Am I missing something? (in General)

QBJohnnywas May 12 2008 4:16 AM EDT

I've just placed some +129 DBs on my enchanter. They're pretty big obviously, and my enchanter....isn't. Encumbrance is showing at .79. Evasion in the play by play is showing at (34). They're behaving like a (34) evasion (that is, useless at the level I'm at).

Would the huge encumbrance I'm placing on that minion affect the effect of the DBs?

If not, then why does the after battle stats show evasion of (34)?

QBJohnnywas May 12 2008 4:18 AM EDT

hmmm. Looking back over the wiki and changelogs about encumbrance it states that evasion is the only skill that is affected by it. But DBs aren't a skill, they're equipment with anti-pth not evasion. Should they be affected?

Wizard'sFirstRule May 12 2008 4:22 AM EDT

well. AC isn't a skill or anything but they are affected by it. AG is an item and the DD boost is affected by it. DB doesn't grant evasion directly, but the effect is similar enough. DB should be affected by ENC.

QBJohnnywas May 12 2008 4:33 AM EDT

The thing is, if they are affected by ENC then that's absolutely fine. But I can't find anything to say that they definitely do.

What I want to know is if they are being affected then how are they being affected. Are DBs affected because they are providing 'evasion' or are they affected because for purposes of ENC the + on DBs is counted as AC?

Wizard'sFirstRule May 12 2008 4:44 AM EDT

good question. *awaits Jonanthan's verdict*

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] May 12 2008 4:51 AM EDT

I believe that they are effected because they are treated as evasion effect. My reasoning for this is that I am pretty sure that the EH magical def is not effected by enc.

QBRanger May 12 2008 9:13 AM EDT

The NW of the DB increase encumbrance, which then lower the DB (evasion) effect.

iBananco [Blue Army] May 12 2008 9:37 AM EDT

It's total evasion that's lowered, not the skill itself.

QBJohnnywas May 12 2008 9:43 AM EDT

So .79 encumbrance is enough to lower (129) to (34)?

Nice! ;)

QBRanger May 12 2008 9:50 AM EDT

Now you understand why ENC really sucks for tanks.

imagine trying to use high + DBs on one, equip a nice weapon and have nice armor.

THEN.. imagine having enough xp left to put into dexterity to try to hit uber evasion minions out there.

Cannot be done with the way CB/evasion currently is structured.

I guess you will have to dis-enchant those DBs to fit them on your enchanter. The same thing people keep telling me to do with my MH.

Kind of sucks, no?

QBJohnnywas May 12 2008 10:04 AM EDT

lol Ranger, or I can move them onto my mage where they come in under the ENC level.

I do feel your pain though. ;)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] May 12 2008 10:07 AM EDT

Is the MGS DD reduction reduced by ENC?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] May 12 2008 10:13 AM EDT

no but DD damage is, including decay (which is capable of doing NO damage even with no AMF)

QBJohnnywas May 12 2008 10:19 AM EDT

I see what GL means. It's important to know what is being affected where DBs are concerned because their + is NOT AC.

So if that is treated as AC by ENC, then so should the + on a mage shield. Shouldn't it?

Which does go some way to DBs being treated as evasion for ENC purposes I guess.

Usul [CHOAM] May 12 2008 10:23 AM EDT

if mage shields are not affect, that would be seriously broken :P

QBJohnnywas May 12 2008 10:24 AM EDT

If it's the evasion factor of DBs that is penalized then nothing is broken.

If it's treating their + as AC however, then several other items such as Mage Shield and Alatar's need to be looked at I think.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2008 10:27 AM EDT

in my humble opinion, the mgs already gets an encumbrance bonus due to its lenient cost curve especially in its early growth stages. if its effect is also not hampered by encumbrance, then is it just too darn good?

QBsutekh137 May 12 2008 10:49 AM EDT

One might say the MgS's lenient curve is offset by its penalties.

But we have seen proof-in-practice that it is fairly easy to find a good spot for the MgS and not be affected by those penalties (at least for multi-minion teams).

Additionally, many people (including guys like Ranger) agree its curve is too lenient.

Making the curve less lenient then DEFINITELY would mean its effect should get encumbered (currently, I am not even sure it has a high enough NW to cause ENC, at least not on its own!). It is not at all strange for the MgS on a back wall to be the most important item on the minion. If it still has its full effect, then encumbrance is essentially meaningless for an anti-mage wall.

The list that should be extremely short (zero items, in fact) is the list of things NOT affected by encumbrance. ENC should affect just about everything, in my opinion.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] May 12 2008 10:53 AM EDT

"Now you understand why ENC really sucks for tanks. "

Sucks? Do you know what sucks? facing a 1000 usd weapon with your mage, now that sucks.

ENC is created to stop tanks from over using USD. Its created for a reason.
And that reason sure does not suck.

Back on subject:

DB's give evasion according to the new changes and that evasion is being cut by ENC.

QBRanger May 12 2008 10:54 AM EDT

Sut and I perfectly agree on quite a few things in this thread.

The MgS upgrade curve is too lenient and it can be the most important item on a character. However it does have a few restrictions that make it not the all-powerful item that it would be without such restrictions.

But I agree that all items and special effects should be subject to ENC loads. Including Corns/AG/NSC, etc...

For junctioned familiars, of course, no ENC effects would apply.

Just to keep things consistent.

Cube May 12 2008 10:58 AM EDT

If the Mage shield curve was any less, people would just use normal wall armor anyway. Look at 3/4th's strat.

If you want to make ENC effect the Mage shield go ahead, no one is going to make a massive net worth Mage shield anyway. And you can't stick them on an enchanter where Enc doesn't effect other things anyways like you can for an Exbow.

QBsutekh137 May 12 2008 11:08 AM EDT

GC has a good point -- some items were probably left off the ENC list because during de facto usage they would never really be affected anyway. Like the MgS. But specialty xbows would not seem to fall in that category...

The only way I can think of where it would matter would be a heavy DE team that uses AS for HP. As far as I know a 20HP enchanter would get encumbered pretty quickly... Yes? Maybe since enchanters drop their payload right away, Jonathan sees no reason to encumber that (i.e. using a Corn).

How would this be for a litmus test: Anything that has effects round by round, either offensive or defensively, gets encumbered. This would essentially leave out enchanting (even though some enchantments definitely have round-by-round effects, e.g. GA).

But something that affects the dynamics of the real-time battle, like specialty xbows and MgS should be encumbered. And if the MgS upgrade curve were made steeper, it could lead to some meaningful ENC...

QBRanger May 12 2008 11:10 AM EDT

But then again,
The only minions that typically use a MgS are wall or tank minions.

They typically have enough hp and/or strength to use most armors. A few million more on the upgrade curve will not likely matter much.

However, if the max + on the MgS is only 30 or so, that would change the game a bit. Again, something that may be helpful to CB as a whole.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] May 12 2008 12:47 PM EDT

I would have to disagree with that. If you max out the mgs at 30, they might as well cease to exist. They will at that point become obsolete to a simple MS.

QBsutekh137 May 12 2008 1:12 PM EDT

That would be terrible! *smile*

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2008 3:49 PM EDT

30% direct damage reduciton for right at 1m nw and it would become obsolete? ias i have said many times in regards to the mgs, if that would make it so worthless, then you would surely have no issue with giving mages, or anyone paying the penalties to equip it, a counterpart item that does the same for physical damage types.

Cube May 12 2008 3:52 PM EDT

I have said this already, AC.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] May 12 2008 3:54 PM EDT

Yes, I have no problems with a counterpart item doing the save vs physical damage. This is because such an item would be almost completely worthless.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2008 4:02 PM EDT

wouldn't an ms need to have a plus of 150 to 160 to accomplish the same thing as a plus 30 mgs?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2008 4:08 PM EDT

game cube, if the ac comment is meant to be a response to my counterpart one, what item can mages use that gives them 150 ac for 1m nw or 180 or so for less than 6m? if the costs aren't comparable then how the heck can you claim it as a counterpart?

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] May 12 2008 4:24 PM EDT

If you want to think about it that way, then yes an MS needs like +150 to get the same effect as such a shield. But you are forgetting several important things.

1) Its a power shield so cannot be equipped with a tat (not very important)

2) the penalties. If you are giving up all your skills to wear this shield that is a big drawback. Guess what that means. No evasion.

3) It only takes +150 if you are wearing nothing else. Are you planning to just go around with a shield and nothing else? add a Coi and you just dropped how much you need to get by several points from +150 to more like +146. Add an MCM and now you need far less to get the same effect. From +146 to more like +128. Now upgrade that MCM a few point and the cost difference continues to close.

The only place such a shield would really work at all would be on a mage that wasn't going to be training any skills at all in the first place and using DB.

As for AC, it is an effective counterpart to the mgs. It doesn't work the same though. It gives small amounts of basically free reduction which slowly add up together.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2008 4:29 PM EDT

and the encumbrance slowly adds up too. with the mage shield you do not have to add all of those other things to get that effect....that is my whole point!

if you truly thing ac is such a good counterpoint, then let's ditch the mgs entirely as tank teams can also use ac?

on a single the counterpart might be worthless, however tanks are clever enough to have a team of minions and use the mage shield on one of the other members of the team. mages could do the same if they had a counterpart, no?

QBRanger May 12 2008 4:30 PM EDT

For my wall backed by a huge TOE, the MgS lowers magic damage far more then a MS.

I can get to 421 AC with a MS or about 350 with a MgS.

Guess what? The MgS helps vs FB and CoC far far more then the MS.

It is because only the + on the armor helps vs magic. So your not getting to the 75%+ damage reduction due to AC only vs magic.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2008 4:31 PM EDT

if you are saying it is totally worthless for my single minion build, that is also true. saying it would be worthless is silly though, tank teams sure use it and i would bet that mages could find a way to use the counterpart as well.

QBRanger May 12 2008 4:37 PM EDT

If the MgS upgrade curve was lowered to a max of about +30 and the MgS made widely available, I would bet plenty of more would be in use.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2008 5:02 PM EDT

i think they would work fine on the cost curve of eb's actually. i think that would fix them and make them less of a no-brainer encumbrance-wise. just capping them still makes that 30 percent dd reduction cost nothing encumbrance wise.

Cube May 12 2008 5:28 PM EDT

AC is the counterpart that blocks tank damage.
Show me a +60 Mage shield, that costs less than 287 AC.

Cube May 12 2008 5:33 PM EDT

Ranger let me also add that your Wall with the MS currently gets 52% reduction of magic damage. Basically the only plus that the Mage shield adds is that it can be stacked with a TSA.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2008 5:41 PM EDT

i would be much more willing to accept the ac is the counterpart argument. if ac offered no benefits at all against dd. if the mage shield is the counterpart to ac, then the plus numbers on ac items should actually not reduce magic damage at all and the mgs is the only method of reduction? if that is not what you are proposing, then the game is still not in balance. ac works against physical with the base number and the plus and magic only with the plus. the mage shield works against only magical damage with an extremely cheap cost curve and likewise little encumbrance issues.

if this is really the best you can come up with for a counterpart to the mage shield, then i propose making one for physical damage and changing ac to where it acts exactly the same for physical and magical. how about that?

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] May 12 2008 5:50 PM EDT

Please, Please, Please do that. You will see how fast mages start crying for it to be reversed within the day it happens.

Cube May 12 2008 5:51 PM EDT

"if this is really the best you can come up with for a counterpart to the mage shield, then i propose making one for physical damage and changing ac to where it acts exactly the same for physical and magical. how about that?"

If you'd rather have DD be blocked by 60+% like physical can be on AC be my guest, my team would be amazing. The exact reason it is the counter part is because AC does not work the same for physical as it does magical.

"if ac offered no benefits at all against dd."
Along with a Mage shield AC doesnt' add much reduction, as I said the main advantage is the ability to use the TSA. Not only that but because AC and the mage shield reduction are multiplicative, AC on top of the mage shield doesn't add much reduction.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2008 6:15 PM EDT

so you are saying that the mage shield is then equal to base numbers on ac items? hmm, i will have to go through and see what the highest base level ac items are and what that ac would add up to. i would be shocked if you can get base ac items up to 30 percent (143 ac) reduction for less than the million nw in a mgs. i would also be shocked if you can get 40 percent (191 ac) for less than 6m. if that can be done then perhaps you are correct.

ac would have the added benefit of being on multiple items and going even higher, and i guess that is what you were saying with the "show me a 60 mgs", but remember all those items take up other slots that could be use for items with effects. so i really would say that is a wash. you also have to remember that with the plusses on ac you can continue to add reduction once the mgs is capped through the same means.

game cube, what about my idea for making the mgs use the eb cost curve? i really do not care for a counterpart to the mgs and just use that as an alternative to what i really want which is just to make the cost curve less lenient on the mgs.

Cube May 12 2008 6:38 PM EDT

I'll let the numbers do the talking.

This will all be based off of Ranger's wall-

Magic AC:251

Magic Reduction: 52%
Physical Reduction: 75%
With Red Fender swapped for a +48 Mage shield (equal Networth but named so let's just say +50):
Magic AC:190 ~ Equivalent "Magic AC if that's what Mgs gave" - 334

Magic Reduction: 70%
Physical Reduction: 57%
With Red Fender swapped for a +30 Mage shield (if it was "capped " at that number):
Magic AC:190 ~ Equivalent "Magic AC if that's what Mgs gave" - 276

Magic Reduction: 58%
Physical Reduction: 58%

Cube May 12 2008 6:40 PM EDT

In the second two calculations, physical reduction percent is actually 57.5, sorry for getting different numbers for each, but these are semi rough calculations.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2008 6:45 PM EDT

what exactly are we supposed to be seeing with this? i am not trying to be obtuse but give me a hint at least please.

Cube May 12 2008 6:59 PM EDT

Basically, it seems to me that if the Mage shield was capped at 30% it would be completely worthless on a Wall, adding 6% Magic reduction in exchange for 17% of your Physical Reduction.

Okay, I guess it would still be useful on a damage dealer or a PL wall because you could stack it with a TSA, and anything else on a damage dealer - EBs, HoC etc.

I guess it comes down to what you want the Mage shield to be useful on. If you want it to only be useful for a wall, give it penalties. If you want it to only be useful for a Low AC Damage dealer, lower the curve. I guess I couldn't argue that much with lowering the curve.

Basically, I was just trying to show what the numbers are to better inform everyone the effects because I'd rather not just argue back and forth. To be fair I guess I'll go do the calculations for Ranger's Medium AC Archer right now.

Cube May 12 2008 7:12 PM EDT

This will all be based off of Ranger's tank with currently an effective 49% Mage shield

Magic AC:152 ~ Effective 311

Magic Reduction: 65%
Physical Reduction: 42%
With the +49 Mage shield swapped for Red Fender

Magic AC:213

Magic Reduction: 47%
Physical Reduction: 59%
With +49 MgS swapped for a +30 Mage shield (if it was "capped " at that number):
Magic AC:152 ~ Effective 250

Magic Reduction: 53%
Physical Reduction: 42%

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2008 7:12 PM EDT

well i thought you were saying that the mgs is balanced now with ac and that it was possibly a way to make up for not having base ac affect magical damage. glad i asked for clarification!

i would never say that 30 percent damage reduction in anything or just over 1m investment is worthless and scoff at such an idea. this is why i ask that if it is so worthless can we have one too?

Cube May 12 2008 7:14 PM EDT

First Calculation is wrong
Magic AC:152 ~ Effective 342

Magic Reduction: 72%
Physical Reduction: 42%

QBRanger May 12 2008 7:17 PM EDT

With 421 AC

Juggernaut's Cone of Cold hit Cloudscape [77051], The Grid [83152]
Juggernaut's Cone of Cold hit Cloudscape [86444], The Grid [117996]
Juggernaut's Cone of Cold hit Cloudscape [127548], The Grid [121741]
Juggernaut's Cone of Cold hit Cloudscape [109493], The Grid [92924]

With AC 354 no MgS vs Conundrum:

Juggernaut's Cone of Cold hit Cloudscape [239110], The Grid [107425]
Juggernaut's Cone of Cold hit Cloudscape [89026], The Grid [86878]
Juggernaut's Cone of Cold hit Cloudscape [94286], The Grid [67394]
Juggernaut's Cone of Cold hit Cloudscape [270642], The Grid [110101]
Juggernaut's Cone of Cold hit Cloudscape [124185], The Grid [131769]

With AC 273 and a +47 MgS:

Juggernaut's Cone of Cold hit Cloudscape [94677], The Grid [401993]
Juggernaut's Cone of Cold hit Cloudscape [105352], The Grid [129046]
Juggernaut's Cone of Cold hit Cloudscape [65454], The Grid [455137]
Juggernaut's Cone of Cold hit Cloudscape [72335], The Grid [398269]

QBRanger May 12 2008 7:20 PM EDT

When Cloudscape had the MgS on, my tank used its +58 MS. So my AC on The Grid was about 283. Explaining the high damages to The Grid on that set.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2008 7:24 PM EDT

ranger, how much encumbrance does that large of a mgs add to that character, and if possible what percentage of its encumbrance is that?

QBRanger May 12 2008 7:26 PM EDT

Does not add any ENC.

The MS has a 23M NW and the MgS has an 18M.

And my wall is 10M under ENC if he uses his 21M VB.

My tank is 27M under his.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2008 7:29 PM EDT

dang! i guess i missed that somehow. i assumed it would add some encumbrance.

how can an item that reduces any damage type by almost 50 percent not add a lick of encumbrance? wow.

Cube May 12 2008 7:36 PM EDT

Don't use the ENC argument.

My 323 AC set costs 12,966,498, my wall has triple that ENC.

323 / 477 = 0.677148847
All these items that reduce damage by 68%!!! Don't add any ENC either. But they do take up every single armor slot and give penalties.

I could see a nerf to the Mage shield, where it would give either a recognizable penalty to dex with a two hander the MS takes 20% of your dex away, the MgS takes 5% with a two hander, or maybe have the cost increase dramatically after +40, but +30 is definitely too low to be useful.

QBRanger May 12 2008 7:43 PM EDT


It adds NW, which matters to the overall NW on the minion.

However, my wall without a weapon is very very far under his limit.

My tank is closer but still have a bit of leeway. Not enough to add a missile weapon, but enough to boost the MH a bit if needed.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2008 7:45 PM EDT

"All these items that reduce damage by 68%!!! Don't add any ENC either. But they do take up every single armor slot and give penalties. "

that is part of what is incredibly out of whack in my mind with the mgs though, it can do all of that on one item, one slot and no real trade offs. you do realize that the 30 that you say would be so limiting is really just what i am begging for, let's make it not so much a no-brainer. at least you would have choices especially one more option than the other guys have!

i also think it is very wrong that you can add that much ac with that little of encumbrance, but you are right, it does take up slots that you have to trade for effects and at least it adds some...not so with the mgs! i guess if it was capped at 30 you need to take that into consideration as well for benefits to the mgs, there is no encumbrance and you can still add the other gear too!

i can't help going back to the question, if you cannot deal with your precious mage shield being changed, can we have one for physical damage too?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2008 7:46 PM EDT

d'oh, now i see you meant it doesn't take him over. but what percentage of his allowed nw does the 18m make up. as in enc limit/18m?

that was what i was curious on, sorry about the misunderstanding there...that really threw me!

QBRanger May 12 2008 7:47 PM EDT


I think ENC is more of an issue for weapons rather than armor.

For AC near the very top (over 440), it can matter. Freed certainly saw this.

But for most minions, I think armors have little worry about ENC limits.

Except, of course, DBs.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2008 7:49 PM EDT

i guess that should be 18m/encumbered at #.

QBRanger May 12 2008 7:51 PM EDT

Encumbered at: 114,031,907 for my wall.
Encumbered at: 331,989,150 for my tank.

And I would rather go against a +50 MgS as a mage then go against 377AC + 4M TOE.

Vs that much AC (easily attainable) + 3.7M TOE when FTW used Hatch's TOE, I routinely did less then 100,000 damage a hit with my MH. 3 hits a round due to a small-medium evasion on his wall=300k a round.

When I try that level TOE, I take about that much from my tank vs high level CoCs. Using my MgS.

Things do balance out in the end with AC(all) vs AC(+) with the MgS.

QBRanger May 12 2008 7:53 PM EDT

the CoC damage I see is with 2 minions left standing.

With 1, even with my 7.6M TOE, I take about 1,000,000 from the 2 highest CoC's.

Cube May 12 2008 8:08 PM EDT

That is my point in a nutshell, while mages may worry about the 50% reduction from the Mage shield, tanks have to worry about the 80% reductions from AC.

One can control what minion a tank hits much more easily, which is why it doesn't matter that you can't put all that Heavy AC to block tanks on your damage dealer. You just need a team with more than one minion and an AoI.

However, versus mages, they will reach your damage dealer much more easily simply because of how spells work.

QBRanger May 12 2008 8:35 PM EDT

And please do not bring up the VB. I tried that once and after its last nerf, it was a pathetic weapon vs the 99% of characters out there without a high AC/TOE wall.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2008 9:06 PM EDT

"That is my point in a nutshell, while mages may worry about the 50% reduction from the Mage shield, tanks have to worry about the 80% reductions from AC. "

but i feel my point still stands as well, after all, what character wearing a mgs will not also have some plus points on ac gear. with that understood, is it really a 50 to 80 comparison or more like 90 to 80?

all of that ac also cost some cash, the mgs is just too darn cheap, i really believe the eb cost curve would bring it much more in line with game balance.
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=002Qzo">Am I missing something?</a>