f0xx

That's a typical Viri/Bryntryst response. Nowadays if an IMM says something like that, even jokingly, there will be a dozen threads about how arrogant the IMMs are and how people are fed up with it and are leaving because of it.

Shows how classy Nexus leaders are, for never even trying this lol.

That was fast.

Mages never had it rough to begin with. Don't forget Tassin got DKNs buffed, cause they are "weak" too 😂

But you can use the same logic about training, leveling, consumable gathering and so on. The whole idea is that if they want to have a weapon for any opponent, they will have to work for it (i.e. mine), not just disassemble/reassemble constantly, which would be the case if mats were returned 100%.

No kidding? 😛

My point is simply this - saying "roughly 25% diminishing returns after reaching -450ac" is a bad way to describe what the formula does, because it is misleading. If we didn't have the actual formula, most people would take that as "you get 75 AC for every 100 AC after -450". Which is not the case. Again, thanks for the formula, Erelei. Please do not take this bickering as an excuse to say "this is not why I don't provide actual data of how things work", but more like, "this is why I should provide actaul data". Math is a universal language that doesn't need translation.

That's not how math works though. Imagine you got 400 bucks. You put them in the bank for 1 year and next year you get 600 bucks total. How much was the interest rate for the past year? 50% or 33%? Or we can even use a simpler example. Imagine you got $400. $400 buy you 400 candies. Once you buy 400 candies though, the next $400 you spend will only get you 200 candies. Is that a 50% reduction or is it 25%? And EVEN if you go with total value, it is still not correct to say it's ~25% reduction, because that just doesn't describe correctly what the formula does, because it has nothing to do with the total value. In only works in Elereli's exacple simply because he uses those exact numbers. For example: You have -1.000.450 (1mln and 450) AC (Total AC). -1.000.450 + 450 = -1.000.000 -1.000.000/2 = -500.000 -500.000 - 450 = -500.450 -500.450 is almost 50% of 1.000.000 and not 25%.

You only apply the formula to the surplus, so it's only fair to consider that, not the total. Once above 450, every added AC is twice less affective compared to those before 450. So it's a 50% reduction of effectiveness. Now I am curious about how it was before, and I am also curious how the other "diminishing returns" formulas works.

Thank you for sharing the actual formula. I think that's the first officially posted formula of a mechanic in the 18 years of existence of the game. [edit] Btw, the formula you posted seems to contradict what you said, unless I am misunderstanding something. Once you go above 450 AC, you get exactly half of the surplus armor, Lets say I have 850 AC (total armor). The "surplus" AC above 450 is 400. We run the formula and get the result of 200. So if we have armor above 450, everything above that number will be cut exactly in half and then added to 450. So the reduction is actually 50%. Correct me if I am wrong?

I've had fire giants with 1200 mana (and proper HP).

I see people rooting for druid buffs..... One facepalm is just not enough.

Most of my changes concern policies, so I would keep them for myself. Mya's suggestions are great. Apart from that, it would be nice to see scaling spells and the removal of THAC0. But I guess those are also policies. *shrug*

I think it will yell the moment you attack it, but just once per tick.

In what manner was the Asphyxiate spell broken?