Jump to content

Azthor

Member
  • Content Count

    125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by Azthor

  1. This was originally going to be a beautifully politically correct post on how we cannot expect leaders to part with their humanity.

     

    But, truly, we are always expecting leaders to demonstrate nothing of their humanity, unless it is a carefully articulated jest that exalts our own moral perceptions.

     

    The opening post's character is somewhat mixed.

     

    Should a leader express themselves as individuals openly?

     

    Yes and no. If the head of state of a great power were to drop the dehumanizing pretense of a public figure, the results would be socially catastrophic. But this is MD, and MD is nowhere near as absolute.

     

    It is, in fact, entirely reasonable to expect of a leader not to appear human. Though it'd be delusional to believe they are not human underneath the facade.

     

    We could, however, ask whether it is reasonable to expect that of a land leader in MD.

     

    That is for each of you to answer, though, all things considered, my own opinion is that is too grand a request to be made so lightly.

     

    Flaws are amplified when you are under the spotlight. And we just love feeling better about ourselves by diminishing others.

     

    Loreroot Consul Mya should not have made that post, perhaps. But, if it were a deceptive move to draw support to Loreroot, it'd be a terribly phrased one at that.

     

    Instead, that is just a human, an unappealing flawed little thing he likes of you and me, dear reader Or perhaps you should be reminded of your own insecurities and inconsistencies?

  2. While I could not change the post's size, given the number of points I must address and want to comment on, I have divided that text according to whom they primarily refer to. Similarly, I have further reduced my paragraphs, and at least tried to adapt my writing, though I may have failed in many regards. If double posting were acceptable, I'd have done so instead, but that was not a possibility.

     

    @dst:

     

    I would not say I have only insulted No one in that post, but I would say I was offensive not once, but twice, if not more so. I will write about the second part of your post here, and discuss that offensive behavior of mine in No one's section, as a personal address.

     

    That first post, as per the disclaimer, does not reflect my own views. If anything, they reflect Burns' and No one's arguments in another thread, with a few additions from the comments in this thread. If they failed to do that, I'd like to be informed, for that would mean I've made a mistake in its writing.

     

    While, personally, I have yet to choose one of those arguments, I will comment, as before, on that information you've brought and those points you've raised.

     

    Limiting the amount of drachorns in a ritual limits the demand for drachorns. Doing so reduces the influx of credit purchases, as long as a significant number of players doesn't have the premium drachorns and still wishes for them. I believe that to be the case; that is an important concern, and I will add to the opening post later.

     

    Tweaking their abilities, if there is a problem at all, is the most likely solution, specially so with Freeze. I do not wish to discuss that option here only because there are other threads where it'd be more appropriate, and a few factors that I, at least, do not know, which I'd need to speak of such.

     

    My constant reluctance to discuss certain topics here is because this thread, or rather, the series of threads this one is a part of, were spawned because the original thread had tried to work too many discussions at once.

     

    Concerning the angiens, I had added a note to the opening post, which I later edited out, though I now think that to be a mistake, noting that I had no sufficient knowledge of the angiens to discuss Burns' suggestion on my own. I understand the boost to be different, from other threads, but I do not fully understand it, and I also understand that I may be unable to immediately learn such, as it may be a spoiler.

     

    If the limit for the drachorns shouldn't be changed, nor should the angiens', I agree, but, exactly due to not fully understanding how they boost each other, I cannot know how limiting their numbers in a ritual would affect the angiens' comparatively to the drachorns, and so I cannot comment on that point.

     

    As for the archers, I can see how they might be weak in comparison to angiens or drachorns, maybe so due to Freeze, maybe so due to the scaling of their respective Creature Boosts, which I am not sufficiently aware of. That said, It would be best for Burns to comment on that.

     

    @No one:

     

    Several parts of my post were offensive, or at least worded offensively. For that, I must excuse myself. While that does not justify their aggressiveness, I will explain what I believe to still exist of reasonable in those lines, first by redacting that post, then by commenting on your own post:

     

    Angiens and drachorns, not getting into the reasons behind it, are no longer quite rare. A new player that puts sufficient effort in gaining them shall gain them, and that is an achievement, but I don't believe that to be a great achievement anymore.

     

    Improving a new player's ability to compete with a stronger player is something that has to be discussed, but it is not what this particular thread seeks to discuss, or at least not to the exclusion of something else.

     

    Unless you believe limiting the number of drachorns and angiens in a ritual would directly reduce a new player's ability to compete against a stronger player, a situation where your point is fully pertinent, claiming the discussion had in this thread serves no purpose because it does not address that point strikes me as something of an unreasonable concern.

     

    After all, if this thread had never intended to discuss changes to the balance between new players and veteran, it can only be unfair to blame it it for not discussing such.

     

    Back on the topic of rarity, using phantom's quest as an example, I'd like to point out that, even where available, a GG drachorn is not so rare and desired that many players would visit the East for the sake of gaining one. Something players have done out of nicety for other players. That assumes, of course, that a truly rare creature would lure more players than plain gratitude or curiosity.

     

    While it may be the case that gratitude or curiosity are a greater allure to MD players than a rare creature, then we'd have to admit combat and collectorship's own allure has become quite low, or hail the players for their altruism. Myself, I find it more likely that it demonstrates there is no particularly large demand for a GG drachorn among those that might otherwise want one.

     

    Concerning Chewett and the Council, Chewett has spoken for himself. That you want to speak for him even after that is a very arrogant remark.

     

    You claim your time has been wasted, and phrase it as an accusation. But that makes no sense, for it was your own choice to debate it, and it is entirely unreasonable to expect us to refrain from debating because you disagree with our own points, yet do not wish to have to have to defend your own views. To have things be as you want them to in that regard is impossible here, and, most of all, it is impossible anywhere. 

     

    As a general statement, it is the purpose of this thread, and series of threads, to create a point of reference for discussing combat changes in the future. Such is done by dispelling myths surrounding elements of the combat system, as has been done, where that is not a spoiler, and finding what prospective changes are disputed and which are generally agreed upon, if any.

     

    If you feel I was still offensive there - whether in stating that wanting to speak for another, even when that person disagrees, is unnecessarily arrogant, or in noting that wanting others to refrain from engaging in a discussion so that you won't have to defend your own views is equally unreasonable - I am sorry, but now, at least, I do not feel I could phrase these two in any other way, for that is the exact expression of my views.

     

    To address your latest post:

     

    (...) Instead of immediately replying, I'd like to ask you to read it over yourself. If you feel that post is fine as it is, then I will reply.

     

    @Chewett:

     

    I had not been asked to further reduce the length of my paragraphs until now, and I do not recall any comment to that effect from you, concerning my own posts. While that may have been aimed at another player, I have, nevertheless, attempted to break the paragraphs down into smaller sections.

     

    @Ackshan Bemunah:

     

    Most of your post is spot on, including the offensive nature of one of my lines, though there are a few things you may have missed that I've now addressed in No one's section.

     

    @Ary Endleg:

     

    You had addressed a significant part of what I have addressed above, specially concerning my intention with these threads. For that, I thank you, though I made my share of mistakes.

     

    @Burns:

     

    My english is largely conditioned by those contexts I learnt it and would use a foreign language in, so that modifying it does not come very naturally to me, but you are right in that I should strive to be able to adapt it according to the context of a conversation. I have attempted to do so to some extent in this post, but, at least for now, it is not much of a successful attempt.

     

    @Rophs:

     

    I understand that angiens are powerful, and that is fully intended, but it is hard for someone to make something out of that comment without knowing what creatures you are comparing it to.

  3. Angiens and drachorns are readily available enough that, it being likely that a new player will acquire a set of them sooner rather than later, limiting their number in a ritual does little to enable a new player to contend with a stronger player. I cannot dispute that point, in and of itself - instead, where we to discuss such specifically, we'd have to speak of tokens, stats, Skill Drain, Vitality Drain and Freeze - but that is a discussion of its own, and to have it in this thread as a throwaway discussion would be facetious and impudent.

     

    Nowhere in this thread, or set thereof, however, was it stated that the purpose of this and these was to address such, and, consequently, to discard any of the discussion herein and therein due to it not addressing such, and on that account alone, is pretentiously inadequate.

     

    Is obtaining one such a set of creatures truly a great achievement? No, the very notion is preposterous and one needs only look around briefly to see how many of those sets are in circulation. To that end, I'd like to point out a recent quest involving a heavily tokened and aged GG drachorn, which should, on all accounts, be rarer than a Goldrust or a Reindrach. That few would delve into the East for such, in lieu of the over three weeks given, is a statement in and of itself, even as a number of players have done so before merely so as to tour a new player around.

     

    As to your last statement, whether or not to join the discussion is your choice, by your own free and tacit consent - I appreciate that you have and would share your views - but that you would complain over doing so of your own choice is frankly obnoxious, not to say outright rude.

     

    On a similar note, while wishing not tot waste the Council or Chewett's time is a valid concern, it is also one that holds no weight when were outright encouraged by one of them to move forward with the discussion at an earlier point, not once, but twice. Were either to, directly or indirectly, imply this discussion to be undesirable, then their will should be heeded, but not by your own account alone, devoid of any such capacity.

     

    Truthfully, at this point in time, it is not even the purpose of this discussion to address design changes that are found necessary, but rather, to find which changes are found necessary, what are found unnecessary, and what are mutually contested, with a pretension to consensus where possible, by testing and arguing over those points that remain loose.

  4. It may prove to be a design flaw by other accounts, such as those listed, indeed, but, isolated, the parallelism to negative stats is symmetry for the sake of symmetry. I will, however, add it to the list if others find it to be a compelling argument nevertheless.

  5. That negative stats already commonly function as such has been pointed as a reason for Weaken Defense to not act as it does; I opted not to include it in the list after due consideration, however, for arguing Weaken Defense should not function as it does on that basis is an inherently weak argument - as its current function is not a bug, its current mechanisms are as intended as those that do not operate as such, and hence using those other mechanisms to dispute Weaken Defense's modus operandi is tentative at best.

  6. Disclaimer: I have not, in any way or fashion, checked the veracity of the data below, it being taken directly from http://magicduel.inv...92-combat-talk/. Should you find any factual mistakes, inform me of such within this thread and this post will be edited accordingly. New suggestions, where pertinent to the topic, will likewise be added.

     

    I - With Attack being more readily available than Power, it has been claimed that those support skills deriving from Power, such as Defend, Protect, Heal and Regenerate are hopeless to compete against the Attack based Weaken Defense. On these grounds, it was suggested that Weaken Defense be made unable to reduce an opponent creature's Defense below 0. 

     

    II - Being able to bring Defense below the threshold of 0 is one of its primary strategic appeals, specially so at lower stat allotments. It would be just as doable to buff those abilities cited in I to be more competitive, if they are deemed to be comparatively underpowered. Alternatively, other solutions could be considered.

     

    III - It has been indicated that Weaken's Defense current behavior was not originally intended. It has likewise been indicated that the present behavior, though unintended, derives from the restructuring of an original thus flawed that its current application would be undesirable.

     

    IV - Many Target (All) rituals further benefit from Weaken Defense, but, as one such a point is inherently tied to another discussion, I'd rather those involved refrain from delving into this it for the moment, focusing on points I and II instead.

     

    Index:

     

    http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15716-aurasbonuses-creature-boost-skill-drain-vitality-drain-freeze-antifreeze-tokens-availability-order-opportunity-value/

    http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15721-target-all-creature-diversity-creature-upgrade-value/

    Defend, Intoxicate, Martyrism & Protect: Availability, Opportunity Value & Targets

    Heal & Regenerate: Opportunity Value, Targets & Upper Limit

    http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15734-rustgold-drachorns-reindrachs-wind-dragons-mutual-creature-boost/

    http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15733-unit-limits-angiens-drachorns-archers/

    http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15748-weaken-defense-lower-limit/

    Honor & Negative Stats: Lower Limit

    Honor & Balance: Intended Function & Current Application

    http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15763-reducing-the-power-of-freezes/

     

    Discussion status: weak consensus.

  7. It may also be worth noting that angiens, by having no access to Freeze, are vulnerable to one creature rituals if not properly supported; assuming one has sufficient personal initiative to beat the tokens' boost when employing a single creature. Similarly, Vitality Drain can affect the angiens before the initiative proper, and a drachorn ritual may have an inherent advantage through Freeze, even if further limited in numbers. While the angiens' defense may prove a challenge without as many Creature Boosts, that is somewhat lessened by the availability of Weaken Defense.

     

    It is likewise remarkable that their reliance on either singie or multi targeting can make for a significant disadvantage, depending on the initiative order and whether or not they are able to kill the opponent's creatures in a single hit. More importantly, however, if it will not incur into spoilers, can anyone pinpoint the specific proportions under which an angien's Energy Burn will backfire? Alternatively, knowing whether or not there is a way of absolutely preventing one such a backfire would suffice.

  8. Disclaimer: I have not, in any way or fashion, checked the veracity of the data below, it being taken directly from http://magicduel.inv...92-combat-talk/. Should you find any factual mistakes, inform me of such within this thread and this post will be edited accordingly. New suggestions, where pertinent to the topic, will likewise be added.

     

    I - It has been suggested that Wind Dragons and GG drachorns Creature Boost each other, but not themselves, it held that their powerful base stats are rendered somewhat meaningless in view of personal stats and tokens, and their inability to benefit from Creature Boost in large rituals, as well as their apparent inferiority as far as Freeze mechanics are concerned, render them a sub-optimal choice mainly held by collectors.

     

    II - It is already the case that Wind Dragons boost GG drachorns. It could, the other way around, be suggested that GG drachorns boost Wind Dragons, but not the other way around, though there has yet to be any expression for this particular variant.

     

    Note: while I will edit the opening post as necessary, I shall refrain from partaking in the discussion proper, lest my involvement be mistaken for bias, in light of recent circumstances. Should you believe there is anything amiss with this post, you are encouraged to raise your concern, whether privately or openly, and I will do my best to address it accordingly.

     

    Index:

     

    http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15716-aurasbonuses-creature-boost-skill-drain-vitality-drain-freeze-antifreeze-tokens-availability-order-opportunity-value/

    http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15721-target-all-creature-diversity-creature-upgrade-value/

    Defend, Intoxicate, Martyrism & Protect: Availability, Opportunity Value & Targets

    Heal & Regenerate: Opportunity Value, Targets & Upper Limit

    http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15734-rustgold-drachorns-reindrachs-wind-dragons-mutual-creature-boost/

    http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15733-unit-limits-angiens-drachorns-archers/

    http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15748-weaken-defense-lower-limit/

    Honor & Negative Stats: Lower Limit

    Honor & Balance: Intended Function & Current Application

    http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15763-reducing-the-power-of-freezes/

     

    Discussion status: weak consensus.

  9. Please, refer to http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15716-aurasbonuses-creature-boost-skill-drain-vitality-drain-freeze-antifreeze-tokens-availability-order-opportunity-value/ in directly discussing auras and bonuses such as Creature Boost, Moraleaura and Levelscare, as to maintain the topics relatively sectioned; while I recognize some measure of overlapping may prove unavoidable, the present situation is not one such a case.

  10. Disclaimer: I have not, in any way or fashion, checked the veracity of the data below, it being taken directly from http://magicduel.inv...92-combat-talk/. Should you find any factual mistakes, inform me of such within this thread and this post will be edited accordingly. New suggestions, where pertinent to the topic, will likewise be added.

     

    I - Drachorns: Target: All, Freeze, Antifreeze & Creature Boost: further reducing the maximum number of drachorns in a ritual has been suggested as a way of limiting the ultimate compounding of those factor. It has been suggested by multiple parties that that keying into Freeze mechanics while retaining optimal targeting and great boosts makes certain drachorn setups overly desirable, to the detriment of other rituals.

     

    II - Archers: Target: All & Creature Boost: reducing the maximum number of archers has been suggested as a measure in the same veins of II, based, primarily, on the stacking of player stats/tokens, a potent targeting ability and the multiplicative nature of Creature Boost.

     

    III - Angiens: Energy Burn, Antifreeze & Creature Boost: archers and, more so, drachorns, must remain desirable; by reducing the current limits as per I & III, angiens may have to be likewise capped, lest their damage potential, access to Antifreeze, tendency towards high VE and defensive stacking completely and uncircumstantially trump those attack based rituals.

     

    IV - As an addendum to III, Angiens, despite their strengths, possess a strategical weakness in the possibility of which Energy Burn might backfire against them; that adds a layer of defeat circumstances - one which initiative based attack rituals lack - that can be capitalized upon by the opponent. However, whether or not it is possible to avoid succumbing to one's own Energy Burn without error by maintaining a given proportion between VE and Power, even in the event of Vitality Drain, could be the defining argument in this discussion.

     

    V - Decreasing the limit for the amount of drachorns and archers in a ritual is likely to directly affect the total demand for premium creatures, consequently reducing the demand for credit and the inflow of money through the MD Shop, of fundamental importance to the game's continuity. Generally, a change concerning that gameplay element should only be considered where it is able to counterbalance one such a loss, by, for one, greatly increasing the participation of players in combat, and hence the consumption of credits.

     

    Index:

     

    http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15716-aurasbonuses-creature-boost-skill-drain-vitality-drain-freeze-antifreeze-tokens-availability-order-opportunity-value/

    http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15721-target-all-creature-diversity-creature-upgrade-value/

    Defend, Intoxicate, Martyrism & Protect: Availability, Opportunity Value & Targets

    Heal & Regenerate: Opportunity Value, Targets & Upper Limit

    http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15734-rustgold-drachorns-reindrachs-wind-dragons-mutual-creature-boost/

    http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15733-unit-limits-angiens-drachorns-archers/

    http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15748-weaken-defense-lower-limit/

    Honor & Negative Stats: Lower Limit

    Honor & Balance: Intended Function & Current Application

    http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15763-reducing-the-power-of-freezes/

     

    Discussion status: divergence.

  11. If none of the tests prove our expectations concerning Skill Drain untrue, we could assume securing as many of a given stat, as spread through a six creatures ritual, as a superior opponent should be impossible. If that is the case, then it is not possible to gain initiative advantage through Skill Drain and, strictly speaking, Skill Drain should be powerless to stop a first hit reliant opponent; that, of course, putting aside the freeze roulette, through which Skill Drain might enable a few circumstantial victories.

     

    It might also prove determinant in a number of close calls, such as the inferior party having far more VE in play.

     

    However, should that prove undesirable, that is, nevertheless, fundamentally difficult to balance otherwise, as high stats/a good set of tokens must have an advantage, as is currently the case. Though there is room for discussion on how significant an advantage it should entail and what manner thereof - first and foremost on which of ritual choice and ritual performance it should impact - it is not a discussion that can ignore the impact on the desirability of stats and tokens.

     

    Furthermore, it must be noted that, even if Skill Drain could match your creatures with a superior opponent's, a superior opponent would still have an advantage in employing Freeze or Antifreeze in those slots, which already holds true, even if Skill Drain cannot fully cover the gap.

     

    Any thoughts or new evidence to work upon or against those lines of thought?

  12. Basically SW does drain and does low boost, TS doesn't do drain at all, only boost and that boost is much higher than SW boost, also since stats aren't drained from enemy, every subsequent TS aura will boost by same amount of stats, meaning stacking is additive, where in SW case stacking is multiplicative. With 3 TS you can get ridiculous amount of stats and get advantage over enemy by like 50% more stats than him, while the enemy will still keep his original stats. With TS you actually can win.

     

    If the TS' boost is solely based on the absolute difference between the relevant stats in the appropriate slots, the effect should decrease with each boost, as the gap diminishes, making it so that TS cannot ever bring your stats above your opponent's. As they are irreconcilable, which of the aforementioned and the quoted are true?

  13. I - lashtal killed Mur to fulfill the meaning/prophecy associated to his name.

    II - lashtal killed Mur to discover/confirm whether it was was his destiny to be his slayer.

    III - lashtal killed Mur to be a god slayer.

    IV - lashtal killed Mur to start a chain reaction.

    V - lashtal killed Mur to satisfy an urge.

    VI - lashtal killed Mur to further a belief.

    VII - lashtal killed Mur to build up to an event.

    VIII - lashtal killed Mur to show there are no limits in MD.

    IX - lashtal killed Mur to show his inner will.

    X - lashtal killed Mur to show the different between outer and inner 'darkness'.

  14. Lashtal killed Mur to fulfill the meaning/prophecy associated to his name.

    Lashtal killed Mur to negate a god (god slayer).

    Lashtal killed Mur to discover/confirm whether it was was his destiny to be his slayer.

    Lashtal killed Mur to create a new path.

    Lashtal killed Mur to open a new path.

    Lashtal killed Mur to learn from him.

    Lashtal killed Mur to learn from his killing.

  15. I suppose how useful Vitality Drain is in such a scenario depends on the difference between the total amount of VE in the fight and the amount of damage being thrown around. For one, if the first one to attack ends the fight, Vitality Drain was entirely useless, other than whatever VE it may have sapped from the opponent if they didn't use a 0% slider. If, on the other hand, not enough damage was thrown around to wipe out either side, Vitality Drain might win the fight. Not that such is necessarily useful.

     

    The aura is circumstantially more interesting against Energy Burn, I'd imagine.

     

    As for Skill Drain, that is as expected; I haven't been able to test, personally, whether the percentage shifts according to some criteria, but, if I had to go with some parameter of usefulness, it'd be that it must be able to shift over more than 50% of the initiative and damage over. If it can do so, then it truly offers a counter to certain build ups based around superior stats; without being absolute, as the opponent is left three slots to wield before the initiative rolls, potentially freezing the source of the aura.

  16. While I do not begrudge the idea of one such a discussion, and even believe it to be necessary, to have it now may be precipitated. As an example, had we had this discussion a month ago, we'd likely have had a cyclic discussion around Freeze mechanics under myriad inaccurate notions on how Freeze & Antifreeze apply and interact with tokens and other auras, potentially culminating in the discussion dying out.

     

    Without a sufficient lead-up to this, we risk having another variant of that very example happen.

  17. I'd like to bring another two aspects into consideration, pertaining directly to the topic at hand. Again, I'd like to refrain from discussing more extensive redesigning until further discussion has taken place:

     

    I - If creatures that were unfrozen by the defender can still miss their turn as a consequence thereof, the application of their own auras included, then we are dealing with a notably less pro-defender scenario; if anything, that all but guarantees any complex strategy involving the initiative order is null from the defender's perspective. Can anyone confirm whether or not that is the case?

     

    II - How well could Skill Drain  and Vitality Drain be said to function, as is, under their intended purpose? That is to say, how much of a difference are they able to make against a more powerful player under the present system?

  18. The discussion seems to have developed sufficiently for an interlude:
     

    I - Would any dispute that those creatures with Target: All, drachorns included, ought to maintain the advantage they derive strictly from Target: All, whether due to to their position in the combat hierarchy, availability or premium status, if such advantage were not further compounded by other others? 

     

    II - Furthermore, and in spite of the answer to I, would any dispute that, while drachorns are meant to be among the foremost desirable creatures in the game, the compounding of Target: All with Freeze, Antifreeze and Creature Boost Auras lends to an undesirably exaggerated outcome?

     

    III - If II holds true, would further limiting the maximum that can be placed in a ritual provide a sufficient reduction in the ultimately compounding, or would changes to the templates themselves, if not something else, be required?

     

    IV - To a potentially lesser extent, I believe the questions in II and III could be extended to Bloodpacts, tying in to Burns' original suggestion, which also pertained to the limit on archers; what is the general view on such?

  19. (...) the free inventive folk of MD gathered in a great host (...) but Azthor's cheapness could not be undone. Yet.  :ph34r:

     

    Lashtal killed Mur to fulfill the meaning/prophecy associated to his name 

    Lash killed Mur to be an opposing force to a god (god slayer)

    Lash killed Mur to break the limits

    Lash killed Mur to create a new path

    Lash killed Mur to bring balance

    Lash killed Mur to further explore the meaning of his existence

    Lash killed Mur to start a chain reaction

    Lash killed Mur to distract from a different plot

    Lash killed Mur to draw attention to Necrovion

    Lash killed Mur to bring knowledge of a different principle

  20. I would like to direct the discussion towards point II, first and foremost. I'd ill advise discussing alternative concepts without first properly contending with the present system's desirability.

     

    Is it  reasonable to still consider those creatures rare, and justify their might by such? Whether or not is so, should every creature, max level assumed, be somehow feasible in a highly competitive environment, or should the system culminate in a given limited number of them, with others being steps in the ladder?

     

    Additionally, changing Target (All) to anything else will have a very significant impact in combat, as Target (All) is an absolute ability, devoid of chance. Changing it to some variant of Target: (Multiple: Greater) is no minor readjustment, though it may, nevertheless and ironically, do nothing to make other creatures more desirable.

     

    Finally, I'd like to note: outright winning a battle is not the sole purpose for which a creature may be used.

×
×
  • Create New...