I think you are mistaken when you think my example is bad. For you see Elfine decks are suppose to win against deck with 0 df always. For a whole match I kept the immortal deck at 0 DF (barring 1 obesity) and still lost. Even when I had MORE POINTS I had lost since all my characters where dead.

No, because the multi-healing from and acts as Defense, healing or preventing X per hit is the same, and worse, it heals even when allies take damage, effectively negating almost all of your damage.
Furthermore, will work great whether it is played first (interrupting an action) or last (setting their Defense = 2, and ignoring all penalties to Defense that you apply beforehand).

So it's one of the most extreme examples you can come up with.

And for the 10th time, it doesn't matter.
I'm not talking about specific match-ups.
I'm talking about the simple concept of losing due to score SIMPLY because you have a higher Printed Health total.

_________________
Suggestions: Rank, Elite and Ranked Elite Stats | AoE vs Greater Stats | Fairplay Sollution | Overcards

Nurvus, you've grasped the point actually of how different guilds have their strong points now, then it's very much self-explanatory on how the HP thingy isn't a big problem at all.

The biggest problem is, how you actually end up letting your characters die so easily when they basically have that much HP.

Apparently Ice Elves have good HP yes, but they're able to deal burst damage easily which makes up for their points. High Damage.

War Guems? Ow please, I'm rather afraid of the end game points if everyone dies, 'cuz they're obviously gonna pack a lot more damage. It's rather, their aim is to make sure everyone dies and let the end game score settle it.

Nomads aren't the best early-gamers, 'cuz they never 1HKO anyone in the first 3 turns, unless you playing Nebsen's team with Avatar or using Eclipses. So yes, they suck if you let them die early. Immortals is hard enough to kill, and anyone would be satisfied enough to just make sure everybody dies, 'cuz they're THAT hard to finish off. The end-game score is fair enough to decide it.

It would be sad however if your concept goes through. Then we'd have trouble dealing with enormous giants like Sol'ra's Avatar (20HP), which, don't get me wrong, is already hard enough to kill. And now you're saying, owh that isn't enough, let's give them a 20-point boost as well to the end-game score.

Apparently, some decks focus on survival, some focus on dealing high damage right off the bat. In whatever case, you're not just gonna sit there and let everyone drop down to 0hp. No, you're gonna do your best, pick a way to go, and strive to get at least one char to survive the onslaught, or deal the most damage possible to the opponents in an all-out apocalypse.

Maybe they should do what Nurvus says and then take away, only to high hp and 0 defense characters, the points they garner from healing? o.O


I had Thought this way too but after losing and winning with and losing to, temple guardians & Immortals decks alike, I am going have to disagree with you on this one Nurvus. I see where you're coming from but only group that I think that are really at a disadvantage from the points are eclipse, that I can think of at the moment. But with the new addition to the cards they seem to be more likely to lower the Opponent's defense. I understand these examples are not directly involved with your concept but, they are involved with the guild you are pointing to to make that concept, but you are disregarding what makes said guild strong, and disregarding everyone else's view, as wrong. Which I find wrong, so I have to go along with others on this.

_________________
Blarg!!

To Nurvus,

You might as well add all the SP and DEF to the bonus points. It would only seem more 'fair'. After that, everyone would be looking at high stat characters to start any game in hoping to get more 'base' points. I'm not sure about adding attack damage to the base points as well - minimum or maximum?

Yes, Nurvus you may have a point about the balance of the difference in DEF/SP balance against health. But of course sacrificing stats for stats is a norm of balance. I wouldn't say I would like to create a character with 20 base DEF and 1 HP to start with or create a 21 HP and 0 DEF both with attack 21/21. It would seem pretty imbalanced quite when comes down to the scores of 21 - 1. But then again it would look awkward if your idea is implemented, since not every card has same SP as DEF to compensate for 'loss' of HP. So I don't think balance would come into every character if you add base hp to points.

But DEF/SP do not protect you against direct dmg. That's an advantage for extra HP pool. Of course you have abilities and cards to reduce dmg of any but I'd say if you have a higher HP pool, it would look more intimidating compared to high defense.

You may say I may be going off topic, but arguments are never in single lines. They are meant to provoke thoughts. I feel that if your idea is implemented, the reaction chain would be not balance already, but higher HP characters would be more powerful. My thoughts.

Thanks alot for all the replies, everyone.

I don't agree with any of you, and I'll explain why:
The game isn't balanced at the moment.
This means you can't use current match-ups as arguments.

You must argue in concepts.
You must assume a point in the future where Eredan is balanced, where competitive decks have the same chance of winning.

To have the same chance of winning, if all characters are dead with the same amount of HP, it should be a draw.

Why?
Because just like you have to go through your opponent's defenses and health, he has to go through yours.
Assuming your characters have more health and less defenses, if the extra health your opponent had to overcome to kill your characters is added to his score, but the extra defenses you had to overcome to defeat his characters aren't added to your score, it's unbalanced.

I can't explain it any simpler than this.

_________________
Suggestions: Rank, Elite and Ranked Elite Stats | AoE vs Greater Stats | Fairplay Sollution | Overcards

Imbalance here, imbalance there, a game like this is usually imbalanced most of the time. I can't remember a time where I feel it's perfectly balanced in all aspects. Current-matchups? Oh, please, the easiest way to understand a concept is to apply practical examples. I'm offering counter-examples whereby your concept is applied. I'm afraid that is called "Scepticism". You speak of an utopia where the game feels "balanced". If so, I feel it's way too early for your concept to work. How can you fix monsters like Sol'ra's Avatar's stats? How can you fix characters that are called Legendaries?

Yet you react as if this is rocket science, every figure is an unknown and every unknown is shown via special equations. You talk of a concept, yes, but your concept is based on a general idea. A very, very general idea. You refuse to see what happens when that concept is applied to cases where it can be widely abused, further upsetting the balance. The game is imbalanced yes, but in this particular area of max HP disadvantage, I've revealed why not.

First of all, if we are to start all over again, Characters alone don't decide a match. They don't decide how a game ends and how the points are calculated. Nope, they come with Other cards. Be it spells, actions, items or theurgies, they synergize with your characters. These cards help you rake points. They add flavour to each deck.

As I've stressed on my earlier point, you're complaining about characters with DEF and characters with 0 DEF. So what? You think they're just gonna fight naked? Not playing any cards to turn the battle around? Yeah, sure, the DEF dude will definitely win over time.
If you're so obsessed with the HP, why not add SP and DEF to the mix? that'll definitely balance things up, just convert the whole stats to end-game points to start with. Characters with more HP generally have a better chance to survive any form of damage. DEF is useless against magic, SP is useless against physical attacks, but HP can take 'em both.

Counter examples can easily put this concept down but you continue to shun them as if they never existed, not even when the concept is directly applied.

Perhaps we're all blind except you, blind after so long of playing this game. You need to find someone who can support your idea, and probably we can all see it in a new light.

Your logic pretty much assumes score is the only way to win. If it were, I think more people would agree with you, but its not. Many would argue that high hp low def characters are better at K.O.ing all the opposing characters before your opponent K.O.s all of your characters. You win if you K.O. all you opponents characters before he/she does the same to you, regardless of what the end score is. Therefore, high hp low def characters are not inferior completely, but rather, are inferior in some ways and SUPERIOR in others. That is why it is not "unfair" for a clan to have mostly low def high hp characters.

I cannot explain it more simply than that. Refer to hachin's arguments if you need more fleshing out.

It's not about whether my concept is ready to be implemented or not.
For the game to ever be balanced, you must see the bigger picture, and work towards it, rather than trying to plug the holes one by one...
That's why, if the game match-ups are already not very balanced, and you come up with skewed examples to make it even more exaggerated, you end up deluding yourself.
If my suggestion is applied, it will be one more solid concept around wich the game can be balanced.


I have a thread that discusses that. The link is in my signature.


You haven't shown neither why it can be widely abused, nor convince me why HP isn't a disadvantage, because you change the subject from Score to gameplay.

You have to assume equal chances to win, otherwise there's no point discussing Score.

I'm not saying Desert Nomads have less chances to win. I'm not even discussing Desert Nomads.
I'm saying that when everything's dead, decks with higher HP usually lose due to Score.

HP, Defense, Spirit, pure damage reduction, healing - they all have their different use and flavor.
I'm fine with that. They all work together to help you stay alive.

What is NOT balanced, is the fact that out of all the defensive measures, HP is the only one that rewards the opponent.
Since HP is static (you must heal to get it back up, and healing already gets added to the score), it is okay to apply my suggestion.
Defense, Spirit and other defensive measures cannot be applied because, unlike Healing or Health, they scale with number of hits.


I'm not complaining about that at all.
I'm only comparing characters with different Health.
I've used different amounts of Defense and Spirit in my examples only to provide an idea of how defense is so much better than Health for Score purposes.

However, for my idea, you can compare characters with the exact same stats, but one of them having +1 Health.
Even if the cards each of them can play cause them to kill each other and reach 0 HP each, the one with +1 Health penalizes his own player.

This answers nervous.one as well.

_________________
Suggestions: Rank, Elite and Ranked Elite Stats | AoE vs Greater Stats | Fairplay Sollution | Overcards

This is your premise. If you want to defend it to the grave, I will admit it is correct.

However, what I and hachin and others are saying is that there is no reason to COMPLAIN, because desert nomads make up for it in other ways (i.e. basically being really good at a lot of things, including in winning via the other ways it is possible to win which is the most important thing to do in a game).

Sure, your premise is indisputably correct. However, it doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things. SO, who cares? If winning the argument is more important than making an interesting/worthwhile point, you're well on your way to accomplishing that. If you want to actually improve the game, as I feel you truly and honestly do, through in depth discussion on things that actually MATTER you are barking up the wrong tree with this subject.