she has to specialize to withstand me... We are almost dead equal PR, and she wins every time (and has for a looooong time). AMF is key there.

Ask The First how he can regularly draw with me, even after investing in a 2 million level spell (EC) that is _useless_ against me. For a while he was beating me (I think he refit himself to be more effective against other teams). And he has 12% less PR than me!

And ask Failure (very even team, same number of minions, powered by tank instead of mage) how even we are. I am getting the better of him right now, but that is probably due to tattoo choice -- I use an SF that aids with offense and a kill slot while he uses ToE. He regularly draws and sometimes beats me, even without landing a single ranged blow. Evasion vs. AMF -- even with my Evasion being 100% effective, his AMF makes me shudder. Although, if I switched to MM I might fare better since I wouldn't roast my own team in Round 4. *grin*

I need more examples of these half-MPR teams that are beating higher up tanks. I would need more details to speak to that, and I wasn't in chat when Pit did whatever he did, because I am not in chat.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 3:48 PM EST

there is a team at half my PR riding me around right now, with nothing more than some EC and evasion completely negating my skill, WA and dex!

The first wins because he's got a 4 minion team, same reason failure loses, his poor 2 minions can't reduce your damage enough. You've specialized in killing fewer minion teams, and you do it well. I'd be angry if Bast didn't win considering her AMF...

I'm all for a NW counter to AMF, anything beyond that is tank bashing biased garbage.

QBRanger November 21 2006 3:53 PM EST

Novice,

At a lot of level except perhaps at the top, you can specialize in taking down certain minion with more MPR.

It seems that the character your referring to is a tank buster.

A character could learn all AMF on 1 minion and equip a Mgs with HP on another and beat higher level mages if he chooses them carefully.

How does that character that 'owns' you do vs mages? Not very well I would guess.

What most of us say is that EC is not a very xp effective skill. AMF, however, is very xp effective. That is why we see tons of people using AMF and a handful using EC. If everyone thought EC was comparable to AMF, do you not think more people would learn both?

The whole community cannot be that wrong, can they?

QBsutekh137 November 21 2006 3:54 PM EST

What is the team beating you?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 4:00 PM EST

How can you say EC isn't effective, when properly used it can negate a tanks damage...without even having to take strength and dex to 0 when combined with evasion...you have to have an AMF of 10x the DD spell to negate it...

Shooto November 21 2006 4:07 PM EST

novice, which team are you referring to? The only team even under your PR that is beating you is me. But thats the thing with strats. Its a whole triangle system. You beat some guys I can't, but I can beat you. Also, a team can negate EC with a decent DM while the only combat to AMF is training your DD higher. The DM has an effect greater than the EC for levels trained I believe, making it even easier to negate the EC.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 4:09 PM EST

shooto, you're failing to understand even the basics, DM only effects your own EC, not opponents...it lower Haste, AS and GA...NOT EC.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 4:10 PM EST

I was talking about The Space Knights btw. who have recently added an RoS which brought PR up to about the same, it didn't change our battles however...

QBsutekh137 November 21 2006 4:12 PM EST

I'm still confused as to how Space Knights could ever have been at half your PR when your PR is 600-some K and his MPR is 400-some K. And are you saying he wasn't using a tat at all before when he was "riding you around"? RoS or not, his PR still would have been greater than MPR if he had any tattoo at all...

Shooto November 21 2006 4:13 PM EST

Ah, I was unaware of that. My fault. Still, what character is beating you with "half your PR"? I guess it could be good for someone to train both EC and AMF then to weaken both mages and tanks. EC trains at half the level so an EC around the level of your opponents STR or DEX could be beneficial. Wouldn't it be tough to achieve that without dilution against ToA teams though?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 4:13 PM EST

He has been catching up for weeks, he was at half my pr and beating me with no tat (RoE) since nearly the start of my char...

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 4:18 PM EST

AMF and EC don't have to be equal in effect and result, things just have to be balanced...teams that specialize can expect to lose to teams much smaller than them, teams with general strats can expect that specialized teams will beat them as well. Seekers don't do squat without XP and NW negate one and you negate the other...but don't ask for a handout!

QBOddBird November 21 2006 4:18 PM EST

"Wouldn't it be tough to achieve that without dilution against ToA teams though?"

See novice, for a guy who "doesn't even understand the basics", even he can easily see EC's downfall.

"How can you say EC isn't effective, when properly used it can negate a tanks damage...without even having to take strength and dex to 0 when combined with evasion...you have to have an AMF of 10x the DD spell to negate it..."

If you are using EC to supplement Evasion in DX reduction, you are an idiot. Evasion's entire level counts as Defensive DX whereas only half of EC's does.

And AMF always works against mages. Always. No matter how much you've got trained.

You have to put an arm, a leg, and 3/4 of a torso into EC to get enough to negate any DECENT tank.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 4:20 PM EST

I've had a 1.6 mil effect AMF and been beaten down by mages...don't tell me about wasted investment...

Shooto November 21 2006 4:23 PM EST

Novice: Yeah but for a lot of that portion, the ELB was kinda bugged. Now its fixed isn't it? Also, why do I feel like you absolutely hate me? Is it cause I've been continuously beating you for weeks ;)

QBOddBird November 21 2006 4:23 PM EST

But your AMF still did backlash damage and still heavily reduced DD damage. It isn't supposed to be an 'insta-win' EO, so what's your point? It wasn't a wasted investment.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 4:25 PM EST

shooto: that hate you feel is just overspray, not intended for you I swear...though I am a little extra grumpy today...

My point OB is that no matter how high the AMF, a mage team can still win...EC is a win or lose proposition. It completely ruins a tanks ability to do damage at all, something that AMF can't do.

QBOddBird November 21 2006 4:30 PM EST

That's true, but the problem is how much EC it takes to get to that 'win or lose' point: Most of the time that EO has a 'lose' effect. Someone trains a 500k DX + ST and dumps on either a ToA or a TSA/EC/EG/HoE set and the EC guy has to devote an entire minion's exp to come close to countering it, and would have to train some EC on another minion as well to achieve that 'win' effect. It is just too much EXP devotion to see any noticeable effect!

Additionally, in the top 25 or so, if you leave your opponent with so much as 100k STR he's still going to PTH and weapon X you to death because of all the NW involved.


My point is that it is too inefficient to be worthwhile for nearly ANY team - but AMF doesn't have to be trained to a certain amount. It *always* helps against mages, and you don't have to devote your entire team to it.

Shooto November 21 2006 4:34 PM EST

True, EC is all or nothing while AMF is always there a little bit. The thing about EC is, like i said, ToA tanks still overcome the drop. Factor in the mage teams where it doesn't do a thing and the fact that most tank centered teams use a ToA and EC seems pretty useless to me on a cost to benefit ratio. It may have its place in some strat but I can't see it being put in without a good thought on how to use it. AMF on the other hand is easy to just toss in without thinking about it because it will always do some good. Still, the exp dilution needed to get the EC up to par with ToA teams isn't worth it in my opinion.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 4:35 PM EST

So because you can't take out the top 10 tanks in the game with it it's useless?

were someone to dedicate a minion to fighting tanks, as so many of us have done to fight mages...you'd see that EC combined with even small evasion is massively effective, heck Pit had Krang to 1 HIT a round before the evasion changes, think about that now, with the AoF around!

AdminNightStrike November 21 2006 4:41 PM EST

ENOUGH!!

This thread is about discussing a new way to handle WA to control how USD + unlimited growth = Problems. Take your petty bickering over Enchantments elsewhere!

QBOddBird November 21 2006 4:41 PM EST

"So because you can't take out the top 10 tanks in the game with it it's useless? "

Did you read my argument? That was an 'In addition to' comment. It didn't even have anything to do with the point. It was just a bonus of 'Oh, and this skill is COMPLETELY worthless against the top 25, in addition to being very difficult to use effectively against lower MPR'.

I see very few teams that are entirely anti-mage. I see many that are anti-mage slanted, but they have quite a bit of tank defenses. My team, for example, is anti-mage: I have an enormous AMF and am working on acquiring futher mage defenses. However, I'm also tank defended, using a Wall and a UC minion to evade them.

However, for a team to be both EC and Evasion tank-focused, they could put practically nothing in defense against mages because they'd be so used up. That's just a weak strategy.

Heck, I'll go you one more. For a team to be EC tank-focused, they can put very little comparitively up against mages. Better than an EC *and* Evasion tank-focused team, but barely.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 21 2006 4:43 PM EST

So you want a completely theoretical discussion of things that will NEVER ever happen?...enjoy.

Sacredpeanut November 21 2006 5:09 PM EST

"You have to put an arm, a leg, and 3/4 of a torso into EC to get enough to negate any DECENT tank."

Correct

I have had 90% of total xp in EC. The strategy was to target teams that did damage only through a tank and reduce ST/DX to 0 on these teams.

The strategy worked great on CB1, not so on CB2.
1) You have to deal with the ToA.
2) There is so much ST/DX enhancing equipment that a tank with a reasonable amount of money can gain upwards of 1.5 effective DX/ST per point invested in DX/ST.

A tank team of 400k PR in CB1 had ALOT less ST/DX than a tank team of 400k in CB2.

The problem with EC is that it is only effective when massive amount of xp are dumped in it. At 400k PR (around 300k MPR) my EC reduced ST/DX by just over 400k, it worked great on tank teams where the tank had less than about 500k ST/DX.

If whoever I only invested say 25% of total xp into EC (a more reasonable level for an EO spell.) I would get a reduction of around 100k ST/DX.

Give a decent tank team at around 400k PR will often have a tank of 400k ST and DX, all my EC would achieve is a reduction in tank damage of around 10% (a 25% reduction in ST gives around a 10% decrease in damage). I would also be reducing my opponents DX by about 0.5 DX per point invested in EC, this is far less effective in terms of creating a DX gap on your opponent than simply investing in DX which can give to 1.5 DX per point with appropriate equipment.

About all a small EC is useful for is dealing with Walls that have a weapon and small amounts of ST/DX trained.

Compare this to AMF where a 25% investment in AMF (one minion training AMF in a four minion team) achieves an AMF of 0.4 on a team that invests 25% of xp in a DD spell (eg a EM team with one the Mage training half DD half HP). Thats a 40% reduction in damage as well as a good amount of damage dealt back to the mage through AMF backfire.

In conclusion AMF effectiveness per point invested scales fairly well, whereas EC is highly effective at huge levels but at what most people would consider a reasonable level for an EO spell does not work particularly well.

QBJohnnywas November 21 2006 5:14 PM EST

Well, that is just weird. I was just thinking about you Sacred and your old Melon Harold team....

Shooto November 21 2006 5:18 PM EST

I don't see a way to move away from USD without:
a. putting in a hard ceiling for the WA. I'm doing well without exceeding my WA, I don't see why other people can't.
b. stopping transfers between characters. This seems more negative because it would stop all insta up and down on any items which I wouldn't personally like.

IMO that is the only way to make the game "fair" all across the board, not just on the tank=mage level. I think dropping the WA to a hard ceiling would make the mage inherently more effective than currently against a tank with a huge NW weapon. Otherwise, i think mages are decently powered when compared to tanks. I used to run a mage team and had just as much success with it as I did with my current tank setup. I just think people are looking for an easy way to become powerful when it really takes time, effort and a lot of thought to get the perfect strat for each individual.

AdminNightStrike November 21 2006 5:55 PM EST

And a hard turn back towards the topic with this:
"NS is simply trying to make a more elegant, more accurate weapon allowance, and has put forth the idea of making the weapon allowance actually be a "Max Weapon" ceiling, much like Max Tattoo. If the weapons on a team exceed the maximum weapon allowance, damage will stop increasing. How that stoppage would be implemented, and how multiple weapons would be affected is a cause for some implementation consternation.

NS's reasoning is sound. If nothing else, his point about stats costing 15 or 16 experience points per level vs. only 14 or 15 for most tanks (due to the split on STR and DEX and the fact that the ToA allows growth outside of intrinsic training) cannot be denied. I feel that pain directly, having the only stat in the game that requires 16 points per level to train. My point on that was to make the maximum cost for stats be 14 or 15 points per level, and never higher. That way, the high-end of the training curve is equal for mages and tanks alike.

From there, the argument has become somewhat about USD... The fact that a tank can have essentially limitless damage output while MPR-based damage cannot be purchased in any way. I would augment NS's point by saying that even buying more minions is not really the same as buying damage output. Adding a minion later in the game is usually reserved for defensive or enchantment purposes, not damage output. I bought a very large minion recently, and there was no way that minion could have contributed to actual damage. The experience he came with only amounted to a single 730K-level stat. That would be worthless for DD, and even more worthless for a tank (due to lack of dexterity). I agree with NS on all of this, except I worry about non-USD tank folks.

And I don't think we need a "max" on ALL items...the NW/PR linkage handles everything else. In fact, I proposed earlier that trying to make a Max Weapon may already be too difficult to make separate from the NW/PR linkage, as the devil in those details is a mighty, mighty Lucifer.

That's a summary of the thread from my POV... "

(And Shooto's post right above this one)

QBsutekh137 November 21 2006 7:35 PM EST

*laugh* I am become NightStrike's editor! An honor and a privilege, good sir!

Kong Ming November 21 2006 9:46 PM EST

Maybe just lower the WA and if some weapon exceeds it, it cannot be equipped. But how much to allocate is another issue ;)

lel November 22 2006 3:24 PM EST

actually you can get more BA in 24 hours lol

Day 1: you can buy 720

Day 2: you can buy 720

24 hour free BA: 1440

Thats 2880 BA

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 22 2006 3:36 PM EST

Overall SK... That works for getting a load of Wacky time or CP, but you lose BA on the day before. ;)

AdminNightStrike November 22 2006 3:38 PM EST

SK, it was an illustration to prove the finite nature of BA purchasing / accruing / spending, and to juxtapose that illustration against CBD purchasing / accruing / spending.

QBRanger November 22 2006 3:58 PM EST

Serial,

Of course you can stack buying BA to have over 2.8k for any 24 hour period.

However for the purpose of our discussion, it is BA per day averaged over time. Lets say 1 month.

There certainly is a finite cap of BA available via normal regeneration and purchase.

lel November 22 2006 4:13 PM EST

ok i knew that but it said in 24 hours lol

AdminNightStrike November 24 2006 10:22 AM EST

"Maybe just lower the WA and if some weapon exceeds it, it cannot be equipped."

That would make many current weapons useless, which would not be fair. Much like when Max Tattoo was implemented, people just need time to grow into their weapons.

Kong Ming November 24 2006 10:38 AM EST

But implementing it will be a challenge unless we can do something to the nw of weapons. Maybe have a separate nw for the x and + and the WA only works on the nw for the x. I still think its pretty hard to implement.

AdminNightStrike November 24 2006 12:09 PM EST

There's several ways to do it. Either decrease them both in a set ratio, only have a hard ceiling for X and a normal function for +, track each NW separately and apply the hard ceiling to both, etc etc
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=001xGQ">CB's Damage Model (cont'd)</a>