Close

Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    61
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    [suggestion] attack and defense

    instead of making first attack strike then defender response, make like magic the gathering. they attack at the same time whole defender allies still attack first. this would balance a lot of overpowered low level card but will not affect high level cost cards in long way

  2. #2
    Devoted Fan Gondorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    England (GMT+0)
    Posts
    24,050
    Tournaments Joined
    1000
    Tournaments Won
    999
    Blog Entries
    1
    Welcome! You are about six years late with this suggestion unfortunately.

    When the game came out, many people from MTG found Shadow Era and asked for the "first strike" to be removed. But it never happened and all cards have been balanced based on how things currently operate.

    Maybe delivering damage at the same time would have been better but then you'd have a different game.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    418
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    It may be good that way but that what makes se different and still a good game

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    61
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Gondorian View Post
    Welcome! You are about six years late with this suggestion unfortunately.

    When the game came out, many people from MTG found Shadow Era and asked for the "first strike" to be removed. But it never happened and all cards have been balanced based on how things currently operate.

    Maybe delivering damage at the same time would have been better but then you'd have a different game.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    its not a different game just because you rework an aspect... it is still shadow era and you can balance the game in that way. it will be more balanced overall without having tons of cheese turn 2 decks lying around no?

  5. #5
    DP Visionary Demnchi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (GMT -4)
    Posts
    5,858
    Tournaments Joined
    8
    Tournaments Won
    1
    To each their own, but I personally prefer the way it works now. If it worked the way it does in hearthstone (which is a more accurate comparison than MTG since allies don't regenerate all their health at the end of the turn), then allies would become more expendable and ignorable. It basically makes controlling them less important and the hero would be attacked far more often since letting your opponent's allies attack yours is beneficial to you most of the time. This would also have the knock on effect of making weapons pretty worse than intended with the stats they have now. On the positive side, I think it would make allies with high attack but low health a bit more viable since they will always be dealing their damage to something if removed via combat. It would also make 1/1's a lot more justifiable as well.

    It's kind of hard to say which would lead to a more balanced game (especially once correct adjustments are made), but I certainly do believe that the current set up leads to more satisfying creature combat and a better focus on board control. It also protects the player (hero) by making it more important to control the creatures on the board and prevents the need to have things such as a block phase (MTG) or Taunt (Hearthstone) which helps facilitate strategies around things other than creatures (artifacts, support abilities, attachments, ect.) that many of us enjoy in SE.
    Last edited by Demnchi; 11-15-2017 at 06:05 PM.
    Was the Leader of Acolytes of A1

    A1's Dimensional Eyes in the Sky
    A1 Alliance: Evolution in Theory
    PFG3 Leader

    Was Shadow Era Community Manager

    Sota, The Switch Axe Monster Hunter

    "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
    "Humans fight to secure peace as they envision it. The trouble is, everyone's vision is different." - Ringabel

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    61
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Demnchi View Post
    To each their own, but I personally prefer the way it works now. If it worked the way it does in hearthstone (which is a more accurate comparison than MTG since allies don't regenerate all their health at the end of the turn), then allies would become more expendable and ignorable. It basically makes controlling them less important and the hero would be attacked far more often since letting your opponent's allies attack yours is beneficial to you most of the time. This would also have the knock on effect of making weapons pretty worse than intended with the stats they have now. On the positive side, I think it would make allies with high attack but low health a bit more viable since they will always be dealing their damage to something if removed via combat. It would also make 1/1's a lot more justifiable as well.

    It's kind of hard to say which would lead to a more balanced game (especially once correct adjustments are made), but I certainly do believe that the current set up leads to more satisfying creature combat and a better focus on board control. It also protects the player (hero) by making it more important to control the creatures on the board and prevents the need to have things such as a block phase (MTG) or Taunt (Hearthstone) which helps facilitate strategies around things other than creatures (artifacts, support abilities, attachments, ect.) that many of us enjoy in SE.
    MTG adopted this method since 1989 and is still rocking so is pretty balanced. like MTG make allys unable to attack heroes untill your allyes are dead./ simple/

  7. #7
    DP Visionary Demnchi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (GMT -4)
    Posts
    5,858
    Tournaments Joined
    8
    Tournaments Won
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Asherdoom View Post
    MTG adopted this method since 1989 and is still rocking so is pretty balanced. like MTG make allys unable to attack heroes untill your allyes are dead./ simple/
    Not sure what you mean. In MTG creatures are only allowed to attack other players (or planeswalkers if the player has one) and the defending player then chooses which creatures defend by fighting with the attacking creatures. Am I misunderstanding your comment?
    Was the Leader of Acolytes of A1

    A1's Dimensional Eyes in the Sky
    A1 Alliance: Evolution in Theory
    PFG3 Leader

    Was Shadow Era Community Manager

    Sota, The Switch Axe Monster Hunter

    "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
    "Humans fight to secure peace as they envision it. The trouble is, everyone's vision is different." - Ringabel

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    61
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    I was referring to attack and simultaneous defense

    Inviato dal mio SM-J710MN utilizzando Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    60
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Blog Entries
    1
    This would change shadow era, reworking this aspect would be to recreate a fundamental aspect of the game. In most cases, allys are created with more health than attack to allow them to survive, were in mtg there stats are more spread and varied because creatures themselves (under normal circumstances) are not valid attack targets at any time.

    If you rework the combat system, then you rework Shadow Era, this is because burn and mill are not very prominent strategies, that leaves attacking, and subsequently combat as the main way a game ends. If you change a games path to victory, you are changing the game, and in a big way. I am involved in the Magic judge community as a judge in training, and I can certainly vouch for the fact that adding things like blocker declaration and changing the way attacks work would make things much to different. Whole sets would have to be reworked, archetypes might have to be revised, cards might have to be taken out or added completely new. This would be a bad change. As mentioned above, this is all because the game has been shaped around the way it currently works.
    ~~Ace

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •