Minimum damage?

from Elemental Forums

One of the things mentioned when talking about separating hit/dodge from damage/defense is that they could make different kinds of creatures, some that were hard to hit and some that were hard to damage. This sounded great until I got in game and went against a high-defense creature: I had like 20 blocks in a row while the ogre tore my army to shreds. So in fact creatures that are hard to damage are ALSO hard to hit, meaning there is really no differentiation and battles against high defense creatures are extremely un-fun and battles between two units with high defense and low attack extremely boring.

 

The simple solution would be to make each attack deal a minimum of 1 damage. this would allow a large number of low attack units to take down a powerful unit, rather than than the high defense unit being un-hitable. Also, there would be a real differentiation between high defense and high dodge: against high dodge you'd hit for a bunch or nothing, while against high defense you're never going to hit for much and have to keep widdling away. As it is there is no reason to invest in dodge when high defense completely mitigates damage just as often and reduces damage when you do get hit.

elemental
3,859 views 1 replies
Reply #1 from Elemental Forums Top

I don't understand what you mean by hard to hit and hard to damage. If you attack and your attack die is below the number he rolled for defence, you see it as blocked because he outrolled you. That is hard to damage and is a factor of attack vs. defense. Acurracy and dodge play a similar role and also show as blocked if his dodge ability is able to outmatch your accuracy. This is refered to as hard to hit.

Your suggestion would be slightly unbalanced and take the wonders of scalable combat to a y=x+1 dimension that would surely induce undue spamming. I like the current system too much to ask for such an experiment.