Skeezick Warcry and Leoss Warcry are currently 8 nora for rank 1, 12 nora for rank 2. Warcry itself, is priced at 7-10-15. Wouldn't it make sense for warcry, the stronger version, to be more expensive than the racial bound warcry?
So champions like the Dwarvan King is under cost as it is ? More to the point can we first look at the champions your change will afffect and see if it's justified ?
And this is why i'm opposed to criticizing posts. It always creates these new accounts/players that "pick up" on it when they were treated in such a way. I'm surprised covah didn't take offence(side note auto correct tried to change covah into Jehovah).
Racial warcry should be 6/9/13? or 5/8/11 also they should allow racial warcry to have rank 3 or romove rank 3 from general warcry
Dwarven king should not have warcry 3. I would price warcry at like 8-13-20 probably. But honestly, when compared with each other, some of the costs of abilities are ridiculous.
Racial Warcrys are slated to be reduced. So let me explain the "logic" behind why this happened. Early on in Pox history, every ability had a cost, and units had a number of upgrades to pick up, and runes were largely costed by a formula (similar to now) When runes would be nerfed/buffed, in most cases the ability costs would be adjusted. So things like Skeezick Warcry was added, and then someone decided to buff Dwarven King via a cost reduction to Warcry. Later, when Leoss Warcry came out, that system had been sidelined, and costs were added to some abilities but not all (I generally added a cost, but this was not always the case), in this case, Leoss Warcry was based on Skeezick Warcry's template. Since costs were mostly eye-balled and not formula'd at that time, it only mattered that costs were in an approximate range rather than more "exact." So when you re-expose ability costs after years of not really setting them directly, you get stuff like this.
Now this wouldn't be real issue if they never changed the upgrade system. Now we get to change the nora cost by a fixed formula that isn't tweaked but merely provides a baseline.
Except that you can add a manual modifier, so it ultimately ends up being pretty close to what it's been, just with more transparency.
"I only want transparency when what I see makes me feel better" - The totally reasonable pox community
So are you saying an ability with upgreade path (for example) rend1,2,3 (with rend 2 as standard) will cost -3,0,3 nora on one champ and -4,0,4 on an other? Or is that already the case?
@WhatTheHex; See Surge Skeezick on Skeezick netter, costed at 5/12 nora vs Surge Spider or Dragon or anything at 10/12 nora. I think this manual cost adjustment is totally warranted in a BG like Skeezick with several weaknesses and a weak ability to generate summons.
That's the cost of the ability that is adjusted in general. Not to a champ, what I mean is that the EXACT same ability/upgrades are costed differently on champs depending on the champs capabilities.
Even with dozen of fancy formules, there are some champions that are over/undercosted To fix that, they can manually add or deduct nora from a champion's calculed cost. That's what they call "manual adjustment".
As far as I can tell, there was only one rune affected in this manner. I suspect there was a technical problem that caused that. Anyway, nerfs incoming.
Unfortunately not, and part of what I try and do when I design runes is to have abilities with highly variable costs like that on base instead, so I can account for the difference manually myself. It's not always possible, and when I do passes over existing runes I will be adjusting some of them in this manner.
