Defensive Ammo (in General)

lostling October 29 2007 11:22 PM EDT

i think its time we do away with this... its overpowered and everyone knows it...

lostling October 29 2007 11:23 PM EDT

not saying do away with naming ammo but just make everything permanently base

Nerevas October 29 2007 11:34 PM EDT


lostling October 29 2007 11:40 PM EDT


TheHatchetman October 29 2007 11:41 PM EDT

don't make it all base, as i know a few who use upgraded ammo on the regular because they need it to win. But stopping x's and +'s at 10 sounds reasonable...

lostling October 29 2007 11:46 PM EDT

i say make it base due to the fact that people use it as defensive ammo... even stopping at 10 would not curb that problem.... if i have an evasion of 150 and you have a total CTH + PTH of 140 you could just use +4 ammo to hit me 2% of the time... however for me to increase that 2 effective levels of evasion it would take me ALOT of exp

QBRanger October 30 2007 12:03 AM EDT

I have always advocated not being able to upgrade ammo.

However I do believe that if people wish to name them a bonus should apply.

Hyrule Castle October 30 2007 12:11 AM EDT

how about naming = infinite amount of ammo for said period of time with no bonus...or is that too overpowered...(sorry dont buy ranged ammo enough know if thats a good deal or not)

QBRanger October 30 2007 12:33 AM EDT

It really is not a big deal to buy ammo and keep it well in stock now.

Soxjr October 30 2007 10:02 AM EDT

figure what the naming allows. If it is equivalent to x3 +3 or something <guesses> then allow all ammo to be upgraded to x3 +3 so that the normal joe can upgrade his ammo to equal named ammo. but named stays base? That way no ammo can go over that amount? but of course named stays free to merge where people without named have to pay to get the same effect.

QBJohnnywas October 30 2007 11:08 AM EDT

Upgraded ammo in the name of defense. How many people are using it? Those people that are, well, they're paying to win in defense. It's costing them everytime they win. Now, if it is hurting you then don't fight them. Take them off your fightlist, or go past them when you're burning up BA. It's not difficult. If nobody's fighting them when they're equipping ugraded ammo then they're not gaining anything.

If they're using it when they're fighting, well again every win is costing them; and that big damage they're doing is simply rented damage. Unless they have bottomless pockets not many players can afford to keep up that kind of spending. It's a temporary situation.

You could view it as the ability to buy XP/Cash but how much does it cost a player to boost ammo? Are the rewards actually worth all that much?

I don't see what the problem is personally. Now, if you all could name players who do it and what a problem they're causing you right now, and what imbalance they're inputting into the game I might care a bit more. ;)

QBJohnnywas October 30 2007 11:22 AM EDT

I'm actually interested to know who's causing problems by upgrading ammo. I can't speak for un-named ammo, but upgraded Named ammo is only being used by a few people.

It's only really Freed who is using upgraded damage (there are some on a lower level char Fantastic Four belonging to X. The other named ammos that are upgraded and in use are on the PTH and belong to Ranger, Nightstrike, Dreaded Tiger and Barzoo. The biggest of those is +10 on the PTH.

As I said I can't speak for un-named ammo, but it's hardly an epidemic is it?

Rubberduck[T] [Hell Blenders] October 30 2007 11:23 AM EDT

"Upgraded ammo in the name of defense. How many people are using it? Those people that are, well, they're paying to win in defense. It's costing them everytime they win. Now, if it is hurting you then don't fight them. Take them off your fightlist, or go past them when you're burning up BA. It's not difficult. If nobody's fighting them when they're equipping ugraded ammo then they're not gaining anything."

They are only paying to win in defense if they would win without upgrading or the cost of the ammo used is more than the reward, they get extra xp whatever the cost may be. The gain for preventing attacks is measured in CP.

Rubberduck[T] [Hell Blenders] October 30 2007 11:30 AM EDT

Jon's comment on defensive ammo from this thread -

"I think defensive ammo is lame but the only solution I tried was worse than the problem. So this is an open research area for me. :)"

QBJohnnywas October 30 2007 11:36 AM EDT

*adds Yukk to list of upgraded PTH users*

lostling October 30 2007 11:39 AM EDT

what was the solution may i ask? kinda interested to know lol

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 30 2007 11:46 AM EDT

if i am not mistaken, that would be equipment cool down periods. in effect, if you removed an item, you could not re-equip that item until a certain amount of time passed.

QBJohnnywas October 30 2007 11:46 AM EDT

The solution Jon put in place was a cooldown period. Once you removed items from a char you couldn't put them back on for 8 hours. It was 'introduced' in May 2005. However it didn't work properly until December 2005.....;)

AdminJonathan October 30 2007 11:48 AM EDT


QBJohnnywas October 30 2007 11:52 AM EDT

lol, that makes it look like old swirly head is unhappy. Dunno why that should amuse me so but it does!

The only real way to stop defensive ammo is to do away with upgradeability. But then do you do away with the ability to name ammo as well?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 30 2007 11:55 AM EDT

someone above suggested non-upgradeable ammo and named ammo would then act like the "inexhaustible arrows" of olden days. with all of the changes to ammo would that still be overpowered as it was back then?

Relic October 30 2007 12:05 PM EDT

I fully agree that upgraded ammo should be removed, however naming should give a slight bonus, but named ammo should not be inexhaustible. Think of ex-shots *shudder*.

QBJohnnywas October 30 2007 12:14 PM EDT

Oooh, inexhaustible ex shots..........drooolss......

Now I'm not one to cry overpowered. But that would be overpowered! I'm good at getting hold of those slippery little critters, but if you only had to catch them once and name them....that's worse than upgrading ammo!

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 30 2007 12:19 PM EDT

hmm, i had forgotten about explosive shot. the effect of explosive shots could be weapon based rather than ammo?

Maelstrom October 30 2007 12:22 PM EDT

If ammo is being used defensively, then it should have a PR weight similar to armour.

Base ammo shouldn't affect PR, but the weight should be large, so that as you upgrade ammo more, it drastically affects your PR.

AdminNightStrike October 30 2007 2:22 PM EDT

Just so we're all on the same page.....

Upgraded ammo != defensive ammo

That needs to be very clear. I, for one, use +3 ammo offensively, and I use it effectively.

deifeln October 30 2007 2:27 PM EDT

why use +3 for attack...wouldn't a bow upgrade be better in the long run?

QBRanger October 30 2007 2:36 PM EDT

I use +5 ammo all the time.

And in response, for me to upgrade my MsB 15 to match that bonus it would cost
over 9 million cb2. The arrows are far cheaper in the long run.

deifeln October 30 2007 2:38 PM EDT

Are they in the long run? If CB2 is around for the next 3 years...maybe not.

deifeln October 30 2007 2:39 PM EDT

Upgraded ammo might keep you under a WA, however.

QBJohnnywas October 30 2007 2:46 PM EDT

I'm confused. So it's ok to use upgraded ammo offensively, but for defense is wrong? Where's the distinction between the two? What makes it ok for one but not the other?

QBRanger October 30 2007 2:47 PM EDT

It is 2.77 CB2 to upgrade 1 arrow from +0 to +5

So for 9 million CB2 I can upgrade 3,250,000 arrows.

Using let us say 10 per battle is 325,000 battles, which at the current rate of play is about 500 days for fighting.

In the loooong run, perhaps spending 9 million cb2 is worth it, but for now, upgradeable ammo is a better buy. Even considering the price of CB has been dropping.

QBRanger October 30 2007 2:48 PM EDT


When you use ammo for offensive your spending it, whether you win or lose.

Using defensive ammo is just to get those occasional wins from defensive or to keep someone from farming you. You are not spending all that ammo. Someone may make a set of x100 +100 ammo to use to scare off those higher characters from beating them when they are away, but certainly one will not use such ammo to attack. Except for perhaps 1 person.

QBJohnnywas October 30 2007 2:58 PM EDT

OK, I get your point on that now. I'm still not sure I agree that one is ok and the other isn't. And from a practical point of view, that is Jon's point of view, you're kind of making it difficult to sort out a solution to the problem. If upgrading ammo is ok for aggression, then how do you stop it being usable for defense? My own personal view is that if you have upgradeability then people should be free to use that function how they see fit. For me it still comes back to getting rid of that upgrade function to get rid of defensive ammo.

Plus I still don't see that it's a plague on CB. Oh well, que sera sera and all that... ;)

AdminNightStrike October 30 2007 7:58 PM EDT


+9 on my bow is about $8m CB2.


Defensive ammo is just a symptom of the larger issue -- defensive setups in general. The reason they are so bothersome is that someone can easily use a strat that makes him invincible while on the defensive (but that perhaps results in only stalemates), and use a strat that lets him win against a few people on the offensive, but that leaves him wide open to being attacked by many. This is unfair in that the theoretical player is existing in multiple states at once, upsetting the balance of the game.

If someone could use x100 +100 ammo for offense as well as defense, more power to him! But when a player creates a setup that is totally impractical in the offense and uses it entirely for the defense, it *significantly* changes the game dynamic. THAT is where the issue is -- the game dynamic, and the disruption that a defensive setup creates. Like any other exploit, it's not meant to be.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 30 2007 9:27 PM EDT

Just like my other thread, and the poll, get rid of ammo amounts.

Name *one*, just *one* good thing they actually bring to CB anymore.

Quivers/Pouches would be so much better. Allow them to be named (as they take an item slot) and apply the naming bonus.

Yukk October 30 2007 9:52 PM EDT

I also use +3 ammo offensively. The cost is approximately 1CB per arrow. To add +9 to my bow would cost more than 5 million arrows at that rate. I don't think it's unreasonable, but then I probably don't even need it anymore. It's what I raised it to ages ago and what I've kept it at since.

Relic October 30 2007 9:58 PM EDT

There are many cases where USD/CB2 can completely nullify good old hard work and high MPR, upgraded ammo can, quite cheaply imo, remove a huge trained evasion. It also gives ranged rounds even more advantage due to the massive amounts of damage that ranged already does. I voted to remove upgrading and give a naming bonus to named ammo. I do not think we should make it inexhaustible, that will allow tanks even more leverage in CB2 funds to make weapon upgrades. You can't use CB2 to upgrade your DD, it shouldn't be the case that we introduce more ability for tanks to pump their already huge weapons.
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=002GHC">Defensive Ammo</a>