75 nora champions are the same. 80+ are overcosted

Discuss the proposition in the title. It seems to me that most of the efficient champions are in the sub 75 nora range and play pretty similarly to pre-revamp pox. A lot of runes got pushed into higher cost ranges and turn out to be mostly bad.

I am running one rune over 75 nora in my current deck.

 

Mostly in agreement. I think the exponential part went haywire.

 

I think costs were mostly assigned at random.
Undead magister lost bomb and acolyte and went from 50 to 85, while some other 50 champs were even buffed and stayed same cost.
Hoarfrost with ally removed is 86, while eternal with dark favor 3 is 98.
Ancestor with dual ally/adaptive, split status and buffed range is 75, while lots of 75 grunts went into 90+.

 

Well the upside the runes are simpler, but yes its time to restore some of the with greater cost cpmes greater power ( but in much smaller increments than before)

 

It's been hit and miss for me. Some follow that accusation, others such as Charger Knight, I feel are properly costed.

To your point, I think the area of cost from 76 to 89 nora should really be studied for inconsistencies.

 

Every rune over 80 nora seems to be punishing you for playing a rune over 80 nora. Totally in agreement.

 

Perhaps the algorithm should factor in discounts the more expensive the champ is. This makes sense since investing so much nora in one champ means you sacrifice board presence (spell presence, contesting power, engagement power, etc) and single champs are highly vulnerable to CC and spot-removal.

 

Yep. I look at Shallaxy and I just... I don't... ~85 nora for a hit-n-run champ with swap. *chortle*

 

Well, voil are crazy now with protect and regal presense, and it's SP, so her cost is not bad at all.
But I agree that she is now unacceptably boring not only for 150k, but even for rare.

 

No one thinks that just maybe its the champions under 80 nora that are the issue? That they are too strong for their price which makes the higher nora cost runes seem worse then they are?

 

I agree, nerf the Tinkerers.

 

I think that some abilities are not properly costed and that causes inconsistencies in similar champions.
For the other part, I would try and apply a simple porcentual adjustment to the base nora cost of the champions, like the following:
Champion final nora cost= calculated cost + (RV - Calculated cost)*A
Where RV is a reference nora value where the champions are in a "sweet spot" in terms of balance (75 as TheNidhogg's feelings) and A is a constant or a function depending on calculated value, determined by experimentation.
As you see, this would make champions under RV (75) cost more expensive and champions above RV cheaper, that I think is one of the problems of the formula.

 

No. There is some of that happening -- yes -- but that's not the general issue. A lot of once-great runes are now either borderline inefficient or outright awful and way overcosted. If el cheapo champs are running at 50-65 nora, and "normal," "average" champs are running 70-75 nora, then a champ costing 90-110 should be AMAZING, not "meh."

 

It is more than that. Their costing system shows they have little idea about the effectiveness of abilities/stats and gameplay. Compare the Elven Strategist to the Soul Siren. Both sub 60 nora units with relocate foe, but one has 6 speed (without bonus) and teleport 2, is a beater due to surge enemy and supports through BM while the other has phase shift.

The Elven Strat is far undercosted. This leads me to conclude either their pricing isn't fixed or they are unable to take into account synergies (mobility + relocate, low damage + surge) in their pricing.

 

Well I think that their formula will serve as a good base line for champs. But they will need to be adjusted form that point based on their effectiveness.

 

Rather sure its the synergy one. Blackhand has CA:R and CA:M with 9 damage. Strong abilities crippled by weak damage resulting in overcostedness. Same syndrome, different take

 

I think that costing is waaaaaaaay off. I wonder how long it will take to bring in line. Gedden states he won't release that info and it's quite obviously too large a task for the PDC.

 

Yeah, there's clearly something really wrong with the cost model. Cheap champs are insanely efficient and expensive ones are ridiculously overpriced.

 

I made a simple calculation with the formula I proposed (modified cost= calculated cost + (RV-calculated cost)*A) where RV is 75, a reference value for balance, and A is a arbitrary constant, in this case, A=0,0035
Keep in mind that this isn't a thing with heavy fundaments, it just assumes that the formula works perfectly for RV and it becomes worse the far the cost is from that value, making cheap champions too cheap and expensive ones too expensive, so, here are the numbers:

nora cost modified nora cost
40 ------>45
45 ------>50
50 ------>54
55 ------>59
60 ------>63
65 ------>67
70 ------>71
75 ------>75
80 ------>79
85 ------>82
90 ------>85
95 ------>88
100 ------>91
105 ------>94
110 ------>97
115 ------>99
120 ------>101
125 ------>103
130 ------>105
135 ------>107
140 ------>108
145 ------>109

What do you think of the outcome? can you think of a example that would be balanced/unbalanced with the modified nora cost?

 

That curve is very good might cover a little bit much a the top and bottom of it. Aka little guys might be a tad over cost, and something like ash might be to much (but that might be a free meat thing)

Would be a very good starting point then small adjustments in a case by case basis*