RE: My thoughts on static Grenade (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel Balance



Message

Stabilis -> RE: My thoughts on static Grenade (11/17/2013 20:17:21)

quote:

To be fair, the tech to str wasn't even on the BH and merc.


Err, what do you mean by that?

Do you mean the Mercenary's Strength and the Bounty Hunter's Technology?



GearzHeadz -> RE: My thoughts on static Grenade (11/17/2013 20:23:42)

Yes, that is what I had meant to say, sorry for any confusion.



Stabilis -> RE: My thoughts on static Grenade (11/17/2013 20:40:28)

That is fine. I asked a question and you answered it. All good.

(reposted from page 1) Battery Backup, Static Grenade, Static Smash

Now, if you meant that the BH had low Technology, and that the M had low Strength, that scares me. Is a high stat like something over 100? Anyhow, the distinguishment between a skill with a low stat and a high stat is unimportant. The fact that Battery Backup is frozen at max 37 energy while Static Smash and Static Grenade can be increased beyond 37 is definitely a problem. As a TM, my only other option is to utilize Assimilation, but you know what problem follows that choice? Skill points. Just to get close to the power of Static Grenade or Static Smash, I would have to use twice as many skill points. That is unfair: a balance problem. The other thing is, even if I wanted to maximize my Battery Backup and Assimilation to level 10, each skill would take up 1 of my turns (2 in total), while Static Smash or Static Grenade takes but a single turn.

I would vote for balancing all of the energy skills again, because they are clearly not on the same terms, as outlined in this post.

I would also vote for removing Assimilation from TM for the sake of having 2 energy skills while others have but 1.



GearzHeadz -> RE: My thoughts on static Grenade (11/17/2013 21:03:28)

I had meant you were comparing static smash and static grenade while static grenade had 96 tech affecting it while the static smash had only 32 str affecting it.



Stabilis -> RE: My thoughts on static Grenade (11/17/2013 21:13:18)

The difference is important, but the fact remains that the known potential between a skill like Battery Backup (we know is 37 total energy), and a skill like Static Grenade (seen here as 68 total energy) is different. Vastly different. I think that if you compared Static Grenade to Static Smash at the same number of stat points, they would not be too different (by my mental estimates), but compared to: Atom Smasher, Static Charge, Battery Backup, maybe Energy Parasite... these 2 skills exchange numbers of energy far greater than those other 4.



GearzHeadz -> RE: My thoughts on static Grenade (11/17/2013 21:17:45)

You're right, these two skills are very powerful comparing to the others.



I Underlord I -> RE: My thoughts on static Grenade (11/18/2013 21:12:42)

I certainly agree to a small buff to Battery Backup's energy return, but note that it creates energy. That is, it isn't reliant on a one-time core or an opponent's energy pool; it gives a considerable amount of energy points for free, and can be used every four turns.

I don't wish to spam or repeat myself, but I've pointed out why Static Grenade is nowhere near as overpowered as people make it out to be, as well as a good change to the skill so it doesn't drain as much energy but regains slightly more.



Dual Thrusters -> RE: My thoughts on static Grenade (11/18/2013 21:23:45)

@Underlord

I think that might be a good idea as well. I had no problem with Static Smash because it really only drained a medium amount of energy, which I found reasonable especially for Merc which was too reliant on energy.

Static Grenade drains a very high amount of energy, leaving you with almost nothing. It also gives back some energy to use it again, or on a barrage of assorted skills, which you might not be able to all counter with your lack of energy.

So yea, increasing the amount gained and decreasing the amount drained could possibly be a win-win for everyone.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.09375