Is DM overpowered compared to EC/AMF ? (in General)


Sickone May 31 2009 9:54 PM EDT

I'd really have to say "yes, it is".
And the fact that it's somewhat exclusive makes it worse instead of better, because for a vast majority of strategies you have to pick either DM or EC/AMF, or nerf yourself in the process to some (non-trivial) degree.

Personally, I believe that either DM needs a slight nerf, or EC/AMF need some boosting.
That, or at least have it affect your own EC/AMF differently from the enemy EDs (instead of completely wiping them out, maybe reduce their effectiveness percentually).

What do you guys think ?

Tyriel [123456789] May 31 2009 10:08 PM EDT

I think DM is only 'overpowered' because EDs are overpowered. It wouldn't be as much of a 'problem' if AS didn't give 65%+ more HP than just training HP, or if GA wasn't so devastating.

Nerf one (or both), and then DM wouldn't be as much of a 'problem'.

Other than that, instead of simply complaining that DM is overpowered, perhaps people could consider other things, like teams with DM often don't have AMF for dealing with Decay and other DD spells. DM only works when you have EDs that are worth dispelling. People are so enthralled by the great efficiency of AS over regular HP that they seem to think HP doesn't exist, and that the only way to get HP is through AS.

I think we'd see a lot less complaining about DM if people stopped relying on EDs so much.

Also, perhaps EDs should be added to the dictionary?

three4thsforsaken May 31 2009 10:08 PM EDT

how else can you deal with GA? It's not like you can break the damage cap.

5 million GA can easily contain all tank damage and all mage damage except for a concentrated CoC.

I like where DM is, and I say this as a heavy AS user.

AdminTitan May 31 2009 10:20 PM EDT

No, I'm tired.

QBRanger May 31 2009 10:24 PM EDT

Compared to EC-yes
Compared to AMF-no, AMF vs the NSC-yes
Overall-no

Sickone May 31 2009 10:35 PM EDT

So... Ranger... in your opinion, would the following be an accurate statement : AMF would need a tiny boost (or no boost at all, but NSC would need a tiny nerf), and EC would need a moderate boost ?

QBRanger May 31 2009 11:14 PM EDT

In my opinion:

The NSC should only work on the AMF backlash only.

EC needs a boost. Probably by at least 1/3 effect. Instead of 1/2 its level, 2/3rd its level.

And just for 3/4ths, the exbow needs to be banished from the game completely.

three4thsforsaken May 31 2009 11:16 PM EDT

I'm a special guy ;)

QBRanger May 31 2009 11:17 PM EDT

Yes, in a Special Olympics sort of way :)

three4thsforsaken May 31 2009 11:24 PM EDT

Great scott! I think it has just been inferred that I am disabled/crippled/retarded D:

Oh, you tease!

Goodfish May 31 2009 11:26 PM EDT

My problem isn't that DM is weak, it's that the RoS makes DM completely worthless.

DM is already useful only against some teams- heavy ED users. Any team that relies on AS or GA. A multi-tank team that uses GS/Haste. Et cetera.

Considering DM's binary usefulness, the RoS makes matters even worse, turning DM into, effectively, a worse version of AMF (which is also binary [teams have to use DD], but also have a strict effect).

Any ED-reliant team can simply use a RoS, and while it may not be as offensively-oriented as, say, a familiar, the defensive boost is so absurd that it is usually a very easy choice (do I use AS? If yes, I need a RoS).

Heck, EO's all seem to suffer from this. You have EC, which is worthless against non-tanks (and frankly, due to the nerfs physical damage has seen, is now virtually worthless entirely); AMF, which is worthless versus non-mages (and frankly, due to the creation of the NSCs, is now not nearly as lucrative as it once was); and DM, which is worthless versus non-ED-users (and frankly, due to the creation of the Rune of Solitude, is now pretty much junk).

Of course, every time I bring up this argument, nobody seems to agree with me, but I'll post it once again... ;)

(I suppose one could argue that EO's by nature are supposed to be pretty awful, but then... well, why bother?)

QBRanger May 31 2009 11:27 PM EDT

crippled/retarded?

Those words are so last century.

You need to be more politically correct otherwise you have find yourself thought of as a hillbilly living in a shack in the swamp.

three4thsforsaken May 31 2009 11:30 PM EDT

Goodfish, the problem with RoS is that it takes up a tattoo slot, which severally damages ones offensive potential.

If you have a 4 minion team with RoS it'll be severally difficult to pull off decent offense if you go RoS, especially with even exp distribution.

Ironically you'll be incredibly vulnerable to AMF and EC.

QBRanger May 31 2009 11:32 PM EDT

I agree completely with 3/4ths.

The RoS, which nerfs DM, takes up the 1 tattoo slot a character can have.

The NSC, which nerfs AMF, is an upgradeable item that does not take up the tattoo slot of a character. And you can junction the NSC with a DD tattoo for extra added benefit.

Enormous difference.

three4thsforsaken May 31 2009 11:35 PM EDT

Yes, I'm pretty much saying that the RoS isn't as easily used as the NSC.

I really don't see why people think the RoS is so great, and a strong argument that EDs are too powerful.

Goodfish May 31 2009 11:38 PM EDT

"Goodfish, the problem with RoS is that it takes up a tattoo slot, which severally damages ones offensive potential."

I had actually posted a reply that had a statement about this earlier, but didn't actually post it because most of it was whining... hehe.

Anyways, I feel like the RoS is generally a very obvious choice (Do I use AS? Yes. Okay, I need a Rune of Solitude), so a team can pretty easily compensate for being "vulnerable" to EC/AMF (use SG, specialty Crossbows, NSCs, and the best choice of all: GA). Yes, the RoS is not offensively-oriented (unless you use it for a fat GA), but because it tends to create as much defense as you need, you can use your other spell slots for offense. Plus, the RoS lets you use AMF AND DM, which combined make for one of the most debilitating combos ever (and I can't understand why more RoS users don't take advantage of this).

So sure. The RoS means you can't use, say, a ToA or a familiar. But it lets you essentially ignore pumping your GA beyond base (saving tons of experience), or gives you millions of total HP for free (which isn't really even dispellable thanks to the DM resistance). And that's millions more experience that you can put in your own DM and AMF.

Maybe that makes sense...?

QBRanger May 31 2009 11:39 PM EDT

Just ask Sut if the RoS makes DM useless.

It does make a certain amount of DM useless, however, it is a tattoo, which is one of the most powerful items in the game. It should do something that powerful.

But it does not make DM useless. Just hurts it a bit.

Goodfish May 31 2009 11:52 PM EDT

Boo me for making long, thought-out posts.

"I really don't see why people think the RoS is so great, and a strong argument that EDs are too powerful."

I feel like the RoS does waaaay too much.

Right now, my Max Tattoo is just shy of 2M. That's a free 1M levels I can slap on an AS, or enough levels on a base GA to basically ensure the full 60% retaliation. 1M levels in AS on a 4-minion team translates to... what, around 420K HP? That's over 1.5M (free) HP. Don't forget the DM resistance the RoS confers me, which is about 750k. That means that, to dispel ANY of my AS or GA, my enemies have to train nearly 10M experience into DM. Which is a serious investment. That much experience in DM at my level is enough to completely cut any non-RoS'ed ED. In comparison, my biggest minion (I used a RoE for quite some time) has just over 17M experience trained. That sort of investment in DM is ludicrous.

Let me put it this way. DM is already pretty binary in nature- it only works against ED's. Add the RoS in, and DM only works against non-RoS'ed ED's. How many teams rely on ED's without the RoS? The logical answer is 0. If you need your ED's to cast, you use RoS. If you don't need them to cast, you put minimal experience in the ED. So now you have a very small niche group of the CB population where DM actually does something against. It's very similar to how some teams train a 100k AMF to deal with Decay. At some point, investing in AMF becomes pretty worthless, as teams will have NSCs, massive DD familiars, or both that you'll have to cut through. Similarly, at some point, DM becomes pretty worthless, because teams will either have NO ED's, or they will have multiple ED's backed with a RoS. Since no team can hope to win with a massive amount of experience in a single (binary) spell, at some point the cost will outweigh the benefit (a team with half its experience in EC can never hope to beat mages, for example).

I really hope I'm making sense...

Oh, and I didn't even touch on the fact that RoS lets you use AMF and DM at the same time...

Goodfish May 31 2009 11:58 PM EDT

"Just ask Sut if the RoS makes DM useless."

First, sutekh is one player. :P

Second, from my calculations, his 13-something million DM requires over 200M total experience. My math might be off, but by my math, that means over 3 MILLION of his MPR (that's 2/3rds of his total MPR here) is directly from DM. That is beyond normal- that's sick. If my team had 2/3rds of its total MPR devoted to DM, every non-ED-reliant team would eat me alive.

I just don't think using sutekh as proof that DM is okay is really fair. Especially if my math is accurate. I mean, come on- do you really expect me to invest over 50% of my TOTAL experience in a binary spell? Get real.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 1 2009 12:06 AM EDT

it sounds like you are saying dm made the enchants worthless beyond base. now the only ones using enchants are ros users as it is a counter to dm. but its not dm that is too strong, it is the ros? doesn't that just mean the dm perhaps worked too well?

if the ros was removed and everyone went back to just using base enchants, how would that help dm users? or do you think it should just be weaker?

Goodfish June 1 2009 12:11 AM EDT

"it sounds like you are saying dm made the enchants worthless beyond base. now the only ones using enchants are ros users as it is a counter to dm. but its not dm that is too strong, it is the ros? doesn't that just mean the dm perhaps worked too well?"

I don't think DM makes ED's worthless beyond base, it's the other way around. An ED+RoS makes DM worthless. The RoS just makes base ED's (imo, mainly GA, but even AS can be used pretty well at base with a RoS) feasible, even considering the existence of DM. Said another way, without the RoS, would anybody be stupid enough to run a base AS/GA? Of course not- it'd be virtually worthless.

"if the ros was removed and everyone went back to just using base enchants, how would that help dm users? or do you think it should just be weaker?"

I'm not arguing that DM is weak; in fact, I think it's very effective. The problem is, it's effective so infrequently that I believe the RoS needs a change. If you're asking me to make a suggestion, I don't have one right now... my first, gut feeling would be to eliminate the DM resistance of it, but I'm not entirely sure how that would actually pan out. I'd need to think about it more.

QBsutekh137 June 1 2009 12:18 AM EDT

Can I ask that I stopped being named in DM threads? Seriously. A quarter of my non-trivial MPR is wrapped up in it. And it hurts me as often as it helps. So please, give it a rest. DM is painful to invest in, and if you hate DM so much, just don't be a DE-baby. If you need a list of all the folks I can't beat (or better yet, a list of people a lot smaller than me who can beat me, due to the wasted DM), I'd be happy to provide it to you via CM.

Earnestly, please knock off this "DM is overpowered" nonsense. At least don't use my name if you aren't going to trust me on how much DM sucks as much as it helps. That is, unless you are also prepared to invest in it like I have and really understand the nuanced nature of its power. Deal?

QBsutekh137 June 1 2009 12:20 AM EDT

Goodfish, I have 175 million in it, total. I have no idea what that is. Maybe it is more than a quarter. Let me do some math and return with some "back of the envelope" figures...

Goodfish June 1 2009 12:24 AM EDT

I just did some really basic calculations, mostly by fighting you, multiplying the total DM effect on me by 1/0.8 (to get the total level of DM), multiplying by 12 (for total exp), and then slapping that into the MPR equation.

Regardless, I know it's a lot. And sut, I totally agree- it helps as much as it hurts. The problem is, I feel like most of the time it's going to hurt. Especially because that experience could be wrapped up in something that ISN'T binary... like HP, or DD, or Evasion, or whatever.

Not that I'm not humbled by your DM. It's enormous... ;)

(I should also note that I called Ranger on citing you as a DM example... so yeah.)

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 1 2009 12:29 AM EDT

"How many teams rely on ED's without the RoS? The logical answer is 0. If you need your ED's to cast, you use RoS. If you don't need them to cast, you put minimal experience in the ED."

that is what made me think you were saying that dm made people not put much xp in enchants.

so you think dm shouldn't have a counter of some sort other than just overwhelming it?

AdminTitan June 1 2009 12:31 AM EDT

No, they are levels to levels, why does it need a counter. Especially since it's wasted on non ED teams.

QBsutekh137 June 1 2009 12:31 AM EDT

Dang, GF, you were a lot closer than me... I forgot about my retrains and such.

These are untrain numbers, but the ratio should work (roughly).

My total untrain number would be something akin to 290 million.

My total untrain numbers for DM would be around 175 million.

Investment in DM, then, would be 175/290 ~ 60%

Did you say 2/3rds, GF? Not bad at all.

My MPR is 4.5 million. Sixty percent of that is 2.7 million. I got a 2.7 million MPR character attached to me doling out nothing but DM. Do I make RoSes worthless. Hell yes I do. If you think that should not be the case, you are flat-out crazy. Do I make big DE characters lose? Indeed. And, funny, the ones I do beat never, ever seem to whinge on about it. Can I beat the biggest DE character out there? Nope. And I don't expect I'll even be able to once I train up. We'll see. Because PL is FAR more powerful than DM could ever hope to be. Yet I see precious few threads about that. Zero, actually, if I take out the threads I started. Weird, that.

QBOddBird June 1 2009 12:35 AM EDT

EC needs boosting
AMF is fine
DM is just very useful, wouldn't call it OP



that is all

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 1 2009 12:36 AM EDT

"No, they are levels to levels, why does it need a counter. Especially since it's wasted on non ED teams."

if it truly was level to level, i might agree with you and more people might use enchants as well and just overwhelm it. a higher dm though can nullify multiple lower level enchants.

the ironic thing is that if it was level for level and more people used the enchants, then we might not be having this discussion at all as it wouldn't be so binary.

Goodfish June 1 2009 12:37 AM EDT

"so you think dm shouldn't have a counter of some sort other than just overwhelming it?"

My feeling is that binary skills shouldn't have other ways to make them less effective (NSCs, I'm looking at you... grr). They're already going to be worthless against lots of teams (AMF much less worthless than DM and EC due to the overwhelming use of DD), so why should an item make a spell that's worthless against a lot of users even MORE worthless?

AMF is useful even when partially/largely "blocked" due to its backlash. But DM (and EC, but that isn't really what we're discussing) just gets blocked. There's no "bonus" for having a DM larger than their ED (which might be interesting- a DM larger than their ED "reverses" the ED- AS cuts their max health, GA makes them take damage instead of you, et cetera...). You just cut their ED's. This is why AMF is still useful, partially; the fact that NSC's won't completely nullify a large AMF is the other (imagine if sutekh trained AMF instead of DM... could ANYBODY deal with that sort of DD backlash?).

QBsutekh137 June 1 2009 12:42 AM EDT

Not sure this is on topic with any recent posts, but I just saw the word "binary"...

Since I have 60% of my MPR in DM, then "binary" is actually a pretty good word to use for all of this. I AM binary, and the non-zero choice is Dispel Magic. So yeah, I should, in entirely binary fashion, entirely annihilate teams that are binarily dependent on defensive enchantments. That makes absolute, utter, entire sense.

If you don't like that conclusion: Don't. Use. DEs.

Goodfish June 1 2009 12:47 AM EDT

"Did you say 2/3rds, GF? Not bad at all."

I'm actually impressed with my own "guess". Haha. So.. it's a massive amount of experience you've got trained in DM. That's settled, at least.

"Do I make RoSes worthless. Hell yes I do. If you think that should not be the case, you are flat-out crazy."

My point the whole thread has been that you shouldn't HAVE to invest that much into DM to combat the RoS. Imagine the overkill you're doing against non-RoS teams... I can't imagine any team ever having an ED you couldn't "naturally" dispel.

"Because PL is FAR more powerful than DM could ever hope to be. Yet I see precious few threads about that. Zero, actually, if I take out the threads I started. Weird, that."

I think PL is only really powerful at high levels (6/20). Where I am, nobody really seems to use PL. Hell, I use PL and frankly it doesn't seem to be doing that much. But when the "reduced rate" for taking damage winds up cutting out a hundred thousand damage per hit, you start noticing it. Plus, PL isn't really the topic, but since you brought it up, I will agree with you. PL is very powerful. Perhaps overpowered, but like I said I think it's only noticeable at very high levels.

"EC needs boosting"

Actually, I think you're wrong. What EC counters needs a boost so that EC will be more lucrative- in this case, tanks. Tanks need to get boosted to the point where EC will actually see some play.

I'm somewhat curious about something. I wonder if my team would be better off with a subtle change and a RoS. I'd certainly add an AMF to my team given the use of a RoS, and it would boost my AS by about 400k (for an extra 1.5M HP all told, which is just under doubling my current total HP). Even though I'm not exactly "ED-reliant" (which is the sort of team that benefits most from the RoS), I do run AS and GA, and would certainly benefit from using AMF along with my DM (mostly for dealing with MM/SFs; Fireballs as well). It would certainly be interesting to see the effects it would have on my success...

Goodfish June 1 2009 12:52 AM EDT

"If you don't like that conclusion: Don't. Use. DEs."

sut, I don't know if you're directing this at me or what. Perhaps it's just late, or perhaps I'm not getting my point across clearly, or perhaps there is some other misunderstanding. I am in no way saying DM is "unfair". I am actually advocating somewhat of a DM buff by proposing a RoS nerf. I totally agree that you should chew up and spit out any ED that comes your way. After all, you've invested a huge amount of experience strictly into messing up ED teams. But like I said earlier, you shouldn't need to invest nearly 2/3rds of your experience into DM. I think "binary" is a great word here- since your DM is already wasted against non-ED users, even a 25% total experience investiture is pretty significant, and should be enough to destroy any "lesser" EDs that come your way. Key word is "should". Obviously that isn't the case, and I think the RoS is partly to blame thanks to the ED boost combined with its DM resistance.

In short, sut- I'm on your side. ;)

Goodfish June 1 2009 12:53 AM EDT

Ooh, just one last little comment, then I'm done for a while, I swear. *smile*

"[...] "binary" is actually a pretty good word to use for all of this."

I'm glad you like my word choice. :)

Little Anthony June 1 2009 12:54 AM EDT

make DM doesn't work against your own EC/AMF is my vote.

QBsutekh137 June 1 2009 12:56 AM EDT

I am in violent agreement with you, GF, at least about DM.

My "you" has been generic, since I really have no idea who does or doesn't still think DM is overpowered. It seems like it gets almost-randomly brought up every couple of weeks, only to have the thread evolve and rationally state all the ways it ISN'T overpowered.

Then two weeks later someone says it is again.

Can we... I don't know... Just stop that nonsensical cycle?

Sickone, if you would like to have a straight-up debate thread on it, I'd be more than willing to give that a shot. Just follow these easy steps:

-- Invest in 60% DM with any character of your choice.
-- See how that works for you, overall, and over time.
-- Start a debate thread (if you still feel the need to), and CM me with the thread title.
-- Debate will ensue.

I look forward to it!

three4thsforsaken June 1 2009 12:58 AM EDT

I like you Sut. You make sense.

QBsutekh137 June 1 2009 12:58 AM EDT

And actually, I disagree with that, LA. It HAS to negate your own EC/AMF, otherwise I would be the very, very first person shouting, "OP!!!!!!!!"

It's a choice. That's the point. If you let it work with EC/AMF, the following would have to happen:

-- Reduce the effectiveness to 50% (max!)
-- Don't let it stack (not sure how that would work, since it is a linear level-to-effect type of deal)...

QBsutekh137 June 1 2009 1:00 AM EDT

I like you too, Matrix-twins. *smile*

Actually, I like everyone on this thread, so I am sorry if I sound exasperated. I'm just exhausted and too stupid to retire.

Goodfish June 1 2009 1:04 AM EDT

Since there have been posts, I think it's safe to reply... *laugh*

"make DM doesn't work against your own EC/AMF is my vote."

I'm not sure what you mean, LA. DM currently allows your own EO's to resist DM. Do you mean you want that feature cut? If so, I disagree, because I find that feature to be the most strategically interesting. Personally, I think what needs to happen is the DM resistance from the RoS needs to be cut. It already buffs ED's which is an indirect DM resistance. Why does it need a flat resistance as well? Sure, it affects ALL your team's EDs, but I feel like the RoS is already multitasking a bit too well (as is the RoBF but that's a different thread! *laugh*).

If you mean that DM should innately not cut your own EO's, then I, like sutekh, have to disagree. DM is not under/overpowered. It's just right. But the fact that it is either useful or worthless is what must be addressed. The same fact needs to be addressed with EC- very desperately- and to a lesser extent, with NSCs/AMF.

three4thsforsaken June 1 2009 1:08 AM EDT

I feel the fact that using DM prevents one from using AMF hence creating a huge opening for decay an amazing game balancing mechanic. Times like that remind me how much genius Jon has put into the basic rules of this game.

:D

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 1 2009 3:16 AM EDT

Until you stick a 20HP Enchanter up front with an AoI and back it with PL.

Then Decay cries itself to sleep at night. ;)

Brakke Bres [Ow man] June 1 2009 4:04 AM EDT

DM > SS Gimme back my skill!


DM should not nerf countless of NW, no spell nerfs NW as directly as DM does to SS.

Sickone June 1 2009 5:56 AM EDT

" My "you" has been generic, since I really have no idea who does or doesn't still think DM is overpowered. It seems like it gets almost-randomly brought up every couple of weeks, only to have the thread evolve and rationally state all the ways it ISN'T overpowered.
Then two weeks later someone says it is again.
Can we... I don't know... Just stop that nonsensical cycle? "


I never said DM was overpowered per se -- I merely asked of if DM is overpowered when _compared_ to AMF or EC, with a personal opinion taken out of experience telling me it is.
I wasn't attempting to compare apples with oranges, I made an effort to compare apples with apples.


"Sickone, if you would like to have a straight-up debate thread on it, I'd be more than willing to give that a shot. Just follow these easy steps:
-- Invest in 60% DM with any character of your choice."

RAW levels :
HP 4,000,000
ST 2,018,250
Arch 975,631
DM 6,002,000

Not quite 60%, but nearly 50%.
Granted, I am also in a quite unique position of being a single minion, so I only get to choose one single enchant, without the chance to make any overlaps, so I _MUST_ pick at most one.


"-- See how that works for you, overall, and over time."

When I switched from my old "build" (that had just some moderate amount of AMF on it and far more ST, and some DX), in spite of losing a lot of damage potential and having no way to deal with even base decays, I had lost _NO_ targets from my fightlist, yet added a lot more of significantly higher score compared to my previous fight list.


-- Start a debate thread (if you still feel the need to), and CM me with the thread title "

Well, this is the one :)

QBsutekh137 June 1 2009 9:10 AM EDT

OK, perhaps compared to AMF/EC, and at the level of the ladder you are fighting on, DM is better. That doesn't make it OP, though, not even relatively. Where I am, I don't think DM is better or worse, it's just a different choice.

I can't really do the reverse of what I asked you to do -- unlearn my DM and see how EC or AMF works. But a 13 million EC would give me a lot of Hal/SoD teams up here, I should think. Sadly, I can't afford to lose all that MPR retraining 60% of my experience... I would say I don't think AMF would help THAT much, because I think there is more physical damage going on up here (plus the side uses of things like specialty exbows). Though, losing the DM would let me have a little AMF to take out the pesky Decay found here and there.

QBRanger June 1 2009 11:26 AM EDT

One of the reasons quite a few people use DM is GA.

GA right now is too good for the xp spent.

It needs to be about 2.5x the blow to get the full 60% damage. It used to be one could break through the GA "cap" and lessen the damage done.

Now that is almost impossible for physical damage and realistically can only be done with high level SG or CoC.

We also used to have a tattoo that lowered GA damage, letting one use AMF/EC instead of making one almost have to use DM. But since no tattoo lowers GA damage, that changes what EO spells one uses. I do hope the ToE gets GA resistance to make it useful.

Is DM overpowered? NO. It is almost necessary for quite a lot of characters? Certainly. That does not mean it is overpowered, it is just essential to combat a slightly overpowered spell-GA.

I have always had a problem with the stacking effect of DM vs the non-stacking effect of all the EDs it combats. However, as AMF and EC also stack, it is what it is.

I use Sut as a heavy DM example as he is the prototypical one. I did not mean to offend him in any way. There are a few others who have 7+ million DMs, including Vectoidz and Immortals.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] June 1 2009 11:33 AM EDT

I have to agree with Ranger in that the reason why DM is so attractive right now is because of GA. There is really no hope for most everyone in breaking the cap on GA damage. It is also now very hard to reduce the damage taken from GA. Getting enough hp on your damage dealer to survive GA vs an opponents full hp as well as the damage the other team is throwing back at you is very hard as well. All of these things leave pretty much 1 option. Train DM or lose to GA.

QBRanger June 1 2009 11:35 AM EDT

To clarify something.

I normally take 60% from GA vs those I fight, as I cannot break the GA cap of most, if not all.

With 200 AC that drops to about 43%. I cannot realistically get more AC on my tank.

So yes, AC does help vs GA, however, DM is far far more effective.

Now to figure out how to defeat those RoS people :)

QBsutekh137 June 1 2009 11:50 AM EDT

No offense taken, Ranger. I Was just cranky after a hard-work weekend and long drive with no A/C in my car. *smile*

AdminTitan June 1 2009 12:33 PM EDT

"I normally take 60% from GA vs those I fight, as I cannot break the GA cap of most, if not all."

And if he can't break it, imagine how it is for all those of us who are normal tanks :P.

QBRanger June 1 2009 12:35 PM EDT

GA is what it is.

We have DM to counter it. No wonder why it is so vastly used near the top characters.

But again, it is not overpowered. Well, perhaps a bit given all the nerfs to damage we have experienced. But there is a way to counter it.

Sickone June 1 2009 2:45 PM EDT

Ah... now we're getting somewhere :)
So, all EOs are just fine, it's just that GA is overpowered in its current state, which makes DM slightly too useful right now.
The solution would be to increase the XP need into GA, from x2.5 of full blow (corresponding to the old damage) to about x5.6 of full blow (corresponding to the 4/9 damage adjustment of more or less recent past).
Correct ? :D

QBRanger June 1 2009 2:47 PM EDT

I do not think GA needs to be that high.

It still needs to be a foil vs archers.

One thing I would really really really like to see is the ability to reset my MPB as often as I like to see exactly how much damage I am doing.

Then we can see how much GA is needed.

three4thsforsaken June 1 2009 3:11 PM EDT

http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002gy7
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=002mPV">Is DM overpowered compared to EC/AMF ?</a>