Cool. What's the downside of dealing more damage?

You should think a little bit about the stuff you say instead of stubbornly grinding the same stone.

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

Usually less Health or DF.

There you go: Health OR DF.
Except DF doesn't penalize End Score, DF does.

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

I will guess the second one is HP.
Also yes it does since the more DF / Spirit you have the less points your opponent gets when the attack goes. So the less DF you have, the more points your opponents has the opportunity to get.

So if people are smart and they would have a counter for high DF. You know like I have stated before.

Yes, the second one is HP.
And DF penalizes the enemy score because although DF is survivability just like HP, DF reduces the amount of score the enemy gets by reducing the damage taken.
HP, on the other hand, does NOT reduce the enemy score.

So having +X DF reduces enemy score by X, but having +X HP does not.
It is unbalanced.

All your "if people are smart and they would have a counter for high DF" also work for "if people are smart and they would have a counter for high HP" - example: Burning Soul.

We are not discussing counters, because the examples already account for all cards used.
I repeat, assuming that AFTER all cards were used, character A has more HP and B has more defenses, and both end up with the same amount of HP, character A will lose in score.

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

Okay so having higher HP and being able to avoid being 1hko is definitely a disadvantage. High Health characters have their own way to play the game whether it be out healing the opponent or out damaging them. A stat is only a disadvantage if you let it be.


Either way you are not making the compelling argument you think you are. Why not drop this considering:
1. When has any suggestion been implemented? (even the obvious using same card in multiple decks took years to do)
2. This game is dying if all the promo (-30% boosters and -20% book) didn't tell you that already.
3. No one seems to agree with you. Clearly we are all stupid and your mentality is superior. Clearly we all don't know what we are talking about. AND clearly you are the messiah that brings balance to all games.

You can say the same thing about all survival stats in the game.
But only Health penalizes you in the End Score.

Note: How is higher HP better at avoiding 1HKO than higher Defense/Spirit?



1. Dunno. But when people flood threads with "not needed, it's fine", often not even reading the suggestion properly, then surely it's less likely any suggestion will ever be implemented.
2. I don't make predictions. I just share concerns, and provide solutions.
3. Now you're starting to make sense.

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote (viewtopic.php?f=223&t=3674&sid=8a1c71facf6c31bdc2059c0cf7a6d5a2#p35608)



actually it is, and no, this is a rock-paper-scissors game, thats why some decks lose almost every time agaisnt the same kind of decks, because the cards, stats, the luck and the skills of the characters affect the end score

(i played a lot of games with elfines, with the 2-3 releases of the eclipse i started to lose more matches against them)

initiative may even get to decide the course of the game

this is not a static game and those factors can be modified, you are talking about a game where no strategy/luck is involved, that kind of games are boring, you know since first round when you are going to lose

if you are facing an AoE deck, having higher hp pool allows you to survive more rounds (maybe at cost of more dame, but decks with lower hp and similar stats resist less rounds)

almost the whole point of the discussion was rock (low-hp) vs scissor (high-hp)
i didnt see the paper anywhere

looks like there are no real benefits in having more hp
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote (viewtopic.php?f=223&t=3674&start=50#p40655)



they are penalized in your "ideal" scenario
in "other" scenario they are benefited
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote (viewtopic.php?f=223&t=3674&start=60#p40772)



again, health works against you in your "ideal" scenario

health by itself isnt the "problem" (because the end score isnt about healt, is damage+heals), you could win with 1 hp base if you beat every enemy in every turn or 99999 if you cant do that

the "problem" is the low damage/damage reduction against a better high damage/damage reduction

you are saying, "a character with more hp can take more damage, also if a character have more hp usually have bad stats"

another point of view, a character with less hp usually dies faster
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote (viewtopic.php?f=223&t=3674&start=70#p105781)



you cant win only using cards that boost damage, your opponent can use your own strategy against you, infinite attack against 100% physical damage reduction is pointless
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nurvus, you are taking a one-sided argument

this is your theory:

what happens if we had a game where everyone's hp drop to 0?: the player with higher hp pool characters will lose. (this is correct)

this is another point of view:

what happens if we had a game where the characters deal 1 damage to 1 enemy per fight?: the player with higher hp pool characters will win (this is correct too)

_________________
My (outdated) decks

create a new post if you want to communicate with me, DONT SEND PMs!!!!

CURRENT STATUS: OFFLINE / NOT MODERATING

You're so focused on how "ideal" my scenarios are, that you realize they're generalistic.
You're the one who just gave a gimmick scenario, and you're missing important facts.

Additional Defense/Spirit/reduction is better than Health in every multi-fight scenario, because you mitigate an additional X damage every fight.

So if you're talking about 3 fights, a mere 2 additional defense will reduce 6 damage.
And that means a potential advantage in score of 6.

Health's supposed "advantages" are that it counters direct damage and prevents one-shots.
Both of those are false "advantages".
1 - There is damage reduction in the game, which affects all damage types.
1.1 - 90% of Direct damage almost always comes from played cards, like Items, Spells and Actions; which can also be countered with cards.
2 - Direct damage isn't designed to one-shot.
2.1 - But if it's not direct damage, then Health is no better at preventing one-shots than spirit/defense.

The matter of the fact is, if you consider balanced fights, Health is penalized.
If you consider unbalanced fights, what's the point in discussing them? Is the goal of the game being unbalanced?

A balanced fight is one where both sides have equal chances to win.
EQUAL.

So it seems you're saying that higher Health is not compensated by any other deficiencies in Stats or combos, and as such should be compensated by End Score disadvantage.

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

I've been reading this for a while and I can't resist on commenting anymore because, it started as a good idea, but it has become mental, and let me tell you why:

1) The prop of the ideal situation is technically correct, but it's a static scenario, the game is a *dynamic* scenario, so the demonstration of the highest life value will lose when all reach zero is not only invalid, but mediocre as well, because it's not the point of the game at all

2) Standards of life value and defense value are actually thought and balanced based on factors such as: Guilds, classes, class ability and more importantly the rarity of the card, so your ideal scenario breaks down and stops making any single bit of sense because the game is not focused on specific scenarios, but it's supposed to be supported by the cards you play.

3) Take the best example ever: Nomads and Kotoba, the first one's would normally lose against the latter due to the defense value/hp value; BUT nomad cards and strategy are far differently from the kotoba general strategy; the first thought about having a good hp pool to prevent damage against it because of the low defense, and the more hp pool, the more you can HEAL it and the more points you can gain on the end score because of damage/healing, that's the point, while the latter relies on defending against strong attacks with equipments and buffs defending their low hp pool while dealing as much damage as they can deliver, resisting damage (denying points for the enemy in the end score) and dealing damage is the point in their own end score.

4) The same applies for every single Guild/class/ability/rarity you'll encounter so unless you're telling that this game needs to change their entire character's pool just because you think it's not fair (while we know you're wrong) there won't be too much of a great difference due to the fact that the game, using a rock-paper-scissors scheme, is a DYNAMIC scenario; and it will always depend on support cards.

5) Only a handful of characters have their attack fixed on a straight number; the grand vast majority has a maximum/minimum attack score, meaning that if you don't play any cards at all you will be relying on luck from the very beginning not only because of the printed attack score, but because of the characters you choose from the start, being hundreds of them; you still fall against the rock paper scissors scheme.

6) No one is forced to play with a set of fixed characters depending on set circumstances: you play what you like and if you have a good knowledge of the game you will realize having a starting guild has it's pros and cons; and if you won't be able to face the cons of what you picked. Bad luck for you.

It was an interesting proposal, but it started to lose any sense; maybe you need to look at it from a different point of view and if you start quoting me that I'm 100% wrong and at the same time just saying *im wrong because you think you're right alone* then good luck trying to convince others

Au revoir!

_________________
Ex-Consortium Guilde [CsT]
Ex-Noz'Dingard Guild Leader
Comment Disclaimer