DX vs. PTH is definitely broken. (in General)


Talion August 7 2007 9:25 AM EDT

Some minions with minus one gazillion DX still hit my minion, which has close to 2M defensive DX during ranged rounds. How can this possibly be?

I wrote this many times before, but I thought I would point it out once again to ease my frustration: A minion with no dexterity should not even be able to hold its weapon, let alone fire it. With that in mind, said minion should be put into an insane asylum for even thinking of hitting something with its weapons.

If a minion has no ST left, it doesn't mater how much x's it has on its weapons, it won't hurt a fly. It should be the same with DX.

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] August 7 2007 9:30 AM EDT

Negative dex is considered Zero for pth reasons.

Talion August 7 2007 9:32 AM EDT

Even then...

0 x one gazillion = 0

That should be the equation.

BluBBen August 7 2007 9:41 AM EDT

I got your back in this question talion.

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] August 7 2007 10:10 AM EDT

then again it all depends on the + of the weapon... it must negate all that defensive dex of yours.

lostling August 7 2007 10:16 AM EDT

it has been said for a long time, jon has not done anything about this.... although im not sure y but i hope that one of these days it will be linked

Talion August 7 2007 10:17 AM EDT

Yes, I am aware of that. That is what I am complaining about.

Once a minion DX is reduced to 0, it should not be able to use its weapons, no mater how much +'s have been pumped into it.

This is already applied to weapons x's when ST reaches 0.

horseguy001 [Battle Royale] August 7 2007 10:41 AM EDT

I look at it like this:

The + on a weapon is a magical enchantment that helps with aiming, whereas the x helps with damage. If you are strong and clumsy (I.E have str but no dex) the magical enchantments will still help you hit. If you are weak but fast (I.E no str but lots of dex) it doesn't matter since you wont even be able to lift the weapon to use the enchantments that are on it.

Seems fine to me.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 7 2007 10:44 AM EDT

So you want a change to how things have always worked because you don't want to use dbs?

Talion August 7 2007 11:10 AM EDT

novice, where did you get that idea? Although I put a lot of XP into Evasion, I just want things to work logically.

horseguy001, based on your logic, why don't the x's on a ranged weapon or even ammo cause damage even if ST is at 0???

Enhanced ammo hits opponents, so it had to be fired at a certain velocity from a weapon with magically enhanced damage. Why then is it impossible for a minion with 0 ST to cause damage with enhanced weapon and ammo?

The logic should be the same for both stats. I don't care if you augment the damage from 0 ST minions or if you prevent minions with 0 DX from hitting anything. Either way, it will make a lot more sense then what is currently in place.

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 7 2007 11:50 AM EDT

This would completely kill Ranger's strategy.

Talion August 7 2007 11:55 AM EDT

LOL! I just took a look at Koy and it would indeed put a large dent in the strategy. Although the huge EC he has trained would probably prevent compensate a little bit.

However, his character is the perfect example of the total imbalance between the amount of XP needed for ST compared to DX.

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] August 7 2007 12:04 PM EDT

It has nothing to do with the experience spread.... if you have enough money in the + of a weapon then you should be guaranteed a hit at the least.... and at the most you can use that instead of dexterity. Another point...I believe the Dex based chance to hit is only one hit in a round.... the + of a weapon is the rest.

horseguy001 [Battle Royale] August 7 2007 12:27 PM EDT

Well with no str you couldn't fire a direct shot at someone...you might have to arc it more to make the distance. Go play a game like Hunterstory to see (or use a bow in RL), a shot @ 100% at one angle can go as far as a shot @ 40% at a different angle.

Still seems fine to me :D

horseguy001 [Battle Royale] August 7 2007 12:29 PM EDT

Microchips cast Ethereal Chains on all enemy Minions (3006299)

Its not imbalance, how many minions in the game have more then 3 mil dex? Not many, so any more dex for Ranger would be wasted exp.

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 7 2007 12:44 PM EDT

That's true... he uses huge EC to compensate for his small DX.

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] August 7 2007 12:49 PM EDT

That just sounds wrong on so many levels....

QBsutekh137 August 7 2007 12:58 PM EDT

Dex can account for up to two hits per round, but never more than that. Dex has always been that way.

And the fact that Dex is only additive (can only act to enhance PTH, can never drag it down) in the CTH algorithm is the way it always has been, as far as I know. Nothing is really "broken" in that regard...

Talion August 7 2007 1:18 PM EDT

horseguy001, how many minions have 3M ST? isn't that an imbalance? By allowing Koy to put all its XP into its tank ST and none into its DX, you are allowing two enchanters to concentrate solely on EC. While if a balance was needed between ST and DX, at least one of those enchanters would need to train Haste or Giant Strength to allow the tank to score hits.

sutekh137, what I just explained above is the reason why I think the equation, while not broken in terms of it having a bug, could be improved to obligate tanks to maintain a balance between HP, DX, and ST just like mages have to maintain a balance between their DD spells and other stats.

Again following your logic horseguy001, if the amount of money invested into the +'s has to be respected, then why not the x's too?

Right now, the way things work, you could give an enchanted bow to a snail and it would be able to not only use the weapon, but actually target and kill rabbits with it. It doesn't make sense.

Talion August 7 2007 1:25 PM EDT

Oups, the first paragraph of my previous comment was in response to DrAcO5676, not horseguy001.

Talion August 7 2007 1:26 PM EDT

Oups, I meant the third paragraph of my previous comment.

QBsutekh137 August 7 2007 1:40 PM EDT

Talion, I definitely see your point. But comparing x to + is definitely an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Dex and PTH (the amalgam of which is referred to as "chance to hit", or CTH) have always been very different from STR and x. X _does_ enhance a weapon. It combines with STR in some fashion so as to make the hits harder. While it is true that not hitting at all negates damage, no matter how large it WOULD be, that too is part of the game. You need to concentrate on hitting first, THEN enhance damage. Since the dawn of time (at least since I started playing), even simple description of game play have included the sentiment of "train DEX like crazy, especially at first". You have to hit before you can hit harder.

Back on CB1, Spid and RedDwarf playes the DEX wars for some time, complete with Ethereal Chains, dex-enhancing gear, Haste, etc. Spid profoundly won the war when Spydah's long-thought idea of just forgoing DEX entirely was accepted by Todd. They unlearned dexterity, spend another couple hundred USD on their Lochabler Axe, and "I Win" was born. I could hit him, but he hit harder, and with massive AC, BL, and VA, he could manufacture HP quicker than I could slam it out of him. Spid trounced RedDwarf, hand's down.

I think novice put it best above when he mentioned DBs. Tanks have to face the fact that they must deal with several mini-games when trying to run successfully: damage, dexterity wars, PTH wars, AC balance, handling UC, and handling magic. It's a tough row to hoe, and that is why damage reduction is so popular. Being able to negate opposing damage with things like walls, ToE, PL, and VA-imbued weaponry is one way tanks can survive. Another way is ToA, as that works directly into the PTH debate we are having.

Talion August 7 2007 1:56 PM EDT

sutekh137, I was not comparing +'s and x's. I was comparing the amount of money invested into +'s and x's, because that was the thing that was mentioned. I looked at the top weapons and there definitely seems to be a balanced between the money invested in both.

Although the strategies outlined in your comments are very sound considering the current way things work, they are not really relevant to this discussion. The debate is not that strategies to work around or, in my opinion, exploit the imbalance between ST and DX do not exist. The debate is about weather an imbalance between ST and DX exists. Looking at the most powerful tanks in the game, it is plain to see that it does.

lostling August 7 2007 2:04 PM EDT

it certainly help if PTH was somehow slightly linked to DX -.- example minimal effect of PTH if you dont have DX but gets scaled to max when your dex is at max dex gap

QBsutekh137 August 7 2007 2:11 PM EDT

Talion, we will have to agree to disagree. Where you see an "imbalance", I simply see a "difference". This game's depth is based on such differences, as differences lead to choice, and choices lead to fun. *smile*

If you are tired of not getting your money's worth from investing in x, then I suggest you stop investing in x. *smile*

Talion August 7 2007 2:26 PM EDT

sutekh137, I will agree to disagree if that is what you wish. However, I think we are not agreeing to disagree about the same thing (I also think this argument is very interesting).

I never said this game was not fun (else I would not be playing it). Nor that I thought too much money was invested in anything (the game is free after all).

I think "lostling" put my thoughts into words better in one sentence than I could in the entirety of this thread. He wrote: "it certainly help if PTH was somehow slightly linked to DX".

Although the sentence could be formulated a wee bit better, it expresses my sentiments exactly. PTH should me more closely tied to DX. Having 0 DX should logically affect the effectiveness of a weapon's or ammo's PTH in some sort of way. That is just plain good sense.

Maybe negating PTH completely when DX reaches 0 is not the right solution, but it should definitely affect it in some sort of way.

QBRanger August 7 2007 4:43 PM EDT

Microchips cast Ethereal Chains on all enemy Minions (3006299)

I use that for much more then to nerf opponents native dex.

It help a lot when they have no str left to hit you, makes a 100M MH do under 1k damage.

And helps to nerf that annoying Evasion skill.

The way I look at it, if you have no dex and are attacking someone with dex, the PTH on the weapon is sort of like the Dancing Sword of old D&D games. It magically guides your swing to the proper place so you can hit your opponent.

With no strength, I do not care if they hit me 100 times, they will do no real damage.

QBsutekh137 August 7 2007 5:24 PM EDT

Nope, Talion, we are agreeing to disagree on exactly the same thing.

I totally understand what you are saying, and I disagree. I think PTH's and Dex's contribution to CTH should stay exactly as they are. Even with zero dexterity, PTH should allow hits. I understand that is very different than the way STR and x interact, and I don't have a problem with that. I do not think PTH should be linked to dexterity in any way because they are separate, are achieved separately (MPR vs NW), both have their foils (EC on the dexterity end and DBs on the PTH end), and that is the way it has always been done.

I will tell you the reason why I can't fathom a link between them -- it is because I don't see how a link would work. Would you say the further below zero you send someone's dex, the more it affects PTH? Or just that getting someone to zero means N% of PTH is removed? There is not an elegant, intuitive way to see it. It may seem like that is just a trivial detail, that we should just agree on it and then tackle a way to handle it. However, the devil is very much in that detail. Lack of any elegant implementation makes me shy away from this, especially since the current system has heritage, forces logical choices, and is well understood.

Talion August 7 2007 9:08 PM EDT

"Lack of any elegant implementation makes me shy away from this, especially since the current system has heritage, forces logical choices, and is well understood."

Just because it has heritage and is well understood doesn't mean it is working as well as it could be.

Just like positive DX on a defending minion serves to counter an opponent's PTH, negative DX on an attacking minion should also result in countering its own PTH. That is an elegant way to solve the issue in my own opinion.

I am sure there would be many other intelligent alternatives to this perceived imbalance.

Judging from the responses in this thread, players that have played since CB1 or against modifying the current formula and newer players are all for it.

I do agree that we agreed to disagree on the same thing though (I think I wrote that correctly...).

Talion August 7 2007 9:18 PM EDT

Also Ranger wrote: "The way I look at it, if you have no dex and are attacking someone with dex, the PTH on the weapon is sort of like the Dancing Sword of old D&D games. It magically guides your swing to the proper place so you can hit your opponent."

Ranger, if you see PTH as the dancing sword, how do you explain the disappearance of all that x damage? I still fail to see a logical way to imagine a 100M weapon completely disabled by lack of ST, but still totally efficient when lacking DX.

That is why I am proposing to either consider the weapon's x factor when no ST is left or diminish the PTH effect when no DX is left.

I think I am not the only one who thinks that way.

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 7 2007 9:42 PM EDT

The way I see it, with no DX you can still swing while the sword aims for you - with no ST you can't even swing the sword, so even your super sharpened sword wouldn't do much damage...

QBRanger August 7 2007 9:53 PM EDT

With no dex, the sword/hammers PTH acts to take over and guide it to hit your opponent. But without strength, you can hit them but you will not scratch them.

Seems perfectly fine to me.

And FYI, I only played CB1 for 6 weeks before cb2 came out, so I am basically a new CB2 player, not one of the old CB1 guard.

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] August 7 2007 10:16 PM EDT

How bout this.... "If its not broke don't fix it!" Since you are basically the only person complaining about the way it is.... then that is the way it is. Live by it, learn to love it. It is your new way of life.

lostling August 7 2007 10:54 PM EDT

he is not the only person ... not many people understand as much to complain but some of those who do complain but receive no respond frankly i would prefer to see a change at least a slight link between the 2... not everything that isn't broken is perfect you know...

QBOddBird August 7 2007 11:56 PM EDT

"If a minion has no ST left, it doesn't mater how much x's it has on its weapons, it won't hurt a fly. It should be the same with DX."

I would like to take a moment to point out the falsity of this statement. Thanks for your time. =)

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] August 8 2007 12:51 AM EDT

Seems to work fine for everyone else using their weapons and tossing money into them.... I use a decent sized Evasion enchanter and I could care less if I take all their Dex away and they still hit me.... its not a very important part of my Strat. I see a weakness in yours.... you need to worry about dealing damage before they can use those non Dex hits to kill you, then and only then might you understand that you aren't going to get an easy way out.

With your thinking of "A minion with no dexterity should not even be able to hold its weapon, let alone fire it." would change everything in this game. think of it this way.... in D&D the + on a weapon is also granted as a plus modifier for hitting... that right there should explain it. Dex is big and grand and all but it isn't the only thing allowing someone to hit.... Would a huge ogre be able to hit someone with their club if they had no Dex? Of course The ogre would.

Flamey August 8 2007 1:23 AM EDT

"Would a huge ogre be able to hit someone with their club if they had no Dex? Of course The ogre would."

Umm... no, they'd miss. I agree with Talion, and Draco you're not making sense.

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 8 2007 1:30 AM EDT

I think he was saying that the ogre would hit with + enchantment on his club.

Talion August 8 2007 8:18 AM EDT

Well, this is certainly a good argument and it has proven that a good portion of CBII players do think that the current formula should be improved.

Whether anything comes out of this or not, it has been fun debating with everyone.

Maybe we should have a poll about this too?

Talion August 8 2007 8:21 AM EDT

Forgot to add...

ODD, I was not making a statement, I was trying to illustrate a point. I think it is a good illustration when comparing the effects of 0 DX vs. 0 ST.

Talion August 8 2007 8:24 AM EDT

Oups, my last comment was for OOB, not ODD. How did I manage to get that wrong???

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 8 2007 8:29 AM EDT

adding logic to a fantasy game is a rocky road to start down. for example, how do we have infinite upgrades for damage on weapons. a sword can only be made so sharp. skills can improve, but the damage modifier is something that is inherent to the weapon. should we then also add a hard cap for weapons on damage mods?

Talion August 8 2007 8:55 AM EDT

dudemus, I agree that adding logic to a fantasy game is a rocky road. And I considered that very factor before creating this thread.

However, the kind of logic referred to in this thread is consistency logic between the ST and DX attributes. In other words: If a rule applies to one of the attributes, then it should logically apply in a similar or equitable way to its 'sister' attribute.

Not everyone sees it this way, but it seems that a lot of people, me included, do.

Talion August 8 2007 9:02 AM EDT

Wow, so many arguments going on... I like it!

Ranger you replied: "With no dex, the sword/hammers PTH acts to take over and guide it to hit your opponent. But without strength, you can hit them but you will not scratch them."

I think it is still not logical. Here is why...

Based on your view, a 100M dancing sword/hammer/bow/sling that has "taken over" for a minion with 0 DX would do very little damage if said minion has 0 ST, but would do a lot of damage if that same minion has 2M ST. However, the minion is not even controlling the weapon anymore because he has no DX. So the weapon is doing all the work. How can its ST still be a factor???

QBRanger August 8 2007 10:04 AM EDT

No,

The weapon is guided by the PTH, not controlled.. If I typed that before I was mistaken. Imagine a huge Ogre with a huge hammer swinging wildly with no dex. He misses. But if the hammer is magical, it can "guide" his swing to the right place with all the massive strength the Ogre has behind it.

However, if said Ogre does not have any strength, no matter if he hits or not, he will barely scratch his opponent and likely glance off his opponents armor.

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 8 2007 10:17 AM EDT

"Not everyone sees it this way, but it seems that a lot of people, me included, do."

No, I don't think a lot do...

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 8 2007 10:28 AM EDT

*Not a lot see it your way.

Talion August 8 2007 10:38 AM EDT

Fanta, please revise this thread and count the users that are for a change and the users that are against a change. So far, it's about 50/50. I consider 50% a lot. Don't you?

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] August 8 2007 10:43 AM EDT

But do you consider 10 users a lot?

Talion August 8 2007 10:49 AM EDT

/me rolls his eyes.

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] August 8 2007 10:57 AM EDT

You started it m8.... do you consider 50% of10 users a lot? Thats 5 users that agree.... that is in no way a sure telling that people want a change. There is a player base of what? 400 users?

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 8 2007 11:05 AM EDT

"not a lot" means there aren't many number-wise

Talion August 8 2007 11:10 AM EDT

LOL! You two must be related.

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] August 8 2007 11:17 AM EDT

Well stop dodging your comment....

Talion August 8 2007 11:23 AM EDT

I am not dodging the comment, I am simply letting you repeatedly bash yourselves over the head and enjoying it. Please continue explaining why you think "not a lot" of people are for a change. It is amusing.

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 8 2007 11:32 AM EDT

Only 5 people are for a change. You think that's a lot?

And, how exactly are we "bashing ourselves"? I'm not getting you.

Talion August 8 2007 11:45 AM EDT

Since you insist and I need a work break...

Lets keep in mind that 10 users represent about 2.5% (10/400) of the CBII population. Could be a little less, could be a little more. Doesn't really mater.

Now lets take the people who really know what they are doing. When polling to see who leads a U.S. presidential race, consulting firms poll about 100,000 people (I am being VERY generous so you don't look too bad) and give the % of voting intentions each party currently holds with a margin of error under 2%. 100,000 out of 300,000,000 is 0.03% of the population. I will let you do the rest of the math...

That is why I think with a rater large amount of certainty that a lot of people would vote for a change. Would it be 50% exactly? No. But it would be somewhere around that. Even if the margin of error is 20% (again, I am being VERY generous for your sakes), that still means 40% of CBII users would be for the change. That is still a lot in my opinion.

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 8 2007 11:53 AM EDT

Who are those 5 anyway? I only see BluB, lost, and Flamey.

"(I am being VERY generous so you don't look too bad)...(again, I am being VERY generous for your sakes)"

Do you think you're insulting me? If you do, that's very, very pathetic.

"that still means 40% of CBII users would be for the change. That is still a lot in my opinion."

Less than majority, I would say. Besides, ideas really only worthy of change are ones which have 2/3 majority vote.

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 8 2007 11:54 AM EDT

*In my opinion - 2/3 or more majority vote deserves to be considered

Talion August 8 2007 11:55 AM EDT

So now it "Less than majority" instead of "not a lot"?

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] August 8 2007 11:57 AM EDT

Okay so I see two other people that agree with you.... now lets convert that to a percent of 30% now lets use that margin for error you kindly passed my way.... thats about 20% that go for your change. Sounds like a lot to me </Sarcasm>

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] August 8 2007 11:58 AM EDT

oh and Flamey didn't necessarily agree.

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 8 2007 11:58 AM EDT

Less than majority in your pretty rough example.
Not a lot in terms of the real situation.

Talion August 8 2007 12:00 PM EDT

... and if that 20% error margin goes the other way, that could mean 60%. Which would be close to to your 2/3.

Regardless, no one has voted yet and all I was saying is that the idea would have a chance of passing if put to the vote. It would be interesting to see the results.

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 8 2007 12:02 PM EDT

Yes but again, I ask you - who were those five people? Me and Draco both disagree on your count.

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 8 2007 12:03 PM EDT

*On your counting skills

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] August 8 2007 12:04 PM EDT

oh so we are using that whole 20% margin.... hmm... well thats 10% then in the case of those that see it your way. It has been that way ever since cb2 opened its doors and I don't see it as a priority when it works just fine the way it is.

Talion August 8 2007 12:09 PM EDT

I based my calculations on the numbers posted by DrAcO5676: "You started it m8.... do you consider 50% of10 users a lot? Thats 5 users that agree.... ".

That was where I took my numbers because those are the ones you considered as "not a lot". Apologies for taking some of your replies too seriously. My bad.

Even if it's 4 out of 11 as is the current count, I still like the odds. It's a possibility.

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 8 2007 12:10 PM EDT

4/11 isn't a lot! Exactly! Finally you got it.

Talion August 8 2007 12:12 PM EDT

Sigh!

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] August 8 2007 12:12 PM EDT

Dude get it right... you Stated Talion, 10:38 AM EDT
"Fanta, please revise this thread and count the users that are for a change and the users that are against a change. So far, it's about 50/50. I consider 50% a lot. Don't you?" so you got the math wrong from the start. Don't drag me down because you suck at math.

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] August 8 2007 12:15 PM EDT

So I stated what I did based on "Your" math.... well so there we have it.

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 8 2007 12:18 PM EDT

OWNED

lostling August 8 2007 12:49 PM EDT

this is so retarded -.- do a search in the forums... i have no idea if the old posts still exists lol i believe nightstrike did say that it was illogical... any way lets leave this to the almightly jonathan shall we?

actually im thinking more along the lines of playability instead of sensibility here ... consider this... STR and DEX should be nearly as important to a tank no matter the way it is important in... as it currently stands DEX is overshadowed by PTH and STR... thus i would like some link between DEX and PTH to make it more important? it doesnt matter if you can lift the weapon or not or if its a heat seeking magical blade or something...tank = STR + DEX unless your telling me that a tank = STR -.- which kinda makes no sense

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 8 2007 2:05 PM EDT

Who cares if ST is more important than DX?

Ekeke August 8 2007 3:18 PM EDT

Everyone shoud care, because as sutekh said : "This game's depth is based on such differences, as differences lead to choice, and choices lead to fun." Lack of diversity leads to a repetitive, thus boring, game. :)

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 8 2007 8:52 PM EDT

How does making ST more important than DX make you lose diversity? HP and DD make a mage, do we lose diversity because you need more in DD than HP?

QBsutekh137 August 8 2007 11:40 PM EDT

Yes, that's a good distinction (since it involves a quote attributed to me...). But Fanta is right -- just because one item has a great or different meaning than another aspect of the game doesn't mean that is bad. It just means the diversity and choice has to keep it in mind.

It is only when something becomes automatic or of a "the only way to beat it is to get it" nature that choice has been negated.

QBOddBird August 8 2007 11:50 PM EDT

I'd like to point out that if you take the ToA out of the equation, it makes things a lot more DX-based than PTH-based, Evasion doesn't need so much of a ranged boost to keep things fair, and life gets nicer on the whole.

I'm still SO for crunching that tattoo, but then, that's always just gonna be me. *grins*

By the way, I know this is kinda off-topic, but does that March changelog about the ToA getting a base (10) Evasion still apply? I looked and never saw one revoking it. So it would get Evasion, PTH, STR, and DX?

QBRanger August 8 2007 11:53 PM EDT

Jon initially had evasion with the TOA but then dropped it in favor of the all powerful PTH.

lostling August 8 2007 11:58 PM EDT

i've always maintained that TOA is overpowered... with you on this OOB :) considering TOA tries to be weakened by giving it slightly lesser dex then STR... but considering how useless DEX is is in compared to STR and PTH... i guess either something should be done about TOA or about DX and PTH

QBOddBird August 9 2007 12:04 AM EDT

No, nothing's wrong with DX vs. PTH. The system as it is is fine, this thread's just a bit silly.

However, the ToA does throw it out of whack when it allows things like:

Archers who don't train Archery (so much PTH that you can take the 90% CTH penalty on your weaponry, the ToA PTH which takes no such pens makes up for it)

So much PTH that it can break through Evasion in the millions in level that is being boosted further with gears and then further again (3x, even!) by ranged bonuses. When that PTH stacks with already pumped up weapons (and I'm not complaining about that - I expect those to break beyond normal bounds), it is unstoppable. Evasion wouldn't need such ridiculous bonuses without the ToA around.

DX v PTH though....moot controversy. Without DX, Evasion would nerf your tank with its Defensive DX after killing your PTH. Without DX, a set of DBs is all you'd need. Without DX, EC becomes even more worthless, as it is half the EO is once was...

Talion August 9 2007 8:32 AM EDT

"No, nothing's wrong with DX vs. PTH. The system as it is is fine, this thread's just a bit silly."

A thread that results in over 80 replies (about 60 of which are worth reading), should not be considered as 'silly'. If nothing was wrong, the thread would have died a long while ago. There is a very obvious difference of opinion being expressed here.

Flamey August 9 2007 8:35 AM EDT

instead of me reading essays, which I've sort of been doing, please tell me why ST and X should not relate like DX and PTH? Just in one answer would be nice.

Talion August 9 2007 8:38 AM EDT

Read the magic dancing sword explanation. That's my favorite.

Talion August 9 2007 8:39 AM EDT

Ranger... I am just kidding. :)

QBsutekh137 August 9 2007 11:01 AM EDT

Flamey, because they don't. It's a game mechanic.

If I asked, "Why doesn't a ToE work like a ToA? After all, they are both tattoos, right?" I would get laughed out of the forums.

They work differently _intentionally_ to make some choices asymmetrical. Perfect symmetry isn't always the most "fun" mechanism.

Asymmetry is not equal to imbalance. It just means some things work differently than others, thereby giving everyone more to learn, more to tweak, and more to choose.

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 9 2007 11:06 AM EDT

"A thread that results in over 80 replies (about 60 of which are worth reading), should not be considered as 'silly'. If nothing was wrong, the thread would have died a long while ago. There is a very obvious difference of opinion being expressed here."

This thread was mainly made up of discussion of magical swords, ogres, fantasy, and pointless statistics that were miscalculated from the start. Those included the debate of what defines "not a lot", counting skills, majority and an invalid example using the margin of error that didn't even apply to the situation. And then it takes another 5 posts to tell you that 4/11 people isn't a lot.

Plus, for reasons unknown you post around 1-3 times every time you have something to say. Look at your thread and see how many replies were yours - about half.

Now tell me that's not silliness. :)

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 9 2007 11:10 AM EDT

"There is a very obvious difference of opinion being expressed here."

Looking again - I think I basically only see you arguing for your opinion.

Talion August 9 2007 11:12 AM EDT

"If I asked, "Why doesn't a ToE work like a ToA? After all, they are both tattoos, right?" I would get laughed out of the forums."

Yes you would, just as if this thread was about "Why doesn't a HP work like a ST After all, they are both physical stats?".

However, I think that ST and DX are logically more closely tied together than the above two examples. But that is just my own opinion.

Flamey August 10 2007 2:35 AM EDT

Sut, that example wont work. It wont work because comparing a ToA to a ToE is different to comparing ST/X and DX/PTH, each pair do the same thing, ST will increase your damage as will the X. DX will make you hit more as will PTH.

They work differently though, going by your logic, the effects would still be different, that is ToE would still reduce damage and ToA increase ST/DX/PTH. Going by your logic, it would be the way it leveled and worked, they work the same, their effect is determined by the tattoo level.

ST and DX still have different effects, but we're talking about how they relate to X/PTH which is different.

QBsutekh137 August 10 2007 10:46 AM EDT

Yes, it is different, and that is fine. We know how it works, and a character can have choices made so as to correctly use either or both.

As I said before, asymmetry != wrong != imbalance. I still fail to see the issue. Where you say, "DEX/+ works differently than STR/x! Change it!", I say, "DEX/+ works differently than STR/x! So what!"

As I tried to state several posts up, that is where we have to agree to disagree. We have different opinions on the matter and we aren't going to change each other's minds about it.

Talion August 10 2007 11:13 AM EDT

S137, you convinced me of one thing: I conceed that nothing is broken.

However, I cannot conceed that linking DX and PTH would simply be a "so what?".

You wrote: "a character can have choices made so as to correctly use either or both."

The statement is true, but the idea proposed here (linking DX and PTH) creates many new choices that are not really valid choices with the current system.

As things are now:

To defensively counter PTH you need train Evasion and/or buy a pair of DB. Those are the only 2 choices. If you train Evasion, you can also boost it with Elven gear, but without Evasion, the Elven gear does absolutely nothing against PTH.

If DX and PTH become more closely linked:

To defensively counter PTH you can train DX, Evasion, Haste, EC, and/or buy a pair of DB. You can boost DX and Evasion with Elven gear. You can also boost Haste and EC with the Cornuthaum.

I've only covered defense, but I could also list similar examples for offense.

Talion August 10 2007 11:14 AM EDT

Oh, and I forgot the AxBow in the new defensive options...

QBsutekh137 August 10 2007 11:30 AM EDT

I agree that a re-jigger would result in different choices, but would it really result in MORE choices? If not, then it is a wash. I'm not sure I see how linking them is really adding choices. Might force a few folks to unlearn DEX or invest less in PTH... But it will all equilibrate to the same type of stuff, in my opinion.

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 10 2007 11:52 AM EDT

You just want to make your AxBow better... obvious by the suggestions you've made recently.

Talion August 10 2007 12:17 PM EDT

S137, I have just experimented with a DX oriented character throughout an entire NCB. The experience is now over. I am quickly finding out that any tank strategy is just too expensive for my taste. I will therefore soon have to go the DD way. That is just fine.

However, I am 100% certain, based on my experience, that linking DX and PTH will offer future users who want to go the same way a whole bunch of options I did not have. Not only for them, but for their opponents as well.

The big mistake I made, thanks for making me realize it, was adding the word "broken" in the thread title. This whole thread (well, almost all of it... I will never get into a flame war again) is actually about trying to improve things through debate. I experimented for 4 months and tried to suggest an improvement based on that.

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 10 2007 1:56 PM EDT

"However, I am 100% certain, based on my experience, that linking DX and PTH will offer future users who want to go the same way a whole bunch of options I did not have. Not only for them, but for their opponents as well."

They aren't options that just make the game more "fun". It makes more options to counter PTH. And why would we want to do that?

Flamey August 10 2007 8:12 PM EDT

That's the path USD goes, tanks and weapons.

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 10 2007 9:20 PM EDT

Exactly - why do we want to make more, relatively cheap ways to stop USD and high NW weapons? It's unfair to those who invest a lot in this game.

Heavy August 11 2007 7:34 AM EDT

"To defensively counter PTH you need train Evasion and/or buy a pair of DB. Those are the only 2 choices. If you train Evasion, you can also boost it with Elven gear, but without Evasion, the Elven gear does absolutely nothing against PTH. "

There are few more (indirect) ways to counter PTH than evasion/DB :)
Instead of avoiding you could reduce their damage instead.
Kill their damage dealer first and use your walls/enchanters to take the hit.

1)High Defense should work(AC,protection,hp,...)
2)Lower their ST close to zero
3)Use a defensive setup(max tattoo/strong ranged rounds) on defense.

ignignokt August 11 2007 2:42 PM EDT

"To defensively counter PTH you need train Evasion and/or buy a pair of DB. Those are the only 2 choices. If you train Evasion, you can also boost it with Elven gear, but without Evasion, the Elven gear does absolutely nothing against PTH. "

Fine, that's the way that it should be. If you weaken PTH by linking it with DX you're going to make it harder for archers to hit the evasion mages out there (evasion gets like x4 in ranged if I'm not mistaken). Why should an aspect of CB be able to be affected by 5 or 6 different things? That makes it so that strats are capable of even more defense against multiple types of attackers. I think that having to alter your strat so that you can only defend against a few and attack one or two, maybe three strats makes the game more fun and challenging.

QBOddBird August 11 2007 2:51 PM EDT

Note: If you kill the ToA, Evasion won't need such an enormous multiplier, as there won't be such a rampant supply of completely penalty and cost-free PTH out there, thus making this change idea of yours possible. 0=)

This message brought to you by the ToAkillersRus Foundation

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] August 11 2007 3:13 PM EDT

lol
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=002BIg">DX vs. PTH is definitely broken.</a>