Musings on a Saturday Evening-The RBF (in General)

7 of the top 12 characters by score are now the RBF:

Highest Scores
Heroes (8251983)
Dagobah (8122359)
Team Rocket (7685338)
King of Pain (7678829)
Conquerer Okay (7418588)
Koyaanisqatsi (7408621)
Okay's Revenge (7221431)
Incompetent Duo (6680377)
The Immortals (6644212)
The Iconics 3e (6568726)
Priestess of the Moon (6558060)
FTW (6458933)

These have MPR's from 3.8M to 5.6M.

Again, I bring this up to show the RBF is still quite the overpowered tattoo compared to others in the game.

Still have something for every type of damage.
1) Evasion to help vs physical. Not direct damage reduction but reduction via decreased amount of hits. Also, it has reduction vs the SoD.
2) Magic reduction.
3) Invulnerablity to GA.
4) Protection vs other RBF.

Again, this is too freaking powerful.

Oops,

One mistake.

Okay's Revenge is retired.

So it is really 8 of the top 11 are RBF.

7 of the top 11. I really suck tonight.

How Many are ToA?

2 ToA
1 Jiggy
1 EF
7 RBF
1 retired

of the top 12 scores

but only 5 more total of the front 100 scores, retired or not, so thats 12 RoBF..12% RoBF ya hoosiers..and those poeples topped 10 have be played lots of CB so thats more the reason In my blind eyes than being a tattoo thingy ma bob..and them tattoos are way Big too much :)

Yeah, I have always thought it got a little silly after its last update. When an item starts having "Quaternary effect(s)" something sounds wrong.

Why does it have to be decent at everything and great at GA avoidance? I feel its evasion should be removed since it doesn't really line up with all its magical protection (guess the SoD splash would also fall in this category).

Also Ranger you forgot its reduction to AMF backlash :).

Numbered laundry lists mean nothing.
The ToA has:
1) 33% (!) of its NW to PTH.
2) DX to help vs. physical.
3) Both ST and DX to help dish out physical damage.
4) Allows for heavy exp concentration on multiminion teams.

Ah,

But the ToA does little vs the RBF, GA or magic damage.

While the ToA does have a lot of effects, they all are concentrated on doing physical damage.

The RBF has damage, and multiple ways of damage reduction or avoidance.

the RoBF seems to be an alternative weapon to spending USD :)


all it can do is GROWWWW and it don't cost nothing but wasted time :)

Yes but you could sum that up into 1 thing.
Do more physical damage. (and I guess reduce chance to hit through dexterity)

The RoBF does multiple things at the same time.

Reduce physical damage.
Reduce magical damage.
Do special damage not effected my GA.
Reduce AMF backlash damage.

Now I guess you could sum this up into 2 things.
Reduce all damage.
Do special damage.

I am tempted to Change Tat Types now.......lol

I have always been baffled by why no one has made an "invincible" team yet. There are several people out there with enough NW/CB to make it.

Front minion = the guy you just bought.
No exp needed on him.
Stick you big RoBF, high mage shield, and EH to get some crazy mage protection from shocking grasp and a AoI to hide from rangers and such.

Second minion
5 or so million exp on him.
Train most into dex or evasion, depending on which one would help you dodge more (still haven't figured out the PTH, CTH, BTH).
Huge DBs, or the whole elven AoF outfit if you go evasion. However, DBs and just dex would let you spend extra exp into AMF and respected AMF boosting equipment.

Third Minion
Classic PL wall
10-15 mill exp in Hp and PL
PL wall armor and such.

Forth Minion
All AMF, 10 million or so.
AMF Boosting armor. Maybe an EH to soak up MM.

Of course, there can be variations like switching the Third and Forth minions so that you could put another big mage shield in the back; but then you don't get PL reduction.

Also, if you didn't want to focus on dodging so much you could make your second minion a Wall, but then any AMF trained on him would take huge penalties.

In the end, the only cons I can really see are huge CB requirements and other RoBFs that have a tank minion in front so you wouldn't do as much damage to them. And maybe a team with a huge CoC and tons of HP but those are not around anymore after ToE change.

The RoBF trades damage for perfection. It's one of the weakest damage sources in the game, but it is also the hardest to stop.

And, being perfect, the perfect strategy has to revolve around it, as any strategy not involving a RoBF is vulnerable to GA, AMF, EC, and/or DM. A strat with a RoBF can be specifically tailored to, with the right items and set-up, have virtually no weakness at all. At the cost of strength, of course.

Many strategies revolving around the RoBF use the tattoo's perfect damage (and frequently that is the ONLY part of the tattoo that is regularly used, the DD reduction sometimes coming into play, and the evasion rarely coming into play) as their main or only source of damage, and build up defenses (wall, PL sink, mage wall).

Of course, teams with a large MPR and NW have the resources to let the RoBF work, having 380+ AC walls, PL sinks with 10m+ health, and a large amount of damage from the RoBF every round. Since they're so heavily invested in defense, the only ways to beat them are to out-defend them (which, although possible, is unrealistic WITHOUT using a RoBF as well, otherwise it'll be too hard to beat other opponents) or kill them quickly (again, possible, but difficult, as a tank trying to do so will end up being weak against ranged attackers, GA, etc.). RoBF strategies tend to have such specific weaknesses that it is not worth it (to most people, anyways) to specifically counter them at the cost of being weak to a wider variety of strategies.

So, basically, as long as the offense vs. defense balance is the way it is, and the RoBF has perfect damage, I don't think this'll change.

Just my thoughts.

Maybe GA is too strong? Look again at a different perspective. Look closer at GA.

Nice try IE,

But let us keep things on the top of the RBF and the fact that 7 of the top 11 character are using one.

Input from those not using the RBF would be appreciated as well.

I use the RoBF because I don't have a melee weapon yet. Once I have a large enough one I plan on switching.

If you go to a melee weapon you will certainly lose Mikel from your fightlist.

And whom will you gain?

For all that NW I cannot see it being a win/win situation.

The RBF currently gives you some magic protection, some evasion (physical damage protection) and invulnerablity to GA.

In fact, unless it is a MoD, you will likely lose LRs character (if you have him now) and may lose other characters like Priestess.

And without the GA invulnerability you may lose some of the RoS characters, even with a leech weapon.

If you get a large melee weapon, what tattoo will you then switch to? A ToA?

Overall I love your strategy and think it is the best one out there. The only characters that beat you now are novice and LA.

LA due to the bug with SG and the RBF and novice due to that bug as well as 1B NW on his character.

For the most part, the evasion on the RoBF has no effect on the outcome of the battle. Most RoBF setups are done with the RoBF minion having little to no HP. Team Rocket has 150K HP, KoP 384K, Conqueror Okay 100K, Koy 500K, Iconics 10K, and FTW 5K. Out of all of the chars you named, mine is the only one with more than 500K HP. By the time you're hitting these targets, the PL minions are already drained, and a single round is enough to finish them, even if you only land a double hit. Seeing how RoBF evasion at most drops off 1-2 hits at this level, it makes absolutely no difference. I'm the only person that's benefiting from the evasion, and it gives me a grand total of 15 extra evasion. Granted, 15 evasion is rather pricey at this level, but 15 is still 15.

I have 1 mil HP on my RoBF minion, seems to work well, I may increase it as well, not sure yet.

AMF backlash is also pretty irrelevant, as almost every RoBF setup is done without magic on that minion. Aside from LA, I've only seen decay on RoBF minions, and decay backlash is pitiful with the low HPs. I'm not even sure the RoBF protects against decay backlash, for that matter. Training a DD on an RoBF minion beyond base opens you up to a world of hurt from the mageseeker.

Back to this Ranger?

I'm not even going to post. Go back to any of the the countless threads I've answered your questions in about the RBF, pick one of those, and try to answer me.

1) Evasion to help vs physical. Not direct damage reduction but reduction via decreased amount of hits. Also, it has reduction vs the SoD.
2) Magic reduction.
3) Invulnerability to GA.
4) Protection vs other RBF.

Everyone but 3 is useless to me. If my RoBF minion is hit even once by pretty much any kind of damage, then it is dead. I really wouldn't mind taken away 1, 2, and 4.

The RBF's evasion is pretty useless when all is said and done. I'm not sure it's magic reduction is as advertised either.

But the fact that you can't return it's damage via GA (or being hopeful by the SoC!!) is what I don't like about it. It's very easy to make a minion that lasts out a battle keeping up a relentless attack on you. It's that relentlessness without return that makes it an awkward little thing. Let us return some of it's damage back at the wearer please!

The damage might be unreturnable but it doesn't do much damage. And the damage is very easily reduced by AC.

Do that Johnny, and you need to be able to boost it's damage in return.

The last post I made on this (which IIRC ended the last thread) compared it to CoC I think.

CoC would need to face (before any Leadership, AG/CoI/Spellbooster increase) a damage reduction of 83% for it to be hitting the same damage an equal sized RoBF would.

83%!

As has been mentioned above, the reason the unreturnable damage of he RoBF is so wanted, is simple.

GA is too strong.

It wasn't nefed when *all* other damage in CB was.

The RoBF is the best counter to GA, which is why it sees so much use.

As above, the Evasion is pretty /meh. It stacks like DBs, so useless really if 1) You're using DBs 2) You're training Evasion.

Here it was, about an IF instead of CoC;

"Going out for a Ruby with my skin in a minute, so I'll leave you all to digest this;

Taking a 12M Tattoo as the size, in Melee;

An Ice Familiar would do 13,200,000 Damage per round

A RoBF would do 2,400,000 damage per round

But the RoBF damage can't be reduced.

You would need to cobble together an 82% reduction to Magic damage in order to reduce the Ice Familiar to the same damage the RoBF deals.

But the RoBF offers defensive portection as well.

The Ice Familiar offers another kill slot with 3,000,000 HP to burn through.

But the Ice Familiar is vulnerable to AMF!

You get the opportunity to utilise your NW, and Junction items to it, if you wish. If you won't want to Junction AG to improve your Spell Level, you can use NSC to reduce it's vulnerability to AMF.

You can also Junction DB or other items to increase the defensive properties it can provide your team, if you so wish.

But the RoBF is OP!

Clearly...

GA is still too powerful, especially when combined with the RoS (any guesses as to why the RoS is also one of th emost used Tattoos?), and DMs 'specialised' ability to negate it (and AS)."

The invulnerability to GA is very good but I think the key to its power is the completely independent damage it does which is also invulnerable to other counters affecting familiars (amf, ec, dx, evasion etc). This allows all xp to be put in hp, amf etc.

I'd rather it was capable of more damage to be honest. Just so long as you had more choice than simply high AC to block it. And the damage at the upper levels isn't that small anymore.

A tattoo of the size of mine (just under 6 mill lvls - very small for the level I'm fighting at) can dish out over a mill damage per round. That's not bad going.

RD, it's a trade off of not being able to increase it ina any fashion.

No Junction, no AoM/TSA/HoE/TG or BoE/SB/AG/CoI combos to up what it does.

It just does what it does, every round.

And is easily stopped by High AC.

Damage levels for anything at your level isn't that samll anymore. ;)

Johnny, a 6M RoBF pumps out 1.2M a round.

A 6M IF would pump out 6.6M. ;)

Yeah, it would, but my mageseeker would take it out before it fired. Additionally you can build a nice big GA, a nice big AMF, add a mage shield, some big AC.

I did try some high AC to defend against the RBF and it didn't work very well for me. I can defend against almost every other team, and with a few tweaks I can defend against every team. Except for the RBF. Maybe that's a good thing!

yours is only 6m?
lol mine is just over 1m. but I suck at this anyway so its no big deal.the base decay I have can do 6m damage if you let it..so decay is overpowered too hey if you cant stop it?

I suppose I should add this, before anyone 'armoury polices' me.

Yes, curently I'm using a RoBF. Before that, I was using a ToA and a RoS. For Strategic reasons.

The RoS to get an ED round a MGS, and the ToA to provide Weapon PTH without increasing my PR (An utterly awesome thing).

This time, i'm using a RoBF, and not for it's OPness.

But for Strategy.

I've wanted to run, for a long while, a Decay mage. But needed a way of actually killing with it. I tried messing with Leadership (yes, one of the reasons I recently asked for Leadership Items to work on Single Minions, it wasn't wholey altruistic), but you can't get to the 100% needed to make Decay a OHK. Close, but so far that's unobtainable (and really, should remain so!).

So I've decided to not use a Familiar, but to use a RoBF, which hits in Melee, like Decay, to finish off what my Decay starts.

(The SoD is there for a seperate reason. It's to give me something versus the utter foil to my strategy. Something I don't think anyone currently uses. A 20 HP front minion weaing an AoI.)

So chalk me up as a RoBF user jealously trying to hold on to my own power if you want.

You'd be wrong. ;)

"Yeah, it would, but my mageseeker would take it out before it fired. Additionally you can build a nice big GA, a nice big AMF, add a mage shield, some big AC.

I did try some high AC to defend against the RBF and it didn't work very well for me. I can defend against almost every other team, and with a few tweaks I can defend against every team. Except for the RBF. Maybe that's a good thing!"

:D

I think you answered your own quesiton there!

But yeah, the RoBF is the Tortoise, to anything elses Rabbit. The turtle to the glass cannon.

You can go for big damage, with the trade off it can be countered/killed. Or you g for a meager amount, knowing it will happen every round.

;)

I'm not going to argue strat with someone running a single minion decay team :P

While the RoBF is clearly a good choice, and a popular one, this alone does not make it overpowered.
Its damage output is anything but overpowered. What it does allow, is a successful defensive strategy. Sort of like the RoS. And its not like it can't be stopped. No one has simply created a strategy to deal with the RoBF, and that is the major reason it is so successful.
The magic dmg reduction is very small. and so is the evasion granted. It doesn't offer protection vs. other RoBF anymore. So its major attribute is its invulnerability to GA.
But seriously, isn't GA a bit too good itself? What other counter does it have on a RoS team, beyond a HUGE DM?

I don't think its overpowered, but I do think several other tattoos need reworking, in order to balance the issue.
Tattoos/Familiars I think are fine: HAL, RoS, RoBF, EF, ToA, SF.
Tattoos/Familiars in desperate need of reworking: ToE, FF.

who the heck keeps saying a 6 mil IF will deal 6mil damage that is just crap. Spell effect does not = spell level and i can guarantee the damage is not that high. My Magic missile level is over 10mil it has an effect of over 3mil and i am lucky to average 2.5mil damage in melee and 1.4mil in ranged. So don't keep blowing up the amount of DD damage familiars and mages do please

i think you can get a much better picture of tattoo distribution amongst active players by using the monthly or weekly clan mvp stats. this way you get not just the top, but also those running n*b's as well.

the newest trends will likely be down low and moving up.

Proteus seems to be doing quite well.

You have to multiply advertised magic familiar damage by .75 to account for randomness.

To sum up, 1) is useless for the most part because of the previous post. 2) only applies to spreadfire for the reasons listed in 1. 3) of course is nice, but I've always maintained that GA is ridiculous the way it is. 4) isn't even an advantage, because if you're defending against an RoBF, you're also attacking an RoBF with an RoBF, and the advantages cancel out. AMF protection is also for the most part useless, again for reasons I stated above. 20% SoD splash protection is nice to have, but each of the minions not protected drains PL just as fast. In summary, the RoBF has two relevant abilities: GA-immune damage, and 20% spreadfire protection. 20% spreadfire protection on a 4 minion team means a 5% overall damage reduction for magic and a whopping 3.2% against the SoD until the PL minion dies. Again, it is only on the rare 1 or 2 minion RoBF chars that the reduction actually blocks significant amounts of spreadfire, at 10% on 2 minions and the full 20% on 1. If you still think that 1) GA immunity on 20% of tattoo level in physical melee damage per round and 2) a 3.2-10% situational reduction to spreadfire damage is an impressive laundry list of relevant features, you're welcome to post a rebuttal.

Yeah, I agree with JS. This discussion should remain on the ROBF damage capabilities. Everything else is bells and whistles. They help, sure but they're not the reason ROBF is giving you guys so much trouble.

When I say previous post, I mean my first post.

Lol Nice Bananco + 1

That is not true.

The problem is the unique type of damage not effected by the MgS, AMF, or GA. The other parts of the RBF help towards defense. The evasion, splash reduction, magic reduction etc..

Only AC helps and that is the only thing that helps aside for another RBF.

It then lets you put everything else on your character into defense knowing your attack is not subject to any reduction except for AC. And if you have enough defense and a nice TSA/PL/HP wall regenerating hp, who cares how long it takes for you to win. There are 50 round and if every one is needed that is just fine.

Weapon damage isn't affected by the MgS or AMF either. We already listed GA immunity as a feature. I already listed reasons why the magic reduction, evasion reduction, and splash reduction are basically nonfeatures. Would you like to respond to those?

that's kind of what I meant. The RoBF's defensive stats are kind of helpful, but it's not the reason people are using it.

In other news, I think messing with the RoBF's offensive capabilities would destroy the tattoo. Lots of people use it, but I don't see it dominating the game the same way SFBM did. So I don't see a big enough problem, not that there is one.

Doesn't the ToA make it so you can pump into defense too? it gives Str Dex and FREE PTH!!!! All you need to do is pump into HP

Again, we will disagree but (100) effect evasion is not trivial. It is huge. It turns the battle vs Nem's character. I am sure vs other people without uber weapons it is the deciding feature.

Magic reduction on it is broken vs SG/EF. But vs other forms of magic 30% reduction is not trivial.

Splash reduction is huge vs the SoD. As I found out just today with my uber SoD.

Alone, they are not huge, but put all 3 together and the RBF has something vs every type of damage and while not a great amount, it does matter.

Certainly it does. However, you need a nice NW weapon to do damage. And the damage you do is vulnerable to GA. The ToA does not also give evasion, or magic resistance or splash damage resistance.

If these are nonfeatures, would you be adverse to removing them entirely?

sure make it give me lots of HP then

IE,

The TOA alone does not give enough dexterity to compete. One has to train not an insignificant amount to try to avoid those stupid exbows.

I personally have over 3M dex learned.

As the only RoBF character that benefits from the full 20% magic reduction as well as the slight evasion increase, of course I would. Other RoBF users, I'm sure, wouldn't mind.

As for Nem, leaving his RoBF minion as the first targetted makes him exceedingly vulnerable to the MoD.

Nem can use the AoI.

But again if the non features are trivial, why would you mind if they disappear? They are after all trivial.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Also, getting rid of features independent of the real problem is hardly a fix.

>The TOA alone does not give enough dexterity to compete. One has to train not an insignificant amount to try to avoid those stupid exbows.

Definitely have to pump Dex or you are a gonner period end of report.

>I personally have over 3M dex learned.

Dexterity:8,833,581 / 6,243,125 + War Wizard Boots [0] (+180)

Even with all of this JW has proven he can still pick me off at will. The only reason he is not consistent with it is because he loses too many other opponents as a result.

A 6 Mil IF has a 6M trained CoC.

CoC does 110% of it's level as damage. Damage Reduction and the randomness of CB damage ranges effect everyone (Bar Decay).

The RoBF damage Range is just as Random as CoC, or an ELBow.

IIRC Damage Range is from 50% to 100%. But this is the same for every type of attack, so can be discounted when discussion damages relative to each other.

Now if the RoBF damage wasn't subject to this Random range, then sure. It would change the discussion from 110% versus 20% to (110*0.75 - Taking an even distribution) 82.5% versus 20%.

Just out of curiosity, of equal sizes, how much Evasion does a RoBF grant, compared to the PTH a ToA would grant?

To users with no other Evasion/PTH, just base, as the stacking goes craply for both.

I get about 45 PTH from my TOA. I have 282 PTH on my character overview with a named +234 ELB.

It stacks badly with existing PTH. Like DB's/RBF do with trained Evasion.

I'm just curious, base stat versus base stat, how much the Trained Evasion of the RoBF compares to the NW based PTH of the ToA.

But it would need to be looked at on charcaters that don't have Evasion trained, and use +0 weapons.

My tat gives 110 evasion from base.

False. DD runs from 50-100, physical roughly 60 or 70-100, and RoBF pretty much stays at 95-100% or so. So multiply the DD "total effect" by .75 to scale it properly.


It's either 10% of tat level in evasion levels or 10% of tat NW in DBs. Don't remember which, but it's pretty irrelevant because both give nearly the same level at the end, coincidentally.

Its 10% tat level in evasion. No dex penalty.

Not that I don't belive you, but have you got any analysis to go with this?

I was faily sure that all types of damage suffer from the same Random Range.

It's not quite as exact as I mentioned for the RoBF, but it's at MOST 75%-100% variation. I'll post numbers in a bit.

Variation for the RoBF is at least 67-100% because that is the variation i got from testing just 1 fight.

Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1994132)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1746275)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1797774)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1777946)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1718480)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1988618)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1826626)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1891122)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1771428)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1769115)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1765313)

Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1876636)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1945237)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1831316)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1809223)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1785821)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1801649)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1655585)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1887413)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1760323)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1670988)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1612295)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1860504)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1924561)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1873531)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1780679)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1790092)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1768163)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1695075)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1600065)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1863753)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1857695)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1620741)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1919071)

For the same target:

High: 1,296,923

Low: 866,261

Variance: 66.8%

What I mean is that the low was 66.8% of the high.

And are we sure Magical is 50-100? There's also nothing posted in the wiki about PHysical damage ranges.

(I wonder if it would be too much to ask to have a little input on the ranges from the Devs? :P)

Assuming a linear distribution, it's an 90% chance that any one sample lies within the 5-95% range of possible damages. The probability of no samples falling outside the 5-95% range for all 34 samples is 0.0278, so we can pretty much assume with over 97% likelihood that we have a representative range of samples. Going by this assumption, 1600065 is likely to be less than the 5% and 1994132 is likely to be greater than the 5%, giving a total difference between max and min of 437852, which assuming the same mean gives us 2016025 for a max and a min of 1578172, giving us a 97+% likelihood of the min being 78.28% of the max.

at least 78.28% of the max.*

Seeing as Nem has shown it's lower than that, your calculation must be off.

Or the sample size is far too small. ;)

Since you're doing significantly less damage, I'm guessing you're going up against AC. The randomness of AC is adding to your variability.

You reduce damage by a % and its still going to have the same ratio.

AC reduces by a random percent.

This is from the wiki. It doesn't state that the % reduction is random, only the straight reduction which is insignificant at these levels. If % reduction were random we would be able to see significantly more variability in DD spells as they start off at 50-100%. We would end up seeing as much as a 75% difference in damage or even more.

Not everything in the wiki is correct. Case in point: the CTH formula used to be grossly incorrect for DX ratios over 1. Assuming the AC system has remained the same since CB1, which is a reasonable assumption, 477 AC pre-SS is enough to attain physical invulnerability HALF of the time. Back in CB1, ACs approaching 477 received 0 damage from monstrous damage sources at random, while ACs at 477 didn't always grant 100% block. .21% is the average amount that a point of AC blocks, not an exact number.

So have you seen SG doing 1 mil damage one round and 4 mil damage the next with no changes in targeting minion or anything else? I have tested the damage taken from SG with a significant amount of AC and the SG always fell within the 50% variability. In fact I never managed to see more than about 54-100% of damage.

Magic damage is the worst type to test this variability on, since physical AC will always be higher barring the HoC, and higher AC numbers mean a larger percentage variation in the final damage.

That is exactly what I mean. I did NOT see higher variability in the final result.

Defender burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (306150)
Defender burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (315847)
Defender burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (327732)
Defender burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (302950)
Defender burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (299220)
Defender burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (424681)
Defender burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (344661)
Defender burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (204043)
Defender burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (446064)
Defender burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (523331)

Either AC is random, or the RoBF exhibits variability from 39%-100%. Your pick.

Ignore SS for now.
Imagine that AC blocks between 0.2% and 0.22% per point. At 250 magical AC, you're blocking between 50% and 55%, letting 50% and 45% through. If you have a source of constant damage, you're going to see between 90-100% variability. Easy to miss. Now imagine that you have 400 physical AC. Now you're blocking between 80 and 88%, letting 20% and 12% through. You're seeing anywhere between 60%-100% on a source of constant damage. Depending on how AC is calibrated, the threshold at which you start to see noticeable variation in final damage numbers could run anywhere on the AC scale.

i thought the ac scale was stretched in the past couple of years?

I think you are ALL missing the boat here. The RoBF is not overpowered, but it is an ideal choice for a top 10 team. Why?

Because, as someone stated, it has no glaring weakness. Every other strategy can be taken down by a team with much less PR which is EXACTLY what a top 10 team does not want. Many teams, on their way to the top, will target a particular opponent and design a team just to beat that opponent, and then spend a ridiculous amount of BAs on taking every last ounce of gain they can from it. That means that poor top 10 team has a constant drain on their score which also plays havoc with their gains.

But a team in the lower ranks (and by lower I mean someone who actually has a number of higher score teams to take on) wants a more... focused strategy. Because of this they will often run teams with huge DMs or huge evasions or huge AMFs in order to take out a higher team. And a RoBF often can not deal the damage to actually get better than a stalemate against the chosen victims.

So, in short, the mediocre yet less vulnerable RoBF is not overpowered, just well suited to top 10 teams. And it is no wonder that a team trying to continue a run to the top will eventually become frustrated by this strategy when they are no longer able to pick a victim with a weakness to exploit. And perhaps that is a valid complaint! Do we really want the top teams to be completely invulnerable to the upstarts, or do we want all strategies to have a weakness.

Thus this silly little argument should boil down to is not "is the RoBF too powerful?", but rather "is a strategy that allows a team with more PR to be invulnerable to teams with moderately less PR a good or bad thing?".

well said, miteke

Top ten stats only reveal what is ideal for the top ten. The top ten is not representative of the game as a whole.

Is that not part of being overpowered.

All the other strategies have ways to be beaten with a character of less MPR and power. Except it seems the RBF.

There are ways to superspecialize and beat any character but it seems a RBF one with less PR. Just look at Joel vs Rawr. Super-specialization. But one cannot do that vs RBF characters.

So while the RBF is great at the top, it is also excellent as one grows since you will lose less clan points along the way.


Hello? They will also have RoS/GA dependent characters to exploit.

And just to give some relativity to the RBF's "weak" damage:

X-Wing glanced off of Dog with proton torpedo [1006333]

With a x14400 ELS and 12M strength.

With my DBs that are +205. And I have 68 AC. He hits 1 time a round.

proton torpedo [80x14200] (+240) worth $247,105,759 owned by QBnovice(Hawks rule) (Dagobah)

Echoes [0] (+205) worth $91,831,359 owned by QBRanger (Heroes)

Just over 1M vs:
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1994132)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1746275)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1797774)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1777946)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1718480)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1988618)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1826626)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1891122)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1771428)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1769115)
Lords of the Valar burns from the flames surrounding Mirana Nightshade (1765313)

Suddenly the RBFs "weak" damage is not too weak now? Is it?

And the same AC that reduces the RBF damage reduces physical damage.

Now, again, is the RBF damage that weak? Considering one can use dexterity and DBs to avoid getting hit with the ELS and one can use GA to counter it. While the RBF always hits and GA does nothing vs it.

I've always found this strategy to be a complete joke.. Also notice he's farming rawr? the heck?

http://www.carnageblender.com/inspect_opponent.tcl?opponent_id=127234&opponent_name=Dark+Horizons

Fail to see how that's a joke.

Not just Rawr.

He is beating NWO who is over 1.5M more MPR. Without no additional NW.

I guess the magic resistance AND special damage is too specialized. Which counters some discussions above.

Ranger, if nov had significantly more than 2M DX, I assure you that he'd be getting multihits.

Post your damage logs hitting a 20 Dex Target with zero AC.

Go on, I dare you.

Then lets compare that per round, to the largest RoBF in the game, hitting a target with zero AC.

He has one minion out of two devoted entirely to AMF and you're surprised that teams with no physical damage lose?

Are we then sure Magic Damage is in the 50-100% range? Or is it possible that AC reducing a Random amount could also be at play here?

Hmmm... NS, if you get a sec, would you mind just clarifying a few things?

Does AC only reduce damage by 0.21% per point on Average?

Do all damage types have the same random damage range?

I am 99.99% sure that magic runs from 50-100%.

Yes, considering the power of the NSC and his very high level of GA and his overwhelming MPR advantage.

Uh, last I checked, Poison uses AGs.

Also, you cite GA as a reason why he should be winning when Marl uses an RoBF?

I find it strange that someone suggested the RBF is not apt to fighting upwards, just able to prevent lower people from beating them.

To which people agreed.

I am pointing out that beside for the ability of the RBF to prevent lower MPR characaters from beating the RBF user, it also allows one to fight much higher PR ones as well.

Again,

Its numerous abilities are too good for a tattoo. The damage is nothing to be laughed at. 1.7M a round, guaranteed, without worry of GA is amazingly powerful.

Add evasion, magic resistance AND AMF backlash reduction and it is quite the overpowered tattoo/item.

Again, the evasion and magic resistance only very rarely come into play. Same goes for the AMF backlash resistance. You never responded to the arguments I made. The damage is hardly guaranteed. Have you considered a wall? I doubt you'll ever find an RoBF-centric character with DM.

Then why are you so against removing these features from the RBF?

Again, the evasion is not trivial. It lowers tanks damage, at the level of play I see, by 1/3 to 1/4th.

The AMF backlash, I can see it not being used much as the BoE and CoI are used more on mages than a tattoo.

What was the other argument you made? The one about physical melee damage vs 0 AC minions with 20 dex?

If so, I do not know exactly but I would expect 4 hits a round for about 1.2M or 4.8M a round.

Subject to GA backlash. But vs other tanks with DBs, he can miss as well as hit only 1 time a round.

Vs the RBF hitting every round.

Remember AC lowers physical damage as well as it does the RBF so that is a wash.

Consider a 200+M melee weapon (with 13.7 MILLION strength) doing 1M to other tanks vs 1.7M the RBF does vs other tanks no matter their dexterity and DBs.

There is a reason 7 of the top 12 characters all use the RBF, and please do not say it is just a random event.

Just like the old ToE was too powerful, the RBF has now taken that mantle. Remember how most of the top characters in the past were ToE and everyone knew it was too powerful?

For the third time, because I'm quite possibly the only character that actually benefits from almost every single aspect of it. Purely selfish reasons.


Again, on almost every RoBF character build, by the time you're actually targeting the RoBF, you only have to deal with a 500K HP pool at most. It doesn't matter if you only hit three times with 1M damage instead of four.


You can't compare the max damage of the RoBF with the minimum damage for weapons.


Are you going to complain about mages too then? After all, they're guaranteed hits too.


How is that a wash? A large portion of physical damage dealers utilize DM, a luxury not available to RoBF users because of the potency of SG.


No matter their dexterity works BOTH ways. Can you honestly say that you want physical damage multihit capability removed in exchange for guaranteed hits? I know I can't. Also, this is 1M damage per hit WITHOUT bloodlust.


Refer to the 4 minion thread.


Remember when Jon introduced the 2007 CBT? It's about as relevant.

Anyone hear of a PL/HP/TSA sink backing up the RBF minion who uses evasion to lower the physical damage vs it?

How is the fact of physical damage dealers using DM any effect? Is it because of Steel Skin? Melee tanks use AMF as well. Hardly any use DM.

I honestly have no idea what this means. But in my next post I will show something more about melee damage and its RBF equivalent.

How about this for equivlent:

14 / 43 / 718,295 vs 68 AC. 11.4% damage reduction from AC.

Damage JW does vs my tank with: Red Rose [84x11100] (+150) worth $128,951,266 owned by QBJohnnyWas (The Travelling Man)

718k a hit. Not using BL, however.

But still that much with a 128M NW weapon.

Vs 1.7 or so with a RBF hitting every round.

Anyone hear that the PL/HP/TSA sink doesn't work quite as well when it's down to 0 HP + regen before you're even hitting the RoBF carrier?


Archers go DM and destroy walls. Melee tanks have to train AMF, but that's because melee tanks are absolutely awful the way things are balanced now. The reason they go AMF is because SG is far bigger a threat than wall RoBF.


BL boosts that to 1.25M/hit. Averaging 1.4 hits a round, which is quite conservative, you're looking at just as much damage, which ALSO lifesteals.

OK, so low-ish AC this time. But the big portion you miss out here.

How many hits?

And now you're back to comparing *reduced* and *countered* damage, versus the baseline. (Which JS already mentions above)

If the question is;

"Can Physical/Magical damage be reduced to deal less per round than a RoBF?"

No one in CB is going to answer 'no'.

But that's the thing.

PHysical/Magical damage isn't guaranteed. It can be super boosted, it can be reduced to zero. It's the min/max of the damage range.

The RoBF is the opposite. Can't be boosted, can't really be reduced. It's Steady DPS versus Burst DPS (a term people who play MMO's should be used to by now).

Yes,

But in addition to being able to be more than physical damage, it also negates and GA.

While physical damage has to deal with AC, ToE, dexterity, DBs AND GA.

The RBF only has to deal with AC.

And the argument that it is low damage is just plain incorrect.

As I have shown, physical damage can be more but can be far less than the RBF. All with the worry of GA.

Yes and no. There are a lot of characters that do not care about SG but really worry about the RBF due to the inability of the RBF to care less about GA. Hitting all the time, and doing relatively decent to good damage.

C'mon man, 1.7M a round is not bad damage. Compared to one of the highest NW melee weapons in the game doing 1.2M a hit if BL is used. Figure 3 hits a round vs enchanters = 3.6M?round and figure 1 to 0 hits vs tanks with DBs doing 0/round.

While the RBF does not need all that extra xp spent into a skill. Given 8M strength that is 2M additional levels in BL needed.

The only negative I can see with the RBF on a tank is the inability to use the TSA and its regeneration. But it has so many positives.

And yet again, you seem to state that the evasion and magic resistance is nothing big, yet state you want to keep it for selfish reasons. Therefore are not those extra abilities a nice bonus to an already powerful tattoo?

I think he is saying that he is likely one of the only ones who would mind. I think the secondary ability that gets used the most is only the magic reduction part. For most people none of the other secondary abilities or just none of them period come into play. I use them right now but that is because it gives a slightly more efficient reduction for cheaper. It rather limits getting more reduction though.

Before you mention the ability to miss again, tell me with a straight face that you'd give up multihits for the ability to always hit. Also, you are still not addressing a single point that I raised earlier about the actual usefulness of the secondary attributes on the majority of teams.


Saying one of the highest NW melee weapons in the game is like saying one of the highest NW chain mails in the game. Again, the current state of things is very unfriendly to melee tanks.


Saying that you don't need something trained is another way of saying that it's a tattoo. Are you also calling the ToA overpowered because you're freeing up 8M in levels too?

Also, the bug with SG and RoBF reduction has been fixed since late November.

Of course not. That is why I use a THREE HUNDRED million NW weapon.
Nem uses the secondary attributes.

Other characters use the 2nd attributes such as magic resistance. Not many use the evasion, but is it still there. There are quite a lot of RBFs on AoI minions in front, which helps vs SG as that bug was fixed recently.

Again, if you are the only one using them and nobody else does, then why not get rid of it?


>Saying that you don't need something trained is another way of saying that it's a tattoo. Are you also calling the ToA overpowered because you're freeing up 8M in levels too?
No, the ToA does one thing well. The RBF does 1 thing very very well and a few others well.

Saying the ToA is overpowered since it gives 8M levels is like saying a FF is OP due to it giving 125% of its level in effective levels.

The RBF does something that nothing else in the game does. And does it exceptionally well. Along with other things decent to well.

The damage is not on the low side as people want to state, compared to melee damage weapons. In fact, vs some characaters it is far better than melee weapons. Unless you have a 100+M NW weapon and over 5M strength.

Yet another example of physical damage.

This vs Bark, BL trained to max level:

Vs a 1000 dex enchanter with 77 AC
the Captain crushed Sheep [1689488]
the Captain draws strength from his weapon! [2000]
the Captain crushed Sheep [1148907]
the Captain crushed Sheep [1084990]

vs my tank with 68AC
the Captain bruised Dog [1078761]

A Morgul-Hammer [84x5000] (+150) worth $81,248,595 owned by Adminbartjan (B Ark)
Strength: 10,158,302

The very first hit gets a bonus to damage only. The rest is 1.1M on average.

Vs 1.7M vs the RBF.

So, is the RBF damage that low? I think it is quite high vs standard melee tanks.

I am not sure your tank is a good example considering it is one of the absolute hardest to hit minions in the game. Most tanks will get at least 2 hits except against another larger tank, or someone like mikel's PL wall.

If you're just going to repeat everything you've said before and ignore everything I post, I'm not going to bother anymore.

My apologies, didn't see the post above. Posting rebuttal soon.

I will cede the point about magic resistance on the 50% of the characters that have the RoBF AoIed in front. On all other characters, the magic resistance equates to at best a 10% total damage reduction, and 2.5% at worst. Using the evasion or the AMF reduction makes the team extremely vulnerable to either the VB or the mageseeker. The tradeoff is almost never worth it.


Yet again, purely selfish reasons. I'm sure the majority of RoBF users wouldn't mind one bit.


But that's the premise of your argument. You're comparing the RoBF to a melee tank in terms of what sort of equivalent investment you'd need to accomplish similar results. I was pointing out the inherent flaw: that you are trying to compare a tattoo with a minion.


The TSA is the only item in the game that offers regen. The AoI is the only item in the game that lets you lower CTH past base. Uniqueness is a nonissue, unless you're saying that you want these items nerfed solely as a result of their unique nature.


You're comparing the RoBF to the single lowest per-hit damage source in the game. There's a reason it's very hard to find a competitive melee tank.


And versus some other characters, it is far worse than melee weapons. That's the whole idea behind choices.


That's a very reasonable assumption, since you're talking about the top tier.

Things scale down as one looks at the mid or lower game.

The RBF does a constant 20% of its level damage subject to only AC reduction.

Melee and magic damage have multiple means of damage reduction.

But the damage on the RBF, as I think I have shown is not trivial or even low. It is medium at least.

I would completely agree with you there, if not for the fact the RBF has only 1 method of damage reduction, the same all damage has. And is not subject to GA.

And only the + on the armor appearing to help vs the RBF while ALL plus helps vs physical damage. Giving the RBF yet another plus.

If there is a method of damage that always hits and is not subject to GA and only has the + on AC lowering its damage, do you not agree it should have damage at the lower end of melee damage?

From what I have posted, the damage is higher than most tanks do in melee. On average considering they face both enchanters with 20 dex and tanks with millions of dex and DBs.

So given its damage is not too low, and given its other abilities, can you not see my point about it being too powerful?

BTW, I only hit Mikel 1 time a round with my ELB and 0 times a round in melee.

PS. There is a reason I DEd my 80+M melee weapon when I had it. I just did pathetic damage for its NW.

So either we get the RBF damage in line with other forms of melee damage or we boost melee weapon damage. I would rather the former to keep magic/melee/rbf balanced.

And the RoBF doesn't?


Melee and magic damage also have multiple means of damage amplification.


You haven't shown that at all. You've shown that it's roughly on par accounting for all reductions already with the worst damage source in the game right now, physical melee.

Wrong. RoBF damage is mitigated by all AC.


Again, you can't cite "always hits" as a benefit when the alternative is the ability to multihit. The only thing on this list that really sets apart the RoBF is GA immunity.


You've posted data that shows just the opposite. 1.4 hits a round is an extremely reasonable amount.


See above.


Yes, that's all because of the RoBF, not because of his unholy DBs.


I wouldn't mind at all if melee damage got a buff.


See above.

Yes on par with melee damage.

Melee damage that can be lowered easier than the RBF given only the + on AC works vs melee.

Melee damage that you can miss vs other tanks vs the RBF that always hits.

Melee damage that takes GA damage vs the RBF which does not.

Melee damage that can work with leeching and VA vs the RBF that cannot (had to give a plus to the melee part).

Melee damage that needs a lot of NW compared to the RBF that needs none but to grow.

As I stated in my post just above, given all the benefits of the RBF's special damage, should it not be less than the average melee damage? Or even a lot less given all the other bonuses one gets with the RBF, such as the magic resistance, evasion and AMF backlash reduction (even if everyone does not use all these features)?

Or should we boost physical melee damage since I see a nice discordance between the 2 given all the pluses of one type of damage vs the other.

Then perhaps we agree on something!

Addressed above.


Addressed above.


Addressed above.


This is valid.


This is valid.


Addressed in an earlier post. It's a tattoo. The Hal does exactly the same thing, just in ranged.


Addressed above.


Addressed above, but buff melee anyways.

Then Mr. Wiki is incorrect yet again.

PS. I did not state I do not hit Mikel due to the RBF. It is his DBs of course.

Fixed.


How is this relevant then?

Meh, I ran RoBF for awhile, then ran EF for awhile.

I like EF more.

2.5m Life, a kill slot, and it does more damage than the RoBf per round.

Granted this damage results in AMF/GA backlash, it's still usually about a million higher per round...

Steroids touches Munroe [2207416]
Deathmark touches Althawk [2388904]

I've had my EF hit people for 5m a round.... :O

After using both for extended periods, I don't think the RoBF is as bad as people make it out to be, if you made it any weaker, it wouldn't be used at all because it wouldn't be good enough.

So how would you fix it, without making it completely useless.

I think the reason it's seeing so much "play" at the top, isn't because it's broken, but because certain players at the top have BROKEN AMF/GA, so the RoBF being used is just natural.

I think time and energy should be spent fixing the real problem, AMF/GA which we ALL KNOW is broken...

I think fixing AMF/GA would nerf the RoBF just enough to put it back in check with everything else.

.02

1) What is so wrong about AMF, except it is not that useful given the ability of millions of levels becoming useless given the NSC.
2) What is so wrong about GA? If you can dish out enough damage, you should be able to take 60% max in return if you do not use DM.

60%'s an awful lot when it's all focused on the damage dealer.

Are you really going to try to say the RoBF is OP, but not GA? I said Good Day!

Steroids takes damage from his own Shocking Grasp (1321722)!
Steroids touches Sting [767362]
Sting's Guardian Angel smote Steroids (322297)

Deathmark takes damage from his own Shocking Grasp (1064024)!
Deathmark touches Sting [435791]
Sting's Guardian Angel smote Deathmark (261474)
Great Sable Stag burns from the flames surrounding Roxanne (2244596)
Armor: 307

:( He cuts my average damage per round from 2.5m to 500k :(

I consider 2.5m+ damage a round from one source a "lot".

2) What is so wrong about GA? If you can dish out enough damage, you should be able to take 60% max in return if you do not use DM. --QBRanger, 4:35 PM EST

1) Saying that AMF isn't OP because of NSC is like saying that the ELB isn't OP because of the exbow. AMF and the Elb should have been fixed rather than introducing "patch" items. This still holds true.

2) I think GA is OP for the same reason you think RoBF is OP, /me points at the things it's used in conjunction with.

I agree more than 100% that AMF backlash should be based upon the damage you actually do.

Some people disagree giving all sorts of real life type of scenarios, however, for the purpose of this game, having it based upon actual damage done makes far more sense.

But then again, the NSC are a very powerful item to reduce AMF effect.

I have less of a problem with GA. Sure GA gives me a lot of problems but there are a few ways around it. However, I would not mind or care if either the percentage of GA is lowered or the multiplier that is needed to get max effect is raised.

But, compared to other tattoos, the RBF is just too powerful. Too much goodness in one package. And I really doubt if one removes the secondary, tertiary and quaternary effects from the RBF, many people would go away from using it.

HP is too powerful. It lets you live longer against EVERY single possible type of damage. The only counter to HP is decay, which is easily countered. Let's sum up what HP is capable of doing.
1) Live longer vs. physical
2) Live longer vs. magical damage
3) Live longer against BOTH GA and AMF retaliation, something PL isn't capable of doing
4) Combined with GA, is a unique form of offense which is only stopped by DM and AC.
5) The only stat capable of increasing TSA regeneration
6) Undispellable by DM, unlike AS
7) For single minions, far more efficient than AS
I argue that anybody with more than 10M of this stat trained is merely exploiting an abusive aspect of this game. I highly doubt this is the way Jon intended HP to be used.

I feel as though HP needs to lose its protection against magical damage. Clearly, with 7 different effects, HP has far too many benefits for just one stat. A new stat, magic tolerance, should be implemented.

If you will resort to foolish discussions like that, there is no sense in posting in a thread I created about the RBF.

If you cannot see the difference between stating a tattoo is too powerful vs a stat, then you have no business in the discussion.

If you continue to post the same things over and over without addressing my arguments, I don't see the sense either.

What arguements?

All I see is someone posting trying to keep the advantage of using quite the overpowered TATTOO.

I am stating the RBF is the most overpowered TATTOO. This is not a discussion about the overpowered spell or skill or item.

It is about the TATTOO.

And I have addressed your discussion. However if you fail to see that the RBF does as much damage, if not more than melee in some instances, as well as having a number of other nice effects, then there is nothing more you can contribute to this thread.

Here is why there are so many RoBF users out there:

1) Most people in the top 10 are people trying to beat everyone, they aren't content with just farming 3/4 of the community.

2) To build a beat everyone strategy you need to account for every possible build out there, and plan accordingly, this means you have:

a) A PL/Wall or a Huge AS minion with GA somewhere in the mix, PL/Wall is more popular as it means you can ignore DM.
b) AMF minion to deal with magic damage
c) Either an EC minion or an ExBow minion to deal with physical damage
d) Here is where you place your damage dealer, and for me personally, I played around with 4-5 other tatoos and positioning while still using the above 3 minions, RoBF is just the best tatoo for the "beat everyone" build after you experiment enough. It is also the only tatoo that makes you immune to AMF/GA, so therefore best for the strat.

Now if you don't care about beating everyone, which lots of people outside of the top 10 don't, the other tatoos are all very powerful too, they just don't work with this particular strat. You can still take and hold first place score/MPR without beating everyone, so it's not required. Dagobah ran electric familiar on his run for instance.

Complaining about the RoBF is silly, it's not overpowered, it's just that it's the best tatoo for attempting to be unbeatable. Which nobody in the game is unbeatable, so obviously not OP.

I think you have a flaw in logic here... the fact that it is "the best tattoo to try to beat everyone" means that it is the strongest tattoo, thus it is overpowered. Isn't being stronger than everything else the fundamental idea behind "being overpowered?" In a game of strategy, balance is key.

I've gone through quite a large number of your posts in this thread and addressed each subpoint that you bring up. Rarely do I see any direct responses to my reasoning. Instead, you reiterate your original viewpoint that the RoBF has x and y attributes and as such is imbalanced, despite my posts explaining why I feel x and y are irrelevant for 90% of teams, and that attempting to use x and y opens an RoBF team up to specific weaknesses more than it helps.


Then I posit that your ToA is the only reason you can place 15M in HP. Without your ToA, you would have to reduce your HP by over 8.5M in order to keep the same levels of ST and DX--quite possibly more if you have gear which grants bonuses to ST or DX. I'm sure you could replace it with a TSA, but I remember quite a few statements from you stating that the TSA is quite imbalanced. You dismiss my claims stating that the ToA only does one thing well, when it clearly offers offense, defense, experience concentration, and free net worth.


Since you're so eager to keep this discussion limited to TATTOOS, why are you bringing up melee damage? Start comparing it with other TATTOOS.

I pointed out that the evasion on the RoBF helps only a tiny minority of RoBF users: those with actual HP trained on the RoBF bearer. Either the RoBF minion is first in line for targeting and a MASSIVE target for the VB, or the PL sink is depleted by the time that the RoBF minion becomes targeted. I also noted that the RoBF magic resistance is only significant against SG and MM, and then only if the bearer is in front or back with an AoI. In the case of SG, you're losing out on two free kill slots after your PL minion wears out. Even if SG fires 10 times during this fight, the 20% reduction only just cancels out the lack of kill slots. In the case of MM, you'd be better off simply using the wall in the rear, as even a lone Adam is capable of 20% magic resistance without too much effort. As for the SoD splash reduction, even assuming that the main target is a wall that reduces damage by 75%, you have 1.15 primary target equivalents of damage. The RoBF blocks 20% of one splash, taking away .06 primary target equivalents, leaving 1.09. This is barely over a 5% total damage reduction. Using the AMF reduction leaves you wide open to a mageseeker. While this does put the RoBF evasion into play, a 20-25% reduction from evasion is significantly worse than the 70+% you could get from a wall.

Single minion RoBFs benefit from: Evasion, 20% magic reduction, GA-immune damage, and possibly AMF backlash reduction. However, single minions are basically impossible to set up defensively. In addition, you give up body armor and cloaks. Since you're complaining about how unstoppable RoBF damage is and the ease with which highly offensive setups such as your own can overpower single minions, I can assume that you don't find these overpowered.
Final feature list: GA-immune damage, 20% magic reduction, 10% of NW in DB +

Dual minion RoBFs with PL benefit from: 10% spreadfire magic reduction, 20% SG or MM reduction, GA-immune damage, and either 4.7% SoD total damage reduction or the evasion. The evasion route leaves you incredibly open to the VB. These setups are weak to heavy ranged damage, since you're most likely dealing with a low-DX PL sink that gets hammered by the ELB, even with DBs.
Final feature list: GA-immune damage, 20% SG or MM reduction, 10% spreadfire magic reduction, and 10% of NW in DB + at the cost of opening oneself up severely to the MoD.

Three minion RoBFs with a wall and PL benefit from: 6.67% spreadfire magic reduction, a 5.3% SoD total damage reduction assuming a 75% block wall, and 20% SG reduction at the cost of a kill slot in front if your wall has at least 231 magical AC pre-SS. This is a detriment if you get hit by 5 or less SGs. If your wall has at least 292 magical AC, it has 20% reduction against even SG, and your RoBF will always last longer hiding in the middle.
Final feature list: GA-immune damage, 20% SG reduction--less and less relevant as your wall approaches 292 magical AC, 6.67% spreadfire magic reduction, 5.3% SoD total damage reduction.

Four minion RoBFs with a wall and a PL benefit from: 5% spreadfire magic reduction, a 20% SG reduction which is even less useful than the three-minion as stated above or an irrelevant 20% MM reduction, and a a 5% SoD total damage reduction assuming a 75% wall.
Final feature list: GA-immune damage, 20% SG reduction--less and less relevant as your wall approaches 292 magical AC, 6.67% spreadfire magic reduction, 5.3% SoD total damage reduction.

If you honestly think a 5-10% reduction is anything to write home about, by all means continue. The evasion and AMF reduction are only relevant on single minions.


I've acknowledged many times that the RoBF does as much damage, and even more. In SOME instances. I heard that the VB also does as much damage, and even more than an ELB with 50 times the damage modifier. In some instances. </wall of text>

First instance of "VB" should read "MoD."

I bring up melee damage since all RBF users seem to think the damage ability of the RBF is the "weakest" in the game.

I will counter that is it more than melee damage overall. Or if not more, about equal given all kinds of minions a tank will face.

And it does all this without regard to GA and without vulnerability to AMF or EC.

That is why I brought up melee damage. To counter the flawed argument of "weakest" damage in the game.

And to compliment Rawr:
Is this not the definition of overpowered? The best tattoo to attempt to be unbeatable???

Ranger, take a look at your own fightlog.

Your point?

I tell you what Ranger. Why don't you then, as asked above, take this to a Tattoo versus Tattoo discussion.

And go back and reread (i've posted it here, and ended the last ZOMG RoBF is OP thread) my comparison of the IF to the RoBF.

Pick up that, and discuss those points.

Tattoo versus Tattoo.

Actually debate the issue, without just reiterating your OP over and over again, with *nothing* but personal opinion to back it up.

If the IF was so powerful then why do few people use it.

Why you ask?

Since it is vulnerable to both AMF and GA.

And it does not have the extra added bonus of evasion, magic resistance, and AMF backlash reduction.

If the IF was so great, would not people in the top 20 perhaps be using it? But I do not think anyone does. To me that states quite a lot.

Perhaps if more non-RBF users like Rawr chime in, I would not feel so alone in my thinking. But it seems mostly RBF people are posting trying to prove it is not OP.

I wasn't using a RoBF when this was last bought up. If you had posted this before Saturady, I still wouldn't have been using a RoBF.

Still your falling for a logical fallacy.

If you want to carry on using the number of people in the top 11 as the whole basis for your objection, please carry that on in my thread. I answered you there.

Ranger, surely you get the sustained DPS / Burst DPS difference? The pros and cons of each. Glass cannons, etc.

As for some of the other benfits a IF brings that a RoBF doesn't, it's been reiterated above in a post about the EF.

Please start discussing peoples responses, and not just reposting your singular complaint.

From my experience using both RoBF and melee tank at the same time. using only 4 mil str and a moderately sized melee weapon (around 60 mil nw) I would average doing around 10 mil with the robf and 12 mil with the melee tank and about that ratio. Some teams I would do more with the melee tank and against a team like KoP I would do more with the robf.

I'm not sure how everyone can keep on referring to its flame damage as the weakest in the game. People have huge tattoos now. I just switched to a tank to play around and my ElS, although only x1400, deals around 400k a hit with 3.5m strength and bl to back it. Most of the RoBF users I've tested out easily deal 1m+ per round. That's 2 1/2 times more damage with none of the drawbacks. And yes, weapons can get multiple hits- but weapons can also be neutralized in a wide variety of manners.

You can stop direct damage spell minions with ga, amf, MgS, and AC. You can counter tank minions with EC, higher DX, evasion, SoC retaliation, exbows, GA, or AC. Does anything besides AC even slow down let alone counter RoBF?

The extra things it does don't seem to make or break anything. It's just the fact that right now we do not have an option to counter the RoBF is what makes it so powerful. I would agree yes, by lack of counter, it is too powerful. Perhaps what we need isn't a nerf but a new item, say a shield that reflects a percentage of the flame damage much like the SoC does with melee.

Sure there is a counter, AC counters the RoBF very well. When I am fighting Mikel, my AC reduces his RoBF damage to less than a quarter of the normal damage.

And also remember just because a tattoo is powerful doesn't mean it is overpowered.

GL,

Your post was nothing but an poor attempt at humor and as I took it a slap in the fact to me. So I will ignore it from now on.

Vaynard has stated precisely what my points are.

So you're just going to ignore Nem's post?

Haha! But perhaps that is because I'm considering the RoBF as well, because its too damn good ;)


I don't like this argument.

Physical damage is reduced by AC, ToE, EC, and specialty crossbows.

Magical damage is reduced by AC, AMF (and boy if you don't have AMF, you're a glass cannon team with DM. Or your strategy needs rethinking.), RoBF (whoa!), and mages can be specifically targeted in ranged by MsK (a slight stretch to a 'magic counter').
Both physical and magical damage can be retaliated by GA.

RoBF damage is reduced by AC.

Hmm....

Physical damage is increased by ST, DX, +, x, and leadership. The RoBF is increased by absolutely nothing. Overpowered!

What weapon was that? MoD? I don't think 4 mil STR is something to scoff at. Neither is 60 mil NW. Sure, its not the top, but again, its not terrible. And I wonder if you're getting those averages by fighting me the whole time? ;) I'd just like to see some more real numbers than just projected averages.

It wasn't poor Ranger. At least a few people seems to enjoy it.

I'm sorry you took it as a 'slap in the face', but it's *exactly* the same arguement you're using.

You can see that, right?

Ignore it if you want, but it's *your own arguement* used rightback at you.

If you can't take it seriously, how can you expect us to take yours seriously?

This.

Pleas people. Can we stop going inthe back and forth of "It's not weak damage, there nothing to counter it" and "It's sustained, not burst, there's nothing to boost it".

I've posted some maths.

Stratgey aside, an IF would need to face around (depending on the now vague damage range) an 83% reduction to equal the damage output of a RoBF.

It *is* the smallest damage dealer in CB, and has limitations to offset it perks.

Rawr, I used both MoD and BoNE. And no you were not the basis for damage. It is quite a bit different against you and NWO.

If nobody is unbeatable then it's not overpowered. It illustrates for everyone that although it's the best one to try for unbeatable, nobody can do it, so obviously not overpowered. If the top 10 were a bunch of guys that all could only beat each other and nobody outside of a RoBF could beat them, then it would be OP. The top guy for the last however many months was an EF, it's not OP

OK, to try and clear this up, here are what I feel are the discussion highlights.

1: Too many people use the RoBF. Sure sign it's OP.

In asnwer to that, the same number of poeple in the sample size use 4 minions over any other choice. Outside facors are influencing both choices, not the 'Poweredness' of the items themselves.

2: The RoBF provides too much in a single package

Mostly, you can't utilise it all, unless your running a specific Single Minion setup. Which being Single minion is also the weakest choice in the game.

Other Tattoo's all provide additional utility as well.

3: It's damage is too much, especially at high levels.

All damage is too much at high levels, and it's still the wekest damge dealer in CB.

4: It's perfect damage is too good.

It's Sustained versus Burst, you can't buff it, you can't (bar AC) reduce it. It's perfect damage is very useful currently, due to outside influences.


And that's about the whole arguement right there.

Apologies if I missed anything, it's late and I'm going to bed.

"Stratgey aside, an IF would need to face around (depending on the now vague damage range) an 83% reduction to equal the damage output of a RoBF."

This is a lie.

Instead of just posting that, please show why. I like to be corrected. I've posted the maths on it twice, and the only outstanding modifyer (which I've ignored for both sides) is averaging the damage range.

Unless corrected, I hold it's not a lie.

I would say it is inaccurate to call AC a counter to RoBF's attack. A speed bump, a slowdown, a delay yes. But a way to disable or kill the RoBF minion? Not at all.

CB is all about counters. One of the more popular spells, GA, does nothing but counter-damage. Physical and DD damage minions both have a variety of ways to stop, disable, slow down, or kill them. RoBF only has one slow.

RoBF probably isn't overpowered. True, its damage output isn't that extraordinary compared to the other sources of damage up top. But it is the only damage source that cannot be countered. So until we get a new item or ability that does just that, RoBF will continue to be unbalanced.
---
Nem: yes the damage is higher for the melee weapon. But that takes several stats, lots of NW, and then hopes that the other team isn't using one of a dozen different counters that could stop that minion. You can't counter the RoBF's damage, only slightly reduce it.

Banan: I really hope you're not being serious. That is not a valid rebuttal to the points people are trying to make in this thread.

Vay, it's uncounterable damage is it's whole point.

If you make it counterable, you have to then make it boostable like everything else, to accomdate.

It's uncounterable nature isn't the problem.

I'm all for making RoBF damage boost-able. Hell, make it boost-able with USD. But make it counter-able ;)

It would be a sad day for strategic choice if that happened mate. The RoBF damage holds a currently unique niche, and removing it would remove an insteresting element from the otherwise "Strap on a ToA and use the biggest ELBow, with PL and TSA to back you up" that CB2 is becoming.

Actually, lie is a little too strong for my liking. That would imply I'm deliberatley trying to decive.

I'll hold it's not incorrect, until shown othrwise.

You'll just have to beive me I don't lie here.

I suppose that is what the entire argument boils down to then. Two sides with different views of how the game is set up and works. I respect that. I kind of wish Jon would chime in and let us know how he intends it.

You see RoBF as a new niche, a slow steady damage dealer that is unique and good only because it is without counter.

I see CB as a game of counters, where for every strategy there is a specific item or ability meant to offset it. And in the way I view it, the RoBF currently sticks out like a sore thumb. It is missing the Yin to its Yang. It's a half finished experiment.

Anyways, I'm glad to see that this argument has gone back to being a little more civil and about the substance rather than how it was getting before.

I did not reply to Nem's post about damage as it was exactly what I was stating.

The damage between a RBF and a melee tank is about the same.

Given all the nice ways one can increase physical damage, the damage between a decent (4M str and a 60M NW weapon) tank is about equal to a RBF.

Which is a large basis for my discussion. The RBF's flame damage is NOT the weakest of all damages as I read. People have used this flawed argument as one of the key points on why the RBF is not overpowered.

I keep reading and reading things to this effect: 'But it is the lowest of all damages' or 'It is the weakest of all damages'.

And this is the point that they try to say it is the tradeoff between having all the abilities the flame has. Such as immune to GA and AMF. Unaffected by the ToE. Unaffected by the SoC or the MgS.

While melee damage is effected by numerous things aside from AC.

So the discussion that the RBF is balanced based upon the fact it has the "lowest" or "weakest" damage is wrong.

I just see that for melee tanks. I have not calculated it for magic. But from what I read, the ways to lower magic damage are quite extensive but magic has to counter with AMF and GA. So magic should be well above melee and RBF damage.

Then, on top of all the flame goodness, we get other abilities. Such as evasion (up to level 110 presently and growing) and magic reduction (~25%), and direct SoD hits (~25%), and AMF backlash resistance. True, not everyone uses all of these, but almost all benefit from at least 1 or 2. Which is a nice additional bonus.

So, is the RBF too powerful?

There is no other tattoo in the game that has so many abilities. True, the number of abilities does not matter. But they do so many diverse things that help vs numerous strats. All the other tattoos have 1 area they function. The RBF alone has at least 4 different areas where it does help and not trivially.

We can debate if 100 evasion helps, but if it makes archers hit 1 time less, that is significant.

So we have a tattoo that has a non-GA damage, is not effected by AMF, and hits every round. For about as much as melee tanks do.

Then it has 4 other abilities that effect other areas of the game that perhaps 2 will be beneficial.

Compared to all the other tattoos in the game, this just appears obviously overpowered.

Certainly every character is not set up to use it. But if you want to use it, it seems the easiest tattoo by far to use to grow and then keep a top 10 spot with fairly low NW.

There are exceptions like Bananco, who runs a spectacular strategy.

The damages are similar after including reductions not before. And don't forget that they have other special abilities that often help out as well.

83% leaves 17%. 17% is almost 1/6. Upper RoBFs do 2-3M damage. Upper IFs do not do 12-18M damage. (Ok, you were not lying, you were misinformed.)

You are only going to see 1 RoBF maybe do 2.5 mil damage and that would be Mikel's.

Ok, lower it to 2M, and I still stand behind what I say.

Titan, I posted the Maths.

You're doing what Ranger is doing.

Looking at RoBF damage without reduction, then comparing it to IF CoC damage after AMF/PL/MGS reduction.

We've got how much each Tattoo trains, we know how much damage CoC does, and the issue of the damage range aside, we can work out the difference between the two.

Unless you can fault my maths, I'm still not wrong.

RoBF: ~18-20% random
IF: ~55-110% random
The RoBF does approximately 1/3 of the damage of the IF.

Sorry, that's 1/4. It's 23%.

That would be at least 16-20% by your own statement.

19/82.5 = .2303.

JS, isn't it (if we use 80-100 range for the RoBF and 50-100 Range for CoC)

RoBF: 18% (on average)
CoC: 82.5% (on average)

So the RoBF does on average 21.8% of the damage and equal sized IF would do per round.

Which would make the IF need to face about a 78-79% reduction, to make it hit for the same amount (on average) as a RoBF each round.

Shockingly close to the original 83% I posted, which didn't take a different damage range into account.

You whole post actually explains why it's balanced...

Let's go with Melee damage and RoBF doing equivalent damage, after all reductions have been factored in.

That's balanced.

Becuase in some cases (like SG hitting a target with no AMF, or a Tank hitting a zero AC, 20 Dex minion), the Melee Tank will do *much* more (any time we look at thier damage and it's not facing allthe reductions).

But if *generally*, both Melee and the RoBF put out equivalent damage.

That's balanced.

How could it be anything but...

General versus specific.

Would a Tattoo that instantly kills you opponent, and only does that, be less powerful than a RoBF. Becuase it doesn't have it's wide range of abilities?

No.

The ToA is very powerful for it's Area. So is the Hal and Jig. So are the DD Familiars. So is the RoS.

The RoBF is more general, and is far harder to leverage *all* it's abilites into use.

Unlike the specific ones.

After testing vs 9 AC I got a high for the RoBF of just under 22% and a low of just over 17.5%. Still a fairly small sample size though.

Yeah, I've noticed getting RoBF hits for 22% of it's level, and not the 20% advertised.

"The RoBF is more general, and is far harder to leverage *all* it's abilities into use."

those abilities are just gravy (apart from the GA immunity)

the ability to get the max out of HP/GA or PL is its real strength

Agreed!

And I hope everyone knows I think GA and PL/TSA should take a swift beating from the nerf stick. ;)

How can you type seriously?

The melee tank has to deal with GA, the RBF ignores it. And therefore gets a whole class of characters instantly on its fightlist - The RoS users.

One would think that having that immunity to the RoS comes at a price. Well as I have shown, it does not compared to melee damage.

So is melee damage to low or is the RBF too powerful? You should not be able to get good damage AND GA invulnerablity.

No. Its real strength is an always hitting decent damage flame with the immunity to GA, AMF, MgS and SoC. Among all the other things it is immune to.

The other things are a bit more than gravy considering most people use 1 or 2 of them. 25% damage reduction is nothing trivial.

which brings us full circle! if the rbf can do it all well then it will trend towards the most used tat in game, at least if i understand ranger correctly.

did anyone ever look at the active clanners to see tat distribution for the most active users? i had done it not long ago but don't really have the time now.

i do think that if anything in the game becomes too ubiquitous with active users and it just becomes a contest of who has the largest of that item, then the game will lose what little interest it still has. whether we are there or not i am not sure, but i would be interested to see the tat distribution among the most active clanners for the last month to help me decide.

Ranger, you miss the point. Totally.

Yeah, Melee is subject to GA. It can also far outdamage the RoBF when things are in it's favour, not against it. Which you continue to ignore.

Melee also has VA.

Oh and a Morg + VA leeches enough to totally negate GA.

here is my old thread for comparison, if someone wants to compare now to then:

http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002x3Y

it looks like i used weekly clan scores first page.

Dude:

Top 12 MVP for the last month used;

RBF x 3
Hal
RoE
Jig x 2
EF
ToA x 2
RoS
FF

(with a couple of those probably moved around in that month)

i do like using that whole first page as with our current low population it gives us the best big picture of the most active users in cb. with 188 users logging on last week and some of them no longer fighting or forging, about seventy users should be around half of the player base that is fighting.

GL, carrying this forward to the top 25, we have:

Top 25 MVP for the last month used;

RBF x 5
Hal x 2
RoE
Jig x 2
EF
ToA x 7
RoS x 3
FF
SF x 3

I'm not too concerned with the ToA, as I think some people choose it simply because archers are fun strats to run rather than being an overpowered tattoo. I'm more concerned by the lack of the ToE and the IF. On top of that, I'm the FF in the list, and I probably would not be using it if given the choice.

I'd much rather see the unloved tats get tiny boosts to make them more desireable.

No you ignore the main point.

Melee damage CAN outpace the RBF, but in some cases it lags behind the RBF. Unless you have a 100+M NW weapon and 10M strength.

While a leech weapon and VA can outpace GA or nullify it, not every tank should be forced to use a leech and spend a million levels of xp on VA to equal the damage output of the RBF.

When things are not in melee's favor, the RBF can far out damage it.

So why does the RBF ignore GA AND can do as much damage as melee if not more in some cases?

You keep ignoring that point or gloss over it.

Clan MVP is a very misleading stat. As the highest clan points can be gotten with lower MPR characters who can use any tattoo to fight up. The best tatttos are the ones that prevent those below you from beating you. The RBF is the best of the best.

i fail to see how tat distribution for about half of the active users on cb is misleading, unless you mean simply that it does not help to prove your point?

i wasn't trying to help prove or disprove your point as it is clear up top what the dominant tat is. i am curious to see if it also holds true down below and if it is becoming the default tattoo for cb.

If you want to use all active players that is great.

But the top 25 includes a lot of New players growing with their 8 or 9 BA regen rates and smaller characters.

One needs to see all tattoos on active players to make statistically relevant data other than the top of the game.

and what better list do we have for active players throughout the ba ranges than clan mvp for one week, especially if you use the whole first page of 70 people?

So what are the stats for the first page of clan MVPs?

I have only seen the top 25 posted.

i posted the link to the list i did in december above. no one has done a current one yet. if no one else takes it on before i have time to do it, i will make another list when i have time. if anyone does go for it, make sure you check for the active character as the highest score one isn't always the active one.

Please... I've covered literally everything in this thread, even summarised it.


You negelet to mention the RBF size.

Anyway, we're back to the distinction of Sustained and Burst DPS. Which you have continued to ignore.

Glass Cannon and all that.


/sigh

In the worst, worst case senario fo the Melee Tank, he equals the RBF at it's best.

That's you arguement, and where your balance fails.

I've asked a few of the big RBF users if they would be kind enough to post a RBF damage hit versus a massive AC target.

So we can use worst versus worst to continue this. As you refuse to use unreduced values.

We *must* compare like for like, to have any sort of reaosnable discussion.


Of course. I even said that way up above in the topic.


Why can Melee do *considerably* more damage per round than the RBF when on it's favoured terms.

I bring you back, yet agian, to sustained versus burst DPS.

Glass cannons and all that.


Come on...


Sure. If you're the number 1 team.

Otherwise the best Tattoo (I seriosuly don't think you will dispute this) is the one that allows you to fight up the most, for the most rewards.

Which is usually a specilaised Tattoo coupled wiht a Specilaised strat, to take advantage of weaknesses in largers teams far above you.

You may want to check the top 25 again. While clan points are not always indicative of top strats, the two newest players appear to be Joel and Areo. Both of whom seem to be doing pretty darn well, and on top of that, they're using a ToA and RoBF, respectively.

But not to digress, as I do think tats need to be better balanced...

The IF vs RoBF flame comparison really is not accurate. The IF can be countered in a wide variety of ways, from AMF, AC, MSK, GA, etc. The RoBF can only be slowed by AC. Yes, the IF can and should deal more damage. But by not having any sort of counter the RoBF flame attacks are much more powerful in the real world. It gives you free damage that is unstoppable. Yes, it is less than an IF, but again, you can counter an IF. Unstoppable is overpowered in my books.

CB has a counter for everything! Give us the RoBF counter already!

i used the first page of the weekly clan mvp's to see what the tat distribution is on the most active users for the past week with the following results:

hal ~ 11
balrog ~ 15
toa ~ 12
ros ~ 9
sf ~ 6
jig ~ 6
ef ~ 3
toe ~ 3
roe ~ 2
ff ~ 2
tatless ~ 0
lesser balrog ~ 1

the biggest changes from December are that hal's went down in popularity while robf's went up. most of the others were pretty much the same or exactly the same as December.

I guess part of the HF decrease was due to the nerf it recently had.

I have shown the RBF can do more damage vs those without a 100M weapon and 7M strength.
But why would one use potential damage when actual damage is the one that matters in gameplay?

There are many ways to reduce physical damage compared to flame damage.

And sustained vs burst damage is not relevant if the OVERALL damage over time is the same.

If you refuse to use actual damage instead of unreduced damage, there is nothing more to discuss. We are going in opposite directions.

You, using the RBF, want to keep it as powerful as possible, while I am showing its damage is not trivial, not low and on par with the melee damages in the game.

All with the added bonuses of not being effected by GA. And having other abilities which do help from time to time.

So let me get this straight for the last time:

Person A is using damage dealer type A that has no counters but does x damage
Person B is using damage dealer type B that has plenty of counters but does x time 4 damage.

If the overall damage, on average, in battle is the same, you are saying damage type B is better?

I see them as being almost equivalent.

But in our case, damage type A has the added ability of not being vulnerable to GA, which is a HUGE part of CB. In addition to having other abilities to further help the character.

Logical Fallacy.

I pointed that out to you once already.

Really Ranger, you need to go back and rethink this whole arguement.

But allow me to add my own logical fallacy if I may.

You (as stated in the other thread) are only troubled by RBFs, otherwise you would use your SoD (which you claim is vastly more powerful than the ELBow) full time, and want to nerf the last thing in your way.

I'm done with this thread, it's impossible to have a congruent discussion with you. I'm starting to feel how the folk on the other side of the political threads felt.

Pax.

Well there is no other way for me to explain your discussion that we have to look at unreduced values.

I just cannot wrap my febile mind about that statement.

Unless you are trying to keep the abusive item intact.

The fact that it doesn't have GA return, far far far out ways the fact that it has low damage.

But Titan,

I would counter by saying its damage is not as low as people seem to want to state.

Compared to melee damage at least. If you use actual damage instead of the mythical beast that is unreduced damage :)

And then add the extra goodies such as magic resistance, SoD direct hit damage reduction etc.. and you have a nice overpowered tattoo compared to the rest of the tattoos out there.

Ignoring the validity of those statements (could be true or false), I'm saying that it doesn't matter. I'm taking damage out of the situation. The fact that it does damage that is capable of killing, (It's not doing damage that is negligible.) and the fact that this damage is not returned by GA makes the tattoo strong enough to compete with all other tattoos. Whether or not the other abilities it has makes it OP is a discussion not meant for me.

Ok, it does indeed look like the RoBF's damage has a variation of 80-100% damage ranging from 17.6-22% of the tattoo level. This gives the RoBF an average damage of 19.8% of the tattoo level.

1.5-2M damage a round is not too shabby imo ;)

Interestingly with the ELB nothing stands in his way at the moment

I think of it this way: Every tattoo can be achieved using XP on a minion (ie you can make an SG mage [EF], or an archer [HF], and -this is a stretch- focus on ED xp [RoS]). But nobody can replicate RoBF using xp/MPR. I wonder what CB would be like if there was a DD that had this perfect damage?

Would this DD also not be affected by Amf and have no way to boost it?

This is relevant... how?

By the way, if we're all doing advocacy arguments here, I claim that Rawr shouldn't be allowed to post either, since he's just trying to patch one of the few holes in his strategy.

Then I would argue that all RoBF users shouldn't be allowed to post either since they don't want their tattoo nerfed. Same thing, right?

I say this because I'm trying to put a different view on things. What if there was a DD that had the unique damage of RoBF (and as elite stated, with no reduction from AMF but cannot be boosted). I'd wager that it'd be the most popular DD spell.

Furthermore, since I'm taking this as offense since it was not very politely written in my opinion, sure, RoBF is a weakness of mine. But I am not trying to solve it by raging about the OPness of RoBF. I am currently sacrificing clan points and will be heavily farmed in order to use an RoE to boost my mage to try to overcome the all to common heavy AMF RoBF users.

haha, JS. Those were my exact thoughts too.

A DD that has "perfect damage" is no longer a DD. So what does this say about DDs? Nothing. What does this say about RoBF? nothing. Potentially popular? probably. Relevant? no.

whatever. It made sense to me.

Rawr: I'm not trying to target you personally here. I'm just trying to demonstrate that Ranger's "you just want to keep using an abusive item" argument is invalid.

i stated in another thread that the robf seems to be on its way to becoming the default tat for cb. those that think the robf is fine the way it is, are you also ok with it being the default tat and the largest tat wins?

It would be much better if other people, aside from just RBF users, would state that they believe the RBF is perfect as it currently is.

However, the only people that are quite vocal in this thread are current RBF users.

Coincidence? Maybe. I doubt it.

Meanwhile, the only people that are quite vocal in this thread about the "overpoweredness" of the RoBF are non-RoBF users. Coincidence? Maybe. I doubt it. Relevant? Most certainly not.