rock~paper~scissors (in General)


Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 7 2008 9:05 AM EDT

yesterday ranger asked a question in a post regarding what a high level character needs to do to hit an evasion minion. this got me to thinking about the game dynamics and my gut reaction was "train dd".

all of the xp put into evasion is wasted against dd minions. this is classic cb dynamics. i guess only jon knows for sure when certain things are working as intended since his intentions are gleaned only through his posts here which are often terse.

what is your opinion on where evasion should be and what role it should play in the game? should it be a foil for melee, ranged or both but useless against dd as now? should it be a foil for the lower weapons, but not for higher ones? if that is the case then what would the new foil for weapons be? should any one strategy be able to do it all? if a team gets high enough in mpr, should it overwhelm even the classic foils for its strategy and if so at what levels would that be? is that still then rock~paper~scissors?

QBsutekh137 May 7 2008 9:18 AM EDT

I agree, if by "DD" you mean "CoC". FB and MM are worthless against damage-reduction teams (classic ToE/PL/TSA, even without ToE makes the weaker DDs utterly useless).

Also, let's not forget the example your own team sets: You have enough AMF to land a 0.50 on me. ZOWIE. (you've been off my fight list for some time now). At the same time, your Evasion is high enough that Ranger whiffs a lot (still wins, though). So, that isn't really rock/scissors/paper. It's a glimpse into several factors:

-- DD in ranged is so weak that it becomes hard to take out teams with any standard damage reduction. The only teams I can do it to are those that don't play the standard damage-reduction game and/or use DEs as their damage reduction.
-- That means AMF sits there blasting away for all of ranged, and FB becomes EXTREMELY detrimental at that point since the next round starts frying friendly minions. FB friendly fire will kill everyone else on the team in one round. It's that powerful.
-- Evasion is so cheap to train that a team with any concentration at all can have a large AMF as well as a large enough Evasion: That means beating mages and tanks at the same time. So much for rock/scissors/paper!

So, DD is the answer? Not in a million years, and not by a long shot. CoC is the only thing that works. Why? Because a CoC team plays the same, boring, braindead damage reduction that everyone else plays, hits hard enough to overwhelm the thresholdy damage reducers in the game (there are more than you think! I count at least 4!), and doesn't kill off its own team.

There is absolutely no reason to mention anything other than CoC when talking about DD. Conundrum is the classic example. Use damage reduction to reduce all fights to the same playing field, and then blast away with CoC. There, AMF is just about the only true enemy.

QBJohnnywas May 7 2008 9:21 AM EDT

I don't think high MPR or high cash should be an automatic switch off for the rock paper scissors, otherwise you're creating a cap for game growth.

However that partially exists anyway. We already have caps on spells and weapons in their growth curves. The next point on being more expensive in terms of cash and XP. This means that characters get larger but don't get a huge amount stronger after a while. At which point rock-paper-scissors becomes even more important otherwise you stagnate.

QBJohnnywas May 7 2008 9:24 AM EDT

And those damage reducers Sut mentions have been in play around the game for too long now. Even I'm using them!

Having run quite ranged based teams for a little while, big damage no damage reduction I can say they have their own scissors and paper, but the layers of damage reduction nearer the top are only really vulnverable to the same sort of teams. So the quick killers have less and less they can target.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 7 2008 9:26 AM EDT

i am not disagreeing with you sut, but you are then introducing another factor into the mix with amf. as for the simple statement though that evasion does nothing against dd, that is accurate as well as all xp put into evasion helps in no sense against dd teams. what you are discussing though is concentrated xp and its ability to employ multiple foils and especially the ability of the robf to allow this to an extreme?

QBsutekh137 May 7 2008 9:42 AM EDT

You are correct, Evasion does nothing against DD. I was just being realistic as far as how viable DD really is (overall) at higher levels. I mean, you COULD say that Evasion is useless against Decay, so we should all use Decay against it, but I wouldn't recommend that (and I don't assume you would either). *smile* Just because something CAN work doesn't mean it WOULD work in a varied playing field.

My concentration statement is basically focusing on how easy it is to get Evasion to an effective level. It is not that hard to get it pretty big, and then with Elven gear and an AoF, that can double the effective level. Non-ToA melee tanks miss, much less ranged tanks. If Evasion were harder to get higher, I wouldn't have said what I said (and Ranger wouldn't be missing you a lot). Ranger should be able to pound the ever-loving crap out of your character, in my opinion. If you can invest in enough HP and AMF to survive and put Hubbell on a slow roast, then by God tanks should be able to rip you apart.

I have no problem with having to remove igot from my fightlist. Yeah, it hurt, but I can't fight against that AMF, and my DM is useless. So it seems fair. But the fact that Ranger also misses igot a lot -- that's what irks me (and completely defeats the rock/scissors/paper dynamic in the game). That's cake, eating it, and having other people watch you while you eat it. *smile* Is that because of the RoBF? Evasion's easy curve? Your one-minion concentration? Probably all of the above. Evasion's easy curve is what sticks out to me, with the RoBF a close second (I hate its thresholdy nature).

And JW perfectly crystallized my thoughts about the high end and finding targets. Absolutely nailed it.

Sickone May 7 2008 9:45 AM EDT

The problem can simply be traced back to the "AMF is way too powerful" issue.
Not so, you say ? Let me count the ways...

Single minions facing eachother, equal level of DD to AMF (and all rest HP) WOULD look like a perfect tie at perfect glance... right ? Wrong !

1. AMF backlash IGNORES armoring of any kind. That means it doesn't matter you have 200 magical AC and/or 30-effect protection, elven hauberk or anything else similar... you STILL get the full backlash damage... while the opponent gets the benefit of all previously mentioned damage reduction methods. The only method that does work is ToE (and I wonder why this, and only this).

2. To compound the problem even further, backlash damage is ALWAYS "against single-minion" level... which wouldn't be so nasty, if only it wouldn't also ALWAYS count at "maximum potential damage". In other words, you actually deal random damage between 50% and 100% (75% long-term average), but the backlash damage is for 100% always.

3. Even worse still, AMFs add up and count individually against each of the opponent's DDs. In other words, the above scenario but with two minions on either side (instead of just one on each side), both in each team with equal levels of AMF on one side and DD on the other... and the AMF is roughly four times more effective compared to the "one minion per side" scenario.


Proposals ?

The third part is not so bad, that's how all enchantments work, it's only the coup-de-grace. Let it be.

The second part is pretty damned nasty, and AMF backlash should definetely be reduced from the 100%... either to a flat 75%, or matching the currently rolled "dealt damage".
It's only fair, either way.
The flat 75% still leads to random results depending on round "luck rolls", the second version is the fairest, but reduces the randomness a bit too much.
Personally, I'd say go with 75%.

The first part is really a mistery. WHY is it that ToE reduces AMF backlash but everything else doesn't ? That's definetely completely unfair, and should be remedied post-haste.
The "protection" effect should work for sure, especially since it can be countered by DM (yes, I'm aware that AMF+DM don't mix well, but protection is hardly a spell trained to high levels, so sacrificing some of the trained AMF to also wipe out the enemy Protection is only fair).
The armor magic damage reduction... well... you could argue that the backlash is "internal" so it bypasses all armor somehow, but even in fantasy settings, magic is usually "flung out" from the body via the hands, so it's a bit far-fetched either way.
AT WORST, you could take half the magic AC into account, if not all of it... just let armor reduce backlash damage.
Heck, GA retaliation damage (be it physical or magical in nature) is reduced by the proper armor layers, why not backlash damage too ?

Sickone May 7 2008 9:49 AM EDT

And some thoughts about evasion.
The only real problem with evasion is its double... nay, TRIPLE dip.

On one hand, you have PTH reduction. That's fine, no problems there.
Two, you have PTH reduction (if higher than weapon plus) reduce CTH damage. Hmm. A bit weird, but then again, why not.
Third, you get evasion granting defensive DX. Now, why in the world would you do that TOO, after you just did the previous two things ?

IMHO, it's either the "PTH difference" or the defensive DX... one of them can stay, the other should go away.
Leaving them both "as is" is way too much.

Sickone May 7 2008 9:53 AM EDT

Then again, you could tackle the evasion issue a bit differently... if you don't separate dex-based CTH and weapon PTH for evasion purposes, why separate them for attacks ?

You could simply start base CTH higher, at 100% for equal DX, and allow up to 4 hits from DX advantage alone.
You still cap the total number of hits to 4, but not cap the DX-based hits to 2 !

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 7 2008 9:57 AM EDT

hmm, i was going for a general foils and counters in the game and it seems this thread has turned into another why the robf sucks one.

in hopes of getting back to general foils, my strategy does have foils and my almost 70 million xp in amf is not helping against all of the dd out there. at some point it may, but i have not reached that point by far as of yet.

sickone brings up some very good points, but again those are specific issues with one foil or counter (i do agree with many of your points btw.)

i have stated many times that i think we need caps in the game. pretty much everything we complain about regularly in the forums could be helped by adding a "protected" cap to pretty much everything in the game that can be reduced.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 7 2008 10:00 AM EDT

if evasion were changed in that manner, i suck at visualizing that for some reason, would it still be a counter to melee? at what level would it still be that counter?

Sickone May 7 2008 10:05 AM EDT

Last but not least, you could revamp the DDs into two separate sides : ranged and melee, just like you do with physical weapons.

So, for instance, you could have Fireball and Magic Missile be the "ranged" weapons, while Cone of Cold and Decay be the melee magics.
HoC would NOT enable CoC/Decay to fire in "last" round of ranged, but there would be no ranged magic damage penalties at all... however, FB/MM would only fire "every other round" in melee (melee round 2, round 4, round 6, etc)
Also, to make things even more fair, have FB dealing EQUAL damage to your team and the enemy (INCLUDING the caster).
On the flipside, you could ramp up CoC and Decay damage even more... but have that "extra" damage added treated as PHYSICAL damage (so, more AC reduction).

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 7 2008 10:05 AM EDT

to clarify:

most of the proposed changes to evasion seem to be about making it no longer actually be a counter to melee/ranged (perhaps these two need to be separated into two different counters?) which would leave melee with no counter. this is why my usual response is that if it seems overpowered then just tone it down rather than making big changes and possibly having a rock with no paper game.

Sickone May 7 2008 10:11 AM EDT

"if evasion were changed in that manner, i suck at visualizing that for some reason, would it still be a counter to melee? at what level would it still be that counter? "

Well... physical damage would increase across the board, for starters, even without "USD weapons"... easily up to double of current averages against non-evasion teams.
However, adding an "USD weapon" (big plus) would NOT increase damage further "on average"... it would only help compensate against big evasions.

Overall, evasion becomes a lot more effective at low levels and less effective at higher levels and tanks in general (ToA tanks in particular) gain significant increases in overall damage dished out... but USD weapons lose even more of their relative advantage.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] May 7 2008 10:12 AM EDT

WooT! This might span a few posts, and take me a while to answer. ;)

Sute first. :P

"I agree, if by "DD" you mean "CoC". FB and MM are worthless against damage-reduction teams (classic ToE/PL/TSA, even without ToE makes the weaker DDs utterly useless)."

Ah... This is where we get into Rock - Paper - Scissors - Bomb (for you old Minds Eye players).

It's not as simple a RPS, but then I don't doubt we all know that. ;)

Evasion is useless versus DD, including Decay. FB and MM aren't as effectives as CoC versus Reduciton Layers.

"-- Evasion is so cheap to train that a team with any concentration at all can have a large AMF as well as a large enough Evasion: That means beating mages and tanks at the same time. So much for rock/scissors/paper!"

Bomb. ;) RBF, GA and AMF Backlash damage, depending on the offensive set up.

As for Evasion being cheap, that's something we can't answer. I'm sure the curve of it's effect (which would be the cheapness, as the defensive dex is exactly the same cost as natural Dex) is based on the PTH of UC and the 'expected' weapon PTH at a MPR level.

"There is absolutely no reason to mention anything other than CoC when talking about DD. Conundrum is the classic example. Use damage reduction to reduce all fights to the same playing field, and then blast away with CoC. There, AMF is just about the only true enemy."

While the combination of silly damage reduction layers might make the quick kill routes of FB and MM not as good as CoC (when backed by it's own silly damage redution set up) doesn't make FB/MM worthless. MM can exploit people who don't set up any rear reductions (or rather it's sheer existance forces people to include rear reductions).

And quick kills seem to have been purposly down powered by Jon. From ELBows to FB. Maybe Jon wants fights to last longer than 4-5 rounds.

I wonder what the overall average round count for ever battle fought in CB is? If it's 3-5, I don't think we should be surprised that Jon would want fights to last longer.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 7 2008 10:21 AM EDT

jon posted a stat a few months back, which i think is why we saw the changes...alas i cannot find it now when i look. i believe it was something like 65 percent of all battles ended in ranged.

i too wonder what that number is now and would love an updated version post changes.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] May 7 2008 10:23 AM EDT

"My concentration statement is basically focusing on how easy it is to get Evasion to an effective level. It is not that hard to get it pretty big, and then with Elven gear and an AoF, that can double the effective level."

How easy is it to get a Weapon to an effective level? How many multi million NW wepaons are floating around?

As for the AoF, I think it should be changed to +2/-4. ;)

"Non-ToA melee tanks miss, much less ranged tanks. If Evasion were harder to get higher, I wouldn't have said what I said (and Ranger wouldn't be missing you a lot). Ranger should be able to pound the ever-loving crap out of your character, in my opinion. If you can invest in enough HP and AMF to survive and put Hubbell on a slow roast, then by God tanks should be able to rip you apart."

Ranger would still miss that 6-7M Evasion, and concentration would still be the way to go (I've been saying that for years! :P)

How easy should it be to make all Tanks miss you? All Mages die from their own Backlash before they kill you? Get 477AC and be immune to just about everything?

Is training 6M Evaison on a single minion hard? I don't think it's easy. I'm still of the opinion that multiple minions are easier, as you can stick on whatever combination of abilities you need to stop whoever you want. Like being able to use both EC and AMF, which a single minion couldn't.

"I have no problem with having to remove igot from my fightlist. Yeah, it hurt, but I can't fight against that AMF, and my DM is useless. So it seems fair. But the fact that Ranger also misses igot a lot -- that's what irks me (and completely defeats the rock/scissors/paper dynamic in the game)."

It's Bomb again. ;) This isn't just limited to Evasion + AMF. DB + AMF can be done on a single minion, or 477 AC. Or even UC+Gi +AMF. ;)

Hell, you could probably get away with a large enough ToE, or even a single minion with enough natural HP + TSA.

"That's cake, eating it, and having other people watch you while you eat it. *smile* Is that because of the RoBF? Evasion's easy curve? Your one-minion concentration? Probably all of the above. Evasion's easy curve is what sticks out to me, with the RoBF a close second (I hate its thresholdy nature)."

What's the difference to a four minion team with a massive EC and AMF, a ToE, TSA, PL, etc. The 'classic' damage reduction routine. I'd call that just as easy. ;)

Let alone the fun to be had with x4000 E/AXBows.

Sickone May 7 2008 10:27 AM EDT

"i believe it was something like 65 percent of all battles ended in ranged.
i too wonder what that number is now and would love an updated version post changes. "

For me, last 24h... 97.2% of offence battles end in ranged (mostly won), 64.4% of defence battles end in ranged (mostly lost).


Ancient Anubis May 7 2008 10:29 AM EDT

just quick thing this is a gladiator arena the easy get killed off quickly till the strongest are left and the battles will get harder and longer so i say... well i don't say anything i just kill all i can :P

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] May 7 2008 10:31 AM EDT

"Single minions facing eachother, equal level of DD to AMF (and all rest HP) WOULD look like a perfect tie at perfect glance... right ? Wrong !

1. AMF backlash IGNORES armoring of any kind. That means it doesn't matter you have 200 magical AC and/or 30-effect protection, elven hauberk or anything else similar... you STILL get the full backlash damage... while the opponent gets the benefit of all previously mentioned damage reduction methods. The only method that does work is ToE (and I wonder why this, and only this)."

And the NSC.

AMF is fixed at a max of 40% of the total effect. At even level, the Caster deals 50% damage to his opponent, while taking 20% himself. With no other sources of Damage and equal HP, the Mage is most likely to win still.

"2. To compound the problem even further, backlash damage is ALWAYS "against single-minion" level... which wouldn't be so nasty, if only it wouldn't also ALWAYS count at "maximum potential damage". In other words, you actually deal random damage between 50% and 100% (75% long-term average), but the backlash damage is for 100% always."

Because it's at a max of 40% of the Backlash percent. Making it random would make it suck.

"3. Even worse still, AMFs add up and count individually against each of the opponent's DDs. In other words, the above scenario but with two minions on either side (instead of just one on each side), both in each team with equal levels of AMF on one side and DD on the other... and the AMF is roughly four times more effective compared to the "one minion per side" scenario."

It's the same Deal for EDs as well.

EO's and SKills are the only two types of abilities that currently have no counter. Sure, you can grow bigger, but you have nothing to reduce thier effectiveness.

They will always hit you for the amount trained.

I feel that along with everything else, Skills and EO's should have a direct counter.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 7 2008 10:37 AM EDT

sills countering other skills, eo's countering others. i have thought about that. i think we would still have all of the same complaints as now. i am starting to believe that even though we are constantly faced with the fact that this is a rsp game, if we get big enough we should be able to beat all of the people out there.

i guess that is my whole point, if we want that game, then it may not be cb and we should go elsewhere. if we want cb, then we need to just accept that one ring will not rule them all and in the darkness bind them.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] May 7 2008 10:39 AM EDT

Specilaism versus all comer. ;)

CB rewards specilaism over making an all comer strat. You can fight higher, and therefore get better rewards and grow quicker if you specilaise.

Like Sacred Peanut.

You can still build an all comers strat, but while you might not be beaten nor attacked back as much, you won't be fighting up as much and won't be growing as fast.

This drawback fall apart in the top tier. Making specilism redundant, and making everyone change to a tak all comers build.

Get rid of the whole fighting down exemption.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 7 2008 10:40 AM EDT

furthermore, i think this is the goal jon had all along for cb2 and it was perhaps skewed by usd. i guess that is really what this post is all about. are we finally closer to jon's vision for cb2 than we have ever been?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] May 7 2008 10:41 AM EDT

CB2 is broken. ;)

Time for CB3! :P

QBOddBird May 7 2008 12:08 PM EDT

"if we want cb, then we need to just accept that one ring will not rule them all and in the darkness bind them."


However, if anyone has a need to be bound in the darkness, please come see OB and he can possibly negotiate a deal to meet your needs.

Talion [Axis of Evil] May 7 2008 1:15 PM EDT

"in hopes of getting back to general foils, my strategy does have foils and my almost 70 million xp in amf is not helping against all of the dd out there."

dudemus, I hope you are kidding when you state this... I really hope so.

I have a MM effective level over 6.5M and the same goes for my familiar's level. At the start of a fight against you, all my minions have HP comparable to your single minion's, which means my char has 3 times your char's HP.

Yet, my MM minions kills himself before melee and my IF is dead after 2 rounds.

Come one! You AMF is helping against ALL, and I do mean ALL of the DD out there. This cannot be argued.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 7 2008 1:58 PM EDT

i have 7 to 8 teams who beat me regularly at a rate of 100%. 2 or 3 of those are physical damage based teams. the other five are magic based and beat me 100 percent of the time. this is what i meant by the statement you quoted. i was merely stating that i do have teams that i cannot foil completely with evasion and amf at this level or as of yet. my goal is to do so.

remember too that we are very close to the same mpr talion. all of mine is concentrated on 3 stats whilst yours is spread way out amongst two minions. you are one of the few teams around my mpr that can beat me. your magic missile helps against some teams i assume, otherwise you wouldn't still be using it. rock~scissors~paper once again prevails.

as stated once before in this thread, i have about 35 million xp in hp, about
45 million in evasion and about 70 million in amf. my amf effect is also boosted by my tat.

Talion [Axis of Evil] May 7 2008 2:06 PM EDT

I checked your fight log... 8 is a bit exaggerated don't you think?

Only 3 DD based teams still attacking you in the last 1000 battles aside from me (took you off my fight list) and novice (character retired and only attacked you once). Those 3 all have at least 600K MPR more than you and HUGE tattoos.

All the others are either tanks and/or teams with bigger RoBF.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 7 2008 2:15 PM EDT

it is often 8, only 7 atm though. if i could remember who the other one was i would gladly tell ya! perhaps that is why i said 7 to 8? i have more magic damage based teams that win 100% of the time against me at this time than physical damage teams. how's that?

8DEOTWP May 7 2008 2:23 PM EDT

single minion trying to protect himself with AMF, how long can you expect to live?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 7 2008 2:23 PM EDT

i was actually counting novice as one who could beat me 100% of the time as well. just because he's retired that character that doesn't change the fact that his strategy always beat mine.

QBRanger May 7 2008 2:34 PM EDT

A few points I would like to post:

First, Decay is useless most of the time vs evasion minions on tank teams. Why? Typically people put a 20 hp minion in front to take the decay. Unless you have an AOE spell, you cannot get past that minion. Just look at me vs LA or AB for the classic example.

Second, CB2 is not broken. Well some things are like the NUB and evasion, but they can be fixed. IE: Rolling bonus and not letting the AoF work on evasion. Let tanks be able to play the dex game vs evasion minions on equal footing.

Third, I agree AMF should be based on the potential damage done THAT round.

Fourth, “most of the proposed changes to evasion seem to be about making it no longer actually be a counter to melee/ranged”. I completely disagree with this statement. I propose having evasion be equal to dexterity in the items that can or cannot boost it. Let tanks have equal footing in trying to hit evasion. Hence, my suggestion that the AoF NOT boost evasion. Let it boost the other skills, but not evasion. As stated, evasion gets a triple dip. So why is it so easy to boost it.

Fifth, “Let alone the fun to be had with x4000 E/AXBows.”, PLEASE do not get me started on this. Now, in addition to worrying about ENC for my armors/weapons, I cannot use the 1 item to stop this ungodly item-DBs. With DBs big enough, I go well over the ENC limit. And people have stated “lower str, boost dex”, then I will be in ENC hell. Yes, i can use evasion, but I would need over 150 effect to make that exbow miss. Diluting my xp even more, making my str lower, making my ENC worse, etc.. vicious cycle!

Sixth, Dude-45M xp in evasion makes me miss you over 70% of the time. Imagine if you named that AoF and boosted it a bit more!! What a great use for xp!!!. Also, imagine if you did not use a corn with its 10% negatives. I would miss you 100% of the time. Great foil for a +225 (+11 AoL) weapon. I wish 45M in AMF would do a 1.0 vs mages, heck even .5. I have just over 47M and get .28 or so vs the highest DD spells. Stupid NS.

Seventh, people state that EC is multiplied by the AoF, countering its evasion boost. That is true to a degree. I have the highest EC-3.2M effective levels. If trained evasion is over that 3.2M levels, the boost from the AoF more then counters the negatives. So vs the higher evasions, my EC is not helping more then the AoF is hurting me.

All in all-evasion is too powerful for the xp invested.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] May 7 2008 2:49 PM EDT

"First, Decay is useless most of the time vs evasion minions on tank teams. Why? Typically people put a 20 hp minion in front to take the decay. Unless you have an AOE spell, you cannot get past that minion. Just look at me vs LA or AB for the classic example."

That implies no AS. And even an AoE attack won't stop that minion if PL is involved.

"Third, I agree AMF should be based on the potential damage done THAT round."

Then boost the backlash damage. Remove the 40% modifier.

"Fourth, “most of the proposed changes to evasion seem to be about making it no longer actually be a counter to melee/ranged”. I completely disagree with this statement. I propose having evasion be equal to dexterity in the items that can or cannot boost it. Let tanks have equal footing in trying to hit evasion. Hence, my suggestion that the AoF NOT boost evasion. Let it boost the other skills, but not evasion. As stated, evasion gets a triple dip. So why is it so easy to boost it."

The AoF is the only item that falls into that category. And *if* the AF is the main cause of all the anguish, then change it. +2/-4 per point would suffice.

"Fifth, “Let alone the fun to be had with x4000 E/AXBows.”, PLEASE do not get me started on this. Now, in addition to worrying about ENC for my armors/weapons, I cannot use the 1 item to stop this ungodly item-DBs. With DBs big enough, I go well over the ENC limit. And people have stated “lower str, boost dex”, then I will be in ENC hell. Yes, i can use evasion, but I would need over 150 effect to make that exbow miss. Diluting my xp even more, making my str lower, making my ENC worse, etc.. vicious cycle!"

Exactly what ENc is here for (not touching on the drain it;sef, that's already been covered in another topic).

"Sixth, Dude-45M xp in evasion makes me miss you over 70% of the time. Imagine if you named that AoF and boosted it a bit more!! What a great use for xp!!!. Also, imagine if you did not use a corn with its 10% negatives. I would miss you 100% of the time. Great foil for a +225 (+11 AoL) weapon. I wish 45M in AMF would do a 1.0 vs mages, heck even .5. I have just over 47M and get .28 or so vs the highest DD spells. Stupid NS."

How muhc NW would be needed to get +225 on a pair of DB? How would that trandlaste to XP? 90M (taking into account a generous 100% item boost)?

"Seventh, people state that EC is multiplied by the AoF, countering its evasion boost. That is true to a degree. I have the highest EC-3.2M effective levels. If trained evasion is over that 3.2M levels, the boost from the AoF more then counters the negatives. So vs the higher evasions, my EC is not helping more then the AoF is hurting me."

I've never seen that said. EC even with an AoF is still at 50% effect versus Evasion. An AoF will help EC, but it'll never solve the problem.

"the boost from the AoF more then counters the negatives"

That can never happen.... You will always get the same percantage penalty from your AoF, no matter what size your Evasion is.

"All in all-evasion is too powerful for the xp invested."

Not really. It's (without the PTH reduction) the same cost as natural Dex. I'd assume the PTH curve is based on the PTH granted by UC/PTH/An equivalent wepaon.

It seems that the AoF is the only real cause for complaint.

And that EC can't be boosted as much as Evasion can by items. While only working at half the cost.

I stil *really* don't understand why EC is continually bought into the discussion. It's no anti-evasion. /shrug

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 7 2008 2:54 PM EDT

i do agree that the first step is taking the aof back down to it's original 2% and seeing how that pans out and then possibly going further after that...small steps.

that aof of mine, btw is a rental. if i could find my own it would be named and higher. as i have stated many times, if my only goal was to foil your strategy then i could easily do so, leaving myself wide open to mages.

your last post in the bl thread stated that there is no counter to evasion. isn't magical damage that counter and then magical has the amf counter? i think maybe what you meant to say is that there is no tank-based counter to evasion? rock ~ paper ~ scissors no?

if you are stating that every strategy needs a counter to every other one, then we do really need a counter or counter-part to the mage shield for the same cost curve?

QBRanger May 7 2008 3:05 PM EDT

Yes,

There is no tank based counter to evasion.

However, I hope you do see the points made in all the posts above.

And I do believe that reducing the AoF to 2% is not enough of a solution. it still gives evasion a huge boost compared to dexterity boosting items, even at that level.

Plenty of people in the past have stated that EC works better vs evasion with the AoF. Also, however, EC does not reduce the PTH bonus you get when the AoF boosts evasion.

Now to a point I was trying to make:

Example:

Evasion trained 4M. AoF +12.

Gives 36% more to evasion: 1,440,000 more levels.

EC of 3.0M would be 3.0 * 1.36= 4,080,000 or a boost of only 1,080,000.

So the benefit of the AoF outweighs the hurt from EC when the base trained level of evasion > Effect of opponents EC.

Also, the AoF boosts the (xxx) level which is uneffected by EC.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] May 7 2008 3:16 PM EDT

Ranger;

"So the benefit of the AoF outweighs the hurt from EC when the base trained level of evasion > Effect of opponents EC."

That's a big fat 'DUH'.

For EC to be a valid counter to a 4M Evasion, it needs to be 8M in size.

Then, an AoF would *still* give more of a benefit to Evasion than it does to the anti dex portion of EC.

But. EC in total gets the same boost from the AoF as Evasion does.

It's this simple;

EC is not meant to be a counter to Evasion.

(As for not reducing the (effect), I think that's a property that EC should do...)

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 7 2008 3:18 PM EDT

i would like to see the incremental steps taken to fix the aof, just because i am not convinced of where the "sweet spot" would be but i would also like to see the mage shield cost curve adjusted at the same time and adjusted enough that using a higher mage shield really affects encumbrance for the user.
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=002Qk0">rock~paper~scissors</a>