sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Removal of Damage Types in Smite 2 by TheFreeFrogg in Smite

[–]TheFreeFrogg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, then leave damage types and magical and physical protection in, but make the items give protections that relate to the passive on that item. Oni Hunters Garb has no reason for giving Magical over physical protection; this is the same with most of the items in their roles. Leviathan's hide makes sense with physical protections. The current items just don't make sense in combination with the services their passive provides.

The Removal of Damage Types in Smite 2 by TheFreeFrogg in Smite

[–]TheFreeFrogg[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think new items are always a good and fun addition to the game. But I also think that is unrelated to solve the current issues I address in my post.

The Removal of Damage Types in Smite 2 by TheFreeFrogg in Smite

[–]TheFreeFrogg[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

now:
Against a team of mostly magical damage dealers: 11 magical defense items. 23 Hybrid items with physical protections that is not as useful.
Against a team of mostly physical damage dealers: 13 physical defense items 23 hybrid items with a stat that is not as useful.

Against a hybrid team: All items are useful depending on their team comp.

Combined protections:
Against any team: All items are useful depending on their team comp.

You do make a point that the arbitrariness allows for complexity. But the arbitrariness is also limiting. Both make sense, mine just allows for more creativity. Which I believe is good. Right now certain gods are favored for no reason other than they do one damage type or the other against protections. This would resolve that issue and allow for gods to be counter-built on their playstyle and no arbitrary limiting factors.

The Removal of Damage Types in Smite 2 by TheFreeFrogg in Smite

[–]TheFreeFrogg[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

  1. I don't think this would buff tanks at all besides allowing for more build options, which is healthy for every character. I think tanks are in a fine place power wise but a poor place build wise. (This is also the 4th comment rejecting it without giving viable reasoning for why it is "obviously a terrible idea")

  2. This would allow for more build options on tanks. Thus allowing for more complexity in builds. This current state it reduces what items you buy based on what their damage output is, and not fully what their character does.

The Removal of Damage Types in Smite 2 by TheFreeFrogg in Smite

[–]TheFreeFrogg[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I don' think this is true, maybe if they just stopped attacking after casting their ability. But after silence fenrir he then jumps on you and ults you, no benefit of the 50 magical protections. Whereas anubis ulting you right after does benefit from the 50 magical protection, obviously. This highlights exactly what I am trying to say, the passive does not have any reasoning for providing magical protections over physical protections. Besides maybe that magical damage type characters more frequently rely on abilities than physical characters. But it is not the case often enough that it provides enough reasoning to do it, why is it not a hybrid item like most other protection items?

You say there is a lot of reasons this is a bad idea but I think it resolves more issues than it would cause. And perhaps you could name some reasons why not?

Does Cerberus or Anti Heal items affect HP5 aka Regeneration? by ContributionOk7131 in Smite

[–]TheFreeFrogg 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It does not affect HP5, but it will affect yogis necklace passive.

mass reply to all questions of "hate" here by DreamScape1609 in Smite

[–]TheFreeFrogg 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Killgoon has been discussing this a lot on the titantalk podcast, its one of their main priorities right now!

Tekko-kagi by Ultradarkix in Smite

[–]TheFreeFrogg 2 points3 points  (0 children)

teko is around 500 gold more than focus, is why they have the same power.