Just stating the obvious. (in General)
Mages only have to double their lvl to double their damage. Tanks have to double ST and x. Who can afford spending 10M, then 20M, then 40M, then 80M. Mages however, get to only double their xp, and get the same effect. Mages = good in long run. Tanks = screwed in long run.
October 9 2008 6:02 PM EDT
I that right, I was under the impression that tanks were better in the long run because of the fact that they are so gear dominated. Money filled gear is another aspect of the equation unless I'm wrong.
October 9 2008 6:03 PM EDT
Tanks have their own pros. Instead of training 2x ST and 2x X, you can buy 4x X. Thus, you can "buy" exp.
October 9 2008 6:18 PM EDT
AG, you make it sound easy to double MPR. Do you have any idea how long it would take to double the MPR of my mage?
Let's see, he was all alone for a while, and now is one of four. So, right off the bat you can take the life of my character and multiply by four in order for the mage to double his MPR. That's... 8 years or so.
I've ben playing the game (CB1 included) for about 5 years. So huzzah! Do that again, plus three more years, and you're right! Double damage! Wow!
Meanwhile, a tank can invest cash/gear solely on one minion any time he/she wants. Pretty powerful, that, don't you think?
Just for the record, I'd love to have some of a mage's damage output be more wrapped up in gear. That way I could just buy into big gear, buy into a big tattoo, and do just as well with less clicking.
It takes double the number of fights to earn double the exp, during which you'll earn double the cash as well. I fail to see the issue.
ummm, mages don't have to put it into a weapon.
October 9 2008 6:50 PM EDT
and tanks don't have to train exp.
October 9 2008 6:58 PM EDT
why don't tanks need to train exp?
October 9 2008 7:06 PM EDT
"and tanks don't have to train exp."
Really? Wow, this is a new one on me. When did Jon make this change?
ToA for starters...
but I think it could be more correctly said that Tanks have to train LESS XP...
All someone has to do to destroy a mage is match the XP investment of a mage in AMF and have some damage reduction combined with HP.
Tanks require double the investment into EC, and with the decimation of evasion as a useful counter I can't see this argument holding much more water than a rusty slop bucket.
That being said, it's harder to run a tank, and I'd like to see that improve a bit, but in no way are tanks useless long term.
these type of debates all boil down to whether we want to have choice or equity?
we can take away weapons, make all tanks have to train a stat called melee or ranged. likewise we could also give mages a focus item that requires upgrades as weapons. either way we lose the differences and choices we have in the game.
if the op wasn't really asking for us to change the dynamics that separate mages and tanks, then forgive me. perhaps you were just asking for a tank buff. ; )
October 9 2008 7:38 PM EDT
A tank buff would be nice.
But honestly, I can't complain right now. Since the much needed Evasion nerf my challenge bonus has shot up almost 20%!
"Just for the record, I'd love to have some of a mage's damage output be more wrapped up in gear. That way I could just buy into big gear, buy into a big tattoo, and do just as well with less clicking."
I've thought about this quite a bit. to put tanks and mages on even turns there would need to be a staff weapon of some sort and another most likely another attribute like intelligence. Spells would not fire without a staff present and damage would be multiplied by intelligence and the apell itself would work like bloodlust.
All in all it would make mages tanks with fireballs.
October 9 2008 8:48 PM EDT
HUH... tanks are still only getting double hits? If you have any dex and any + on your weapon and are using a ToA then you should be getting tripples to quints all the time. That right there is why I don't complain about my tank. Now with the evasion change it seems to be pretty nice for tanks or at least for my tank right now.
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=002Z0x">Just stating the obvious.</a>