How low is melee damage, very! (in General)


QBRanger February 25 2010 3:18 PM EST

3 hits in melee for an average of 1,287,337.

That may sound like a lot but.....

We are talking about 13.77M strength vs 68 AC using:

proton torpedo [80x13915] (+235) worth $237,840,908

Seems to me, even though it is "only" 14k compared to over 25k on some missile weapons, that is a low amount of damage given one has to wait through 6 missile rounds to start to use a melee weapon.

In addition. even if the weapon was x28000, the damage would be about 1.8M per hit.

True, melee can hit multiple times but then again, it can hit no times. Vs my tank he hits about 50% of the time.

Compared to other melee only damage forms, this seems a bit on the very low side.

10M RBFs, not unusual at the level I fight, would do about 1.7M damage per round hitting every round.
10M EF/SG would do over 4M per hit subject to AMF/NSC with far less mitigation from AC (only +)

I do believe that melee damage has to be increased at least 50%.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 25 2010 3:28 PM EST

Does that include the 10% reduction form any PL?

Is the target wearing DBs/using Evasion to cut down your hits?

Have they trained DEX to cut down your hits?

Is there a SoC in there to reduce Physical damage?

(as an aside, Ranged damage is too much, and it seems has always been...)

Sickone February 25 2010 3:29 PM EST

On the flip side, melee damage is the only one able to leech life, so if you increase melee damage you'd also have to decrease the effect of VA and leech weapons.

Eliteofdelete [Battle Royale] February 25 2010 3:32 PM EST

BL raises melee damage by 75% plus it gets the option to life steal.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 25 2010 3:33 PM EST

Double Damage on the first hit as well.

Pwned February 25 2010 3:43 PM EST

Melee is a joke, just look at average weapon NW, ranged is by far the winner in that category. Theres really no point in melee anymore. People want to do damage fast, thats why most battles stay in ranged and theres even a supporter item that adds another round to ranged. Why go melee when your gonna die in ranged?

Pwned February 25 2010 3:44 PM EST

BTW I'm not taking into account the top 10 who could possibly take all battles into melee rounds.

Mythology [The Knighthood] February 25 2010 3:45 PM EST

I agree with ranger, since I've come back ive seen many posts, many many posts in some instances saying countless times either
1) RoBF is OP
2) Elbow / exbow is OP
3) This is Mageblender

Seems to me either everything is OP or Melee is under. Another thing is Mages + RoBF get their damage free, melee have to pay for the underpowered privilege

Pwned February 25 2010 3:46 PM EST

Yup it gets frustrating when you spend millions of CBD and still lose

Pwned February 25 2010 3:47 PM EST

Makes you want to quit.......

Mythology [The Knighthood] February 25 2010 3:49 PM EST

Sickone 3:29 PM EST
On the flip side, melee damage is the only one able to leech life, so if you increase melee damage you'd also have to decrease the effect of VA and leech weapons.

-

Unless they use PL, which, hmm, quite a few do :)

QBJohnnywas February 25 2010 3:51 PM EST

I don't know, melee does ok for me. And I only do on average 400k per strike, much lower than yours. I think an average of 1.2 mill or higher is damn fine personally.

Yes you have to last through to melee. But so does the other team. Normally (unless a wall is involved) your opponent has no defences left, which means that that 1.2 mill you're describing is being fully utilised, unlike say a 2 mill strike from an ELB hitting an enchanter or something.

And as many people will say, BL boosts melee damage for a tank. It doesn't need to go up any higher without BL.

Pwned February 25 2010 3:54 PM EST

4mil mpr and your only getting 400k wow lol. How much NW?

QBJohnnywas February 25 2010 3:59 PM EST

128 mill NW. My average damage runs between 400k and 800k per strike, with an average of 3 hits per round. I don't have BL because I have archery. My average damage would be a lot higher otherwise.

BL and VA would both need to be adjusted if melee damage was raised.

{Wookie}-Jir.Vr- February 25 2010 4:01 PM EST

I agree, melee damage is a joke.

QBRanger February 25 2010 4:02 PM EST

BL and VA would both need to be adjusted if melee damage was raised.

Why?

TheHatchetman February 25 2010 4:03 PM EST

Seems to me either everything is OP or Melee is under.


Or perhaps running a melee tank breeds patience ~_^

Melee tanks seem to be the ones who realize it should take years to get to the top. Melee tanks seem to be the ones who take a nerf to the face and limit complaints to the occasional smart-mouth comment. Melee tanks are used to other teams spending all their firepower in ranged, and having time to sit back and play whack-a-mole come melee rounds.

Sure there's mages there, but even with the reduction to the amount of possible layers against mages, there's still enough out there for a proper melee tank to obliterate CoC mages. Fireballers can self-destruct entirely, and MM never really was a threat in the first place. Only real weakness to a heavy tank is SG, and possibly ELBs worth more than most of the cars for sale in your local craigslist.

I'm all for buffing damage, but that's my own extremely biased opinion. ^_^

QBJohnnywas February 25 2010 4:06 PM EST

Why would you need to adjust BL? Raise physical melee damage and then add BL - uber damage, especially when you mix and match a Morg and a SoC.

And that 20% VA I get from the Morg? Becomes that much more valuable when I've got boosted damage.

AdminTitan February 25 2010 4:35 PM EST

Talalicious decapitated Security [1670143]
Talalicious eviscerated Security [668083]
Talalicious dislimbed Security [808735]

With only a x4000 weapon (ELS), and only 4M ST. That's over 3M damage in one round. Try finding a RoBF that does more damage than that. This is also against a tank with 4M DX, so I'm only getting about 250cth, instead of over 300 I could be. With a x16k weapon, and 8M ST, and against a mage without DBs, I could do potentially 8.5M mmmm delicious. Oh and did I mention how under powered melee is.

QBRanger February 25 2010 4:41 PM EST

And how much damage do you do in the next couple of rounds?

AdminTitan February 25 2010 4:42 PM EST

2.3-2.4M just awful, just awful.

Pwned February 25 2010 4:55 PM EST

Thats after 6 rounds of ranged and you have no leech...btw what happens when you miss a couple of hits? Need more data. Should try getting dmg output from ranged and melee and compare. After surviving 6 rounds of ranged damage how long do you last afterwords?

Pwned February 25 2010 4:56 PM EST

would be nice to see other peoples battles

QBRanger February 25 2010 4:58 PM EST

2.3-2.4M just awful, just awful.

Considering a 10M RBF does 2M minus AC automatically hitting with no worry about GA, yes, it is awful.

Pwned February 25 2010 5:04 PM EST

Good point but ranged has to deal with GA too. Melee has to deal with it after 6 rounds or ranged.

Pwned February 25 2010 5:06 PM EST

Lol Titan judgeing from your fightlist you can only kill other tanks that have lower NW than you and GA is your nemesis.

iBananco [Blue Army] February 25 2010 5:08 PM EST

10M RoBF vs. 4M ST and x4K? I'm all for making comparisons, but maybe you should pick a lower tat level to go with those lower stats and enchantments.

Miandrital February 25 2010 5:09 PM EST

Ranger, his MTL is 5,811,334

Even if he had a RoBF at that level, with the naming bonus, he is still only going to do about 1.2 mil damage per round. So basically he can deal double that amount, while having the opportunity for VA leeching to counter GA.

Another point to consider is what happens if he was fighting an AS team with an MoD. His average damage would be 4 mil in that case. Still not worth it?

Pwned February 25 2010 5:17 PM EST

Morgs and BoTh don't do that kind of damage. They actually have lower damage then what they say they have.

Pwned February 25 2010 5:20 PM EST

Another point to consider is what happens if he was fighting an AS team with an MoD. His average damage would be 4 mil in that case. Still not worth it?



What would be the point in that when he would die from GA? That 4 mil damage would just be going contribute to his demise.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] February 25 2010 6:03 PM EST

I actually tried a BTh today with pt... needless to say I lost most of my existing fight list but gained one GA user.

Personally I think melee damage is fine, but ranged damage is far too high. Mostly based on insane base to hit (exbow too low, elb too high) and ranged penalties.

I can't say I know what to do to solve it, I just know the existing defenses are so extreme that you have to give up on offense to use them.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 25 2010 6:15 PM EST

Personally I think melee damage is fine, but ranged damage is far too high. Mostly based on insane base to hit (exbow too low, elb too high) and ranged penalties.


Couldn't agree more. ;)

Wraithlin February 25 2010 6:17 PM EST

Well one solution would be to give double the rewards for each XP point spent.

Everytime you train, you get whatever stats you actually train plus your characters gets effective HP trained of that level as well.

It would effectively double the XP on all characters, but all of it would go to HP.

This would mean that very few if any battles ended in ranged rounds, and you could actually make melee/drain strats that could come back during the melee rounds.

From what I've seen, most fights are over 4-15 rounds into the fight, either someone wins or all damage is killed and there are another 35 rounds of nothing really happening till it's a stalemate. Even at the extreme ends, I rarely see over 20 rounds for a combat, and only 1 person have I ever won on the 40-50th round. And that target was only because it was an ignored character that gave back its rented weapons and it took me 45 rounds to get through the HP.

We have 50 rounds to use, I think we should be using closer to 40 of them instead of closer to 10, would make the battles alot more strategic than they currently are.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] February 25 2010 6:28 PM EST

Wraithlin you enthusiasm and willingness to suggest things is great, but needs to be curbed just enough to actually check what your suggesting. I'm not saying this to try and discourage you, but just to get you to the point where your suggestions aren't quite so out of left field.

If you'd like a detailed explanation of why this specific suggesting needed a little more thought put into it please let me know.

Pwned February 25 2010 6:34 PM EST

Lol Novice is scared of the PL/Trollskin combo if that suggestion would be implemented.

Wraithlin February 25 2010 6:58 PM EST

Looking at your battle log specifically Nov. The highest average rounds is 24 of, lowest was around 7.

My suggestion should put those to roughly 15 and high 40s.

My suggestion is exactly what I intended.

Yes I know everyone that likes to win in ranged rounds will complain, and TSA/PL will get a buff, which would be really easy to counter.

TSA only regens trained HP, not the free "leveling up" HP. Problem solved.

My suggestion is just to give melee a fighting chance and slap the people who just plan a 6 round battle when the battles were obviously meant for longer.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] February 25 2010 6:58 PM EST

I would actually benefit more from his suggestion than almost anyone but Mikel. However there would instantly be no ranged DD users and most of the ELB's and SoD's would quickly become exbows.

Wraithlin February 25 2010 7:02 PM EST

I think you're being a little over dramatic.

Instead of outright winning in ranged, the DD users and the ELBs would instead be trying to kill 1-2 minions, thereby hampering thier opponent's ability to come back in melee.

Currently if you want to run a melee setup, you are forced into making a defensive team. The only reason you see such low melee damage is because it's so easy to kill off your opponent in 6 rounds.

If those teams that wanted to try a melee setup were not forced to spend at least 50% of thier XP on defenses, I think would see a more balanced field.

Not to mention the RoBF would have a huge nerf with this, so there's like 25 happy people right off the bat.

Pwned February 25 2010 7:07 PM EST

Lol nice

Wraith +1

that does sound like a good plan :)

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] February 25 2010 7:41 PM EST

I miss CB forums, this imitation crap tastes awful.

AdminTitan February 25 2010 8:41 PM EST

Ranger, how about you quit trying to put propaganda in the forums... With a 10M ToA and my weapon, I'm doing way way more damage than a RoBF. RoBF's damage are pretty pitiful.

{Wookie}-Jir.Vr- February 25 2010 9:11 PM EST

Round 1 vs multiple targets, All relevant information:


Vs NWO (Poison)

Armor: 172 (Riot)
Armor: 43 (Chaos)

Aurora's Finale touches Riot [5737567]
Riot's Guardian Angel smote Aurora's Finale (2143760)

Deathmark touches Chaos [3285268]
Chaos's Guardian Angel smote Deathmark (1803564)


===================================================================

===================================================================

Vs The Iconics 3e (Nightstrike)

Armor: 71 (Alhandra)

Lidda cast Antimagic Field on Aurora's Finale (0.22)
Lidda cast Antimagic Field on Deathmark (0.32)

Aurora's Finale takes damage from his own Shocking Grasp (427817)!
Aurora's Finale touches Alhandra [1388704]

Deathmark takes damage from his own Shocking Grasp (437686)!
Deathmark touches Alhandra [1471864]


===================================================================

===================================================================

Vs Incompetent Duo (LightningRaider)

Armor: 159 (Inept Apprentice)

Homicidal Maid cast Antimagic Field on Aurora's Finale (0.14)
Homicidal Maid cast Antimagic Field on Deathmark (0.22)

Aurora's Finale takes damage from his own Shocking Grasp (272247)!
Aurora's Finale touches Inept Apprentice [2338809]

Deathmark takes damage from his own Shocking Grasp (300909)!
Deathmark touches Inept Apprentice [1687922]


===================================================================
===================================================================

Vs just a jigoro (dudemus)

Armor: 34 (capoeira master)

karate master cast Antimagic Field on Aurora's Finale (0.32)
karate master cast Antimagic Field on Deathmark (0.46)

Aurora's Finale takes damage from his own Shocking Grasp (622279)!
Aurora's Finale touches capoeira master [2755283]

Deathmark takes damage from his own Shocking Grasp (629173)!
Deathmark touches Kano-san [1044799]

That is round 1 of melee from 4 different targets. I think melee damage is pretty puny when you compare it to ... well any other damage.

Compare the damage of the largest Elb vs the largest Melee weapons...

I would suggest that Ranger or Zenai compare this damage from their builds using different weapons... Have Ranger take his average damage with his own Elb, then unequip the elb and take the average damage using Nov's ELS, or AA's MoD... (they would need to work this part out obviously)

I would imagine the numbers would be very enlightening.

AdminTitan February 25 2010 9:19 PM EST

Jir are you saying melee physical damage is low compared to melee magic damage?

{EQ}Viperboy February 25 2010 9:24 PM EST

I agree, melee is way underpowered. You have to take into account pros and cons, there is a pro cause you can do multiple hits, but there are alot of cons such as GA which can counter lower damage melee hits easily and kill you even if you hit alot. Also you have all your income go into the NW of your items and it still sucks... I think if you have to put money then melee damage has to be way more competitive vs magic. Because magic doesn't use CB so they get to make money and do more damage, seems kinda unfair that a high lvl mage with good GA can own tanks no matter their NW and other stuff.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 26 2010 3:41 AM EST

Food for thought.

Should Melee damage be balanced around Bloodlust?

Personally, I feel yes.

It's there only to provide Melee damage, and if you don't balance with it in minds, BL Tanks would do shockingly more damage than anything else (over 75% more to be exact).

In that case, if you're *not* using BL on a Melee Tank, you're not playing a 'DPS' Tank, but some other kind (Archer, or a Defensive set up) and really shouldn't be using non BL Melee Damage as any sort of indicator for Balance.

Archers, PL Tanks, Evasion Tanks, even UC Tanks, shouldn't be the basis for Melee *damage* Balance.

It's your choice not to run BL...

If we make Melee damage balanced wihtout taking BL into account, we;d have to give it some heafty drawback (like it used to have) for the trade off.

iBananco [Blue Army] February 26 2010 5:04 AM EST

Using non-BL damage for melee is like using non-archery damage for bows.

Ancient Anubis February 26 2010 5:46 AM EST

my melee damage is similar to my ranged damage both my weapons have the same upgrades +240 x10000 sod and mod. The only reason my ranged out dose my melee is that my ranged is getting 45% damage boost due to bgs whereas my bl is only at effect 33 so only a 33% boost to melee damage.

three4thsforsaken February 26 2010 10:41 AM EST

is the argument that melee damage is underpowered because it does much less than ranged?

Then why not reduce ranged damage?

QBRanger February 26 2010 11:13 AM EST

Then why not reduce ranged damage?

Ranged damage is perhaps the best defense vs the RBF.

Reduce ranged damage and the RBF wins.

I have pointed in other threads how the RBF's damage is not as small as people try to state.

A 10M RBF can do up to 2M damage a round, not subject to any damage mitigation other than AC while not subject to GA. Which is not an unusual tattoo size now.

One can say then people need both a missile and melee weapon, but to get decent damage, one would need tens if not hundreds of millions of CB in both weapons. Which is almost impractical except for perhaps the highest of USD spenders. And subject to ENC loads as novice is seeing.

If we want to keep the RBF as it is, then that has to be the lowest of missile/melee/magic damage. And lowest by a significant amount.

While missile is far higher than the RBF, melee is not. Which is why I posted this thread.

three4thsforsaken February 26 2010 11:27 AM EST

well, I was under the impression that Jon made a whole bunch of changes a while to make battles longer.

Because of that I am very doubtful a melee damage boost would be implemented. Sooner a damage nerf of the RoBF or ranged. Or both. I feel like that should put into the equation.

three4thsforsaken February 26 2010 11:31 AM EST

should be*

It's weird how when I type I skip words that I am thinking. :/

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 26 2010 11:46 AM EST

Good God Ranger.

It is.

Drop it please.

You're throwing out biased, random figures, just trying to prove whichever subject of the day it is you're trying to throw out to get the RBF nerfed. Melee Damage. Number of RBFs used. Whatever else.

Myself and others have tried to correct you, tried to show you to show unbiased comparisons, and tried to educate that the RBF does deal the lowest Damage in CB.

But you just won't listen.

So please, drop it.

I'm sorry if you take this yet again as some kind of slap in the face. It's not. But you're topics are getting frustratingly comical at the moment.

AdminShade February 26 2010 12:13 PM EST

Hmm, reading through this thread gives me a strange feeling, there are people who say Melee Damage is under powered, there are people saying it's just fine. (this is the way most discussions start. So far so good)



Ranger, I however don't get why you brought this topic into discussion as Ranged Physical damage has been this powerful for a long long time now We know ranged lasts for 5 rounds (6 with HoC) in which tanks aim to kill most if not all of the opponents minions. This has been the case for a lot of years now and will most likely will be.
Also I don't get it because I do not see you losing many battles or being attacked much. Does it affect you at all or would you like to see Melee Physical damage increased to make your character (and of course a lot of other characters) stronger? (either answer would be a good one, I am trying to view this objective)



But then, people say Melee Physical damage is under powered, while others prove that you can get decent damage without the huge X values. The RBF seems to be overpowered, somehow entwined into this entire topic, while I can't see the connection between them. The RBF is a tattoo, melee weapons are not. It's like comparing aids to cancer, both are diseases you can, and a lot of the times, will die from. (or compare pears and apples, for fruit lovers)



10M RBFs, not unusual at the level I fight,

I see 4 of them exist in the game out of 12 tattoos above 10 million level. Yes, that's 33% but I also see 25% of ToA's in this range. These 2 tattoos make up for more than 50% of all tattoos in >10 million level range. Nice stats but like rocks paper scissors, everything has a weakness and can be countered.

So please leave the RBF out of this comparison and compare melee weapons to ranged weapons (and perhaps to spells casting in melee) if you must compare in this way at all. Even then, comparing ranged and melee weapons is somewhat like comparing apples and mandarines, some are bigger, deal more damage but others can be used in close range to deal damage and for a longer duration than just 6 rounds.

I wonder what would happen if we would all train just HP and AS for a month (or a few months). What would caused by that? :)

Pwned February 26 2010 12:29 PM EST

I also didn't get the ROBF comments... why they are here....? They arnt related to the topic subject.

But seriously The Morg and BoTh don't do their damage. I would love to make a Melee only but its not viable in CB. Look at my pic! Thats what I want to make! A crazy samurai!

Pwned February 26 2010 12:32 PM EST

All items that increase damage are by a percentage and none of them are for melee. Why? Ranged Combat. Almost all defensive gear reduces nonspell damage. Where is the melee love?? Wheres my dual wield?

three4thsforsaken February 26 2010 12:36 PM EST

I really don't think RoBF should be nerfed in any way. I just conceded the point because I really don't want to go on a tangent.

QBRanger February 26 2010 12:46 PM EST

The reason I brought up the RBF as melee damage should be considerably more.

I have seen, contrary to others that tell me to "shut up", melee damage is not considerably more than the RBF.

Missile damage is, which it should be.

I cannot chat about magic damage as I do not use it.
Drop it please.

Of course coming from a RBF user!

Pwned February 26 2010 12:57 PM EST

I just want melee to be viable in CB dangit! Soooooooooooooooooo much!

I could make a melee but it would be gimped from the beginning, severely lacking any competitive form. It would be like the other melee'ers atm, just a big pile of MPR & NW not fully utilized.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 26 2010 1:08 PM EST

/sigh

Yes I use the RoBF currently. I've also used a FF, Jig and RoS recently.

And this is still a logical fallacy.

Ranger, your OP is biased, with incomplete figures used specifically to further your point, and not to provide any objective study of game balance.

It is also a thinnly vieled nerf the RoBF thread. You don't want Ranged damage nerfed, you don't really want Melee damage buffed (which as been pointed out, you don't use BL, so can't really compare your damage anyway...). You just want the RoBF nerfed.

We get it.

Truely we do.

Yet you offer nothing but your subjective opinions, and figures seeming pulle dfrom the air, on this matter no matter how many times it's been objectively explained in return.

If you *really* want, I can continue this farce and ask for JS to post some heavily AC reduced RoBF pitifully small damage values, and compare those versus some Massive multipe Melee hits from someone like JW (or anyone else who wouldn't mind) hitting a zero Dex, zero AC target, with BL and a large SoC flash.

Then make the claim that Melee Damage is so much more ZOMG Overpowered than the RoBF and make umpteen threads all about buffing the RoBF damage.

If you want.

I'd rather not though.

If this thread is *really* about a Comparison of Ranged to Melee damage, then start producing some objective, balanced, observations. Like an ELBow Archer and a BL Bone Tank with similar STR and Weapon X versus zero AC.

Number of hits don't matter a jot.

Or we can let this thread die peacefully, and move on.

QBRanger February 26 2010 1:11 PM EST

I too wish melee would be more viable.

Between having to last 6 rounds from archers/Sod users, MM and FB, then having to deal with CoC/SG and the RBF, it is very hard to make it as a pure melee tank.

Then add in the frustrations of having to avoid getting hit from the exbow for 6 rounds and you have a real problem.

For those trying to use both missile and melee, that is 2 weapons you have to upgrade decently.

And if BL is a requirement to use melee adequately, then forget about using the Mageseeker or ELB to soften up your opponent since your damage without it is quite low.

The 2 choices I really see is using a SoD or exbow in missile. Each of which have their plusses and minuses.

To Shade;
> Ranger, I however don't get why you brought this topic into discussion as Ranged Physical damage has been this powerful for a long long time now We know ranged lasts for 5 rounds (6 with HoC) in which tanks aim to kill most if not all of the opponents minions. This has been the case for a lot of years now and will most likely will be. Also I don't get it because I do not see you losing many battles or being attacked much. Does it affect you at all or would you like to see Melee Physical damage increased to make your character (and of course a lot of other characters) stronger? (either answer would be a good one, I am trying to view this objective)

I did not broach ranged damage till 3/4ths stated perhaps ranged damage should be lowered. Please agree with me on that.

I was looking at what I perceived as an imbalance in the game. This was not to make my own character stronger as I cannot use BL and have no need for a melee weapon.

I have tried using a melee weapon, about 70M NW and found the damage (yes, without BL) pitiful and not worth the 35M more into my ELB.

Contrary to what most everyone believes, I do not post every thread trying to give myself an advantage. I had hoped I had shown that in numerous other threads but people have short memories.

I want CB to succeed and increasing melee damage may perhaps get more melee tanks in the game as this part of the game seems quite abandoned.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 26 2010 1:12 PM EST

We would get more Melee Tanks from reducing Ranged Damage....

QBRanger February 26 2010 1:16 PM EST

It is also a thinnly vieled nerf the RoBF thread.

Actually you want it to be that way.

I know the RBF will not be changed. But melee damage, as I have seen it, is not on par with how it should be.

I thought my example in the first post was a nice indication.

I guess that example is not?

13 MILLION strength, with x14k ELS doing 1.3M a hit. Vs 68 AC.
How much damage would a 10M RBF, which is about the level of tattoos where I fight, would do a "lot less"? Or more?

It seems you are the one who wants this to "go away" and let melee damage be too low and the RBF to rule in the game.

iBananco [Blue Army] February 26 2010 1:20 PM EST

Ranger, could you post your damage output without archery?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 26 2010 1:21 PM EST

I hope you just don't understand, and aren't being obtuse on purpose.

I really do.

If you really want to discuss this, I'd be more than happy to go through, highlight each point, and explain where you're going wrong.

But only if you agree to stop the stuipd Logical Fallacies, which just belittle you, and don't ignore the points we're discussing to move the thread into another direction.

I'm also equally happy just to walk away from this lame thread and never open it again.

Your call.

QBRanger February 26 2010 1:24 PM EST

If you really want to discuss this, I'd be more than happy to go through, highlight each point, and explain where you're going wrong.


Please do. Since I think you are the obtuse one not seeing my point about how low comparatively melee damage really is. If my example of novice and his ELS does not show this, I do not know where I am going wrong.
Ranger, could you post your damage output without archery?

Perhaps I am obtuse on this point, but archery has no bearing on damage.

Just the amount of times you hit. Which lowers overall damage but not damage per hit if that is your question.

QBRanger February 26 2010 1:27 PM EST

We would get more Melee Tanks from reducing Ranged Damage....

Actually you would get less tanks overall. Since their missile weapons would not be as useful.

I think, IMO, one would get more RBF users than melee tanks.

Why use a weapon that, IMO, does good but not great damage, when you can use the RBF and get GA invulnerablity and autohitting. No dexterity or strength needed. No huge DM needed to stop GA.

But if this does happen, lowering significantly of missile damage, I would then hope we do get a free retraining period so people can adapt to that change. With a bunch of base tattoos also.

Mythology [The Knighthood] February 26 2010 1:34 PM EST

GL, perhaps things change higher up in the rankings, all I know is from my time working up the rankings the one thing that stands out is the RoBF damage.

Just fought a battle and RoBF nailed my team for 1mil damage, as my highest blow ever is 588K and my guys only have 2mil hp between them and that's with huge focus on hp training you saying RoBF does not have high damage really does not sound right from where I'm sitting.

The fact the damage alone has seemed to me to be massively overpowered and in addition it gives evasion and DD protection just makes the game into how many people slowly realise RoBF or play a different game.

Mythology [The Knighthood] February 26 2010 1:39 PM EST

Let me put it simpler GL if weighing up RoBF v Melee Dmg

RoBF DMG :

-Pros
Huge dmg
Auto hits never misses
Doesnt get GA retal
Get Evasion too
Get DD Resistance

-Cons
None



Melee DMG :

-Pros
Can get multiple hits
Can use VA if other guy doesnt use DM or PL (about 3 people?)

-Cons
Huge Cost
Have to Train STR + DEX
GA retals often as big as you hit for anyway so more dmg = you die faster

QBRanger February 26 2010 1:43 PM EST

Ranger, your OP is biased, with incomplete figures used specifically to further your point, and not to provide any objective study of game balance.

GL, are you starting to possibly see things how I am seeing them?

I am just trying to make things a bit more equal in terms of risk/reward with respect to melee damage.

Myth perfectly summed up the points and even gave a nice example.

iBananco [Blue Army] February 26 2010 1:48 PM EST

Perhaps I am obtuse on this point, but archery has no bearing on damage. Just the amount of times you hit. Which lowers overall damage but not damage per hit if that is your question.


Lack of archery lowers damage per round. Lack of BL likewise lowers damage per round.

QBRanger February 26 2010 1:50 PM EST

Lack of archery lowers damage per round. Lack of BL likewise lowers damage per round.

I have never read that, at least I cannot.

Can you find where this is stated to be a fact? It is not in the wiki and I cannot find it in changelogs.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 26 2010 1:51 PM EST

1) Physcial Damage Comparions;

You are comparing an ELS with 13M STR versus 'some' (possibly your own) Ranged weapons.

Listing the total damage done versus a set AC.

You fail to address other reductions to this damage, such as Dexterity differencies, PTH and - PTH differencies, PL, SoC and Leaderships.

Which can all effect 'average' damages, if that's what you want to compare.

To form an unbiased test, you need to take two equivalent versions, and test them versus the same conditions.

If you're looking at Physical damage, number of hits is meaningless. Potentially, each 'weapon' (if equivalent in size) can reach the same number of hits, and will do, if facing the same target. The diference in Base hits is (or rather is assumed to be) built into the Balance of the wepaons themselves, so agian, can be ignored.

Take an average of multilpe individual hits of both, and compare that.

If you're hitting the same target, it doesn't matter what AC, or DEX, or minus PTH the taget has, as both set ups are feeling the same effects.

2) Comparing Physical Melee to other Melee Damages.

You compare a 'nerfed' (Dex difference, AC reduction, -PTH) Physical attack to a best case RoBF damage.

This is biased, and totally unproductive. You can't form any balance conclusions from that.

As for the Melee DD spells, you are assuming that a 10M trained DD is equivalent to the size of STR and Weapon you are comparing. That's too much of a leap. And again, it's the OP comparion is biased. While you mention AMF Reduction (but leave the MGS/EH unmentioned), you leave a best case value up for comaprison, leading the audience to agree to your supposition.

You also ignore CoC.

None of us know how Physical is balanced to DD spells. I doubt we ever will.

3) Logical Fallacies

Continuing to accuse RoBF users as being biased in thier conclusions is an;

Ad hominem circumstantial fallacy
Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false


4) The OP want's Melee damage to be buffed

But in conclusion of this, you don't provide any unbiased comparisons to base the arguement on.

5) RoBF damage.

Let's drop it for this thread. It's been explained, in detail, to be the lowes tin the game in numerous past threads.

iBananco [Blue Army] February 26 2010 1:53 PM EST

I don't have the original Ahmes Papyrus, but I'm pretty sure it's been known for a while that multiplying a positive number by a larger number yields a larger product.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 26 2010 1:54 PM EST

Ranger, JS is just stating that number of hits, be it from DEX or PTH, is just a damage multiplyer, exactly like BL.

AdminShade February 26 2010 1:55 PM EST

That summary might be perfect, it does not include all the details I think. The RoBF does have cons, even if they are only small.

I would seriously like to see this thread get more well constructed to have NightStrike and others be able to read this properly and swift. Also I would like to warn people to not snipe at each other or edge towards this. People have different opinions, respect them in that way and try to point out your beliefs instead of stating the other is wrong. Both parties are right, from a different point of view.



Anyway, enough of admin talk. Melee damage too low, I can't really say as I have gone from Tank to Familiar dealing my damage for little over a year. Not that my damage output then was too low, I wanted a change. I get my behind busted by tank based teams more than mage ones, or perhaps that's my idea.

AdminTitan February 26 2010 1:57 PM EST

Ranger, if you hit less, you do less damage per round. Also, 1.3 x 1.75 = 2.275. And we all know that you'll be hitting around 2 times versus a lot of people, so that would be 6.825M damage in melee (8.125M in round one). Now let's see, 8M in one round, yeah, I think there's some 40M RoBFs that do that damage...

Mythology [The Knighthood] February 26 2010 1:57 PM EST

" The RoBF does have cons, even if they are only small. "

Okay, I made a pretty concise list of pros and cons for melee and RoBF, you can't really just say 'well it does, though I cant think of any'

AdminTitan February 26 2010 1:58 PM EST

sorry, should be 3 times*.

QBRanger February 26 2010 2:04 PM EST

Now were chatting:

Point by point:
Physcial Damage Comparions;

You state in one paragraph number of hits is meaningless yet state dex differences have to be taken into account.

I have not compared missile to melee damage as I know completely that missile is higher. I am stating how low melee damage is compared to other forms of MELEE damage.

3/4ths brought up missile damage in the thread and I addressed that point briefly.
Comparing Physical Melee to other Melee Damages.

This is the meat of the discussion!

I am NOT comparing nerfed melee damage to other damages. I am using my character, with 68 AC as a standard. Vs novice with his massive ELS and 13M strength he does 1.2M damage.

10M RBF's, which are normal where I fight, would do about 1.8M.
If you would like to give some data on magic damage, that would be great. I use DM for many reasons and can only give the data I have vs huge CoC characters. Which is over 4M vs a 10M CoC.
Logical Fallacies

I calls them as I sees them. The only people who love the RBF and state is it perfectly balanced are the RBF users. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
The OP want's Melee damage to be buffed

OP? I want melee buffed, so am I overpowered. Or I may be yet more dense for not understanding this statement.
RoBF damage.

You state that it is proven to be the lowest in the game. And yet I disagree due to many factors including how I posted novices damage above.

But you miss my point.

Myth stated, as well as many others including me, the pros/cons of the RBF and melee damage.

One HAS to compare melee to RBF damage in any discussion of melee damage. As a constant. The RBF damage is constant subject ONLY to AC mitigation. That is a faact.

But if melee damage does not have an equal or better reward/risk ratio than the RBF, why would people ever use it?

Right now, I cannot see the reward/risk ratio of melee damage being good enough for people to use it over the RBF or DD.

That should be almost a proven given the paucity of melee tanks.

Of course, I cannot 100% prove this fact, but the amount of evidence highly suggests it.

QBRanger February 26 2010 2:09 PM EST

I don't have the original Ahmes Papyrus, but I'm pretty sure it's been known for a while that multiplying a positive number by a larger number yields a larger product.

What are you typing about? Archery as I read, only effects your chance to hit.

If you are typing about total damage vs individual hits, you can multiple by 5 I guess as archery goes from 20% chance to hit to 100% chance to hit.

But it sort of is a strange case, as archery just gives you a normal chance to hit. It does not give any bonuses to damage or to hit.

So one can look at not having archery learned as a PENALTY of 80% on damage rather than a bonus to damage. Which is the way I look at archery. Not a bonus but a penalty if not learned.

iBananco [Blue Army] February 26 2010 2:12 PM EST

So you're saying that if bows had a BTH of 20 and archery multiplied that by up to 5, you'd consider that a bonus, not a penalty? Despite it being EXACTLY the same situation?

AdminTitan February 26 2010 2:18 PM EST

No, No JS. It's the other way around. Not having BL is a PENALTY. Right Ranger?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 26 2010 2:21 PM EST

:) Now this, I'm enjoying. ;)
You state in one paragraph number of hits is meaningless yet state dex differences have to be taken into account.


Yes. In your OP (Original Post! :P) you list three hits as the basis of your damage comparison.

This is biased due to in the least, the Dex difference betwen you and Nov.

It would be best to ignore number of hits, but compare individual hits. You can then extrapolate those to any number of potential hits a round, if needed.
I have not compared missile to melee damage as I know completely that missile is higher. I am stating how low melee damage is compared to other forms of MELEE damage.


I was confused by;

"Seems to me, even though it is "only" 14k compared to over 25k on some missile weapons"

OK, so this thread is nothing to do with Ranged versus Melee. But purely Physical Melee versus SG and RoBF.

Or in other words a nerf RoBF thread (by buffing Melee Damage).

>I am NOT comparing nerfed melee damage to other damages. I am using my character, with 68 AC as a standard. Vs novice with his massive ELS and 13M strength he does 1.2M damage.

Nov's damage is nerfed by your Dex, and other items.

You need to show a totally unreduced, overall damage, for Nov's wepaon.

>10M RBF's, which are normal where I fight, would do about 1.8M.
If you would like to give some data on magic damage, that would be great. I use DM for many reasons and can only give the data I have vs huge CoC characters. Which is over 4M vs a 10M CoC.

Nah, we can leave Magic out of this. It's easy to calculte what damage a spell *could* do. But the problem is we have *no* idea at what size they're balanced.

Is 13M STR equivalent to a 13M DD? How are SG and CoC balanced with each other? At what AC amount is SG balanced around.

All stuff we can't answer.

But I'd like to know. ;)
I calls them as I sees them. The only people who love the RBF and state is it perfectly balanced are the RBF users. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.


It's still a total fallacy,and you should really not rely on, or accuse others, of fallacies.

I could equally turn round and state "You're wrong, as you use a Melee Wepaon and only want to see them buffed".

It's the same fallacy.
OP? I want melee buffed, so am I overpowered. Or I may be yet more dense for not understanding this statement.


Sorry for the confusion, as above, it was meant to mean Original Post, and not Over Powered.
You state that it is proven to be the lowest in the game. And yet I disagree due to many factors including how I posted novices damage above.


Let's leave this. Please? The last thread had enough informaiton in it on this.
Myth stated, as well as many others including me, the pros/cons of the RBF and melee damage.


That list isn't toally accurate, but I don't want to get into it.
One HAS to compare melee to RBF damage in any discussion of melee damage. As a constant. The RBF damage is constant subject ONLY to AC mitigation. That is a faact.


Sure, but we *need* to compare like for like.

Zero AC, 20 Dex Physical multiple hits, to zero AC RBF hit.

It's the only way to get a balanced comparison.
But if melee damage does not have an equal or better reward/risk ratio than the RBF, why would people ever use it?


Strategy.

Like VA and being able to 'buff' your damage thorugh money, items and other team members.
Right now, I cannot see the reward/risk ratio of melee damage being good enough for people to use it over the RBF or DD.


Really? Why are so many poeople using it then. Rather than all playing CoC archers?
Of course, I cannot 100% prove this fact, but the amount of evidence highly suggests it.


If we all played Melee Archers, or just used Ranged Wepaon into Melee, then sure.

AdminShade February 26 2010 2:23 PM EST

It would be best to ignore number of hits, but compare individual hits. You can then extrapolate those to any number of potential hits a round, if needed.

It would indeed, because (not sure but I think at least) the RoBF only hits 1 time per round whereas melee weapons can hit more (but also less of course, duh)

QBRanger February 26 2010 2:32 PM EST

Zero AC, 20 Dex Physical multiple hits, to zero AC RBF hit. It's the only way to get a balanced comparison.


One cannot do just that as all the minions melee tanks face are not of the 20 dex variety without evasion/DB.

They face a number of different minions, all with different dexterities and some using evasion/DBs.

I can give more info on my battles with novice, however his hits on my tank are all about the same, about 1.1-1.5M damage.

Again, I disagee with the RBF being the lowest of all damages. I just proved in my OP that the RBF can do more damage vs my tank. And likely a few other tanks in the game.

One also has to figure in the following point:

I really do not care if novice does 100M damage to my enchanters. They are there for a kill slot. How much he does to my tank matters. The RBF does a lot more to my tank than any melee weapon.

There are plenty of other tanks out there who are in the same situation.

When comparing the RBF and melee damage, one has to include number of hits, correct.

But one cannot say melee does 3 hits a round and compare the damage x 3 vs the RBF. As all the minions do not have 20 dex without evasion or DBs.

I do not have the stats on what type of minions melee tanks face, or if they use evasion/DBs. I can only type from the experiences I have fighting and by other posts like Myth's I read.

To get on my soapbox for one minute you state:
Let's leave this. Please? The last thread had enough informaiton in it on this.

That is what they once stated about the world being flat. Or of global warming.

All I can see if the paucity of melee tanks.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 26 2010 2:32 PM EST

Nah, that would be just for the Physical to Physical comparison, which isn't actually the aim of the thread.

For Physical to RoBF, you'd have to compare full number of hits versus the RoBF's single.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 26 2010 2:39 PM EST

One cannot do just that as all the minions melee tanks face are not of the 20 dex variety without evasion/DB.


No.

This is your biggest mistake.

In game results are all good, for in game revelations.

But not for overall balance discussions.

What you're doing is bringing the myriad of strategy into your balance. And that's just aiming to fail.

You *have* to compare like for like.

And the best way of doing that is at the baseline. Without DEX, without AC implications.

Again, I disagee with the RBF being the lowest of all damages. I just proved in my OP that the RBF can do more damage vs my tank. And likely a few other tanks in the game.


That sort of proof is the type anyone can do. Can't you see that? I tohught you'd be more attuned to that with all your political debates here. Biased stats can prove anything.

I said above I could produce a set that prooved the RoBF was severly underpowered to Melee.
I really do not care if novice does 100M damage to my enchanters. They are there for a kill slot. How much he does to my tank matters. The RBF does a lot more to my tank than any melee weapon.


Strategy. Use a 500 AC Wall, then complain about RoBF. If a Physical Tank has problems with high AC, they could, at the very least use a VB.

The RoBF has *nothing* it can pick to augement it versus high AC.

But this is totally off topic now.
But one cannot say melee does 3 hits a round and compare the damage x 3 vs the RBF. As all the minions do not have 20 dex without evasion or DBs.


Again, this is strategy. The majority of RBF wearers will probably have zero Dex. And a high Evasion. Some might not. It's all strategy.

We have to be objective with Balance concerns, and baseline is the only way of doing it.

>That is what they once stated about the world being flat. Or of global warming.

??

The other thread spelt it all out. But you ignored it. All.

I don't want to revisit that thread, but it's all there.

iBananco [Blue Army] February 26 2010 2:47 PM EST

I disagree with GL in that purely unreduced damage should be used. You need to take a reasonable middle ground, like 2-3 hits per round against 60-100AC or 4-5 hits per round against 200+.

QBRanger February 26 2010 2:49 PM EST

It really seems that we disagree about this statement:
And the best way of doing that is at the baseline. Without DEX, without AC implications.

I firmly believe that you have to factor in dex/DB/evasion when looking at melee vs RBF damage.

You just have to in order to see which is higher/lower/same.

Since the RBF is unaffected by dex/evasion/db/ga/amf/ec one has to compared real damage vs real damage.

If there was an item that did 100M damage vs unarmed opponents, but did 100 damage vs someone with 1 or more AC, would you still use 100M damage as the basis of whether an item is too powerful?

No you would use 100 as it is the effective damage.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 26 2010 2:50 PM EST

What's a reasonable equivalent reduction for both though?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 26 2010 2:51 PM EST

I firmly believe that you have to factor in dex/DB/evasion when looking at melee vs RBF damage.


Which is fine if you apply equivalent reduction to the RoBF damage.

But then I refer you to my above post.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 26 2010 2:52 PM EST

If there was an item that did 100M damage vs unarmed opponents, but did 100 damage vs someone with 1 or more AC, would you still use 100M damage as the basis of whether an item is too powerful?


EXBow springs to mind there...

OP versus Tanks, not OP versus everything without STR.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 26 2010 2:57 PM EST

4! Besides, we had a reduced figure verus a reduced figure anyway in the other thread.

JS poasted RoBF damage versus high AC. But you didn't cmpare that to your reduced Physical hits. We could go back to that information if you want.

QBRanger February 26 2010 3:01 PM EST

JS poasted RoBF damage versus high AC. But you didn't cmpare that to your reduced Physical hits. We could go back to that information if you want.

I did not as melee damage would be lowered the same way.

I have shown a RBF, typical at the level I fight, vs novices ELS with 13M strength.

If I had 350 AC, the damage on each would be lowered the same proportion, no?

Also, the exbow is not a damage primary based item. It works on doing something far worse for the game. To compare the exbow to the RBF/melee damage is not applicable.

If JS had melee damage vs RBF damage based upon a 350+ AC minion, I would love to see that comparison. But I think it would not differ much from my 68 AC comparison as both lower damage by the same amount, .167% per unit.

QBRanger February 26 2010 3:08 PM EST

Just a FYI, this from about a 7M level RBF, not even in the top 10 of all RBFs so I do not know the exact level:

Dog burns from the flames surrounding Okay (1207847)

Dog burns from the flames surrounding Okay (1218366)

Dog burns from the flames surrounding Okay (1374932)

.. February 26 2010 3:18 PM EST

HellFyre lvl 7,076,197

in case anyone wanted to know

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] February 26 2010 3:26 PM EST

Ranger, you are using biased situation at the very least. You failed to point out that you are using 1 of the top 3 hardest to hit with physical damage minions. You can't use only 1 side of a cube and say that's all there is. That's not a cube but a square. You have a very high physical damage reduction and at the same time a low robf damage reduction.

In order to properly analyze you would need to use multiple situations ranging from no reductions, mid level reductions against each, high reduction vs one or the other. High reduction vs both. Then you need to include buffs and special additions.

Suffice to say you can't take 1 example and say this proves everything.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] February 26 2010 3:50 PM EST

As an example, I could use my own tank. With 295 AC and 4.1 mil dex.

Against Mikel I take 1.1 mil damage per round average from his RoBF.

Against Nov I take triple hits of 800k average per hit, with the occasional quad hit.

I have just shown that Nov's ELS far out damages Mikel's RoBF, and this is even against a significant dex disadvantage as my dex is twice his.

Does this actually prove anything? No it doesn't, it just shows a different face of the situation.

QBJohnnywas February 26 2010 3:50 PM EST

A sixth of the top 25 teams use a melee based tank, despite the supposedly low damage. You can increase that to a third if you include Jigs and UC.

(I include mine, which despite my using archery is really an old fashioned Morg based team)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 26 2010 3:54 PM EST

I did not as melee damage would be lowered the same way.


You lowered Melee damage in this way in your example...

That's the point. But you're totally ignoring it.

Which is fine, but then if you do, we need to go back to the baseline, to get an unbiased sample. For both types...

QBRanger February 26 2010 4:18 PM EST

Does this actually prove anything? No it doesn't, it just shows a different face of the situation.


Well that is hard and fast numbers.

However, you do not use Dbs as I can see.

But thanks for the information.

I still think melee damage is underpowered but perhaps not as much.

1/6th of the top 25 is just 4 melee tanks. But if you are counting The Immortals as one of the 4, that is probably not right as all his battles end before 7 rounds. The ones he fights and wins, so I am unsure exactly how much the MoD he uses helps.

Failure is a RBF user, so who are the 4 exactly aside from you?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 26 2010 4:33 PM EST

However, you do not use Dbs as I can see


Exacly the point I've been making, and why we have to take strategy out of the equation. And why we need to start (even if you want to get more values at varying levels or reductions) with a baseline.

Wraithlin February 26 2010 4:44 PM EST

Talalicious burns from the flames surrounding Gruk (1480738)

Talalicious glanced off of Turok [363135]
Talalicious glanced off of Turok [158409]
Talalicious scratched Turok [201397]

So that is one line of combat with me vs a ToA with an ELS.

I'm hitting a target with no defenses, so dealing max damage with my RoBF.

he is hitting a 314 armor tank, so 52% damage reduction.

His total round damage is 720k damage roughly, which means 1.42M if he was also hitting a no armor target as I am.

So melee does 60k less damage in a round than RoBF.

Oh wait...I have 1 mil more MPR on my guy than the ToA.

GG ranger.

Unless you want to argue that when Titan gets 50% larger he won't destroy my damage per round.

QBJohnnywas February 26 2010 4:50 PM EST

Failure is a RBF team, but with a BL tank on board too, as it has been for a long time regardless of the tattoo..

QBRanger February 26 2010 5:12 PM EST

Wrath,

In all fairness, you do have 2.5M effect of EC. That significantly lowers Titan's damage.

But you do bring a point that there are many, many ways to lower melee damage but there is only 1 to lower the RBF damage.

TheHatchetman February 26 2010 5:18 PM EST

In all fairness, you do have 2.5M effect of EC. That significantly lowers Titan's damage.


Shows that with over 60% of his ST gone he's hitting for comparable damage to a RoBF against someone with a 50% MPR advantage.
But you do bring a point that there are many, many ways to lower melee damage but there is only 1 to lower the RBF damage.


I miss when the VB was still an arguable option.

Wraithlin February 26 2010 6:15 PM EST

But you do bring a point that there are many, many ways to lower melee damage but there is only 1 to lower the RBF damage.


Proven multiple times in every thread on the subject. RoBF is the lowest damage in the game. Why would it need more than one way to lower it?

QBRanger February 26 2010 10:30 PM EST

"Proven multiple times in every thread on the subject. RoBF is the lowest damage in the game."

Yes, I would now agree it is the lowest potential damage in the game.

But after all the layers of damage reduction, I still believe that melee damage is very close to if not less overall. Counting all the minions with 20 dex, those with evasion/DB and those with high dex. Due to the sheer number of modifiers that can lower physical damage vs AC only for the RBF.

Add the fact that GA works vs melee damage and does not vs the RBF, I believe melee damage is overall less effective and should be raised to compensate.

I would say this based upon my experience. Again, I am just one character near the top. I have fought in tournaments and experienced much of the same. I even tried a 75M melee weapon on Heroes and quickly disenchanted it due to its pitiful overall damage compared to my elb, even with 60% less dex/PTH and every other round fire.

In this context of a discussion, do others agree or disagree with what I am seeing when I play.

Wraithlin February 27 2010 12:36 AM EST

Did you have BL trained when you used the weapon that saw pitiful damage.

And comparing melee damage to ranged is just silly. Ranged damage is supposed to be higher, that's why you only get 5-6 rounds of it before it gets nerfed in melee rounds.

And yes, if your opponent spends more money on his gear than you do on yours then melee is going to have a rough time, but that is perfectly expected and desired.

If someone builds a heavy AC wall, there is no amount of money or anything at all you can do to up your RoBF damage, you're just not going to beat that guy.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 27 2010 3:29 AM EST

But after all the layers of damage reduction, I still believe that melee damage is very close to if not less overall.


And that, is balance. ;)

Not everyone you hit with a big stick will have layers of damage reduction. Some will, some won't.

And after all of it, both Melee and the RoBF put out comparable damage.

That couldn't *be* more balanced. ;)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 27 2010 3:31 AM EST

Add the fact that GA works vs melee damage and does not vs the RBF, I believe melee damage is overall less effective and should be raised to compensate.


Nope.

Balance GA instead.

AdminShade February 27 2010 5:34 AM EST

Wouldn't GA not increase its damage against higher Melee Damage?

What I mean with this is if you would do 100000 damage vs a fixed level of GA, would it deal the same backlash damage when you deal 200000 damage vs that same level of GA?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 27 2010 8:25 AM EST

Easier to break the cap mate.

Wraithlin February 27 2010 9:44 AM EST

If you break a GA cap with a melee hit then you need to pick targets that aren't 1/10th your MPR.

TheHatchetman February 27 2010 9:54 AM EST

wow... what 300k MPR world are you guys living in where the GA "cap" comes into effect for anything but a large SG? Past 2m MPR, GA is cast, and either dispelled, well over cap, or he/she who is training it really needs to look at their XP distribution :P

QBRanger February 27 2010 10:30 AM EST

And after all of it, both Melee and the RoBF put out comparable damage.

And that is my point.

If the RBF is not subject to GA and melee is, with comparable damage, why use the RBF.

Yes, I know the standard talking points.

But in reality, why? Melee damage costs a lot of CB, is vulnerable to GA and takes strength and dexterity to use.

I may be the only one who thinks GA is fine where it is. It is a great foil for all those high damage characters as Rawr found out vs all those archers out there.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 27 2010 10:48 AM EST

Becuase;

It's strategy.

The RBF sucks up your Tattoo Slot. It can't be boosted and fails (hard) versus High AC targets.

Physical Melee can be use din conjunction with VA. You can boost it with USD to get a leg up over your competition.

Under similar circumstances, they both put out equivalent damage (with Melee capable of hitting for much more. Or less. Sustained versus Burst agian. Or rather Average versus Extremes). That's balanced.

If Melee *always* did more damage than the RBF, in every situation possible, there owuld be no reason to use one. And conversely likewise.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 27 2010 10:50 AM EST

I may be the only one who thinks GA is fine where it is. It is a great foil for all those high damage characters as Rawr found out vs all those archers out there


I think you are. ;)

It's a foil versus *everyone*. It also sucpper the CB tradition of fighting up, as you can't, unless you (with lower MPR) amage to have more than 60% (plus damage cuased to you) of the HP your larger taget has.

GA is far too powerful atm. And DM doesn't really cope with it well enough. Plus DM is also limiting in use, mostely taking out your ability to have the only defense versus Decay in the game.

QBRanger February 27 2010 10:56 AM EST

O C'mon.

We have plenty of defenses to decay in the game already. Perhaps not for single minions, but hey, single minions are boring anyway :)

I personally believe GA is a great foil for all those high damage characters. Whether they use SG or an ELB.

I would prefer in this case not to make things too easy.

But back to melee damage, if you state that melee and RBF damage, after modification are about the same, then how can you explain melee being anywhere equal overall to the RBF given GA?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] February 27 2010 11:00 AM EST

If Melee *always* did more damage than the RBF, in every situation possible, there owuld be no reason to use one. And conversely likewise.


interestingly enough, that seems to be what is happening with the robf as compared to other tats at the current time. whether you see that as one being overpowered or all of the others being underpowered it is likely more convenient to fix one rather than fixing many.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 27 2010 11:11 AM EST

But back to melee damage, if you state that melee and RBF damage, after modification are about the same, then how can you explain melee being anywhere equal overall to the RBF given GA?


Answered above.

Strategy. Don't fight target with GA. Or utilise Melee's ability to uber pump your wepaon with USD. Or use VA. Or use a combination of VA and Morg to make GA do zero damage to you.

TheHatchetman February 27 2010 11:17 AM EST

Go heavy tank! It's only weaknesses are SG and changemonths >:D

QBRanger February 27 2010 11:46 AM EST

Strategy. Don't fight target with GA. Or utilise Melee's ability to uber pump your wepaon with USD. Or use VA. Or use a combination of VA and Morg to make GA do zero damage to you.

Great ideas.

But if you use the RBF, guess what. You do not have to worry about learning VA, or avoiding GA, or spending CB on your weapon, or having to choose between using a Morg or ELS.

You slap on a RBF and do, on average, the same damage as a RBF, with none of the problems of having a weapon.

Seems a very simple choice to me.

Can you please answer the question of who are the 4 melee tanks in the top 25? I can see RBF/melee, SoD/melee, MsB/melee. But on most of those, how much does the melee part really change the battle.

I stated on AA's character, he almost never gets to melee. Without his MoD, he would lose how many from his fightlist. I wonder how much the melee weapon on Failure matters as well.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] February 27 2010 11:51 AM EST

So if the problem is fights ending too fast to get to melee how is the solution increasing melee damage? Shouldn't it be nerfing ranged weapons
or decreasing the number of ranged rounds?

Little Anthony February 27 2010 12:00 PM EST

when was the last time huge weapon is still upgrade at 5mil NW/week?

QBJohnnywas February 27 2010 12:03 PM EST

I lose a quarter of my fightlist if I remove my Morg. For instance, against NWO, although my mageseeker helps me kill the mage I can't beat the team without the Morg.

QBRanger February 27 2010 12:22 PM EST

So if the problem is fights ending too fast to get to melee how is the solution increasing melee damage? Shouldn't it be nerfing ranged weapons

That is a nice discussion for another thread.

However this one is about melee damage and how low it is compared to other options in melee.

I have pointed out that there are very few melee tanks and am still waiting for contrary points.

It was pointed out there are 4 out of the top 25. But out of those 4, how many are true melee tanks? All seem to have missile damage or RBF capacity in addition.

While RBF users, the other type of melee damage, seem to focus almost entirely on that damage.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 27 2010 12:35 PM EST

I have pointed out that there are very few melee tanks and am still waiting for contrary points.


/sigh

That's becuase Ranged Tank are so much better....

Lower Ranged Damage, less Ranged Tank. Voila!

TourneyPrizes February 27 2010 12:38 PM EST

Lower Ranged Damage, less Ranged Tank. Voila!

Yes, certainly.

However, I doubt we will see melee tanks. I suspect most will go to RBF given its advantages over melee.

AdminShade February 27 2010 12:39 PM EST

Please leave TourneyPrizes out of this! =p

Wraithlin February 27 2010 12:40 PM EST

why are we talking about ranged tanks and melee tanks as different. You realize you can use both a missile weapon and a melee weapon, and if you really want to maximize your damage you should.

If you want to maximize your ranged damage, grab an elb and archery.

If you want to maximize your melee damage, grab a crossbow or sling and bloodlust.

Why are we even comparing melee and ranged damage?

I guess you can save some money and use ranged weapons in melee or not use a ranged weapon at all. But you're saving money to not deal damage, you might as well at the very least rent something.

QBRanger February 27 2010 12:46 PM EST

Why are we even comparing melee and ranged damage?


I am not, I am trying to show melee damage is too low for the current game.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 27 2010 1:00 PM EST

However, I doubt we will see melee tanks. I suspect most will go to RBF given its advantages over melee.


I doubt it.

I tihnk people will ditch archery for BL nd use their current massive Wepaons with a ToA rather then reink to a RoBF and retrain thier STR/DEX and Disenchant thier weapon...

QBJohnnywas February 27 2010 1:00 PM EST

Ok, so melee damage gets BL boost for some, SoC help for others like me.

12,858,261

That's my MPB, That's from a SoC/Morg hit in melee. That's without BL.

How many things in the game hit like that, at any point in a battle. I'd like to see an RBF do that.

By all means raise physical melee damage - I'd like that a lot. But don't try to claim a tank can't do huge amounts of damage in melee.

QBRanger February 27 2010 1:02 PM EST

A tank can do a lot of damage.

It also can do very little and get hit for a lot via GA.

The RBF is constant damage not vulnerable to GA.

Therefore should not melee damage be a lot more than the RBF overall.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 27 2010 1:04 PM EST

It is...

But they can be equal.

It's like saying DD gets hit by 70% AMF, so it sohuld do a lot more damage than Everything else.

If you're so worried about GA, don't fight GA teams, or use VA and a Morg.

Job done.

Strategy. ;)

AdminTitan February 27 2010 1:06 PM EST

If Physical melee gets GA return and RoBF doesn't, then we should up physical melee damage.

Physical melee gets GA return and RoBF doesn't.

We should up physical melee damage.

That's a terrible Modus Ponens argument.

QBRanger February 27 2010 1:14 PM EST

Geee,

It is nice when one can leave out a key point in their Modus Ponens attempt.

Sort of like missing one of the key points I am trying to make.

If melee damage was higher than RBF damage overall and was subject to GA I would have no problems with the current balance.

Melee damage overall is not more than the RBF damage, and yet has the huge drawback of being vulnerable to GA.

Therefore for balance, should not melee damage overall be higher than that of the RBF?

AdminTitan February 27 2010 1:15 PM EST

"Melee damage overall is not more than the RBF damage, and yet has the huge drawback of being vulnerable to GA."

This statement is not sound. Melee damage for most of CB is larger than RoBF damage.

AdminTitan February 27 2010 1:15 PM EST

Assuming you're using BL, which if you're not, it's not the RoBF team's fault.

QBRanger February 27 2010 1:17 PM EST

If you're so worried about GA, don't fight GA teams, or use VA and a Morg.

Of course that is a choice.

However, I as a player would much rather use something that can fight anything and not have to spend millions of CB and millions of xp on VA to accomplish the same overall damage.

But that is just me and I see there are plenty of others who disagree. Who would rather spend the tens of millions of CB on a weapon and tens of millions on VA rather than have free non GAable damage.

But the real fact is that I see more and more RBF characters and less melee tanks.

I guess people do not like strategy or like the much more easy way :)

Sort of like using a knife for a gunfight. You have you choice.

AdminTitan February 27 2010 1:20 PM EST

"But the real fact is that I see more and more RBF characters and less melee tanks.

I guess people do not like strategy or like the much more easy way :)"

and Obama had the majority vote in the 2008 elections. Majority of people do stupid stuff, so what?

QBRanger February 27 2010 1:22 PM EST

This statement is not sound. Melee damage for most of CB is larger than RoBF damage.

I guess this is where we disagree.

As I have seen others agree that overall, accounting for all minions one can fight, damage is close to equal.

Vs non DB/evasion 20 dex minions, of course melee damage rocks.

Vs those tanks with DBs and higher dex, melee damage is not better.

Personally I could not care if I do 1M or 100M vs an enchanter as long as they die quickly.

But vs other tanks and other mages with evasion and DB I really want the most damage possible.

And I see the RBF about the same vs those damage ability characters. And again, no worries from GA. So one can use AMF to help vs decay.

I guess it is all a matter of view. I see less melee oriented tanks and a LOT more RBF characters. In such a small sample size of players, to me that states volumns.

QBRanger February 27 2010 1:26 PM EST

and Obama had the majority vote in the 2008 elections. Majority of people do stupid stuff, so what?

See, I am not the one breaking the politics cherry on this thread.

Pwned February 27 2010 2:03 PM EST

See, I am not the one breaking the politics cherry on this thread.



Lol, Bad Titan, bad.

Seriously, someone go make ncb melee and then comeback. STOP talking about the top 10 players. Majority of us are not the top ten. Use relative figures. Try the 1-2 mil mpr ranges with melee.

Pwned February 27 2010 2:05 PM EST

Don't put in the 1bil NW weapons either. Most of us will never hit that.

QBRanger February 27 2010 2:08 PM EST

How many melee tanks are there in the top 50 characters?

AdminTitan February 27 2010 2:09 PM EST

I'm only 2.5M MPR, only 30M NW (That's tiny), and I do 800k per hit, not per round. /thread

QBRanger February 27 2010 2:13 PM EST

800k per hit

Vs unarmored minions or vs all types of minions?

AdminTitan February 27 2010 2:15 PM EST

700-800k per hit against 80AC. Let's not forget that RoBFs around my size do like 1M per hit, and they only hit once.

QBRanger February 27 2010 2:17 PM EST

700-800k per hit against 80AC. Let's not forget that RoBFs around my size do like 1M per hit, and they only hit once.

So while you can hit 3 times, you also can miss entirely.

And you have to worry about GA or spend a lot of xp into DM.

Pwned February 27 2010 2:22 PM EST

Titan you only kill other tanks that have less NW than you. I told you that already. Plus in your fightlist you had 000000000 ZERO GA teams.

AdminTitan February 27 2010 2:23 PM EST

"And you have to worry about GA or spend a lot of xp into DM."

Different story, not part of this argument. I don't think I need to explain why.

If someone invests 41M into DBs and 6M DX that is needed just to make me miss 50% of the time, then I deserve to miss. Make note of the fact my weapon is only 27-28M NW, those required DBs are 41M.

Pwned February 27 2010 2:24 PM EST

Give me Melee or give me Death.

AdminTitan February 27 2010 2:24 PM EST

"Plus in your fightlist you had 000000000 ZERO GA teams."

Please use valid arguments, the fact that melee has a tough time with GA is a different story.

QBRanger February 27 2010 2:25 PM EST

Different story, not part of this argument. I don't think I need to explain why.

I disagree.

As one thing is intertwined with the others.

Also IE in the thread before yours states an outstanding point:
Titan you only kill other tanks that have less NW than you. I told you that already. Plus in your fightlist you had 000000000 ZERO GA teams.

Pwned February 27 2010 2:26 PM EST

Your LoL

Thats as valid as it will ever get buddy.

Point is Melee can only take on other Melee with lower NW. While everyone else can take Melee.

/End

AdminTitan February 27 2010 2:30 PM EST

The reason I kill other tanks is b/c I use an exbow. Duhh... For the fact that I don't fight GA team... Umm I don't train DM.. Duhh.. The reason you see more RoBF teams than ranged/melee tank teams (it's dumb not to use both), is b/c of the fact that CB rewards specialized teams. That's the way CB is set up, love it or hate it. Now back to your argument that physical melee damage is less than other damages, this is simply not true. Melee through many means can be as high as even large CoC, which only get to attack in melee. If you can't see the light any further than this, I have no other choice, but to concede to the fact that you are more bull headed than anticipated. I'm going on a ski trip, you can have a week to wrap your head around this.

Pwned February 27 2010 2:32 PM EST

Exbow user......your not even a real Melee! Phony!

QBJohnnywas February 27 2010 2:33 PM EST

Despite the mageseeker/archery thing I've got going, very few of my battles finish in ranged. Most of my battles go well into melee, where my Morg/SoC combo is what kills my opponents.

And I have some of the largest GAs on my fightlist (NWO anybody?), and without a trace of DM anywhere near my team.

As I'm going to keep saying melee works just fine for me.

12 million MPB anybody?

Pwned February 27 2010 2:34 PM EST

Even proves more of a point where you must use "other" tactics to make melee viable and its only againts melee tanks too.

QBJohnnywas February 27 2010 2:37 PM EST

Only against melee tanks? Have you looked at my fightlist? Mage teams, archers, melee tanks, RoS teams.

In fairness to Ranger's anti RBF stance I can't beat most of the RBF teams up around the top level.....and they're about all.

QBRanger February 27 2010 2:38 PM EST

JW,

You are the exception to the rule and kudos for pulling off a melee tank.

Titan,

If you cannot see this is a multifactoral process I am typing about, it is not I that am bull headed.

RBF teams are not specialized. That is my point. They work well vs everyone. Specialized characters are ones that use a specific thing to attack specific characters higher up the food chain.

RBF characters, unlike melee ones, do not have to worry about numerous things.

Pwned February 27 2010 2:38 PM EST

I think we are all on a different page here. I'm talking about a single minion straight up melee with no ranged. You're all using specialized strategies. BLEH different page.

Pwned February 27 2010 2:40 PM EST

Only against melee tanks? Have you looked at my fightlist? Mage teams, archers, melee tanks, RoS teams.


I should quote more.

Was talking about Titan's fightlist

QBRanger February 27 2010 2:43 PM EST

In fairness to Ranger's anti RBF stance I can't beat most of the RBF teams up around the top level.....and they're about all.

And that is a problem as well in that RBF characters do not have to put xp into dex/str as tanks do. Letting them put more xp into defense.

Melee tanks have to worry about many different means of damage reduction and payback (GA).

iBananco [Blue Army] February 27 2010 3:10 PM EST

And that is a problem as well in that RBF characters do not have to put xp into dex/str as tanks do. Letting them put more xp into defense.

That's called a tattoo.

Wraithlin February 27 2010 3:11 PM EST

And that is a problem as well in that RBF characters do not have to put xp into dex/str as tanks do. Letting them put more xp into defense.


With ToA and nothing into Str/dex you can pull the same damage as RoBF or higher against 90% of the targets in the game. The few targets with high dex/dbs will make you train dex/str.
Melee tanks have to worry about many different means of damage reduction and payback (GA).


and robf users have to worry that their damage sucks and can't increase it at all.

In addition, please please please stop trying to say RoBF and melee are comparable damage since they aren't. It has been proven they aren't, it's mathematically impossible for them to be comparable.

The ONLY targets that robf will do more damage against than melee tanks are huge evasion/dex characters, and that can be countered by the tank by just training more dex and upping thier + on thier weapon.

There is not a single thing robf can do against a high AC though, and the melee will do more damage to a high AC target than a robf will because melee does more raw damage, so the % reduction means they will still do more at the end.

Seriously..it's like talking to a wall.

QBRanger February 27 2010 3:37 PM EST

Seriously..it's like talking to a wall.

Yes, very much so.

Zenai February 27 2010 6:28 PM EST

With ToA and nothing into Str/dex you can pull the same damage as RoBF or higher against 90% of the targets in the game. The few targets with high dex/dbs will make you train dex/str.


Yes and No. You have to have something to get something.

Primary effect: Increases the wearer's base ST and DX by 50% and 33% of the tattoo's effective level, respectively.

50% of 20 is 10 add those and you get 30
33% of 20 is 6.6 add those and you get 26.6

If you really want to get a bang for your buck with a ToA you have to train Str and Dex anyway end of Story.


Ranger to be honest Wraithlin is right. Melee is physical Damage, RoBF Damage is Magical. No matter how close in damage output they are the will NEVER be exactly the same. They have different properties and restrictions. That is CB 101.

Zenai February 27 2010 6:29 PM EST

33% of 20 is 4.4 add those and you get 24.4*

Going to fast = not good......lol

Zenai February 27 2010 6:42 PM EST

Nevermind my posts folks I am obviously going nuts right now. The kids are driving me even more insane than I already am :-/ (I even posted this retraction in another thread if that means anything......)
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=0030Py">How low is melee damage, very!</a>