Magic damage reduction is too much (in General)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 7 2007 7:14 PM EST

I thought I'd made this thread already, but I don't think I actually posted it. :( Bear with me if this rambles, I should wait till tomorrow and write it up at work, but I'm impatient. ;)

Magic damage reduction is too much.

I said as much in a recent RoBF thread, and a few people have been saying this for a while (I think I originally mentioned this when the MgS was first introduced). The RoBF is the final nail in the coffin.

We have (in order of application, please correct me if any are wrong, or I've missed anything);

AC+ Direct
AC+ Percentage
Tattoo Reduction (ToE/RoBF)

It's too much. Nothing else in the game suffers from this much stacked reduction (I know you can't benefit from things like a RoBF and a MgS at the same time).

Why is the RoBF the final nail in the coffin?

It's direct reduction at the end (bar PL if anything gets through...) of percentile reducitons. That's a receipe for disaster. While we already have direct damage reduction in the game (I incorrectly said Endurance, it is infact a small amount from AC) it's a relatively same amount, only noticed in the very beginning stages of the game and isn't at the end of the routine.

So after your Magic damage has been reduced by AMF, Spread across multiple targets, reduced by AC and Protection, it can then be mopped up by a growing direct reduction, that is not capped at a threshold of damage absorbed, unlike Endurace.

In what way can we honestly expect Magic to compete?

Focusing on the RoBF briefly. If you compare CoC to the damage the RoBF can put out, an equal sized CoC should be doing slightly over 5 times the amount. This isn't usually the case, not due to the amount of damage caused by the Rune, but the sheer amount of reduction CoC goes thorugh.

Instead of requiring the use of masive amounts of Evasion to combat large PTH weapons, Magic damage could and in my opinion should, be the other viable option. But it just can't get thorugh such stacked reductions.

Imagine using CoC and getting hit by a 50% reduction (AMF), then 75% (Spread over 4 minions), another 15% reduction (AC+), then 20% (Protection) leaving you with about 8.5% of your original damage potential to be absorbed by a direct reduction from a RoBF...

Isn't it time something is done about Magic Damage reduction?

(Yes EC and EXBows can have a massive impact on Physical damage, if you can reduce your targets Strength to zero, but that's a different topic. :p)

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 7 2007 7:21 PM EST

i agree. that is one reason i went with the robf, seeing the major reduction at the top.

in one of the robf threads someone said something, in response to me i believe, about capping robf damage reduction. i know jon has avoided caps but is it possibly time to add damage reduction caps across the board in cb?
should some amount of damage always get through and if so, how much?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 7 2007 7:22 PM EST

Or if it stays as a direct reduction, move it to the very front of the queue.

Preferably before AMF reduction, but that's not really possible, buy at least up with the MgS before AC/Protection.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] November 7 2007 7:24 PM EST

EH, don't forget the EH.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 7 2007 7:32 PM EST

Thanks! I did. :(

So it's;

AC+ Direct
AC+ Percentage
Tattoo Reduction (ToE/RoBF)

chuck1234 November 7 2007 8:20 PM EST

that spread of yours versus,

Displacement boots [+naming]
AoI [20+1 naming]

You can nerf pretty high weapon PTH + ToA the higher you set your DBs.

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] November 7 2007 8:31 PM EST

Bleh now for my input....
Regis cast Antimagic Field on Juggernaut (0.09) Very few people have a better ratio than this.

Juggernaut's Cone of Cold hit Cattie Brie [261317], Regis [317140], Bruenor [393557], Wulfgar [140873] <--- Biggest CoC + 4 minon spread
Wulfgar <--- 318 ac with a +40 mgs
Juggernaut's Cone of Cold hit Cattie Brie [319885], Regis [396444], Wulfgar [176754] <--- Biggest CoC with 3 minion spread
Juggernaut's Cone of Cold hit Cattie Brie [842134], Wulfgar [253023] <--- Biggest CoC + Two minion spread
Juggernaut's Cone of Cold hit Wulfgar [508451] <--- Biggest CoC + One minion WITH 318 ac AND +40 MGS

There are plenty of counters for Magic reduction... but when the biggest Coc in the game is being reduced by over 50% and still dealing half a mil damage a hit to a heavily armored and magic reduced minion... Thats where I draw a line about all the complaints that magic users have... Try to build a huge DD spell this big and use it, then see what gets reduced. Lower end yes there is alot of reduction... and with the smaller DD spells it is quite easy to reduce to almost nil... But try the same thing higher up and most of the time magic reduction is reduced or overwhelmed.

QBRanger November 7 2007 9:24 PM EST

"Imagine using CoC and getting hit by a 50% reduction (AMF)"

Who get .5 AMF vs a high CoC mage?

The highest AMF's at the top vs Sut's FB or Conundrum's CoC or even NWO's MM are less then .3. And that is not counting DM characters that cast AMF for 0.00.

And not every character uses a MgS or EH.

You have your counter to all the layers of magic reduction-The RBF. It is not susceptible to AMF, MgS, EH, or even spread. AND it is not vulnerable to GA.

While one can reduce physical's damage to 0. Or using evasion make it impossible to hit without a USD backed weapon, even with a massive dex advantage using a TOA. Without a RBF one cannot do the same to magic damage.

So, let us remove the layers of magic damage and let Conundrum's CoC do over 2M damage to every minion in a 4 minion character. Or let Sut's Fireball do 1M to each minion starting with the first missile round. Now that is a solution!

QBOddBird November 7 2007 9:40 PM EST

I can't believe anyone is still arguing that this is anything close to balanced.

Drama [Just for fun] November 7 2007 9:43 PM EST

The only reduction I got is a 3 minion spread , a 600k ToE, a low ac and the best CoC of the game only does. Juggernaut's Cone of Cold hit La douceur [399941], Belle-Ange [433033], Bouclier d'amour [300945]. Imagine with a high spell reduction.

PoisoN November 7 2007 9:46 PM EST

I'd be glad if the AMF thing would be changed a bit. This for example is a possible .47 AMF effect.

Noise takes damage from his own Magic Missile (230743)!
Noise's Magic Missile hit the pacifist [20631]

Noise takes damage from his own Magic Missile (230743)!
Noise's Magic Missile hit the pacifist for no damage

MgS well its overpowered, same opinion as on the day of its evil arrival. Problem of most anti mage items is, that there is no equivalent to block say 30% of a MS or MH.

QBRanger November 7 2007 9:48 PM EST


Let us compare magic to physical damage reduction methods:

AC+ Direct
Tattoo Reduction (ToE/RoBF)

AC (more effective then vs magic as ENTIRE AC counts not just the plus)
Tattoo Reduction (ToE)
Ethereal Chains


Which has more ways to reduce or even avoid the damage? I count more on the physical side.

In fact many on the physical side and make you take 0 damage. Which is a tougher nut to crack? Someone with 400 AC and a TOE vs someone with a +40 MgS and a TOE?

Mages complain about the MgS, well I will start my complaining about the 400AC/TOE minions where my 205M MH does less then 50k damage a hit. Sut's fireball still does 200k damage a round to my tank on a 2 minion spread and over 750k vs my tank when it is solo. Not too shabby considering I use a +49 MgS.

There are plenty of ways to defeat tanks, just because one does not want to spend the xp into evasion or Ethereal chains, or does not want to spend the NW to compete with tanks upping their DB's does not mean something is broken.

Rubberduck[T] [Hell Blenders] November 7 2007 9:48 PM EST

I wonder why the rbf was made the way it is? Perhaps as a counter to some of the many things called overpowered on here? AMF combined with DD reduction (esp MgS), large EC, the big Ax/EX bows, archery.

Anyway RoBF is probably a bit too good, so too MgS - could do with a reduction, maybe 2/3 of what it does now.

QBsutekh137 November 7 2007 10:50 PM EST

First off, if you are going to include PL, you need to include some other things: TSA and VA.

And if you are going to talk about counters, you need to talk about counters that can be USED.

I should use an exbox or axbow, Ranger? Hm, how? Only tanks can use those effectively.

DBs? Evasion? Every bit as useful for a tank as a mage.

The litmus is: "What can be used by one THAT CANNOT BE USED BY THE OTHER."

The pro-mage list just all but disappeared.

And let's not forget about all that can stack (that's GL's OP point):

Against Mages:

Stance (MM is the only full fire, but it fires back to front). Decay is intriguing, but also useless.

(GL, I am not counting spread. Spread could be as useful as it is useless. The only reason it is currently useless is because of thresholding).

Against Tanks:


AoI and Stance cancel out. Well, except for spread, but spread is useless currently.

What else? What am I missing?

Ranger, the proof is in the pudding. If a mage stance could be all-winning, you would be using it. In your RoBF analysis it was clear you are seeing what you can use to beat the most with the least. I even supported your thread on that.

You can really look this thread in the eye and say there is no imbalance? After coming out against the RoBF and agreeing with raising the MgS PR factor? I don't get it.

QBRanger November 7 2007 11:03 PM EST

What about AC/TOE vs tanks?
Some mages have done that in the past with very good results.

PL/TSA works vs tanks just as well as vs mages.
Protection works vs tanks and mages.
AC in fact is far better vs tanks then mages.
The RBF I believe works better vs tanks then mages as you can pump up evasion and never be hit. Even with all the magic reduction I have, I still take tons of damage vs your FB (down to 2 or 1 minion), and NWO's MM.

What about changing your DM to a huge EC, then most tanks would be useless vs you?

There are many counters to tanks, you choose to use one-evasion. Get a huge set of DBs on Hubbell, perhaps my 201s and we will see how you do. Let me know if you want to try mine, I can easily loan them to you.

QBRanger November 7 2007 11:06 PM EST

And I would be a mage character if it were not for the stupid seekers/Mageseeker bow.

You full well know my stance on this item. I use it, well since it is there and I would be giving up a lot of damage not to.

QBRanger November 7 2007 11:19 PM EST


I'll make you a deal. If you can get everyone in the top 30 to ditch their MgSs for a day, then you will see how powerful DD damage is and how mages will rule the game without them. Especially with evasion as it is. I doubt anyone can hang with you as a tank, given your evasion, without one.

So, if you want to nerf the MgS, then what about evasion? Only the super archers like Mikel (and only he) would have a chance vs you.

Remember AC vs mages is pathetic. Only the + helps and overall not that much. The TOE does but also works for mages vs tanks.

Shall we get to the root of the problem and bypass this crud: Archery and missile damage is still too high. Therefore evasion has to be quite high and overpowered. Therefore vs most normal weapons, mages get many rounds of "free, always hitting" attacks. Therefore something has to be done to allow normal and melee tanks to survive. Hence, the MgS, with its restrictions. Not huge but still some.

So the basic problem is missile damage is too much, and the vicious cycle begins.

But if you plan to nerf the MgS, then you have to lower evasion. Without it, mages will have no peer.

Iluvatar[NK] November 7 2007 11:52 PM EST

I agree with Ranger's analysis of ranged damage as too strong. Similarly, I concur with his cyclical interpretation of strategic necessity. Unfortunately, it's become somewhat accepted.

While I am a strong advocate for changes to the status quo, I highly doubt a major restructuring of missile damage is in order. It is unfortunate.

QBsutekh137 November 8 2007 12:09 AM EST


You agreed about an MgS nerf in that the PR factor should be higher.

Is that no longer the case? I have a very dificult time finding consistency in your arguments from day to day.

RoBF is more effective vs tanks? Oh dear, I haven't had a good laugh this week, so I appreciate that. You're out of touch (and I don't often get to tell you that). Did you remove anyone from your fight list due to RoBF? I did.

Sure, I could exchange this for that, and these for those -- like with anything, this isn't about a specific character vs. character. It's about averages. Actually, my EC (if DM were exchanged) would be smaller than yours. Plus, I would lose to NWO and Dixie Cousins without DM. Straight up. I already beat most other tanks. So what's your point?

MgS foils only mages. Can you refute that? Does the MgS _need_ to exist? Would CB fall apart without it?

Do mages have anything remotely like VA?

Can mages realistically use specialty crossbows to fight tanks?

Do mages have any other items or skills or enchantments they can use to differentiate themselves from tanks?

Do mages have anything to spend money other than AGs and CoI (mage-specific) and DBs (anyone can use)?

Do tanks have an enchantment against them that can kill them?

Can mages do anything to hit multiple times?

Some obvious tank counterpoints:

Do tanks have a way of getting a guaranteed hit?

Do tanks have an easy way around Evasion?

Can tanks use NW to help attack-strength without getting dinged in PR (oh wait, yeah they sure can. All hail the WA!).


Are there other tank beefs? Let's hear them! It's funny, there have been several threads, just in the past few days, about mage issues. I cannot think of the last time anyone posted about poor tanks. Why is that? Is there not some proof in that pudding, Ranger? If nothing else, CB folks know the power and ability of dissent. So where are the "poor tank" threads? Is it statistically feasible that mage-runners are just more prone to be whiners? That doesn't make sense.

Mage folks lament mage issues because they are lamentable. Counter that.

Mikel November 8 2007 12:52 AM EST

Ranger agrees the PR should be upped, but not a damage reduction nerf. I don't see what is so complicated about that.

RoBF + high evasion can and will make tanks do zero damage every time. At least a mage can keep firing at them.

His point is you always complain about tanks, but you aren't using everything at your disposal to beat tanks. NWO and DC are not in the tank category, so they are irrelevant to your Tank argument that you keep bringing up.

With out the Mage Shield, Tanks would have a much tougher time trying to defeat mages. I only win vs mages because my Mage Wall lasts long enough for me to kill all of their minions. Would the game die if it wasn't there? Maybe not, but I'd need to convert my Elb to a Mage Seeker in order to survive. Yet, you don't want that Item in the game either.

Mages can use a TSA which is the closest they can get to a VA, ToA tanks can't use the TSA + VA.

Yes and no, Only CoC mages can use the exbow/ax bows. You can put those items on a non DD minion. You can also pump the + to a very high level, you don't need a ton of dex to get a guaranteed hit and as Ranger has pointed out before, a small damage hit can reduce his ST fast.

Yes, Mages have items that a specific to them. Skills anyone can train. Your strat is what dictates what skill you can use.

Spending money on DB's will help you with any strat you decide to go with. And it is also cheaper to pump just DB's vs DB's, Weapons & AC. Stop being so cheap.

GA kills both tanks and mages, and tanks will have more xp dilution than Mages. So a big DM is easier for Mages to have than for a Tank to have.

Mages can not do anything to hit multiple times, but at the same time, you get a guaranteed hit everytime, where as tanks run into evasions that will give them zero hits. I consider it a Higher risk/reward scenario vs mages.

The only way tanks can get a guaranteed hit is to have enough PtH, which costs a lot of USD at the top.

PtH and/or EC gets around evasion and is the only thing that can.

Yes and no, we get dinged if we have high NW stat enhancing items such as BG's or Tulks.

I hope I didn't miss anything.

Mikel November 8 2007 1:03 AM EST

Btw: Mages can use a TSA which is the closest they can get to a VA, ToA tanks can't use the TSA + VA.

Not all tanks use/get VA, so I'm in the same boat as mages where I need high HP to avoid killing myself.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 8 2007 3:20 AM EST

Guys, if you want to Talk about Physical Damage reduction and the binary nature of that, please make another thread, or even if you want to compare the balance of power in the game currently.

This is about the stacking amount of Magical damage reduction layers and the pure foley of having a direct reduction at the end of the routine.

If you *really* want to compare, where's the direct reduction at the end of the percentage Physical reductions? But please, take it to another thread.

The reason I chose 50% AMF in my OP was that is the effect of an equal AMF to equal DD. If you don't hit that in game, tough. Train more. ;)

QBRanger November 8 2007 6:37 AM EST


Your typing about stacked reduction.

Here is stacked reduction for you in physical:

AC 400/TOE/Protection. Then layer in PL (after), EC (before) and specialty xbows (before). Try to do any damage to Oxcha with physical damage. In fact, only the VB and a high CoC can beat him. Which is easier to get/maintain?

Tanks have just as much "layers" of reduction as tanks. I see nothing wrong with the "layers" of magic reduction.

It seems a far better title for this thread would be "Down with the MgS-Again".

And I know of NOBODY that gets a .5 AMF vs the FBs, MMs and CoCs of equal MPR. That is a pipe dream. If someone did that, they would have no offense themselves. Or they would have to use a RBF. Which is what this game will be shortly. RBF vs RBF as it has almost no layers of damage reduction.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 8 2007 6:45 AM EST


Physical has the VB. It's an option. there's no comparison for Magic Damage.

And, the biggie you still miss, there's no direct reduction after the plethora of percentage reductions for Physical damage.

Yes facing 400 AC (and how muhc of that isn't enchancment AC?), the ToE, then Protection will reduce your damage to tiny amounts.

It will do exactly the same to Magical damage.


But, then Magical damage get's absorbed to nothing by linear direct reduction that is no capped.

Mikel November 8 2007 7:55 AM EST

Well if that +400 AC minion's team has no AMF then what is decay for?
It can do more damage in just a couple of rounds so that you can kill it with a low end damage output. I consider Decay the same as VB, works against some, but useless against others.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 8 2007 8:07 AM EST

Decay can be utterly stopped by a front 20 HP E with an AoI.

Plus no matter how much armour it cuts through, it can never kill. Unlike the VB.

Decay is interesting, but far to limited.

QBRanger November 8 2007 8:40 AM EST

FB or COC combined with decay is incredible.

Just ask Novice.

And with the NS, even a base decay can do a lot of damage.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 8 2007 9:17 AM EST

And base Decay combined with the RoBF or Physical can be just as good.

I'm not trying to deny that Decay, combined with other attacks isn't a good strategy, or has no use.

But I will say this.

Decay coupled with Physical can whittle the HP of a High Mititgation target down to killing levels.

If that target has a RoBF, then no matter how small Decay brings thier HP down to, because the RoBF absorbs RoBF/Magical damage, after damage reduction, it becomes nearly impossible for these types of damage to kill the target.

Again, the whole point is that the direct reduction at the end of so much percentage reductions is a bad thing.

QBRanger November 8 2007 9:19 AM EST

Decay with physical sucks badly.

Why? The 20 hp enchanter in front with an AOI avoids all the physical damage blows and your decay does nothing.

But use a FB to remove those pesky 20 hp enchanters in front and viola--clear path to the heavy tank in back.

Yes, one can then type about ex shots but that is like a mini-fireball.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 8 2007 9:23 AM EST

Strategy counters!

Who'd have thought it....

QBRanger November 8 2007 9:44 AM EST


Which is why mages are a very viable option in CB.

Nothing bad about playing a mage. While mages have to worry about the damage reduction from the MgS, tanks have to worry about DB's and evasion.

I see no big unbalance except now for the RBF.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 8 2007 9:55 AM EST

It's the order of the Direct reduction. I wanted to stay away from Physical/Magical comparisons, but i'll go there. ;)

Physical Direct reductions all come *before* the percentage reductions.

EC and EXbows are first. Then Armour, etc, after.

But for Magic, it's percentage first, be it AMF, Spreading, MgS/EH or Armour+/Protection, then the Direct reduciton.

It's this order of reductions that has killed Magic damage.

QBRanger November 8 2007 9:57 AM EST

EC and exbows are a nice % reduction. Get the strength very low and your almost at 100% reduction.

I still see no difference there.

QBOddBird November 8 2007 10:00 AM EST

(I would like to take a moment to point out just how much MPR has to be devoted to EC in order for it to effectively nerf tanks - it effectively makes the strategy using it completely tank-specialized, unless you are a special case top 5 MPR-ish character. I've seen it used so much in this argument as if it were as versatile as AMF or something. It is not.)

QBsutekh137 November 8 2007 10:22 AM EST

Mikel, what are you talking about?

I rarely complain about tanks. This thread is about damage reduction. My main complaints these days are what they have always been:

-- Too much layered damage reduction.
-- MgS
-- Weapon allowance hiding PR.

Two out of those three are even issues that Ranger and I have agreed on to some extent. They are not tank-specific bashings. If mages had a way to hide power, I would be ranting about that, I assure you. PR is of paramount importance because it is the underpinning for rewards. But I digress.

So, not only do I not "always complain about tanks", I rarely do.

I did not bring up NWO and Dixie, per se. Ranger loves to tell me all the things I could do to beat different people, not realizing that I would then lose to others. So, I don't do it. Ranger is used to being able to beat everyone, making him somewhat out of touch with real-world compromises that the rest of us have to make. I have low NW, and it is going to stay that way. I am not going to build a huge wall or something like that.

And I am completely fine with that. As I said, I only brought up NWO because it would be an example of a trade-off I would have to make. That's why I don't "use everything at my disposal" to beat tanks. I do just fine, and am very happy with my current fight list.

I try over and over again to make these topics not be about a specific character or strategy. I am trying to talk about averages and overall feel for the game. Almost inevitably, Ranger makes it about me, specific to me. This is a VERY effective tactic to make sure my ideas are discounted (common ground does not appear to be very important to Ranger in most cases). No matter how much I say I am fine with my fight list, fine with everything, Ranger seems to want to make it sound like I am dissatisfied with something. But it just so happens that I'm not. :\

Looks like you're drinking that same Kool-Aid, using words like "always" and making it sound like I am whining for my own gains. I'm sorry you are experiencing the situation that way.

As for the MgS, to bring it back on topic, one reason you need one against mages is because you don't use AMF. Looks like you aren't using everything at your disposal to beat mages. Just because you choose not to use AMF is not a bona fide reason for the existence of the MgS.

I dislike the MgS based on a very simple fact: asymmetry. The MgS foils mages (very well, I might add) while there exists no similar counterpoint against tanks. That is my sole reason for disliking the MgS.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 8 2007 10:34 AM EST

How about an item that reduces Melee (and RoBF) damage but reduces str and dex (and skills?) to 0.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 8 2007 10:43 AM EST

"EC and exbows are a nice % reduction. Get the strength very low and your almost at 100% reduction.

I still see no difference there."

Fromt he Wiki;

"It's effect is of about 1/2 the trained level. E.g. an EC of 100,000 would drain approximately 50,000 DX and 50,000 ST."

"Drains ST: 1/33% of the target's ST plus some unknown constant for every 'x' on the crossbow." (While the Exbow does have a percentage reduction, I was talking aobut it's direct reduction)

Both of these are direct reductions to STR. 1/2 the effect of your EC and an unknown amount per 'x' on your EXbow.

The old CF would have been an AMF like Percentage reduction at the start (up to 44% wasn't it?).

QBRanger November 8 2007 10:54 AM EST

Chaos's familiar's Magic Missile hit Prophecies [1453061]

Certainly magic damage is too low.

QBsutekh137 November 8 2007 11:16 AM EST

Yeah, a huge MM against a smallish AMF and no other damage reduction. What exactly does that have to do with this thread ABOUT damage reduction?

You want me to post large physical blows that land on my soft targets?

What is the purpose of a single data point?

QBRanger November 8 2007 11:32 AM EST

The purpose is that not everyone uses a massive AMF and/or MgS.

There are plenty of characters out there that use DM and minimal AC. To which mages do tons of damage.

Just like with tanks, the methods of damage reduction are out there, but not everyone uses them.

If someone wanted to lower DD damage to a bare minimum, they certainly can by various methods. However, if one wanted to do the same to tanks, it is certainly possible.

My post was to counter those that post that their x million level DD spell does less then 100k damage to xxxx minion. Well, there are plenty other characters your DD spell will do tons more.

QBsutekh137 November 8 2007 11:43 AM EST

I agree with you 100%. In a case-by-case basis, anyone can show anything.

That's why GL has been (as far as I can tell) sticking with theory. He listed the layers and was trying to point out that there seem to me more layers foiling mages. To just re-highlight the main differences/non-diffs:

AMF/EC - it's a wash. They can both cripple the other team's offense.
AC - Physical gets more damage stopped since only + counts against magic damage
ToE - stops all damage equally. However, due to thresholding, magic damage hits the bottom first, at least compared to ranged physical damage. If thresholding were simply stopped, this issue would be moot.
MgS - massive mage-stopper. No counterpoint tank-foiler.
EH - stops magic damage more.
TSA/PL/VA -- the leech/regen factor. The tanks have a slight edge here because they can use VA. Moreover, they can use VA-imbued weapons and not have that power translated to total PR due to the current Weapon Allowance.

So there aren't a LOT of things... Mainly, it is the issues I have been harping on for the past 6-9 months: MgS (because it is asymmetrical), ToE (because it is thresholdy), and VA (because it gives an edge to tanks without even being displayed in total PR).

I can't speak to the fact that this is GL's main point, but it would be mine as I piggy-back on his points...

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 8 2007 11:54 AM EST

Not my main point Sute. ;)

Take your list again.

The Physical Direct (or should I say fixed?) reduction is top of the list.

With Magic the Direct/Fixed reduction is at the bottom, after layers upon layers of percentile redutions, making the direct reduction absolutly massive in comparison to Physical.

Tezmac November 8 2007 12:12 PM EST

Don't forget that AMF damages the attacker. EC does not.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 8 2007 12:31 PM EST

"Well, there are plenty other characters your DD spell will do tons more. "

Off topic in my own thread....

Ranger, what like not being able to hit evasion + robf users?

There are plenty other characters your MH will hit multiple times on.

QBsutekh137 November 8 2007 12:45 PM EST

Tezmac, I am aware of that, but I still say it is a wash because I agree with Ranger in that EC reduces damage, number of hits, and in essence renders a lot of NW less useful. No, EC cannot kill a tank, but it does other things. As long as there is SOME equivalence there, I am willing to say they are even.

Same thing with Spread-fire. While spread-fire sucks when facing GA and threshold damage reducers, that is a choice a mage makes. Spread-fire has other advantages (I am back to all spread, for example...) So, I do not consider spread an inherent "problem" with magic. For one thing, spread allows a mage to completely ignore an enemy's stance. Pretty powerful.

I see your point about the order of the layering, GL, and I agree. The layering has reached a point where any textbook damage reduction stance can render BOTH physical and magical damage too much, with a couple extra edges going against mages (MgS and VA as the primary examples). I am not sure I understand what you are saying is different between physical and magical as far as order?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 8 2007 1:06 PM EST

I'll try to explain. (I really should have taken the time to write my OP up ;) )

Imagine a DD hits for 100, and a RoBF absorbs a fixed 40.

If nothing else was involved, you would take 60 damage.

With just a 50% AMF thrown in, that becomes 10.

Adding in more percantage reductions before the RoBF reduction (Protection, Armour, etc) can easily reduce the damage enough so that the -40 from the RoBF can totally negate it.

For Physical damage, the only fixed reductions come first. So, if the RoBF followed that suit with AMF it would become (100 -40) * 0.5 or 30 damage, instead of the 10 above.

And it would be harder to totally negate the magic damage, instead of becoming increasingly easier the more percantage layers it goes thorugh.

Imagine if EC reduced Damage directly instead of Strength, and wasapplied at the end, after Armour/ToE/Protection. It would be a hell of a lot more easier for EC to be able to totally negate Physical damage, insted of having to be Twice the size of the Strength it faces.

This is a bad exmaple, but I hope it illustrates my point. :/

QBsutekh137 November 8 2007 1:20 PM EST

I think you are mixing a couple things...?

Thresholding is a whole different topic. I don't like thresholds, but they affect magical and physical damage the same. So, I don't see the issue there.

Also, AMF and EC do the same things -- they make the base damage smaller.

Let's say someone was wearing a new item that simply stopped 100K of damage.

Let's say my Fireball would hit for 150K, but because of AMF, my FB reduces to 100K. My damage to the person wearing the defensive item will be zero. All absorbed by the threshold.

Now, let's say a tank takes a crack at it, with a base blow of 150K that hits twice because of dexterity gap. But because of EC, the blow is reduced to 100K both times. The tank will also do no damage. In fact, the tank is worse off, because his damage went from a potential base damage of 300K (150x2) down to zero. Thresholding hurts tanks too. *smile*

I am not seeing the layering order having anything to do with it, except that against a mage, the MgS and EH add to the stack, plus tanks have an additional way of gaining back HP (VA).

Am I still missing something?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 8 2007 1:27 PM EST

Yeah. ;)

There's no -100K item for the Physical attack.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 8 2007 1:37 PM EST

Also, EC isn't a percenatge reduction, so won't reduce 33.33% of the Tanks attacks if we change the order or change the sizes of the stats/damage.

QBsutekh137 November 8 2007 1:48 PM EST

EC may not be a percentage like AMF, but it is still a proportional reducer. Plus, EC reduces damage and is essentially making NW worth. They are different, but I still see EC and AMF as being equivalent. No, I don't like the fact that AMF backlash can kill (especially nasty on the familiar front), but I am sure tanks don't like seeing their damage, cth, and NW all go poof against a big EC, either.

And while it may be true that tanks do not face a specific damage reducer threshold like the RoBF, they do still face thresholds when it comes to things like the ToE. I don't really see why the RoBF shouldn't be an across-the-board damage reduction (physical as well as magical), except for the corollary that RoBF allows the wearer to train more Evasion, thereby already foiling tanks in part.

Rubberduck[T] [Hell Blenders] November 8 2007 1:55 PM EST

Or you can use the RoBF to train more into amf if that is your preference ;)

QBOddBird November 8 2007 2:04 PM EST

Sut - except damage works so much differently against EC. You get an EC that is equivalent in size to their Strength (note: not even necessarily *trained* ST, but total ST, after a total of up to 150% boost from items or straight free stats from the ToA) and it will cut their damage by....1/4.

That's right, if you double your ST and double your weapon X, it doubles your damage, as per a Jon quote. So if you have their ST alone, all it does is remove a quarter of their damage. Tell me, what's an AMF of equivalent size to your DD do?

And that's assuming they can sacrifice that large of a proportion of their XP into EC - in order to totally nerf their damage, you have to either DOUBLE their Strength (again, after boosts) in EC level or their DX, and then knock out remaining PTH with either more EXP invested in Evasion or in -PTH.

Effectively, to knock out my ST on my Hejin tank, which is about equivalent to most ToA tanks (minus the extra PTH) it would take approximately a 2,290,000 EC. To take out my ability to hit, it would take a 1,635,000 EC, plus a small pair of DBs or extra EXP in Evasion. How is that comparable to the amount of EXP needed to be invested in AMF?

Obviously large MPR skews this factor, but let's face it - you can't compare sacrificing 60% of your MPR into EC with sacrificing 10% into AMF to harm your opponents.

Rubberduck[T] [Hell Blenders] November 8 2007 2:10 PM EST

EC was fairly poor in comparison to AMF in my view, you needed to get rid of almost all their ST to make it worthwhile. It was useful for stopping the mini tank types which were not main damage dealers but not much else unless you went very big. With the advent of evasion it became dual purpose and is now anti tank and mage with evasion (as long as you have a tank).

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 8 2007 2:15 PM EST

Thanks OB! That was one of the things I was getting at. ;)

Plus the fact that the direct (threashold? I don't get that term :/) reduction of the RoBF is made so much greater by the percentage reductions before it, while there is nothing similair for Physical.

QBsutekh137 November 8 2007 2:37 PM EST

Yes, GL, we are in agreement about the RoBF damage reduction, except I am even more generic in that I hate all thresholds (what about that term don't you understand?)

OB, comparing EC against a ToA isn't exactly a fair comparison. If there were such a thing as a Tattoo of Magic that did for mages what a ToA does for tanks, AMF would probably not do much against it either. That's a separate issue.

If you have a large EC, you could very well be doing more than a 1/4 reduction. Remember, you can get rid of that extra hit from dexterity, too. So, let's say a tank usually lands two blows of 100K on me for a total of 200K per round. With some EC, I knock off the extra blow and cut the damage by 25%. So, it goes from 200K down to 75K -- more than a 50% reduction.

You could respond with "ToA!" once again -- but like I said, ToA is a special case, with lots of offsets. A ToA wearer has little armor and has eaten his tattoo slot. And like I said, the ToA is a whole different discussion. *smile*

Cube November 8 2007 5:08 PM EST

I'm a big EC user.. the advantage comes in that you can not only avoid training dex, but completely make useless, Strength, Dexterity, Archer/Bloodlust, VA, and then all the NW that was poured into items. EC is truly only worth it if you get it to completely knock out strength or dexterity, but once you do that then all their other investments designed to get an advantage are also nullified. What good are the double hits they do if they are for 200 damage? Why good is archery if they can't do damage anymore anyways? And the VA lets them leach 30 hp per turn!

It's effective because with it you can basically make the other team completely sitting ducks. But to be honest if they have 50k more strength than my EC's effect then they can still do quite a lot of damage.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] November 8 2007 5:16 PM EST

isnt that the same as for DM? what EC is for tanks is DM AND AMF for MAGES!!!
mages need ED! tanks don't

Tyriel [123456789] November 8 2007 6:22 PM EST

"So if you have their ST alone, all it does is remove a quarter of their damage."

Honestly, I don't think that that is true. I think it's QUITE a bit more than that. For example, with negative Strength, this is what Sefton's The Thing's x1330 SoD does:

Round 1: Ben Grim's explosive shot hit Catherine the Great [607], Ivan the Great [178], Nicholas II [0], Peter the Great [178]

Round 2: Ben Grim's explosive shot hit Catherine the Great [752], Ivan the Great [221], Nicholas II [0], Peter the Great [221]

Round 3: Ben Grim's explosive shot hit Catherine the Great [686], Ivan the Great [201], Nicholas II [0], Peter the Great [201]

(The [0]s are because of my RoBF.) I'd take a wild guess here and just assume that a x1330 SoD with explosive shots would do a lot more than 10x, 20x, maybe even 50x or 100x more than that.

Anyways, to the original topic of magic damage reduction...

I think a simple solution would be to change the MgS or RoBF (or both), so that the MgS has less effect, and the RoBF's magic damage reduction is applied BEFORE percentage reductions. Either that or lower the magic reduction and make it reduce physical damage, too. :)
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=002Gut">Magic damage reduction is too much</a>