You guys are arguing about what feels right and what feels wrong. This feels unrealistic, but so is the whole game, so why not? It'll fix the problem ... oups, did I say problem? I meant the necessity to have tanks to win a battle, because the more tanks you have the more forts you own, or all forts for that matter. It was the same thing with GG stackable bonus, the more GG you had, the more invincible you were ... up to a theoretical point when each side would have the same amount of GG ... which never hapened by the way, and I feel it will not happen with tanks either. The end result with GG stackable bonus was: they nerfed it.
Now .. this is a bit harder to accept because Duelers will vote NO (they want their unmerited selfish gdamn boxes) and soldier tanks go both ways, some do not want to change, it's costly to change your skills and time consuming to do it without placate shamans, others would love to be able to do jobs, duels and fort fights alltogether. Adventurers and builders are the only people who "should" embrace this. In a twisted way, nerfing HP is beneficial to builders and adventurers.
You can argue all you want gentlemen, but if this would be accepted, tanks would do more damage to other tanks, and all players would do a helluva lot more damage to other tanks ... it would be only a matter of
time to realise that having more than 5k hp is a total give-away for an extra 3-5 rounds. And THAT, that would be a personal choice. You can keep the HP if you so wish, as it is with any skill. The only thing is that HP is only beneficial to actions where you know you will protect yourself with that HP ... and let's face it, we do not keep HP for doing hunting pumas with 0 LP.
I see it as a problem, I am an adventurer tank myself,(wasn't fortunate enough to be a soldier or a dueler), I will not even go to how useless an adventurer is in a fort most of the times ... I would like something to change regarding all this more HP more wins. I happen to be a leader, proven might I add, but now I find it soo difficult to make a strategy that would surprise the enemy,so that we might secure a win because of discipline, careful thinking, self sacrifice and a bit of luck instead of running of HP before their tanks die ... I am talking attacks. Defences do not need much thought atm, if you have it in you to make a topic stating where you want to position your troops even as offliners, you are secured...most leaders on my side just ignore the whole topic when defending, because it is "bad luck" to loose a fort in defence.
The question is : will we have more entertaining battles with balanced builds or nothing will change?
I can only hope for it, and my logic tells me that we should. To make it simple, all those tanks that have pure HP (in attack), have a bad chance to hit and a worse chance to dodge ... but the up part is that they can take more hits, about one third more hits than it would be after this proposed change. The really crappy thing is that even though they take more, the whole attacking side misses much more than the defense on their towers and walls ... so even if the charts are showing that the attack should win, in the end it comes to no tanks on the ground and some HP on towers while the horde is protected behind them shooting comfortably with even 10 HP. We have to remember that Blues have a third advantage, and that is that they move first, and this in my oppinion gives it an edge.
Now, if the attacking side had a chance to kill those defenders, some of those defenders in the first rounds, it would balance it out in the big picture. 30 or so attackers shooting at a player with 4-5 or even 6k hp on point "should" kill him. If a player is dead in the first round, it is one less gun shooting at you. While Reds would also fall faster, taking in account that they have more players to sacrifice would even it out ... enough to tip the scales in favour of a good leader ... and here strategy and movement comes.
This is my logic, I may be wrong, please tell me, I can't muster more than this.
Elmyr or Futurama, I don't know who came up with the idea of diminishing returns on HP or why it was rejected, knowing this much as I know now, I would definitely vote in favour of it. I either missed it or was so new to this game that I was still trying to understand how a knife kills a bullet.
While I would like to convince you guys to vote in favour, it is your sole choice to do as you want, and that goes to Tj Tuttle as well. But please be considerate of what it would change to the game instead of how realistic it is.
I do hope to see that HP nerfed any way possible ... Elmyr or Futurama, if this get's rejected, maybe you could do that HP Diminishing returns again ... I do not know how many other viable options are there to reduce the HP, if they all get shoot down, we might as well try again and again
Hellstorm, thank you for defending this