|
Hakunin -> RE: =OS= Beta Release Thread 128 - READ THE FIRST POST (7/14/2013 2:44:42)
|
quote:
Fire was the first of its kind to have a pierce card that did more then 100 damage, the first to get a card that did 1k damage, and the point of fire is to hit hard. What ever element you use, they all use the same cards over and over, (shield/shatter for ice, poison/MoD for shadow, heal/retribution for light, HoT/power flow for water, iron hide/death flow for neutral, need i go on?)
Fire has pierce cards, but they never come to play as far as I've seen. The normal attack cards cause so many damage they destroy the shields and kill the opponent way before pierce would be necessary.
Again: Fireball is just 2*500 dmg cards melted. It isn't a new thing for real.
And no, other elements from the same deck, depending on the opponent DO apply different strategies, what means they use different cards from the same deck. Eg. there are times when the way can be DoT, or piercing, or normal damage, or shielding. Some concrete examples: Ogre always must decide wether it'll use its piercing cards or regular damage. In PvP with Gypsophylia I either used DoT or regular damage, depending on the opponent's strategy, to win. With Ice CC I saw a guy who could change his deck to either cause piercing, DoT, or normal damage with equal efficiency. When using a Shadow Character you must decide wether to use Void Reflection, or that'd be just a waste of charges to start with.
I am unfamliar with Light, and Energy or Water just no the real thing yet (although I see a distinction at least between Ogre Shaman and Quatzk).
quote:
Give Light Fairy 2 Retributions ...
Ok, first: start to talk about Light Fairy, not CC.
Second: your instruction strongly suggest most if not all characters 'cause CC are just skins.
quote:
I had said already that the CC version of Burn ...
No need to comment what wasn't a question. Or direct it to the right person (this time that was @synner).
@Asuka
quote:
WoW doesn't own the idea of instrumental weapons
Noone said there's a legal issue...
@Cyber Doom
quote:
i just think we should be able to fight shop owners for a chance at possesing the contents
How 'bout some shop-owners who must be fought to open the shop every time you want to look the content of the shop?
|
|
|
|
