Page 1 of 1

Yet another propose for block mechanics

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:26 am
by random_pal
Since the new shield wall gives block value, I was thinking that maybe block could become a little like mindslayers shields.
Spectral shield could be implemented into base block and block values lowered (a lot). This way, only bulwarks would be able to make the flat damage reduction on block a good defensive tool and with the right scaling it could be decent from start to finish.
Now, to give bulwkark something similar to forcefield, last-stand could also raise your block value. By similar, I don't really mean 60% damage reduction, just a buff to how much incoming damage you can mitigate! :mrgreen:
This way, taking eternal guard at lvl 30 would be a great option, in line with the fact that they are "the shield class", giving you something very similar to TK shields (since thanks to eternal guard your block is almost always on).

This would hurt demonologists a lot, but that could be easily solved by adjusting the numbers on osmosis shield to make as good as it is now (i.e. 100-150% of block value, based on how much block values get lowered).

Just an idea, cheers!

Re: Yet another propose for block mechanics

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:38 am
by ster
So wait you'd be spending a turn for like, 50% damage reduction? That sounds even worse than Block is now.

Re: Yet another propose for block mechanics

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:53 am
by random_pal
ster wrote:So wait you'd be spending a turn for like, 50% damage reduction? That sounds even worse than Block is now.
But it would work for every damage, and when you get eternal guard it becomes much better and it would make block strong during endgame without forcing you to spend 2 prodigy points to make it useful.
It's basically just exchanging block value for what spectral shield gives, making block values get higher and higher as you get better shields and scaling (just for bulwark).
Plus, blocking every kind of damage means that you can always get counterstrikes, you're not just wasting turns.

Re: Yet another propose for block mechanics

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:50 pm
by Radon26
so you say you want them worthless for other classes. sure.

Re: Yet another propose for block mechanics

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:42 pm
by random_pal
Radon26 wrote:so you say you want them worthless for other classes. sure.
There's just arcane blade and demonologist and none of them use shields as defensive tools. Then, is not like I "want" something, I just saw the changes on shield wall and had a thought, that's all.
I feel like bulwark is the only one that might want to use block as a true defensive tool as other shield classes already have means to stay alive.
As it is now I don't think there is any class that can use block as a defensive tool anyway (unless you spend 2 prodigy points) so I think shields would be just as useful as they are now for them while being actually good for bulwark in the long run.

Maybe I just a bad idea, no problem with that! :D

Re: Yet another propose for block mechanics

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:21 am
by voltteccer
If all shields passively blocked all damage types and we made no other changes, blocking would still not be all that great.

Notice how Demonologist effectively has a 100% uptime Block, that is instant-use, with built-in Spectral Shield AND built-in Eternal Guard, AND cures status ailments. That's how far you have to go to make Block good.
random_pal wrote:There's just arcane blade and demonologist and none of them use shields as defensive tools.
Demonologist is the only class in the game that uses shields as defensive tools. The only reason to even use a shield as Bulwark right now is because it is required for Assault.

Re: Yet another propose for block mechanics

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:18 am
by ster
Osmosis shield doesn't actually prevent damage so it fails on any turn you are being one shotted. It's just difficult to notice since demo doesn't get one shotted on insane (but scales badly into madness). imo it's worse than going double staff but i have no proof so