Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[atomkai]

Currently, it seems that "Toughness" is ranked solely on the amount of HP a player has.

But I don't think that equates to tough, as I have characters that can slay a player with 5x their HP because the player they attack has low attack/defense stats.

I think Toughness should be calculated - and this is the initial formula I have come up with:

(HP + Attack + Defense) / Orochimaru Kills

Obviously, this formula greatly favors sitters with low amount of DKs - which is why it is what I would consider a "pound for pound" rating.

Perhaps it (the Pound for Pound rank) could be added to the N:HoF and Toughness replaced by: HP + Attack + Defense

tl;dr

Toughness should be changed from HP to HP+Attack+Defense (at minimum) and Pound for Pound, which is calculated by this formula [ (HP + Attack + Defense) / Orochimaru Kills ] should be added or it should replace Toughness altogether.

[Neji]

Could be done.

Indeed the check is HP only.

Though you tough means "can take a lot of dmg", which is basically indeed HP, if you see the total damage, not the net damage that goes through the defense.

Some spells i.e. go past defense and do direct damage.

Could be seen both ways, I guess.

[atomkai]

So then, would it be possible (and by possible, I mean relatively easy and not very time consuming) to add a "Pound per Pound" Toughness rating (as described above)?  I need to reinstall an LotGD so I can test some of this - but if I remember correctly, Hall of Fame isn't in the base release, right?

I think of Tough as both able to attack AND defend, but if you think it more of "take a lot of dmg", then the Pound per Pound calculation could be changed accordingly:

(HP + Att + Def) / OK <-- includes attack
(HP + Def) / OK <-- just the ability to take dmg, not inflict

ETA: another thing to consider, while this thread has over 40 views - NO ONE else has commented, which seems to indicate that no one but me cares about this, sadly. Probably another reason NOT to go forth with it.     

[Eric]

Well we do like to read, and lurk, and of course, not be too repetitive, unless it is a passionate cause...


But I digress and may not speak for all. What's to post and add to this?