So much for fixing CBF (in General)

Arorrr June 19 2005 11:32 PM EDT

Well, I decide to test out CBF strat with good items. It's so gimped and I lost a good portion of my fav list, after spent over 1.5M for 1 minion+200K for tat ink.

I wonder why Jon has +50 bth on ToA but only +10 evasion on TBF. And a 240Kish level TBF did like 20Kish damage to ToJ and 40Kish to regular ToA. Though ToA is like tripple hit vs 1 hit from TBF. It's a far cry from +6M CBF damage and 1 tattoo spot vs 1 cloak spot.

I know TBF is being carried over from CBF. But with only +10 evasion the only benefit with everything is gimped, why bother ??!!!??


Blarg June 19 2005 11:36 PM EDT

just as a note, the ToA doesn't add a flat +50 pth. The higher the level, the higher the pth granted is.

Xiaz on Hiatus June 19 2005 11:52 PM EDT

CBF wasn't fixed to the ToBF, it was



Lumpy Koala June 19 2005 11:52 PM EDT

well we all know TBF is the weakest of all tattoos. But thanks for escalating this issue, the current hot topics like NUB or NW/PR are just too overwhelming for the public to notice this poor poor tattoo.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 20 2005 1:56 AM EDT

:) That's for this post!

I was considering moving back to a ToE. I'm using the TBF for the small evasion bonus (just because it stacks with DB s unlike the now useless Evasion skill) and the FB reduction.

The melee damage is little, for an attack that hits only once per round, unlike GA. I'm seeing 20-30K hits from my nearly 200K tattoo. From your post, it seems this might increase to 40K in another 60K levels...

But lets look at the FB reduction.

I'm not sure how this now reduces FB damage, I've taken "No damage" from some small FB s, so it might still be a direct reduction. But it it worth losing a potential 75% reduction to *all* damage taken (including a lesser reduction to AMF backlash) for a little direct FB reduction, a couple of extra points on your DB s and a small melee hit?

I'm starting to think that on the whole ToE s are far better...


AdminShade June 20 2005 5:56 AM EDT

i have heard rumors of ToBF reducing 20% fire damage of the level of the tattoo.

so a level 100k ToBF would reduce the fire damage taken with 20k.

don't know about the fire damage dealt though.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 20 2005 6:09 AM EDT

I think it's a little more involved than that. Maybe a ToE like comparison. I observed myself taking 70K from a FB in round 1 and 150K in round 2.

Even accountign for the 10% ranged round difference, and randomness of damage, the figures should not have been out by that much.

Unless a ToE style reduction is used, and the ranged penatly for the first round bought the damage into my TBF reduction...

Bahh, I'm just not sure...

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 20 2005 7:30 AM EDT

Some quick observations...

For a FB I take ~ 50K damage from has about a 10% difference in damage between rounds 1 and 2 (the DD spell penalty). For example, I'll get hit for ~50K in round 1, then 54/55K in round 2.

Some FB s deal ~80k in round 1, then up to 120K+ in round 2.

That's around a 50% increase between the two rounds. Far greater than I assume damage randomisation should give...

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 20 2005 7:43 AM EDT

Some recorded examples;

Round 1: ForsakenByGod's Fireball hit Talhearn [30936]
Round 2: ForsakenByGod's Fireball hit Talhearn [69697]

That's a 125% increase of damage between rounds.

Round 1: Sir Galahad's Fireball hit Talhearn [13629]
Round 2: Sir Galahad's Fireball hit Talhearn [18559]

A more reasonable 36% (yet still higher than the 10% it should be - which I'll put down to randomness or the TBF) increase of damage...

Manta June 20 2005 7:47 AM EDT

GL, as far as I remember, in the first round a FB gets a 30% malus with respect to the melee, in the second round a 20% malus.
This means that in the 1st round a FB of 100 deals only 70 damage, in the second 80.
In other words, in the 2nd round the damage is 80/70 of the 1nd round, namely a 14% increase (and not a 10%). However, this alone would not explain the 50% increase you observed.
Some possible explanations are: AC, ToE, MgS, AMF effects.
AC: AC reduces, beside a % based amount, also a fixed amount of damage, hence the % of dmg assorbed in the second round is less.
ToE: if the damage is great wrt the ToE level, the % of damage assorbed by the ToE is less.
MgS: I cannot remember the exact mechanism of how MgS works, but I think that for greater damage the % assorbed by the shield is less.
AMF: I do not know, but maybe against smaller damage the AMF is more effective.

Manta June 20 2005 7:52 AM EDT

And, of course, I forgot the ToBF, which assorbs a fixed (namely, independent from the fireball) amount of dmg.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 20 2005 8:51 AM EDT

That's the problem.

I've no AMF, my only AC is the base [6] of my DB s (which as it's not enchantment AC shouldn't effect FB damage in anyway), I'm not using a ToE or a MgS.

The only thing that could be making this damage gap is the way the TBF is reducing FB damage.

Another fight;

Round 1: Forsaken By God's Fireball hit Talhearn [30550]
Round 2: Forsaken By God's Fireball hit Talhearn [70117]

Another over 100% increase in damage...


AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 20 2005 8:54 AM EDT

If the TBF was reducing an independent, fixed amount of damage there is no way I should be getting this sort of damage range... :/

Manta June 20 2005 9:10 AM EDT

Uhm... The only possible explanations I could think of are:
1) Randomness: try to fight Forsaken By God (or some other target) a few times, and see how much increase in damage there is between 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th rounds on average.
You could even get rid of the tattoo for a 5-6 battles, so that it does not influence the outcome.
If on average you get, say, up to 20% increase between 1st and 2nd round, I would say that you are a victim of randomization.
If, however, you get a 50% or more increase on average, then see #2.
2) Bug, but that is for Jonathan to establish.

Arorrr June 20 2005 9:49 AM EDT

Normally I'm asking for a lot, but this time just this:

After my minion wielding a TBF tattoo through 3 rounds of hellfire and a barage of ToA arrows, and going into melee with a big flaming cloak head on vs CoC minions and still couldn't hit any ToJ, please let my minion at least hurt any minions that dare to touch me hit for hit, not like *how-dare-you-hit-me-tripple-but-I-am-going-to-be-nice-and-hit-you-one*

To sum up, I only ask to have TBF damages hit for hit, not hit for round. Remember TBF damage isn't even close to CBF damage, network-wise. A +6M CBF was used to deal over 100K. A +6M TBF deal like a fraction of it.

QBsutekh137 June 20 2005 9:59 AM EDT

I completely agree. Either increase TBF damage or let it hit back on every attack. Thank you for bringing this up, Arorrr. In its current state, the TBF is nothing more than a novelty.

I would really like to see some better tattoo parity. ToE is fast becoming useless as well (at higher levels), simply because folks with even modest NW can hit so far beyond it's cap when using a ToA. ToA and FF are quickly becoming the only viable, competitive tattoos in the Top Twenty or so. Correction, the ToJ is still effective for The First and Bartlett, at least as far as I can tell. Not sure how well the ToJs pace at the lower levels, though...ToA still probably dominates because of the extra chance to hit and the dexterity gap.

WeaponX June 20 2005 10:06 AM EDT

i somewhat disagree Chet my char Death Spawn can no long defeat Goldminer due to his TBF i can barely hit his bulldog minion. the TBF is very useful for blocking FB damage.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 20 2005 10:16 AM EDT

OK, I fought FBG 10 times with my TBF and 10 times without.

I saw some *very* interesting results. Sometimes the Round 1 damage was a lot higher than that of round 2! :/

Some stats.

With TBF;
Total Round 1 Damage inflicted: 424025
Total Round 2 Damage inflicted: 476420

Total Damage: 900445

Min Damage recorded: 26552
Max Damage recorded: 68392

Without TBF;
Total Round 1 Damage inflicted: 689473
Total Round 2 Damage inflicted: 715365

Total Damage: 1404838

Min Damage recorded: 44905
Max Damage recorded: 95516

Some quick observations.

With the tattoo, the difference in damage between rounds was 12.4%

Without it, the difference was just 3.8%!

Overall, the TBF stopped 504,393 damage between the two sets, which works out at 50439.3 per fight or 252197 per round. (on average).

So, my near 200K TBF stops on average 25K per FB.


AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 20 2005 10:21 AM EDT

If we assume the average FB damage I've been taking to be around 70K, and my TBF stops 25K of it, thats about a 64.3% reduction.

With a 200K ToE facing 70K damage, do you think I would have hit the 75% damage reduction cap?

Manta June 20 2005 10:47 AM EDT

The results seem consistent with a constant damage reduction from ToBF, of about 25K (12.5% of tattoo level: much less than the 20% reduction that Shade was saying).
For pure damage reduction, I think that you would be better off with a ToE, even against FB.

Of course, the main selling point of the ToBF is the backslash against melee...

Arorrr June 20 2005 11:37 AM EDT


I was able to beat you without the TBF. All I have to do is to switch DM to AMF. It was the combination of MgS wall + AMF and 5 minion (pre-reink: ToF) to dilute the damage. So against your current strat, my old strat with a ToF still better than TBF.


WeaponX June 20 2005 11:40 AM EDT

no i beat you pre TBF

Duke June 21 2005 11:12 PM EDT

I have to agree TBF are weak a little increase is need
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=001OIL">So much for fixing CBF</a>