Why does AMF hit back at constant rate? (in General)


QBsutekh137 April 15 2008 10:45 AM EDT

Hey all,

Why does AMF hit back at a consistent number (per round, depending on ranged factors) every battle?

Current knowledge states that when I fire DD, it hits for anywhere between 50 and 100% of its potential damage inflicted. So, if I hit at 100% for 6 rounds, say, that's a good battle. I win! If I hit at 50% for several rounds, that sucks. I lose. Especially if the method of my demise is AMF backlash. That's because the AMF backlash hits back the same every time. I am not sure what the AMF backlash is based on for sure, whether or not it is hitting back with the full 100% level in mind, but regardless of how it hits back, it should vary. If I get off a good shot, fry me back good. If I get off a poor shot, fry me less (because the spell was obviously less powerful).

The reason I bring it up is because I am in a funny situation with The Lega. I commit complete suicide against him, because he does no direct damage to me for 7 rounds. If I have a run of bad shots, we draw.

I win most of the time, but when I draw I see that it is because my hits are just that much weaker while AMF eats me up the same. When the first round of melee comes (Lega still does not hurt me because of bow/melee switchover), Joe fries his comrades and then dies on his last AMF backlash.

If the AMF backlash went up and down along with the DD damage output, fight outcomes would be more consistent over time. NOW, I know I may be asking for something bad for myself here! If AMF currently backlashes based on 50% DD output, then what I am asking for will only hurt me. If it currently bases off of 100%, a change could only help. And if AMF is based on 75%, then all I need is confirmation of that and I would be OK with it since it is right in the middle.

In any case, a discussion of AMF backlash sounds like fun.

QBRanger April 15 2008 10:48 AM EDT

I tend to agree.

However, we need to know what the AMF backlash is based on. 100% damage or 50% damage.

The former is worse for mages, the latter worse for your opponents.

That stated, I do feel the AMF backlash should be proportional to the damage you would have done THAT round before AMF would apply.

If you do notice, however, in missile the AMF backlash is lower, due to the minuses DD spells encounter in those rounds.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] April 15 2008 10:51 AM EDT

I think we can safely say it's based on a maximum output given the massive numbers I see returned to me...

I do think it would be nice to see some variance considering the previously mentioned (beating to death) factors; however I wonder how much work that would be for the server....

QBOddBird April 15 2008 10:51 AM EDT

I like this concept - rather than AMF backlash hitting back based on your spell level alone, have it backlash based upon how powerfully your spell hit each round. Perhaps it could act as though it was returning backlash against a spell of the size required to create such damage?

Either way, GA returns a fairly consistent damage backlash against both tanks and mages based solely upon their damage amount. It would be nice if AMF did the same, helping to account for the enormous damage variability all minion types, save the RoBF users, currently endure.

QBsutekh137 April 15 2008 11:07 AM EDT

I am powerful confused after some data points... Here are the backlashes (consistent) against The Lega, in order of rounds:

Round 1 - 290144
Round 2 - 310869
Round 3 - 331594
Round 4 - 352318
Round 5 - 373043
Round 6 - 690821
Round 7 - 690821
Round 8 - 616804

The Fireball at the time looks like: Fireball: 833,520 / 677,658. That would also be enhanced 11% since I have an AoL in front of Joe. Lega casts an AMF of 0.35 on me

Rounds 1 thru 5 make sense...a slow curve up as my Fireball ramps up in power.

Then Round 6 jumps up to 690,821. That's an 85% increase over the previous backlash of 373,043. What gives?

Round 7 stays even, and then Round 8 drops off -- because I fry my leaders in Round 7 (Fireball melee splash). So that makes sense: it is right near an 11% drop-off, close enough for me dividing the wrong way on my calculator just now.

Couple things: Can someone else verify that massive AMF back-lash increase between rounds 5 and 6? Next, I would guess the AMF backlash is based on 100% of power, because my level of DD was 833K from the start, with 0.35 AMF on it. I can never remember exactly how AMF applies, but a 0.35 could easily take my level from 833K down to around 616K (the backlash damage once my leaders are dead and I am just on my own FB level). I'm not sure how all the number relate, but would assume the DD level means something when it comes to calculating backlash... (others are much better at that analysis than I).

The leap from round 5 to 6 is what really has my interest piqued right now. Why have I never noticed that before? Or is that normal since we went to 5/6 rounds of ranged?

Wasp [Demon Forging] April 15 2008 11:13 AM EDT

I've also noticed this since forever, but didn't think about it properly. Our mages are getting punished for a lot more then what they deal. I feel quite confident in saying that I've never hit for anywhere near to 100% of my spells output. In fact, I think 80% would be a dream too. So why are we getting penalised so bad for it? How about make it so that 75% is used for AMF backlash as opposed to 100%. Sounds more fair and even.

BluBBen April 15 2008 11:14 AM EDT

Here are some data for you!

Third BluBB defeated Occam's Razor (Bleach) after 8 rounds of combat

Enchanter cast Antimagic Field on The Sick One (0.31)

Round 1: 60567
Round 2: 68107
Round 3: 75647
Round 4: 83187
Round 5: 90727
Round 6: 206341
Round 7: 206341
Round 8: 206341

He got a ToE if that will change anything.

Tezmac April 15 2008 11:21 AM EDT

The Sun cast Antimagic Field on Tezmac (0.25)

R1: Tezmac takes damage from his own Magic Missile (10566)!
Tezmac's Magic Missile hit The Horizon [165932]

R2: Tezmac takes damage from his own Magic Missile (11321)!
Tezmac's Magic Missile hit The Horizon [177513]

R3: Tezmac takes damage from his own Magic Missile (12076)!
Tezmac's Magic Missile hit The Horizon [231601]

R4: Tezmac takes damage from his own Magic Missile (12830)!
Tezmac's Magic Missile hit The Horizon [249475]

R5: Tezmac takes damage from his own Magic Missile (13585)!
Tezmac's Magic Missile hit The Horizon [294557]

R6: Tezmac takes damage from his own Magic Missile (53694)!
Tezmac's Magic Missile hit The Horizon [543820]

R7: Tezmac takes damage from his own Magic Missile (53694)!
Tezmac's Magic Missile hit The Sun [184393]

TheHatchetman April 15 2008 11:22 AM EDT

all damage in ranged combat was reduced 40% when rounds were extended. the small increases are due to decreasing penalties, but the large increase is your minion getting the ranged round chip off his shoulder ;)

TheHatchetman April 15 2008 11:26 AM EDT

"How about make it so that 75% is used for AMF backlash as opposed to 100%."

Prove it's not, and show what's unbalanced, then we can begin to attempt asking for changes :P For all we know, AMF backlash does only do damage based on 75% of your spell, which would in turn make the end result pretty even, as that is the middle of the damage potential. Or maybe the AMF is only calculated as 40% of the level, to make up for all these yummy layers :P Who knows? :P

QBRanger April 15 2008 11:32 AM EDT

Vs NWO:
Noise takes damage from his own Magic Missile (213167)!
Noise's Magic Missile hit Microchips [121307]
Chaos's familiar takes damage from his own Magic Missile (311039)!
Chaos's familiar's Magic Missile hit Cloudscape [83986]
R.I.P. Microchips

Noise takes damage from his own Magic Missile (228393)!
Noise's Magic Missile hit Cloudscape [64364]
Chaos's familiar takes damage from his own Magic Missile (333256)!
Chaos's familiar's Magic Missile hit Cloudscape [63833]

Noise takes damage from his own Magic Missile (243620)!
Noise's Magic Missile hit Cloudscape [37121]
Chaos's familiar takes damage from his own Magic Missile (355473)!
Chaos's familiar's Magic Missile hit Cloudscape [106870]

Noise takes damage from his own Magic Missile (258846)!
Noise's Magic Missile hit Cloudscape [47934]
Chaos's familiar takes damage from his own Magic Missile (377690)!
Chaos's familiar's Magic Missile hit Cloudscape [94946]

Noise takes damage from his own Magic Missile (274072)!
Noise's Magic Missile hit Cloudscape [74464]
Chaos's familiar takes damage from his own Magic Missile (399907)!
Chaos's familiar's Magic Missile hit Cloudscape [115917]

Noise takes damage from his own Magic Missile (507542)!
Noise's Magic Missile hit Cloudscape [132175]
Chaos's familiar takes damage from his own Magic Missile (740569)!
Chaos's familiar's Magic Missile hit Cloudscape [423187]

There is a ramp up between rounds 5 and 6 of missile.

Atomicboy [The Knighthood] April 15 2008 11:36 AM EDT

I think backlash is based off the maximum potential of the DD spell. This is why cone of cold amf damage is huge.

TheHatchetman April 15 2008 11:38 AM EDT

I would apologize for the triplepost, but y'all love me too much to care if i triplepost a little, right? :P

As for my opinion on the matter: Yeah, ya prolly shouldn't take the same backlash when ya hit for 2.5m as ya should when you hit for 1.5m. But we seem to have a decent balance going... Adjusting the backlash from what it currently is would give mages yet another advantage/disadvantage from where they are now depending on whether the numbers go up or down...


I mean, sut was able to make a thread on strategy and game mechanics without being attacked... That says, at least to me, that the game is doing something right :P So now we're down to just nov, Henk, NS, and Ranger who can't have opinions of the game or it's function just yet... Unfortunately, Anthony will likely be added to that list when he gets more posty... But oh well, a wise person once told me "the CB community is nothing, if not predictable" :P

TheHatchetman April 15 2008 11:39 AM EDT

Ranger, with a HoC, minions won't take the 40% DD penalty on the last round of ranged. notice his damage is also considerably higher that round in most fights ;)

QBsutekh137 April 15 2008 11:40 AM EDT

OK, the ramp-up makes sense then (thanks, Hatchet), but is it kicking in one round too early? Is that because of the HoC shifting everything forward? I guess that makes sense.

And Hatchet, yes, I do believe it is already backlashing based on 100%,see my comments above. My DD level is around 833K, and with an AMF cast of 0.35 on me, I am getting hit 690K back. That seems like a lot, so I am assuming it is the max. I don't know where to go from there to "prove" anything, since I don't know all the dynamics involved... That's why my argument is touchy-feely. *smile* The backlash just seems rather large. But you are right, maybe it is already in the middle, and maybe that is where Jonathan wants it.

Tezmac April 15 2008 11:47 AM EDT

Along these lines, is the ToE the only way to reduce AMF backlash or does AC/Prot help as well?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] April 15 2008 11:50 AM EDT

ToE only

Tezmac April 15 2008 11:53 AM EDT

Dumb.

QBsutekh137 April 15 2008 12:07 PM EDT

Maybe dumb, but it has always been that way -- I don't think a lot of people actively pursue massive AC on a mage anyway, and Prot is tempered by DM. So, it is probably less of an issue than ever, in that regard (even if it is still kinda dumb *smile*).

BluBBen April 15 2008 12:09 PM EDT

Maybe AMF -should be effected by AC? It would mean more strategic options for mages.

QBsutekh137 April 15 2008 12:34 PM EDT

I believe another reason that AMF backlash is so hard to stop is to make it equivalent to EC more. There is no way around EC short of simply buffing STR and DEX. Same with AMF. NO way around it except for training more DD. If there were more side ways around the backlash portion, that would make it easier for a mage.

However, then it raises the question of AC trade-offs... If raising AC makes the DD less and therefore makes the AMF stronger, it is kind of a wash. Especially since NSes exist now.

QBRanger April 15 2008 12:40 PM EDT

The only ways to lower AMF damage is a higher DD spell, NSC, or a TOE.

Do not forget the NSC, they are quite the nice item for mages, particularly CoC mages.

And thanks Hatch for the explanation of why it ramps up the last missile round. So it basically is considered equivalent to the first melee round.

QBRanger April 15 2008 12:43 PM EDT

And if AC is to help vs AMF, only the + should help, not the total AC.

I have no real opinion on whether AC should help vs AMF. It does vs GA which is one statement in favor.

Sickone April 15 2008 12:44 PM EDT

"Enchanter cast Antimagic Field on The Sick One (0.31)

Round 1: 60567
Round 2: 68107
Round 3: 75647
Round 4: 83187
Round 5: 90727
Round 6: 206341
Round 7: 206341
Round 8: 206341

He got a ToE if that will change anything. "


More info incoming :)

1. It's a 1.08-ish mil ToE right now.

The backlash you see in rounds 1-5 is 1/4 of the normal backlash (damage is still below what ToE would protect me against, namely around 504k or so top endurance cap).
In rounds 6 (HoE-enabled round with same DD stats as melee) and in melee rounds (from round 7 onward) it breaks through my endurance cap and excess backlash is dealt at unreduced value (AC : -4, no magic damage reductions).

2. Fireball stats right now (tiny bit higher than his quoted battle figures)

2,768,569 (raw level 2,471,937)
406,795 (raw effect 363,209)

Sickone April 15 2008 1:05 PM EDT

Ok, even more data...

Fireball effective level 2,768,569, effective effect 406,795
Against Aether (Ragnarok Gang) after 6 rounds of combat


He's sporting a RoBF, so the damage I deal is reduced. Watch the backlash though, as it's only a 0.2 AMF... the sixth round backlash STILL punches through endurance, even at barely 0.2 AMF.


Play-by-play
Occam's Razor Aether
The Sick One cast Protection on all friendly Minions (20)
Aura Of Annoyance cast Antimagic Field on The Sick One (0.20)
Aura Of Annoyance cast Guardian Angel on all friendly Minions (?)

Ranged Combat
The Sick One takes damage from his own Fireball (23229)!
The Sick One's Fireball hit Aura Of Annoyance [73803]
Aura Of Annoyance's Guardian Angel smote The Sick One (1886)


The Sick One takes damage from his own Fireball (28111)!
The Sick One's Fireball hit Aura Of Annoyance [204714]
Aura Of Annoyance's Guardian Angel smote The Sick One (2313)


The Sick One takes damage from his own Fireball (32992)!
The Sick One's Fireball hit Aura Of Annoyance [269518]
Aura Of Annoyance's Guardian Angel smote The Sick One (2444)


The Sick One takes damage from his own Fireball (37874)!
The Sick One's Fireball hit Aura Of Annoyance [81720]
Aura Of Annoyance's Guardian Angel smote The Sick One (1925)


The Sick One takes damage from his own Fireball (42755)!
The Sick One's Fireball hit Aura Of Annoyance [344563]
Aura Of Annoyance's Guardian Angel smote The Sick One (2567)


The Sick One takes damage from his own Fireball (117606)!
The Sick One's Fireball hit Aura Of Annoyance [455064]
Aura Of Annoyance's Guardian Angel smote The Sick One (2360)
The Sick One cries "Bleh!"
Aura Of Annoyance's Decay hit The Sick One [493937]

R.I.P. Aura Of Annoyance
_____

Well, combining what I see from BluBBen (60567 backlash on 0.31 AMF) with what I can see from Aether (23229 backlash on 0.2 AMF)... it's... a bit weird.
I mean, I was wearing the ToE in both cases, and the "punchthrough" should have been exactly the same.
Still, I "only" take 1161 damage per 0.01 AMF from a single-minion target, but 1953 damage per 0.01 AMF from a two-minion target in the first round of ranged ?

It's either that the AMF backlash ISN'T a percentage of the "against single minion" we thought of, or maybe it's not linear at all in percentage of damage backlashed.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] April 15 2008 1:46 PM EDT

Hatch has covered the chage in the rounds, it's already been mentioned that AMF works off 100% of the DD, and Sute's even mentioned why! ;)

"I believe another reason that AMF backlash is so hard to stop is to make it equivalent to EC more. There is no way around EC short of simply buffing STR and DEX. Same with AMF. NO way around it except for training more DD. If there were more side ways around the backlash portion, that would make it easier for a mage."

That's it really.

If AMF was to change, then EC would also have to change to a EC versus STR and/or DEX to see how much is reduced. ;)

"However, then it raises the question of AC trade-offs... If raising AC makes the DD less and therefore makes the AMF stronger, it is kind of a wash. Especially since NSes exist now."

Do you mean wearing Magic penalty items?

The AMF % and backlash is worked from the trained stat, and not damage done, so any AC worn by the target would have no effect. Unless I've misunderstood this part. ;)

Cube April 15 2008 2:07 PM EDT

"I believe another reason that AMF backlash is so hard to stop is to make it equivalent to EC more. There is no way around EC short of simply buffing STR and DEX. Same with AMF. NO way around it except for training more DD. If there were more side ways around the backlash portion, that would make it easier for a mage."

EC can be countered by armor - BoM, TGs, HoE, TSA etc.
Versus AMF mages can use NSC, but I'd still like to see AC effect backlast, okay I may be bias in that respect, but there aren't that many AC mages, and it's really hard to get a low percentage of AMF so your AC mage won't simply die from the AMF.

QBsutekh137 April 15 2008 2:09 PM EDT

AMF backlash is worked from the EFFECTIVE DD level, not trained. The fact that the backlash dies down when my leaders die is proof-positive of that.

So, even if AC did help prevent backlash, wearing a lot of AC would make the AMF cast be higher because the effective DD level would be stymied by armor. Even if the AC did fight it, it would be a wash (or at least not really worth trying to figure out). Throw in the fact that I agree with Ranger that only the + should count, and you would have massive penalties vs. only nominal AMF stoppage. NSes would be a much smarter route to go in that case.

I think the reason I would like back-lash to go with the damage I do is because AMF backlash has no EC counterpart. EC is easy -- it cuts down STR and DEX to start with, lessening damage done. My DD already varies, but the backlash is constant at the high end. I know it is all about balance, so it doesn't really matter, AMF seems to be fairly well-balanced where it is, and NSes offer choice. My reason for this thread was just looking for more consistency from an internal battle standpoint. In truth, the variations in the DD would still make my battles with Lega unpredictable even if backlash were kept in lock-step: the variances fall all over the place making it hard to know how many rounds things are going to take, and that term of the equation is probably far more relevant than worrying about AMF backlash.

QBRanger April 15 2008 2:15 PM EDT

Again,

I agree 100% with Sut.

I do not believe this thread is about AMF vs EC or other factors.

It is just that the AMF backlash should be proportional to the damage that can be delivered in that particular round.

If the FB is going to do 84% of max that round, the AMF should be based on that number, not the 100% potential damage.

To me, that just sound fair. It passes the "smell test", IE: It just smells right.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] April 15 2008 2:19 PM EDT

Oh I agree with you about AC worn by the Caster. ;)

I misunderstood that part. ;)

If you let AC reduce Backlash damage taken, it's worthless as Mage armour without penalties doesn't add Ac anyway, and amrour with magic penalties would increase the AMF% you took, as it reduces your DD when comapred ot thier AMF. ;)

Maybe, as mage armour + doesn't reduce physical damage, it could be changed to reduce AMF backlash?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] April 15 2008 2:21 PM EDT

"I do not believe this thread is about AMF vs EC or other factors.

It is just that the AMF backlash should be proportional to the damage that can be delivered in that particular round."

But it has too. They have been twinned in blaance since the start of CB. There's nothing to reduce EO's at all. You can only increase yourself versus them.

They both have fixed effects for thier investment.

Change AMF to be variable, and EC becomes so much more better than it.

EC would *have* to become variable as well...

Cube April 15 2008 2:50 PM EDT

The way I look at it... "If it ain't broke don't fix it"

Sure I'd love to take less damage from AMF, but it doesn't seem like AMF is over powered to me..

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 15 2008 3:07 PM EDT

i tend to go even further and think that amf should only retaliate on what actually gets through all the layers. if someone is using a mage shield that reduces damage by 40 percent, then that also reduces the damage taken by the mage.

let these damage reduction layers work both ways. if only 25 percent of my damage gets through, then amf can only retaliate based on that. i have never understood how it can retaliate at a higher level than the damage dealt as it appears to do, this does not make sense.

QBRanger April 15 2008 3:16 PM EDT

Unfortunately I disagree Dude,

Mages have 4 items at their disposal to reduce AMF. One reduces it a massive amount-TOE.

Why penalize tanks for using magic reducing items? Also, how would you calculate AMF on a 4 minion team like Edyit. Where 1 or 2 minions are lightly armored and the other 2 are heavily armored with 1 using the MgS.

The magic damage will vary for all 4.

Cube April 15 2008 3:17 PM EDT

^That would severely cripple any damage reduction strategy that uses amf.. That's already how GA works, AMF should be a different spell.

Now it's annoying when I do 0 Damage to RoBf people then die from the Backlash, but I just think that's how it should be.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 15 2008 3:20 PM EDT

the retaliation would have to be calculated on a per minion basis. it wouldn't really be penalizing damage reduction strats in that they get the benefit of the damage reduction still. i think the better question is why should it retaliate for more damage than it does?

Cube April 15 2008 3:24 PM EDT

"One reduces it a massive amount-TOE."

If I'm not mistake, amf damage reduction is only 5% of Tattoo level and 2.5% aura, still with the 75% cap.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 15 2008 3:34 PM EDT

i will see if i can explain my point of view better.

i have about 51 million xp in my mm. due to randomness, in any given round my xp is worth 25.5 million to 51 million. the plus on armor can reduce it further and probably the worst example is that a 6m nw mage shield can make my 51 million xp with randomness worth 15 million xp to 31 million. that is all part of being a mage and we all know that i think the mage shield needs modifications.

what really gets me though is if the amf retaliation is figured before all of this, then i am getting retaliation on the 51 million xp but never seeing the damage output of the same amount of xp.

as ranger stated in a post, it just smells right...well i think this smells bad. if my xp only acts like 30 million xp for damage then for retaliation purposes, it should be valued at the same amount.

Cube April 15 2008 3:38 PM EDT

I don't think it's fair to count the randomness/damage and compare it to AMF, they are fundamentally different spells. AMF only works on mages, Magic missile works on everyone.

Talion April 15 2008 3:45 PM EDT

"I don't think it's fair to count the randomness/damage and compare it to AMF, they are fundamentally different spells. AMF only works on mages, Magic missile works on everyone."

I agree 100%.

I see AMF as a field of energy around the mage that traps the spell's lethal power right at the source, so there is no dispersion factor and no protection from armor.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 15 2008 3:45 PM EDT

if that comment was for me, i am not comparing the two. amf is based off of direct damage. i really don't understand what you are saying.

QBRanger April 15 2008 3:56 PM EDT

Per the most recent TOE changelog:

ToE endurance on equipping minion is now 50% of lvl (was 60%); aura is now 40% (was 35%)

I have no idea where 5% is from.

A 3M level TOE protects for 1.5M damage and reduces that damage 75% on the minion wearing it.

For other minions (typical on multi minion mage characters) it has a cap of 1.2M damage.

That is a lot of reduction. About 900k on the non wearing minion on the first 1.2M backlash.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 15 2008 3:58 PM EDT

talion, i can buy all of that, except then i think our armor would work, if yours works against magic and the bubble around us bounces it back, then ours should work also. if you can though, cast a field between my skin and armor, then we should probably have a magical armor spell in the game that i can cast on myself and if both amf and the mage armor spell are cast on the same target, then they cancel each other out or spontaneously combust or something.

QBRanger April 15 2008 3:59 PM EDT

Dude,

How about letting protection and + on AC help vs AMF?

Protection is sort of a magical armor type of spell.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 15 2008 4:01 PM EDT

^^
if yours works against magic and the bubble around us bounces it back, then ours should work also.

i concur.

Tezmac April 15 2008 5:04 PM EDT

"I see AMF as a field of energy around the mage that traps the spell's lethal power right at the source, so there is no dispersion factor and no protection from armor."

...and it should only return for whatever damage it leaves with.

QBRanger April 15 2008 5:14 PM EDT

Tezmac,

But your statement do you mean:

1) It should be proportional to the damage it potentially will do.

2) It should be based on the damage it does to the other character?

I suspect it is 1 but wish to confirm that as some want things to be as option 2.

I personally believe it should be 1.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 15 2008 5:25 PM EDT

i think tez is saying that if due to randomness it leaves the mage at 50 percent of its potential value, then it should only "backfire" for 50 percent of its damage.

Tezmac April 15 2008 5:29 PM EDT

Nope, I want it to be like #1. Whatever it would have hit the person you were attacking for with any randomness taken into account.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 15 2008 5:37 PM EDT

hmm, i guess if you look at it as talion sees it, where does the randomness then come in. before the dd spell leaves the mage or is there some kind of randomness bubble between mages and their targets? i see the randomness as sometimes our spells just kinda fizzle as they are cast. if that is the case then if it does shoot for a lesser amount, shouldn't it backfire for a lesser amount?

this is all pretty much academic, jon will likely leave it as is regardless, but i think it is kinda cool to see how people picture and rationalize these fantastical battles we take part in.

QBsutekh137 April 15 2008 5:43 PM EDT

I think you are all in agreement at the moment...

dude, the question about the actual damage that hits -- I disagree with you. AMF should absolutely be able to hit harder than the damage you do. If you don't believe that should be the case, you should fight for backlash being done away with altogether.

AMF is a dedicated spell. If someone has a huge AMF, it only works on mages. It matters not that they augment it with even more mage-busting stuff. On a different topic, I will agree the MgS sucks, and Ranger will even agree its upgrade curve should be steeper.

These are all separate issues. I understand why AMF is different -- I embrace that. Otherwise it would just be EC for mages. It needs to hit back, and it needs to hit back, at the very least, based on the potential coming out of the mage. Several have now agreed that they would be fine with making it thusly proportional, and a lot of folks (including me) are also OK with it staying as is.

What would kind of fix a lot of this would be toning down the randomness in general. Have we figured out of tanks are a 50-100 range as well? If so, we just need that range reduced. 50% is ridiculous.

QBRanger April 15 2008 5:44 PM EDT

I see it as the magical power the mage summons from the depths of the antimatter plane as being variable each cast.

So the amount of magic leaving his/her hands is different each time, to be subject to different splashback each time.

But as I read it, Tez and Dude are typing nearly the similar opinion, just stating it differently.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 15 2008 6:02 PM EDT

the test on physical damage we did last weekend with base characters showed a 62..5 to 100 % randomness for mages. since it was done at such low levels, variance from 5 to 8 on damage, the numbers may well be off a bit. i believe the randomness is close enough to mages for us all to be in the same boat there.

i would go for a reduction of randomness in a big way!

ActionAction April 17 2008 7:50 PM EDT

I would love for a scaling AMF to be put into effect. Especially since that's how I'm drawing most of my fights against single minion RoBF teams :P.

AdminNightStrike April 18 2008 1:33 AM EDT

"If AMF currently backlashes based on 50% DD output, then what I am asking for will only hurt me. If it currently bases off of 100%, a change could only help. And if AMF is based on 75%, then all I need is confirmation of that and I would be OK with it since it is right in the middle."

I believe I put very complete documentation on AMF in the wiki. It is 40% of your max potential * AMF %.

So with an AMF effect of 1.00, your backlash would be 40% of your maximum damage. I don't know where you get the 50, 75, and 100% numbers. Maybe this is explained in the rest of the thread... I didn't read it.

AdminNightStrike April 18 2008 1:35 AM EDT

Just to clarify, if you make AMF be AMF% * [50..100]%*Max DD Effect, you'll have to drop the 40% multiplier, which will result in you ALWAYS taking more damage.

In effect, AMF backlash will always be less than the least possible damage you could do.
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=002Pe3">Why does AMF hit back at constant rate?</a>