NDB
Member
|
What the?! This is almost the same suggestion I posted a while ago. Or does nobody remember it... quote:
What if support increased the amount of defenses ignored with rage instead of increasing the speed in which you obtained Rage? Normally, when you get blocked or deflected, you gain extra Rage points equal to the amount of damage blocked or deflected, as if the defender had enough defenses to actually negate so much damage. My suggestion is to let it so there is the same affect on Rage. Not only will it make up for a blocked or deflected Rage (not really, but it will help), even normally, when you aren't blocked or deflected, I think you should still receive Rage points. Example: You Rage Strike for 30 damage, but is blocked. Next turn, you Rage meter is up 30 points +the amount of damage still negated (like in the example below) instead of being reset at 0. OR you are fighting a player with 40 defense. You Rage Strike (Physical Damage) for 20 damage+18 from the defense ignored=38 damage. Next turn, your Rage Meter is up 22 points, because the defender still negated 22 damage. So players get Rage even when they don't get blocked on Rage. That will make it not just geared for Strength builds. Plus, I also suggested this too to help Strength Builds not get a buff. quote:
So, here's how it works. If both players have equal support, the base Rage would be 45% ignore, like how it is currently. With every support advantage of 5, your ability to ignore increases by +1% and the opposing players would decrease by 1%. The cap will be 30%-60% (in order to reach the cap, you need to have a 75 support advantage over the opponent) That way, strength users, with less support, ignore less, and as a result are not so strong, while support players ignore more. Example: Player A: 40 support, 30 defenses. Player B: 70 support, 30 defenses. When Player A uses Rage on Player B, he/she will only ignore 39%=11.7 or 12 more damage. When Player B does, he/he will ignore 51%= 15.3 or 16 (ED round-ups) or 16 more damage. How was that not reasonable?
|