do you like, not count the burn damage? Because the damage increase is ONLY 15 percent if you don’t count the burn damage.
And if you don’t count the burn damage, well, then you’re hitting for 165 percent damage on bleeding targets, 65 percent more damage. But that’s not right, is it.
Look, it’s 10 percent MORE damage, no matter which way you look at it. If the target is bleeding, and you hit them, you do 10 percent more damage than you would have. If they were already burning, they wouldn’t get a new stack of burn so your base damage would deal 110 percent damage. If they’re bleeding but not burning, your total damage after the burn will be 10 percent more than if they weren’t bleeding.
It really is simple math.
You can call me low IQ all you like, but we both know it isn’t true.
As for your other post, maybe I am taking it out of context. I saw it while browsing the new section, so maybe. I just noticed that you used fire in particular, as opposed to literally any other magic, but maybe it’s a coincidence?
It’s not impossible to beat someone who has meta magic and armor, but it is EXTREMELY difficult to beat someone with “0 armor on you.”
I don’t look into your posts, I just saw one that happened to be fairly similar. I might do it if I suspected someone of being a troll, but for this? Nah.
Am I exaggerating things? Because I just followed your example, saying that you couldn’t beat a meta user with 0 armor and a “bad” magic. That’s just crippling yourself, is it not?
And if you weren’t complaining, my bad. Usually people who exaggerate a magic’s power are those who got stomped by it.
Like, you says it combos well with bleed and it’s the lowest synergy possible. You claim it has high base damage, but it’s actually the 3rd lowest in the literal entire game. And the clashing is below average, but pretty close. Also saying it has above average speed is kind of misleading, when in reality it’s average at best.
If exaggerating it’s strength to make it seem op wasn’t your intention, m y b a d.