PR weights and WA: The Dead Horse (in General)


Dark Dreky December 3 2007 3:10 PM EST

I do not think I have complained enough about this subject.

As a mage team, I have no way of investing money into my character without increasing PR and thus decreasing rewards. What is the answer? Go naked mage? NO! That's not fun. I WANT to have high NW, I just like the idea of it. I want powerful gear to help supplement my mage team, but as it stands the PR cost is too high. Here is an example of the mage to tank PR/NW disparity:

Anjuune (my current mage based NCB)
Score / PR / MPR: 1,533,906 / 1,367,100 / 985,174
Net Worth: $35,731,363

Slot Machine (belonging to Super J)
Score / PR / MPR: 1,556,490 / 1,270,075 / 964,024
Net Worth: $140,371,502

Here the archer based team has OVER 100m more NW and yet less PR added for all of the items equipped. Now I would like to inflate my NW with some cold hard USD but there is no reason for it... my character would suffer from lower rewards if I were to up it's NW.

Solution: CHANGE WA and PR weights!! It just doesn't make any sense the way it is. Make a universal Equipment Allowance of some sort. BTW, what happened with that poll taken awhile ago? I'm curious to see the results about WA.

No, I will not give up on this subject. Ever. =P

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] December 3 2007 3:32 PM EST

I've got the perfect solution for you, change your strategy to Mage/Tank/Enchanter/Wall!
Then you can have the best of most all the worlds.

QBRanger December 3 2007 5:14 PM EST

Yes, remove WA and make all weapon NW count towards PR.

Then tank teams will have astronomical PR's and mages puny PRs.

Making all tanks get crappy rewards and mages great rewards. Then the world of RBF characters grows to infinity as it is by far the best strategy to keep a low NW.

All because mages get free NW in their damage spell while tanks have no such option.

Get over it already. There has to be a WA to allow tanks to compete on an even field.

If your upset about other things such as missile damage, then rant about that, I certanily have. But WA is needed, or make mages DD spells add to PR much more then they already to.

horseguy001 [Battle Royale] December 3 2007 5:42 PM EST

Displacement Boots

Base Armor Class (AC): 0.
No penalty to DX or Skills.
No penalty to Magic Spells cast by the wearer.
Gives no protection against Direct Damage Spells and does not grant AC; instead decreases effectiveness of enemy PTH (Plus-To-Hit) enchantment based on Enchantment (+) points added to the boots.
No penalty to Unarmed Combat (UC) used by the wearer.
A PR weight of 0.09 (where PR weight is an indicator of how much your PR will increase with networth when equipped). The higher the PR weight, the more your PR will increase with networth. PR weight only applies to armor and not weapons.
Also known as DBs.

QBRanger December 3 2007 5:46 PM EST

DB's plus evasion work even better.

Dark Dreky December 3 2007 7:09 PM EST

So I get one item to spend money on?

Weak.

Dark Dreky December 3 2007 7:11 PM EST

"Yes, remove WA and make all weapon NW count towards PR. "

That's not even close to what I'm saying. I'm suggesting some sort of universal NW allowance instead of it being weapon specific. Or at least some way to add items to a mage team without drowning out challenge bonuses with inflated PR.

I think the 100m+ NW difference I illustrated is a bit extreme and unfair.

QBRanger December 3 2007 7:12 PM EST

McM
NS
AG
COI
DB
AoF
Corn
TSA (if with a PL battery)
EB
Yes, certainly just 1 item. :)

If you want to spend money that badly, play a tank. It is an endless money pit.

QBRanger December 3 2007 7:14 PM EST

Ok,

So while the tank puts his "item allowance" towards weapons, the mage ups a couple items. Same end result.

I know what your typing. It is not possible in CB as it is played.

However, there are some items where the PR weighting is messed up.

IE, the TSA and HoC and AOI all work no matter what + they are. Their PR weight needs to be quite high due to the advanced benefits they give, especially the HoC.

AdminNightStrike December 3 2007 7:17 PM EST

A smart mage will realize that he can pour more money into a set of boots than a tank can pour into a weapon PTH, thus allowing the boots to outstrip the weapon. A tank has to split money between ammo, 'x', and '+', whereas a mage only needs to power up the + of the boots.

QBRanger December 3 2007 7:22 PM EST

Combined with evasion, you can be almost immune to tanks.

Evasion gives the defensive dex and PTH. The boots add to the PTH bonus.

Quite powerful.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 3 2007 7:23 PM EST

WA is too big.

MTL is too big.

Oh, and the last I remember being about Mages/RoBF was that the NW in question wasn't large enough.

So up NW and also up PR right?

"I have no way of investing money into my character without increasing PR and thus decreasing rewards"

Very, very poignant statement.

QBRanger December 3 2007 7:26 PM EST

One way to up your items without increasing NW or PR is to name them.

If you do not have a PP account, you can almost certainly pay someone to do it for you.

For my +201 DBs this gives a nice +9 bonus without any more PR.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 3 2007 7:26 PM EST

For the PTH versus DB math-hammer, consider this;

Tank: If I spend 'x' on my PTH, I might be able to land a blow.

Mage: If I spend 'x' on my DB, I might be able to dodge that blow. I also lower my XP/Cash rewards across the board from increasing my PR.

QBsutekh137 December 3 2007 7:29 PM EST

Only when a ToA is not in the picture, NS.

Actual weapon + is not the only pth game in town.

Ranger, you forgot the MgS on the list of items that need a PR ratio raise (at least, you agreed with that a while back, perhaps you don't feel that way any more).

Finally, for mage-specific items, yes -- there are more than one. But not as many as Ranger would let on. Corn? Used by any team. TSA? Any team. The only Mage-specific items are:

AGs
NSs
CoI
DBs (that's a gift -- tank teams can use DBs effectively as well, but I think mages can utilize better).

Can't think of any other item that is mage-specific. Just because an armor has low magic penalties doesn't mean a thing -- such armors also carry low dexterity penalties...a tank-only boon.

Then, if you subtract the items in the game that are anti-mage-specific, the MgS takes one away from the list for a net number of mage items: 3.

How many tank-specific items?

Even worse, how many Wall-specific items (useful to either offense, but boring as hell).

I'm not anti-tank... Heck, I'm not even pro-mage. I couldn't care less if changes even affect my fight list. But if you are playing a pure numbers game and you try to say mages have plenty of items? No way. Ranger's comment, to give over to tank land, is one of the only consistent comments I have seen on this thread.

And we all know that "can't beat 'em, join 'em" is not much of a defense. In fact, it usually proves the other guy's point.

QBRanger December 3 2007 7:32 PM EST

Fine GL,

Get rid or lower the WA.

Then evasion will rule the tank game. Right now it is quite powerful. I know in the mid ranges and upper ranges of the game, without a USD weapon one cannot hit a high evasion minion.

With evasion one does not need DBs=PTH on the weapon as evasion gives quite a lot of minus to PTH. Add an AOI to the equation and tanks are far behind.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 3 2007 7:33 PM EST

"IE, the TSA and HoC and AOI all work no matter what + they are. Their PR weight needs to be quite high due to the advanced benefits they give, especially the HoC."

PR weighting on these is pointless. Unless thier effects are also tied to thier size.

Otheriwse people would just hunt for (beg to be re introduced) and use base ones.

If they don't already.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 3 2007 7:34 PM EST

LoL Ranger. It won't any more than now...

All that would happen is Tanks get less rewards. exactly like mages.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 3 2007 7:35 PM EST

Unless you're saying it would give people pause for thought about upping thier PTH. Because there's now a drawback. Exactly the same things Mages go thorugh.

So they decide to beat Evasion by using a ToA...

TheHatchetman December 3 2007 7:39 PM EST

"I WANT to have high NW, I just like the idea of it. I want powerful gear to help supplement my mage team"

Step one: Hire a third minion, make him a wall.
Step two: Sink 57.26m nw into getting 400 AC
Step three: train a small amount of DX and ST on your wall
Step four: give your wall a VB or MH
Step five: spend all future money between the DBs of your mage, and the MH/VB of your wall
Step six: Celebrate your high NW and powerful gear that suppliments your mage-based team.

QBRanger December 3 2007 7:40 PM EST

All I know is that I played both a mage and tank like a lot of people.

Tanks certainly need a large WA to keep up with evasion +/- DBs.

If you look at most of the top weapons, most of the NW is on the + side just to try to hit evasion. IE, my MSB has only 22M on the x side and over 45M on the + side.

And now that people have gotten the TOA neutered, the + on the weapon is much more needed then ever before.

Cut or lower WA and as I stated evasion rules. Far much more then now.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 3 2007 7:44 PM EST

No it won't. Won't change a thing.

Only thing cutting WA *could* do is cause Tank teams to get less rewards. Nothing about game balance changes.

Then if Tanks decided that it would hurt them to up thier PTH, because thier rewards dropped because thier PR increased....

But you know my take on Evasion, I think it double dips and has no need too.

Hell, maybe cutting Wa would pursuade more tanks to drop the ToE for a ToA, just to compete with Evasion + DB.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 3 2007 7:46 PM EST

""I WANT to have high NW, I just like the idea of it. I want powerful gear to help supplement my mage team"

Step one: Hire a third minion, make him a wall.
Step two: Sink 57.26m nw into getting 400 AC
Step three: train a small amount of DX and ST on your wall
Step four: give your wall a VB or MH
Step five: spend all future money between the DBs of your mage, and the MH/VB of your wall
Step six: Celebrate your high NW and powerful gear that suppliments your mage-based team."

/waits for Sute's comments on mandatory Walls...

Lumpy Koala December 3 2007 7:52 PM EST

let's just start CB3 :) All problems solved.

TheHatchetman December 3 2007 7:54 PM EST

Sorry to say it, but about the only time walls aren't mandatory is when you're specifically targeting one type of team at the cost of many others (good challenge bonus achieved this way, but easily targeted, so clanning is more difficult, and score is harder to maintain), using a heavy AC tank (basically a wall, but with more ST and DX), using a RoBF (training only AMF and Evasion for the rest of CB sounds fun, eh?), or have a massive MPR/nw over everybody with a big enough EC to destroy any tank (I'm lookin at you Ranger!)...

So while Scrabaluminous may deem it boring (and I can see his point...) a wall is near required to do any sort of decent against all the heavy damage above 1.5m MPR or so...

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 3 2007 7:58 PM EST

Isn't that a good reason to make changes to make them less required?

But this Digresses.

Does anyone have any problems with my;

"Tank: If I spend 'x' on my PTH, I might be able to land a blow.

Mage: If I spend 'x' on my DB, I might be able to dodge that blow. I also lower my XP/Cash rewards across the board from increasing my PR."

Above?

Because at the end of the day, that's what it boils down to. A Tank can up thier 'power' through NW without effecting thier rewards (and not just to start with, not just to remain on equal footings, but constantly, linearly and for ever...), but a Mage/Enchanter/RoBF Evader/Wall cannot. Ever.

They will always take a fight reward hit for boosting thier power through NW.

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] December 3 2007 8:00 PM EST

As far as I am concerned, this says it all.....

Anjuune (Bleach) Slot Machine (Battle Royale II) Anjuune 3 7:18 PM EST

You are complaining about someone with 100Mil more NW than you that you beat in 3 rounds???????????????????

Seriously?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 3 2007 8:01 PM EST

Seriously.

Sef, the outcome of the fight has *nothing* to do with it.

QBRanger December 3 2007 8:03 PM EST

Top 15 teams, whether they use a wall or not. Using a MgS without using all the other "wall" armor does not count as a wall.

Koy-NO
Oxcha-Yes
Edyit-Yes
Alchemist-Yes
Tank Killer-Yes
Hubbell-NO
Lega-NO
King of Pain-Yes
NWO-NO
Black Sophist-Yes and NO, i am undediced on his last minion. It does have str/dex and uses a weapon.
Conundrum-Yes
Igot noname-NO
Failure-NO
Vistek-Yes
Xanas-NO

There you have it, at the top (and I know the top is not everyone) there are:
7 x NO
7 x Yes
1 x undecided

Therefore the statement that a wall is needed in CB is INCORRECT!

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] December 3 2007 8:04 PM EST

So if I spend 100mil on something that does not help my character win, then show it as how NW is not being weighted properly this is OK?

Please. Outcome is everything. It shows effectiveness.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 3 2007 8:07 PM EST

No it doesn't Sef.

It shows Tactics. Either a lack of them, or a part being exploited. Like a EC heavy Team winning to vastly NW superior Tank teams, while having no AMF and being decimated by vastly NW inferior Mage Teams...

The outcome of a particular fight ofers nothing to my complaint, nor the points I have posted.

QBsutekh137 December 3 2007 8:12 PM EST

Specific outcomes are not as important as averages when trying to make statements about overall rewards. I think that was GL's point, Sefton.

Ranger, why are you not counting MgS-only as a wall? Last I checked, the MgS is all you need to reduce mage teams to rubble (40+ percent!), and there are several mage teams in the top 15 for which the MgS does just that: Hubbell, NWO, Xanas...

And let's not forget that using the Top Fifteen is generally abysmally useless when try to talk about things for the overall score ladder of CB.

I'm not even buying your stats as a reason to say walls aren't needed -- Half the teams have it! Just because a few folks don't have the money (or minions) to build one doesn't mean they aren't needed. For example, Hubbell can't have an effective wall -- I don't have the NW OR the minion MPR to have one. Otherwise I would, I assure you! It just so happens that in my build, for the fight list I wish to maintain, my MPR is better spent elsewhere.

Counting Hubbell as a valid non-wall team is disingenuous, as is the no-count on MgS walls.

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] December 3 2007 8:13 PM EST

By that rule then, I should load my tank up with a corn, a CoI, some massive NoS, and you know put 400mil on the guy, then say mages are over powered because I cannot beat them. Drop a massive elbow on him and equip named bolts. You get my drift.

If you say something is not weighted correctly because this guy with less PR is beating the guy with MORE PR OK, this could help bolster your case. The person with the higher PR is winning. Is this not the goal of PR? And if you were to lower it such that the it was "fair" would not the lower PR beat the higher one after you were done? How does this suggest a correction of a perceived imbalance in NW weight calculation?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 3 2007 8:16 PM EST

Sef, to be honest you've lost me now. I'm not talking about specific items here. I'll leave that for another thread.

Would you like to comment on;

Tank: If I spend 'x' on my PTH, I might be able to land a blow.

Mage: If I spend 'x' on my DB, I might be able to dodge that blow. I also lower my XP/Cash rewards across the board from increasing my PR.

QBRanger December 3 2007 8:18 PM EST

"Counting Hubbell as a valid non-wall team is disingenuous, as is the no-count on MgS walls."

ROFL! Does Hubbell right now at this specific time in the game have a wall? NO. Put armor or a Mgs/armor on him and I will classify him/it as a wall.

The idea of a wall is a HP only sink to buffer damage and let other minions do damage.

If Koy's MgS minion was a true wall in the true sense of the word, it would have adam/MS/HoD/TG etc.. to further buffer the damage of magic. It has and equips items that even have a negative AC. Therefore I do not count MgS wearing minion as a mage wall.

Just like a minion using a bow but not a set of BGs and HoC is not an archer.

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] December 3 2007 8:21 PM EST

What I would like to comment on is the original thread starter Dark Dreky's poor example. Which I have commented on and continue to say is true. What is the point of complaining about an imbalance when in fact no imbalance occurs, between Anjuune and Slot Machine the best PR wins.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 3 2007 8:23 PM EST

That's a non issue to me Sef. I couldn't care about his fight exmaple, nor the result of it. I'm sure with enough time we could find a fight that does support his OP for you...

I care about;

"I have no way of investing money into my character without increasing PR and thus decreasing rewards"

Which has nothing to do with his (maybe poor) choice of exmaple in his OP.

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] December 3 2007 8:27 PM EST

Well if you have to search hard to find an exception, then well, your case crumbles. If in the majority or even 75% of the fights, the higher PR wins, then PR is weighted properly.

You might say I do not like the way rewards are calculated, but to say WA and PR weights are done incorrectly you need to show where it is true.

horseguy001 [Battle Royale] December 3 2007 8:29 PM EST

The ToA has been greatly nuked in the DB vs pth equation. Look at Mikel, his ToA is worth a hefty 90 mil, which means 30 mil is sunk into the pth of his bow, which might add maybe another +15, +20 at the most. An AoI will make up for that, and evasion isn't even factored in yet.

Evasion + DB = win, as far as I am concerned.

I am not saying this is fair, but I at least plan to make the most out of it while I can.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 3 2007 8:30 PM EST

No Sef, I don't.

I would if we decide to remove all strategy from CB.

But that's *not* the topic at hand (at least it's not the topic I'm talking about).

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] December 3 2007 8:41 PM EST

But strategy is subjective. Its philosophical. Just makes it more difficult to make your case, but EVEN then do not attach your case to an example that proves the opposite, get an example (better yet get a BUNCH of them) that proves your case and make your thread and show me I am wrong. If you can do that, can you not do that to anyone? Is that not your goal? I am not asking for anything to change, you are, show me why it should.

As far as the philosophy of strategy? I am all for it. Make a thread, a competition, even, a challenge to do that which you do not think can be done because of the imbalance you see.

Basically, convincing Jon to make a change is not easy. I know. So if you really want to do it, then in my experience the first method expressed is best (with emphasis on a BUNCH), but the second seems like more fun. *smile*

TheHatchetman December 3 2007 8:43 PM EST

Koy-NO (or have a massive MPR/nw over everybody with a big enough EC to destroy any tank)

Oxcha-Yes

Edyit-Yes

Alchemist-Yes

Tank Killer-Yes

Hubbell-NO (specifically targeting one type of team at the cost of a few others... not really too many people up that big within reach though... )

Lega-NO (enough EC/nw to destroy just about any tank his level)

King of Pain-Yes

NWO-NO (3rd place MPR helps...)

Black Sophist-Yes and NO, i am undediced on his last minion. It does have str/dex and uses a weapon. (Amazing what 375m nw can do, eh?)

Conundrum-Yes

Igot noname-NO (RoBF)

Failure-NO (defensive ammo, and a 340k HP /round regen)

Vistek-Yes

Xanas-NO (not sure what to say here...)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 3 2007 8:45 PM EST

Which is why I have excluded strategy *completley* from my arguement....

I am not, and will not be argueing about stragey here.

Your points are now completly off topic, and I'd be gratful if you would comment on my general point of;

"Tank: If I spend 'x' on my PTH, I might be able to land a blow.

Mage: If I spend 'x' on my DB, I might be able to dodge that blow. I also lower my XP/Cash rewards across the board from increasing my PR."

In support of;

"I have no way of investing money into my character without increasing PR and thus decreasing rewards"

From the OP.

Or please make a new thread Sef.

QBRanger December 3 2007 8:45 PM EST

Hatch,

The statement that all characters have to have a wall is the point of interest.

The fact that other people find a way to get around needing a wall is a valid point.

Whether it is via EC, NW or MPR, it shows that a wall is not needed all the time as others in the game try to brainwash you into believing.

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] December 3 2007 8:57 PM EST

OK GL not sure when this went from Dark Dreky's example thread to yours, but I will give it a shot.

If tanks and only tanks have the ability to add NW without adding PR then the only logical answer to add a tank.

Then you can add NW without adding PR.

And thus this will no longer be true. "I have no way of investing money into my character without increasing PR and thus decreasing rewards"

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 3 2007 9:06 PM EST

Sef, it's not my thread, I apologise for that. I was getting frustrated by what seemed to be deliberate stubborness on avoiding what I was trying to address. I shouldn't try to stop you discussing the viability of DD's example.

I'm not discussing that part of his OP, as I don't see it as the primary point of discussion.

Adding a Tank has already been covered by both;

"And we all know that "can't beat 'em, join 'em" is not much of a defense"

And;

"As a mage team"

Adding a Tank changes the Team from a Mage team.

So, how, by staying as a Mage team (if you really want me to define things, how can any team without a Tank Minion... Do you really want Tank defined as well? Or can we skip the pedantics?) can you invest money into the team without increasing PR and thus decreasing rewards.

Let me also pre-empt and rule out purchasing BA.

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] December 3 2007 9:19 PM EST

You can't GL, so what? I can't equip a BoM and an RoE. What I am saying is if you want to change a game of numbers (CB is a game of numbers, it on a computer and all it can do is math), show what and why those numbers should change. If you want to have debate on is that fun, I am there, to, but that's subjective. What is fun for me may or not be fun for you, and that can be interesting, but not much of an impetus for change.

I am not trying to be adversarial, I am trying to say to me it is not very convincing. Maybe be you do not need to convince me, I am not by any means capable of making a change. Jon is very hard to convince.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 3 2007 9:28 PM EST

No one (single minion) can equip a BoM and a RoE at the same time. It's a global restirction we all suffer from equally. ;)

But there does exist a minion type that *can* up it's 'power' with cash, without effecting its fight rewards at all. While no other type of minion in the game can do this.

The counter to that is this type of minion requires this to be competitive.

Whether the above is correct or not, or if any amount of change is required, I'll freely and readily admit I'm in no possition to judge.

I just don't know enough about the game mechanics, and i'll wager that no one bar Jon does, to be informed enough. Tank versus Mage damage. What 'X' + Str is supposed to equal what DD level? Versus which DD? How many hits does this take into account?

I can't answer that. (My first post, with WA is too high is a purely unfounded gut reaction ;) )

And I'm not trying to.

All I want to highlight is the 'extra' option a single type of minion gets over the whole rest of CB land. And how that in turn limits the options of every other type of minion.

;)

Now I think it's time for bed! Night Night!

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 3 2007 9:33 PM EST

I should Add I feel my DB/PTH comment is valid.

As opposed to Damage and Wepaon X's, we can easily compare PTH and -PTH items.

One single type of minion gets the PTH bonus without increasing 'power' (until WA is reached of course), while every type of minion, to counter that PTH must always increase it's 'power' and take a reward hit.

That is where the WA fails most obviously.

Maybe the first fix to WA is to remove wepaon PTH costs from it...

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] December 3 2007 9:35 PM EST

Its cool GL, I should have stayed out. I wont mind if it changes or it doesn't. But in Dark Dreky's case, he is begging to add futile NW, because the NW Slot Machine has does not help him win. Why would you ask for an ineffective cash sink?

Fanta [Fanta's Forge] December 3 2007 9:56 PM EST

Just because Super J has 140M NW on him doesn't mean it's all equipped...

QBsutekh137 December 3 2007 11:13 PM EST

Goodness, Ranger, please, take a chill pill. No one is trying to "brainwash" anyone (seriously, do you practice building one-word strawmen as a matter of course? Did you take a class on it or something?)

You can also get up off the floor from laughing, really, it's OK...not even sure why you were down there. I _know_ Hubbell doesn't have a wall -- that's exactly what I said. My point is that certain teams don't and never would have a wall based on their strategy (thereby making the enumeration of such teams a support of the fact that walls are unnecessary disingenuous). The fact that half of the teams DO have walls shows what a default it has become. You really don't think HALF represents a large portion of teams? If half of the teams used ToEs, you wouldn't say ToEs were a dominant and "can't beat 'em join 'em" facet of the game?

Another great strawman of yours: "You don't HAVE to have a wall like everyone says you do..." Well, first, no one said everyone has to have one. You use superlatives like other people use prepositions. Good God lay off the propaganda, man! No one has EVER said that EVERY team needs a wall. What has been said _on some occasions_ is that walls are becoming a slam dunk for any team that has the balanced minions and net worth to use. Anyone who has the net worth and is in a place to make a nice defensive stance would be a DAMN FOOL not to have a wall at this point, and would have to be even stupider not to make an MgS be buy number one. Having a wall is the first thing I hear you suggesting for any team that isn't more specialized as a quick-kill archer, RoBF, or goofy mage team (like me). Why _wouldn't_ you suggest it? I know I would! Damage reduction layering is the single most powerful force in this game right now (yep, even more powerful than mages unless you can afford a massive, aberrant ranged weapon).

So don't list a bunch of teams in a specialized segment of the CB score ladder and proclaim walls aren't needed because a whopping half of those teams don't have one. And furthermore, don't make it seem like a big deal by purporting that EVERYONE else is saying walls are a 100% MUST HAVE. No one ever said that. The most I personally have ever said is that there are a lot of walls out there (yep, 50% is a lot in this game), and that I find them boring. In fact, no one has ever disagreed with the latter. *smile*

QBRanger December 3 2007 11:17 PM EST

Sut,

You continue to say, time and time again, that a wall is so boring but one has to have one to win.

There are many strategies one can have without a wall as you yourself have.

So since 1/2 of CB are tanks, does that mean that one has to have a tank to win?

C'mon, be consistent in your rantings *smile*.

QBsutekh137 December 3 2007 11:29 PM EST

Another strawman! I love it!

I never said one has to have a wall to win. I said they are a popular choice (and rightfully so!) for the dominant teams, and/or teams that have the NW to put toward them: and yes, either a large MgS or high AC is enough for me to consider it a wall.

That means 4 out of the 5 top teams (just now,by score) use a wall. See, I can choose a segment of scoring to make my point too. Four out of five is 80%. Is that a lot? Go ahead and remove Koy from the list... That's still 3/5, or 60%. Is that enough? For some reason you thought you should use the top 15 in your list instead of top ten...convenient that the bottom five were 3/5 no-wallers... So, I'm going to use the Top Five for my discussion and say 60-80% is a lot. Can you refute it?

QBRanger December 3 2007 11:34 PM EST

Actually I used 15 just as a random number. I ran the characters after I chose it.

Believe it or not.

And I love your "strawman" discussion. Seems everything I say now is a "strawman". *smile*

But I have no time to go through your past posts but you seem to be stuck on:

1) Everyone has to have a wall.
2) So many layers of damage reduction, but it only applies to mages.

Please come up with some new ideas-or is that another "strawman" by me?

QBsutekh137 December 3 2007 11:59 PM EST

Actually, yeah, two more again...

Whether you have time or not to go through my past posts, you are still saying I say something that I do not say. I'm not sure how I am supposed to defend against someone who starts off his statements with something non-authentic about my stance (that's the very nature of a straw-man, and you do it expertly, always have).

Next, I never said the damage reduction affects only mages: I said it affects mages MORE because of a really simple thing: the MgS (I guess EH too, but few seem to really use that as heavily as the MgS is used). If there are layers I am forgetting that are solely against tanks (and have no anti-mage counterpart -- that's why I left out EC), then let's talk. I'm all ears.

Ranger, whenever you want to actually say truthful things about my stance (or just ask, I am always willing to clarify, and I have no problem discussing things openly), then we can maybe have a real discussion and maybe even find some common ground. But in discussions now too numerous to count, your M.O. is generally the same: take a side, disregard any thrust for open, unbiased dialogue, attribute near-truths to the other person (wrong enough to make VERY effective strawmen with), and then tell the other person that they are clearly wrong and it is amazing they can't see that. Oh, and then you generally need to have the last word, too.

Here, I'll be Ranger for a second...

Ranger, why do you always hate mages so much and do nothing but defend tanks and USD? It is clear to anyone reading that you just hate mages and that is why you always come down against them (I don't have time to look through past points, but it is clear to everyone). I guess we'll just have to wait and see what Jonathan says.

QBRanger December 4 2007 12:04 AM EST

Interesting Sut,

Put words in my mouth (so to speak)

Again, tanks have just as much a problem with damage reduction since ALL AC lowers physical damage. But we forget that and focus (almost fanatically) on the MgS.

But this is getting no where very fast. I think the community understands perfectly well your stance on Walls and the Numerous Layers of Damage Reductions that effect mages far more than tanks.

I also know the community knows my stance on mages and I want a balanced game. Not hating mages as you state I do but believe they need some boost such as AC for their equipment.

Nuff Said. The community is not stupid, they see the truth *smile*

QBOddBird December 4 2007 12:35 AM EST

Ranger, he was putting words in your mouth as you have put in his.

You don't *REALLY* come out and say "I hate mages".

Sutekh has never come out and said "Everyone has to have a wall".


Just wanted to clarify what seems to be a huge blocking point between you two...this argument is going nowhere, and as much fun as you two are having poking at each other, it is just soooo silly! Couldn't we get back on topic?

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] December 4 2007 1:59 AM EST

Dreky... he only has about 80 mil of that actually equipped... and 33 mil of it is tucked behind WA

Dark Dreky December 4 2007 2:03 AM EST

"You are complaining about someone with 100Mil more NW than you that you beat in 3 rounds? <edited to remove several unnecessary question marks>"

Yes, I beat the person I put in as an example. I don't want to start explaining how much XP I invest in evasion and all that stupid crap. Let that be an evasion/EB/AoF flame thread all by itself. If you really wanna know how to beat me Sefton, its ANTIMAGIC FIELD! Blah, who cares about who beats who. Its about the mechanics.

GL, thanks for taking the thread over for me while I was away. You seem to understand (along with Sut, props!!) where I'm coming from. The main point is that I'd love at least ANOTHER item that I can put money into that DOES NOT increase my PR as a mage... and also that PR weights need to be readjusted.

Something needs to be changed... sorry if I skipped a few posts. Its pretty hard to read through 50+ after watching the Pats win!! =P

Dark Dreky December 4 2007 2:07 AM EST

Draco --
I just checked and his NW just increased to 160m+ ... honestly I do not REALLY care, just curious how you know? I'm sure it's all unequipped and all.

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] December 4 2007 2:33 AM EST

Dreky... be smart... do some math... Pea shooter is worth 33 mil alone... AoI is 1.5 mil... his DB are right under mine and mine are worth 20 mil... his BG is worth 4.3 mil... his Hoc is at best worth 1 mil... his CML are maybe worth 3.3 mil... his tulkas are worth 2 mil... his TSA is worth about 4.5 mil... and his Toa is a little bigger than 23 mil... and that leaves about 90 mil nw right there in equipped items... My first estimate was close if not on the conservative side... It wasn't hard for me to figure that all out by looiking at item statistics and doing some math. Now stop being so sarcastic.... and wizen up...

You completely negate all that nw of his DB, Toa, SoD, BG, and thats just the stuff that helps his ranged... look at the 78 mil of his 90 mil that you negate just by training one skill... Now go cry and whine about something else please.

QBJohnnywas December 4 2007 3:03 AM EST

I don't like the WA; I posted about it a long way back; in fact there was a poll following that post by Jon. But nothing came of it. So here we are again.

Anyhow; I'm not going to argue with anything. Just make a little comparison between my char as an RBF with elven gloves, AoF and a +9 corn (lent by Ranger - thanks!) and as a SoD/Morg ToA tank with base HoC instead of +9 corn, elven gloves and AoF.

Removal of the corn and replacing with 30 million NW in weapons let me drop my PR by 100k. So by adding NW I drop PR, I do more damage per round, I get a free VA, and my rewards go up.

That's fair. Definitely. ;)

QBJohnnywas December 4 2007 3:05 AM EST

I also get the extra XP and free NW from the ToA; but that's a whole other argument.....

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 4 2007 3:39 AM EST

Draco, forget the given example for a moment. It doesn't have any bearing on the issue raised here.

Johnny, results of that poll;

It's fine the way it is (fixed NW allowance based on total XP) 16.5
PR weighting like armor would be better 19.5
Capping weapon effectiveness like tattoos would be better 33.0
No allowance/cap at all 14.0
Whatever 9.0
Weapon huh? 8.0

;)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 4 2007 4:39 AM EST

Now this might ramble a bit, so please bear with me. ;)

Why do we have the WA? It's because Tanks need to have a Weapon to do thier thing.

But Mages need a DD, Enchanters need an EO/ED to do their things. So why is there no DD/EO/ED Allowance?

Hold on a minute GL, you're missing that Mages/'Chanters only have to Train MPR into thier thing. Tanks need to train MPR (into STR and Dex) *and* use a PR increasing Weapon to do thiers. They get hit twice, that's why the WA.

Well no. Not really.

Tanks don't have to spend XP into STR and/or DEX. They can (And improve by doing so), but a large enough Weapon makes up for a lack in those statistics.

For example Dexterity. A Tank doesn't *have* to put any XP into DEX to do it's thing. Weapon PTH can replace Dex entirely (See Spid CB1), and thanks to the WA not increase the Tanks Power At all, leaving them with 'free' MPR over Mages/'Chanters.

And with the change to linear Weapon 'X', the same can also be said for STR. Instead of training MPR based XP into STR, buy a bigger X on your weapon. Which not only increases your Damage, but thanks to the WA does so without increasing your PR at all.

Of course, this gets expensive. But at least you can.

Now hold on a minute GL. You're not really saying that a 20 STR 20 DEX Tank is as powerful as a FB Mage? Right?

/Shrug

I can't remember how much you have to increase your weapon to take into account not increasing your STR (to deal the same amount of damage) and I cirtainly wouldn't advocate a 20 STR Tank as the way to go (after some Weapon X it's far more efficent to up your STR, until you get back into a sensible ratio again), but it's still possible for a Tank to hit and kill things without spending XP on STR/DEX, using just weapon stats covered by the WA.

And it's definatly possible to run a 20 DEX Tank, if your PTH is large enough (no this won't beat all, yes you will have problems facing Evasion/DBs with 20 Dex).

So why the WA again?

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] December 4 2007 6:42 AM EST

GL, You also didn't take into account that Enchanters and mages and yes, even tanks can train EC and negate all that str and dex that tanks "don't have" to train in your theory... So answer me this... where is the fairness in that? So instead of A WA for tanks... they get hit by pr for increasing their weapon... and instead of training as much dex and str as they do now... they train much less, which will in turn be negated that much easier and make it so mages can have free reign over everything? Thats just one of the flaws I see in that... but I'm sure there are other ideas on what can be done. But then, I'm sure Jon made WA that way for a reason besides the fact that he has said this is Tank Blender not Mage blender.

Of course Tanks could train only Str but then evasion will rule over the tanks... all that defensive dex will eat into the + of the weapon all the way down to nil hits Ever. Oh but evasion already does that doesn't it... not one person that doesn't invest Usd in this game can hit my evasion as it stands... not even with the biggest Toa they can get their hands on due to that being nerfed as well. Well then why doesn't everyone go 2 minion team one with Coc to beat all that Ac/ToE/Pl/TSA and the other to train evasion... wouldn't that be so much fun >.< So there you have it... tanks "Have" to train both str and dex... and at increased amounts too. If not for the WA I could tell you right now I would be over 4.5 to 5 mil pr... but then It doesn't matter for any of us in 6/20 refresh now does it?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 4 2007 7:09 AM EST

Draco,

Having protection from reducing STR into the negatives (From EC or EXBOW) is a different thing altogether.

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] December 4 2007 7:42 AM EST

So how do you protect against EC reduction besides not fight EC teams...

QBRanger December 4 2007 8:25 AM EST

About dex:

With evasion giving defensive dexterity, a tank has to train dexterity in order to have a chance to hit.

I have realized this on Koy and as you notice I am spending all my current xp on boosting my tanks dex. So do not state dex is not needed. Spid in cb1 is a poor example as evasion works much differently now. PTH on a weapon cannot overcome evasion. Add in DB's and tanks are toast. The only chance one really has to hit a high evasion minion is to get the dex CTH where you have to overcome evasion's defensive dexterity.

Ask Mikel why he has over 3M dexterity and the highest trained dex in the game.

About strength:

When Mikel had 20k strength (due to my EC), with his massive elb and all the bonuses it gets, he only did about 20k damage to my first archer. Yes I used a TOE so it is about 150k without all the layers of damage reduction I seem to have. So tanks do need a lot of strength. It takes 4x str to get 2x damage.

So while mages just have to train their DD spell, tanks MUST train strength AND dexterity. So they have 1/2 the xp in each stat compared to mages. Just for the chance to hit those pesky uber evasion minions.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 4 2007 8:37 AM EST

"So how do you protect against EC reduction besides not fight EC teams..."

Something for another thread. Currently (well bar RoBF Damage...) EO's are the only things in the game without a 'counter'. It still has no bearing on this issue though. ;)

"About dex:

With evasion giving defensive dexterity, a tank has to train dexterity in order to have a chance to hit."

We both think Evasion is a little too powerful atm though. ;)

"So do not state dex is not needed."

You miss the poitn of the comment Ranger. Dex can help, massively. But putting extra PTH on your weapon does the same thing.

"About strength:

So tanks do need a lot of strength. It takes 4x str to get 2x damage."

And the converse is true. Not enough STR, pump weapon 'X'. Which is cheaper to do than PTH.

4x 'X' to get 2 x Damage.

Rubberduck[T] [Hell Blenders] December 4 2007 8:37 AM EST

I think the WA was a good idea given CB was moving to a NW=PR model. We can argue about levels but that is basically a balance issue. I see how you would like a way to spend cash which does not impact on PR. I wonder if this is heightened due to the lack of characters in the higher score levels which has everyone trying to pare down their PRs in the pursuit of challenge bonuses?
Ultimately giving mages an item/items which go PR free would mean reducing DD effects or some other tweak in order to maintain balance as it stands so be careful what you ask for ;)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 4 2007 8:40 AM EST

Easily done. ;)

The current DD spells cold remain as is, like the UC of the physical world.

Then add a new spell, that does less damage natural to the existing DD, but is boosted by a new 'weapon'.

This gives Mages the option to remain XP only (like Tanks with UC can) or if they really want a DD boosted by NW, take the new option. ;)

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] December 4 2007 8:59 AM EST

Here is my trouble with one of your previous posts GL. Again, whether the content is worthy is not my issue. You say, I am a mage, I want to spend NW without raising my PR, just like tanks can do. If I cannot I am limited. I do not want to be forced to add a wall or I will be limited.

Tanks, you do not really have to train ST and DX. If you want to take advantage of your WA properly, limit yourself to a certain strat without ST or DX..........

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 4 2007 9:16 AM EST

I never once advised that Tanks 'limit' themselves at all.

And if it came across that way, it's a limit of choice. A choice Mages just don't have.

Sorry if I've misunderstood your post.

QBRanger December 4 2007 9:26 AM EST

Tanks have a choice?

Tanks have the choice of boosting the + on their weapon to hit massive evasions or missing completely.

Something mages have no problems with. My momma used to say "you cannot dodge a fireball". This applies to DD spells-The ALWAYS hit. Let us not get into the RBF since most of us agree it is quite broken.

If you want to change weapon allowance, then remove evasion so tanks do not have to invest so much NW into just the + aspect of their weapons. Then a x1000 +0 weapon can hit mages/enchanters just due to the dex CTH minus any DB's out there. Just like CB1.

But until evasion is changed tanks need a massive WA just to be able to get a weapon high enough to hit.

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] December 4 2007 9:26 AM EST

Hate to say it GL but this is a limiting statement.

Tanks don't have to spend XP into STR and/or DEX. They can (And improve by doing so), but a large enough Weapon makes up for a lack in those statistics.

Perhaps if you had left the () part out and I know how that is I cannot resist them either, but, you suggest by using the term improve, that this is a "better" way to do it. Then everything you say after that predicates on me doing it a very specific way, to take specific adavantage of a specific methodology.

Then you add this... "Of course, this gets expensive. But at least you can."

So I say, You can add a wall. You can work on DB's. You can talk about BA. You CAN do a lot of things too, but when I say you can do them its a limit (I do not want to HAVE to get a Wall) (I do not want to dump ONLY into DB's) when you say it, well its a limit too (I do not want to HAVE to not train ST and DX).

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 4 2007 9:34 AM EST

"Hate to say it GL but this is a limiting statement.

Tanks don't have to spend XP into STR and/or DEX. They can (And improve by doing so), but a large enough Weapon makes up for a lack in those statistics.

Perhaps if you had left the () part out and I know how that is I cannot resist them either"

;) If I could edit, I'd add "possibly" in there. :P

Or remove it. ;)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 4 2007 9:39 AM EST

Even though I'm desperate not to drag this into a strategy discussion, I have another choice for you Ranger.

"Tanks have the choice of boosting the + on their weapon to hit massive evasions or missing completely."

And the choice to not fight teams with Evasion.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 4 2007 9:41 AM EST

Damn, didn't want to submit yet..

"But until evasion is changed tanks need a massive WA just to be able to get a weapon high enough to hit."

Why?

Why should Tanks, and only Tanks be gifted with an answer to *all* thier counters?

What do Mages get to counter AMF? MgS? EH?

Mages can barely damage through the multi layered reductions they face (not to start this topic off again...) Yet Tanks need an easy out to every counter they face?

I don't buy into that.

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] December 4 2007 9:46 AM EST

*chuckle* yah I hear you, but still all that hard work showing how to not train ST and DX (which is very well done BTW I like it) is no different than hard work I would do to show how to use DB's properly (which I cannot) or build a wall (which I can)

So you have tanks on one hand, and mages on the other. You would like equal opportunity to rule the game playing either. The HOPE is that it is balanced. You are suggesting it is not balanced. But you are not showing me the imbalance with data. You are offering me wonderful insight into how the game works, excellent strat suggestions on how to utiliize my WA (I am a HUGE min/max 'er), but I do not see an imbalance.

As I said before, you may not even want to convince me, but nothing shows me it is broken. What you are showing me quite well is, how you like to play the game and how you would like to see it improved, what you think will make CB better. Nothing wrong with that AT all. I encourage it. But it is not very convincing as to why something is broken and why it should be fixed. I know. I have tried and failed numerous times with impassioned well thought out pleas. Just trying to help really. You say go away and I will.

QBsutekh137 December 4 2007 9:58 AM EST

"Let us not get into the RBF since most of us agree it is quite broken. "

Ranger, do you care to back up that statement? MOST of us? Who are you speaking for, exactly (and where do you feel the right to speak for "most" of us?) On every thread I have read, there is a lot of discussion about the RoBF, but I don't think the final redux is that it is "quite broken" by more than half of the community (that would be the definition of "most", wouldn't it?)

I personally do not think the RoBF is "quite broken", so I guess you are saying I am in a minority. Those that give me trouble with the RoBF do so because they also have massive AMF (or something equally mage-quelling, like an MgS). It took a couple of threads on the topic for me to swallow that, but it's the truth and I see it now.

Language is a powerful thing, Ranger, try to be accurate with it. Otherwise, it's just sensationalism, and I already get enough of that when glancing at the Enquirer-type rags in line at the supermarket checkout (did you know Britney is pregnant AGAIN? Oh. Mah. Gawd!).

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 4 2007 10:02 AM EST

What, after you've started posting agian? Not on your nelly! :P

As I said, I can't provide any data to highlight the gut feeling that the WA is broken, as I don't know internally what everything is balanced on.

I can point you back to Johnnywas. An example of improving his character by increasing his NW, while also lowering his PR. Which only using the WA will allow you to do. But this could equally be an example of why the RoBF is underpowered (damage wise...) to the WA being broken.

How about ignoring damage for the minute and looking at +PTH / -PTH? (Excluding defensive DEX)

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] December 4 2007 10:07 AM EST

“Whether it is via EC, NW or MPR, it shows that a wall is not needed all the time as others in the game try to brainwash you into believing.”

“Let us not get into the RBF since most of us agree it is quite broken.”

Ranger

Now this is golden!

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] December 4 2007 10:14 AM EST

I understand, and you mentioned it before, and I should have listened instead of constantly calling for the data. I like you GL. I hate to see you in the same state of frustration I used to get into. If you want out of it. Get the data. If you just like to toss it around the block a little see who says what, how it might help you, etc. then do not let me get in your way.

I have a single mage with a worthless tattoo and Score / PR / MPR: 1,256,629 / 640,161 / 597,316
So I think you can make a mage strat that works.

I have a single tank with no tattoo and Score / PR / MPR: 1,358,389 / 489,100 / 418,402
So I think you can make a tank strat that works.

I have a big 4 minion mage team with a big tattoo and Score / PR / MPR: 1,419,769 / 1,034,170 / 729,551
So I think you can make a team strat that works.

Will any of them be number 1? No, but if you fight them you better bring your A game, because they wont beat everyone, but they do not push over either.

Which BTW is why I play the game, but that is another thread shortly on the way.

With this I say it works. You can create a successful team using any of the various methods with enough thought and effort. Can you create THE number one team using any method, I do not know, if this is why you play the game, I guess we will find out eventually if you can or not.

QBJohnnywas December 4 2007 10:18 AM EST

"I can point you back to Johnnywas. An example of improving his character by increasing his NW, while also lowering his PR. Which only using the WA will allow you to do. But this could equally be an example of why the RoBF is underpowered (damage wise...) to the WA being broken."

Bit of both GL, bit of both.....

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 4 2007 10:48 AM EST

No complaint on that from me Johnny. ;)

Dark Dreky December 4 2007 1:19 PM EST

"Now stop being so sarcastic.... and wizen up... "

Well considering it took having similarly NW items to look them up on the list, Draco, I don't think it was possible for me to "wizen" up in the respect that you meant it. (where is spellcheck on that? oh wizen means: to wither; shrivel; dry up) But thanks for being so smart and doing the math for me. =P

Also, I really don't have anything else to cry about right now. Can I please stay on this topic for a little while? Pretty please? Thanks.

To get back on topic, I think that maybe it will take a rescale of DD damage or some sort of tweaking of DD to allow a few more NW sinks for mages. That's fine with me. If thats the route that must be taken then lets take it! As it stands now, WA is a tad too high and hides too much power. Although I really could just be talking about single-ToA archers or ranged damage in general because that seems the most common abuse of NW in my eyes. Whatever the case, WA is just not right the way it is. Y'all can't deny it! (y'all shouldn't be in spellcheck!)

Dark Dreky December 4 2007 1:22 PM EST

Oh, yeah. And evasion is a bit unbalanced. Sure, that's why I invest over 33% of my XP into it and have a +55% bonus to it. I might add it's the only (one and only) counter to the USD Tank game other than USD DB's.

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] December 4 2007 1:31 PM EST

Evasion might be the cheapest or most bang for your buck solution to ToA tanks, but the only one? RoBF, properly run UC and well done 5 minion teams with big GA come to mind top of the head.

You can proclaim an imbalance all you want. You can shout it to the heavens. You have the right and the power, go for it! But, you do not have any data. If I was Jon, I would not make changes based upon who shouts the loudest or most often (and if it helps I have tried that for years with little to no success) but with the person who can say, look at this data, the conclusion is irrefutable, a change is required.

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] December 4 2007 1:33 PM EST

And I will add as a P.S. If you want to add NW such that it helps you like it helps slot machine, just get some ammo invest 100mil into and equip it on your mage, that NW will serve you as well as Slot Machine's does.

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] December 4 2007 1:33 PM EST

"What do Mages get to counter AMF? MgS? EH? "

Nsc's for one... higher DD due to Coi, AG's, for another. I know we have discussed how the MgS is a little overpowered or needs to be given a heftier pr weight... but there are always a way around that... like a Mage can "Always" hit unless an robf is involved. Just think of my case... Noone and I mean Noone can hit my evasion except the top 4 weapons in the game... and an Sod here and there... Top 2 mh and top 2 elb.... I have already pointed out the biggest Coc and the damage it does to my +40 MGS... thats one heck of a way around an mgs...

What is a tank to do if they can't hit due to these huge evasions? Change their fightlist to exclude all Evasion minions... thats alot of changing to be done. It seems more and more that Evasion is taking the front seat to most strats... So lets change evasion so that it "Only" limits dex based hits... So anyone with a pth high enough can always get a hit in. Would that make it easier... or more fair... no but its a start. Would it make it more like a mage, yes! Always hitting.. that would be nice... then I wouldn't have to worry about missing Conundrum, or Hubbell or any other mage out there with a huge evasion.

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] December 4 2007 1:37 PM EST

and likely wont raise your PR one bit! *wink*

Brakke Bres [Ow man] December 4 2007 1:43 PM EST

could i add that anyone adding an mgs to any minion is instantly an anti mage wall regardless of its setup?
And that character slotmachine probably has only half of that nw equipped.

Dark Dreky December 4 2007 1:46 PM EST

Ok, I get the whole "his stuff is unequipped". Really, I get it.

So, 35m to 90m. It's still bad.

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] December 4 2007 1:49 PM EST

And I already proved that 90% of that 90 mil doesn't do squat against your evasion... so it all down to your 35 mil to his 9 mil

Dark Dreky December 4 2007 1:56 PM EST

This thread wasn't about who beats who (as I already expressed)... this thread is about NW and PR weights and how I feel they need to change. Draco, you're just talking about evasion, which comes down to an XP investment (and about 4m NW of boosting). Start a new thread for your anti-evasion flame.

I'm just trying to say that mages need some sort of NW that does not destroy their challenge bonuses. As it stands, mages are most successful being naked (save a tattoo)! Again, this is under the assumption that mage teams aren't using walls (which seems pretty necessary higher up in the ranks).

I do like the idea of tweaking DD so that it can be enchanced with a weapon. Or something to that effect.

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] December 4 2007 2:00 PM EST

I was just pointing out that due to what you stated about pr... he is fighting way under pr and mpr due to your strat in its self.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 4 2007 2:08 PM EST

Draco, I was waiting for some one to say NS. ;)

Maybe then give Mages a NS allowance? Why not? I'm sure those Tanks can just train Dexterity higher, no need for a PTH WA just to "let them hit Evasions"...

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] December 4 2007 2:26 PM EST

*chuckle* How can you possibly compare two people in CB without determining who would win? How can you possibly suggest an imbalance when your own example suggests the opposite? How can you possibly expect to change someone's mind without data? OK, if you are talking PURE philosophy then sure but, here I will show you.

Fact one: Anjuune has a PR of 1367100 and a NW of 35731363 at one time in a snap shot

Fact two: Slot Machine has PR of 1270075 and a NW of 140371502 at one time in a snap shot

Fact three: Anjuune beats Slot Machine in three rounds more than 75% of the time

Fact four: PR is a person's power rating and is used to determine how often one person should beat another

Conclusion: In this case the person with the higher PR and lower NW wins, which is the goal of PR thus it shows that PR and WA are weighted properly.

Refute any fact or the conclusions given using only the facts as presented or showing a fact to be false (thusly showing the conclusion as false you cannot base a true conclusion on false facts) or showing the underlying logic as false.

Since you cannot do it, I then say to you, if a person wins IS important and your example the one you choose to support your case is a false one, and all conclusion reached from it are thereby false. So get a TRUE example and make a case, OR say hey we are talking philosophy here and do NOT expect a change to be made.

Dark Dreky December 4 2007 6:16 PM EST

Sef, I am talking philosophy. It doesn't make sense to be able to hide millions of NW on a character. I am also talking about change because WA needs to be reevaluated.

I was "crying" about losing to the higher-NW team, I was "crying" that WA is too big. So it IS irrelevant who wins! This was never about winning or losing, read the title.

QBSefton [Black Cheetah Bazaar] December 4 2007 7:10 PM EST

OK but if you are talking philosophy, well let me explain it like this, could I through rhetoric influence you to change your religion. Sure it is possible, would you consider it probable?

I only use that simple analogy to show that convincing someone using philosophical arguments while worthy to do, does not succeed often.

So if you just want to have some fun kick out your frustrations and move on, more power to you my friend, I wont get in your way, I honestly am or was attempting to help you.

ActionAction December 4 2007 8:59 PM EST

I'm sure it's been stated many times over in this thread - yes, I did try to read everything over, but with the 100 odd posts or so, it's hard to ;P - but I've always thought that WA was there so that Minions could do damage only with items. It acts as a buffer zone between the two extremes of a massively overpowered weapon - which allows for total dominion in your PR range - and the obvious minimum of no weapon at all.

If we didn't have WA, any sort of weapon-based damage would be too damaging to your battle rewards to warrant using. PR is there for the same thing - as a buffer zone between strong and weak armor - BUT, it does NOT have an allowance for one very obvious reason: armor is /not required/ to do damage. The entire basis of WA is that it allows for a correctly-sized weapon to be just as effective as trained DD spells without decreasing rewards. The entire basis of PR is to not let anyone spend too much on defense and make you untouchable while reaping full benefits.

Now, I know you did not state that eliminating WA was your intent. But it either has to go up or down. I don't think anyone could find a logical argument - one that would not imbalance the tactical portion of CB - to up it, so I'm assuming you meant it should go down, and I'm also assuming you meant PR weight should go down as well.

WA is there to prevent mages from dominating the damage aspect of battle in a given PR range, while PR weight is there to prevent ANYONE from dominating simply because they have more cash to blow on armor upgrades.

I also don't see any reason why it wouldn't 'make any sense the way it is'. You stated that you wanted high NW. You never stated that you wanted a functional and highly efficient way of gaining XP/cash from fights. If you want massive NW, go for it. Just know that your rewards will suffer. If you're looking for functionality, don't simply state that you WANT something, even if it's not currently efficient for your build.

Dark Dreky December 4 2007 9:29 PM EST

"The entire basis of WA is that it allows for a correctly-sized weapon to be just as effective as trained DD spells without decreasing rewards."

Here is where I see the problem.

"I'm assuming you meant it should go down"

Yup. Something like that. I remember the poll that was taken long ago had some good ideas. Is there anyway to see the results of that?

"I'm also assuming you meant PR weight should go down as well."

Yes, to an extent. I do not necessarily feel that it should go down. Instead I feel that it should be re-evaluated. I think that some items (TSA, MGS, HoC) need new weights to correctly display their power. I also feel that certain other items should have their weights reduced. (CoI, AGs, NSCs)

"You stated that you wanted high NW. You never stated that you wanted a functional and highly efficient way of gaining XP/cash from fights."

I thought it was assumed that I wanted a functional and highly efficient way to add NW without greatly deflating my rewards. Or at least that's what I was trying to get at...

"If you're looking for functionality, don't simply state that you WANT something, even if it's not currently efficient for your build."

Well, I've always thought there were issues with the way WA and PR weights display accurate "power". Is it that bad to want something? I'm feeling the holiday spirit! Maybe Santa will bring it to me!

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] December 4 2007 10:19 PM EST

I remember the poll that was taken long ago had some good ideas. Is there anyway to see the results of that?

Community>Polls (upper right corner)

Dark Dreky December 5 2007 10:13 AM EST

Ah, thanks Dude. Really, I mean it!

The ideas that were suggested that seemed the most viable were:

1.) PR weighting like armor would be better.

2.) Capping weapon effectiveness like tattoos would be better.

P.S. Idea number 2 won the poll, by far. Just something to think about.

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] December 5 2007 12:28 PM EST

I would suspect that Idea number two won due to not very many people actually running good viable tank strat due to not enough cash on hand for it.

Mikel December 5 2007 7:59 PM EST

Idea number 2 would be a horrible Idea, and impose some harsh strat limitations.
I was under the impression that you would be given a certain NW level that you could use, and it would be split evenly between x and +. Which would be great news for evasion minions because then I couldn't up the + until my mpr is higher than the cap limitations.
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=002I6J">PR weights and WA: The Dead Horse </a>