Changing the AoF is not the answer (in General)
It will just buy time until someone else gets a uber Evasion (that the 30% increase they lost would cover) and the same complaints would occur, wen the same large wepaon lose the ability to hit.
The AoF is not the root of the problem. The underlying binary nature is.
Solve the problem, not the simptom. ;)
sadly, i think you are probably right. i have said in the past that we need some caps in the game but that is usually frowned upon. forgive my lack of vision, but how else could we fix the binary nature?
August 6 2008 7:05 PM EDT
who needs evasion? the AoF was created solely for UC users.
Change the to-hit mechanics to not be binary in nature. ;)
Or just get used to the largest xp spent in a single stat making the largest weapon in the game miss. ;)
The problem in my mind is the stubborn nature of people running tanks. Refusal to use a mixed damage type team is a statement of complete disregard for where Jon wants things to go. Jon even gave tanks a spell that clears out front facing evasion walls and still people scream like he's never done a thing for them. If you want to run a single damage type team, be prepared to lose to people who specialize in beating you.
August 6 2008 7:10 PM EDT
Novice for President!
And just how are you going to get enough Exp into SG and HP to make it live long enough to cast with out it being your main character?
Not to mention you have to wait until the last round of Ranged before it works?
So how does that help a ToA Archer?
August 6 2008 7:22 PM EDT
So tanks have to run a mixed damage character, while mages do not?
I would love it if mages all of a sudden had to pump money into a tank.
So am I to believe Jon wants just tanks to be mixed but mages can stay mages?
So now tanks have to have a tank and use a 2nd minion for SG. Then have 2 minions max for enchanters while mages can have 1 SG mage and 3 enchanters?
I seriously doubt that is the goal of CB.
And the AoF is the problem, at least a huge one.
Tanks have absolutely no chance to keep up with the dexterity wars with evasion minions. AND the AoF superboosts the evasions PTH effect.
Perhaps as suggested someone will get an uber evasion without the AoF, however, by that time some tank will have a comparable dexterity.
It is posts and thoughts like this which is ruining CB. Those against letting tanks have a chance.
Funny, people have typed about me trying to keep my advantage through forum posts.
This is so Pot Calling the Kettle Black.
August 6 2008 7:24 PM EDT
It does not.
IMO, that is a foolish thing to think Jon wants; a mixed damage character.
Or perhaps he just wants tanks to have to be mixed, while mages get to stay mages without using any NW to neutralize millions of CB on tanks.
yea, that's the ticket!!!
All someone has to do is match my XP expenditure in DD to beat me, I too am forced to live with being beat by specialized setups. Mikel is beating every mage in the game at this point, you were doing the same before you left. Where is this unbeatable mage?
"Perhaps as suggested someone will get an uber evasion without the AoF, however, by that time some tank will have a comparable dexterity."
No. No 4 minion team Tank will have the same 'offensive' Dexterity as a single Minion's defensive Dexterity from Evasion.
A single Tank, using EG and EBs (over Tulka's) and maybe even a EC or even a ToA will though.
But then what stops thatsingle tank landing 1+ hit on everyone, every round?
But mages always land 1+ hit.
Sure. But this goes back to my old old post aobut the two types of damage reducitons.
Magical is designed to be reduces stepwise. Chunks lestened and lestend by layers, until it becomes manageable. They isn't this for physical damage in CB currently.
So we move back to Tanks always, no matter what, being able to land one or more hits per round.
What then is the counter? OR should we all go Tank?
August 6 2008 7:46 PM EDT
Can Soxjr, with his single minion and a USD backed MSB hit high evasion minions, ever?
And look at the top 2 non-USD tanks.
Lega 13th in score
Failure 18th in score.
Look at the score of the top mages and RBF users.
The tank is the dodo of CB.
August 6 2008 7:48 PM EDT
And damage reduction has been quite nerfed lately.
Especially on the magic side.
And with the new SG spell, does damage reduction really matter? So you live 2 rounds not 1 vs it.
If you cannot hit to do some damage, you still die, so what if the battle is 6 or 7 or 8 rounds.
Give tanks a chance man.
Mageseeker is archer. with inherant ranged bonuses...
Not Tank Ranger.
August 6 2008 7:51 PM EDT
Damage reduction quite nerfed? Well, equitably, perhaps.
Lega beats me. Regularly. You still think damage reduction has been so brutally beat down... But good damage reduction and a mageseeker completely owns me (and my DM is not entirely wasted - hzarb has some DEs).
So let's leave the damage reduction out of it, especially now that a team can have as many MgSes as they want.
Ranger, also Soxjr isn't a good example, as he's using Belegs over EGs and not using EBs.
You want to equal Dex investment, you've got to be using the same Dex boosting equipment...
August 6 2008 7:55 PM EDT
Woops, I mis-spoke...Lega uses no DEs currently, and his power is above me now (haven't trained some minions in a while).
But back in the day, using Haste and maybe some AS? he could still beat me fairly handily. It's a great team -- beats me the same way all the damage reducers do....
But of you think damage reductions has been nerfed enough to actually mention that in any kind of support against Evasion...well, you're high.
August 6 2008 8:07 PM EDT
"But of you think damage reductions has been nerfed enough to actually mention that in any kind of support against Evasion...well, you're high."
I don't do drugs, but yeah, damage reduction was nerfed too much without an Evasion nerf to go along with it. Now the Mage Shield, TOE and AC are less effective, but we still can't hit any easier.
The MGS just got a tonne easier to use. Frankly you can just throw these over your team now, where as before you had to really cater to use them.
August 6 2008 8:15 PM EDT
LB, I didn't say an Evasion pull-back wasn't necessary.
My point is that an Evasion pull-back is going to have to be damn subtle for boring-butt damage reduction not to completely overtake the lead again (and I include that when damage reduction is used to support EF/SG).
Evasion is bad. Damage reduction is still a close second, even with the nerfs (which makes sense, I thought it was far worse than Evasion before).
August 6 2008 8:42 PM EDT
The problem is that additional DX on any tanks/archers is next to useless, combined with the double-dip of evasion.
1. DEXTERITY IS UNDERPOWERED
Best case scenario where evasion is not involved, high DX will let you deal double the damage.
That only happens with a +0 ELB and no ToA in play (1 hit vs 2 hits).
A much more common scenario however is that DX will usually increase your damage by far less than 50% (like, say, no DX vs huge DX with a +100 weapon), if not even less than 33% under normal circumstances.
The only OTHER scenario where DX could be of any actual use is when you're facing evasion. Here, your weapon plus can be upgrades to match the minus of the evasion effect, THEN you have to match the DX with the enemy DX, and you still barely break even at one hit per turn.
Bottom line, IF you invest XP into DX, you MAY get some small degree of effectiveness against evasion teams, but you will lose shedloads of effectiveness against non-evasion teams.
All in all, if you have to choose between ST and DX, even if encumbrance wouldn't be an issue (but what do you know, IT IS, and DX gets the short straw again) you'd still usually go with ST or even HP instead most of the time, with just a token DX in there.
Also... between EG and BG/TG, you'd have to be positively stupid to go with EG on any archer/tank instead of the other option.
2. EVASION IS OVERPOWERED
Let's even ignore for a second the huge bonuses evasion gets in ranged, which renders archers basically useless against much smaller evasion-using teams.
Let's still ignore the fact that you have the AoF which boosts evasion on top of what you could boost dexterity with.
Let's even ignore the RoBF, because the additional evasion effect granted is small enough to be easily counterable by the same ToA on an enemy (although the melee damage is not bad either, but I digress).
Let's even FURTHER ignore the fact that you can easily keep an evasion wall alive by simply throwing a PL(//TSA) minion somewhere in the middle.
So, after we ignore all of the above (which, mind you, kind of add up too), you STILL have evasion as overpowered because of the DOUBLE DIP into DX-based CTH - on one side, you get the equivalent defensive DX to lower the CTH... but you ALSO get ADDITIONAL CTH reduction from the evasion effect if the evasion effect is higher than the weapon plus.
So... there you go... it's not the AoF... it's the whole combination between evasion being vastly overpowered AND dexterity being vastly underpowered.
As for a "fix" ?
Well, for starters, you could half the defensive DX granted by evasion, REMOVE the additional CTH drop when evasion effect is greater than weapon plus, and finally uncap DX-based CTH but remove the linear scaling (i.e. completely rescale the DX-based CTH from the formula it uses nowadays).
P.S. As for the "mixed damage type" team... can somebody tell me what use would an archer have for a SG minion ? Yeah, I thought so... none. Maybe melee tanks could have an use for it (still, PL sort of reduces that quite badly), but that's about it.
"Best case scenario where evasion is not involved, high DX will let you deal double the damage.
That only happens with a +0 ELB and no ToA in play (1 hit vs 2 hits).
A much more common scenario however is that DX will usually increase your damage by far less than 50% (like, say, no DX vs huge DX with a +100 weapon), if not even less than 33% under normal circumstances."
That's not quite right. Regardless of the number ofhits you're wepaon PTH gives you, the damage increase from your Dexterity is fixed. Dex doesn't lower the damage it gives by extra attacks because you deal more attacks.
Propotianlly, if you look at your total damage, the amount you gain from Dexterity lessens the more hits you gain from PTH though.
"The only OTHER scenario where DX could be of any actual use is when you're facing evasion. Here, your weapon plus can be upgrades to match the minus of the evasion effect, THEN you have to match the DX with the enemy DX, and you still barely break even at one hit per turn."
You get your base chance to hit. Something you'll *always* have over an equal Dex and an equal -PTH.
"Bottom line, IF you invest XP into DX, you MAY get some small degree of effectiveness against evasion teams, but you will lose shedloads of effectiveness against non-evasion teams."
Like DM versus non ED teams?
"All in all, if you have to choose between ST and DX, even if encumbrance wouldn't be an issue (but what do you know, IT IS, and DX gets the short straw again) you'd still usually go with ST or even HP instead most of the time, with just a token DX in there."
Which is exactly why the system is there to encourage the continual expensdite of XP into DEX...
"Also... between EG and BG/TG, you'd have to be positively stupid to go with EG on any archer/tank instead of the other option."
Then you can't ever claim to be trying to match the Defensive Dexterity of someone going all out for Defensive Dex.
Can't have your cake (Damage increasing gloves) and east it too (the same Dex as someone forgoing Damage boosting gloves to pump thier Dex)....
August 6 2008 8:51 PM EDT
Or, you could simply rework evasion to act like AMF does... to some degree, if you understand what I'm saying.
In other words, not chance to completely evade an attack, but reduce physical damage taken instead... NEVER completely evade all enemy damage, just reduce it.
August 6 2008 8:54 PM EDT
Perhaps rework some of the code from GA into evasion? i.e. the lower your evasion is in proportion to someone's offensive dex/PTH/whatever, i dunno the mechanics, the lower amount of effective evasion is calculated.
"Or, you could simply rework evasion to act like AMF does... to some degree, if you understand what I'm saying.
In other words, not chance to completely evade an attack, but reduce physical damage taken instead... NEVER completely evade all enemy damage, just reduce it."
we have had this discussion before as well, while it could work, anything that allows physical damage to be more reliable will likely need a major damage reduction to go along with it. look at it this way, mages hit once and only once per round but the damage can be reduced greatly. tanks hit harder than heck if they hit at all.
if we allow more hits to come through, then we need major damage reduction layers introduced for physical damage or we need to allow less damage through otherwise physical damage is uber again.
the only way i see that this could work is if evasion, up to a certain point, can nullify all but one attack. if the evasion is high enough, it can then reduce the damage that gets through, much like a glancing blow. you can't dodge it, but you can keep it from killing ya kind of thing.
this method once again seems overly complex to me though.
August 6 2008 10:32 PM EDT
How about something even simpler then ?
Uncap all stages of DX-based CTH (because there is nothing else except DX-based CTH) with possible rescale of the CTH factor and maybe some adjustments to weapon base CTHs.
Weapon plus grants a bonus to offensive DX but nothing else.
So, a +150 weapon would change a 1k DX into 2.5k DX, but only offensively (defensively, you'd still only have 1k DX).
Evasion grants double defensive DX compared to level and some small damage mitigation.
So, training 1k evasion is the same as training 2k DX, but only when used defensively.
As for the damage mitigation, something akin to the AMF curve (no backlashes though), but comparing evasion-granted defensive DX against actual offensive DX of the attacker.
So, for instance, a 2k DX attacker with a +150 melee weapon that has a 80 base CTH fighting against a 2k evasion minion would get an effective offensive DX of 5k against an effective defensive DX of 4k.
Since this is melee, no ranged defensive DX bonuses apply.
Now, first off, the attacker will get an 80%+5/4=105% chance to hit, so he lands one hit always and a second one 5% of the time.
Also, the defender gets roughly ((4/5)^0.7)/2 = (aprox) 43% damage reduction, for an average of 59.85% of base damage dealt.
Same situation, but the attacker has a +0 weapon ?
2k offensive vs 4k defensive DX, chance to hit is 80%-2/4= 30%, with a damage mitigation of 75%, for an average of 7.5% base damage dealt.
Of course, the numbers could be slightly different, say, bonus is 1.5% for each weapon plus and defensive DX is only same level of evasion, or the other way around... however you would consider it fair.
The only THREE numbers you'd have to balance would be:
* offensive DX bonus magnitude depending on weapon enchant
* defensive DX level granted by an evasion level
* magnitude of AMF-like physical damage protection granted by evasion
But if you LIKE, you could also juggle with the weapon "plus" upgrade curve and with the weapon base CTHs as much as you like.
Not saying you should, but it might be an option if you're still not satisfied no matter how things are above.
Sickone, do you think about CB all day? It seems like almost every post of yours I read is very original and well thought-out. I always make comments to expand on something already suggested, but you're always like "Another way to do it would be to just switch around these elements and calculate it based on other factors."
I like Sickone's idea.
"Which is exactly why the system is there to encourage the continual expensdite of XP into DEX..." I don't understand this reply, GL, as it was in response to what I took to be an explanation of why training more DX is pretty futile. The conversation could be paraphrased like this:
"DX gives no benefit past a certain point, and the XP would be better spent elsewhere"
"Yes; in this way, the system encourages you to invest more XP into DX"
I probably misunderstood that exchange, but I'm confused how else it could/should be taken.
The whole "DX is underpowered" thing is interesting. Dude also brought up caps, and it made me realize something:
Evasion has no effectiveness cap. BOTH of the things it counters do.
Max DX-based CTH: 160 (I think?)
Max Evasion-Granted Defensive DX-based dodging ability: opponents entire CTH
Max Weapon PTH: I wouldn't expect even Freed could take a weapon much past +300. Not to mention that WA and ENC give an even more restrictive cap than "How much money you have" to anyone not in 6/20.
Max Evasion-Based -PTH: All of it.
You could pump more XP into Evasion, and get it to (380) or so. At that point, you would also have 70mil Defensive DX (I'm estimating). Is there any way that a tank could wield a +380 weapon, and maintain DX advantage against that? No, that's too extreme an example. Let's look at something concrete.
Ranger's +254 MH had, by my estimation, 172mil invested just into the + side of it. The wiki currently states that it takes less than 5mil levels of Evasion to get to (200). Actually, based on the apparent curve, 5mil would probably be around (207). I have about 5mil raw UC level, before item bonuses. Assuming I retrained that to Evasion, I could reduce Death's Weapon PTH down to 47, plus the base of 40. No one in the game has 5mil offensive DX, either, nor would that make sense, as that would translate to about 40% of 3mil MPR, or a single tank at 3mil investing double into DX what he would into ST, without a skill trained. Best case, someone would have 87 CTH against me, wielding the largest melee weapon in the game, assuming that they could match the defensive DX somehow. If they only have 3mil DX, they would probably have about 20 CTH against me. That's pitiful. And, as I mentioned, that's pre-item bonus. I could throw on an AoF and EBs and have 8mil Defensive DX with an Evasion effect of at least (254).
That was too long of an example. I hope the point got through.
August 7 2008 12:42 PM EDT
Your point is completely clear to me. Has been for months now.
Others are bit more obtuse.
the cost curve on evasion does effectively cap it, just as many things in cb are capped by a non-linear cost curve. from my understanding though what isn't cap is defensive dex granted by training evasion or items.
August 7 2008 1:10 PM EDT
"LB, I didn't say an Evasion pull-back wasn't necessary."
Not saying you did.
"My point is that an Evasion pull-back is going to have to be damn subtle for boring-butt damage reduction not to completely overtake the lead again."
I never saw a problem with damage reduction vs. mages. When there is a very easy way to scrap 100% of tank damage, the fact that maybe only 40-50% of your damage can get through seems more like an advantage than a penalty.
Even with a Mage Shield, three Elven Hauberks, and two AMFs, your average mage near my MPR is still frying me for far more damage than my piddly little weapons dish out, thanks of course to the WA nerf. Damage reduction is the only thing allowing me to compete, and right now it's too low when you hold it up next to Evasion. Fix that skill and I'd say both would be about where they need to be.
August 7 2008 1:30 PM EDT
Just a little observation: in the past 24 hours you've only lost to 1 mage. Who is almost a million MPR higher than you.
The rest of the people attacking you and winning are almost entirely tanks.
August 7 2008 1:45 PM EDT
LB, I wouldn't expect you to think damage reduction against mages isn't a problem...you aren't a mage. *smile*
When Lega was smaller than me and even depended on DEs, he could beat me dues to the layers of damage reduction, PL, etc. And that was even after the nerfing of various damage reducing layers and reduction of PL.
I'm not saying there are a lot more ways to stop mages, but there are the EH and MgS (now with multiple use possible) in effect. I am fully aware that EC can neuter a tank as easily as AMF neuters a mage.
Also, there is the MgSk which is a very effective foil against big, boosted DD familiars (again, just ask Lega).
Because of the binary nature of hitting, if things swing back in the other direction with tanks hitting multiple times (especially with the SoD in play), mages that before could go a whole battle unscathed will swing all the way back to getting obliterated. There is a fine edge on this problem, and that is the only point I was really trying to make. I am in support of Evasion being nerfed in some fashion, I was just trying to point out the uber-delicacy of this dilemma (perhaps a reason Jonathan has taken so long with presenting a solution).
August 7 2008 2:55 PM EDT
"Just a little observation: in the past 24 hours you've only lost to 1 mage. Who is almost a million MPR higher than you."
Good Guy 1,763,504
Mizuno 1,339,980 (draw)
Hawkhar 1,589,120 (draw/stalemate)
The Guesstimator 1,290,861 (Stalemate)
Dreky Jr. 1,487,018 (RBF, but it's an Evasion problem)
And the mages I do hit and beat still hit me harder, they just fry themselves with friendly fire thanks to two AMFs. So yeah, without that damage reduction, I'm toast.
"LB, I wouldn't expect you to think damage reduction against mages isn't a problem...you aren't a mage."
Oh come on, you know that's a cheap thing to say. I've argued in favor of mages in the past when balance was an issue, so for you to say I don't think it's a problem simply because I'm not a mage is rather unfair. My goal here is to propose a balanced solution, not just to nerf mages because I think it would be cool.
"I'm not saying there are a lot more ways to stop mages, but there are the EH and MgS..."
See my post above about these items. With them both equipped, mage spells still hurt.
And the Elven Hauberk is underpowered right now. With the change to five rounds of ranged, it needs to decay at about 20-30%, not 50%.
"I am fully aware that EC can neuter a tank as easily as AMF neuters a mage."
I wasn't arguing against Etherial Chains. I think that spell is fine where it is.
"if things swing back in the other direction with tanks hitting multiple times (especially with the SoD in play), mages that before could go a whole battle unscathed will swing all the way back to getting obliterated."
While there's a certain primal, animalistic side of me that wants to growl "it's about time those darn mages felt what it's like..." I'm one hundred percent in agreement with you that this is a very delicate issue, and I'd rather see TRUE game balance then another "swing of the pendulum" as some posters have put it. Of course, I'm still under the belief that no attack ever, EVER should have a zero percent chance of hitting in all 30 rounds of combat, which is why I advocate the 10% decay per round thing.
August 7 2008 3:03 PM EDT
LB, just for clarification, I wasn't trying to be unfair or paint you in a bad light, at least not any more than many tank-runners in the past have instantly dismissed me because I wasn't running a tank.
No offense meant in any way. Sincerely.
But that still doesn't mean we don't all have natural biases based on what we run or like to run. I am biased pro-mage, I fully admit it openly and consistently in everything I post. While I am at it, I am fully disclosing myself as anti-clan, pro-forging, and pro-longevity.
The delicacy was the main point of my post, and we appear to be in violent agreement on that matter (atavistic vengeance tendencies aside, of course *smile*)
August 7 2008 3:05 PM EDT
Well one also has to consider the damage reduction vs mages took a nice hit last changemonth with the nerfing of the MgS by 25%.
All the while not one thing was done about the 100% nerf tanks have to face.
August 7 2008 3:05 PM EDT
Oh, and I agree absolutely thet the EH should not decay so much since more rounds were added to range...there's my bias again (in this case pure ignorance *smile*) -- I have never used an EH and didn't realize it was still dropping off so fast. No way that should happen, that's just basic math (just like the TSA reduction put into place). Also shows what a red-headed stepchild the EH is for Jonathan to have simply forgotten it that way. :\
August 7 2008 4:32 PM EDT
"LB, just for clarification, I wasn't trying to be unfair or paint you in a bad light, ..."
Yeah, I know that wasn't your intention. I just thought it was a bit unfair at the time. No big deal.
I see what you mean about biases though: we all have them. But I think when arguing for a change, one has to argue from a more neutral position, keeping overall balance rather than personal gain in mind. That's always what I try to do. Like I said before, I'm a budding game programmer myself, so things like this are important to me. Believe me, if there was an easily obtainable way to reduce 100% of all mage spells at comparable levels of power, I'd still be throwing a fit even though I'd be winning.
it seems like the more I train exp, the easier it is for new players to train better evasion in shorter time, making it much harder for upgrading weapon with cb2 actually earned in normal time. note that with 500k or so evasion, it already somewhat does the job. Too small of investment.
August 7 2008 5:14 PM EDT
Yeah, at low levels it has to be even worse...Evasion doesn't even really start leveling off much at all until, what...100 effect or so? Then tack on some decent EBs or an AoF, and that's some bang for buck there...
Evasion 7,960,799 4,280,000 245 191
And not to mention I also gain about 1 point per 2 weeks on my Evasion with normal training of evasion only on my 4 minion team
Evasion 6,291,600 4,280,000 223 191
Without my Aof ^_~
Ranger, come on!
"All the while not one thing was done about the 100% nerf tanks have to face."
Please. Changes *were* made. We've been through this. Changes were made you never tried, because you didn't want to (for various reasons).
Can we go back to blance discussions that don't revolve around changes you wanted made that weren't, so you dismiss everything else?
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=002Vig">Changing the AoF is not the answer</a>