But since it is considered damage, it wouldn't be the same as Life Loss.
Opponents cannot reduce or prevent it, but they can take advantage from it, with various cards, for example, True damage would trigger...
- [card]Hit for Hit[/card]
- [card]Rage[/card]
- [card]Icy Aura[/card].
- [card]Ecstasy[/card]

...while Life Loss does not.

EDIT (thanks to Cold Avril):
Maybe giving it unique naming isn't needed, and instead it applies to 3 existing types of damage, so we would have effects like this:
"Deals X Magic damage that cannot be prevented and is only reduced by Spirit."
"Deals X Physical damage that cannot be prevented and is only reduced by Defense."
"Deals X Direct damage that cannot be prevented or reduced."

Dernière modification par Nurvus (16-04-2012 16:25:00)

God · 14-04-2012 02:46:10

How about . . . no

Stormholt · 14-04-2012 05:25:01

There's already direct damade, why new ones?Only gonna overload the server...

squamation · 14-04-2012 21:13:52

It would ignore all types of damage reduction or immunities, but would still be considered damage as far as effects are concerned.

That's called losing health, like with [card]The Dead Gods[/card].
It is life loss.

Dernière modification par squamation (14-04-2012 21:16:04)

PatrikÅkervinda · 14-04-2012 23:21:42

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.

Nurvus · 15-04-2012 00:10:11

@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.

Dernière modification par Nurvus (15-04-2012 00:13:02)

squamation · 15-04-2012 02:49:14

But I could definitely be a lot more...

Would be nice if there was a type of uncounterable damage - True Damage.

I just don't see why this new damage type would be nice. It would mean Ecstasy would be that much stronger and craftsman decks a whole lot weaker.

Nurvus · 15-04-2012 03:21:41

Being uncounterable, it'd simply be reliable.

If you see direct damage between 2 and 3. You'd see True damage between 1 and 2.

And there is absolutely no correlation with Ecstasy.
Ecstasy doesn't care how much dmg you take (less is better for you), only how often.

Dernière modification par Nurvus (15-04-2012 03:22:32)

karnoki · 15-04-2012 03:34:32

Nurvus a écrit :

Would be nice if there was a type of uncounterable damage - True Damage.
It would ignore all types of damage reduction or immunities, but would still be considered damage as far as effects are concerned.
So no, it wouldn't be the same as Life Loss.
Example:
True Damage would trigger [card]Hit for Hit[/card], [card]Rage[/card] or [card]Icy Aura[/card].
Life Loss does not.

well... however I think it should be the ability.. I call it as "modify health point"
For example
modify HP to be 6... opponent Hp=6 and Maximum HP also be 6 (can counter healing deck XD)
OR
modify Hp by reducing by 3.. reduce 3 HP and Max HP reduced 3 (dont count to direct ,lose, M. dmg and, P. dmg. however, I want such "Crown of the border" can prevent the modifing HP ability)

Dernière modification par karnoki (15-04-2012 03:41:18)

squamation · 15-04-2012 03:47:40

Being uncounterable, it'd simply be reliable.
If you see direct damage between 2 and 3. You'd see True damage between 1 and 2.
And there is absolutely no correlation with Ecstasy.
Ecstasy doesn't care how much dmg you take (less is better for you), only how often.

[card]The Den of the Madguy[/card] in play speaks otherwise. Playing a direct damage card probably won't work well enough to damage anyone, so Ecstasy doesn't work well that turn.
Playing a "true damage" card would activate it.

In short, a "true damage" [card]Dismemberment[/card] is a heckuva lot scarier than a normal one.
And so, the ability to counter one card effectively makes Ecstasy stronger.

Dernière modification par squamation (15-04-2012 03:50:13)

Stormholt · 15-04-2012 03:56:14

You know how they could stop the OP of Ecstasy?Make Dismembrament, Storm and Explosion as Life loss, so it would be so Overpowerd...Who like the ideia?

squamation · 15-04-2012 03:58:09

+1, then my only reason for arguing on this topic would be to defend the craftspeople.

Nurvus · 15-04-2012 16:47:02

squamation a écrit :

In short, a "true damage" [card]Dismemberment[/card] is a heckuva lot scarier than a normal one.
And so, the ability to counter one card effectively makes Ecstasy stronger.

Except there wouldn't be a true damage dismemberment.
There wouldn't be a true damage ecstasy either.

So if you play den of the madguy, you could play true damage against an Ecstasy deck without fear of being damaged by Ecstasy.
Because your true damage would hit the enemy.
Ecstasy's direct damage wouldn't get through your Den of the Madguy.

It feels like either you didn't really think it through, or you're seeing things in reverse...

True damage would help decks AGAINST ecstasy.

squamation · 15-04-2012 18:04:34

Actually, you're right on that part...

I just want to defend Good Jorusien now, because True damage would render it useless and it is a staple of most Craftsman decks.
True damage would cut right through them.

skadooosh · 15-04-2012 19:02:09

there is just no need for true damage.
I don't understand the point of arguing over that.
we dont't need another kind of damage that could not be reduced. it's an open door too OPness. and we don't need to make the game more complicated. really!
I don't think it would be a good idea...

Nurvus · 15-04-2012 19:39:51

squamation a écrit :

Actually, you're right on that part...
I just want to defend Good Jorusien now, because True damage would render it useless and it is a staple of most Craftsman decks.
True damage would cut right through them.

It wouldn't render it useless...
It only means you COULD get 1-2 damage through no matter what.

Jorusien would still block all other type of damage.

I am not suggesting there should be a deck focused on true damage.
I'm suggesting a few select cards could do true damage, and few would fit any one deck.

skadooosh · 15-04-2012 20:10:30

I just don't understand how it would be usefull for the ggame.
what's the point of creating onother kind of damage.
I don't say it's a bad idea. just that the game doesn't need it right now...

Nurvus · 15-04-2012 20:23:08

skadooosh a écrit :

I just don't understand how it would be usefull for the ggame.
what's the point of creating onother kind of damage.
I don't say it's a bad idea. just that the game doesn't need it right now...

It would be what the game does not have right now:
Reliable damage.

Is there a "defense" against Discard?
No. It just goes and removes from your hand/deck. Uncounterable "damage".
This would be a different type.

skadooosh · 15-04-2012 20:29:28

well as far as uncounterable damge is concerned, we already have life loss...
the only difference with yours is that yours will trigger effects such as hit for hit, extasy, icy aura etc.

and I don't think it's usefull too add somthing like this to the game...

Nurvus · 15-04-2012 20:42:51

That's why you don't see Life loss.
It's too strong to include in regular cards.

So, I'm suggesting true damage, wich would have the benefits of Life Loss, but the downside of triggering enemy effects.

That would be more acceptable to incorporate in regular cards.

In terms of how common/available/strong the damage types are, you'd have:
Physical Damage = Magical Damage > Direct Damage > True Damage > Life Loss

It offers Feerik ways to make uncounterable damage cards, wich allow "retaliation" by triggering effects like Icy Aura.

Life Loss is the one damage type that needs to be unique and situational (like [card]Sentence[/card]) otherwise it is overpowered.

Dernière modification par Nurvus (15-04-2012 20:43:49)

skadooosh · 15-04-2012 20:49:08

still don't see were it would be useful.
if they want to make an uncounterable card. nothing forbid them to make a card like:
" the opponent suffers X damage. cannot be reduced by any in game effects."

sriously what's the difference between your proposition and life loss, except against icy aura, extasy and hit for hit??

my point is that there is no need for a new kind of damage(which will nor really be new since it's almost the same as life loss). we already have 4 which I think is enough.

Dernière modification par skadooosh (15-04-2012 20:51:06)

Nurvus · 15-04-2012 20:55:20

skadooosh a écrit :

still don't see were it would be useful.

Because you don't want to.

skadooosh a écrit :

if they want to make an uncounterable card. nothing forbid them to make a card like:
" the opponent suffers X damage. cannot be reduced by any in game effects."

They could call Direct Damage "the opponent suffers X damage. This damage is neither reduced by Spirit nor Defense.

Except they don't.
And just like they changed Attack +2/+0 to Min Attack +2, so would it make more sense to give a proper, intuitive and distinguishable naming to an "unavoidable" damage that is STILL considered damage for all purposes: True Damage.

skadooosh a écrit :

sriously what's the difference between your proposition and life loss, except against icy aura, extasy and hit for hit??

Strategy.
It is more acceptable to make a card that has uncounterable damage BUT can be played smart against: If you use this against a character with Icy Aura or likely to play Hit for Hit, or against an Ecstasy deck, you must weight the pros and the cons.
The same cannot be said about Life Loss.

my point is that there is no need for a new kind of damage(which will nor really be new since it's almost the same as life loss). we already have 4 which I think is enough.

Unfounded statement. You are just defending your point regardless of logic right now. Doesn't look good on you at all.

Dernière modification par Nurvus (15-04-2012 20:57:15)

skadooosh · 15-04-2012 21:02:00

I should be responding to you, but I won't.
I already made my point. you're the one not trying to understand it.

anyway, i'm going to bed.

Nurvus · 15-04-2012 21:03:45

I'm the one who, despite me pointing several times clear distinctions between Life Loss and True Damage, both in effect and strategy, is not understanding that you decided my suggestion is pointless just because you say so.
I guess I am.

Sleep well.

Dernière modification par Nurvus (15-04-2012 21:06:11)

squamation · 15-04-2012 21:09:43

Comparison:
[card]Surprise Test[/card]
that's 2 for those of you w/o a calculator or pencil and paper.

If you see direct damage between 2 and 3. You'd see True damage between 1 and 2.

True damage card:
Action
deals 1-2 True damage to the opposing character.

Unless Sakina is alive, Den of the Madguy is in play, or the opposing character has Good Jorusien, the result is almost exactly the same.

So why add True damage?

Eredan's World

Annonce

#1 14-04-2012 02:24:15

New Damage type: True Damage

#2 14-04-2012 02:46:10

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#3 14-04-2012 05:25:01

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#4 14-04-2012 21:13:52

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#5 14-04-2012 23:21:42

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#6 15-04-2012 00:10:11

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#7 15-04-2012 02:49:14

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#8 15-04-2012 03:21:41

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#9 15-04-2012 03:34:32

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#10 15-04-2012 03:47:40

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#11 15-04-2012 03:56:14

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#12 15-04-2012 03:58:09

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#13 15-04-2012 16:47:02

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#14 15-04-2012 18:04:34

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#15 15-04-2012 19:02:09

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#16 15-04-2012 19:39:51

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#17 15-04-2012 20:10:30

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#18 15-04-2012 20:23:08

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#19 15-04-2012 20:29:28

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#20 15-04-2012 20:42:51

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#21 15-04-2012 20:49:08

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#22 15-04-2012 20:55:20

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#23 15-04-2012 21:02:00

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#24 15-04-2012 21:03:45

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

#25 15-04-2012 21:09:43

Re : New Damage type: True Damage

Pied de page des forums