Why can't ED spells stack like EO spells? (in General)

One of the main problems that I have with DM is the fact you can have all 4 minions (on a 4 minion team), cast DM and it all works again 1 minions ED spell.

Why cannot a characters ED spells add together THEN be subject to DM?

It is so hard to get a single minion on a 3 or 4 minion to have a high enough EO spell to overcome some of the multiminion DM casts.

Agree or Disagree? And why?

I have felt this way all along, but each time I brought it up, the naysayers won the day. DM is the _most_ powerful spell in the game, in that it can not only reduce the same level of minion xp to zero as it is trained, it can reduce up to 4x the level of minion xp because it does not lose strength as it dispels.

I have felt for a long time that DM should dispel as much as it can based on the effect factor it currently has, but without having the across all minion effect it also currently has.

Agree.

It makes a build like sutekh's automatically superior to a build identical, but replaced with, say, AS, superior.

I am requesting a Bast sweep-up of the commas in the previous sentence. *grins*

Not only that, but it'd make a RoS buff entirely unnecessary and it'd make the tattoo useful again. Wewt!

I'm not sure about this for this reason; ED do something positive for your team, DM is only useful when facing ED so it is often wasted xp.

I never thought about this until now, and it does occur.

This is a battle against novice's character Violet with a team with DM:

Victor DeLorenzo cast Ablative Shield on all friendly Minions (1392770)
John Sparrow cast Ablative Shield on all friendly Minions (2138800)

and here is one without DM:
Victor DeLorenzo cast Ablative Shield on all friendly Minions (1445648)
John Sparrow cast Ablative Shield on all friendly Minions (2244557)

scytale,

not sure what your pointing to there.

But novice's DM effects each AS separately, the effects remaining of each is what your seeing.

"I have felt for a long time that DM should dispel as much as it can based on the effect factor it currently has, but without having the across all minion effect it also currently has."

Glory are you saying if i have a 1m effect DM trained vs an opponent with 2 minions training AS for 1m effect on each of them, that the DM should "fizzle" just 1m total of the AS not both 1m AS's. Instead of how it works now where 2 minions with a 1m effect AS would both be cancelled out by it. I like that idea Glory.

I just re-read my post and realized it made no sense at all.

I think my headache medicine's muddled my head.

What I meant to say is that it makes multiple DMs of identical size to multiple EDs superior and I don't like that.


Don't think I could make it any simpler.

=)

Being a single mage, DM helps me a fair bit, against teams that use GS/Haste/AS, to really pack the extra punch against me.. But, I do think that it should be changed around, to the way Glory stated (thank you edyit for explaining that further). It would be a rough change against single/double minion teams, but would make it more just. Thats my $0.02

Then the other option would be to have the DM effect be like a "pool" of DM that gets used as one encounters ED spells.

So the last minion may escape unscathed (my blinding attempt at the word of the day) if all the pool of DM is used before then.

I never knew, or really thought about how the DM affected each AS individually before they stacked, or are shown at the final effect. So in my previous post i was illustrating that this did in fact, occur.

Just something I never noticed, thats all.

I wouldn't really like this. A pure AS and GA team with a familiar would be really hard to beat if DM only affected the stacked effect - Unless if we raised DM's power to 100% - 125% spell level or something like that. Make DM more well rounded spell I suppose.

A pure AS/GA team would be a poor strat as how would it kill enchanters or even those that use high AC or a TOE to reduce that GA damage.

I said w/ a familiar.

more well rounded?

lets say i have a 4 minion team that has a tank and 3 E's.
E1=GS 1m effect
E2=AS 1m effect
E3=Haste 1m effect
tank= Hp St Dx

now a SFBM with a DM of 1m effect negates all that GS, AS, Haste.
seems fairly well rounded already.

Sry, missed the familiar part.

Someone like Novice's strategy.

I really do not think it will nerf his strategy that much, but still DM is quite over powerful.

Personally, I stay away from the ED spells just because of the massive DM's on the characters I fight. With some combined DM's over 2.5 million, I cannot have a ED spell much higher without using a ROS, which affords quite pitiful DM protection.

High AC teams = lot of NW.

2 AS, 1 DM, and 1 GA w/ a familiar costs nearly nothing.

Yeah I can see why you wouldn't use ED...

Ranger, that is why I think DM should have this advantage over ED, you can make a decent strat without using ED thus negating the xp in any DM cast upon you. It seems perfectly inkeeping with a paper/scissor/stone dynamic.

From a consistency standpoint I agree 100%.

But from an "in-game" perspective, I shrug at best, since DM is not really as useful as you think. Though Bast (Dixie Cousins) and Poison (NWO), among others) would probably disagree with that, their builds aren't NEARLY as hard to overcome as the ToE/PL/leech builds, where my DM doesn't do a damn thing. In fact, pretty much all of BR worked around my DM simply by untraining defensive enchantments (only one BR member does not use a ToE)). The ToE makes everything except massive archery blows completely moot.

DM already has HUGE built in detriments:

-- It can be trained around (I guess that goes for most things, in a way, but DM workaround is the biggest "duh" of all -- don't depend on EDs as a rule).
-- The RoS helps against DM. Granted, not a lot. I don't have trouble with them, but I am sure some smaller DM folks do. I would not be against an RoS buff.
-- DM negates using AMF _and_ EC at the same time. In other words, using DM makes it hard to augment damage reduction without using a large ToE and/or having high NW for a wall.
-- As a corollary to the previous point, DM allows base Decay to wreak havoc on a team, since no AMF can be trained to an effective use with a large DM.

So, sure, go ahead and even out the way things stack. But then you had better buff DM. Right now, the only folks whom against my massive DM works are folks who massively depend on EDs -- which is exactly how it should be, in my opinion.

Oh, and if a ED stack buff does occur, can we finally add a mage-specific ED? Seems sort of silly to buff something that is only useful for a tank and/or omni-useful. Buffing something that has no mage-specific component is the very same as an indirect tank buff. I don't think tanks need a buff.

RD,

How many characters out there, aside from myself, OB and edyit do not use decent level ED spells?

10% or less?

DM is quite powerful, especially in the quick kill strategies.

Mikel, Atomicboy, Dudemus, all the single minions...

Certainly the single minion characters, and a few others, but overall less then 10% of the characters in the game.

Like Sut said:

If you train DM you give up AMF and EC, which equates to your only method of damage reduction being from armor,an Exbow (tanks only), or a ToE. Not to mention you better have both fingers crossed that a decay minion didn't last through ranged, since even a base decay will shave off half of your HP every round. Ouch

Although I use AS and GA, my team started out with no EDs whatsoever. Hey, no EOs either. And I still do not rely on my EDs; which is why so many people on my fightlist are DM teams. It's not the first time I've done so, infact most of my teams have been very strong against DM. But I also find that even the bigger DMs I face don't actually reduce my ED's effect as much as they probably could.

Yes, it's powerful, but it's also very easy to negate. And the fact that, unless you are using a RoS, training DM means great difficulty in training AMF/EC - that makes it very balanced.

But to actually agree or disagree: Disagree with the OP. EO spells are very specialized. By stacking you make yourself vulnerable to other opponents. For instance Train 3 EC minions and you are geared to go after tanks, but mages can take you on.

Whereas EDs are generalized spells; AS or any of them are useful against all opponents. Balance again. Make them more powerful and you make them more powerful against everybody you go up against.

i brought this up long ago... but everyone told me DM was never errm overpowered or something... considering DM is the only spell that cast for 80% of lvl trained im sure that means something -.- heck even haste and GS cast for 68%

MiniMem (Trillion) 72.189.74.85 QBOB (Team Unstoppable) $20 -- $20 word award 9:36 PM EDT
MiniMem (Trillion) 72.189.74.85 QBsutekh137 (Hubbell) $20 -- $20 word award 9:36 PM EDT
MiniMem (Trillion) 72.189.74.85 QBRanger (Koyaanisqatsi) $20 -- $20 word award 9:36 PM EDT

I'm torn between both sides of the argument, mostly because of bias. On one hand, I've long been a DM user, preferring it over AMF. On the other hand, I can see where it would make sense to have DM apply after ED spells were added together. At the same time, I look at how many times I've gone into a battle where all that EXP was totally useless and I think, "Darn, man. I should be using AMF." Only until I realize that AMF has the same problem. That said, I am solidly leaning towards the, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach.

edyit gave a great example of my viewpoint. Basically your DM could only dispel its equivalent in xp effect, yes it may be damaging initially to the DM teams out there, however, I believe it would open more varied viable strategies into existence. Allowing stacking of Haste, GS, and AS, would not be a silly and non-viable option without a huge RoS anymore. The options of combination teams would greatly enhance strategy overall imo.

Can you say: "Bye bye PL"?

In my opinion, DM is fine the way it is now. Like someone mentioned in a previous post, it keeps the Rock/Paper/Scissors aspect of CBII to a maximum. And that is the most important side of CBII: there is no perfect strategy.

I think that DM is overpowered!

Yeah, DM is wasted experience on teams that do not use ED's. And as mentioned before, a VAST majority of teams use ED's... and multiple ED's at that! Even single minions usually use ED's (tanks = VA, mages = protection).

As an RoS team, I rely heavily on my enchantments. And the way DM is now, there are numerous teams around my MPR that have DM's high enough to nuke passed the (pathetic) DM resistance given from the RoS. Note that I am using an RoS that is almost exactly at my Max Tattoo level.

So even with my DM resistance, the DM that gets by works effectively against 3 separate enchantments effectively multiplying the XP effectiveness by 3. What can I say? CHANGE DM! Or increase the resistance of the RoS! (no hi-jack intended)

DM has a severe restriction in that the ONLY way it is really cost effective is if the target has multiple minions with DEs. So now you want to curtail that single sweet spot it has? I say NO! DM is already less effective than the AMF/EC combo, so let's not make it even less effective. If you rely on multiple DEs you get what you deserve when a high DM hits you. That, after all, IS THE POINT!!!

Dark Dreky, DM is not overpowered. DM is simply very effective against four minion teams relying heavily on ED spells to win fights.

You saying that DM is overpowered is like me saying that MM and FB are overpowered because teams with lower MPR than mine destroy me without blinking even when I have a ToE equipped. However, the reality is that FB and MM work very well against single tanks. That is just a CBII reality.

Let me sum up what I meant in my previous post...

1.) Everyone used ED's (ok, almost everyone)

2.) DM is cost effective if an opposing team has ONE ED

3.) DM effectiveness is MULTIPLIED by the amount of ED's on a team (usually more than one)

I cannot find a similar skill or spell that has it's effectiveness amplified this much. I feel that DM should dispel and equal amount of XP in ED's, it just makes more sense. This is coming from a player who plans on heavily relying on DM for his NCB.

P.S. If you think FB and MM are overpowered, train some AMF (which is UN-dispelable) and grab a Mage Shield with your Elven Hauberk... oh and maybe a MAGEseeker if you need it ;)

AMF + Mage Shield... riiiiight... now that's a good idea... NOT!

Also, any tanks that trains enough AMF to make a difference against a big FB or MM will have trouble hitting an injured elephant in the desert.

Regardless, I do not think MM or FB are overpowered. I simply wrote that they are quite effective against single tanks like me. And that is just fine. DM on the other hand has very little effect on my character. I suspect it has little effect against most single tanks.

Remember Tailon, AMF works from all minions. IE One does not have to wear the Mage Shield on the minion with AMF. That would be silly.

Sorry bud, got your name wrong. Should have listened to the spell check :P

Wasp, my character is a single tank... How is it supposed to equip a mage shield and use AMF? Please elaborate.

Talion, neither DD nor Wasp were referring to your character. Just in general.

Fanta, I wrote that single minion tanks were susceptible to FB and MM. Then DD suggested training AMF and equipping a MgS. Then when I said that didn't make any sense, because I am referring to single minion tanks, Wasp suggested training AMF on another minion.

So even if they are not specifically referring to my character, both suggestions make no sense since my initial comment was referring to single minion tanks vs. FB and MM mages.

IMO your strategy isn't really very effective. Single tank with a AxBow - duh it's weak against FB and MM.

It's not that all single minion tanks are weak against mages, just your type.

The issue that you list in the original post regarding the stacking of DM applies to all EO. You yourself make effective use of multiple EC castings to boost it up to counter the 50% level:effect ratio. It seems there is a difference between all EO and all ED..... DM is that difference.

hmm...

I'll come back when I can solidify my thoughts better. Basically, I think that all EO is very strong in comparison to any ED. There is no analagous DM to counter any EO. Maybe that's the crux of the matter.

There isn't, but the effectiveness of each EO is dependent on your opponent's strategy.

MiniMem (Trillion) 72.189.74.85 NightStrike (The Iconics 3e) $20 -- $20 word award 11:35 PM EDT
MiniMem (Trillion) 72.189.74.85 NightStrike (The Iconics 3e) $20 -- $20 word award 11:35 PM EDT

Hehe.
OK, I agree.

But, what about AMF? If I have, say, four fireball mages training 1/4 hp and 3/4 FB, should the combined level of my FB be added up, and then the total AMF (antimagic effect cast by my opponent) be spread amongst the four minions?

(Thereby effectively giving me one huge fireball spell and heaps of hp, due to the cheap cost of skill/spell points down low.)

And what about EC? Should the DX and STR of all enemy minions be added up, then the reduction from your EC be spread amongst them?

I guess I see the EO's as being roughly equivalent. EC reduces the STR and DEX of _all_ minions of the opposing team. The fact that people usually only train str and dex on a single minion is beside the point. Same with amf. Same with dm.

I agree with your point, but it'd be a ... pretty radical change to introduce. And I'm not sure how well it would balance (whereas the current situation is fairly balanced).

I have been using a 5 minion strat EEEE + Fam pretty much since I started, and have been competitive at all times (for my MPR and NW). And that is despite a dependence upon ED's... I guess it may be different up the top, where DM is such a big factor.. I dunno.

Cheers,
muon.

that's a good argument, muon :) I am in total agreement with you.

First, muon, your argument is the best yet posted in this thread. It makes a lot of sense.

Fanta, you wrote: "IMO your strategy isn't really very effective.". Well, since my top character and your top character have about the same Win/Lose ratio, that means that your strategy is just as ineffective as mine. Bummer.

I think he meant it wasn't effective against mages, because you use an Axbow which does not much at all to them.

"Fanta, you wrote: "IMO your strategy isn't really very effective.". Well, since my top character and your top character have about the same Win/Lose ratio, that means that your strategy is just as ineffective as mine. Bummer."

Haha. I'm a forger. So, not a bummer.

By the way Talion, did you even check my character and look at it carefully? It has no useful gear on it and has a level 600 tattoo. It's obviously not for fighting.

Fanta, last message I post in my defense. Here are your character's stats (which I looked at):

Battles Total: 1,278,698
Challenged: 795,425
Won: 770,614

You obviously did some fighting at some point and by the looks of it, you weren't very successful. I rest my case.

I will respond to any future taunts via CM. Apologies to all who are completely annoyed with this pitiful squabble.

I bought the character. It's strategy was different before. I am posting this in my defense now - So don't make assumptions like that. The character was made earlier than when I started. Should tell you something.

How did I "taunt" you? I just said your strategy wasn't effective vs. mages.

Possibly lingered on the line between rude and 'duh-" kind of rude.

Fine - The AxBow targets tanks. It does not deal much damage, and is therefore not very useful vs. mages.

Challenged: 795,425
Won: 770,614

I'm sorry, what?

96% win rate from the battles he challenged. Obviously Total battles wont matter because of insane farming up top.

96% win rate is remarkable....

Some of the battles challenged come in the form of wins as a defender which skews things, I for example have more wins than battles challenged and know alot of other characters that also have this.

Wins/Challenges ratio isn't really a good measure of the effectiveness of a strategy, it is more to do with fight selection. I for example could have the best strategy ever but have a poor wins/challenges ratio or I could have a horrible strategy but never lose a battle as challenger.

Sorry that should read some of the battles won not challenged come as a defender.

Winning on defense is miniscule in comparison to winning on offense. It's several orders of magnitude less, and would be constituted as '<<' in the mathematical realm.

MiniMem (Trillion) 72.189.74.85 NightStrike (The Iconics 3e) $20 -- $20 word award 6:57 PM EDT