Mage versus tank. Oh no, not again....;) (in General)
January 26 2007 2:42 PM EST
Yes, I know we go over this time and time again. But I'm in a pretty good position to see the differences, having just scrapped a tank and reset him as a mage, while I prepare for my next NCB char. And I'm not complaining about weaknesses or balance. Honestly!
Anyway, retraining didn't lose me much MPR, and I'm only about 50k less in PR. But I'm 600k lower in score.....
Now, some people running mage teams will jump up and shout 'yeah, mages are much weaker than tanks' but actually I don't think that's the case. What's knocked me back isn't some weakness in a basic FB mage. It's the loss of all that 'Invisible PR' that the weapon allowance gives. A char of my size has a weapon allowance of about 40 million NW. That's room for some pretty large and powerful weapons, especially if like me you boost the X more than the +.
What I'm saying is that a tank and a mage of a similar size aren't actually the same size. The weapon allowance hides a huge portion of their PR.
(But I've also observed that a mage can do the same. A familiar tattoo adds another minion, while only adding tattoo PR. And yes I know tanks can do this too but as effectively as a mage)
Well, I can hear you asking 'JW, what exactly is it that you are saying?' And do you know what, same as usual, I'm not exactly sure!
Lol, Well, actually my point is this: You cannot really judge how strong tanks and mages are until you can see the real PR of a character. Yes tanks are much stronger than mages. But it's all sleight of hand, smoke and mirrors. If we want to address the balance we need to see what the weapon allowance actually hides.
Johnny, I've been saying this for ages...
If you don't use all your available WA, you are losing free 'Power' and are less powerful than teams of yoru own MPR/PR that are.
Actually, I've been thinkng aobut this for a while. With the advent of linear physical damage, the Weapon Allowance is no longer needed.
Tanks can do damage with base wepaons and high strength. Yes, you do more damahe with a larger weapon, but it's not *necessary* (as much as not doing more damage isn't necessary in CB! :P ), and should be reflected in your increasing power rating.
January 26 2007 2:53 PM EST
And I've been agreeing with you for ages! I had nearly 40 mill NW in weapons on Diabolik. A BoNE with around 1500 on the x and 82 on the+. And an ELB with over a 1000 on the x. Nevermind the free PTH from the ToA.
It isn't the case though that mages are weaker than tanks. They're simply smaller.
Perhaps when Jon changed physical damage he should have adjusted the WA to suit?
Just my opinion though. ;)
January 26 2007 2:54 PM EST
Woo spooky. I was almost typing the same thought as yourself GL.
I bet you fancy a beer as well right now....lol ;)
January 26 2007 2:56 PM EST
I have been lobbying to do away with the weapon allowance for some time now, at least once a character reaches a certain level. So I completely agree with you.
I think mages and tanks are quite balanced these days, except PR does not show true power, and that is a BIG problem -- it's what rewards are based on. So, a mage gets crappier rewards if he has enough MPR to really be doing well.
I also think mages need to ride a finer line to be effective, using things like Evasion to juuuust the right level to be effective. Then again, that is probably more true for a lesser-minion team, not just magic, and that makes sense. Fewer minions means less margin for waste and/or brute force... There are now simply too many very compelling reasons to have at least three minions, Junction being the most recent. I will eventually be M(JET)E where JET = "Junction/Enchanter tattoo holder". All are pretty much essential, no gravy or icing on the cake there. If I added a fourth minion, however, that would be what I consider a "gravy" minion.
With tattoos, Junction, walls, enchanters, tanks, and mages, Jonathan has given us enough choice that three minions is _almost_ essential. There are still one and two-minion builds that are effective, but in a bang-for-buck gestalt sense, three seems nice. Not surprising, Sefton has been singing the virtues of power trios for some time now, and he is not often wrong about such things. *smile*
I could murder a pint! ;)
Well, Sute and Johnny have covered everything. ;) The rewards point is very valid. At equal MPR/PR shoulda Single Mage be getting the same rewards as a Signle tank usign a 40 Mil MH that doesn't increase his PR any?
IMO you guys are missing 1 key thing. Tanks NEED net worth to compete. It is not an option. With out a massive weapon a tank is pretty much useless. Sorry if you disagree but this is what i believe.
January 26 2007 3:30 PM EST
We don't disagree (at leat I don't), it's just that once the tank has that NW, they are as effective as a higher-PRed mage. Reflect that by lessening or doing away with the WA, is my thought.
GL CMed me, so I will publish my thoughts on the three-minion ideal:
I think there are only 2 "essential" minions: a damage dealer (mage works just fine, believe me *smile*), and a tattoo holder/junctioner.
Then, third minion can be one of: wall, PL battery, pure enchanter (corn); depending on build...
I do disagree. :)
Tank can do damage with a base Whip and massive STR. Any larger weapon is just more damage.
January 26 2007 3:32 PM EST
Yes, you need NW to fight as a tank. I'm not disputing that. But I can equip 40 mill of NW on a 600k MPR character. As a tank I was taking on mages twice my size, hitting for single strikes of a million, whilst they were hitting for nearly half that. I'm not advocating getting rid of the WA actually, just making weapons add something to PR, instead of it being completely invisible.
I'm actually pro tank; I've just spent the past year and a half fighting with tank teams - how could I be anything else? ;)
I agree that you need a single pure Damage deling minion. At the moment i'd go so far as to say Tanks are preferentail over Mages.
A second minion is necessay. Either a Tattoo/Junction minion, or if you're Tank uses a ToA, a TSA/EC + MgS minion.
But there are three fundamental skills in CB now. Evasion, PL and Junction.
You need three minions to build these skills into your team. :)
One more thing to add. the relationship between STR and weapon X is now linear, and possibly equal (really not sure on that...). If with a base whip a Tank isn't doing *enough* damage, then they should be told to go train more STR, just like a Mage would train more DD.
January 26 2007 3:52 PM EST
I disagree about PL, I do not find it essential at the high levels. This, of course, is being stated by a man running almost pure offense.
So, I would amend your point to say that PL is necessary if running something like a ToE or a wall. Of you aren't reducing the damage, PL is not worth it (nor is a TSA, for the same reason). Unless it gains you an extra round, it isn't worth it. I get hit for 1.5 million arrows regularly. That means 2 arrows equals death. Even the highest PL in the game AND a TSA wouldn't save me, because that would only bleed off 300K HP and restore 100K HP per round. It's not enough, especially if the arrows hit within one round.
So yes, PL is useful, I just don't consider it essential. *smile*
By the way, GL, a base whip with massive STR would probably not hit as hard as you think. Can someone with large STR use a base dagger or whip and see? You need that big base and a large x to make up for it, not to mention needing + to get more of what tanks do best -- multiple hits.
near 3 mil str and base tulwar was hitting for less than 10k I think the other day, I'll check again later on...
base whip? sleepless nights getting to you GL? (how is the little princess btw) yeah used a base weapon (a glaive) that i had on a farm team. and at 1.5m MPR i couldn't beat anybody. so that blows holes in that theory. Tanks need the NW, no running one with out it.
January 26 2007 5:08 PM EST
Agreed, and the power that imbues should be represented in power to a greater extent. The WA basically allows "half" of a tank's damage output to not be reflected in total power, thereby allowing tanks to reap greater rewards as they beat high-scoring targets at the same level as a higher-PRed mage. That's all I'm saying, ed.
January 26 2007 5:30 PM EST
A tank minion with a base weapon and 500k MPR will do far less damage and be far less effective than a mage at 500k MPR. I always think of the WA as something that will allow the tank to equip a weapon such that when using all of the WA it will do equivalent damage to a mage of the same MPR.
If the tank using all WA is more effective at X MPR than a mage at X MPR then maybe the WA needs to be reduced, otherwise it seems like a fair way of doing things to me
Yes the weapon allowance does mean that a tanks power is not accurately reflected in its PR when the tank is using a weapon below its WA, but by the same token I could argue a point of ST should give less MPR than a point of Direct Damage since physical damage doesn't increase linearly with ST whereas DD does increase linearly with DD level and therefore increasing DD level on a mage is "cheaper" PR wise than increasing ST on a tank.
January 26 2007 5:31 PM EST
SP, I agree 100%, and especially agree with your middle paragraph as a course of action.
January 26 2007 6:12 PM EST
Sacred talks sense. Like I say in the OP the weapon allowance hides the real power a tank has. And it hides a lot. More than enough for a difference of around 600k in score for me today.
But....I would only call for the allowance to be reduced, not removed. I wouldn't want to see tanks punished in the PR stakes for equipping a large weapon.
However to take the side of tanks...you do need a lot of cash to run a tank...cut into tank rewards and it makes even average running of a tank team harder.
And actually a tighter WA would actually give you more strategy decisions to make as a tank rather than less....
"I could argue a point of ST should give less MPR than a point of Direct Damage since physical damage doesn't increase linearly with ST whereas DD does increase linearly with DD level"
STR now does increase damage linearly. Just like training DD does. ;)
January 26 2007 7:17 PM EST
You sure about that, GL?
As far as I have heard Jonathan say, damage is:
Some function of STR # some function of weapon x = total damage
where # is "some operation, either some sort of additive combination or factor -- who knows?
Weapon x is linear, indeed, but what makes you think the STR component is? And what makes you think how they combine is even additive? I could very well have missed a Jonathan post about this, so a reference would be good if ya got it. *smile*
January 26 2007 7:29 PM EST
Damage increasing linearly with ST and Damage increasing linearly with Weapon NW = big trouble for mages at higher levels.
I sure hope this is not the case but I'm happy to be proven wrong if you can show me evidence :)
"if damage for weapon stats X and strength Y is N, then damage for 10X and 10Y is now 10N, for any X, Y, and N."
January 26 2007 7:39 PM EST
To me this says ST * Weapon Stats is a linear function (since increasing ST 10 fold and increasing Weapon stats 10 fold increases damage 10 fold). Implying neither ST or a weapons X are linear?
January 26 2007 7:49 PM EST
"But I'm 600k lower in score..... "
Well 1.7 mil score before and 1.4 now that 600k lol and you should go back to tank
It doesn't define what sort of relation ship X and Y have to form N, but 10X and 10Y = 10N (for any X,Y and N) implies that however the total (N) is figured from X and Y, all parts increase linearly.
Unless i've realy mistaken something. ;)
January 26 2007 7:51 PM EST
and right now i can usually kill 1 mage in round 1 if i can hit through their evasion
January 26 2007 7:55 PM EST
If both parts increase linearly than 10X and 10Y give 100N.
Eg. 1X and 1Y=1N
Increase X ten fold, since X increases linearly with N, N also increases 10 fold so 10X and 1Y=10N.
Increase Y ten fold, since Y increases linearly with N, N increases 10fold again so 10X and 10Y=100N.
January 26 2007 7:58 PM EST
The way I thought Physical Damage worked was along the lines of the following:
(ST^X) * (Weapon NW^Y) * SomeConstant = Physical Damage
DD^1 (= DD) * AnotherConstant = Magic Damage
DD is linear - you double DD you double Magic Damage.
X+Y = 1 so that ST*Weapon NW = linear - double ST and Weapon NW and you double damage.
January 26 2007 8:07 PM EST
If someone wants to test this, find two weapons of the same kind with different X's.
Equip weapon 1 on a minion and record the damage done to some other minion . Repeat 10 times or so to get a reasonably accurate result.
Repeat with other weapon equipped on same minion, compare average damage and see if damage has increased linearly with Weapon X.
Repeat experiment except this time use the same weapon and minions with different strengths to see if damage increases linearly with strength.
"DD is linear - you double DD you double Magic Damage. "
That's what (to me) Jon's post shows. You increase you wepaon and STR by 10, your damage increases by 10.
You double your STR and Weapon, your damage doubles.
Same as DD.
January 26 2007 8:10 PM EST
Yes, increase your weapon AND strength together to get a linear increase, the parts individually however do not increase damage linearly. e.g Doubling the X enchantment on your Weapon will not double damage, either will doubling the ST of your minion, doubling them both together however...
Er, that should be 10 times... ;)
And if "You double your weapon X and STR and get double damage" is true, and Weapon X increases linearly, then STR increases linearly too, doesn't it?
"e.g Doubling the X enchantment on your Weapon will not double damage, either will doubling the ST of your minion, doubling them both together however..."
But leaving your weapon X as is and quadrupling your STR should have the same outcome, should it not?
January 26 2007 8:16 PM EST
Well depending on the X and Y in my equation, probably close to that yes.
Note: This is my impression of how Physical Damage works, it doesn't mean it is correct :)
January 26 2007 8:18 PM EST
GL: Yes, if the two are equivalent.
Then if weapon X damage increases linearly, so does STR damage. Right?
January 26 2007 9:09 PM EST
Right on the linear part, wrong on the "But leaving your weapon X as is and quadrupling your STR should have the same outcome, should it not? " part.
That's assuming they are equal. =)
But again, yes, that'd mean it increased linearly.
January 26 2007 10:20 PM EST
But then, this is *STILL* just comparing apples to oranges...
Anyone care to guess which is the tank?
"Right on the linear part, wrong on the "But leaving your weapon X as is and quadrupling your STR should have the same outcome, should it not? " part.
That's assuming they are equal. =)"
Yeah, I was being lazy. It could be weighted something like 80% Weapon X, 20% STR, intead of them being equal. ;)
"But again, yes, that'd mean it increased linearly."
January 27 2007 2:31 PM EST
"Then if weapon X damage increases linearly, so does STR damage. Right? "
The cost of increasing weapon X is linear yes, but the effect of weapon x on damage no. If you have a weapon with twice the X as another it will not do twice the damage (someone should probably check this though, I'm happy to be proven wrong).
To repeat, if both weapon X damage and STR were linear with respect to damage then 10X and 10Y gives 100N if we assume X = Weapon Stats and Y = Strength.
How so SP?
if X & Y = N and 10X & 10Y = 10N ( as has been stated), then 2X & 2Y = 2N. As this holds for any value of X, Y & N.
It's linear. Double your X and Y, and you double your N.
X increases in cost linearly (cash), Y doesn't. But the effect they both have on N is linear.
"If you have a weapon with twice the X as another it will not do twice the damage"
This doesn't have to be the case. It depends on how X and Y equate to from N. X could play a tiny part (althoug I expect X to actually play a much greater part than Y...) and doubling your X on it's own, without increasing Y any, won't necessarily double N.
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=0020yE">Mage versus tank. Oh no, not again....;)</a>