These the only way:
a) Stun
---> Increase it's duration like poison.
b) Poison
----> Slightly more decrease the defense
----> Knights take damage when heal or being healed.
c) Shock
----> Not damage knight.
d) Fire
----> No need.
e) Curse
----> No need.
f) Freeze
----> Damage knights after the freeze broken by itself.
Any suggestion? Discuss.
No arguments against the others, but removing the damage caused by shock would just make it an inferior freeze. The whole point of shock seems to be a middle ground between fire and freeze.
A) Seems nice, but as Atrumvindex said, the glitch needs to be fixed for it to work better.
B) I'd like this, my Biohazard is calling for it. The defense decrease will allow for even more effective offense. The loss of health allows for more caution when poisoned.
C) Eh, maybe lower the damage slightly? As Niichi said, it's the middle ground of fire and ice. If you remove the damage, ice prevails.
D) Agreed
E) Agreed
F) This is a bit weird... Ice is meant to not damage, but rather, hold something in place. If you add damage, it becomes a more "crowd-controlling" shock. It'll keep the crowd in place better than shock, and it'll have some damage. Now, I now ice is slightly underpowered, but it really isn't as well. I'm relatively new to using ice, using my Glacius as my main elemental sword now. However, I've never really had a problem in PvE or LD with it. When something is frozen, it's very easy to freeze it again and add to the timer. The only thing I could think of is to extend the timer of something being frozen, but not by much.
These are not the only way <.<
Blocking already negates the all of .5 damage that shock does.
A: I think it needs it double-attack glitch fixed first. Keep it only for lumber's thwacks, as it can be devastating and make a buff for the overly-nerfed Monsters.
B: Yes.
C: No... I mean, if you get shocked in RL, you get hurt. I'm not to sure on this nerf.....
F: Yes. Freeze is UPed against Knights in PvE.
Sometimes, these are NOT the only way.