I am not sure if I am happy with this... reducing the abilities seems reasonable, but for me the passive abilities on a champ are not the problem. I think... the real problem are the ton of active ones...no champion should have 5+ active abilities... but 5 passive? Why not? All you need to do is read them, while active ones take up sooo much turn time. (Especially bad if you lag like Bane Shift...) So I think we should have a cap on active abilities not abilities in general... witches for example need their coven... still in their stats thats calculated, so if you don´t wanna rebalance every champs basestats if he has a theme/racial... you better do not count racials or basic attacks for your limit. Instead you should just say 3 active max...and reduce the over all amount of different abilities, especially the ones that do similar things. A lot of stuff like block could also be reworked to be passive (can only activiate ever x turns oblivion shield on meele) while that may alter the nora cost due to different effenciy, it saves a lot of turn time...while also making it more obvious for new players, and reducing the amount of actives you need to manage. Also while I see what you wanna do with the macho example I still think it is.. not smart. You told us last time you want a champ to be able to fullfil several roles with different upgrades. Well this one doesn`t? If you really want that you should replace one of the reflections with one of the suppot abilities (so she can go full support) or a negative one (to get her really cheap), if you switch a support ability that opens a slot of enraged or blood frenzy too which are nice thematically.... the current solution is just a boring and after a few trials everybody will have found the perfect cost/reward solution again... resulting in zero variation. Firemaw... to me has a similar problem... I can not go full damage and fire theme with death nova and lavastorm with incredibly high nora cost. Why ? Instead I have Tunnel Lava (which I never understood on him) as an option... that may very well does not help at all with what I wanna do with the champ. This champion is supposed to be the fire...die in fire and be reborn in fire... yet I can chose to not have death nova ? Now granted death nova needs to be one of the options since you count autoattacks as an ability... which ...makes no sense... since 99% of the champs have one...and it is obvious after 1 game to every new player and adds zero complexity. tl/dr reducing abilities is good... but autoattacks (no complexity) and racials that the champs are balanced around should not count against the limit...it will shoebox a lot of champions if you do not rework the baseline of most racial dependent champs. Instead you should set a limit for activated abilities, remove some unnecessary passives and rework some actives into passives (block, dodge, no.do).
I would enjoy hearing your reasoning. I assume you don't believe that Vuln is bad because it results in a single champion killing the unit that has it with far more ease. Also, petty condescension is also "kinda cute". But I get the feeling you just want to complain right now, so I won't press you on it.
The whole point of the revamp is to undo the power creep that had occurred over the years, so things should remain manageable. There may be a few edge cases, but those will be the exception not the rule.
I also agree that upgrade abilities should come first after the basic attack, scrolling to get to them is kinda...meh... but again I think basic attacks should not count anyway or racials so I would vote for 6 symbols max a page...
well, you figured out why vulnerability: frost is bad. so not sure why is it so hard to understand that ANY form of vulnerability: frost will still be bad. it can be not frost, but acid or sonic. what you suggested is basically weaker form of what it is now. it's not the case of it being strong/weak. it's the case of it existing for no reason. when I said that your suggested mechanic is cute I meant that I could see it being implemented in different way. Fancy Name X - When this champion is attacked by basic attack, this champion becomes dot (X) of that damage. so it would be kinda interesting drawback. now think about it being in a form of "the first opposite deployed champion from runedock gains Fancy Name X ability. there are some other ways as well. it doesn't need to be just for dot. other conditions?
looking forward to the revamp. Understand that main purpose of revamp is to reduce the power creep though still like some abilities to kept on the champions for their flavor/theme. Not all of them need to be ultra efficient fighters. It is the theme each champion plays better with that makes it fun to try play with certain champions.
Agreed that vun is one of this abilities no one really needs... the only deck I kinda like it in as a drawback i have to walk around is my treefolk...but again...could be integrated ina racial... instead some new trees....
Wait, so if you take Tunnel Lava it costs you 12 nora in this case (5 because you lose the -5 from Scorn and 7 from actually upgrading the ability)? If so, this pricing system seems way off. Because you can't take both abilities to mitigate the nora hike, there's no way that anyone would ever take it. Honestly, I still don't see any reason why we should be trying to preserve a CP/upgrade system at all. This is just adding a bunch of random pricetags that we have to then balance for the illusion of "customizing" our runes. In reality, it seems like the normal builds for champions are going to be just as rigid as they are now, if not more so. At least as it stands right now, some people will try out different builds because "why not?" There's no downside other than opportunity cost. After the revamp, you just can't take some of these upgrades without severely gimping yourself on the nora cost. Please, reconsider. At the very least, move the prices all closer to 0 (Scorn = -3 and Tunnel Lava = +4 ? or something like that). Edit: And by all the prices, I mean ALL the prices, not just the ones on Firemaw. This is exactly like the old old upgrade system where everyone took all of the negative upgrades so that they could run everything super cheap.
But in this new system you are purposely choosing to run a vulnerability for a cost decrease. Which is an effective risk/reward scenario. Efficiency for vulnerability. My suggestions were indeed to simply make it weaker. Because you have a few possible scenarios: 1. No champion is deployed that exploits your vulnerability. You saved nora, yay. 2. [Current Vuln] A champion is deployed that exploits you weakness. Your champion was cheaper, but will die incredibly fast and not be worth the nora you paid, reduced or not. 3. [Suggested Vulns] A champion is deployed that exploits your weakness. The champion wont fair quite as well, but the lowered cost compensates for this. My theory here is that in a game with no champion exploiting the vulnerability, you have a net gain. In a game with a champion that exploits it, the reduced cost should compensate. Right now it's the wrong way around. The compensation comes from not having an enemy on the field that exploits the weakness and you instead get completely stuffed if they have one.
These seem great. I spy with my little eye complaints about power level without the entire revamp to contextualize the new general power level. Keep up the good work Owls, hope to see the revamp soon so much excitement may commence.
These previews make me more nervous about mass nerf of kf runes i play. Mena for example. Add damage upgrade to base. Keep shielding and attack magic. Magic nova3 or mass heal2 become option 1. Immunity magic, weaken spells, or regen 3 become optional 2nd abil. This way he can fill role as healy mage or full offensive with sustain. If its much worse than something like this, our best champ will go shoebox. I can think of a lot of kf runes i use that can stand to lose one ability easy. Enforcer assimilate, vicar empathy for example. Warspirit coven. But taking them down furthur without adjusting their base stats is going to make it hard not to take the nerfs personally. Reducing powercreep suddenly could feel like 'making every rune suck'. I really dont like that firemaw preview. Pretty simple formula that commons = usually 3 abilities, uncommons 3-4, rares 4-5, exos 5ish, legendary 6-7. This seems reasonable.
Here's another idea for a change to Vulnerability: X... Vulnerability: Fire- This champion is Charred 5 whenever it takes Fire damage. Of course, certain attack types would need a DoT in order for it to work correctly.
I am actually not too concerned with champs with amazing stats, like Menalaus. I am more concerned about champs, like the Fae, that are literally gnats with many abilities.
