|
Latias007 -> RE: =OS= What would YOU like to see? III - READ THE FIRST POST (5/7/2013 1:05:19)
|
I know that this is a really long list, but I really want these to be implemented for the good of the game.
1. Harder monster battles.
I'm tired of always winning regardless of how powerful the opposition appears.
2. Some sort of damage increase for each time you level up.
The change of 200 HP without any damage increase, imo, unbalances the game. This is because you can afford to spend more turns charging your attacks, instead of attacking earlier for the extra turn of damage. A more technical description would be: "The higher the level you are, the more likely you are to win by charging more than if you had not, due to the health increase formula. This factor of victory chance for each charge count should instead be almost entirely dependant upon what your deck construction is and how it compares to your opponent's." Considering damage is already dealt in the hundreds, it shouldn't be too inconvenient to devise a system where damage is increased by factors of at least 1% (which is too inconvenient for basic integer damages that would necessitate decimals).
3. A number above each element to display its charge upkeep numerator, out of its maximum charge upkeep numerator.
This should be rather easy to implement, and it really feels like something that should be there. It is very easy to forget what your charge upkeep is, as well as what its maximum is.
4. More reason to use piercing attacks.
This definitely feels like it should be implemented. They should be the better attack cards under certain circumstances, but that does not seem to be the case. Instead, they currently seem like the 'moles of the deck'. Imo, a good way of making piercing attacks better would be if they generally dealt half as much damage as attack cards of the same cost, but dealt that much damage to both shields and health, instead of only health. This would mean that if a character had 500 health and 200 shields, a pierce attack of 100 damage and 2 cost would deal 100 damage, dealing 100 damage to those shields and also dealing 100 health damage, leaving the character with 400 health and 100 shields. At the 400/200 healths, if the piercing attack had the card "Empower" used on it, the attack would instead deal 400/400 or 250/250 damage, leaving the character with 100 health and 0 shields or 250 health and 0 shields.
4.2. Instead of my recommendation, perhaps simply increasing the power to cost ratio of piercing attacks to almost match basic attacks. Possibly also adding a third type of attack that does what I recommended? Piercing (exists), cutting (recommended), and smashing (exists as basic) attacks?
5. Regular attacks being unable to deal damage to health if they dealt damage to sheilds. By this, I mean that a basic attack with cost 4 and 500 damage, when used against a character with 300 shielding, should not be able to eliminate that shielding in addition to dealing 200 health damage.
The reason is to give the weaker basic attack cards (1 cost 100 damage, 2/200) an actual purpose, while nerfing the overpowered stronger attack cards (like "Shatter"). Of course, this would greatly assist in balancing the game.
6. Obviously, a better deck customisation system.
|
|
|
|
