The cards you mention aren't even relevant to the discussion...
You're jumping to the discussion without reading things properly.

Actually, you only help me by sharing those cards.

Those cards don't heal. They make your health = X.
This means they don't give you score.
However, I gain score by killing your character again with damage.

The opposite also happens, when for example you sacrifice a character with A Warrior's Heritage or Forbidden Book - they don't take damage, they simply die, wich means the opposing character doesn't get points from killing them.

But those are specific cards with specific functionalities, because by killing your own characters, you are closer to being defeated, and if the opponent can counter your benefits (Use or vs A Warrior's Heritage and see what happens) he will win.

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

I read the hole thread and you gave no proper explanation how you want balance cards in the right direction with you change.
And if some doesn't agree with your idea you jump on him with no reason ....

Not everybody has to share your opinion.

Sorry, I edited my post.
Thanks for calling me awesome.

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

High health and low health decks have their own advantages and weaknesses, and decks often reflect the shortcomings of the characters, as well as the skill of the player, and the quality of the cards used.

The changes you were referring to in score from those cards changes how the oppossing deck may win (Heritage and Chalice Rob you of a character, I wasn't aware Chalice was bugged into not showing damage taken(again) for it's first life)
Forbidden book+ Stone heart can be used by only two characters (in that playable order)

Let's establish a system:
Spirit: 0-1(Low), 2(Average),3+(Exceptional),
Attack: 0/0-4/6(Low), 5/7-7/9(Average), 8/x (Exceptional)
Defense:0-2(Low),3(Average), 4+(Exceptional)
HP: 9-12(Low), 13(Average), 14+(Exceptional)

Zil Marauders Vs Runic War Guems
Zil:
Average spirit
Exceptional Attack
Low Defense
Average HP
Guild/Class/race card (dis)advantages:
-Universal damage increase
-Low Direct Damage
-Low Magic Damage
-Chainable Negation cards
-Exceptional +stat Actions

Runic Legion
-Low Spirit
-Low Magic Damage
-Average Attack
-Exceptional Defense
-Exceptional HP
Guild/Class/Race (dis)advantages
-Exceptional +Multistat Actions/Permanents
-Exceptional +Multistat items
-multihit Direct damage

So, if the aforementioned were to ever have an instance where all characters died at 0, Yes, It would be fair for Zil to win by points just because of the damage they inflicted was greater than their opponent.



Your example is unrealistic, the cards of the game are unbalanced, but the system as it is,is fair.
Characters with high health have playstyles that REVOLVE around being able to withstand a wallop, and the PLAYER'S DUTY is to find out which of the cards work, and which don't, with said characters.
If character A is focused on health and less damage, cards played should heal/statgain/Reducestat/ReduceDamage.

If one is playing High health characters outside of their role, as with playing a Marauder deck that tries to work like a warrior deck, they will lose, and they deserve to lose.
The change in the system isn't needed. The three guilds with the consistently highest HP caught bans on their Legendaries.
Everyone loses sometimes, and there are MANY factors that decide the victor of a game, understanding how they won, why you lost, and improving upon that is how a game, no, LIFE, goes.

_________________
Fixing Eredan
Courtiers are not your friends

You spoke alot about how to play different characters. I agree with what you said.
You spoke about how legendaries got banned because they were OP. I agree it was necessary with the current system.

None of that is relevant to this discussion.

Why?
Because card bans occur when the cards are OP - not because they are Legendary, and not because they have high Health.
Low health, non-legendary characters have been banned in the past.
Non-legendary, non-character cards have been banned in the past.

This discussion, is about how when every character plays according to its own strategy, its own cards, tries to maximize advantages and minimize disadvantages, tries to hinder and KO the opponent in the most efficient way possible, if both characters end up KO'ing each other fair and square, Health, and Health alone, is a disadvantage.

Can you understand this distinction?

You say characters are unbalanced but the system is balanced.
That is a paradox.
How can you say the system is balanced, if the characters that use it - the means of comparison - are unbalanced?

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

Life:
No one is the same, but we all have to play by the same rules. The only thing different between people is how they do things and their own personal longevity. The only difference between playing a game and life is that cheaters get banned.

High Health alone is not a disadvantage.
High Health paired with low defense is at a disadvantage against physical attackers
High Health paired with low spirit is at a disadvantage against Magical attackers
High Health paired with average SP/DF usually comes with restrictions.

If both character's KO'ed each other fair and square leaving them at an equal score of 0, the one that was facing the character with MORE health had to do MORE damage. The higher Health character is only at a disadvantage depending on cards played.

Lets use a realistic example.
Djamena A v Djamena B
No cards played
6/9 atk, 0 def, 16 HP
Either of them can deal 6-9 per turn.
One can win(Both dead+Score, One dead)
Or draw(Both character's die at 0)

Centorum Arius vs Self
8/10 atk,3 Defense, 15 health
No cards played/no runes
Rounds: 3
Either of them can deal 5-7
after 3 rounds both are dead. Their points range from 15-21. The one with more points wins.

This game has VARIABLES.
Your example uses non existent stats on non-existent characters and non existent cards.
If your character has high HP and decent stats, health is not a disadvantage, in any way.
If your character sacrifices a form of defense for higher health, You're probably a nomad, and I bet EVERYONE would be sure to tell you how much of a disadvantage their HP pool is.
If you're character has High HP and exceptional stats, they're probably broken.

There are no cards that divide or multiply health. It only works on + and - with the exception of stone heart.
HP, Health POINTS, work on points, not percentiles, giving a character additional points at the end of the game is IN NO WAY EVER FAIR.
There are very few cards that revive or have the ability to revive.
There are ways to nullify (Instant =0) Spirit and defense.
There are ways to decrease Attack
There are ways to Increase defense and Spirit
You cannot heal more than your maximum health.


A large HP pool in itself is NOT a disadvantage.
If you're playing classes with disadvantages built into them in exchange for higher HP, that is THEIR disadvantage that was built into THEIR design.

_________________
Fixing Eredan
Courtiers are not your friends

I can't get too much in-depth in game mechanics because i don't know most of the cards...

But, if you have to do something like that would be way more appropriate to only count on the scores the "Overkill damage"

Adding printed health to the total points sounds strange and confusing.

In case, just call the ending score "Overkill damage"

character died at 0= 0 points

-7 = 7 points for the opponent.

And so on, way much easyer to understand and less odd sounding.


Btw, this will for sure compromise the actual game balancing, don't know if in better or worse.

Tizio, it wouldn't work because of healing.

If you get healed, the damage needed to kill = your max health + healing received.


I know there are variables.
I'm not discussing how lucky or unlucky you can get.
I'm not discussing the different results you can obtain.

I'm discussing that, when both characters actually get each other to the same amount of HP, be it positive, negative or 0, regardless of how lucky or unlucky they got, and already accounting for all the cards played, the one that has his "advantages and disadvantages" balanced around high health, is penalized in the end game score.

That, is simply unfair.

I'll reinforce it below:


Indeed, they have their own in-game disadvantages to compensate for higher HP, wich is intended to balance them out. This is not what I'm discussing.
Why are they penalized AGAIN in the End Game Score? This is the only thing I'm discussing.

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

please don't feed the troll anymore...

_________________
--EXYLEME--
"-oh mon dieu! ils ont tués Kenny!
-espèce d'enfoirés!"

I see what you're saying...but...they're not being penalized at all...

Min score for opposing victory = total character health.

High HP average= 15
Hp average=13
(Nomads=17)

15(3)= 45 = Minimum amount of points the opposing character has to deal to kill all of your characters.

13(3)= 39 = Minimum amount of points you have to score to kill all of their characters.

That's a score advantage if everyone dies with 0. And that's what you're asking to be changed.
The scoring system is based on damage and healing.
Having Large health pools means your opponent has to do more damage, and will naturally have a larger score.
Having a smaller health pool means your opponent has to do less damage to kill your characters.
Health is not taken into account in any way other than the MINIMUM score your OPPONENT must meet to kill your characters.
No, the two deaths aren't equal, because the opposing character still had to, HAD TO, deal more damage.
No, there is no reason to penalize your opponent because you chose a character with high HP.
There is no reason to buffer your score because you had more points to take, more points for your opponent to gain, and inevitably more points your opponent has to deal to reduce your health to 0.
Score determination is not broken.
Having a higher health pool means you don't have to score as many points as your opponent to win.
Attack/defense/spirit are never taken into account for score.

If you want to tell us how this is unfair, do so:
-With math
-Without characters
-Without examples involving any character stats other than HP.

_________________
Fixing Eredan
Courtiers are not your friends