My thoughts on CoC (in General)
February 9 2007 9:08 AM EST
Right now CoC has 2 mian problems:
First, of course everyone knows it only fires in the 4th round of combat, that is the first melee round. So vs FB and MM mages your giving up 4 spellcasts (do not forget most every FB/MM mage uses the HoC). Which in a battle, their ability to do 4 rounds of damage before you even fire off 1 cast can be a massive advantage. And, of course, your CoC does not get the benefit of the HoC.
Second, AMF backlash. You are doing a massive amount of damage, but also taking a massive amount of AMF backlash. I prefer to use a TOE to help deal with the AMF. When using MM or even FB, the TOE was able to contain all the backlash. But when using CoC, the amount of damage far exceeded the TOE's ability to contain it all and I very quickly died from AMF. So for me, even though I had a wall and could withstand the inability to fire during missile rounds, I died from my own CoC too easily.
February 9 2007 9:09 AM EST
As I personally view CoC, it is non viable as a DD spell in its current incarnation. Something has to be done to boosts its benefits given these 2 major deficits it has.
My recommendations to improve it:
1) Let the HoC work on the CoC in the first melee round. Do NOT let the CoC work on tanks without missile weapons, however.
2) Make the AMF backlash as a FB of equal level. Not the damage does, just the AMF does back to your mage per the (.xx) AMF level.
Those seem to be very kludgey fixes to CoC. I think a better alternative would be to have CoC operate like a real cone -- target a la Exshot. With explosive shots, minion 1 gets full damage, and tertiary minions receive half that. With CoC, each minion currently gets 1/N damage. This gives contrast to a fire *ball*, which would affect all minions equally. An explosive shot, likewise, explodes on the targetting minion. A Cone would do likewise -- be focused on a single minion.
Have it hit from the Front.
First minion takes the most damage, with minions behind taking lesser and lesser.
And rename it to "Chain lightning"
February 9 2007 11:13 AM EST
Maybe CoC was never meant to be a single-mage type of spell... It's like Decay, needs to be worked into a more cohesive team with the standard AS/PL stuff...
That doesn't really help with the AMF issue, though. AMF is still a huge bane, and I personally think it needs addressing. I still want to know why AMF can kill a mage while EC cannot kill a tank. Why can't EC have "backlash"? A chained-up tank is bound to scratch himself, yes? Tanks get to run around draining energy with both VA and weapons that leech, while nothing drains them based on their inherent offense. Once again, mages are left bearing the useless end of a double-standard -- no mage-specific means of regenerating HP, and an enchantment that can kill.
I wouldn't mind spending a large amount experience (think skill or DE) or a large amount of cash (think amulets) just to reduce backlash. Not even reduce the AMF damage reduction part, just the backlash (because it can kill). Forcing a mage to choose between skills or between amulets would make it a not-so easy choice, and amulets could be set up to be rather expensive to upgrade...have each plus be some percentage of AMF backlash reduction (almost like an endurance, but specific to backlash). That way, mages also have something more to spend money on than just DBs
It'd be difficult to make EC damage the minion, unless you did something like make negative DX cause critical failures where you hit yourself instead. But having smaller ST doesn't make you hurt yourself (although it does reduce the ST part of AC, so in effect it does).
Actually, think about it -- when you reduce ST, you reduce your natural damage resistance. When you reduce DX, you make a person take more hits (worse DX advantage / Evasion). So EC does cause the minion to take damage, just more indirectly.
Perhaps it would be more effective to remove the backlash effect of AMF and strengthen the damage blocking portion.
February 9 2007 11:36 AM EST
The STR portion of damage reduction is not a large effect, Jonathan has said time and time again (or has that changed recently?)
As far as more hits, um, not really. I'm a mage, I only hit once. I am looking for symmetry here -- tanks use AMF against mages, I want something a mage can use specifically against a tank.
As far as the other ideas, I can't see anything wrong with a single one of them:
1. Give mages an amulet to reduce AMF backlash. Let's look at amulets... Amulet of AC and amulet of might are purely tank-related. AoI is useful for almost any minion, maybe slightly more useful for a mage (assuming they are not alone in their stance). And AoF is useful for everyone (and accentuates AMF). Just like with DEs, mages are left on the short end when it comes to amulets. With Junction now in play, not having a decent amulet for mages stings all the more, though I suppose some folks like the AoI in a junction scenario.
2. Give mages an AMF backlash reduction skill. Tough choice for a mage! Evasion or backlash reduction? Do you survive ranged only to be eaten by your own backlash, or do you train backlash reduction and try to endure the long haul? A classic CB dilemma!
3. Have a DE for backlash reduction. This could easily be over-powered, so would have to be heavily metered to make work. But I like the symmetry of it. If someone has DM, they eat your DE, but then they probably aren't using AMF at the same time. Or maybe that isn't symmetry, maybe it makes it too good for mages. *smile*
Those are the orders of what I would like to see -- amulets, skills, and DEs..._something_ to fight the uneven balance of mages being victims to AMF backlash while nothing passive is specifically meant to kill a tank. Wait, I take that back -- the RoBF is meant for that (and we all know how useless the RoBF is at that). Using an RoBF is FAR more of a team detriment than training a bit of AMF is.
Now, there is a DE that helps against AMF backlash -- it's called Ablative Shield *smile*. So maybe that is why Jonathan hasn't done anything on the DE front.
February 9 2007 11:41 AM EST
"2. Give mages an AMF backlash reduction skill. Tough choice for a mage! Evasion or backlash reduction? Do you survive ranged only to be eaten by your own backlash, or do you train backlash reduction and try to endure the long haul? A classic CB dilemma!"
I love it; choices, choices, choices. Make it happen Jon. :O)
February 9 2007 11:57 AM EST
I can tell you right now I would have a very hard time choosing on that one! Plus, a skill wouldn't be able to be junctioned to a familiar, obviously. Especially with Seekers in play, deciding between Evasion and backlash reduction would be a quandary indeed! That's why I am a big baby and would rather have the amulet idea! *smile*
Make endurance a trainable skill.
February 9 2007 12:08 PM EST
I actually want more than that -- for ONCE, I want to have a skill or enchantment that is purely for boosting a mage. Tanks have tank-specific gear, skills, and enchantments, and I want that for mages!
Currently, the only things in the game that directly benefit a mage (and are of NO use to a tank) are:
DD spell (obviously)
Meanwhile, check out the list of tank-specific things:
weapons that leech HP
and the list of mage-detrimental items:
AMF (I am including this because it can kill, unlike EC)
All of that, without even getting into the damage argument and the fact that at least a portion of tank damage is linear in nature.
As far as I know, everything else can be just as useful for a tank (Evasion, EBs, AS/PL/GA, etc. etc.). Sure, the tank has to make some tough choices, and a lot of these items I list are mutually exclusive, but that is all I am asking for with a pure mage skill to reduce AMF backlash -- CHOICE!
February 9 2007 12:15 PM EST
"Right now CoC has 2 mian problems: "
In the words of Jar Jar Binks, "How wuuude!"
Training AMF backlash reduction as a skill looks like a cool idea, but if that skill does not affect the entire team, then it may make CoC stronger, but leave Ice Familiars as useless as they are now...
Because anything that trains Anti-AMF combined with junction could make the aforementioned Familiars an almost viable choice.
Wooow. Did I just say junction transfers enchants? Yeah, I think I did. Sorry, that was retarded XD It's Friday, bear with me!
I'll go back to work now...
February 9 2007 12:32 PM EST
Either that, or you thought someone could train two skills at once. *grin*
I guess the bone of my useless post was to point out that possible CoC solutions must include Familiars equally.
February 9 2007 1:18 PM EST
I don't disagree, so that favors the DE and amulet ideas...
(By the way, IIRC, each and every one of these ideas was first put forth by novice a long while back... Just giving credit where it's due...)
Maybe CoC could do a skill that augment with the CoC level, Wich would freeze enemy at the start, acting like a EC but only on dex.
such a stupid idea, haha. :D
I like the idea that the backlash be based on the level of the spell, not the damage. That makes sense on another level too, as the backlash is a magical energy, not the actual spell affect. (i.e. A FB mage is not caught in his own fireball, and the MM mage is not zapped by his own MM, he is just fried by his own magical energies).
February 9 2007 1:43 PM EST
Perhaps it would be more effective to remove the backlash effect of AMF and strengthen the damage blocking portion.
--NightStrike, 11:23 AM EST
I like this idea.
February 9 2007 2:50 PM EST
for long enough I have wondered why there is no such thing as a DM that just works on your own team.
As a side issue, I've never understood how DM negates enchantments, and yet leaves enchanted weapons alone...
February 9 2007 3:28 PM EST
Indeed -- VA-imbued weapons are a rather one-sided tank advantage, yet such imbalances are regularly tolerated... Some folks even start threads stating that mages don't have it so bad at all. *smile*
"Meanwhile, check out the list of tank-specific things:
weapons that leech HP
Haste and a ToA can benefit a mage, as they add DX. An HoE and TG add AC. I'm not trying to split hairs, but I do want to be accurate. Those things are not 100% useless to a mage.
February 9 2007 4:50 PM EST
I think saying a ToA can benefit a mage is stretching it, though, NS. I can see your point on Haste and HoE though. (again, TG and HoE over AG and HoC? It could be helpful, but in the same way a Steel Brig can be helpful to a Wall.)
That's exactly it, though. If everyone had limitless funds, we'd all have virtually the same strategy. Not all mages can afford an AG, and if they're taking tons of damage, it might be worth it to equip large TG with high AC to try to absorb it if an AG isn't available.
Point it, equipping TG isn't useless. It's just not perfect.
A ToA would be more useful than TG, I think, given the giant amount of DX added.
February 9 2007 5:06 PM EST
I don't think any sane strategist would take a 2% hit (and an extra .05 PR weight) on their DD spell for an 10 AC difference, especially when youre at the low end of the total AC spectrum (6+16 TG vs 1+11 Lthr Glv, spend up to +17 on your TG and you could have afforded AGs). TGs are not a mage item nor is a TOA, if a mage is going to equip any tat, it would be a TOE.
I'm not saying that a TG and TOA on a mage is a good idea. I'm saying that they aren't tank specific. They can still benefit other characters. Heck, look at walls. How many decent walls use Cesti? They all use Tulkas.
Alatar's gloves give zero benefit to any character without DD trained.
GS gives zero benefit to any character with no physical weapon.
Tulka's gloves give *some* benefit.
All I'm saying is: be accurate.
February 9 2007 5:24 PM EST
I agree with accuracy, but not to the point of inanity. I mean, I _could_ have a tank that used an enchantment, so wore a Corn. Would you call a Corn a "possibly used by a tank" item? Take a huge dexterity hit to help with an enchantment that the tank shouldn't be specializing in anyway (probably)?
Yes, I will be more accurate. Mages can wear and equip and learn all the same things as tanks. And they would all be very, very stupid to do so, therefore no longer being mages. They would become a part of the "stupid" class, the class that will wear anything, train redundant/useless/self-defeating stats, and wishes FoD would come back as a viable alternative. *smile*
Problem is, I would rather not wax intellectual about such minions.
A pure mage team that wastes a slot and experience on Haste is utterly ridiculous. It would be much smarter to train Evasion. Haste is useful for tanks, and only a tad bit useful to mages in a "well, I have a mage too, and it casts on everyone anyway" type of thing.
February 10 2007 6:21 PM EST
<---- Mage with Wall Armor. Bam.
I tend to have trouble responding to claims that CoC is underpowered. I just don't get it. It's always been remarkably powerful when I've used it, and I'd look at threads like this with a curious smile. Yet if you do the math, it's trailing FB and MM by quite a distance.
So the reason some people have found it particularly useful is one of two likely scenarios:
1: The strategy required to use CoC (ToE and generally playing defensive) is superior to the tactics for good FB/MM mages.
2: The people using the FB/MM mages just aren't putting enough thought into their strategy. I'd much rather be skilled with a small sword than clumsy with a big one, this would be the same with magic.
I don't think a crude CoC strategy can stand up to a good FB/MM strategy and in all fairness, that's what most CoC strategies are; crude. More people use FB/MM and so more thought gets put into those spells. For CoC however the user is stumbling around in the dark until he learns the ropes for himself.
My thoughts on upgrades are the same as for decay.
I'm not going to argue against improvements, quite clearly it's proven very difficult for most people to use.
But like decay, it's exceptionally powerful so you're asking for trouble if it becomes easy to use.
February 10 2007 7:14 PM EST
"1: The strategy required to use CoC (ToE and generally playing defensive) is superior to the tactics for good FB/MM mages. "
Hmmm, I used a large 400AC wall backed by a TOE, backed by AS with 2 of the remaining 3 minions using PL to back up the wall. With COC, the AMF backlash was so much my mage died within 8 rounds of starting to cast COC. With MM, there was no problem lasting all 25 rounds if needed.
I really take offense at this statement MrChuckles. I think I had a perfect strategy for using CoC and guess what, it sucked really really big.
"2: The people using the FB/MM mages just aren't putting enough thought into their strategy. I'd much rather be skilled with a small sword than clumsy with a big one, this would be the same with magic."
I have absolutely no idea how you came up with this. FB mages and MM mages put quite a lot of thought into using their spells. I personally tried CoC and MM before settling on MM. Why? The AMF backlash and the inability to do any damage for 4 combat rounds (HoC makes missile 4 rounds effectively).
If you can come up with a great CoC strategy, please do. I have yet to find one superior to one using MM as the prime damage spell.
February 10 2007 7:17 PM EST
When I used CoC I had a 3M CoC with 1.1M HP and 1.2M HP coming from AS.
I also tried a 2M CoC with 2.1M HP and the same AS.
Guess what.... I died all the time by my own AMF rather then by opponents attacks.
CoC sucks, no way around it.
What I believe :
The reason people complain about the under-powered-ness of CoC is not because it is supposedly 'harder to use', and requires more thinking to use.
The same way people who complain about archery being too strong do not complain about it's easiness of use.
It's a question of raw numbers. It's just not worth it to do more damage if you get killed MORE when compairing to other spells. And that 'getting killed more' is the direct cause of an insane AMF backlash, and the inability to attack in ranged, even if only for one round.
Whatever the way you use it, FB and MM are always gonna be better, NOT taking into account the intelligence put in the strat.
February 11 2007 4:42 PM EST
I'm guessing you didn't even read Dr. Popsicle's post before yours.
February 11 2007 4:59 PM EST
I had a CoC ToE team, with two mage shield walls and an enchanter. My experience was that it was, as PM says horrible against AMF. But my experience was also this: because of the high damage it does you don't need to train it so high. Lower it's level and you lower the amount of backlash you take, enabling you to last longer.
In a game where damage is king supposedly and the higher the XP investment the better the bang, CoC is actually the opposite.
My experience only, but it worked for me..
OB: I posted at the same time. So no, I did not know I was writing almost the same thing.
Johnny, you may be on to something there.
I've always done the same. My char King Chuckles (single minion CoC mage) when fully equipped has a score quite easily twice PR and has only about 1/3 of total EXP in CoC (as opposed to the 2/3 recommended for FB mages).
Problem with that, is you are intentionally making yourself weaker to AMF.
February 12 2007 4:48 AM EST
You ARE weakening yourself, yes, enemy AMFs are more effective in terms of damage reduction; but the amount_of_backlash_ you take is lessened. And if that is happening your ToE less likely to be overloaded.
The uber aggression route that most strategy makers take is not, imo, what CoC needs. Think defensive and you're on the right track...
Yeah, backlash is reduced. At the price of damage done (both due to reduced experience expenditure, and also due to reduction from AMF).
With any DD spell, it is quite simple: they are more useful at higher levels of effectiveness (be it trained effectiveness or non-reduced effectiveness, if that makes sense).
What you are suggesting is reducing trained effectiveness whilst increasing reduction of effectiveness, in order to receive less backlash. Well, yes, it will do that. It will also nerf you completely. Unless their damage dealers are incompetant, you will then get slaughtered by them (instead of yourself).
I'm not certain that it is much of an improvement...
Play to win, or get off the field ;-)
But, that said, it's worth a try...
February 12 2007 4:55 AM EST
Like I said, it worked for me. And looks like it worked for Mr C as well.
Maybe we're just special.... ;)
February 12 2007 5:02 AM EST
This was the char: it was a four minion at it's peak, two mage shield walls, one enchanter and one ToE Mage. Check out the history graph to see how effective it was. Close to 1.4 million score back in September 05; that was a top 30 score at the time........
February 12 2007 5:26 AM EST
I'm assuming that this was before damage was increased, increasing backlash, and before HoC made MM/FB more powerful?
February 12 2007 5:38 AM EST
It was. Yes you didn't have to cope with HoC assisted first round pounding. But CoC always had big damage. And the way it interacted with AMF hasn't changed.
Maybe with bigger numbers the way I worked with it then might not work. But I'm tempted to try it out again lol...
February 12 2007 5:45 AM EST
Eh, isn't it self-defeating to lower CoC lvl thereby lowering ur damage which is supposed to be the prime reason for using CoC? It's already 3-4 rounds late...
I'm just not convinced enough that CoC can ever be better than FB/MM, PM's post a little while ago on the damage output/AMF backlash really sold me on that.
Mr chuckle/Johnny, on those strategies you had set up, can you honestly say that FB/MM wouldn't have worked better (after scaling the HP/DD ratio obviously)?
February 12 2007 5:53 AM EST
I think MR C will probably agree with me on this; sometimes it is more interesting (and fun) to go with something that is a little harder to work with; or a little different.
Yes, FB and MM probably are better. But the same could be said of tanks.
Get a Morg and an ELB and a ToA. You'll probably beat most people.
So why bother playing UC? Or ToE tank teams?
Some strats require patience, imagination and going past what people tell you shouldn't work. Just wait, somebody will come along and prove that CoC is a viable strat. And then will follow, I guarantee, shouts of how CoC is overpowered....
February 12 2007 6:09 AM EST
CoC vs. MM of equal level. MM has HoC. Only on the 6th round of battle does CoC become *EVEN* with damage produced by MM. If ToE is involved, CoC will take 3x or more AMF damage. If ToE is not involved, MM will have taken ~17% more AMF damage than CoC by the 6th round. However, if the battle goes beyond 6 rounds CoC will be taking more AMF damage than MM (to go along with its damage outpacing MM as well).
That being said, CoC is only a viable option in a non-ToE strategy where the mage has massive massive hitpoints and the team has enough defense to somehow extend the average battle to 10+ rounds. Such a strategy isn't impossible, but its probably not going to be *Great* by any means.
February 12 2007 6:12 AM EST
"Just wait, somebody will come along and prove that CoC is a viable strat. And then will follow, I guarantee, shouts of how CoC is overpowered...."
100k goes to you when that happens, my friend.
February 12 2007 6:32 AM EST
Is that all? lol ;)
Would FB/MM have been a better choice?
But I have my doubts.
Admittedly half the things I do on CB are more "because I can" than "because I should" so I use a lot of seemingly stupid strategies (which coincidently often turn out to be quite stupid).
I may have jumped the gun on using CoC, then again it does it's damage in melee which allows me to defend all I'd like, in this situation I may be sacrificing a little extra punch by not over training CoC but if I have any say in it, my opponents do not get that far ahead of me in damage that it takes 6 rounds to catch up.
Something like MM is easy to counter, throw in a bunch of 20HP enchanters and you'll soak up enormous amounts of damage, against an opponent without a HoC you'll be starting to do damage at the same time as they do. The point is that the statistics I've seen frequently do not apply as they don't take into account that few CoC mages will be dumb enough to just stand there and take damage (well, few except those run by idiots who get creative... like myself).
FB or MM may be tougher, but sometimes I'd feel much more confident using CoC because it hits hard when you need it to.
February 12 2007 3:19 PM EST
That's it, it's not to say CoC is crap.
It is crap, comparatively to FB/MM. If you can use something better, why don't you use it?
Let's equip a whip on my Tank instead of my MH, just because it's different.
CoC is a tool, just like FB, MM, Decay, UC, ST, DX, etc. There is a way to use it and a way to break it. I think many people have the idea that you can swap out MM on a minion, drop in CoC, and you should be able to kill everything. This is not so, as it isn't so with any chance. CoC requires a different build from the ground up -- and that most definitely includes XP distribution. The biggest thing with CoC is that you should have two minions that deal damage -- one CoC and one ELB Archer with seekers, BG, HoC, etc. You definitely need a giant AS, and you would have to study the differences between RoS to boost the AS and boost the HP of the CoC mage, or ToE to reduce damage (achieving the same effect of extending the life of damage dealing minions).
The CoC strat can work; it just can't be the same as a FB or MM strat.
Sorry NS, but IMO you're totally wrong, I did just started a strat with a tank elb and a CoC mage, but it would be really better if I had MM or even FB.
CoC's < to other DD.
And what I don't understand is that it as been proved, but there is still people thinking it's as good as other DD.
It's like saying Elvis is still alive on an Island with John F Kennedy. :D
February 12 2007 5:06 PM EST
Tupac and Biggie are there too, they do nightly shows together...
February 12 2007 5:10 PM EST
Sorry... that had nothing to do with CoC... in fact I've never even used it, because I couldn't think of a good strat that might work with it... sorry to hijack with a bad bad post, I wish I could redeem myself with some good advice on CoC, but I have none...
February 12 2007 5:13 PM EST
The only thing I can think of is to use a huge GA to take out opponents with ranged abilities and to then finish their enchanters/walls with CoC....but still, when you're dealing with something like this:
Undecided takes damage from his own Cone of cold (406051)!
Undecided's Cone of cold hit Claire Bennett 
Granted, this is on the low end of his damage - but that is a TWO MILLION CoC firing off against a 1.8M AMF. He is receiving more AMF backlash damage than what he is doing half the time...if there isn't something obviously wrong there, then I don't know what else to point out!
February 12 2007 6:22 PM EST
He has an RoS on, not a ToE.
February 12 2007 7:14 PM EST
I once used a CoC mage for my strat on Dark Dreky. When free retraining came around I switched to MM only to find I could add many others to my fightlist, yeah this is redundant.
However, I remember making a post way back when (do lazy to find it or link it) about how I was taking more AMF damage than I was dealing and I got responses about how AC and AMF reduce damage and then send it back to me, yea yea.
Here's my idea, and I am agreeing with several others that have already suggested this... lower AMF backlash on CoC. Hell, remove it all together. That would make it worth it, no? Still have AMF reduce damage (it does that, right?) but take away backlash. Or do not have it reduce damage and greatly reduce backlash.
Or change AMF. Maybe add an EH effect where it reduces its effectiveness as it goes further into the round. This would work for CoC because it fires 5 days later (in melee) and by then the AMF backlash would be weaker. I understand that this will probably never happen because it is a HUGE DD nerf, but its a concept that's for sure. =)
AMF currently works the opposite to that -- it is stronger in melee, and weaker in ranged.
February 12 2007 7:52 PM EST
Isn't AMF's power in direct response to power of DD?
AMF is cast at the same intensity, only the intensity of the DD spell changes.... I thought...
February 12 2007 7:56 PM EST
The amount of AMF is a set % of your damage done based on the AMF (.xx).
Up to 40%.
That's not right at all. It's not a % of your damage done up to 40%. It's the AMF % * 0.40 * DD effect. It's always 40% of the AMF effect, and the damage you deal has no factor in it.
Also of note is that the damage blocked by AMF is the full AMF effect.
February 12 2007 10:20 PM EST
To use CoC instead of MM/FB seems as useful as using a mithril cuirass over Adam... yes there are inherent benefits, but let's face it one of them is clearly better than the other.
Sorry, just my opinion. CoC just seems as gimmicky as MCs are.
February 12 2007 10:39 PM EST
With the new changes, i kinda see CoC being the Steel Brig of DD at most...
February 12 2007 11:08 PM EST
He didn't say that, NS, not as I read it. He said it is a constant amount (because it is), and that backlash is ceilinged at 40% (thank God). AMF backlash is as predictable (and as deadly) as the sunrise. The sunrise on Mercury for a person with bad skin.
Correct me if I'm wrong, PM.
February 12 2007 11:14 PM EST
February 12 2007 11:21 PM EST
Isn't Venus worse, due to the concentration of greenhouse gases? If Mercury has harsher conditions, then i may need to reconsider my spider breeding location :P
February 12 2007 11:32 PM EST
"With the new changes, i kinda see CoC being the Steel Brig of DD at most..."
l. o. l.
February 13 2007 12:29 AM EST
AMF is a killer, there's no two ways around it. The major problem with AMF is apart from the TOE you can't reduce backfire damage. AMF users however can happily equip as much magic reducing equipment as they want and since AMF backfire works on raw DD effect the backfire damage will remain the same while the actual damage taken becomes less and less.
This means that on my team, where I have two walls wearing MgS's, TSA's etc and two minions training AMF (obviously I don't care about melee teams and my fight list is purely mages), I can cast my AMF on some occasions as low as 0.3 and the mage team still deals more damage to itself than it deals to me. On top of that, it won't get any easier for them since I can bump up the pluses on my tank gear further reducing the damage I receive while the mage can do absolutely nothing to reduce the amount of backfire damage they take.
I'd personally like to see an "anti-AMF" item that reduces backfire damage by say 1% per plus, and I'd like to see that item be a helm. Why? Because:
1) It is a subtle boost to CoC since Fireball/MM mages would have to sacrifice the HoC to use it.
2)It gives more choice for Fireball/MM users allowing for more strategy and more strategy with items is good. Mages at the moment don't have much choice when it comes to items - If you are a mage you use Alatar Gloves, if you don't wear a tattoo on your mage you wear a CoI etc etc.
At least if there are a couple of mage items per slot you get some strategy decisions, e.g.:
Do the majority of my fight list/ target fight list use AMF or DM? If it is DM then maybe an Anti-AMF item will not be as helpful as the HoC.
Do I beat opponents in the first few rounds? If so then maybe the big increase in damage in round one from a HoC would give more benefit than a small decrease in damage per round from the anti-AMF item.
February 13 2007 1:26 AM EST
Wow. Awesome idea. Save this for change month. Although take out the helmet part cause CoC should shoot in the last round of ranged combat with an HoC!
February 13 2007 1:32 AM EST
Dreky, even with that idea, the helm of anti-AMF-ness would still be a good, viable option :P
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=0021ew">My thoughts on CoC</a>