Of course the rising tide won.
even if he was some sorta god player he wouldnât have won
You canât counter something which lacks the one weakness every single thing you have in your arsenal has
actually fire has like, the 3rd lowest base damage in the entire game. The dot is good, same as magma and acid but goes faster.
It actually doesnât combo that great with bleed, seeing as it stops the bleeding damage for only 10 percent more damage. Magma gets 60 percent more damage, and ice get 40 percent more.
It has pretty bad clashes, winning like 6 i think, and loses 10. Goes even on the rest.
It has a base speed of 1.0 - faster than the slow magics, of course, but all the other meta magics are significantly faster.
Basically, the only thing fire has going for it is the fact that it deals good burn damage.
Headless JUMPED you? Luck bastard
that tiny 10% boost that fire gets from bleed adds quite much to the DOT seeing as the DOT is just 0.10 of the base damage, so if you originally deal 160 dmg you will be dealing 176 instead, increasing the DOT by 1x(number of procs)
oh and
FiRe HaS 3Rd LoWeSt BaSe DaMaGe
still doesnt mean its bad though
10 percent damage is 10 percent damage. Dot changes nothing. Iâm not sure what you mean by
Say, your blasts deal 100 damage, and an additional 50 in dot. That 50 only applies every 5 seconds, but thatâs not my point. If you got 10 percent more damage, your blast would deal 110, and your dot would deal 55 damage.
It really isnât that complex, itâs literally just 2nd grade math.
I also donât see where I said fire was bad. I just said that almost everything you said was wrong. I love using fire myself, and I donât think that itâs bad. I just donât think itâs top tier broken shit right now, and it definitely wonât be after the update.
If this is what you originally meant, my bad. If you really think 10 percent more damage on bleeding targets is game breakingly powerful, top tier magic material, ok then.
you just proved my point, that 10% damage is 10% PLUS an additional 5%, its quite much.
and never did i say that it was game breakingly powerful, thats your own imagination.
And no need to listen to me just listen to the entire community and what they think about fire my guy.
no itâs 10 percent plus 0 percent. There is no 5 percent.
Iâm having trouble taking you seriously, as you seem to have failed 3rd grade math.
Let me spell it out.
so here is your base damage, letâs call it x. X can be whatever, 150, 160, 170, etc.
you have x*1.5 for your TOTAL damage on a blast, including the dot. Without the dot, itâs just x.
Thatâs your base damage, plus another half in dot. Makes sense?
Ok, now lets try adding the 10 percent.
1*1.1*1.5 is 10 percent more than 1*1.5
There is no extra 5 percent. Fire gets no magical bonus above 10 percent, itâs just 10 percent.
As for the community thinking fire is broken, ok. People also think lightning is broken, but itâs mediocre at best. As previously stated, Iâm just calling you out on your bullshit. Itâs ok to say a magic is strong, but lying about it to make it seem op is a bit too much.
Although, the only person whoâs thinks fire is OP is one other guy on a PvP meta forum, and you, who decided to say
Oh boy, if I cripple myself I canât beat someone! With this logic, earth is broken because literally nobody can beat me if theyâre afk!
Please, if you want to cry that a magic is op, sure. I donât mind. But at least TRY bringing some sort of factual evidence to prove your point. Hell, just donât lie and make up your own evidence.
I never cried about Fire magic being op.
Your IQ is so low its amazing, you try to sound smart by making equations and spelling out shit but youâre so retarded you donât realise your silly mistake.
Fire gets 10% damage added onto the BASE DAMAGE.
Let us say you deal 100 damage normally, thatâs 110 with the extra 10%.
Whats half of 10% AKA 10 damage? 5.
5+10=15. Thereâs the bonus that the DOT gives.
100/2 is 50, This is the dot. With the base damage would then be 150.
110/2 is 55, With the boosted damage this would be 165. 15 more than 150.
Itâs simple. Fucking. Maths.
About that other post, youâre taking it out of context. A person said that the magic you choose doesnât matter because itâs all about skill. What I meant was that if you were the most skilled player in the world without any good meta-armour or magic. It would almost be virtually impossible to win against a person with a good meta-magic and meta-armour.
Please, if youâre actually gonna try to look into my other posts to humiliate me at least read about it first retard.
And never did I state that a magic is OP. All that I am saying is that it is better than others.
Bring some actual evidence to the table instead of making up bullshit with my other posts.
15 is 10% of 150 
Youre exaggarating things, what I meant is that no matter your skill itâs extremely difficult to nearly impossible to beat somebody who follows the meta with both their armor and magic.
The reason why I talk so much about fire aswell is because I main fire, Im not crying about it being OP or the best one, I just never mention other magics that are better because I really do not know as I havent tried every. Single. Magic.
do you like, not count the burn damage? Because the damage increase is ONLY 15 percent if you donât count the burn damage.
And if you donât count the burn damage, well, then youâre hitting for 165 percent damage on bleeding targets, 65 percent more damage. But thatâs not right, is it.
Look, itâs 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 wouldnât get a new stack of burn so your base damage would deal 110 percent damage. If theyâre bleeding but not burning, your total damage after the burn will be 10 percent more than if they werenât bleeding.
It really is simple math.
You can call me low IQ all you like, but we both know it isnât 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 itâs a coincidence?
Itâs not impossible to beat someone who has meta magic and armor, but it is EXTREMELY difficult to beat someone with â0 armor on you.â
I donât 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 couldnât beat a meta user with 0 armor and a âbadâ magic. Thatâs just crippling yourself, is it not?
And if you werenât complaining, my bad. Usually people who exaggerate a magicâs power are those who got stomped by it.
Like, you says it combos well with bleed and itâs the lowest synergy possible. You claim it has high base damage, but itâs 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 itâs average at best.
If exaggerating itâs strength to make it seem op wasnât your intention, m y b a d.
Yes you were exaggerating things. You were taking it to the extreme. Having 0 armor/bad armor and a non-meta magic and fighting against somebody with good armor & metamagic is not the same as somebody killing a person that is AFK.
enemies standing still =/= your magic is good.
Beating somebody when youve got a handicap = you/your magic is good.
1/2
Youre still not counting the DOTâs addition to the % and youre still not listening.
YES its 10% added from bleed BUT!
Its ACTUALLY 15% Because of bleed.
Its the same with literally any other magic which has 2 things.
1: Can deal more damage by comboing (like bleed&fire)
2: Has a DOT that scales with the initial hits damage.(like fire&burn)
2/2
Iâm not sure how to explain this. I am listening, and I see what you think.
The bonus damage from bleeding alone, is 15 percent more COMPARED to base damage, if you include the extra burn damage.
The way I see it, is with the bleed, you do 10 percent more damage compared to if you had not.
If you include burn damage, you do 100 damage + 50 in burn. Thatâs 150 damage total. If you add bleed, thatâs 10 percent more damage, so 110+55, 165.
165 is 110 percent of 150. Thatâs 10 percent more. Yes, there is an increase of 15 damage, which is 15 percent of 100, but you need to remember that your total damage is 150, not 100.
also, about the afk thing not being comparable to having 0 armor, maybe itâs not. But itâs pretty damn close. Having 0 equipment is actually such a disadvantage, itâs crazy. You have half the hp, and do half the damage. Itâs not a fun experience.
Iâm super late on this but anyway.
I didnât find fire and magma nearly as overused as lightning, magma ainât even popular anymore. Also overused=/=op (or meta, whatever), this entire topic turned into proving that fire is good or bad while visibly it was originally only trying to show that everyone talks about lightning.
idk why people always sleep on magma. right now itâs actually bonkers strong, but meh i guess.
also, lightning is popular because hehe zap zap. I like it because it was my first magics in AA, even if it wasnât my main.
not saying anything but all of this math is melting my brain
Like bro
donât you only get the additional bleeding effect damage boost when the target is actually bleeding?
the burn dot wouldnât gain the extra damage n shit, only the initial blast
yaâll prolly already know but this is kinda stupid like come on yaâll really donât have to overcomplicate everything just to prove a point
itâs just x (with the x being base blast damage) times 1.(whatever the additional bleeding status damage boost is) + the dot
like yaâll said itâs simple maths
thatâs actually incorrect.
1*1.1+.5 comes out to be 1.6, when itâs supposed to be 1.65
itâs 1*1.1*1.5, at least if youâre looking for total damage.
Itâs not about overcomplicating things to prove a point, itâs about someone not knowing 3rd grade math.