adding dex disadvantage (in General)
i brought this up in the exbow thread as an idea that might help not just with that issue but with others i have noticed with the way melee works.
as it is currently an attacker can have a dex advantage and gain some cth from that advantage. if the attacker has less dex though, their is no similar dex disadvantage and i think there should be.
i am not sure exactly what the numbers should be, but it would work like this. if i am attacking someone and i have 1.5 million dex and the defender has 2m dex, then my dex disadvantage would be 25 percent(1-(attacker dex/defender dex)). this dex disadvantage would come off of my weapon bth.
again the exact numbers and ratio could be tweaked for balance. this idea would not just make dex more useful again, but would also make ethereal chains more powerful as well even defensively.
Dude, I am not at all sure what you are trying to say by lowering base to hit, but if you mean that by having less dex than the defender you lose out on dex granted chance to hit that is exactly what happens right now. Just like in your example if say I were using an ELB with 1.5 mil dex and the opponent has 2 mil dex my chance to hit is 75% (100% base and only 75% chance to hit because of the ratio of dex.) Then of course you factor in DB, PTH, leadership, and evasion.
October 14 2009 12:14 AM EDT
That would not really change the fact that the exbow exists likely due to some flaw in the missile damage component in the game.
Why not just fix that "broken" element, get rid of the exbow and move on?
losing out on dex granted cth is not a penalty though it is just lack of a bonus. what i am referring to would be an actual penalty.
right now i think db's are the only thing that can reduce base chance to hit. in the scenario above your elb would also go down to a bth of (given archery is at the appropriate level) 100 - 25 = 75bth.
October 14 2009 12:19 AM EDT
Yes, Nem is right.
NS figured this out in the past but things are changed a bit. The principle is there though:
"This means that an attacker's CTH from DX is maximized when the Attacker to defender DX ratio is 3 at a 50% base (1.50 / 0.50). When the base is 66% or 33%, the ratio hits max at 2.51 and 4.03 respectively (1.66 / 0.66 and 1.33 / 0.33). A defender can likewise minimize an attacker's DX-based CTH (ie, reduce it to zero) when the Defender to Attacker ratio is 1.25, 1.65, or 0.825 for a 50%, 66%, or 33% attacker's base CTH, respectively (1 /(0.4 / base)) "
So you can see having more dex does decrease hits. However, Leadership and PTH and this small dex component overcomes DBs and the AoI as you only item defenses.
Since all it takes is one hit most of the time (not all), you have to win every "roll of the dice" not to get hit just that one time. Which equals losing the entire battle.
Again, base CTH is not guaranteed CTH. It's merely a variable in the equation used to calculate dex CTH. 20 DX vs. 2M will have 0 dex CTH, even with an ELB.
October 14 2009 12:22 AM EDT
"right now i think db's are the only thing that can reduce base chance to hit. in the scenario above your elb would also go down to a bth of (given archery is at the appropriate level) 100 - 25 = 75bth."
That is exactly what is happening now.
"That would not really change the fact that the exbow exists likely due to some flaw in the missile damage component in the game."
is that from a dev response or more conjecture? if it was merely missile damage component, why does the exbow work against all melee?
if it is the linear cost for damage model that the exbow counters, are you willing to go back to a cost curve to fix that?
October 14 2009 12:23 AM EDT
What dudemus is trying to say is that if you, for instance, as a attacker, have only 20 DX and use a +180 (melee) weapon with +20 leadership, if you attack a very high DX target, you should not get (in melee) double hits, or maybe not even get single hits, even if the defender has no DB/evasion.
Basically, he want the DX disadvantage to translate into a "negative" chance-to-hit modifier if the disadvantage is high enough (instead of the current "just no additional bonus" situation).
October 14 2009 12:30 AM EDT
I have no idea how a non linear cost curve would effect all weapons. Not just the exbow. You reduce its damage, you reduce all weapon damage. That would not be a good solution.
I also suspect melee is the red headed stepchild in this discussion.
There is a reason a pure melee only tank almost ceases to exist in CB. Without some other damage.
Melee damage right now is very poor. I used a x10k weapon and did not do enough damage to justify waiting 6 rounds, getting pounded by magic to start to attack. True, I could use BL, however, my testing has not convinced me it would work.
Of course there are other reasons melee tanks are very limited, and we can discuss those later if you want.
October 14 2009 12:32 AM EDT
So dexterity would double dip?
Make it so you would never be hit, even without DBs as long as you have a 3-4x dex advantage?
That would be too powerful.
I would never be hit from anyone with less than about 2M dex no matter what weapon/leadership they had? Even without DB?
I think that would be very bad.
October 14 2009 12:33 AM EDT
hmmm now that is an interesting idea.... With something like this it would make things a lot better in all of the fights both Ranged and Melee if it were tweaked properly.
Titan, Sickone, and deifeln7(8?) are the number crunchers. If they can pick it apart they can see the problem better than we can and numerically fix it.
the penalty wouldn't apply to pth but only the portion of dexterity and bth.
defender having four times the dexterity would equate to a 75 percent penalty to the dexterity & bth section only (not pth), but again i am not set on those numbers and they could be tweaked.
October 14 2009 12:43 AM EDT
What I was saying in the last thread was to just decrease the effectiveness of the + enchantments on a weapon if the wielder has a dex disadvantage. This would prevent guys from just pumping up +'s on -any- weapon and ignoring their own Dex. stat.
October 14 2009 12:44 AM EDT
It seems to me what your saying is what is occurring now.
The dexterity part has no bearing on the PTH part.
A higher dexterity adds to the BTH (up to 100 more) while a lower dexterity penalizes it (eventually down to 0).
Is that right?
October 14 2009 12:48 AM EDT
A solution would be to have weapon plus, leadership bonuses and evasion-like effects just be MULTIPLICATIVE instead of additive, and have the chance to hit adjusted on the disadvantage slope to go down to zero only for near-infinity DX disadvantage.
For instance, when using a 60BTH weapon in the absence of weapon plus, leadership or enemy evasion, if you have 1000 DX, you would need an opponent of 120000 DX or higher to reduce you below 0.5% chance to hit (rounded down to no chance to hit)... but with a 80BTH weapon, the opponent would have to have over 160000 DX for that.
Now, on the weapon + and/or leadership bonus side, a +200 combined weapon+leadership effect would simply mean you have x3 chance to hit.
So, for instance (simplifying the things a bit from how they are now), if you have a 80BTH weapon with +200 combined plus and 1000 DX, when you attack:
* a 100 DX opponent, you'd get 540% instead of the 380% you'd get now
* a 1000 DX opponent you get 240% instead of the 280% you'd get now
* a 10000 DX opponent, you'd get 24% instead of the 200% you'd get now
Now, getting evasion/DB effects into the mix, assuming the opponent has a 200 evasion-like effect (/3 chance to hit in the new multiplicative version) in the above situation sets:
* a 100 DX opponent, you'd get the same 180% you'd get now
* a 1000 DX opponent you get the same 80% you'd get now
* a 10000 DX opponent, you'd get 8% instead of the 80% you'd get now
if it is happening now it is not by the same factor that you gain dex chance to hit. if it was on the same type scale it would be fairly easy to reduce enough of the hits with dex advantage and ec in regards to the exbow no?
October 14 2009 12:52 AM EDT
Correction : last line should read
"* a 10000 DX opponent, you'd get 8% instead of the 0% you'd get now"
October 14 2009 12:55 AM EDT
No dude, it is not that easy.
If the idea is to prevent just 1 and only 1 hit from destroying your character, your idea will work. I guess.
But the mechanism for it occurring is the problem. The 1 hit binary nature of the item is the problem.
Why not fix the underlying problem instead of trying to patch yet again the exbow. And have that effect all of physical damage. Unless that is the underlying problem. That PD is too high. If so, then just lower it and see how that makes things. See if mages rule CB. The players will tell in a short time if a change is good or bad, or at least have opinions on it :)
October 14 2009 12:56 AM EDT
Wow, Sickone, thats a great formula to show exactly how my idea would work!
October 14 2009 12:57 AM EDT
Also, what happens if you use the same 80BTH weapon but no weapon plus nor leadership bonus with 1000 DX against an opponent with 200 evasion effect ?
* a 100 DX opponent, you'd get 60% instead of the 80% you'd get now
* a 1000 DX opponent, you'd get 26.66% (27%) instead of the 80% you'd get now
* a 10000 DX opponent, you'd get 2.66% (3%) instead of the 0% you'd get now
"The 1 hit binary nature of the item is the problem."
if jon had a problem with that aspect of it he had the perfect opportunity to change that nature though so i am left to assume that he is against changing that nature.
i am trying to offer a solution that might speak to both sides of the equation rather than just one. granted, i am guessing what both sides are due to a lack of a definitive answer from the devs. ; )
Dude, that's how it works now mate.
The Base chance to Hit is determined by weapon (100% for an ELBow), but this base is only for equal Dexterity.
If the attacker has less Dexterity than the defender, this base chance to hit is reduced.
It's a penalty.
It's also totally seperate to PTH from weapons or items, and DBs reduce this, but don't touch Base Chance to Hit from Dexterity.
The only item that reduced base chance to hit is an AoI.
if it does already function in that manner, perhaps the numbers needed to get there need to be tweaked.
what kind of dexterity disadvantage does it take to the the 56 weapon bth exbow down in the 10 percent range? the same for the 100 bth elb?
(Attackers DEX / Defenders DEX) * Weapon Base Chance to Hit.
So for an ELBow down to 10% it would be;
ADEX/DDEX = 0.1
ADEX/0.1 = DDEX
Or the Attackers DEX needs to be 10% of the Defenders DEX.
It's nice with an ELBow, as with a Base of 100, every percent difference in DEX equates to a percentage of CTH gained or lost. ;)
For example, if the attacker has 50% more DEX than the Defender, the ELBow would have a BCTH of 150%
For an EXBow it's;
ADEX/DDEX = 10/56
ADEX/0.18 = DDEX
So the attackers DEX needs to be 18% of the Defenders.
Basically, divide the final chance to hit you want by the base chance of the weapon, and that's the size the attackers DEX has to be in relation to the Defender.
I hope this helps!
October 14 2009 9:39 AM EDT
I'm definitely learning new things here, and confirming why I am bad at running tanks! *smile*
under the current system it takes too much of a dex gap to eat into the bth. exemplified by this table:
i think that it should take much less than tenfold on the defender's side to get the attacker's dexterity bth down to ten percent.
maybe play with the other ratio of the numbers. in effect 1m is 33 percent of 3m, but 3m is 300% of 1m. i am not sure what the formula would need to look like though.
basically when the attacker's dex is higher than the defender's dex, the current formula seems to work but i think it needs to be different when dealing with attacker's dex being less than the defender's dex.
here is the rest of the table showing how the current model favors attacker's dex over defender's dex. i am not saying that we can get this many hits based on dex/bth but am using the whole table just to show how the curve progresses and how on one end you get 10 hits as opposed to the opposite end not even blocking all hits.
maybe it would be as simple as adding an if, then statement that says if attacker's dex is less than defender's dex, divide the weapon bth by 2.
Dude, that only holds for the ELBow. (Or any other weapon with 100 BCTH)
It's also capped, so should look like;
which would turn the bottom end of the table into this:
it would be quite a bit harsher on the lesser bth weapons though. i will have to run those numbers when i get back from my customer today.
And Still, the largest problem with all this (which it has been since day 1), is that no one bar a Tank would ever want to train DEX.
No one else gets the offensive half out of the Stat that other Tanks do.
That's what needs to be changed.
That or change Evasion *back* to reducing both PTH and DEX based CTH...
NS mentioned to me in chat quite some time ago that the wiki formula for dex CTH only held true for one side of the spectrum: either dex advantage or dex disadvantage. The catch is that he didn't know which. Judging from the way the rest of the game mechanics work, as well as seeing a screenshot from way back when dex CTH was temporarily shown with a 159.99 CTH, I'm going to postulate that ratio * BTH only holds true for the lower half, and that the upper half follows something roughly along the lines of CTH = BTH + 100 (1 - 1/(s * ratio - s + 1)) where s is an arbitrary scaling factor from 0 - infinity. CTH would be equal to BTH for ratio = 1 and asymptotically approach 100 + BTH as the ratio increases, similar to AMF. Of course, this is all conjecture.
October 14 2009 10:49 AM EDT
How does this really matter when it takes but 1 hit to completely nerf a tank?
We have gotten back to the binary system of gameplay like the old evasion.
Either the exbow drains most/all of a tanks strength in 1 hit or it misses and no drain takes place.
I cannot think of a more binary system in CB. And that is just bad.
The entire nature of the drain has to change place with people realizing that even 75% drain leads to a massive reduction in a tanks damage.
Right now we have this situation with the top 2 characters. They hit, they win. They miss, they lose.
Gee, is this fun!
October 14 2009 11:25 AM EDT
To reiterate a point:
"The entire nature of the drain has to change place with people realizing that even 75% drain leads to a massive reduction in a tanks damage."
...and if 75% drain does NOT lead to enough reduction (as JW has been accurately worrying about), then the STR/damage curve should be tweaked.
i think the hit mechanics need to change for many other reasons than the exbow. even if the exbow was removed tomorrow i would still want to look at this mechanic.
with that being said, if changing to hit mechanics makes it easier to avoid being hit by someone who isn't using more strategy than just equipping a crossbow, dumping a certain amount of cash into it and training a bit of xp then it would at least help the issue. since jon recently looked at the item and did not change its nature, perhaps you should be more open to things that will help, no? ; )
ﾓAnd Still, the largest problem with all this (which it has been since day 1), is that no one bar a Tank would ever want to train DEX. ﾔ
With the evasion changes, it makes it quite useful for other teams to train dex and I would love for it to be a dual benefit!
ﾓNS mentioned to me in chat quite some time ago that the wiki formula for dex CTH only held true for one side of the spectrum: either dex advantage or dex disadvantage. The catch is that he didn't know which.ﾔ
I sure would love to know which one it is and how the other half lives, so to speak!
i was making a table with some different options to see how it affects the final numbers and have realized that with it being multiplicative (if that is truly the case for the advantage side of the equation) then another benefit that the elb or hal has over uc is that it is twice as easy for the 100 bth user to get max dex advantage as the 50 bth fighters.
to be clear, if both a hal and jiggy were attacking the same 1m dex opponent, it would take the hal only 2m dex to get max dex advantage and max dex bth hits whereas it would require the jiggy getting 4m dex to the 1m defender's dex to get the same results.
this is still if that part of the scale works this way, which i would still love to have some clarification of!
October 14 2009 9:39 PM EDT
You know I have learned a lot by reading this and some of it has taken a while to digest. What I have taken from this all is that the Original Model is ok it would be a modification for Archers that would be needed.
Well Modify Archery Skill itself then with the proper changes to make the Model work as needed. This would in turn leave the other models alone since nothing is truly wrong with them on an overall.
The same can be done for the Ex/AxBow as well Through the Introduction of a Skill "Crossbowmanship" and Setup in the Ex/AxBow to only trigger the full capabilities at an optimal rate with this skill. This could work exactly the same as Archery.
With a Modification like this these things can be evened out to work on a better scale. This would be a lot better than just a hit or miss kind of thing unless you have absolute uber stats. It is ludicrous the levels into which is required right now to fight back or even out with an ExBow right now.
I see that the problems with working the models is the fact that only a certain group needs the work. So what I am getting from this and adding myself is simple:
Long Story Short - Modify the Models through Skills to Achieve the Results needed in order to make things work in the way they Should.
October 14 2009 9:53 PM EDT
Z, I think that's a neat idea, but adding everything onto skills -- isn't that another "house of cards" deal? I guess I'm saying, if there are real issues, skills shouldn't whitewash that, the problems should be addressed...
I am not saying it can't work or that the idea doesn't have merit... I just want to make sure folks stick with solving existing problems.
October 14 2009 10:12 PM EDT
Sut I agree but if the solution is so complex that it would break the system then maybe all we can really do is modify what we already have.
Control is the issue here and if we control one thing at the expense of the other then we have created another problem. Which will in turn need a fix and the cascade could possibly turn a full circle.
If a Modification of a Skill set in place to use an Item Properly(Which Works already with Archery) can be done to solve the problem then why not? As long as it is set in place to self modify up to infinity then problem solved until a full system wide rescale takes place.
October 14 2009 10:40 PM EDT
I have been the one asking for a tapestry, that is true. *smile* Maybe skills could provide that fabric.
"to be clear, if both a hal and jiggy were attacking the same 1m dex opponent, it would take the hal only 2m dex to get max dex advantage and max dex bth hits whereas it would require the jiggy getting 4m dex to the 1m defender's dex to get the same results."
What you'd expect, is that if a Jig and a Hal both had 2M dex (over the targets 1M, or however large a gap), they would both reach maximum effectiveness.
The Jig at a max of 150%, the Hal at 200% (due to base values).
But it doesn't work that way. At 2M Dex the Hal would be at 200% (or capped max effectiveness), while the Jig would only be at 100%, and would still require more DEX to cap at 150%.
October 15 2009 9:03 AM EDT
But the Jiggy has so many more rounds to hit.
And does less damage per hit.
once they are capped at max dex hits it matters little, but 100 bth gives the hal and elb quite a bit of advantage in that growth period up to max dex bth especially given the extra strength the hal gets in addition to its massive bonus to hit and linear damage model.
i will now change my stance on the jiggy, in addition to it needing a more linear damage model, i think it should also get better base to hit or more dex to compensate.
October 15 2009 9:39 AM EDT
I quite like the ideas here, but I'm not sure that adding a disadvatange to your opponent when you have the advantage is the way to go. I'd prefer to see more made of the advantage - more hits from dex, (you could tame the PTH hits somewhat to balance) which would make life easier for those tanks who don't have access to massive cash flow. Dex is useful, but it can feel like wasted XP when you're able to hit through the PTH, and going over a certain level not really gaining you anything extra is just frustrating.
i agree jw, maybe steepening the curve but allowing more hits from the dex advantage.
i do also think though that having less dex than your attacker should limit you more though still. it just seems wrong to me that if you have only 90 percent of your target's dex with a 100 bth weapon, you will still hit 90 percent of the time.
i think there is a threshold there and that by going below your target, it should mean more. that in itself should encourage people to train more dex and use ec more in my mind.
if we squared the ratio, that would do some interesting things in my mind (examples use 100 base to hit):
ratio of opponents dex~ratio squared~dex bth
also, if the dex disadvantage formula is different currently from the dex advantage formula, it could make the jiggy hal relationship described above void. that could well be the case and it could be a more simple dex/dex ration without the bth multiplier.
i am still awaiting any clarification on that!
either way, this has been an enlightening thread and thanks to all for the info and input. it is pretty amazing that after 6+ years i am still learning about this game! kudos. ; )
October 15 2009 9:57 AM EDT
I don't know why but I'm now remembering the scene in Raiders Of The Lost Ark where the swordsman does all his fancy moves and Indy pulls out his exbow and shoots him...
hehe, but would it be easier to hit hit a man in the nose in hand to hand combat than shooting him in the vitals from ranged! ; )
the cb version though would likely be indy trying to lift his pistol (elb) but is too weak due to the poison dart (exbow) shot he took from the pygmy allowing the swordsman to slowly hack him to death! ; )
October 15 2009 10:06 AM EDT
Already made my stance on this in another thread. ALL of the Familiars need a rescale to better reflect their Minion Counterparts of the here and now.
Since talking with Sut and reading this thread a full rescale of the base models might be unattainable straight away because of certain circumstances: Jon has 2 Kids, Wife and a good Job which keeps him busy. NS has stated that he does not have access to or does not have a deep understanding of te innerworkings of CB. I believe SQL was mentioned. So a modification may be what we have to settle for.
Back to the Models how to scale them properly. Would using this modification be better used in a Skill if set to self modify to infinity? Can another be used to curb yet make the ExBow still viable but not Binary? How would this be done without uber coding for the Devs? Can the Archery Skill & ELB be used as a Base Model and Modifed to work without causing more problems later? How? Can a Modification to Archery be the key to making an Archer better without making them uber?
Coming up with these answers could very well make the difference between getting something done or being scoffed at because we are not all in on the idea.
so you are saying tats should be balanced against minions? if that is your premise wouldn't it just be easier to add a fifth minion slot?
Familiars sohuld perform better than an equivalent minion, becuase you have no control over how you train them.
October 15 2009 8:04 PM EDT
The problem we were talking about before being sidetracked to familiars was the Models for the Archer and the Binary nature of the ExBow and how to fix them. Familiars can come later just like everything else or they can get their own thread.
Back to the Models how to scale them properly. Would using this modification be better used in a Skill if set to self modify to infinity? Can another be used to curb yet make the ExBow still viable but not Binary? How would this be done without uber coding for the Devs? Can the Archery Skill & ELB be used as a Base Model and Modifed to work without causing more problems later? How? Can a Modification to Archery be the key to making an Archer better without making them uber?
Coming up with these answers could very well make the difference between getting something done or being scoffed at because we are not all in on the idea.
I Implore everyone to try and not let the ball drop on this, please let's focus on this. I do not personally care if my idea is the one that get's the job done just that these issues are worked out and presented in a unanimous fashion to the Devs.
One problem I have with requiring a skill to use xbows is that you take away more options from melee. xbows are designed to get you to melee so you can fight it out with your melee tank. If you have to have an xbow skill then that makes it even worse than it is now for UC or BL tanks to be able to do anything.
October 15 2009 8:20 PM EDT
Archers have been saying that very same thing for a long time to no avail. If we have to deal with it why not ExBow users, Archers were forced into the Archery skill because the damage we were able to do was abusive. Our weapons of choice got Nerfed and we had to deal with it. So either you guys get the same thing or take ours away is my thoughts on it Nem.
I will however ask this, if you would not want a Skill to use the Ex/AxBow then what would you suggest as an alternative?
adding a skill set for crossbows that would allow them to get a better weapon bth would make it much harder for everyone else to avoid being hit than what we have now. i think archers see their skill as having to waste points and do not realize how awesome that 100 bth is especially for a skill that only has to be trained to a ratio.
The big difference in my mind about bows and xbows is that with bows the user is basically focusing into killing in ranged. Whereas with xbows, they are meant to be used in support of a melee tank that will only kill in melee.
true nem, there aren't many teams with crossbows as their main damage source! ; )
I don't really see how you guys think that exbows make melee tanks possible. (I'm pretty sure this was mentioned earlier) It's actually harder to run a melee tank b/c of the exbow. If you are a melee user, the exbow has 6 rounds to take you to 0 ST before you even get to hit.
October 15 2009 9:46 PM EDT
"adding a skill set for crossbows that would allow them to get a better weapon bth would make it much harder for everyone else to avoid being hit than what we have now. i think archers see their skill as having to waste points and do not realize how awesome that 100 bth is especially for a skill that only has to be trained to a ratio."
A Skill set to a ratio for an Ex/AxBow could also have the Modified Model set up inside it to reign in the Drain, give more damage and require a stat to be trained in order to get the full effects. Point I'm making is that with a Skill set in place with the Ex/AxBow, with one line of code added to give penalties for not training it could solve a lot of the Binary problem we have now with them now.
"The big difference in my mind about bows and xbows is that with bows the user is basically focusing into killing in ranged. Whereas with xbows, they are meant to be used in support of a melee tank that will only kill in melee."
This does not mean that they would be nuetered Nem it means they would no longer be Binary which is a problem. This could make them even more viable but in a different yet better way. (And just to throw it out there a support item should not be anywhere near as powerful as that......that is a primary weapon function in my opinion.)
Both dudemus and Titan said it right and there are reasons for both. The ExBow as it is is honestly borderline abusive now, with a little more added to the Top X's and +'s they will be totally abusive. Tanks while not the Primary Target for the Ex/AxBow are still taking a major blow because of them. They need to be tweaked/modified somehow before they become like the ELB did back in the day.
October 15 2009 9:55 PM EDT
If the problem is missile rounds and we need the exbow as an equalizer, then what about having the strength leeched come back in melee rounds.
Either all at once or more gradually. However, it would have to come back in quick order to make melee tanks viable again.
"A Skill set to a ratio for an Ex/AxBow could also have the Modified Model set up inside it to reign in the Drain, give more damage and require a stat to be trained in order to get the full effects."
the fact that jon looked at this item so recently and chose to adjust none of those items any more than he did really gives me the feeling that he probably won't create a whole new skill set for the item with those variables.
he asked for the communities input and then made a change. i think he is much more likely to modify the numbers within his most recent change rather than scrapping it all and redesigning.
this is one reason i am suggesting making defensive dex advantage mean more. it leaves the ability to further tweak his last change and also give some options to combat the mechanic entirely.
i don't mean to discourage ideas, but i just think the time for that has come and gone with his thread asking for input and that now we tweak.
October 15 2009 10:10 PM EDT
dudemus it would not be a scrap and redesign it would be a modification, that is a totally different thing.
However it seems as if any idea I come up with no one wants to work with even though I do get PMs or CMs going and ppl say it is viable. Fair Enough CBers do not want my ideas I get it and will digress from now on. I'm tired of trying and getting shot down it is not worth it for me any more.
dudemus reset your model to be more aggressive for defense in the aspect of evasion, I would think this would make it better. Wait that was another Idea never mind I will stop now.
Whatever you guys decide I will back you for whatever it is worth.
i was not trying to shut you down by any means and appreciate your input. i was merely giving you my opinion of why it wasn't likely to happen. putting an idea in the public forums here in cbland is seen as asking for a critique or hundred.
furthermore, it doesn't matter what anyone else says about any idea. it only matters what the devs decide to do. the community has come to unanimous agreement (well at least the vocal ones) on several occasions only to have our ideas shot down or ignored.
i for one love that about jon as i have played too many online games in the last 11 years where the devs did not have their own vision and let the loudest make the decisions. i have played cb longer than any of those games for this reason and in spite of things often not going the way i think they should.
These are the main problems that I see. People think that it is too effective for the necessary investment. The other problem that I see is that unless you invest enough to get those effects it is virtually useless.
If say you double the curve for hp % damage necessary to get full drain. I think everyone would be happy with that amount being necessary to do a full blown drain of all a person's str.
But the problem then becomes that an exbow of even my size is basically a very expensive fan trying to stop a tornado. The exbow should be more useful even below that point. As it is now even if I drain 50% of a tanks str that barely slows them down, especially when they are putting out near 10 mil damage a round against over 100 evasion and a fair bit of damage reduction. That knocks them down from around 9 mil to 6-7 mil a round. Even with my 18 mil+ hp that is only 3 turns at 6-7 mil.
One last problem I see is the PL absorption ability. This will become far more noticeable if the exbow is adjusted. But as it is right now Unless you are draining the PL walls str out in 1 hit or just barely not draining it all in 1 hit then your exbow just gets stalled there indefinitely draining a portion of the PL walls str each time.
The fix to this problem in my mind is quite simple. Instead of having the PL absorb the drain and have it work as a % just have it directly absorb the drain that the tank would be receiving. In this case it would absorb it at the reduced rate just like hp and it would be able to go into the negatives. So if your tank is hit and gets 2 mil str drained the PL wall absorbs it all and loses 1.8 mil str. If it was at 20 str to begin with it will still absorb it all, it would just end with negative 1.8 mil str.
October 15 2009 10:34 PM EDT
dudemus this is not the first time this has happened, it ALWAYS happens like this with my ideas no matter what. So no I do not fault you so no need for any kind of apology.
That was aimed at CB in General.
Like I said I'm tired of trying and getting shot down every single time no matter what. If I even try to support someone else's idea it is like I carried the plague to it. It is frustrating and depressing all at once considering I try with other people's ideas. Constructive Criticism I can take, cut downs at every corner without some kind of build-up because people think it is funny I cannot.
My Previous Statement Stands: Whatever you guys decide I will back you for whatever it is worth.
I will Add: I hope that my support doesn't kill it.
Zen, I know I've disagreed with you in past thread, I don't do it becuase it's funny, or I want to cut you down.
I do it just becuase I don't agree.
No matter how vocal I am, I'm hardly ever having a personal pop at anyone. And truth be told, I don't think anyone here really does.
That' sone of the things that makes this games community so great. There are a lot of people that are very passionate about the game, and we have heated debates over its state. But it's all about the game, and hardly ever about the person.
Don't let another player styme you from posting your ideas. Don't even let Jon stop you. ;)
October 16 2009 7:16 AM EDT
GL it may not start off personal but it does turn personal for the very reason you have given, people are "Passionate" about the game. Yes it can make this game and community great but at the same time it can stagnate it and turn it into an elitist club. Why you ask? Simple everyone is so dead set that only their ideas will work or that there way of gaming on here will be destroyed that they refute and fight anything new or different. I can see a few ideas getting ripped up but every single one for a years time.....No it is a line of crap.
However this thread is not about this or my feelings it is about the Dex Disadvantage that was dudemus' Idea. Maybe that idea will work please let's try to focus on that.
If anyone wants to continue to talk about the aforementioned make a new thread or talk in CMs about it Thankyou.
OT, dudemus I personally think that there is enough dex disadvantage in the game. If you have twice as much DX then someone with an ELB they are only going to hit you 50% of the time, someone with an SoD, only 30% of the time. This seems reasonable to me. (This is all ignoring pth of course)
October 16 2009 10:15 AM EDT
The big problem is not with being hit. Most people can take a few hits, even with the elb.
The problem is when 1 fraking hit with the exbow can drain your tank 100%+ of his/her strength.
That is the fraking problem.
remove the 2x BTH gain and just introduce a dex disadvantage? Seems fair enough
October 16 2009 10:16 AM EDT
Jonathan Frakes agrees.
October 16 2009 10:25 AM EDT
"remove the 2x BTH gain and just introduce a dex disadvantage? Seems fair enough "
That would possibly cripple ranged attacks all round. Not just the exbow which is the problem.
If missile damage in general is the problem, then address that directly.
Not give us a +/- item that if high enough cannot be evaded at all.
"OT, dudemus I personally think that there is enough dex disadvantage in the game. If you have twice as much DX then someone with an ELB they are only going to hit you 50% of the time, someone with an SoD, only 30% of the time. This seems reasonable to me. (This is all ignoring pth of course)"
i disagree. i think that someone with 5m dex trying to hit someone with 10m dex should have a much harder time than just being cut down to 30 or 50 percent of their hits.
if we keep the current formula i think there doesn't need to be as much variance in weapon base to hit in the game.
ranger, as i have stated several times in the thread, the sole purpose is not to help against the exbow but general game balance.
with that in mind, what does the lower bth weapons gain to make up for their dex bth weaknesses? are those gains worth the loss?
October 16 2009 11:37 AM EDT
See I disagree Dude,
I think weapon damage vs magic damage is fairly well balanced.
Yes, you have the uber weapons out there, but those are outside the normal ranges.
We have mechanisms to try to counter those to some degree, including NW-PR and ENC.
ENC is laughable at the higher levels due to its rate of increase compared to NW increase. Unless perhaps you are a 4 minion character.
NW-PR does not help at the top ranks due to the 6 BA excemption factor.
Instead of blowing the whole system up and starting over, why not fix the underlying problems and get rid of the stupid exbow. As while it is a foil for the uber items, all it does is make non-USD tanks irrelevant. And in some cases starts another USD war.
I am against changing the dex based chance to hit, since then the biggest TOA tank, with the most native dex will win all the time. Esp if they have decent sized DBs.
There has to be a way for less dex tanks, and non ToA tanks to hit DB wearing tanks. In your proposed change, that would be almost impossible.
what do the low bth weapon users gain though for the loss of the bth?
Well then I guess I'll just have to disagree with you dudemus, b/c it makes sense to me.
2 x BTH against other tanks is fine. 2 x BTH against 20 dex mages and enchanters? That means another 100 CTH for free all the time. Nah.
October 16 2009 12:12 PM EDT
"what do the low bth weapon users gain though for the loss of the bth?"
The ability to use the SoD without training a skill. Saving xp and that skill slot for UC vs evasion vs BL.
The ability to use the ax/exbow without training a skill. The point is to not have the exbow as a 1 hit = 100% strength drain. Make it so you get hit, fine, but the strength loss is not crippling but hurtful.
I personally would train 40% BTH for all the xp I spend in archery. It is not just the archery xp itself, but the skill slot that is a problem for archers as well.
Want a boost to UC? Let them use a Mageseeker without having to use up the skill slot for archery.
"2 x BTH against other tanks is fine. 2 x BTH against 20 dex mages and enchanters? That means another 100 CTH for free all the time. Nah. "
What is the difference between Z's tank with 9M dex getting 2 BTH hits on a 3M dex tank vs a 20 dex enchanter/mage?
The way damage/PTH is done in missile rounds is perfectly fine for me. Damage by magic is lower in missile rounds, but still hits all the time in both missile and melee rounds without the need for TWO weapons like tanks need.
I think this is a fundamental difference we have Henk. I believe the current system of BTH/PTH is very good, almost perfect in CB. I think the balance between mages and tanks is excellent.
True, you have outlyers like my elb, but you cannot use that for the general players.
We have or attempted to have mechanisms for outlyers. However, as in my previous post, things like NW-PR or ENC fail to accomplish this at 6 BA regeneration zone.
Perhaps we need to remove the 6 excemption or lower ENC. But fix the fraking exbow 1 hit problem.
not every tank has 9 mil DX? but then again you only need 10k DX to get that advantage for every mage. So thats why? Cheap investment to get 100 CTH extra VS mages and enchanters. Not so cheap VS other tanks, but that is choice.
October 16 2009 12:28 PM EDT
"not every tank has 9 mil DX? but then again you only need 10k DX to get that advantage for every mage. So thats why? Cheap investment to get 100 CTH extra VS mages and enchanters. Not so cheap VS other tanks, but that is choice. "
And enchanters/mages have the choice to learn 10k dex to compensate. And lower the overall CTH by 100 and even more with more dex vs that 10k dex tank. Very cheap investment for a mage, no?
There are 2 ways to look at it.
Remember mages only have to train 2 things. Tanks have to train at least 3, and possibly 4 if they want to use a bow properly.
October 16 2009 12:44 PM EDT
No Henk it is not once you pick that area to be competitive in, the choice was already made. Now it is a necessity in order to compete, it is a totally different thing.
You Choose to be a ToA Archer no problem.
It is a Necessity to have a ToA & a Ranged Weapon.
This situation is no different.
I have been looking at the exbow and the best solution to me looks like it should have the str start ramping back up again once melee hits. Like in the second round of melee it could start saying:
"___ is fighting off the effects of the poison"
And then have them regenerate 10% of their str each round.
What mage or RoBF user isn't going to have the battle over before tanks get their ST back?^
October 16 2009 1:03 PM EDT
I thought and I think posted about regaining strength in melee, and at that time I stated it would have to be a quick regeneration or almost full 1 round regeneration to work.
But better yet, solve the underlying problem for which the exbow is needed.
Before we have more than just the 2 top characters using/abusing this weapon. And they are currently the top 2 by a large score margin.
Ho ho wait a minute here, tanks and to be more specific archers started to play the dx game here.
At least in my case that was only because LA isn't fighting right now and Hens just got sold. Both of them could beat beat me.
October 16 2009 1:18 PM EDT
Well you can look at it this way Henk:
Anything over 100 dex is useless xp vs mages and enchanters. As you cannot get higher than 200 CTH with a bow.
Imagine how much wasted xp I and other tanks have with all our dex. Which is really only good vs other tanks.
But, if a mage really wants to lower that 200 CTH, they do have that option.
"Perhaps we need to remove the 6 excemption or lower ENC."
Now this, is something I've been advocating for years! ;)
October 16 2009 1:46 PM EDT
Initially I did not want that, however, after further review, I do like the idea.
However, one can make the argument that the top is for the "big boys" with their "big toys".
But I lean towards removing the excemption and let NW-PR do some of the work it was designed to do.
However, this alone would not fix the exbow problem of 1 hit 100% drain. This needs to be addressed also.
"However, this alone would not fix the exbow problem of 1 hit 100% drain. This needs to be addressed also."
I've also supported a change to the EXBow for ages as well. ;)
"The ability to use the SoD without training a skill. Saving xp and that skill slot for UC vs evasion vs BL."
uc forces the use of the skill slot though, and in much harsher a manner than just a ratio of strength, and you still only get 50 bth. would you then get behind a weapon expertise skill that allowed all other melee & ranged weapon users to get 100 bth?
October 16 2009 2:09 PM EDT
Certainly, but only if the exbow is properly fixed, or the reasons behind it fixed.
If we do not address the plague that is the exbow, and let people train a skill to bump its CTH to 100, then we have made the problem worse.
ranger, sometimes i think we were married in a former life! i say adjust bth dex calculations to make dex disadvantage mean more and you say that won't help because it is the one hit drain nature. i say make everything capable of getting 100 bth and you say that would make the exbow matter worse. ; )
my whole point with this thread was that if we cannot get the massive drain feature changed as jon had a chance recently to do just that, then perhaps we should try to make it better. i do understand where you are coming from but it seems that it is all or nothing sometimes.
maybe uc should be bumped with its bth since it takes a skill slot? we have discussed many ways to boost uc in the past but this may be the balancing factor?
even without archery, those 80 bth weapons are quite a bit better than everything else out there. i think what i may be missing here is that the dex advantage must be figured differently than the dex disadvantage. i sure wish we could have clarification of the mechanic.
October 16 2009 2:24 PM EDT
One of the few things that would help with the exbow would be to change it to a 0 BTH. That way to hit you have to have some decent dexterity. However, I would still like to see a sliding AMF type of leech. Something but not complete.
If you propose to make all other weapons 100 BTH if a skill is trained, and let UC be at 100 BTh that is fine by me.
I think Jon is keeping melee weapons lower BTH is the fact there are 44-50 rounds of melee compared to only 6 of missile.
But in my battles, and they are by no way representative of all of CB, most end before 15 rounds. With only a few opponents going past 7. But some certainly do.
The battles that typically go very long are RBF ones. If others want to chime in on that please do.
Ranger, if the exbow has 0 bth then that would mean that dex is absolutely useless if you are using the exbow and it turns it into a completely USD only weapon. Especially when you consider those people using DB.
"I think Jon is keeping melee weapons lower BTH is the fact there are 44-50 rounds of melee compared to only 6 of missile."
i definitely understand that, but if dex advantage is figured the way we think from this thread, then the easier to get dex bth hits coupled with the greater damage seems awful nice especially when taken in context of the hal with all the free pth.
"Ranger, if the exbow has 0 bth then that would mean that dex is absolutely useless if you are using the exbow and it turns it into a completely USD only weapon. Especially when you consider those people using DB."
too true, which is why i kinda liked squaring the ratio before multiplying by bth to reduce further but not neuter.
October 16 2009 2:49 PM EDT
"Ranger, if the exbow has 0 bth then that would mean that dex is absolutely useless if you are using the exbow and it turns it into a completely USD only weapon. Especially when you consider those people using DB. "
Absolutely NOT true.
0 BTH is the chance to hit assuming equal dexterity.
You can get 100 BTH with max dex advantage.
So dexterity will have a component. Not as much as now, but with Leadership available given "free" PTH compared to DBs, you would just need more xp into dexterity than is needed now.
However, I do not personally advocate this solution.
I want a more bell shaped curve as I suggested in the past.
But messing with dex BTH skew the other weapons. Which I would not like to see.
It depends whether or not the wiki formula is accurate for DX Ratio > 1. If it is, then dex CTH = 0 for all ratios. If it's similar to what I proposed, then it can reach 100.
"0 BTH is the chance to hit assuming equal dexterity.
You can get 100 BTH with max dex advantage."
not if the formula given above is accurate. since they are multiplied, the bth times the ratio of dex, zero bth would mean zero dex bth chance.
that is why i it is so much easier and quicker for the 100 bth hal for example to get dex advantage than the 50 bth jiggy.
a hal would get it at 2m to 1m dex ratio (attacker to defender) and the jiggy would need 4m dex to get the same max dex bth chance. which is why i asked what the tradeoff for such a massive difference was and is the trade off worth it for the lower bth weapons.
"a hal would get it at 2m to 1m dex ratio (attacker to defender) and the jiggy would need 4m dex to get the same max dex bth chance. which is why i asked what the tradeoff for such a massive difference was and is the trade off worth it for the lower bth weapons."
Actually, a Jig would only need 3x by that formula.
"1BTH then. ;)"
Even at 1 bth dex is as good as garbage, actually worse. You need to equal their dex to just get 1 cth. That's the same as 1 pth the only way it would even be feasible is with EC and then you wouldn't be training dex anyways and not only that if you are using EC then you wont really be needing the exbow in the first place.
Also, a pth game is not the way we should be moving in my opinion. This would just make it more a case of whoever uses the most USD wins.
"Actually, a Jig would only need 3x by that formula."
(att dex / def dex) * bth
2m / 1m * 100 = 200 percent or max dex bth for the elb
4m / 1m * 50 = 200 perrcent or max dex bth for the jiggy
the elb attacker needs twice as much dex as the target to reach max dex bth while the jiggy needs four times as much. why is everyone saying three?
"Also, a pth game is not the way we should be moving in my opinion. This would just make it more a case of whoever uses the most USD wins."
i am not proposing to adjust pth at all, it will still work exactly as it does now. i think that only the dex bth needs any kind of adjustment.
i thought max dex bth for all items was 200 or 2 hits? are you guys saying it is 100 plus weapon base?
well that is even worse than i thought, not only does it take longer to get there, but you can never get as high!
all i can hope is that this formula holds for dex disadvantage but not for dex advantage.
October 16 2009 3:40 PM EDT
Honestly I do not care how the change is implemented:
1) A Rescale of the Dex/Defensive Dex Model.
2) A Direct Recoding of the ExBow & Archer.
3) A Modification of the ExBow & Archer through a Skill or Item.
Just as long as SOMETHING is done!
As it stands now Archers are getting screwed and Tanks are too by default. Overall it is a great big pile of disgusting crap that needs to be dealt with period.
I can understand the EXBow needing changes (And i've supported that from the beginning), but why Archers?
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the 100 BTH of the ELBow is too good.
That you can do *nothing* but beat the dex of the archer facing you to lower the change that will hit you once per round (AoI aside), isn't feasible in any way to non Tanks.
Basically, the BTH of the ELBow gifts Archers an automatic hit per round versus Walls, Enchanters and Mages.
"Basically, the BTH of the ELBow gifts Archers an automatic hit per round versus Walls, Enchanters and Mages."
even other melee teams can be added to that, unless they (as defenders) can double the dex of the elbow archer or hal.
Here is another trouble that I realized. If the exbow stops working near so effectively, what is to stop someone from just throwing massive USD into an ELB and wiping the floor with everyone no matter how much reduction they put up. If people's enc looks anything like mine they are no where near to filling it up. Also those ELB are putting 10 mil + damage per round before reductions already.
^that is the problem as i see it nem and i have stated it in other threads.
when we changed to linear damage modifier upgrades the natural ceiling that created for damage upgrades was removed. this created the potential for very high damage elbs that by the fact that they need to do damage quickly, when upped tremendously become very binary themselves thus requiring a very binary counter.
i have drawn parallels to evasion because what happens is the mechanics are countering the extreme end and thus leaving everyone else in the dust. which is why i have stated that any fix will likely need to adjust both sides of the equation, just like evasion or else rework the ranged rounds mechanic.
As Ranger said above, we need to lower ENC.
But that's only one part of the solution. ;)
I still stand that the NW-PR link needs to be adjusted so that 'above the curve' or 'out there' Weapon X's needs to add PR. It just does.
There is no rationale for it not to. Not one reaosnable reason.
October 16 2009 5:53 PM EDT
You mean no reasonable reason other than to make Tanks suffer along with the Archers. Great plan!
That's why I said that I think the best solution so far is probably to have the str start regenerating once in melee.
that still just addresses one side of the equation though and i think it was presented as a solution in the thread where jon asked for our input.
this is one reason i thought a dex disadvantage adjustment might actually have a chance. while it would make it easier to avoid being hit from exbows, it also affects all other physical damage dealers in the same manner...both sides of the equation.
October 16 2009 6:22 PM EDT
"If the exbow stops working near so effectively, what is to stop someone from just throwing massive USD into an ELB and wiping the floor with everyone no matter how much reduction they put up."
1) Remove NW-PR exemption for 6 regeneration characters.
2) Find a better way of doing ENC. It is a great system, I advocated for it when it came out. But it needs to be tweaked.
Perhaps if we do 2 correctly, there is no reason to even have NW-PR anymore.
But this 1 hit=win, all miss=loss has to stop.
Zen, I laid out my thoughts in a thread a little while ago.
Tanks (including archers) need some free NW. That's a given.
This free NW needs to be upgraded, and apgrdable alongside STR, to keep Tank/Archer damage scaling in line with Mage damage.
Too little NW, or too much, skews this.
Having NW *under* the reaosnable amount should in fact lower a Tanks/Archers PR, as they are fighting at a reduced 'power' to expected.
NW *above* should increase PR.
There is no reason (lets ignore ENC for a moment) that a Tank/Archer with a Gazillion X sized weapon should have the same (free) power as one with a x1. Or x10. Or x10,000.
No reason at all.
ENC hs been put into place to limit massive weapons, but it fails at this. It also doesn't adress the skewed scaling they give.
Let's assume (just for exmaple) that Physical damage is equated to Magic damage like this;
100 Magic = 50 STR + 50 X
A Tank using a weapon at 50 STR with 500 X is now breaking the equality and punching at 10 times thier weight.
This *should* be reflected by their PR.
It utter folly for it to not be.
October 16 2009 6:24 PM EDT
And there is way 3:
3. RoS GA/AS characters eat archers alive. Even me with 14+M hp on my archer. One reason I think GA should not really be changed.
Rawr has beaten me ever since I obtained Heroes, no matter what I did with it except for when I went extremely heavy (AC 300+) tank. Which then lost me 5 others.
A NW - PR link could only work if ENC was such that armour aside, you could never grow a Weapon X above the 'equality' value to Magic damage.
1) doesn't work right now because x is not calculated into PR at all. I really don't think someone with a strat like Zenai's is all that accurate with his PR when compared with others.
Or as in my case. If I happened to be using a MoD with a lot more x and a lot less + I would actually have better results than I am now and I would have a lower PR as well which would mean I would definitely be getting a challenge bonus. That in itself I do not think is right.
October 16 2009 6:29 PM EDT
There had to be a reason NS convinced Jon to remove the x portion from NW equations.
I never understood why but that can be changed if needed I guess.
However this whole post is moot unless Jon comes back to CB.
There is a good reaosn. I didn't see it until recenly.
Tanks (and Archers) need some free 'X' NW.
But to have it all free, is sheer folly.
It needs to be scaled itself. You have too litle, you are suplimented. You have too much (to the expected free range necessary for equality) you get penalised.
That's the only way this system can work.
"Perhaps if we do 2 correctly, there is no reason to even have NW-PR anymore."
i have long thought that we need one solution for simplicities sake. i would love to see someone come up with something along these lines that simplifies it and is easy to explain to new users.
this is also something that, at least in my mind, could speak to both sides of the equation!
There's a way to get rid of the NW - PR link.
Allow everyone to only use a set amount of NW.
You wouldn't even be able to equip over it. Other games use methods like this.
yeah, increase the encumbrance level, get rid of pr and add nw of weapons into encumbrance calculations and then base challenge bonus off of encumbrance level for the negative side of challenge bonus?
base positive challenge bonus off of mpr to score of opponent?
Another example, I hope is the easiest to understand my reasoning.
Take two tanks of exactly equal stats.
One has a x5000 weapon, the other a x50,000
Both have the same MPR, and due to free x, the same PR.
The Tank with the x5000 weapon attacks a target they have a 50/50 chance of beating, over multiple rounds.
The Tank with the x50,000 weapon attacks the same target, but due to massively increased damage output, can easily win, every time, over a minimal number of rounds.
Yet, as both has the same PR, both get the same Challenge bonus, and the same rewards.
While one has obviously more 'power' and a much easier time defeating thier opponent.
How is this in any way reasonable?
or have a bonus and a penalty: bonus for mpr to score ratio and a penalty for being encumbered with your challenge bonus being the sum of the two.
October 16 2009 7:40 PM EDT
What a line of dog doo seriously man you mean to say that ENC is crap and that there is only supposed to be a certain amount of NW per Char. How in the heck are you going to justify this? By MPR? At this MPR your ENC is here? Who are you to say that this is what the right number is supposed to be and at what time? No thankyou I pass!
Plus why should anyone be punished for hard work in pumping their weapons? Don't hand me the USD crap because you have no idea how hard I work for my USD jack or anyone else for that matter. I'm sick and tired of hearing people harping on that subject. Come up with something better and I will be the first to sign on.
You want something to work on both sides of the Equation right? Fine!
SYSTEM WIDE RESCALE now tell me if Jon has the time for it, quick and fast is what he would opt for I'm willing to bet. I laid down my answer to this problem, regardless if anyone would like it doesn't matter it would freaking work and you know it.
I set all of the ideas inside something that would be an option, you want to be an Archer/Crossbowman you have to train Archery/Crossbowmanship to set these Model modifications in line or deal with these penalties. One line of code on the ExBow to check for the Skill or apply these penalties EASY! No matter what would be needed for the Archer/Crossbowman it could be included, all of it both good things and bad, to make them work properly.
PROBLEM FREAKING SOLVED!
You guys want to reshape all of CB when a simple Skill or Item Modification would do the job. No wonder Jon is not around much any more....................your trying to freaking work him to death he has better things to do like spend time with his wife and kids or doing his Job to support his family.
Sorry Zen, I'll not debate this with you any more. You seem to be too close to the issue to discuss the mechanics, and see any discussion as a dig at you and your archer.
If you want to see an Archer agree that ENC isn't working, Ranger posted that above.
October 16 2009 7:50 PM EDT
GL that was aimed at everyone that thinks you idea on the ENC is right Archer or not period. Too Close to the issue.....yes when every time I turn around USD users get dug on and blamed for the woes of CB.. It really pisses me off, the problems of CB were bound to come out sooner or later anyway GL. USD users have simply brought it out sooner by default.
Thing is Zen, I never *once* mentioned USD.
I agree with you. It's a flaw with the system as a whole, and you're right, USD has only excacerbated the problem, not caused it.
I've been badgering on about it for literaly years. I put the example above out when I had a chat to Sefton about it, after the NW-PR links inception.
No one, has yet, given a viable answer as to why it's ok. The only answer ever given is;
"Why should I be penalised for building a abnormally large weapon?"
Because it breaks game balance with the current system. That's why.
I was also careful above to not imply this aimed at Archers. It's a general flaw with the weapon system in CB, that effects all physical damage dealers, and isn't a specific archer gripe.
I'd really like to know why i'm wrong, if you feel so strongly that I am. But please explain how and why.
Also, a rescale wouldn't fix the problem.
It just slows it back down agian.
And in 5 years itme, we're back tot he same place again.
Oh and you wouldn't be 'punished' for pumping your weapon X. It's not like it won't do anything.
It's just your increased damage would be fairly represented by an accuratly increased Power Rating.
That is of course if we really want PR to be a meaningful stat. And seeing as it's tied into rewards, it really needs to be.
October 16 2009 8:15 PM EDT
GL you do not need to *Mention* something to imply it.
Your Scale would not work because it would also kill Armor based Strats as well. You would have to add in a Weapon X Only Exception on the Code. This is why I said what I said, with it the way you want it presently it would KILL options.
And just to Clarify Uber Weapon does not Equal Instant Win it just equals a much better chance.
And you are right about the rescale but most people do not want to hear my ideas since I do not understand the uber mathematical equations. You put the Code in a Skill as a Modification for a Class Set and yes that is what this is turning into, all you have to do is add in one thing, to self modify. I know it can be done, how to do it I am not a Coder/Programmer so I cannot tell you. I do know though that a Modification is much easier than a Rescale by a long shot.
Zen, I imply nothing. I'm very open.
Uber pumped wepaons are problem, irregardless of where they come form. USD, Good Economic AH buying/selling, renting, getting a lot of great randome drops, forging for ever.
It doesn't matter where the case comes from. This is generic, not speciifc.
Unlimited free PR from ewapon X is a bad thing. Where ever you get the source of the X from.
How would scaling the free PR form weapon X have any impact on Armour based PR at all?
"And just to Clarify Uber Weapon does not Equal Instant Win it just equals a much better chance."
For the same rewards as those with much less chance.
And you support that as balanced? Seriously?
October 16 2009 9:16 PM EDT
Fair Enough GL but case in point what Tank with x50K fight the same opponent as the x5K Tank.... If they fight the same opponents.......are you kidding? No they would not if they had half a braincell that is what fighting up is all about it has already been implemented.
Because you said : "Allow everyone to only use a set amount of NW. You wouldn't even be able to equip over it. Other games use methods like this."
I believe I said: " Your Scale would not work because it would also kill Armor based Strats as well. You would have to add in a Weapon X Only Exception on the Code. This is why I said what I said, with it the way you want it presently it would KILL options."
Finally PR is not a stat it is a Representation, HP/DEX/STR are stats.
October 16 2009 9:22 PM EDT
So do I support your idea NO not as it stands, if you tweak it then I will support it otherwise forget about it. You want to limit the amount of X on a weapon fine but only that nothing more. You want to put a limit on Armor, fine separate them then put a limit on that too I'm cool with it, all under one small shell not a freaking chance. That is my stance GL I'm not gonna budge on it. Tanks have enough to deal with as it is we should not beat them up simply because they are tanks it is unfair to do so. No one will want to run one and that will equal a major loss for a facet of CB.
well basically CB1 where freed had such a huge ELB it broke the system mechanics. Yeah I love to see that happening again. Encumbrance got to love it.
the ones in cb1 had to do it with a curve on the damage mod as well i believe.
Zen, "Allow everyone to only use a set amount of NW"
Was one suggestion for getting rid of the NW-PR link.
Personally, I don't like it, as games that use that sort of things (Duels, again...) are item based growth games. Which CB isn't.
But if you want to get rid of a NW - PR link (which is what that suggestion was all about, in repsonse to Dude), then you'll need to implement something like it.
Again, it's not about specifics, so it doesn't matter if those two example tanks would be fighting the same target or not. It's all about how the mchanics of the game work if they did.
PR is a stat. It's used to determin rewards.
STR isn't a stat. It's a representation of how strong your character is.
I think you're missing the main thrust.
"You want to limit the amount of X on a weapon fine but only that nothing more."
I don't want to limit weapon X. Tanks should be able to pump it as high as they want. With whatever sources of CB2 that can get.
But it needs to be acuratly represented in thier Power Rating.
October 17 2009 9:52 AM EDT
Are you changing your tune GL or do you understand how you are coming across? You are bouncing around with your comments.
First you Said: I still stand that the NW-PR link needs to be adjusted so that 'above the curve' or 'out there' Weapon X's needs to add PR. It just does.
Then you said: "There is no reason (lets ignore ENC for a moment) that a Tank/Archer with a Gazillion X sized weapon should have the same (free) power as one with a x1. Or x10. Or x10,000.
No reason at all.
ENC has been put into place to limit massive weapons, but it fails at this. It also doesn't address the skewed scaling they give." <====See the Last Comment and tell me if they match GL.
Then you said: A NW - PR link could only work if ENC was such that armor aside, you could never grow a Weapon X above the 'equality' value to Magic damage. <====Given sort of.....since you took Armor out this time.
Then this: There's a way to get rid of the NW - PR link.
Allow everyone to only use a set amount of NW.
You wouldn't even be able to equip over it. Other games use methods like this. <===you just added Armor back in :-/
And This too: Uber pumped weapons are problem, irregardless of where they come form. USD, Good Economic AH buying/selling, renting, getting a lot of great random drops, forging for ever.
It doesn't matter where the case comes from. This is generic, not specific.
Unlimited free PR from weapon X is a bad thing. Where ever you get the source of the X from. <===See Below
and Finally this: I don't want to limit weapon X. Tanks should be able to pump it as high as they want. With whatever sources of CB2 that can get. <===With your 1st two comments yes you most certainly did.
Where are you going GL? Seriously State your meaning plainly on your idea otherwise I stand by my comment.
So do I support your idea NO not as it stands, if you tweak it then I will support it otherwise forget about it.
As a side note GL:
GL: "PR is a stat. It's used to determine rewards.
STR isn't a stat. It's a representation of how strong your character is.
Are you sure GL?: By the PR definition, the interpretation can be either a Stat OR a Measure OR a Representation. In the Stats it Bounces around, so really this is a battle of semantics.
PR, Power Rating: A measure of both the XP your character has trained and the total net worth of items his minions have equipped. Untrained XP is not counted towards this total and neither are unequipped items.
Stat: Hit Points (HP), Strength (ST), and Dexterity (DX). The basic statistics of a minion.
Further in Stats is :
Strength, Str, ST: A measure of how much physical damage a minion can do with a melee or ranged weapon.
HP, Hit Points: The amount of damage a minion can absorb before dying.
Dexterity, Dex, DX: A measure of how often a minion will hit an opposing minion with a physical attack, or vice versa. Two minions with evenly matched dexterity will hit each other about 50% of the time. The maximum number of hits achievable on an opponent due to dexterity is two. More hits per round can only be achieved via 'plus-to-hit' (pth).
i understand him fine zen. he was offering a range of solutions that all accomplish the same goal...no more handicaps. your tendency to belittle those you disagree with does your argument little justice.
October 17 2009 10:36 AM EDT
I am not belittling dudemus I am trying to get a straight answer since to me it is not clear and he has jumped in his comments.
Offering a range of solutions is fine after all I did this very same thing myself. However putting them on the table at different times to the point of confusion or muddling the point is not a good thing. Something like this can make things be misinterpreted if not presented properly. Get over the fact that I want it to be clear dudemus.
While on the subject of belittling dudemus that is something that is up to interpretation, I have felt belittled by you, and many others on this site only to have all of you backtrack and say no I was not. That was not my meaning, so in short back-off you are guilty too.
"Are you changing your tune GL or do you understand how you are coming across? You are bouncing around with your comments."
I've been consistent on everything i've posted Zen. No bouncing around. I'm sorry you seem to have misunderstood what i've posted, I'll try to make things clearer.
"<====See the Last Comment and tell me if they match GL."
Of course they match. You've misunderstood.
Tanks (including archers) need some free NW on X. But not an unlimited amount. I've posted examples why, and you've yet to address them.
"Then you said: A NW - PR link could only work if ENC was such that armor aside, you could never grow a Weapon X above the 'equality' value to Magic damage. <====Given sort of.....since you took Armor out this time."
Of course. Becuase armour has no impact here. it's *exactly* the same, currently, for Mages, Enchanters and Tanks.
Armour can be ignored.
"Then this: There's a way to get rid of the NW - PR link.
Allow everyone to only use a set amount of NW.
You wouldn't even be able to equip over it. Other games use methods like this. <===you just added Armor back in :-/"
I was responding to Dudes remark about getting rid of the NW-PR link. As Dude posted above, it was a suggestion of how it could be removed. One I don't support, but a solution never the less.
"<===With your 1st two comments yes you most certainly did."
No. You're misreading suff. Probably becuase you're too close to the subject to have a ration discussion about it.
"Where are you going GL? Seriously State your meaning plainly on your idea otherwise I stand by my comment.
So do I support your idea NO not as it stands, if you tweak it then I will support it otherwise forget about it."
I have. Multiple times in this thread.
You seem unwilling, or maybe unable to actually comment on it, you're just throwing accusations around about people ruining the game, driving Jon away and hating archers.
I'll state it agian. In as clear writing as possible.
Tanks (and archers) need some free NW on weapon X. But for this to be an unlimited amount is folly.
Examples why are above, if you want to discuss them, please do.
"Are you sure GL?: <snip>PR, Power Rating: A measure
<snip>Strength, Str, ST: A measure
<snip>Dexterity, Dex, DX: A measure"
I can continue to discuss pendantry if you want, but it really adds nothing to the discussion...
"Tanks (and archers) need some free NW on weapon X. But for this to be an unlimited amount is folly. "
Yup or it will be massive USD archers vs GA teams all the time here. And no one wants to see a game where only two types of teams are dominate.
Ow wait we are already there...
October 17 2009 12:05 PM EDT
"I've been consistent on everything i've posted Zen. No bouncing around. I'm sorry you seem to have misunderstood what i've posted, I'll try to make things clearer. "
No you have not hence my Post in the first place.
"Tanks (including archers) need some free NW on X. But not an unlimited amount. I've posted examples why, and you've yet to address them."
Yes I did address them you jumped over my replies. I will restate them: If you want to put a limit on the X of a Weapon fine but only that nothing more, meaning Leave Armor out of it since you popped in the overall NW of the Char. I also said I do not think everything should be under one small shell. Put Everything on it's own NW ENC Limit and then use your idea pending an Accurate Representation of the Proper Number to use then I will support it otherwise as I said before No not as it stands. Hence Straighten out your Idea GL.
"You seem unwilling, or maybe unable to actually comment on it, you're just throwing accusations around about people ruining the game, driving Jon away and hating archers."
Um no I think I have been quite clear from the beginning that I do not see a few things happening and have commented straightforwardly that I will not budge on those ideas. I meant it GL. As your Idea stands now no I do not support it, tweak it and I will. Looking for a rescale as some have hinted or proposed inadvertently no I stated why on that as well, Maybe Jon just doesn't have the time because of RL. A Modification we "Might" be able to get accomplished.....might because it would be faster to do.
People hating Archers well yes a lot of people have even though I did not state this point.
Archers do get a raw deal on a lot of things and honestly it is unfair, but Tanks have this same problem because that are basically in the same corner. Hence my saying Modify the Skill to change the basic Model of the Minion when Trained. With this you can set it to self Modify as far as your program it to go, "Infinity" was my proposal.
This will Keep several things from happening,
1) The Introduction of the classes (which people have so vehemently stated they were against.),
2) Leave the Original Minion Model alone(since this mostly involves the Archer and ExBow users),
3) Reset how the Archers Damage Output and Dex Models work(Hence Leveling them out without killing their effectiveness), 4) Level out the Binary Nature of the ExBow(Without it Destroying the effectiveness of it by any variable necessary to do so)
5) Can make it a whole lot faster than a Rescale(which you pointed out is only a possible 5 Year Band-aid)
In Short My meaning overall is this: A Modification of the System Through a Skill would be Best since it can be coded to take away/add to everything necessary to even out the problem area without messing up the Original Models for the Standard Minion( going to the problem without causing more problems) This could Also be Achieved through an Item as well: Amulet of Archery, Amulet of Crossbowmanship.
Included in this could be up to what is necessary: Dex Advantage/Disadvantage, Damage Output, Drain %/Ratio, NW/ENC Limits, and PR/Rewards ratios, the list could go on and on.......
"I can continue to discuss pedantry if you want, but it really adds nothing to the discussion... "
I know this GL hence why I called it a Battle of Semantics, it can go either way and neither are truly wrong because it is a matter of interpretation.
I'm out Zen, you're not even reading my posts.
October 17 2009 1:21 PM EDT
GL yes I have and have been reading and commenting on your posts for a while now. I just do not agree with the way you are presenting it. I said I will support it if tweaked but as it stands now NO. I meant it GL. You said you would like a balanced way to settle high X Weapons or even Massive weapons for that matter....in a way I agree just not in the way you have stated. You said put it all in a massive NW Limit which was one solution but not one you support, neither do I. You said I want to have an accurate Representation of PR for those Weapons I said sure Pending the Magic Number for the Accurate Representation and how to implement it and set to Separate NW/ENC Limits for everything as that would be the fair thing to do. If Weapons should have a Penalty for being too high on your sliding scale so should everything, in effect this is limiting things GL whether you want to see this or not. I'm looking at specifics here and if they are set out and explained right I would back them no questions asked.
So yes I have read your posts GL, in depth and I see the discrepancies and have pointed them out. This is not a Dig on you personally so please do not take it that way.
"I'm looking at specifics here"
i think that is the problem, gl is speaking in generalities. in effect, melee weapon users need some free weapon nw but not unlimited.
he has spoken of different ways it might be fixed, but offered no solution that i have seen.
Alright, one last time.
"You said you would like a balanced way to settle high X Weapons or even Massive weapons for that matter....in a way I agree just not in the way you have stated. You said put it all in a massive NW Limit which was one solution but not one you support, neither do I."
No, you're misunderstanding where that wa smentioned in the conversation. That was just a comment to Dude about a possible way to remove the NW-PR link *as a whole*, not to do anything about large weapons.
"You said I want to have an accurate Representation of PR for those Weapons I said sure Pending the Magic Number for the Accurate Representation and how to implement it and set to Separate NW/ENC Limits for everything as that would be the fair thing to do. If Weapons should have a Penalty for being too high on your sliding scale so should everything,"
Everything already does.
Armour is already penalised for its size, by adding to your PR. So does all weapon +.
The *only* thing that goes unpenalised is Weapon X.
Which is the whole point of what I'm talking about (stemmed from Nem's observation way up in the thread).
"in effect this is limiting things GL whether you want to see this or not. I'm looking at specifics here and if they are set out and explained right I would back them no questions asked."
Armour is already penalised. The hgher it goes, the more PR it adds. This doesn't ned to be changed.
Weapon + is already penalised. The higher it goes, the more PR it adds. This doesn't need to be changed.
XP is already penalised. The higher it goes the more PR it adds.
Weapon X is totally unpenalised. This needs to change.
Instead of just implementing the same exact penalty that armour, + and XP have (Which would destroy Tank/Archer balance compared to Mages), Weapon X needs to be on a sliding scale.
Magic number supplied by the Devs.
If you're below this magic number (in relation to your STR), you should be supplimented and have a bonus (by lowering your PR).
If you're at this magic number, nothing happens, the game works as it does now.
If you're above the magic number, you should be penalised, and have the excess amount added to your PR, in the exact same fashion that Armour, Weapon + and XP are already penalised.
October 17 2009 2:29 PM EDT
"i think that is the problem, gl is speaking in generalities. in effect, melee weapon users need some free weapon nw but not unlimited."
I do not agree, this should be across the board, Tanks, Archers, Mages, Weapons and Armor everything that requires ENC to use.
Specifics is what will be needed dudemus.
E.G. If you want to wear an Amulet at this MPR you cannot have one above this level or you will get a PR Penalty. Like it is now but more Specific. I could advocate that because it would be fair to everyone.
"he has spoken of different ways it might be fixed, but offered no solution that i have seen."
Which is what I have repeatedly asked for and have not gotten, a specific solution by tweaking the idea.
This was the reason for the thread in the first place right? To brainstorm and try to find solutions to a problem correct? Specifics will be needed, if I can poke holes in it bet your bottom dollar NS/Jon can. The idea would then be of no use and the time taken to discuss it in the first place would have been wasted.
With any good Idea I would not want it to fall through the cracks because of no follow through which seems to be the norm here in CB. Talk about it but no unanimous agreement(or anything close to it) on what should be done and Zero follow though.
Right, let's start here.
"I do not agree, this should be across the board, Tanks, Archers, Mages, Weapons and Armor everything that requires ENC to use."
You don't agree Tanks and Archers require some free Wepaon X to be balanced?
Would you mind explaining that?
"Which is what I have repeatedly asked for and have not gotten, a specific solution by tweaking the idea."
To what Zen? The discussion has moved on from to hit mechanics, or even the EXBow...
What would you like tweaked?
Oh and the reason I don't use specifics. We can't.
Becuase we don't know.
Only Jon/NS know the specific Zen.
How is Mage to Tank damage balanced? What base weapon damage? How many hits per round?
I donno. No one does.
So we look at balance generally.
October 17 2009 3:02 PM EDT
hmm ok GL set plainly on the board adding for Weapon X only nothing else added, it is still a limit though. Penalties are deterrents which is why they were instated in the first place. Still in a way it is fair, but I would need to see a number from you GL, of course the Devs will pick their own but having a base to work with would be ideal.
Making everything more Specific would be more viable in my mind as far as ENC/PR is concerned.
Weapons X Penalty = # of Times on the Weapon /.5 added to PR Penalty when at this MPR and over the ENC Limit.
Weapons times Penalty derive from the Weapons Times divided by .5 - the Number yield would be what it adds to PR go above this MPR ENC Limit then this is the Penalty you get.
or maybe just only 1/3 or 1/4 of the Times counting towards ENC.
I'm not a Math person so I hope I have made some kind of sense here.
What I am looking at is this, if there is too much then Tanks will no longer be viable, and neither will Archers so the Balance would be touchy. Last thing we need to have happen here is to pinch a section of CB out for the sake of another.
I'm still wondering why no one has said why my idea on the Skill/Item Model Modification is not Viable other than Nem.........
I apologize I was working on a Post and had already Posted when I saw yours up GL.
No need to apologise Zen! ;)
I posted my numbers above.
100% Magic Damage = 50% STR + 50% Weapon X
If you deviate from that (could be strict, could be a relaxed range, like +/- 5% X) you get either lower PR or higher PR. To reflect the abnormal (either way, small or large) wepaon you're using.
This is a sliding scale, so I can't give a fixed number.
i see limits for each item slot as being much more restrictive than one big encumbrance limit that lets the player decide how to divvy that up.
October 17 2009 3:46 PM EDT
Well dividing up X and + for that very same thing is heading in that direction anyway so why not just get it over with and do it?
Still waiting for a Comment on why the Skill/Item Model Modification is not viable other than Nem.....
if we go that route i would rather just add in a weapon expertise skill that adds to the base bth and all can use it. it would replace archery.
i still think that does not address the other issues though. i still think having less dex than your opponent should mean more and that we either need to return to damage modifier upgrade cost curve which would be a soft cap or work pr and challenge bonus into the encumbrance model.
October 17 2009 4:45 PM EDT
"if we go that route i would rather just add in a weapon expertise skill that adds to the base bth and all can use it. it would replace archery."
Would be a good Idea and have it contain all of the Modifications needed, but Separating the Tank, Archer, and Mage(and myriad of inbetweens) I felt setting them up with their Prefered Skill Set would be ideal.
"i still think that does not address the other issues though. i still think having less dex than your opponent should mean more and that we either need to return to damage modifier upgrade cost curve which would be a soft cap or work pr and challenge bonus into the encumbrance model."
Well The Skill/Item Modification Could contain the Code for adjusting the Model per Class/Type.
Making all of the minions open but if they want to go into depth then it is a Specialization IE Tank, Archer etc etc.......Train this Skill/ wear this Item you are now a such and such......
This would leave the Original Model Alone until a full rescale with a New Model Modification was implemented(hopefully). As it Stands Archers are the Only ones to have to train a Skill to use their weapons I think ExBow users should be added to this list. After all it was Jons idea to set it in place to curb Archers, well not the ExBowmen need to be curbed too.
I just do not see what is so bad about having to train a skill, I have heard the arguments and well Archers have no choice and still make due. Why cannot others do the same especially when they have 44-45 Rounds over an Archer to maximize damage? The absence of a Skill Slot? We have that too, sooo Add the Extra in or be fair and take the other out, having a double standard is not cool.
Leveling the playing field is a hard task but it can be done fairly for all involved.
If you level the playing field, then all damage must be inflicted at the same time, and Ranged cannot go first.
Sure, on overall damage, there' many many more Melee rounds to Ranged.
But that doesn't matter if you're dead before you can swing...
archers do seem to complain about having to train a skill, but do they really have to and would other users do the same to get 100 bth?
if there was some way to give my jiggy 100 bth i would jump at that chance. remember that no one is forcing any archer to train archery. if you want evasion, go for it. you still only end up with 80 bth for the tradeoff which you have the choice of.
put this another way, what options do mages have for skills?
20, not 80. You also lose out on 80% of your PTH.
October 17 2009 10:20 PM EDT
GL if you are far then I will shoot you plan and simple, same with a Mage and by the Way DD Spells are guaranteed hit Archery is not. It is just a better CTH.
"But that doesn't matter if you're dead before you can swing... "
Yeah and how would you feel if you had something that in one shot totally kills your strat. You are a sitting duck for every round afterword, not to mention now you are penalized so you can do absolutely nothing but wait out the beatdown. Yeah that makes sense mmmhhhhmmm sure does when ranged is your time to shine and you are shutdown before you can start. Noticwe there is no such thing as a true mid-level Archer here in CB land. They either fall through the Cracks back to Low Level or they make it to the Upper Ranks asap with a Ton of NW to back them up. dudemus we have had this convo before Archery is a tough racket to get into, it is expensive and you have to stay on your toes all the time or you will fail terribly. There is a lot more foils to Archery than people want to admit.
oh BTW Gents:
* Initial training cost: 84 exp.
* Archery increases the chance to hit for all normal bows (not crossbows or slings).
* The Archery effect ranges from 0.0 to 1.0
* Archery has reduced effect when its level is less than 1/5 of ST.
* To reach 1.0, train it to 1/5th of the Minion's strength (including Giant Strength). Beyond this is wasted.
All bows will fire in all five ranged rounds. However, without Archery trained, bows receive a significant penalty to their base chance to hit (CTH) -- 80% penalty, or a total of 20% CTH. This CTH is where you start before calculating effects from dexterity or plus to hit (PTH). With an Archery trained up to an effect of 1.00, you can minimize this penalty and maximize your base CTH. For all bows other than the Elven Long Bow (ELB), this will maximize at 90% CTH (10% penalty) at an Archery of 1.00. The ELB is the only bow that can achieve a full 100% CTH (no penalty) with full Archery trained. The CTH is interpolated linearly when Archery is somewhere between 0.00 and 1.00:
You want to be an Archer you will have to Train Archery to get the full effects of Archery otherwise you are just a Tank with a Bow. With everything else you get the full effect right away. Yeah go Evasion....right pfft whatever Gentlemen, twist it however you want. Run a Archer and your tune will change I guarantee it, mine did big time. If nothing else it will help you to understand an Archer's standpoints without the snooty biased attitudes you have now.
my bad, too much chainsawing of trees and beer drinking today! i would still, in a heartbeat, use a skill that would give the jiggy 100 bth even if that meant reducing the base to 20.
October 17 2009 10:32 PM EDT
"my bad, too much chainsawing of trees and beer drinking today!"
Badump.Tiss....yuk yuk yuk
Honestly as an Archer it wouldn't matter to me if the CTH/PTH were lowered if I was guaranteed a shot every Round of Ranged(the closest we get to something like that is achieved with massive NW, High Dex and in some cases a ToA). I wouldn't care if the base damage was lowered if I didn't have to Train a Skill to do my thing to it's best effect. Then you bet your bottom dollar I would go for it. In a heartbeat I would train Evasion!. However this is not the case and that is not an Option for a Archer. Archery Skill Trained = Archer, everything else is a Tank(or whatever) with a Ranged Weapon.
"If nothing else it will help you to understand an Archer's standpoints without the snooty biased attitudes you have now."
are you saying no one should offer suggestions regarding teams different from theirs without trying them first?
October 17 2009 10:41 PM EDT
No dudemus but it definitely will stop the comments which are biased and degrading due to ignorance of the innerworkings of the Minion Type.
In this case the Archer.
If I cannot explain it to your liking for understanding then I will give you the best answer possible, run the strat. Sometimes hands-on is the only way to get the understanding necessary to catch the meaning behind what people are saying.
"No dudemus but it definitely will stop the comments which are biased and degrading due to ignorance of the innerworkings of the Minion Type."
kinda like how archers are biased and degrading towards those exbow users who have no other way of beating them? calling their strategy abusive and overpowered all the time?
October 17 2009 10:54 PM EDT
"kinda like how archers are biased and degrading towards those exbow users who have no other way of beating them? calling their strategy abusive and overpowered all the time?"
NOT A FREAKING CHANCE AN ARCHER CAN TAKE ANYONE OUT IN ONE FREAKING SHOT dudemus. SO YES IT IS ABUSIVE SINCE NOT ONE OTHER THING IN CB CAN DO THIS. EVEN GA TAKES A FEW ROUNDS TO EAT ME UP. MAGES CANT TAKE OUT ANYONE IN ONE ROUND, NEITHER CAN TANKS FOR THAT MATTER. BUT ONE SHOT FROM THE GOOD OLE EXBOW AND VOILA ARCHER/TANK DOWN FOR THE COUNT.
If you want to advocate the ExBow go ahead, I will not. Not just because I am an Archer but because of one simple thing, CB is a place of soft counters by Jon's own words. Nothing that can destroy a Strat in one shot is a soft counter period.
i think you should play one before you make such biased and degrading statements! ; )
October 17 2009 10:58 PM EDT
dudemus if you want to battle semantics and attempt to twist my words go for it it does not speak well for your argument ;)
i am not twisting your words. your answer to everything i say regarding archers is play one. why does that not hold true for you in your complaints against the exbow? why does it not hold true for you in your complaints against teams that can use their skill slot but can never reach 100 bth? why don't we just not allow people to post in the forums at all until they have played all the possible strategies in the game?
October 17 2009 11:10 PM EDT
"i am not twisting your words. your answer to everything i say regarding archers is play one."
Because you refuse any of my answers whatsoever regarding an Archer even though I am one. So the best answer I can give is play one dudemus.
"why does that not hold true for you in your complaints against the exbow?"
Because I do not need to dudemus I am on the receiving end of the ExBow itself, and when you can take 16.1 Mil of str into -3Mil in one shot I think I can say it is abusive and it hold true.
why does it not hold true for you in your complaints against teams that can use their skill slot but can never reach 100 bth?
Because they automatically have more options and I believe I did say if I could get the full effects of my Chars Archery then I would gladly take a reduction in CTH/PTH for that opened skill slot.
"why don't we just not allow people to post in the forums at all until they have played all the possible strategies in the game?"
That is ludicrous dudemus and you know it, this is why you said it in the first place to bait me. Stop battling Semantics and either work on a fix, get the thread shut down, or stop posting.
and, since i am on the receiving end of archer's 100 bth, then that makes me qualified by your criteria so we can dispense with the double standard of requiring non-archers to play one or shut up?
October 17 2009 11:20 PM EDT
"and, since i am on the receiving end of archer's 100 bth, then that makes me qualified by your criteria so we can dispense with the double standard of requiring non-archers to play one or shut up?"
Does an archer's 100 bth take you down in one shot? No then stuff it with your talk of a double standard.
Work on a fix, shut the thread down, or stop posting.
i agree with gl, you are way too close to the issue to talk reasonably, logically or fairly.
your passion is great and i would love it we could have a large community of players as passionate.
when it comes to balance though you have to look at what is best for the game and not for you. this can be very difficult and that is speaking from first hand experience.
step back, take a deep breath and understand that when people talk of balance issues that it is not a personal attack and does not require a counter-attack.
we do not have to reach a consensus, the devs will do what they do regradless and i keep playing mainly because of that. it is a game and as such it is supposed to be fun, so g'luck and have fun!
October 18 2009 12:10 AM EDT
"i agree with gl, you are way too close to the issue to talk reasonably, logically or fairly."
I do not need to do any of the above to say that a Weapon that hits one time and automatically equals a win is wrong in CB and stand by that comment.
"your passion is great and i would love it we could have a large community of players as passionate."
Thankyou for the complement but honestly I am not passionate about this I am simply resolute in my standpoint. I said I wouldn't budge, I was not joking.
"when it comes to balance though you have to look at what is best for the game and not for you. this can be very difficult and that is speaking from first hand experience."
I am dudemus you are missing my point. No Item in CB can do what the ExBow does in One Shot. That is not good for CB on an overall, yes I am included because I am an Archer but anyone who trains Str on their minion is at risk of this weapon.
"step back, take a deep breath and understand that when people talk of balance issues that it is not a personal attack and does not require a counter-attack."
From the General convo about the issues no I do not see it as an attack. When people direct their comments at me then I do and will not hesitate to fire back at will.
"we do not have to reach a consensus, the devs will do what they do regardless and i keep playing mainly because of that."
Yes of course the devs will do what they want, why do you think time after time I have said "Might" and "Maybe"? Still again I do say coming to some sort of a agreement would be best in presenting it to the devs and actually have them consider it seriously. Look at Rangers AoJ Petition if you will, it only worked because so many people agreed, made their feelings known and gave good reasons for it.
"it is a game and as such it is supposed to be fun, so g'luck and have fun!"
On a personal note I'm trying to have fun dudemus, but, it is kinda hard to when a Binary weapon takes me down in a shot, not a round a shot.
However, fair enough dudemus I will tell you the same thing that you have said to me it is a game and as such it is supposed to be fun, so g'luck and have fun!
I would like to say a few things. I believe that the exbow needs to be able to do drastic drains like it is doing now. I also believe that it should not be the end all of a fight against a tank. I really like the fact that the drain is heavily effected by the amount of HP you have as it makes sense as well as forces balance instead of the answer being more brute forcing.
There is no reason that the drain has to be permanent. And the recovery doesn't have to be limited to melee either I believe. If a tank recovered str at say 10% per turn just like the TSA recovers 3% hp this would make it so that even if all your str is drained in 1 hit it isn't necessarily the end of the fight. If you are put heavily into negative str it may take a couple rounds to start putting out damage again but you will recover.
There are a couple ways I think that the recovery could work.
1) You have all tanks be able to recover x% of their str each round (I would tend to think it would be somewhere around 10% to be most balanced but it could always be adjusted later)
2) You could add an item that allows regeneration of str similar to the TSA but as this would be its primary and only function the amount recovered would be relative to the +. I would think it should function as an amulet or a helm or both. For example An Amulet of Fury which would recover 1% of str per + and have an upgrade curve the same as the AoF. As a helm it could give +0.5% per +, have an upgrade curve similar to the HoE and grant AC as well.
3) You could implement both 1 and 2 giving the ability to regenerate fairly large amounts of str each round.
As a note at 10% with a character like Zenai's he would recover over 1.6 mil str each round.
With the proper amounts of HP and damage reduction it would be possible for a tank to become virtually immune to the effects of the exbow. In particular I believe a good example of a tank that wouldn't have trouble with the exbow at all at this point is JW's char. It takes me 7 hits from my exbow to fully drain him and I usually only get 6 hits in against him during ranged. If he were recovering 10% str each round throughout ranged, he would probably enter melee with around 60% str and by round 10 already be fully recovered from the exbow.
Also on another matter. I see lots of people saying how if you use a bow you are forced into training archery. Archery is meant to be a skill that allows you to make a bow your main focus. If you just want to use a bow but have your main damage be through melee it will still work just not quite as efficiently. I know this has been said before but a new amulet that could be called something like An Amulet of Elven Ancestry. It would have the same upgrade curve as the AoF and grant .03 archery effect per +. In this way it would be possible for an archery to obtain near a .5 archery without ever training the skill. This would bring a bow's cth to around the same amount as all the rest of the ranged weapons and still leave them with a skill slot open.
October 18 2009 3:34 AM EDT
Funnily enough I hadn't read your post here Nem. But I was just running some test battles against you. The lowest my strength dropped to was 4000 or thereabouts, the average amount left was nearer to 300k.
That meant that come melee I was still doing 100-150k per strike damage, which is actually an amount you could win a battle with.
What loses the battle for me is not the lower strength (note: lower, not completely drained), as that still nets me around 300k damage per round in melee; what makes me lose is Nem's HP, which would take a long time to cut through - and the TSA regen which regens more HP than I'm damaging him for. Add to that the rather large RBF and game over man....
I've just tested out the top exbows and the only one that takes me down to nothing and into negative ST is Novice's, because it hits me more than once a round. Otherwise my dex seems to work wonders, avoiding strikes for complete rounds and reducing the hits that do connect to single strikes.
None of them hit me once and completely drain me. Most in their current states (investment in PTH would change this of course, but then they'd become expensive weapons...)take the whole of ranged to do anything significant.
October 18 2009 11:21 AM EDT
"There is no reason that the drain has to be permanent. And the recovery doesn't have to be limited to melee either I believe. If a tank recovered str at say 10% per turn just like the TSA recovers 3% hp this would make it so that even if all your str is drained in 1 hit it isn't necessarily the end of the fight. If you are put heavily into negative str it may take a couple rounds to start putting out damage again but you will recover."
Many Archers have said this but Nem is the first ExBow user to say this, Bravo! Jir did come close to it by saying it is broken though and saying it should be changed.
"As a note at 10% with a character like Zenai's he would recover over 1.6 mil str each round."
True but I would ask everyone to please remember I am on the extreme side of the spectrum for Str not many come close to my Str.
"With the proper amounts of HP and damage reduction it would be possible for a tank to become virtually immune to the effects of the exbow."
True Take JW's Main Char for Example:
Hit Points: 9,000,083
Net Worth: $359,112,303
Now this is just one of his minions he has two but one is easily a killslot. That aside by his own words he started out as a Tank and worked his way into Archery as a matter of course. He didn't even want to use a tattoo but he is now a ToE. 9 Mil HP, 5 Mil Dex and 195 Armor that is a lot folks...a LOT, honestly I would say he is on the higher side of the spectrum here.
"None of them hit me once and completely drain me. Most in their current states (investment in PTH would change this of course, but then they'd become expensive weapons...)take the whole of ranged to do anything significant."
Too true, which is sad a bit more PTH it's and back to the Binary state, guys I just cannot advocate this weapon as is.
Hit Points: 5,960,000
Archery, Dispel Magic
Net Worth: $369,580,555
This is my Char the Differences I see is this his main char has More AC (123 More) and HP (3 Mil +) and less Dex(3.5 Mil less)
Now look at Rangers Main char:
Hit Points: 14,438,245
Net Worth: $443,935,907
JW has more AC(128 More), but less HP(5 Mil less), and Less Dex(1 Mil +) He still goes down to an ExBow it takes more shots granted but he still goes down. Remember one thing here less str equals penalties on ENC. Strength taken to a certain point even if not completely drained is extremely devastating.
Tanks can reduce the Drain a lot if focused on HP and AC. Now Archer's can focus on HP no problem overall(it takes away from Dex and Str/Archery but can be sacrificed) but AC is a different story. An Archers gear is set for higher damage and Str/Dex/Evasion output not much AC is involved at all. You can say it is a back and forth all day but the gear speaks for itself. If an Archer goes Heavy AC he loses most of what makes him an Archer in the first place and is under a lot of penalties for the AC set he/she is wearing and all for one weapon.....not cool.
Now do I think the ExBow should be destroyed NO. I think it can be a great balance to the system if it was not Binary to MOST Str Based Minion Types. Having a progressive return of Str like Nem said would be a great start to balancing this weapon. I do think that more should be going on here though, a lower Drain % on an overall per shot, give it a higher damage output and a higher base CTH. This I could deal with and be at peace with even if I still lose to it because in this I still have a Chance at a fight without stepping out of the Archer position to do it.
"I know this has been said before but a new amulet that could be called something like An Amulet of Elven Ancestry. It would have the same upgrade curve as the AoF and grant .03 archery effect per +. In this way it would be possible for an archery to obtain near a .5 archery without ever training the skill. This would bring a bow's cth to around the same amount as all the rest of the ranged weapons and still leave them with a skill slot open."
Yup with an Open Skill Slot it would definitely help a lot.....I wouldn't mind giving up an AoAC or AoM for an Archery Amulet. Honestly I think the AoM and AoAC is for a Tank anyway, Mages have a AoF, and AoI, Archers should have their own thing too. Yes they can be interchanged but it is not the same and an AoL is not beneficial to an Archer directly anyway. :-/
October 18 2009 11:40 AM EDT
"In this way it would be possible for an archery to obtain near a .5 archery without ever training the skill. This would bring a bow's cth to around the same amount as all the rest of the ranged weapons and still leave them with a skill slot open."
That is wrong.
The penalty is applied to both BTH and PTH.
So .5 archery would give about 60ish% of both your BTH, which would be in line with the other missile weapons, but also 60ish% of PTH which is far worse than the other missile weapons.
I would lose about 279 x .4 = 111 PTH at .5 archery.
Just fix the damm thing that is so broken we need archery as a skill and the exbow as a neuter to ELB/MSB damage.
This is getting quite pathetic.
October 18 2009 11:45 AM EDT
Just do to Archery what was done to Junction. Directly translate it over to an Amulet fixed at a 90% and needs to be named to get 100%
Amulet of Archery idea fixed.
"Just fix the damm thing that is so broken we need archery as a skill and the exbow as a neuter to ELB/MSB damage."
yeah, the more i think about it i think reverting the damage modifier cost model back to a curve instead of linear is what it will take if we keep ranged and melee mechanics as they are. it is a soft cap to massive damage numbers rather than a very unpopular foil.
October 18 2009 12:20 PM EDT
All our ideas and thoughts are great.
However, it seems we have not had a decent changelog in the past 9+ months.
Unless one counts the ever popular drop system and fight feed. Which IMO add very little to the game and in fact make playing harder in some cases.
So unless Jon or NS come back to CB with a vengeance I see nothing changing and the exbow being again the insta win it already is. Add the exbow and RBF together, 2 of the most abusive items in CB and it is really hard to find a foil for that combo.
The exbow to completely neutralize tanks, and the RBF with its magic damage AND evasion to counter mages and tanks. So RBF wars anyone?
Which archers have to pump more and more NW into their bow and DBs just to avoid being hit. And we all want higher NW ELBs in the game and higher NW DBs, right?
that is one benefit of reverting the cost curve. the code has already been written and is likely stored somewhere.
October 18 2009 12:27 PM EDT
"Just do to Archery what was done to Junction. Directly translate it over to an Amulet fixed at a 90% and needs to be named to get 100%
Amulet of Archery idea fixed. "
Almost all archers use the AoM. So to get rid of archery, archers would have to give up the AoM for both a free skill slot and all the xp they used in archery.
Is the loss of 24% strength going to hurt archers so much as to change things, given archery with the amulet?
Probably not at all.
I think this amulet idea would not be balanced.
October 18 2009 12:37 PM EDT
"Is the loss of 24% strength going to hurt archers so much as to change things, given archery with the amulet?"
I think you misunderstood me Ranger or I did not present it right. When the AoJ was introduced the Junction Skill was stripped away and the Exp given in full back to all who trained it. If the Amulet of Archery(Amulet of Elven Ancestry I like the name :-D) were introduced I would see the same thing happening.
October 18 2009 12:41 PM EDT
I understand completely.
Right now archers use the AoM. That gives about 24% more strength.
So if we make an amulet of archery, what do archers have to give up?
That 24% more strength.
And in return get:
1) An open skill slot
2) All that archery xp back
The AoJ was designed to help against that AoF boosting HP and DD level for DD familiars on minions training junction. It was a give up a lot to get a lot.
The AoA would be giving up little to gain a lot.
October 18 2009 12:44 PM EDT
Hmm ok then I was the one who misunderstood you.
How would you balance it then? Give 1/2 of the Exp back or none at all? Would you lower the % the AoA gives to Archery on an overall?
is the idea of archer having to train a skill to use their weapon to its full potential all that different from the change to evasion where users need to train dex to get it to work to its full potential?
October 18 2009 12:50 PM EDT
One Skill is for a Stat the other is to use a Weapon. Archery is the only Skill in the Game that is required to use a Weapon to it's full potential. So yes it is Different big time different.
with archery you use your skill points but only up to a ratio of strength.
with evasion you use your skill points and have to keep going higher to get more effect and you have to also train dex if you aren't already and lose more experience to just get your skill to work at its full potential.
you don't see those two items as being one part of a balance mechanism, mainly the to hit model? then we have the exbow to balance out massive net worth dumped into the damage modifiers?
btw, i am not asking anyone to agree with the balance of these items but am simply once again trying to figure out why they are the way they are and perhaps what jon was thinking with the models as that might help us refine any changes we suggest. ; )
October 18 2009 1:13 PM EDT
"with archery you use your skill points but only up to a ratio of strength.with evasion you use your skill points and have to keep going higher to get more effect and you have to also train dex if you aren't already and lose more experience to just get your skill to work at its full potential."
True but they are for two completely different things as well. Evasion keeps getting better as it is trained, Archery does not it just levels back out. Evasion requires more Dex, which is a good thing you get the benefit of two things at once. Archery can stay where it is and not get any better but with more str trained it gets worse and you must train it.
"you don't see those two items as being one part of a balance mechanism, mainly the to hit model? then we have the exbow to balance out massive net worth dumped into the damage modifiers?"
I do dudemus I just do not agree with them, because it takes away options that everyone else gets. I said it before I would take reductions for the open Skill slot. Further into my statement I will say that is at least reasonable reductions for everyone involved.
"btw, i am not asking anyone to agree with the balance of these items but am simply once again trying to figure out why they are the way they are and perhaps what jon was thinking with the models as that might help us refine any changes we suggest. ; )"
Agreed the more we refine things the better the suggestion will become and the better to present to the Devs and actually have them seriously consider it.
October 18 2009 2:16 PM EDT
Just because I'm not sure where else to put; I've just rented some +129 DBs and Nem's exbow doesn't touch me at all. However I still lose. Nem could probably lose the exbow and still win.
October 18 2009 2:24 PM EDT
He wins vs you for a number of reasons:
1) Your Mageseeker likely does pitiful damage vs his enchanter, who wears a RBF takes 1 less hit a round due to its evasion effect. And he uses a SoC further reducing the pitiful damage you do.
2) Your ToE is useless vs the RBF.
3) Any damage you do vs his character is further reduced by 10% due to PL and he regenerates 540k a round.
You basically have no chance to beat him. Regardless of the exbow. You just cannot put out enough damage.
But for those of us who actually have weapons high enough to do enough damage, we get neutered in 1-2 hits from the exbow.
I cannot really see a defect in his strategy except vs a very large EF or SG.
Ranger, Nowhere can I find a reference that by having an archery below 1.00 will effect your pth. All it says is that it effects the cth or how effective your dex is. The only place where I see pth getting affected is when you hit melee and continue to fire it. With a .5 archery that would bring you to the same levels of base chance to hit as the other ranged weapons. If archery does indeed effect the pth then it should be posted somewhere and I am not so sure it should work that way. If you try to consider it with realism even without archery trained you the help you gain from the bow itself wouldn't be any less effective.
October 18 2009 2:31 PM EDT
Here is the exact changelog about the new archery skill:
Archery is different: it no longer affects being able to fire during round 2 of ranged combat. Instead, it affects the ability to use a bow during all rounds -- without archery you will have about 20% of the chance-to-hit that you would have with maxed-out archery. Interpolation between these extremes is linear. (That is, 20% of both DX and non-DX based chance.)
I read it as BOTH DX and NON-DX CTH which would be as I stated.
October 18 2009 2:49 PM EDT
"But for those of us who actually have weapons high enough to do enough damage, we get neutered in 1-2 hits from the exbow. "
Am I missing something in that response Ranger? How does you doing higher damage against the exbow make you lose? I was wearing +129 DBs that stop me getting hit by the exbow. +129 DBs that neuter the exbow.
How big are the ones you're wearing? +200?
It also takes Nem all of ranged - if he hits me every round - to reduce my ST. That's 6 or 7 hits at least.
Oh and it says a lot about the ELB and archery if you think a mill per strike is pitiful damage....
October 18 2009 2:57 PM EDT
I think your misinterpreting my post.
I have enough damage output to beat Nem with all his damage reducing factors. The evasion on the RBF, the SoC, the PL/TSA.
However, with 2 hits from the exbow, my damage output is too neutered to beat him.
I have +205 named DBs, a 1.5x dex advantage and get his 2x in the first 4 rounds of missile over 75% of the time.
You are using the ToE, that is fine. However, with the Magesseeker you will not have nearly enough damage output to overcome Nem's defenses. With the ToE, as exbow leech is damage dependent, you lose far less strength per hit than I or Z or other archers do. But with the ToE is the diminished damage output to where Nem and possibly other exbow users do not even need to hit you in order to win.
So it really makes no difference if he hits with the exbow, you lost before the battle begins.
If I did 1M a hit vs Nem every round, great. However with 2 hits from his exbow, my strength is so pitiful I average 250k a hit. Barely enough to keep up with his TSA regeneration.
Then we go to melee and my CTH is so poor I hit only 2x a round, not enough even to keep up with is regeneration.
October 18 2009 2:58 PM EDT
Question then? You've won battles against Nem. How have you actually beaten him?
October 18 2009 2:58 PM EDT
We keep typing and typing about needing the exbow as the foil to archery damage.
But where is the foil for the exbow/RBF character? Which needs FAR less NW to succeed than an archer. I cannot find one except perhaps a massive AC wall or a massive SG/EF.
Wow, that is choice :)
October 18 2009 3:07 PM EDT
I win when I get hit 1 or 0 times with the exbow.
Remember his exbow is a relatively pitiful +85. Compared to my 205 DBs.
When he was using Jir's exbow, I would not beat him with a double tap and sometimes without a triple tap.
Scratch [4x5200] (+85) worth $58,150,261 owned by Nemerizt (Team Rocket) -- Plenty of room for improvement!
All of the extra pth from using jir's exbow did not change my chance to hit at all, as your DB still completely overwhelm the pth and leadership. The only difference in effect was the extra x.
October 18 2009 3:44 PM EDT
Nem you still hit and it still drained a Lot! When you hit me I went from 16.1 Mil Str to -3 Mil Str in one shot! I have +180 DBs, and at the time 8.2-8.3 Mil Dex you should not have been able to hit me at all. Yet you did and totally pwned me, not even in one round Nem in one shot....one shot.
Ranger, what's the foil for an Archer with a massive ELBow and ToA, backed by an Invisible Leadership minion, with a PL/TSA combo to back it up?
Oh and DM to stop GA.
What's the many amounts of choice to foil that?
October 18 2009 6:52 PM EDT
Well the larger DM one has, the smaller tank one has.
Look at SHD vs Z or vs me.
GA/AS works great.
So do Jiggies.
So same sort of choice as a Massive Wall or a Massive SG/EF? ;)
(If DM doesn't cut it)
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=002tpF">adding dex disadvantage</a>