The point of True damage is being the most reliable damage of all, in that it cannot be avoided in any way besides preventing the card from being played; however it triggers effects that benefit the opponent, unlike Life Loss, thus being more strategical and less faceroll than Life Loss, but more reliable than Direct damage.

Comparing to Direct Damage, it would have pros and cons.
Pros:
- bypasses [card]Good Jorusien[/card]
- bypasses [card]Den of the Madguy[/card]
- bypasses [card]Sevylath[/card]
- bypasses [card]To The Rescue[/card]
- bypasses [card]Vanish[/card]

Cons:
- Lower damage amount

Comparing to Life Loss, it has both pros and cons.
Pros:
- Can be increased

Cons:
- triggers Hit for Hit
- triggers Ecstasy
- triggers Icy Aura
- etc...
---

I don't understand why you are so bent on denying the validity of my suggestion.
I can't explain any better than this.
The purpose of True damage is completely different from Direct damage or Life Loss.

Dernière modification par Nurvus (15-04-2012 22:35:21)

ColdAvril · 15-04-2012 23:06:37

I just think it shouldn't be nammed true "damages" as it kinda opposes to the terms preventing damages or -1 to damages from jorusien. Besides that vocabulary point I don't think it's a bad idea and I think that players will adapt quickly, it's not like eredan doesn't already have some weirds damages cards effect (ice storm being one) that one more will perturbate anyone.

PatrikÅkervinda · 15-04-2012 23:29:16

Nurvus a écrit :

@Squamation and Patrik, the first post isn't really long at all.
In it, I wrote this:
Nurvus a écrit :
Example:
True Damage would trigger [card]Hit for Hit[/card], [card]Rage[/card] or [card]Icy Aura[/card].
Life Loss does not.
Not wanting to be rude, you could be less dense.

Dude, saying that you don't want to be rude doesnt make something rude you say less rude. You try your best to be innovative and smart, sometimes you do better and sometimes.. not so good. Not to rain on your little "vs. the world parade", but, maybe, just maybe this idea ain't that good.

You want to add another dmg wording that interacts with like 10 cards.

Eredan doesnt need a steeper learning curve. It needs better balance. Even if your idea is technically good it fails to keep the game simple.

More rule triggers makes the game harder to balance.

I simply don't see that the gains from a new dmg type is worth the hassle. It's simply not a good idea.

Edit moderation : Please keep the rude words out of the thread.

Edit for Zurga: Really? Was it that I said that he shouldn't be rude to me? Or that his idea was bad, or perhaps that he fails at being smart and innovative here?

Or was your moderation perhaps intended for Nervus who said I could be "less dense"? As in less stupid.

Dernière modification par PatrikÅkervinda (16-04-2012 04:37:31)

Nurvus · 15-04-2012 23:42:45

ColdAvril a écrit :

I just think it shouldn't be nammed true "damages" as it kinda opposes to the terms preventing damages or -1 to damages from jorusien. Besides that vocabulary point I don't think it's a bad idea and I think that players will adapt quickly, it's not like eredan doesn't already have some weirds damages cards effect (ice storm being one) that one more will perturbate anyone.

As for semanthics, I named it damage so that it can trigger damage-related effects.
I named it True Damage to symbolize unavoidable damage.

But you have a good point!
Maybe a new naming "True" isn't needed, and instead the "cannot be prevented" or "can only be prevented by Spirit/Defense" could be added, and this way it could apply to Magic, Physical and Direct damage.

Thanks for your insight and I'll change the original suggestion.

Dernière modification par Nurvus (15-04-2012 23:47:25)

Zurga · 15-04-2012 23:44:24

Topic corrected

Zurga · 16-04-2012 11:31:28

PatrikÅkervinda a écrit :

Edit for Zurga: Really? Was it that I said that he shouldn't be rude to me? Or that his idea was bad, or perhaps that he fails at being smart and innovative here?
Or was your moderation perhaps intended for Nervus who said I could be "less dense"? As in less stupid.

Check your emails.

Nurvus · 16-04-2012 14:42:39

PatrikÅkervinda a écrit :

Okey... Why?
We have Direct damage, Life loss, Physical damage and Magical damage. What new strategy will come from True damage? Other then a new confusing trigger word.
Nah, Eredan would be better off without the powercreeping and instead exploring optional strategies for the existing guilds.

In this post, Patrik...

In the first part you demonstrate that you ignored every bit of explanation and clarification I provided in my suggestion as to the differences and purposes of True damage comparing to other existing types of damage in the game.

In the second part, you call my idea powercreeping, when my purpose is precicely to explore optional strategies for the existing guilds, by providing a reliable (but weak) damage type, that can (unlike Life Loss) be played smart against.

Squamation did similar, and that is why I got annoyed. Sorry.
And by dense, I didn't mean stupid, but how you insist in not seeing/ignoring/perhaps trolling? my suggestion with unconstructive posts.

You know what a constructive post is?
It's where you try to build on someone else's idea, by providing viable alternatives, etc.

Destructive post is where you simply say no, won't work, would ruin balance, etc.
Those posts have no place in a Suggestions/ideas forum.

And yes, I may have made such unconstructive posts, but it's rare, as I try to refrain from posting them, and if someone gets mad at me for making them, I totally deserve it.

Dernière modification par Nurvus (16-04-2012 14:45:18)

Damncaster · 16-04-2012 14:44:57

any one checked my forge discussion? xD

UIA · 16-04-2012 15:55:32

Nurvus a écrit :

Destructive post is where you simply say no, won't work, would ruin balance, etc.
Those posts have no place in a Suggestions/ideas forum.

Disagree. Posting on suggestion is open to critical review. No need to get annoyed if someone finds an idea wanting or doesn't offer alternatives.

As for this idea I think a new unblockable dmg type is unnecessary, eredan already has direct damage. Yeah it can be negated by a few cards but the vast majority of defensive cards cannot. All this would do is make those few cards that can protect from direct damage watered down and irrelevant. Personally I think immunities are one of the least problematic issues in eredan, if someone utilizes a card like master mystic slayer no need to punish them more, its already very situational as is.

Nurvus · 16-04-2012 16:07:49

See, you continue to disregard what I said.

No, destructive criticism has no place in idea/suggestion forums, or at the very least, in arguments.

You don't bring tastes to arguments or arguments to tastes.

If we were talking about tastes, sure, you're completely right!
You could legitimally say: I don't like this.

Except this isn't about tastes.
I present my arguments as to what distinguishes true damage from the rest.
I even anticipate troll posts by providing examples just to make sure no one gets the idea wrong.

And then I get posts like yours, where all the arguments you present have already been clearly, unrefutably dismantled by my first post, giving off the idea you didn't even bother reading it!

- You speak of it being overpowered and replacing Direct Damage. Where did I give off the True damage would be as strong as DD without being counterable?
True damage would be weaker, but uncounterable.
- I already explained the pros and cons, and various distinctions between true damage and direct damage/life loss, both in usefulness, and strategy.

Dernière modification par Nurvus (16-04-2012 16:18:44)

Eredan's World

Annonce

#26 15-04-2012 22:31:38

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#27 15-04-2012 23:06:37

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#28 15-04-2012 23:29:16

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#29 15-04-2012 23:42:45

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#30 15-04-2012 23:44:24

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#31 16-04-2012 11:31:28

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#32 16-04-2012 14:42:39

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#33 16-04-2012 14:44:57

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#34 16-04-2012 15:55:32

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#35 16-04-2012 16:07:49

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

Pied de page des forums