This seems wrong, the is the opposing minion, names onwards are my minions. It seems to do full damage to my first minion in line, is this how it is supposed to work?
Alhar Ee's Fireball hit the [104,323], names [138,963], have [46,226], been [50,693], changed [36,906]
again
Alhar Ee's Fireball hit to [134,365], protect [159,037], the [44,089], spellcheck [45,770]
Using actual names with the no spell check tag would be more beneficial. At this moment all we are going off of is your word.
QBOddBird
April 2 2011 9:45 AM EDT
Yeah, if we knew who the opponent was, that would help greatly. But simply showing the damages doesn't really help figure out why it is behaving the way it is.
I saw the same thing fighting him
I tried the nospellcheck tags but then the whole post appeared as one block of text. Not sure how using the correct names would increase the validity of my claim anyway.
The opponents are Schism1 and Jigsaw.
Phrede
April 3 2011 7:12 AM EDT
My love is like a red, red rose. Always thought that was weird.
QBOddBird
April 3 2011 9:59 AM EDT
I assume in the first example, your minions start with "have" since you only have 3 more minions
In the 2nd example, I'd guess it starts with protect, and yeah that is weird for your first minion to take full FB damage. O.o
Or perhaps that is within the damage range of 50% FB, it's pure randomness, and the damage against your opponent is throwing you off due to RoBF / AMF?
Burning Trident takes damage from his own Fireball (275,576)!
Burning Trident's Fireball hit 007 [81,965], The Establishment Back-Up [84,973], Carl [107,827], Carlson [34,460], Lenny [32,388]
Against MI5
I think what's at issue is how backlash damage is split up, and I think RD is correct. The first minion on the friendly team seems to get hit for the same level of damage regardless of the number of other friendly minons
@ OB, no my 1st minion is names, I had a familiar in these fights.
I have seen this in many fights, every time my 1st minion is taking at least double the next highest damage.
RD, Nat says that I fixed that, and I tend to believe her. I found a change that should have fixed it in January of 2011, despite your post being in April. If you can verify that it still occurs, then we'll look at it. Otherwise, I'll consider it closed.
Nov's issue seems scarier.
