URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The Chosen Ones
  HTML https://tcocampaign.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Bug & Balance
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 145--------------------------------------------------
       Balance question: "Fire Mastery" or new "Aura Of 
       Fire"
       By: Aeroblyctos Date: October 13, 2010, 11:05 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hello.
       I was brainstorming once again with ability damages. Phodom's
       Aura Of Fire is not as strong compared to Fradz's Hydro Shield
       or Galeoth's Glacial Armor. That is why I'm going to improve
       Aura Of Fire.
       Which one would you take? Are these balanced? Do you have a
       better update idea for Aura Of Fire?
       1) Fire Mastery increases abilities' and spells damage by
       values.
       Fire Mastery: abilvlx100
       => Lvl 1: 1x100 = 100
       => Lvl 20: 20x100 = 2000
       2) New Aura Of Fire gives permanent shield that gives 20% chance
       damage back attacking enemy unit and 25% extra spell damage.
       Aura Of Fire: (abilvlx20)+(intx1)
       => Lvl 1 & 15 INT: (1x20)+(15x1) = 35
       => Lvl 2 & 60 INT: (2x20)+(60x1) = 100
       => Lvl 20 & 300 INT: (20x20)+(300x1) = 700
       #Post#: 146--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Balance question: "Fire Mastery" or new "Aura
        Of Fire"
       By: Tears Date: October 13, 2010, 11:53 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Since it's an aura, I think there shouldn't be so much "chance
       of...". May be you could decrease the amount of damage/amor...
       and remove all "chance of..."
       Btw, I like Aura of Fire's damage is denpend on Str (like in old
       version) rather than on Int.
       #Post#: 150--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Balance question: "Fire Mastery" or new "Aura
        Of Fire"
       By: Aeroblyctos Date: October 13, 2010, 1:38 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       That STR version isn't realistic, that's why I changed. It's
       magical ability. However, I could create something like this but
       STR version. For example if enemies are melee units and then do
       counter attack based on STR...
       #Post#: 156--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Balance question: "Fire Mastery" or new "Aura
        Of Fire"
       By: [H]ell[H]eaven Date: October 13, 2010, 8:45 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       2000 damage is not a big deal later chapter, especially phodom
       is not spellcaster. do u remember we talked abt  coin sword, 25%
       do 4* primary attribute and its not enough. aura of fire is
       passive spell and it really fits for tanker phodom. so imo, i
       will choose aura of fire
       #Post#: 173--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Balance question: "Fire Mastery" or new "Aura
        Of Fire"
       By: Tears Date: October 14, 2010, 7:21 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Yup! Make sth that use STR, in old version I like Avatar and
       Aura of Fire together, it require no mana and cause high damage.
       #Post#: 189--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Balance question: "Fire Mastery" or new "Aura
        Of Fire"
       By: Aeroblyctos Date: October 15, 2010, 8:24 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=[H]ell[H]eaven link=topic=23.msg156#msg156
       date=1287020758]
       2000 damage is not a big deal later chapter, especially phodom
       is not spellcaster. do u remember we talked abt  coin sword, 25%
       do 4* primary attribute and its not enough. aura of fire is
       passive spell and it really fits for tanker phodom. so imo, i
       will choose aura of fire
       [/quote]
       Yea, but when you have that +2000 spell damage, and then you
       have an item like Icy Crystal it doubles the magic damage giving
       you excellent magic damage. So it's good also have that "basic
       spell damage", not just percents which gives alot more if the
       basic spell damage is high enough.
       Sooo... Is those are even close to each other? Or is that new
       Fire Aura simply too good now?
       #Post#: 195--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Balance question: "Fire Mastery" or new "Aura
        Of Fire"
       By: MofoBear Date: October 15, 2010, 11:10 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Aeroblyctos link=topic=23.msg189#msg189
       date=1287149079]
       [quote author=[H]ell[H]eaven link=topic=23.msg156#msg156
       date=1287020758]
       2000 damage is not a big deal later chapter, especially phodom
       is not spellcaster. do u remember we talked abt  coin sword, 25%
       do 4* primary attribute and its not enough. aura of fire is
       passive spell and it really fits for tanker phodom. so imo, i
       will choose aura of fire
       [/quote]
       Yea, but when you have that +2000 spell damage, and then you
       have an item like Icy Crystal it doubles the magic damage giving
       you excellent magic damage. So it's good also have that "basic
       spell damage", not just percents which gives alot more if the
       basic spell damage is high enough.
       Sooo... Is those are even close to each other? Or is that new
       Fire Aura simply too good now?
       [/quote]
       Why not make the damage based on hp and not on stats? That would
       result in Phodom wearing more "universal" items that give raw hp
       instead of str.
       For example Aura of Fire Damage = (Skill Lvl*0.3)*[(Max
       Hp*0.05)+(Current Hp*0.05)]
gopher.createaforum.com:70 /forums/tcocampaign/p/23:116: port field too long