RoBF ruins the paper/rock/scissors balance (in General)


Nerevas October 22 2007 8:47 PM EDT

A fine balance exists in CB, or did. Any strat can be countered, especially when low NW is involved, and in most cases it can be done even with half the mpr. The exception is RoBF. It has no counter. The only hope is to stalemate the damage that RoBF outputs, which cannot be done at low level without ALSO using a RoBF. The biggest victim of this is tournament play. If someone uses like 1/3 amf, 2/3 evasion and a RoBF, they win. There is no counter, only hope for stalemate. 2 RoBFs cancel each other out, or best case scenario the larger RoBF wins. I really hate to see such simplistic strategies exist, as they ruin the otherwise amazing balance this game has.

Iluvatar[NK] October 22 2007 8:51 PM EDT

Yes, I've seen too many cookie-cutter RoBF teams recently.

It's a good strategy, no doubt. It's beautiful in its simplicity and raw effectiveness.

But it does not belong in CB. It ruins the competitive environment, because there's no tradeoff - that build can destroy anything at the same level, and often kills things 2x or 3x bigger.

It's... "too easy". You don't even need giant cash reserves to do it, since RoBF automatically levels. Just keep pumping money into a huge set of DBs.

4 minion FoD was removed for similar reason - all you had to do was train HP. All day every day. No variation, no creativity, and you could be on level ground with most anyone.

I motion to change RoBF - not "weaken" it per se, but have it occupy a definite niche instead of having it be a be-all end-all item.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 22 2007 8:56 PM EDT

I like that is makes AC needed again, but you do have a point.
Maybe the magic resistance needs alteration.

48Zach October 22 2007 8:58 PM EDT

I can beat Moniseur Ash's character "This is MADNESS" no problem, and I run a SFBM?

QBRanger October 22 2007 9:02 PM EDT

As was pointed out in the thread about MgS helping vs RBF damage, I agree.

100% damage reduced only by TOE or AC, unaffected by AMF and always hitting.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] October 22 2007 9:03 PM EDT

you could add to the RoBF because its all or nothing, meaning you do no damage or do huge damage.

QBRanger October 22 2007 9:21 PM EDT

I look at the RBF now as a super DD type familiar.

One with massive evasion, a lot of HP and a DD spell that is immune to AMF and MgS. And gives protection vs DD spells itself.

Its only negative is the fact it fires in melee. Not a bad tradeoff for all the benefits.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 22 2007 9:35 PM EDT

The evasion isn't massive, thats an exaggeration, 1/3 of it's NW working like dbs doesn't qualify as massive.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 22 2007 9:44 PM EDT

i think jon probably gave the new and improved rbf several parts to its functionality so that he can tweak each one without killing the item as before. each part can be independently modified to reach some kind of balance if he deems it necessary.

as i stated in the other thread though, 33 to 50 percent of all fights end before the rbf can even do its first round of damage. with that being the case, i don't see the rbf as having upset a delicate balance. in fact with usd spending and ranged damage where it is, thus causing evasion to do what it does...balance most likely has been illusory.

Relic October 22 2007 9:50 PM EDT

There are _plenty_ of strategies that wipe the floor with mine. It is hardly overpowering or uncounterable.

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] October 22 2007 9:53 PM EDT

"One with massive evasion, a lot of HP and a DD spell that is immune to AMF and MgS. And gives protection vs DD spells itself."

But it's not a familiar... the extra minion bonus is one of the best parts of a familiar IMO. The evasion isn't huge either, nor does it grant HP on it's own...

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] October 22 2007 9:56 PM EDT

"No variation, no creativity, and you could be on level ground with most anyone."

No, RoBF can take plenty of creative measures to make it effective, just like other tattoos.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 22 2007 10:08 PM EDT

"The exception is RoBF. It has no counter."

Both AC and the TOE reduce its damage. From the other thread we saw that Koy's AC, which isn't all that large and his TOE reduced the damage of the largest rbf in game by 85 percent. That is one heck of a counter in my book. For tournament play I would think ac would work well against it.

Any time a new strategy element is introduced to the game, adaptation may be necessary to properly combat it. The easy route is to keep our strats the way they are then claim the new dimension is over powered because we haven't even tried to change for it.

I remember some of the strategy discussion threads ranger has had with sut. An oft repeated mantra was, adapt and if you don't adapt then don't claim that you don't have any options. Well the same holds true for this situation. There are existing counters, if you choose to not use them for whatever reasons, that doesn't mean that a whole strategy should be dumped.

lostling October 22 2007 10:24 PM EDT

lol... the DD resistance should stay where its at... instead... cut the ROBF damage to 15% or 18% which would be its past levels...

QBsutekh137 October 22 2007 11:06 PM EDT

So, dudemus, coming from a guy who just had to take you off his fightlist, what is the counter for you?

Ranged is an obvious choice. Well, I got ranged. Quite a bit. Yes, your AMF is awesome, but nothing in ranged is going to take you except a big archer -- so we are back to that whole thing?

The other RoBF weakness is that you have to keep it alive. But with it's current damage reduction, that's easy, at least against magic.

So maybe that's my issue -- yet another item that screws over magic. I guess the RoBF isn't super-powerful against everything, but it is effective, especially, against magic. Another change, and magic takes the fall. Awesome.

Lumpy Koala October 22 2007 11:23 PM EDT

Well my problem with RoBF is that you don't have to invest into any skill / spell / stats that a normal team would do to inflict damage (direct), includes STR, DEX, DD or the need for any weap. So not much dilution of exp means every stat trained performs at max effectiveness.

Now a normal "sound" build of a RoBF char is evasion / HP / AMF. Evasion = tank counter and HP / AMF / RoBF reduction = ultimate mage counter. What's left to counter them are big AC that forces them to stalemate because unless you are 2 or more times MPR or invested loads of USD in your weap's PTH, you can't damage them at all.

AdminNightStrike October 22 2007 11:34 PM EDT

"100% damage reduced only by TOE or AC"

and protection?

{cb2}Goth October 22 2007 11:44 PM EDT

(not sure if this is posted already as i only read a few of them :P) So the RoBF does all the damage in the melee phase so the simple solution get a maxed out bow with belegs archery also have 1 DD minion such as MM with 2 Enchanters 1 AS and 1 haste or Giant Strength the point is to kill all of them as fast as possible before the melee turn that would be the way to out do the RoBF strat but remember im not saying it would be easy but yet it is still possible :P

Relic October 22 2007 11:44 PM EDT

RoBF has introduced a defensive strategy element to the game. Just like a player that wants a quick kill will train Archery, FB, and MM. RoBF can train a more defensive position and allow the Tattoo to slowly beat the other team. Yes, I said slowly. Most of my battles go into the late teen and almost 20's. I get murdered by archers, mages, and various other strategies.

Anyone saying that RoBF is overpowered hasn't looked at the top MPR player. ToE reduces a HUGE amount of damage and in effect nullifies MPR and NW both. RoBF damage can be lessened quite a bit through AC, Endurance and Protection. The DD reduction percentage varies from blocking all to almost none from what I have seen. There is much less consistency in its effects than other Tattoos which can be counted on to be pretty consistent.

QBsutekh137 October 23 2007 12:16 AM EDT

I will certainly make noice about the ToE being overpowered before I will about the RoBF, so I definitely hear you, Ill. I've just basically giving up on railing against all the layered damage reduction, the MgS, and not the RoBF. In that order. Even though mages look good on paper with being good in ranged and impossible to evade, there are more than enough ways to make even the largest mage look like a pea-shooter at the higher levels.

Eurynome Bartleby [Bartleby's] October 23 2007 12:21 AM EDT

You know, I really think CB was just...not ready for this change. Caught off-guard. Once things have settled, many counters will be found, and the RoBF will gradually be incorporated into the grand scheme of things. Being one of it's users, I truly feel it's not that overpowered. Time will tell if it is. It is too early to decide if it's a game breaking ability, yet.

Why? Well, I dunno, just my gut feeling. Left side of the brain. Do I have anything more insightful to say? Nope, sorry :P

Just stating my opinion, for the sake of doing so.

Flame or disregard :)

Hyrule Castle October 23 2007 12:22 AM EDT

i dunno what your guys' problem is...i have no troubles beating them, if anything they are easier....i kill everything before melee...when the ROBF's true power kicks in

Nerevas October 23 2007 12:25 AM EDT

Yes, AC/ToE does greatly reduce the damage (it greatly reduces ALL damage, but that's besides the point). The point is that the damage is fairly significant, free, and without a counter. RoBF damage is the little engine that could. There is no need to train ANY xp to make it work. Which is the very reason you can do 66% of your xp into an AMF, 33% into evasion, and have 20 hp for all time. Take 0 damage from all DD sources, be unhittable by any tank within a reasonable level, have no damage for GA to return against, and thus have complete immunity from every type of attack that could kill you. There is NO counter. Please understand the dynamics of what this represents.

RoBF = all strategy out the window. In fact, the more strategy you try to use with it, the less effective you'll probably be. It is a win or stalemate strategy. There is no "AC or ToE reduces the damage." It doesn't matter how much damage you do, because the character itself is incapable of dying to any near leveled opponent with a "Real" strategy.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 23 2007 12:27 AM EDT

sut, i am not sure one strategy should be able to counter all. that is the idea behind the rock, paper scissors. you do seem to always say how could i beat koy, how could i beat whomever. you obviously beat some teams or your score wouldn't be as high as it is.

i hate to see mages get the shaft as well, but they have and continue to do so. this is one reason i was happy to see another, non-tank, strategy be an option.

as for your character beating mine, your highest ac minion is below 150. most of your items, excepting your mcm are effect based items. you aren't really geared to maxing out ac. honestly i do not know how much it would help you to change that focus. my whole point with all the rbf rants lately has been only this: let's give it some time and try some other strategies and adapt before we kill off a new option we have. therefore in response to your query on what can you do? i would say that if it is that important to not lose me off of your list, perhaps you should try something else to beat me.

you were still able to beat me regularly until yesterday or so. you can still beat me over half the time. i have been putting all my xp in amf and that has been the kicker.

QBsutekh137 October 23 2007 12:40 AM EDT

dude, I am not looking for a strategy to counter all, never have done.

But the main (well, only) weakness of the RoBF is the lack of a ranged attack. I am ALL ranged. ALL offense. I am not defensive at all. I could not actually be much more offensive if I tried (as a mage). Granted I could try to devote more to decay -- I dabbled during the last free retrain and didn't get very far. But beyond that, I have two massive MMs that still aren't enough. Because of ToE/PL/AC. Because of the MgS. And now because of the RoBF. The higher echelons are game of damage reduction or REAL ranged damage (read: the archer). Ranged magic has a bunch of people playing the rock/scissors/paper up here while the huge damage reduction teams, RoBF teams, and archer teams can beat a much wider variety of folks (in my opinion).

I don't mind rock/scissors/paper except when there are certain strategies that take all three items and crush them. I agree with you that it is nice to see a new strategy in the RoBF. But it's a very _boring_ strategy. I didn't think anything could be much more boring than damage reduction and walls, but there is -- the RoBF. No counter other than to have one of those huge walls or to have the ability to land huge blows or massive ranged damage. And nothing to train for it other than to simply slap it on. I like choice. But I'll take quality of choice over quantity any day. To me, RoBF just seems like quantity right now. I'm not putting down the people that use it (it works great! Smart to use it!). However, that doesn't make the choice compelling from a tactical or "wow!" standpoint.

I wish I had Ash's optimism about counters evolving, but I don't. I don't see what tricks of the trade are going to come out of the woodwork. All it will do is make people buckle down more with their boring walls or trying to use DEs to hoard more stats, and blah blah blah. It's just more of the same.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 23 2007 12:56 AM EDT

i guess part of my reasons for liking the rbf is that it has allowed me, as a single minion, to be something in the game other than a high mpr farm for lower level usd spenders to get good attack bonuses off of until they pass me up.

you say it is boring but for single minion teams i am training no fewer stats, skills or abilities than i was before, so it is just as exciting as mage was in that regard. i had hoped single minion strategies weren't a thing of the past and my excitement is due to the fact that i am no longer farmed. not winning mind you, just not losing.

as stated in the other thread, i added no higher mpr characters to my list with the robf change. i lost a whole lot of people from farming me though. i only have one person with a higher mpr in my fight list that i can beat all of the time.

i will no longer defend the rbf. i will trust jon's judgment on it and hopefully when all the smoke clears we will still have an effective new strategy that works in the game, perhaps if i am really lucky it will work with a single minion as well.

Iluvatar[NK] October 23 2007 12:59 AM EDT

The only apparent "counter" of any sort is AC/ToE.

This clearly highlights the broken system.

AC - requires a good deal of NW to keep up. Solid investment to have a good AC set, and also penalizes skills/dx if you go for high damage mitigation.

ToE - Its sole purpose is damage reduction. That's your entire tatt slot. Contrast this to the RoBF, which often reduces more damage [in the case of DD spells] while also dealing damage and granting other bonuses.

And even then, it's not a clear counter. While you may not die from the RoBF, AC/ToE won't help you kill the RoBF-wearer.

I agree with Sut that ranged round magic is weak compared to archers. The tradeoff [100% hit rate, no NW required] is far outweighed by the antis [AMF, MgS, RoBF, + AC, etc].

However, I'm not convinced that ranged magic needs to be severely changed or buffed. Sutekh's char does fine - it is just weaker against a larger subset than other characters might be.

lostling October 23 2007 1:10 AM EDT

COC kills ROBF :) hurray... decay and COC build might do it

QBJohnnywas October 23 2007 3:27 AM EDT

It isn't the RBF that is the kicker here. I'm trying it out for an NCB, so I can save some money and I can tell you what makes it powerful is the same thing that makes a ToA powerful. The ability to focus your XP into areas other than damage. Dude's char is a perfect example. He is now able to focus his all his XP into HP, AMF and Evasion. The fact that the RBF's damage is not negated by anything but AC/Endurance and Protection is helpful, but not the most important thing.

There is a myth in CB that MPR is everything. It's misleading to assume that. What is everything is FOCUSED MPR. If you focus your MPR into creating very large stats you can level things out between yourself and much larger teams.

lostling October 23 2007 3:30 AM EDT

as i said :) cut the damage done to the old 10% or 15% there will be more balance

Kong Ming October 23 2007 6:31 AM EDT

Honestly speaking, the damage done by a RoBF is pretty low. I normally take 10 to 15 rounds to end a battle using RoBF as the only damage dealer. If you can't take out a RoBF minion with 10 to 15 rounds, you ought not to win ;)

QBsutekh137 October 23 2007 10:14 AM EDT

I do not think the RoBF puts out too much damage. True, it may seem like a lot because of ifs lack of counters, but remember that it only fires once, like magic.

In thinking more (especially in light of dudemus's great posts), the RoBF is at least an interesting choice -- I have to give it that. And I DO like that it can really help a single minion team. dude's character is ab obvious foil for me -- MASSIVE AMF and no DEs. That eats up our PR difference right there, pretty much. I just didn't expect the damage reduction to allow him to last there 8 large MMs (MMs reduced by AMF, though...his whole strat is cohesive deliciousness).

From my end, I slapped on a TSA this morning and am back to training straight HP on my main mage. I think I am beating dude's char more now, though will have to wait and check 24-hour stats later in the day...

I'll switch gears, and maybe things already are this way: all I will say is that if the RoBF is based on any sort of threshold dealie, where smaller blows are just always out of luck, please, please, please change that part of it. I do not understand any dynamic that is based on any sort of stepwise algorithm. It gives all the advantage to large, physical blows (and CoC to some extent), leaving smaller setups (even if cleverly crafted) out in the cold.

If it is already just a percentage, then that's fine. But I see people talking about hitting for no damage, so there must be some sort of base, full, reduction. Get rid of that crap! Don't we already have enough damage reducers and binary dynamics in the game?

QBJohnnywas October 23 2007 10:17 AM EDT

From the Wiki:

"Reduces damage equivalent to 20% of the tattoo level per round from Direct Damage Spells (sans Decay), an opposing minion's RoBF damage, and damage from exploding shots."

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 23 2007 10:24 AM EDT

please do remember also that i am a bit of an anomaly up top. as jw stated earlier, the concentrated xp is probably the kicker. my team is pretty much concentrated xp X 2. since i am a single minion, when i decide to go crazy on amf as i am now, it grows quite rapidly.

QBsutekh137 October 23 2007 10:30 AM EDT

Here's what I mean by the binary:

Hubbell Man's familiar's Magic Missile hit the pacifist for no damage.

(the familiar is a 3.3 million SF with +14 AGs)

That happens twice in ranged (usually) when I lose to dudemus's "igot noname". Other times the SF hits for 200K, 45K, etc. (gotta love that randomness!)

If he hits at all, all four times, I almost always win.

So, a couple things here -- the randomness is ridiculous. That is getting really, really old and I don't think anyone in the game "likes" it or thinks it is valuable to game-play (Please, speak up if you love the randomness!). So, the randomness alone makes battles hard to insure a win if you are riding that delicate edge. I still draw with Dixie regularly because of it, sometimes NWO, and lose to igot noname from time to time.

Then, above that ridiculousness is the fact that things hit for 100-200K damage, or hit for zero. I don't get it? How does one plan a strategy when there is this "overwhelm" component? Can I just raise my damage output? Well, not always. Can I augment my DD with an enchantment? Nope. Can I augment it with gear? Yes, but I am already in the 4-5 million per point ranges on AGs and CoI.

So, if I want to try to make my DD larger, about all I can do is train it. Will that even pace with the tattoo growth I am facing? Who knows! We don't even really know how this whole "overwhelm" crap works. All we know is that huge blows get through and smaller blows do not. And the randomness makes it almost impossible to analyze.

If we're going to have the huge randomness, get rid of threshold-based damage reduction. Alternately, if you are going to keep threshold-based damage reduction, then tone down the randomness. I really don't think those are unreasonable ideas.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 23 2007 10:38 AM EDT

i can definitely get behind a reduction in the randomness. the ba/rewards change really played hell with that game dynamic and it should have been adjusted at that time. it is crazy in its current state.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 23 2007 10:40 AM EDT

Sut that tat reduces a fixed amount of damage, the randomness you're rallying against is the randomness of DD damage.

QBsutekh137 October 23 2007 10:46 AM EDT

Johnny, can you interpret for me? So you are saying if an RoBF is level 1 million, it will stop 200K damage every time. If my shots range from 150K damage to 400K damage, my min will be hitting for no damage and max will be 200K damage?

OK, I guess that is straightforward. I still dislike base stoppages like that, though, especially in light of what AMF can already do to DD. It's more of that layering. Now mages not only have to worry about AMF/ToE/PL/TSA/AC/VA/MgS, they also have to worry about AMF/RoBF.

At least the RoBF can't combine with ToE, TSA, or MgS. *smile* That part I like. But the first set of slashes looks more and more ridiculous in my head every time I look at it -- especially with two of the items being anti-mage specific.

I still dislike the randomness too. Let's tone down the randomness so that I can either depend on some damage or not depend on it at all. That way I know where I stand against an opponent.

QBJohnnywas October 23 2007 10:47 AM EDT

That's pretty much my interpretation Sut, and it fits with what I'm seeing in my fights.

QBsutekh137 October 23 2007 10:51 AM EDT

Yeah, nov, thanks to you and Johnny for setting me straight on that too...I'm batting 0.000 on this thread... lol

Here's an idea for an item (probably already thought of). Amulet of Precision: reduces randomness by some large degree. Just a pure item enhancement, eats the amulet slot, though. No other penalties. Junctions.

Tighten the variance. I don't really see how that could be considered unfair. Let's say currently the randomness is 100% of the DD down to 50% (that might be what it actually is...) Let's say the AoP tightens that to 65-85. Means I might have attained a higher target (on rare occasion), but now cannot because I lack that last 15%. But it raises my low end so I can stop having to deal with these pesky fixed-damage-reduction items that wreak havoc with tactical planning.

I would even like to see it tightened to 70-80, if Jonathan even entertains the idea.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 23 2007 10:56 AM EDT

Interesting... I'd like to see it be part of a whole new class of items (focuses!) that are expensive as hell to obtain, aren't upgradeable in effect (similar to the HoC) and alter how magic is cast. A Mage only item FTW!

QBsutekh137 October 23 2007 11:04 AM EDT

The other idea would be that if you are going to have randomness, have it be random AROUND the DD level, not just from 100% on down. If it is going to go down to 50%, then let it go up to 125% or something. Otherwise it isn't random, it's just a penalty.

If a mage has trouble focusing and getting a full blast out, surely at times the accessing of arcane lore yields a positive effect? *smile*

Go ahead and let physical damage have the same thing. I couldn't care less if a 3 million damage blow hits me or a 3.5 million. I'm dead either way. Reducing or rejiggering randomness helps mages in a sense, in a completely fair way. I demand a more practical utilization of my MPR! *smile*

QBRanger October 23 2007 11:10 AM EDT

I personally like the idea of randomness.

Why? If thing were the same every time it would be quite boring.

If your on the cusp of beating someone but due to randomness you lose occasionally, you need to get tougher. Break through the randomness factor!!

But the RBF takes away that randomness. It always does damage (a pretty steady amount per round), is unaffected by AMF (unlike DD spells), is immune to GA, gives resistance to DD spells, and can be equipped on a minion with an evasion so large without a USD weapon you cannot possibly hit it.

Getting away from the randomness discussion:
I have always thought of magic vs physical as this:

Magic always hits but has a counter-AMF. AMF does damage back to the caster, which is the tradeoff for always hitting and not costing cb2.

Physical may miss, and its counter (EC) just lowers damage and number of hits. It does not reflect damage back to the tank, which I believe it should not given tanks need money to do damage.

The RBF changes things. It always hits and has no counter, IE AMF, that can do damage back to the caster/minion using it. This is something entirely new to CB and I believe throws the balance of the game off.

Just my opinion though.

QBsutekh137 October 23 2007 11:27 AM EDT

I agree with randomness (and definitely with the fact that the same randomness should be applied to all things: magical, physical, RoBF).

But with any damage reduction that is based on a fixed amount, large randomness hurts the smaller damagers. An archer landing 2 million+ blows? Immune. He/she will overwhelm everything and not have to worry. Someone trying use a large MM? Sorry fella, you're out of luck. You are going to get whittled down, and then randomness will take care of the rest to cause you to lose entire rounds of damage.

In a sense, magic can now "miss" more easily, just like other forms of damage (well, all except the RoBF). One of the stalwarts of magic has been that, at the very least, it never misses. For folks who like that as they plan tactics and analyze battle logs, it was always a great thing to be able to be able to depend on at least _some_ damage to finish off that last minion, etc.

That is what all the damage reducers and randomness have accomplished -- the ability for mages to miss entirely (while still taking backlash, in the case of AMF!).

All I am asking for (as a start) is a reduction to the randomness via a program change or a new item just so my mage doesn't miss any more. As I state above, I am even willing to lose some of the high-end of my blows, because let's face it -- it is far more important to land _something_ than it is to put an opposing minion 250K HP into the red. Add to that the fact that I don't see how tightening the randomness could possibly be considered unfair or imbalanced -- it's my MPR, and I want to be able to use it in a practical fashion. Are my mages really that stupid so as to whip up spells that require a 50% downside in order to ever hit 100%? No, they aren't. They are smart enough to tone it all back and refine their craft in order to help their team in a more consistent fashion. It is not unfair or counter-intuitive.

This is EXTREMELY lame love I am asking for. Mages get no love whatsoever these days, so at least throw us this paltry bone?

QBRanger October 23 2007 11:36 AM EDT

Well magic never quite 'misses', but can do no damage now with the RBF.

Perhaps that is something that needs to be changed with it.

The TOE does let you take 0 damage, but lowers it quite a bit, perhaps the RBF should do the same to DD damage instead of its current ability?

lostling October 23 2007 11:37 AM EDT

Randomness should never be completely deleted but at the current rate... it should be toned down somewhat...

QBsutekh137 October 23 2007 11:44 AM EDT

Yes, Ranger. Agreed. Get rid of fixed-damage reducers or tone down randomness... Either would help with what I am seeing as an issue.

Drakon(DS) [Guardian Bros Inc] October 23 2007 11:54 AM EDT

some things i noticed about the RoBF reduction in magic (hence thats what everyone is saying is broken) the reduction is completely able to get around because it always reduces the same about every round take my 500K one for example it reduces 100K PER ROUND always but two MM for 75K damage a piece will hit me
First one does nothing
Second does 50K
two of those and im dead lol so you just got to overwhelm it like you have to do ToE

Drakon(DS) [Guardian Bros Inc] October 23 2007 11:58 AM EDT

same goes for a focused DD spell at same mpr SFBM kick my but horribly bad lol

lostling October 23 2007 12:02 PM EDT

ROBF != TOE :) thats all and drakon brought up a valid point

AdminJonathan October 23 2007 1:09 PM EDT

> The other idea would be that if you are going to have randomness, have it be random AROUND the DD level, not just from 100% on down. If it is going to go down to 50%, then let it go up to 125% or something. Otherwise it isn't random, it's just a penalty.

Or we could just change the DD level to display the "average." You're letting semantics annoy you. :)

QBsutekh137 October 23 2007 2:09 PM EDT

If that is the case, then let me waste money on a new item that all it does is display me a better average so I can better plan my tactics.

I see value in that, even if you don't, and that's not semantics.

The fixed-damage-reduction portion of my sentiment is not semantics either. I don't see the point of such thresholds, especially when there exist so many ways to get mage damage down to a point where the mage is essentially missing. AMF/MgS/ToE/PL/TSA/AC/Protection/VA -- this combination, which is actually extremely doable for a four-minion ToE tank team, can almost casually negate ostensibly ALL mage damage (because MgS, TSA, AC, and VA are all item-based). Yes, a mage could use this against a tank:

EC/???/ToE/PL/TSA/AC/Protection/??, but note the two sets of question marks. Also note that EC has no backlash.

Do you think the mage/tank tank/mage comparison when it comes to damage reduction and HP regeneration is also semantics?

QBsutekh137 October 23 2007 2:16 PM EDT

Sorry to double-post, but the two sets of question marks are crucial do what I am trying to say.

MgS: No tank-busting item counterpart.
VA: Not only does VA exist as an undefeatable enchantment built into a weapon, weapons get a WEAPON ALLOWANCE so that power doesn't even display in total PR! My DM can't hurt it, it doesn't count in PR, it is built into an item (no experience dilution), and it is only available to tanks!

While I am eating AMF backlash and watching my missiles deflect off a single (relatively cheap) item at the back of the minion line, tanks are slicing through my ranks, gaining HP as they go along. Net worth for the win!

TheHatchetman October 23 2007 2:23 PM EDT

"Do you think the mage/tank tank/mage comparison when it comes to damage reduction and HP regeneration is also semantics?"

While i do see what you mean with how easy it is to nullify MM damage, but 360 AC on a wall would block 75.6% of physical damage, while only blocking 53.76% of magic...

QBsutekh137 October 23 2007 2:31 PM EDT

Triple-post, huzzah! *smile*

Better yet (as far as hiding power), the MgS has a PR weight of 0.15 while the AGs and CoI have a PR weight of 0.5.

Let's look at an example: My CoI (+18) is worth about 13 million. Half of that goes toward NWPR, 6.5 million.

That same NW on an MgS would yield one around +45. Forty-five percent of my 18%-enhanced DD spell gets negated by an item of the same NW. And that item only contributes around 2 million NW toward total PR while my CoI contributes 6.5 million.

Let's display real power or not. If we just don't care about things like the Weapon Allowance and the MgS, then turn off the whole NW/PR linkage. At least we know where we stand then, instead of saying "yeah but" any time we compare a teams total PR with it's NW.

QBsutekh137 October 23 2007 2:33 PM EDT

Hatchet, that's why several folks have MgS-based walls in back, or better yet, two walls: one with an MgS and one with higher AC somewhere else in the line-up.

Twice the walls, twice the boring!

AdminJonathan October 23 2007 4:04 PM EDT

> I see value in that, even if you don't, and that's not semantics.

Touchy, touchy, but good point. :)

> The fixed-damage-reduction portion of my sentiment is not semantics either. I don't see the point of such thresholds, especially when there exist so many ways to get mage damage down to a point where the mage is essentially missing.

Well, here is the dilemma:

When there is a threshold people complain that it is too binary.

When there is a percentage instead of a threshold people complain that it is too powerful, since once you upgrade something to blocking say the 45% on your MgS there is no need to keep upgrading it.

> Let's display real power or not.

That's really another subject entirely. Certainly CB2 already does this better than CB1. Is it perfect? No. Is it possible to be perfect? I don't think it is. Could we get closer than we are now? Certainly. Do I think the re-theme is more important right now? Yes.

AdminJonathan October 23 2007 4:09 PM EDT

> Do I think the re-theme is more important right now? Yes.

Lest I sound too dismissive of something that I really do want to address, the main issue in my mind is that to do it "right" we'd need to switch from a formula (W * upgrades) for PR weight to (W1 + W2 * upgrades) to account for factors like the AoI's invisibility or HoC's extra round that are independant of the upgrade level.

If you want to accelerate the process, make a table with the current W and your proposed W1 and W2. (I would suggest google spreadsheets but you could do this in the CB wiki if you were a masochist.) Then post it for comment.

QBsutekh137 October 23 2007 4:23 PM EDT

I am being touchy, maybe a bit too much so...

You are right, I complain about the binary and the MgS in the same breath, so I see your dilemma. However, I think it is something else entirely that is the dilemma: the layering.

When you put MgS/ToE/AC/AMF all together, that is very hard to beat. In FACT, it is hard because it preys upon the dilemma of which you speak: some of the layers are thresholds while others are percentage-based. Combined, they are uber. Too uber. I think most of my points come down to the combination of items, especially when certain layers in those combinations are mage-busting or unavailable to mages (as is the case with MgS and VA).

Sorry to mention Warbook again, but they do layering differently. It is not as cumulative as here. You start with a base defense, for example, and then it is enhanced by your defense stat percentage and then by fort percentage. But it is:

base + (base * def stat) + (base * forts) = total defense

NOT

(base * (1 + def stat)) * (1 + forts) = total defense

With examples, say base defense is 1000, def stat is 10%, and forts are a 50% increase. First example, additive:

1000 + (1000 * 0.10) + (1000 * 0.50) = 1000 + 100 + 500 = 1600

now multiplicative:

(1000 * (1.1) ) * (1 + 0.5) = 1100 * 1.5 = 1650

It doesn't take many layers before the multiplicative stacking gets pretty powerful.

Then again, I am sure someone could come up with an example where the additive seems more powerful, my head just hurts right now too much to think it through...

Is the total PR display better in CB2? Sort of. Since anything will at least help with making rewards more equitable, I applaud that. But as far as being able to look at a team and determine "power"... No, that's actually worse. Because one might think a team is weak because of a lower total PR, but with so much hiding in weapon PR and (in my opinion) unbalanced PR weights, the end result is far from expected.

And finally, is the theming more important right now? Absolutely. *smile*

QBsutekh137 October 23 2007 5:09 PM EDT

You don't sound dismissive, and I am a dunce... I am not sure what you are talking about with the W1, W2... You mean the PR weights for armor as I see them?

I think PR weights, as they are used, is fine. Just make them more accurate. For example, I think the MgS should count more. Heck, maybe it could even be a rolling scale based on how popular something is. The more popular, the more it weighs, based on price over NW (or whatever that nifty little stat is). Like a moderated weight.

As far as WA, you know better than I do. It was meant for new players to help them not get creamed in rewards. Does it need to be as large as it is for that, and does it still need to be that large at higher levels? I'm not sure, but weapons appear to still be hiding a lot of power as far as things like VA are concerned.

If you talk to me like a third-grader about the W1 W2 stuff, I might understand better, no guarantees. *smile* And I would definitely mock something up once I understand what you are after...

Adminedyit October 23 2007 5:20 PM EDT

"(W1 + W2 * upgrades) to account for factors like the AoI's invisibility or HoC's extra round that are independant of the upgrade level."

I may be wrong Sut but i thing that (at least how i read it) W1 would be the PR weight as is and the W2 would be increased weight for effect (Invisibility, extra ranged round) since the AoI and HoC both do the same at base no one would upgrade them.

QBsutekh137 October 23 2007 5:34 PM EDT

I guess I see the W2s as being too hard to come up with, then. That would go back to something novice said -- that certain things are worthless against certain strats, and are great against others. I still want NWPR to be an average "power" for the NW. If you are wearing an AoI against a lot of mages and it has a high PR weight, too bad. My Massive DM is worthless against non-DE teams, but it still all counts.

I was more interested in comparing items and their foils. For example, two items that are sort of opposites would be AGs and MgS. So, they should have the same weight. They don't. That's a rather simple comparison. Sure, one can argue about the MgS's limitations, but look around -- the limitations are far from making the MgS unpopular. As far as armor goes, it is right at the top when you look at price/NW type of ratios on the meta-item page.

I guess I just wanted to see some tweaking in that realm, not a whole re-fit... And in the weapon arena, I would like to simply see the WA lowered, or one of the other ideas put into play -- there've been several, I can't really even remember them all.

TheHatchetman October 23 2007 5:57 PM EDT

"the main issue in my mind is that to do it "right" we'd need to switch from a formula (W * upgrades) for PR weight to (W1 + W2 * upgrades) to account for factors like the AoI's invisibility or HoC's extra round that are independent of the upgrade level. "

Super-boost the base nw of such items (If you're worried about the xfer fees of AoI or HoC, you can't afford one...), and maintain the same upgrade curve (where applicable.

I thought of that way too fast for it to be that simple, but maybe it is a start of a good idea...

QBRanger October 23 2007 6:39 PM EDT

Well, how many items are there out there where this is a problem?

I can only think of the following:

HoC -extra round of combat
AoI - Invisibility
TSA - HP regeneration

Every other item bases its effect on the upgrade. Surely 3 items cannot be that tough to figure out.

Godpanda October 23 2007 6:55 PM EDT

Not completely true, Ranger.

Combat Gi could easily be used without +. Just not as smart. but it's in the same category as the other 3. Also, you could argue EH, same as TSA. Both have their affects applicable in a battle regardless of NW.

Nerevas October 23 2007 7:17 PM EDT

EH +0 doesn't do much =)

Godpanda October 23 2007 7:34 PM EDT

Hmmm... You people blow my mind. As edyit would say about me about now: edyit> anuter brilyant minde diztroyd bi thu publik edjukashun sistum


But, here is my take on the many points being brought up.

On the power of the RoBF, I must agree that it is simply too powerful, or at least the mage reduction part is. I can hit Oxcha for damage, I can hit Koy, edyit. I can hit every -single- team in this game for at least some damage (matter of fact, I think it's always over 50k). Except for bamf. Against bamf, I hit zeros. For 9 or 10 rounds. With a 2.4 million MM. And my 37 mil NW tat of course hits nothing but zeros too.

So, yes, I believe the mage reduction need to be toned down a bit. Just a bit. I mean... if ToA can be used on a single minion, why can't another tat? But... give the mages some slack.... MgS, EH, PL, TSA, MgS, MsK, MgS, AMF already give us problems :P

Now... about Weapon Allowance. Simply put, it's just too high. There is no way a team with 50 million NW then me at the same MPR should have the same PR, and therefore the same range of people to fight. Just, no way. Tanks need weapons, I understand. But NW that isn't applied to PR... either give mages/enchanteres a mirror of it, or tank it from tanks. Balance, grasshoppas.

Adminedyit October 23 2007 8:00 PM EDT

that's not the RBF then
since mine Blessed Darkness lvl 3,209,885 owned by Adminedyit (Edyit)
is bigger than da fence lvl 1,786,186 owned by dudemus (igot noname)
by over 1m levels. so if you're hitting me for damage and not him then something else is amiss

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] October 23 2007 8:00 PM EDT

bamf has way more MPR than you do, and he's got a huge AMF...

Adminedyit October 23 2007 8:06 PM EDT

you should check your facts before you post
my MPR Edyit (2698249)
Dudemus' MPR igot noname (2126423)
my AMF is also quite large Antimagic Field: 2,878,769/2,359,647

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] October 23 2007 8:10 PM EDT

Well that comment was directed at GW, and I didn't see your post...

Besides his AMF is still larger...

Iluvatar[NK] October 23 2007 8:11 PM EDT

I think he was referring to Oduten vs igot noname.

That is, Oduten SHOULDN'T be doing damage to dudemus' char because of the vast MPR disparity as well as dudemus' specialty.

Talion October 23 2007 8:17 PM EDT

"give the mages some slack.... MgS, EH, PL, TSA, MgS, MsK, MgS, AMF already give us problems :P"

I used to be in total agreement with that statement until I realized just how expensive it is to run a Tank based character. It's extremely expensive compared to a mage team.

In fact, I think the main reason users run mage teams is to save money. That is my main reason at least.

The CB reality is that if you are ready to invest, run a tank team because it will be more powerful. If you are not ready to invest, run a mage team, else without investing lots of $ into your character you will become a door mat once your character reaches 1M MPR. With a mage team, at least you can get more respect with less NW.

And that is why I think tanks deserve more options than mages. However, this in no way signifies that I do not want more options for mages. I simply think users running tanks deserve all the options they have because of how much it costs them.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 23 2007 9:04 PM EDT

here is igot noname's (bamf) amf levels: Antimagic Field: 3,223,497/2,686,248 (?) with the level of edyit's tat being greatly more than mine, i agree with him when he says that something else must be going on there.

sooka October 23 2007 10:55 PM EDT

Talion, your last post really points out why USD spenders with tanks have an advantage in this game. I don't like the logic of cost being the force behind balance in the game.

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] October 23 2007 11:01 PM EDT

"I don't like the logic of cost being the force behind balance in the game."

Then what should the force be? I think it's perfect as it is - exp and money. If someone wants to spend USD on this game they deserve an advantage.

lostling October 23 2007 11:03 PM EDT

i do not see y it is not good... investing USD into a game is like anyone investing time into the game (in my opinion)... i do not think USD is that powerful as it is now...

sooka October 23 2007 11:29 PM EDT

I wasn't meaning to say that balance is awry, by any means. Obviously if you spend $ in a game you will thrive. I don't see why those who spend USD on a certain strat deserve to have that strat rock another one. That was my point with Talion's post. Can you say a USD mage spender is on the same page as a USD tank spender then?

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] October 23 2007 11:30 PM EDT

Depends on the strategy...

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] October 24 2007 2:53 AM EDT

Sooka, yes if your Nerevas and use a huge AC mage

yoyo October 24 2007 3:55 AM EDT

The original topic of ROBF seems to have gotten lost in the last few posts. I am relatively new to the game and do not pretend to understand how the game play evolves after 1mil NW. However, I have read the posts and and it seems like the main problem with the RoBF is it does damage that cannot be reflected back. It appears to be the only item in the game that can do damage and cannot die. I was thinking if the RoBF was turned to a familiar or the wearer of it could take damage from GA or AM then it might level the tattoo out a bit. I am not sure if this make sense to anyone else. Just some thoughts from a person who admittedly has little exp and is basing his thoughts on what others have written not what I have tested or seen myself.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] October 25 2007 9:47 AM EDT

Right yet another nice example of RoBF is horrible.


Peanut cast Antimagic Field on MM (0.31)
Peanut cast Antimagic Field on Decay/AS's familiar (0.24)
Peanut cast Antimagic Field on Decay/AS (0.90)

1round
MM takes damage from his own Magic Missile (41271)!
MM's Magic Missile hit Peanut for no damage
2round
MM takes damage from his own Magic Missile (47167)!
MM's Magic Missile hit Peanut [23485]
Decay/AS's familiar takes damage from his own Magic Missile (46588)!
Decay/AS's familiar's Magic Missile hit Peanut [52836]

That is a 1mil MM against this guy: http://www.carnageblender.com/inspect_opponent.tcl?opponent_id=108549
And he has roughly 600k max tat i do 0 damage in the first round, even my 1.4mil SF does 1/6th of the damage it normally does.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 25 2007 10:20 AM EDT

isn't your tat not firing in the first round due to your helm of clearsight on mm?

i think you need to junction it or something if ya want your sf to fire, i could be wrong though, i often am.

just for clarification regardless of that though, you do still beat his character even with this "horrible" rbf uberness? in an average of five rounds no less.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 25 2007 10:27 AM EDT

if you were referring though to the 0 damage by your mm minion then i would think that evasion might be the target of your ire though. remember the ranged bonus modifiers.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] October 25 2007 10:49 AM EDT

Yes, i beat him, but dont you find a bit odd that my mage does 0 damage in the first round with a hoc? And no the evasion shouldn't do anything because i use DD not a bow. And the SF is 1.4mil it has a nice DD on it and should in theory overwhelm his RoBF (max tat 600k) quit easily.
But it doesn't in fact it does crappy damage to someone half my mpr and half my pr.
So i find that a bit odd.

QBsutekh137 October 25 2007 10:57 AM EDT

That's a big AMF. I have a massive SF (level 3.3 million), but dude lays down a nasty AMF on me. That reduces the MM damage right there. Plus, the 10/20/30/40 damage modifiers to ranged (DD hits softer too in early rounds) and randomness get the damage down into the stoppage realm of the RoBF. I see it too. dude's character is a natural foil for me, and I not for him. That AMF is VERY massive, and my DM does nothing to him. I am slowly coming to accept that I just have to take him off my fight list until I can make tweaks and guarantee a better win percentage...

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 25 2007 12:35 PM EDT

i musta been asleep still when i posted earlier, hehe. do you know what his amf is in relation to your dd level? it would be nice to know if he removes the rbf entirely, would you still hit for 0? i do think those questions at least need to be answered before we assume it is the rbf. i wonder what level his tat actually is also.

just as in the posts above where gw was saying he could hit edyit but not me. his tat is way bigger than mine so something else is going on. i think it is brash to assume it is the rbf though until some testing is done.

sut, he's trying to hit another character, not mine. sorry if ya got that impression.

QBsutekh137 October 25 2007 12:37 PM EDT

I know, but whomever he is fighting is still laying on a huge AMF. I'm saying it makes sense to me. For his level, that AMF is big enough that he can't get any damage through the fixed damage at times.

Same goes for me vs your character...My familiar is bigger, but so is your AMF. *smile*

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 12:57 PM EDT

The RoBF has no counter, in the same way that all damage in CB has no counter.

I can't remember if it's classed as Physical or Magical, but the usual AoI + Wall, backed by a ToE/PL works just fine.

The RoBF ignores Invisible minions, and will be tied up on a Wall. Just like every otherdamaging minion is.

And it's easily outdamage by well everything else that does damage in CB. ;)

QBsutekh137 October 25 2007 1:13 PM EDT

I am told PL doesn't work against RoBF damage, GL.

QBRanger October 25 2007 1:27 PM EDT

GL,

My tattoo as a RBF will do over 1.5 million damage to a low AC non-TOE minion,.

About the same damage my x12012 MH does to the exact same minion.

Damage that is not subject to GA, damage that PL does not help against, and damage that ALWAYS hits each round, unlike my MH vs very high evasion minions on rare occasions.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 1:27 PM EDT

PL doesn't work against AMF baclash or GA induced damage either. ;)

But I wouldn't be adverse to seeing PL absorb RoBF damage. ;)

But that then begs why not AMF backlash and GA returns as well...

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 1:28 PM EDT

Ranger, is that one hit from your Morg or a round in total?

Anyway, you already know my answer, the MTL is too high. ;) It should equal MPR.

QBRanger October 25 2007 1:29 PM EDT

I have been advocating that RBF damage have the same rules applied to it that any DD spell has.

Since it sort of falls into that category: Always hits, only 1 fire per round.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 1:29 PM EDT

How about GA?

AdminJonathan October 25 2007 1:30 PM EDT

> PL doesn't work against RoBF damage

That part is a bug.

TheHatchetman October 25 2007 1:31 PM EDT

way to go Jon!

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 1:33 PM EDT

:D Thanks Jon!

QBJohnnywas October 25 2007 1:33 PM EDT

And there you have it...a counter!!

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 1:34 PM EDT

Gah, should have added, is the RoBF damage supposed to not set of GA?

Ranger, if you inked your Tat into a SF/FF/IF which would do more damage?

lostling October 25 2007 1:36 PM EDT

im guessing they will do more damage but die in 1-2 rounds lol

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 25 2007 1:36 PM EDT

since jon said that part is a bug, i would assume the rest is working as intended, at least as initially intended.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 1:38 PM EDT

Hehehehehe. I don't take omission from Jon as clarification. One way or the other. ;)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 1:39 PM EDT

"im guessing they will do more damage but die in 1-2 rounds lol"

What when Junctioned with an AoI and backed by AS + PL?

;)

QBsutekh137 October 25 2007 1:41 PM EDT

Gl, you touch on something else -- the RoBF is not a familiar. Even if it were more like DD, the fact that it can be strapped on an evasive, high-HP minion is what makes it last longer. Plus, no AMF backlash to worry about.

I still think it would be neat to see the RoBF as a familiar, one training endurance and still immune from AMF.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 1:45 PM EDT

Nah, we've got enough familiars (well, maybe add another DD one if we get a new front hitting DD...).

I like the RoBF being anenhancement, Like the ToA. ;)

QBsutekh137 October 25 2007 1:49 PM EDT

That's exactly what a Balrog Familiar would be, GL -- a front-hitting, non-spread-fire familiar. Better yet, it would essentially be a DD familiar that trains extra endurance and is not affected by AMF backlash. *smile*

The downside? That it is a familiar that has to stand on its own, and it wouldn't fire until melee.

Too samey to DD familiars? Sure. But if you want a front-firing DD familiar anyway, then this is just what you are asking for, isn't it?

QBJohnnywas October 25 2007 1:51 PM EDT

Enhancement like the ToA - my thoughts exactly!!! People should be thankful you can't put a full armour set on a RBF minion like you used to be able to do with the Cloak Of Balrog Flame. That was a real killer mix!

QBRanger October 25 2007 1:52 PM EDT

Compared to the SF/FF/IF the RBF does far more damage as it is not subject to the large AMFs at this level of play.

Also, the minion wearing it would live a lot longer as it is also not subject to GA (for now).

So the RBF with its DD resistance is by far the best tattoo out of the familiars/runes for me to use.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 1:55 PM EDT

Far more Damage Ranger? Than an equal sized IF for example? I'm calling you on that.

Sute, exactly. Keep the RoBF as is. Add a new front htting DD Famialir, to coincide with us getting a nice new front hitting DD to play with. ;)

If we ain't getting a new DD, I don't want a front hitting DD familiar. ;)

Unless you make a Decay Familiar... :P

QBRanger October 25 2007 2:01 PM EDT

I will restate it.

Overall over the spectrum of people I fight on a day to day basis, averaging in all the AMF's and non-AMF characters I fight over a day, the RBF does more overall damage then my tattoo as an IF.

Why?

A few reasons.

1) Vs high AMF characters such as Dixie Cousins my IF dies in 2 rounds due to her massive AMF. If my tattoo is a IF, I do not have the TOE to reduce the AMF damage. I do not have junction to make NS's work with it.

2) Vs GA my IF does tons of damage, but GA's kill it in 2 rounds. Remember I do not have AS to give my familiar more HP.

3) However, if I use a RBF, I get damage every round NOT subject to AMF and/or GA. Therefore my RBF lasts much longer and gives out overall more damage over the course of the battle. And depending on the battle length it may not even be close. The only way the IF would do more damage is if the battle lasts 4 or 5 round. Any fewer rounds, neither do any damage. Any more, the RBF does more overall.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 25 2007 2:06 PM EDT

the rbf as is adds a whole new strategy and hopefully counter-strategies. if we make it just like what we already had, then what exactly is the point? i like game altering changes and the opportunities that come with them. if we truly think the game needs no new options then jon might as well retire.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 2:06 PM EDT

If GA is a problem, train DM. AMF, junction NS. Size for size, an IF will do more damage than a RoBF.

The trade off is that the IF can be killed.

Balance. ;)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 2:08 PM EDT

Well said Dude. ;)

PL got fixed from this discussion, so we acheived something. ;)

QBRanger October 25 2007 2:10 PM EDT

GL:

Believe what you want, but I have tested my tattoo as an IF and as a RBF. Vs my fightlist it is not close. The RBF does far more damage over my fightlist.

Constant damage per round not subject to AMF and/or GA.

Put on a high evasion minion, it is quite the powerful thing.

Can anyone without a USD weapon realistically hit Dudemus' character? And without being able to hit him, there is no other option but to try to stalemate. All the time taking damage each round not subject to any counter attack (AMF or GA).

AdminNightStrike October 25 2007 2:11 PM EDT

Can anyone WITH a usd weapon hit? What is the PTH required?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 25 2007 2:13 PM EDT

interestingly enough, historically this item has been controversial since it was first announced. the original name was the holocaust cloak taken from the movie "the princess bride."

when it became available in stores it was called, due to the uproar on the forums, the cloak of balrog flame. it has since then been nerfed, remade into a rune and now unnerfed.

if i am wrong or missed something in the above paragraphs, fault an old man's memory, but this is what i remember of the item so far.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 2:14 PM EDT

To be honest Ranger, I'm not concerned with your fightlist. In the slightest.

The 'broken-ness' of an item shouldn't revolve around who *you* can or can't fight with it.

If you can hit with wepaons, use Magic. Yes the RoBF also absorbs Magic, but you can't use Endurance nor a MgS on it.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 25 2007 2:21 PM EDT

who at this level doesn't have a usd weapon though or usd enhanced character. check my net worth, that is what a non-usd character's net worth looks like at this level. i have never taken money out or put money into this game, other than buying supporter items occasionally and selling them for cb cash that is.

four players beat me regularly, you can see them from the fightlist. others beat me occasionally including sut, mikel and hzarb as well as some others i can't think of at the moment.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 25 2007 2:25 PM EDT

perhaps that is exactly what the question should be. should my character with such low net worth be able to foil characters who have paid so much real life cash to get where they are?

i would like to hope that usd is not the only strategy in cb2 without a counter. i honestly don't see how we can say any one item in the game is overpowered when usd is allowed in the picture. i guess balance is in the eyes of the beholder.

QBsutekh137 October 25 2007 2:29 PM EDT

GL, you can most definitely use an MgS with the RoBF -- just put it on a different minion. Walls are still useful, regardless.

QBRanger October 25 2007 2:30 PM EDT

GL,

I was stating what I noticed with the RBF. Happy Happy Joy Joy that you do not care. But it is what it is. Then all the points Sut and Dudemus are making should be moot as well as they fight the same people I do. Should a "brokenness" of an item only matter for who you alone fight? It seems your trying to state that.

And Dudemus is reinforcing my point. Nobody without USD can beat a Non-USD RBF character. Is that balance?

Well 1 can-NWO but he has a lot more MPR backing things up.

I believe and possible alone believe that the RBF damage should be subject to AMF and GA since it is acting as a DD type of damage. But the RBF does have additional features such as evasion bonus and resistance to DD itself. So making its damage subject to AMF and GA would not ruin it as an option. Just give it a bit more balance-IMO.

But then again, I fight too high up to make observations about items and how they should or should not work, right GL?

QBJohnnywas October 25 2007 2:36 PM EDT

A nice big ToA PTH on top of a decent weapon could have done the trick. Oh wait. The ToA got nerfed didn't it.....;)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 2:39 PM EDT

"GL,

I was stating what I noticed with the RBF. Happy Happy Joy Joy that you do not care. But it is what it is. Then all the points Sut and Dudemus are making should be moot as well as they fight the same people I do. Should a "brokenness" of an item only matter for who you alone fight? It seems your trying to state that."

Ranger, do you not see the difefrence in saying "This Morg does less damage than this Fireball!!! Because i'm hitting teams with zero AMF and 400 AC!".

Come on, you know how to test thing without bias.

"And Dudemus is reinforcing my point. Nobody without USD can beat a Non-USD RBF character. Is that balance?"

Max Tattoo Level too High.

"I believe and possible alone believe that the RBF damage should be subject to AMF and GA since it is acting as a DD type of damage. But the RBF does have additional features such as evasion bonus and resistance to DD itself. So making its damage subject to AMF and GA would not ruin it as an option. Just give it a bit more balance-IMO."

I'm not adverse to more changes to the RoBF. I even suggested a negative to it in another thread.

So if it should be subject to AMF backlash, then it should be Magical damage right and ignore base amrmour?

As for GA, I'd like Jon to comment on that still. ;)

"But then again, I fight too high up to make observations about items and how they should or should not work, right GL?"

No, but you do if you base how they work on how they effect *you* and then claim that to be a general response. Right?

QBsutekh137 October 25 2007 2:40 PM EDT

I will go on record as saying that I completed agree with Ranger's analysis of what he can or cannot do...and that some of it is related to an ingrained system used on his team. I have the same things... My DM dependence, low defense, etc...these are all things that corner me. Ironically, I tried explaining that cornering to Ranger a long, long time ago, and he just told me to adapt. *smile*

So, I see both Ranger's and GL's point. I COMPLETELY believe familiars are hard to run on Ranger's team. same would go for Oxcha... It's not so much that familiars such, is that the ToE rocks. Ranger's build already has no need for an extra kill slot, and his team is based more on tight synergy instead of a rag-tag bunch of odd-sized crazies (like my team).

But GL's point is sounds as well -- just because one team has a hard time with something doesn't mean things are necessarily unbalanced. I still thing the RoBF is a shade on the strong side, but the next few weeks will be full of adaptation.

QBJohnnywas October 25 2007 2:44 PM EDT

From everything I see Jon is intending this to be something other than DD type damage. So AMF ignores it. And it isn't a direct attack. So GA doesn't see it. You're getting hurt by some flames burning around you and the RBF wearer. So AC and endurance should block it. I'm not seeing what's getting people wound up. It's a NEW type of damage is how we should be seeing it. Maybe we should have something else introduced that counters it. Like some kind of Cold enchantment or something....

QBsutekh137 October 25 2007 2:45 PM EDT

Ranger, there is a difference between "beating" and "removing from fightlist". I can beat dudemus's character without USD-based NW. I just lose enough that I have removed him from my list.

PR difference, you say? Well, my DM is worthless against him, and his AMF is perfect against me. His Evasion is also useless against me. When you compare all that, I think it is a blessing that I can beat him more often than not, wouldn't you say?

My useless MPR against dude: Evasion and DM.
dude's uselss MPR against me: Evasion.

My perfectly-suited MPR to beat him: NONE.
dude's perfectly-suited MPR to beat me: AMF.

I'm not saying there aren't issues, but RoBF teams aren't quite THAT unstoppable...

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 2:46 PM EDT

I agree that the only counter to it shouldn't be 'Well use a RoBF'.

But it's not *that* special. It's damage that can't (unlike DD/Familairs) be pumped by items at all (Junction AG for a IF...).

It doesn't ignroe Armour/Endurance.

It's just damage. That is foiled by everything that foils damage.

I guess it's *only* special factor is that it doesn't trigger GA. Aaprt from that, it's no difference to any other damage in the game.

Yes it hits automatically, but it can't hit multiple times.

QBRanger October 25 2007 2:53 PM EDT

GL,

Aside from what I see on my own team, I do observe what else is going on, surprise!

I see people with RBFs on high evasion minions destroying tank based teams without USD. I also see them doing exceptionally well vs mage type teams of equal or higher MPR.

This is the problem I have in a nutshell:

Put a RBF on a minion with AMF and a high evasion, mix in a bit of HP.

They do not have to spend any xp on anything offensive (damage dealing that is). Just pump up 3 things.

The RBF does the damage and is not subject to any counter damage spells such as AMF/GA.

So the RBF minion can sit back, let his AMF lower the potential DD damage so the RBF can completely neutralize it (something new in CB), and evade all non-USD tanks and even some USD tanks.

Since the RBF hits every round without fail-melee rounds only, what offensive spells are needed on such a character?

Unlike Novice who uses a familiar to do most of his damage, the RBF character does not take damage from AMF and/or GA. Violent Femmes familiar does and such spells are quite effective vs him. But the RBF can sit back and play the attrition game and win it almost all the time.

QBsutekh137 October 25 2007 2:55 PM EDT

GL, you are forgetting that it hits every time and _cannot be reduced by AMF_.

Has it been that long since you ran a mage? *smile* AMF __*hurts*__

That is a HUGE difference. It would be the same as having a large weapon that could never miss and could not be reduced by EC. Would you have a problem with that?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 3:03 PM EDT

Now we get to the meat of it. ;) Your original post to me Ranger, was all about the *damage* the tattoo caused. Which I refuted, as it being the lowest damage dealer in the rungs of CBs damage dealers.

It is a powerfully defensive tattoo, as other have already said. It protects against all four types of damage in CB.

1: Physical (by its Evasion)
2: Magical (by it's absorb)
3: Retaliation (by not triggering GA/AMF)
4: Passive Damage (by absorbing other RoBF damage)

It does the lot.

"RBF can completely neutralize it (something new in CB)"

LoL. No. Not new, Endurance has done that from day one. But I digress.

In it's current form, it is the ultimate defensive tool in CB. The damage it provides isn't award winning. It's free damage.

I still say that the MTL is too high. That this free damage wouldn't be an issue if MTL across the board was lowered.

The Damage side of the RoBF is *not* what people should be focussing on, but it's defensive capabilites.

And persoanlly, I like that change from outright offense.

It doesn't absorb Decay, does it?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 3:05 PM EDT

"GL, you are forgetting that it hits every time and _cannot be reduced by AMF_."

It also can't be boosted in any way.

It's the midle ground between Magic and Physical. It can't be reduce, can't be boosted, can't be dodged.

It just it.

;)

QBJohnnywas October 25 2007 3:17 PM EDT

"So the RBF minion can sit back, let his AMF lower the potential DD damage so the RBF can completely neutralize it (something new in CB)"


Sounds exactly like the way you use the ToE and EC Ranger...

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 3:20 PM EDT

What with a MgS to lower Magical as well? ;)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 3:27 PM EDT

If the idea to make it burn everyone, friend and foe alike isn't liked, then as different types of Magical damage are already differentiated (Fire exists as it's own type) then why not make the RoBF weak (or even take more) Damage from CoC?

What I don't like about that, is while both only work in Melee range, CoC can be boosted, especially to hit into Ranged and you can't do anything to augment the RoBF.

You could always make it the front hitting DD familiar, but I think we should either get a new DD to go along with that, or get a Decay familiar first.

Also, i like the differentiation of its damage not being Magical of Physical. Maybe though, we should change it to 'Fire' magical damage, with all the benefits and penalties invovled (like friendly fire, splash damage, AMF reduction if not backlash and ignoring base amrour).

QBRanger October 25 2007 3:32 PM EDT

I use TOE and EC to lower damage.

I do not use them to do damage.

The RBF is an ultimate defensive tool, yes. But it is also quite an offensive tool. Uneffected by AMF and GA. As Sut said, imagine a new weapon that is immune to EC and always hits. We had quite the uproar with the VB that only neutralized 1/2 of endurance and AC. Now imagine something better that neutralized all of a TOE and always hit and gave magic resistance and was immune to GA and gave an evasion bonus.

Last I remember a TOE and MgS cannot completely neutralize damage, that is make it 0.

EC can make damage 0, however it is physical damage which can be made 0 by evading the blow.

Aside from the MTL, as I stated my tattoo does far more damage over the course of a battle, overall vs who I fight then any of the familiars chiefly due to its GA and AMF resistance.

48Zach October 25 2007 3:34 PM EDT

"If the idea to make it burn everyone, friend and foe alike isn't liked, then as different types of Magical damage are already differentiated (Fire exists as it's own type)"

What happened to Fireball!?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 3:38 PM EDT

Endurance can reduce damage to zero. or at least I'm sure I remembered it doing that when it was first first introduced. But I suppose everyone just does too much damage anyway.

Besides EC can reduce physical damage to zero, along with anything else that reduces STR.

Ranger;

"imagine a new weapon that is immune to EC and always hits."

Right. Now imgaine this weapon is x10 +0 which can never ever be changed, nor boosted by skills (Like Bloodlust) or enhancements (Like GS), but continues to grow as your character does. Oh and can only hit once per round. But always hits.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 3:38 PM EDT

"What happened to Fireball!?"

Nothing.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 3:40 PM EDT

"Now imagine something better that neutralized all of a TOE "

Missed that.

What do you mean? the RoBF damage is reduced by Endurance. It has no effect on a ToE...

QBRanger October 25 2007 3:45 PM EDT

Endurance does not reduce damage to 0, it reduces it by a large % but not to 0.

Now the weapon I am typing about is not a x10 but is a rather large nice weapon. I gave the example of my tattoo as a RBF, doing over 1.4M damage per round to a low AC, non-TOE minion.

I am sure Edyit can back me up with his 3.3M tattoo. I believe he does over 800k damage a round to low AC, non-TOE minions.

This is not low damage we are discussing but rather high amounts of damage. Yes, it can be lowered with a TOE and AC, however, if the wearing minion has a huge evasion one will not hit that minion and take 20 round of constant damage unmitigated by AMF and GA.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 4:03 PM EDT

High to what?

You're talking about 3 Million plus Tattoos. 800K a round seems to me, to be paltry compared to what a 3 million plus DD can do...

What does a 3 million + DD Familiar do to non ToE low AC non AMF using foes?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 4:21 PM EDT

"and take 20 round of constant damage unmitigated by AMF and GA."

And my answer would be "So?".

It's 20 rounds of AC/ToE/Protection (and now, rightly so, PL) mitigated damage.

The moment there's something that can boost RoBF damage is the moment I'll be the first asking for a specific way to reduce it.



TheHatchetman October 25 2007 4:28 PM EDT

RoBF is the new ELB.

At least in the "Its powerful and easy to use, but I don't use it, so it's overpowered" philosophy...

QBJohnnywas October 25 2007 4:35 PM EDT

800k damage from a 3.3 million level tattoo? That's pretty pathetic damage really.

But I'm liking the fact that it exists. Especially after a year or so of the ToE/EC combo that also has no real counter in the game. Which is why it's pretty much dominated the upper reaches for a very long time.

;)

QBRanger October 25 2007 4:36 PM EDT

Again GL,

The 3M RBF does 800k a round without vulnerability to AMF and GA.

A SF/IF/FF at that level would be dead most of the time due to AMF or GA.

Yes, there are characters out there who use DM and do not use GA. Great the RBF will work worse then a familiar vs those. But vs the large majority of character that use AMF and/or GA the RBF is non reflected/non backlashed damage.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 25 2007 4:43 PM EDT

from the other thread about rbf being overpowered we saw that koy's current setup reduces that damage (800k) by about 85%. that is without even adapting to the new overpowered damage. now with pl working i would think the counters are adequate.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 25 2007 5:15 PM EDT

Ranger, again;

"800k damage from a 3.3 million level tattoo? That's pretty pathetic damage really."

That pathetic damage is balanced around it *not* being a familair.

If you want to discuss the RoBF, talk about it's defensive aspects. Claim it's too much, protecting from both physical and magic at the same time (like the ToE..). Why doesn't it have an Aura?

Post the fear that you don't like it because people with one with stalemate you (not beating you because of it's damage, I don't think anyone thinks a RoBF can get through your layers of damage reduction) and you won't get any rewards from a stalemate, and that's detrimental to the game.

The damage it can put out, if taken on its own, really is tiny.

QBRanger October 25 2007 5:22 PM EDT

Arrgggg!

The damage a RBF puts out is not insignificant. Just look at Edyit. He wins a lot of his fights just on the damage output of his RBF.

Edyit loses his tank due to Lega's EC. Lega has a TOE but still Edyit beats Lega in less then 20 rounds. AND Lega uses a TOE.

So do not state the damage output of the RBF is tiny, it is quite a lot of unavoidable damage not subject to reduction from a MgS or AMF and not subject to counterattack from GA>

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 25 2007 5:29 PM EDT

and once again the lega has very little ac and all of his items have effects rather than being highly upgradeable ac items. he is robf bait pretty much. everyone keeps comparing teams that haven't adapted at all to a new strategy.

as i have stated multiple times, one thing good about this new layer to the game is that it may force people to decide between effects or ac, or perhaps incorporate them both when we have just been going for the best effects items. ac may mean something again, as someone else mentioned.

TheHatchetman October 25 2007 5:33 PM EDT

/me looks at his freshly bought and upgraded wall gear lovingly :)

QBsutekh137 October 25 2007 6:29 PM EDT

Hm, in that sense I like anything that makes the MgS a tougher choice to make. *smile* Good point.

Tyriel [123456789] October 25 2007 9:05 PM EDT

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread (I have read most, though!), but this is what I have to say:

The problem, I think, is not with the RoBF itself, but with the things it can be used with.

Evasion, AMF, HP, a few pieces of Elven gear, AoF, Protection...

For example, my RoBF team (which has no AMF) can't beat mage teams. Even if I actually had decent HP, I would still probably lose.

The RoBF augments each and every thing in that list, either directly or indirectly, by reducing damage, protecting against one item's weakness, or by increasing that particular thing's effectiveness.

With Evasion, it adds a (very small, probably insignificant) boost, while also helping to protect against Evasion's weakness, which is magic. With AMF, it takes the % reduced damage and hammers it with a flat reduction, as well as providing that very small boost to AMF's weakness, tanks.

Solution? I don't know. One idea could be to change AMF a bit. Make it slightly more linear, where it is harder than it is now to get up to, say 0.25 effect, but it is easier than it is now to get to higher amounts than that. I doubt that would do much, but it seems like something that should help many mages a bit.

Maybe the AoF is too strong? 30% increase to Protection and Evasion for 1.5m NW seems slightly ridiculous to me.

But, then again, what do I know. :)

Lumpy Koala October 25 2007 11:05 PM EDT

I still believe RoBF should remain as is. Even though they are slaughtering me but that's coz I am not going to retrain or restrategize, after all who doesn't slaughter UC ? :)

Now the main thing that bothers me here is actually evasion / WA / PTH complex relationships :P Effective RoBF users tend to be able to maximize evasion potential, and thus leading to impossibility of landing a hit with any weap that's not "specially USD buffed". But you can't just nerf evasion, because WA that "hides" PR tend to make "specially USD buffed" weapons to be so lethal at no cost on PR, I am not going to elaborate what those can do if you don't have evasion.

Relic October 26 2007 2:20 AM EDT

"With AMF, it takes the % reduced damage and hammers it with a flat reduction"

Not true, I get hit for nothing one round and almost full monty the next. The variance in DD can never result in a flat reduction.

TheHatchetman October 29 2007 3:46 AM EDT

It has recently been brought to my attention )meaning i just checked my e-mail) that I had a response deleted from this thread for the reason of "baiting" someone. I meant no harm by the comment, and have no problems with the person involved in the comment, and I'm almost certain they read it, and they didn't complain. Just making a little joke. Sorry if it was taken the wrong way...

Bariagan November 8 2007 2:13 PM EST

The fact this strategy works is disturbing to me:

http://www.carnageblender.com/inspect_opponent.tcl?opponent_id=110612

My ncb was getting crushed, but we are about the same MPR so I wasn't too frustrated. Then I decided to try one of my older characters.

Belkram
cast Antimagic Field on Leto (0.68)
cast Antimagic Field on Bariagan (0.45)
cast Antimagic Field on Ranthor (0.94)

Belkram with a 318k magic missile (4.2 million experience) on Leto hit for 0 damage every round.

Bariagan's Cone of Cold hit [142988] - level 580k (6.5 million experience + items)
Finally hit and killed him.

Other char- Bariagan (magic damage nil)
UC character w/ gear
305k dex, UC effect of +78
Missed the first two rounds of melee before hitting and killing him.

W/o gear
Dex 235k and UC effect of +36
Missed every round and Character lost.

Granted, UC is not the most effective of weapons but TestChar2 is 200k mpr below Bariagan and something like 600k mpr below Belkram, and he is able to completely negate my MM damage and almost negate the COC, in addition to severely reducing the ability of my UC tank to hit despite full gear.

I was able to win, but as the difference in MPR closes I will clearly lose.

By not having to train hp, TestChar2 can concentrate 50% exp into AMF and 50% into evasion.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 8 2007 2:18 PM EST

Single minion equaliser to multi minion teams.

Finally! ;)

What? You've got your Auras! :P

Bariagan November 8 2007 2:39 PM EST

That only reinforces my point. The single minion works so much better because of xp concentration. The robf allows such an extreme concentration by eliminating the need for hp.

I have about 7.6 million total exp on my NCB and I am 20k mpr above TestChar2. So there is probably 3.3 million exp in both evasion and AMF.

Normally this would fail because at least some magic damage would get through and kill off the 20hp. This in turn would require some dilution into hp, opening up a weakness.

The ROBF eliminates that requirement because of how it reduces magic damage. Changing that to a percentage, even a very high percentage, would level the field somewhat.

Ulord[NK] November 8 2007 4:14 PM EST

With regards Bariagan's post:

I'm currently running a single minion robf character and in my experience, it is definitely counterable. Coc is my worst enemy. without the damage spread, Coc reaches uncontainable level of damage in melee rounds with reasonable power gap. Tank damage can only be limited as far as their hits can be dodged. That would be why your uc character had trouble hitting. A high pth is needed to land a hit or two and it doesn't take more than one hit to kill such an opponent.

Now take a tank for example, if you have enough pth and dex to hit, say 10% of times, and all my robf battles last till their late teens (let's take 15 rounds for illustration purposes), your chance of losing to such a set up is only 0.9^15 = 20.59%.

Granted this person is pretty stacked with item (big db etc), but a single tank with very stacked item and a good mage seeker would be equally unconquerable.

I find that training 20% into hp on my robf character is very effective as if I can tank 2 hits instead of 1, my chance of winning increase drastically. Take the same example I gave above, if I can take two hits, my chance of loss is: 0.9^15 + 0.1*15*0.9^14 = 54.90% (this is calculated with binomial distribution). So the 0 hp strategy is not the best strategy in my opinion, even with the accelerated evasion and amf growth, a bit of hp helps a lot (against tanks especially).

All that being said, I have to agree the robf strategy is simple and incredibly powerful. I have been training from the very start using a base robf and I am able to retain 80-100% challenge bonus without extra equipment. That is a godsend for a restarting cb vet such as myself with the nub bonus. Whether that is balanced or not is for Jon to decide...

Ulord[NK] November 8 2007 4:16 PM EST

I apologize for the double posting. I meant to say "without nub" at the last section. I'll proofread my post more next time...

Bariagan November 8 2007 5:38 PM EST

Ulord[NK], have you tried untraining all of the hp and adding it to amf and evasion?

I can loan you gear for a few hours to round off your character if you want to do a test (corn, AoF, EB), even without retraining hp the results would be interesting.

I wonder if AMF, Evasion, and Protection (perhaps 1/10th into protection?) would work better than just AMF and Evasion. It would benefit from the corn and further reduce magic damage before the ROBF.

Still think it is overly powerful.

Ulord[NK] November 8 2007 7:21 PM EST

I tried untraining all my hp before. The result was not too good. The main problem for me came from tanks. Granted I did not have a huge evasion then and I do not have db, but the problem should be the same at a higher level. Say if you need to face weapons with +150 pth and big ToA, then you need extra evasion to counter them. Since ROBF deals damage rather slowly, even a small chance for their tank to hit you per shot, as I illustrated (10%), would result in a rather poor win rate if you can't survive a single hit.

I imagine if you rent me a big db right now, my score will go up quite a bit, since at my level, not many people have very large pth. ( I still find ToA characters intimidating to attack because they tend to hit me even at half my evasion level as dex). I would do better say if I rent db, AoI and eg. The problem is why would I bother? I already have close to maximum reward. Half my fight list gives me 100% challenge bonus. Fighting any higher is just vanity. In fact, challenging higher opponents mean I run the risk of losing, wasting otherwise productive ba that could go into earning me 100% reward. In this aspect, robf is amazingly efficient for a lower level character such as mine.

As for protection, I'll definitely train it, but not until its needed level (around 60k i think?) is a smaller proportion of my total experience needs (my amf is still only under 100k at the minute). Also, protection is wasted experience against any dm team, which I fight a lot of since I'm best against small damage, multiple minion teams.

lostling November 8 2007 7:45 PM EST

focused training can only lead to a very painful fall in the later MPRs... as you get higher and higher so does exp per level... hence the need for divestification later on. its only a matter of time for its downfall... as it goes on with ROBF as the only damage dealer... the tattoo only increases at a fixed rate while other people are growing both their other stats and their tattoos

Ulord[NK] November 8 2007 8:07 PM EST

lostling's point is true. A single minion robf team is not the best setup for high level competition. It can't stand up to a concentrated coc or even a big fb. Since using mage shield and eh is out of question, you can never hope to level robf damage reduction against the damage curve of a coc focus fired on you. A four minion team with good use of damage spread, pl and walls can be fairly effective at nullifying magic damage. And if you spend enough on db and make use of ec, you might even survive the tank blows. But I'm not qualified to discuss that as I have no high level characters.

QBRanger November 8 2007 8:13 PM EST

Yes, certainly Dudemus' character is very ill equipped to fight at the highest level of competition in CB.

61M NW and is only defeatable by 4 or 5 other characters in the entire game.

Yes, single minions using the RBF will certainly fail at high MPR, Dudemus is a testament to that point.

Now, I suggest you read the entire post as I hope my sarcasm is very obvious.

Ulord[NK] November 8 2007 8:18 PM EST

Good point ranger :).

Like I said, I'm unqualified to discuss about the high level competition. Seeing the number of posts on the subject as of late, I really don't have to join the crowd of dead horse beaters. I was just replying to Bariagan's post earlier and it wander off a little. Now I'll go hide in my corner and enjoy the great rewards while it lasts.

lostling November 8 2007 8:33 PM EST

i certainly never said it was at that MPR... or that we are even there yet...
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=002Fox">RoBF ruins the paper/rock/scissors balance</a>