Just curious... (in General)
Was GA ever going to be reduced to where it should be?
QBOddBird
February 18 2011 5:24 PM EST
Given that it wasn't increased, I would hazard a guess of never
why are you so certain that it isn't where it should be now?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....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.
Whenever i need a lulz, i just swing by this thread.
Isn't it funny how changing one thing on CB creates A domino effect of other OP/Underpowered abilities.
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
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>