The fact you have to deal more damage due to opponent health being higher, doesn't mean you should win.

If all characters end with 0 health, since the characters are designed with all their stats in mind, if your health is higher, there will be other disadvantage(s) your character(s) need(s) to overcome - at least in a fair fight.

Likewise, if your health is lower, you will have some advantage(s) to compensate it, whether it is higher attack, spirit, defense, special abilities, turn order or better cards.

But what matters in this discussion, is that, after both players do their best, if everyone ends with 0 hp, the player with a higher printed health total loses to score simply because he has more health.

It's not because he didn't try hard enough.
Maybe your defense was higher, maybe your attack was higher, it doesn't matter.

Health is the only stat in Eredan that works against you in the End Score.

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

Wooow, this post got much bigger since my last contribution!

Hey again Nurvus, this probably will be my last reply to this thread, however I will keep checking your other Ideas. Even though I disagree with this one, you usually bring up very interesting concepts.

Replying to your answer, and I hope I'm NOT being too harsh:

No, you don't disagree with my proposed situation. You are in disagreement with your own proposed system, since that was what my examples were using.
I know what you consider a balanced situation. But you can't propose a system replacement if it "works" in only one single case (I don't agree that it does): both characters defeated to exactly 0HP. What I mean is that it must work in every single scenario, including my cases. Until now you failed to show how it would work properly to balance my examples. For me it is just very simple: your system can't balance it at all (Just to be clear... I'm referring specifically to adding the characters' health to the score, or discounting the difference)....

My last comment is: I would agree with you if the HP wouldn't drop below 0HP. Then it would be totally necessary to apply your system. However, since it's possible to deal damage below 0HP, it is offered to the characters (including the ones with higher HP) the possibility to deal extra damage that they couldn't obtain exclusively with the opponent's health. If it is easy or hard for them to balance that initial disadvantage that is their trouble, if you don't like the risk then just don't choose them.

Sorry, but I think you are creating trouble where there is not. The game's system works just fine. Observe that up to now nobody agreed with you, don't you think that you might be missing some perspective in this issue???
Anyway, nice discussion. I hope to see more of your posts, as I said, they are very creative.

Before I finish, I would like to clarify/discuss one concept w/ everybody:

I notice healing came up as a point in this discussion. But healing does not affect the score as much as we usually suppose to. It does help characters to survive, but, if you think about it, if every character dies it means that the points that they got with healing were evened by the opponent's dealt damage. Simplifying: if they healed 5HP and died, it means that the opponent also got these 5 points added to their score (exceptions may happen with cards that can heal huge amounts of HP, such as , or when characters heal from below 0HP to above).

_________________
Tracker
Witchblade / Compendium
War Guemelite / Priest
Shadow Guemelite
Air Guemelite
Corruption

There's no way to change that.
It's like saying; Here, you have a boatload of health, lets lop off the difference from your characters health from their score.
No. It doesn't matter, the simple matter is, the game handles "all character's dead" on points scored.
The reason the points were scored doesn't matter, as you said, both players played at the best their deck could handle.
The damage/healing output of their deck was greater than yours, it doesn't matter if everyone died at 0, because you WERE ONLY AT 0 FROM NOT BEING AT A NEGATIVE, they're deck still outperformed yours, characters, stats, and everything except the fact that all of your characters have 0/15 And their characters have 0/13.

It doesn't make the game any harder to win, nor easier to lose.
Remember that score has no limit, only a minimum, your deck's minimum amount of points to deal is the sum of your opponent's health.
You're looking at it backwards,a higher means your opponent will have to gain more points to kill your characters to win, end of story.

Regardless of other stats, High health means only that your opponent will have to gain more points than you to fell your character.

If you're saying it's fair that your opponent be penalized because of bad playmanship, or actually earning the points to reduce your group health to 0, You're wrong.
If you're saying that you're entitled to a draw when your opponent scored more points to kill all of your characters than you could to kill all of theirs, you're wrong.
Regardless of all other stats, your opponent scored more points.
Lower HP characters already have the disadvantage, DISREGARDING STATS, when it comes to the difference in how many points they NEED to score to kill the enemy team.
Everything comes in a balance.
When you win a game by having all of your opponent's character's dead, score is not taken into account at all.
When you have High HP, your characters have to score less points(opposing HP pool) to win by death.
The game calls a perfect draw when all characters are dead and both players have scored the same amount of points.
A draw consisting of 6 0HP characters can only happen when two decks have the exact same HP pool, both decks scored those points.
A draw consisting of 6 living characters can only happen against mirror circus.
A draw consisting of 2 players with dead characters who scored the same amount of points, everything else be damned, is a draw.
Having the game call a draw because your opponent's chose characters with higher HP, when you more than them, playstyles and cards be damned, that's unfair.

Either you're a really bad troll, or you seriously need to find a new game to play.



If you heal under 0, you gain the healing points, but your character is still dead, your opponent doesn't gain or lose score for the points you heal below death, but they are still added to your(Caster) score at the end of the game.
If your character heals while alive, the opposing character has to score more points(deal that damage again) to kill you. You got points for building it, they scored points for tearing it back down. It's fair.

When it comes to healing, the main reason having a large HP pool is an advantage, is because this game does not have an overheal feature. Healing points that do not actually heal are not counted into the game.
So if you're at 9(14) and heal 7, you're at 14, and only gained 5 points regardless of what the actual value being added was.
It is possible to call a draw if all characters are dead and your valid healing score makes up for the difference in overall point's scored. They did more damage, yes, but you did the same numerical amount of work with your deck as far as the game is concerned.

_________________
Fixing Eredan
Courtiers are not your friends

AGAIN:
EREDAN DOES NOT COUNT THE SCORE BELOW 0!
IT COUNTS THE TOTAL OF DAMAGE DEALT+HEALING.

your situation is stupid because it doesn't matter that they all get to 0 hp. WHat matter is how many damage had to be dealt to go to 0 hp.(jeez how can you not see that?!)

So of course higher health character are disadvantage if they drop to 0 HP. That's exactly the point. Meanwhile, they have more HP and they are harder to kill.

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

Skadooosh made an excellent point and I agree with that. The main advantage of high HP is the survivability.

I do not agree to add printed health to final score as higher HP decks will have advantage via points BEFORE THE FIGHT EVEN STARTED. That does not count DECK STRATEGY, which SHOULD be the integral part of the game NOT printed stats.

So this idea is a definite NO and I believe a LOT of people as mentioned it. Please give it a rest Nurvus as it has already been argued too many times and it is becoming tiresome.

I've gotten some laughs re-reading some of the arguments in this thread.

Let me explain what I'm talking about once and for all in the simplest way I can think of right now.

1 -> Health - just like defensive stats/effects such as Defense, Spirit, Damage Reduction and even Stat Reduction (for stats relevant to the ability to deal damage) - is a form of survivability.
2 -> Each character (supposedly) has its own advantages and disadvantages, and that includes the cards and combos at its disposal as well as the characters you can team him up with.
3 -> Assuming two decks with equal chances to win, if A has extra Health and B has extra defense/spirit/damage reduction/stat reduction, yet both have the same potential to bring each other to X health (whether it is 5, 0 or -10), this means A will have to overcome B's extra defensive stats/effects, while B will have to overcome A's extra Health.

Assuming both A and B overcome each others' survivability, it becomes clearly unbalanced once you factor in that every point of damage absorbed by extra defensive stats/effects is a point of End Score denied to the opponent, while the same isn't true when it comes to extra Health.

This is valid for any and all decks of all guilds, races, classes or castes.

I hope you can understand my initial meaning from this explanation, instead of trying to distort my words or take them out of context.

Again, if the only difference between character A and B, is that A has 3 extra Health and B has "damage reduced by 3", A is at disadvantage where it comes to End Score.

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

Of course things with high health usually have low defense. It's called balance but just because of that doesn't mean they are at a disadvantage (remember old Eclipse?). I will assume you are talking about nomads, sure they have no DF but what they do have is healing (which counts towards score), high attack (eclipse), -X to damage suffer (temple guardians) and lastly Immortal caste (OP bullshit).

Over all if you play a deck to it's best, even something as no DF is not a problem. I currently play a World Tree deck that is 3 Mages and guess what? They are all physical attackers. And I beaten things from Immortals to temple guardians that have Legendary and Champion (who in matchup have a better standing), Zil Daggers, and all sorts of powerful decks. How? I play smart and make sure I have counters to things that would beat me.

TL;DR?
A good deck plays with its advantages to win, a great deck plays with its advantage and makes sure to hide/cover its weakness.

Don't "assume I am talking about nomads" after I specifically stated

It just shows you either didn't read or don't care.

And you are changing the subject to gimmick examples of decks.
Certain decks may or not be very strong because some cards are simply unbalanced - it has nothing to do with this discussion.
And you don't balance a game in one fell swoop - you need to polish mechanics one by one until they work well together.
End Game Score is not balanced.

Say you have two characters, and after playing all cards (damage, healing, stat buffs considered), let's assume:
A has 2 spr 22 atk 4 def 12 HP
B has 2 spr 18 atk 4 def 16 HP
As a result, they will both kill each other and end up with -2 HP.

Alternatively, say you have two decks.
All characters died with 0 HP.
Deck A had a total of 40 HP and dealt 50 damage.
Deck B had a total of 50 HP and dealt 40 damage.

It's all fair and balanced until you get to the End Score, where player B gets less score simply because his "advantage" is Health; while player A gets more score because his "advantage" is attack.

If you add to each player's score his own characters' printed HP, the above examples would result in a draw, as it should be.

If both decks have the same potential to win, but one has more Health, and the other has more of something else (attack, defense, doesn't matter), and both get each other to the same average amount of HP, it should be a draw.
Currently, More Health = End Score disadvantage.

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

Okay
1. When in the world would that ever happen? (give one character vs character / deck vs deck example and not just a crappy make shift deck I mean a well formulated one or made up characters)

2. You go and say I am gimmicky when those are not gimmick deck but structure ones. Those decks have solid basis and complete usabilities in game.
And then you go and give example of character that do not exist nor met the current lv of balance met by our characters (Psst look up the definition of both gimmick and of irony)

3. Like I said a great deck would cover its weakness or hide it. If you fail to do so your problem at the end of the game not mine.

...And?
I don't get your point...

This is how character are balanced. Stop willing to change everything; the game is designed this way.

Having more health has one downside: disadvantage if all character come to 0 HP at the end of the game (almost never happens...) However, they resist better to direct damage, and get to heal more if they want...

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