What do you mean? Current vulnerability increases damage taken by a % of the original damage, the suggestion indicates a change to DoT on the vulnerability abilities.
Am I the only one seing 5 dmg less DEM ? 7 if you count Conqueror... I don't see her taking a place in my BG like this.
I would question the values of some abilities, but at first glance if these are near the final numbers you are going to give a brutal edge to negative abilities, the nora gap between choosing scorn (easy to choose unless in extreme case were you have too many scorn units) and tunnel lava (it's not like lava is easy to come by) is 12 nora, nobody will ever choose that. And that's likely to be the case in any situation were a negative upgrade is against a positive one.
He's saying that Vulnerabilities in general pose a systemic problem, most likely because they are so binary. It's either "I roflstomp you if I have X damage type" or "nothing happens," which is bad for balance overall because attack types are so unevenly spread amongst the factions.
I see it as an expensive rather slow close combat unit that only starts to work if the opponent is kind enough to hit it a lot. From my current point of view it is crap. I thought revamp was about complexity creep, not about making underused champ worse.
ALL runes will be nerfed in general, well excluding really old stuff. That's kinda the point of the revamp. Heroes will likely stay powerful, just with few things removed. I do find new damage values quite strange tho, at first i thought all damage will go down to offer less one rounding of everything, but with firemaw at 16 damage looks like that's not the case.
Yes, and if a vuln gave a DoT that wouldn't be the case. Because no matter how much, for example, frost damage they had, you would only ever end the turn with a DoT, not 40% extra from all sources. That would be worth the cost reduction without being overly harsh. I think people also need to consider that unlike the old (original) cp system, you aren't adding a vuln with no disadvantage. You get the cost reduction, but it also replaces another ability now.
I don't really see a problem with it. Vulnerability: Frost basically reads that this unit is predisposed to have a poorer match up against certain strategies (namely ST).
DEM is an 80 nora tank/roadblock basically that gets somewhat nasty if you hit it too much. Firemaw is 110 nora and is pretty much all about the crazy damage output, it even lost some speed and def. Seems about right to me. I think that's what they want to do, essentially just make everything more focused and give clearer roles.
Something that I asked last thread and has come up again here is how hero/unique/mythical are going to play out. Maybe you guys already have something figured out, but since you've already shaken up rarities by repackaging everything and developing the rune forge, it might be a good time to reshuffle exo/leg/lim rarities such that all Leg/Lim runes become unique. The current pool of exo/legs could then be reorganized so that heroes, dragons, titans, 75/150ks and the 2 gherns that actually deserve unique are all in the right place (potentially things like the aspects, heirs, angels, doombringers, and heralds as well), while others like the knights and wizards become exotic. The advantage to this method is the elimination of those abilities (they would be understood as unique from their rarity) and the ability to streamline other runes (grimlic's mirror/clayform can be reworded so they cannot target LE/Limiteds rather than heroes, hunter: hero essentially becomes hunter:legendary, etc.) One of SOE's last releases was a set of exotics that were sold as individual runes, the same way legendaries (and occasionally limiteds) had been for years. Although those runes were legendaries for all intents and purposes, the arbitrarily decided colour of their border has given them a place in the rune forge while the other legendaries have none. The revamp gives you an opportunity to make these borders meaningful to both veterans and new players without tying yourself to a selling method (legendaries have already been packaged into the theme decks, for example). Limiteds would function very close to how they already do, where they still count as a second copy of the same rune; you could not run a leg Grimlic + Xmas Grimlic since they have the same name, but you could run a single darkwing swarm + a single drakewing swarm (2 total of the same rune, only 1 limited). Since collectibility is the point of limiteds rather than playability, this change should not impact the value of collectors' LEs but will decrease the demand for angels/doombringers/renovators (since you can only carry one per deck) and make it more feasible to retain their elite presence in their game with a fixed supply (until you guys feel like bringin in some easy cash, anyway).
@davre in regards to abilities that limit copies per deck they seem to have simply delegated that to a "limit: x per battlegroup" indicator at the bottom of the rune description.
Ah, that is a step in the right direction. I can live with that, though I still believe there is merit in my suggestion as a way of giving meaning to the green borders.
To summarize the changes (correct me if I'm wrong): Deep Elf Masochist -5 damage with loyalty (-7 if we count conqueror) Also -1 def and -5 hp from loyalty But gained tough 2. Lost blood frenzy, and antagonize. Gained calcify and two possible ranks of reflection. All of this clearly focuses the DEM as a tank, with the nice faction flavour of gaining advantage from abuse. Firemaw -1 speed and -2 def (-3 with the upgrade) -2 possible damage from the upgrade Lost bloodless. Gained Death Nova Lava So he lost very little in terms of direct damage output and even gained Death Nova, which together with Fiery Death really pushes the "wrack havoc then benefit from death" angle of UD. What he lost is other shenanigans which are not directly related to dealing tons of damage. I really like where this is going!
