Just curious... (in General)


Kefeck [Demonic Serenity] February 18 2011 5:06 PM EST

Was GA ever going to be reduced to where it should be?

Kefeck [Demonic Serenity] February 18 2011 5:13 PM EST

http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002XGH

QBOddBird February 18 2011 5:24 PM EST

Given that it wasn't increased, I would hazard a guess of never

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] February 18 2011 5:48 PM EST

why are you so certain that it isn't where it should be now?

Kefeck [Demonic Serenity] February 18 2011 6:15 PM EST

Because Jon said "all damage types". Last I checked GA is in a class all it's own but still considered damage nonetheless..

It only makes sense, I have never centered a straight around ga because let's face it a change is long overdue

Reignmaker [Battle Royale] February 18 2011 6:18 PM EST

It does 60% of the damage done. When damage was scaled down, GA is automatically scaled down because it returns 60% of the new damage.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] February 18 2011 6:20 PM EST

it is percentage based damage so its reduction was built into the reduction of the others. to me it makes complete sense that it wasn't changed.

also, jon replied to that thread after others asked about ga. this leads me to believe that he didn't just overlook it either.

i am more inclined to accept that the 2.5 threshold might have needed adjustment than the percentage of damage returned, which exactly are you requesting now?

QBOddBird February 19 2011 3:08 AM EST

It does 60% of the damage done. When damage was scaled down, GA is automatically scaled down because it returns 60% of the new damage.

Exactly. GA didn't change.

Phaete February 19 2011 4:07 AM EST

Looks like GA has become more effective then, as the 2.5 times damage is easier reached with the reduced damage of all the other types.

Kefeck [Demonic Serenity] February 23 2011 12:06 AM EST

Looks like GA has become more effective then, as the 2.5 times damage is easier reached with the reduced damage of all the other types.

This..

QBOddBird February 23 2011 1:15 AM EST

2.5x a smaller damage. 60% of the smaller damage. So GA does less damage, and the ratio is the only part that is easier to reach.

Wait, so you mean - similar to strength, DD, etc. - that you train the same amount as before, and less damage results?

My god, it's like there's nothing to adjust.

Pwned February 23 2011 1:17 AM EST

How can you not understand this.... it means it cost less XP to get the full damage 60% sent back.

QBOddBird February 23 2011 1:20 AM EST

FYI, there was a thread about how effectiveness decreases after you surpass the 2.5x mark

Additionally, most people train GA well past the mark in order to maintain some semblance of resistance to DM

and finally, what was reduced was damage, and as a result GA damage is reduced simultaneously

QBOddBird February 23 2011 1:22 AM EST

it means it cost less XP to get the full damage 60% sent back.

Also, no, it still costs exactly the same XP to get the full damage 60% back. If people are doing less damage, that is irrelevant, it still costs the exact same XP to reach 2.5x that damage number.

Kefeck [Demonic Serenity] February 23 2011 1:40 AM EST

How can you not understand this.... it means it cost less XP to get the full damage 60% sent back.

I fully understand but that is completely irrelevant to this.


Also, no, it still costs exactly the same XP to get the full damage 60% back. If people are doing less damage, that is irrelevant, it still costs the exact same XP to reach 2.5x that damage number.

Wrong OB, straight from the wiki.

GA has reduced effect when its level is low relative to the damage done. GA level should be about 2.5 times the damage done to get full 60% retaliation.

Kefeck [Demonic Serenity] February 23 2011 2:19 AM EST

So basically it obviously costs less to get the full 60% GA damage.

In my opinion it should cost more experience then it currently does to get the full 60%.

QBOddBird February 23 2011 2:33 AM EST

No, see, you're missing what I said.

It still takes exactly the same amount of EXP to get 2.5x damage.

If someone is doing 100k damage, it still costs 250k levels to get there.

And if it's going to cost more experience to get the 250k, then we should of course weaken DM! :D

Pwned February 23 2011 2:53 AM EST

Kefeck....lol are you.....? Nvm..

You stated the same thing I did.

OB, since damage was reduced it means that more xp or money is invested into damage to get what it was normally at, while GA was not rescaled so it by default needs less xp to get the 60% sent back.

Kefeck [Demonic Serenity] February 23 2011 2:57 AM EST

Kefeck....lol are you.....? Nvm..

lol, no comment

You stated the same thing I did.

I'm agreeing with you just making sure were on the same page

OB, since damage was reduced it means that more xp or money is invested into damage to get what it was normally at, while GA was not rescaled so it by default needs less xp to get the 60% sent back.

Ding ding ding. :)

Pwned February 23 2011 3:07 AM EST

Here is an example:

Old damage
Cost: 20 xp into str and $200 into wep
Damage output: 100
GA lvl for 60%: 250

New damage
Cost: same as above
Damage output: 50
GA lvl for 60%: 125

Cost 40xp into str and $400 into wep
Damage output: 100
GA lvl for 60%: 250

It cost more to do the same amount of damage it did but the cost of GA is the same. By default it cost less to return the 60% damage. Meaning it cost less xp to train.

Pwned February 23 2011 3:10 AM EST

Remember to reference me when you use this example :P

Pwned February 23 2011 4:56 AM EST

Meaning it cost less xp to train.

Bad wording, I meant to say "it cost less to be effective."

QBOddBird February 23 2011 10:06 AM EST

Nonetheless, it shouldn't be "reduced," because my point still stands that its damage remains unchanged. We can fight all day over whether or not it is more cost-effective or not - obviously it is, and I'm not sure why that even entered the conversation, because it has nothing to do with reducing GA along with other damage types. I guess we just like reiterating the obvious here at CB.

What was reduced everywhere was damage. GA also took a hit on damage returned because there was less damage to be returned. It's all equal.

QBOddBird February 23 2011 10:18 AM EST

Also: by your logic, AC needs a buff. The percentage of damage it blocks is unchanged, but the overall actual number is smaller.

AdminTal Destra [Forge Of Norn] February 23 2011 10:32 AM EST

Whenever i need a lulz, i just swing by this thread.

Kefeck [Demonic Serenity] February 23 2011 2:41 PM EST

Isn't it funny how changing one thing on CB creates A domino effect of other OP/Underpowered abilities.

Colonel Custard February 23 2011 3:12 PM EST

OB:
http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002Srj&all_p=1

horseguy001 [Battle Royale] February 23 2011 3:31 PM EST

Here is an example:

It cost more to do the same amount of damage it did but the cost of GA is the same. By default it cost less to return the 60% damage. Meaning it cost less xp to train.

By that logic then here is another example:

Old damage
Cost: 20 xp into str and $200 into wep
Damage output: 100
HP lvl to live: 100

New damage
Cost: same as above
Damage output: 50
HP lvl to live: 50

Cost 40xp into str and $400 into wep
Damage output: 100
Hp lvl to live: 100

It cost more to do the same amount of damage it did but the cost of HP is the same. By default it cost less to Survive a blow from the new damage. Meaning it cost less xp to train.

Pwned February 23 2011 11:24 PM EST

It cost more to do the same amount of damage it did but the cost of HP is the same. By default it cost less to Survive a blow from the new damage. Meaning it cost less xp to train.

This was the original intent of the damage rescale. You just made yourself look like an idiot.

GA wasn't looked at before the damage rescale.

Pwned February 23 2011 11:26 PM EST

I made myself look like an idiot.

QBOddBird February 24 2011 2:06 AM EST

Thanks CC!

Pwned February 24 2011 3:15 AM EST

Hey OB are you from Huntsville, Alabama?

QBOddBird February 24 2011 1:27 PM EST

Yes, but why are you asking

Lochnivar February 24 2011 1:34 PM EST

as they say down in 'Bama...

Two words: "stalker"

Canibus February 24 2011 3:27 PM EST

I guess I read things a tad too fast perhaps, but I still don't see what the author wants changed. Do so the threshold of GA is higher to direct the same damage? :P
So if the threshold was 0.00001 times the dmg but the dmg-cap was lowered equally we would still have this problem.. or? :P
So is the cost-effectiveness the problem?

Pwned February 24 2011 3:33 PM EST

The OP is just stating he acknowledges that there are some unresolved issues with GA, he didn't propose any changes. He just wants to know if anyone else knows about it.

Pwned February 24 2011 3:35 PM EST

reduced to where it should be

is vague

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] February 24 2011 4:39 PM EST

3 is probably the ratio it should be at more or less.
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=003AKd">Just curious...</a>