Cyberbeast10
Member
|
I'll keep this short.
Should shields be changed so they negate a % of damage instead of a static amount? As it is, shields suffer from a lack of effectiveness against STR builds because...well, they are STR builds and the static defense cannot protect against the massive bonuses that are granted by these builds and other powerhouse playstyles. Shields can't work effectively for every situation and, more importantly, for the situations that require it. You want to put up a shield to counter builds that have only 1 damage-type or have the most powerful attacks in 1 element, but often times it doesn't really do anything significant because the damage is so intense you're still put in a "dead next turn" situation.
With a change into damage % negation, shields will reduce more damage against those types of builds that would cut right through static defenses since the shield adapts itself to the damage, while still having usefulness against standard damage levels.
The way they would work is that it will apply after the game does a standard evaluation of the damage. For example, it will:
Do: If the opponent would deal 100 damage (Oh boy!), then, say your defense is 30, you will reduce the damage by 30 points, then the shield (let's say 50%) would reduce that value by 50%. The damage would be nerfed to 35 damage. You would need a shield of 35 static defenses to provide the same effect.
In another case, if the opponent would deal 50 damage, you would reduce it by 30 and then 50%; this brings it out to 10 damage. In the cases you see, the shields end up being more effective for greater damage values and serve their purpose better.
Don't: Lower a damage of 100 by 50%, then add in your defenses. This would cause a damage of 20, which would make this shield equivalent to a static shield of 50. In the 50 damage value; it would lower the damage all the way to the minimal level. In this case, the shield is a massive asset to a defensive play, and it would be overpowered because then people would tank 1 stat and have the shield for massive back-up, letting them abuse other stats.
In any case, if you support the concept, which way would you think it would be best? Shields then Defenses or Defenses then Shields?
|
Printable Version
Icon Legend
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread
