Cactuar Crate - Ronin Edition

I totally am, triggers through dodge/zephyr/nokhando and does 150% damage if they all land. It also triggers DoT's and the like.

All in all really variable ability that has so many damn uses.

 

um. It deals 150% dmg if they all land only at rank 3 which I imagine most people take all the time if given a choice between ranks. But it gets mitigated by defense values 3 times as opposed to once. It is better against low def champions, but worse against high def.

Sorry, just wanted to remind that the 150% dmg has a very notable condition attached to it.

 

Gedden for some reason either changed it or it got bugged during the revamp. You're pretty much Bane Shift outta luck if you don't get the abilities you want.

Also, KF is the only one with Purified, OPnurf.

 

My Avatar Ranking. KF>ST>IS/SL > (The rest)

SL regen.

I have noting to really counter your points. Well said.

 

I don't see the substantive detriment Avatars cause right now. They are an additional mechanic for players to balance, which slightly bloats design, but they provide additional faction flavor and additional, engaging decision points as a game draws on. Avatars rarely draw out games, at least in my experience. A BG's construction will do much more to determine game length, along with map, than the presence of transfiguration.

I'd certainly like their upgrades to be fixed.

Shrine scry depends on numerous factors, one of which is the map. I don't think that makes it broken. I like having it in the game.

Aside from a conditional increase in game time and slight ability imbalances, do you see any serious issues with Avatars as they stand now? I would agree the system could be cleaned up, improved, elaborated on - any number of things, really.

 

I think jts wrong that avatar can have majestic and can regenerate or can get protection. Avatars are ok if they have some offensive abilities, but these 3 things just delays games and makes rushing too difficult against those factions, especially the regen and the majestic ones.

 

Fair points about the particular situations in which Avatars extend games. I'll get to the globals issue, but things such as Divine Shield or Regen are artificial inflation, perpetuated by the players as opposed to an actual extension of game length. My perspective is admittedly colored by the BG's I usually play: opponents surrender long before the shrine is a factor. In this case, Avatars are perhaps a detriment in the sense that they act as an avenue for players to bloat a game's length, but I do not think they inherently extend a game. Transfiguration is such a detriment that, outside of a few circumstances, it will not have a real impact on the outcome. Apologies if bringing up maps and BGs appeared a diversion. The point was that I consider avatars a comparatively tiny influence on a game's length, and context is important when addressing that element of their influence on the game.

IS, ST, and KF, avatars - to a lesser extent UD - bring some global influence the moment they transfigure. Some factions have it, some don't. That does not bother me per se, but I understand why it might frustrate others. Do you think it provides undue power to those factions? Is the aesthetic imbalance a problem? I'd love to hear your elaborated thoughts.

Miscommunication over the word broken: I was using it in a sense I had outlined previously, and erred in assuming you were doing the same. I see what you mean about something not functioning accurately, but would still disagree: even if it becomes an easy decision on some maps, shrine scry then acts as a way for maps to influence how many runes to which a player has access, setting aside those situations in which it is an actual risk reward situation.

Thanks for clarifying your exact concerns. I would agree the situations in which a normal shrine is worth thinking about are corner-case at best. I do not think that fact, along with those other worries you raised, justify a modification to the current avatar situation.

If I were things, however, about avatars that would like addressed, my first concern would be the upgrades. I presume that is a bug of some sort - maybe it isn't. Beyond that, I do not see any serious balance problems in place as a result of Avatars, nor any unstable mechanics that need immediate redress.

 

Do you think games are too long, too short, or an appropriate length at the moment? This is obviously a matter of extreme personal taste, but knowing yours would help me get a bearing on where you're coming from. I ask in particular because a portion of this discussion has been about Avatars extending games, but then you mention that Scry accelerate the game in unnecessary ways. Both are fine opinions to have, even in tandem, it would just help if I heard your opinion in a more general sense.

In the instance of a shrine rush, I would certainly agree that Avatars extend the game. That is a particular situation, however, where I have absolutely no objection to a longer game with more to consider. Yes, that promotes a slower general pace of play. I do not think that pace is a detriment to Pox. Outside of an all-in, transfiguration is risky. I've seen it have a substantive impact on a band of games in which a player is suffering direct shrine pressure from a positioning or minor nora disadvantage, but has not lost the game. In other instances of a momentum disparity, transfiguration does little. In those cases where it does have an impact, I think a comeback methodology is even a benefit: there are already those who I think rightly malign the momentum-based gameplay of Pox, and a countermeasure in some of those narrow instances doesn't offend me at all.

I don't see any fault with Scry being an obvious choice early game, with a tapering level of certainty. It is similarly obvious to deploy champions in the first few turns to cap fonts (outside of extreme circumstances). I can understand why you might want make that decision more divisive, but I do not think it's current nature has a negative quality to it. It is a clear choice early on to amplify reveal rates, with that valuation modified as turns progress, players get more information, and their needs and worries change. I didn't see it as a way to mitigate no-champ draws, rather, a small but substantive valuation for the player to make.

My response to that last point - power discrepancies between avatars - can't be direct: I have rarely seen and even more rarely experienced this power discrepancy. Options in particular contexts, sure, and you make a solid case for how that contributes to the potential power of an avatar, but I think any boon provided by transfiguration is so heavily outweighed by the cost of transfiguration that any such demonstration is both uncommon and unstable. In the rare occasion where I see an avatar win a game, or I should say, provide for part of a win, it is indeed more often a KF, ST, or IS avatar than say a FW one.

But from both an aesthetic and mechanical perspective, the superiority of certain factions' avatars doesn't concern me. UD hits harder than FS; KF is faster than IS; FW has worse anti equipment options than IS; SL has a weak suite of relics, compared to FW's robust list; KF, ST, and IS are better at fighting with their chosen heroes than are the other factions. Now, I would not impose that as design dogma, or justification: I'm seeking to illustrate the train of thought that makes me comfortable with avatars in their present state.

 

I just want to take a moment and appreciate the time you guys are putting into those responses. Even the punctuation is on point... Carry on.

 

Perhaps the avatars could be toned down, maybe removing some of their abilities so that each ava just does one thing.

 

Ok, I see what you are saying about Avatars and game length. Thanks for clarifying.

I think the comeback or rush potential is another component of what makes each avatar and faction different. IS can transfigure to be more resilient to rush than FW. That's a dynamic between the factions. Now, as far as compensatory power in other areas - assuming that this disparity is acceptable, with which I understand you would disagree - that's another matter. In this case, I think the playstyle of each faction already enforces this. FW doesn't lament a poor avatar because, as an often lategame faction, an early transfiguration in defense is already a detriment. The avatar, therefore, has a more narrow use as a result of the faction's characteristics.

That said, I have no aversion to power changes to particular avatars. My position is only that they are not as present necessary, and that avatars are not at this moment a threat to balance.

I think your opinion on Scry is borne from a different ethos. Valid, understandable, but different. A mechanic that provides little or no additional content besides its own complexity is, I think, a poor idea (see Extra Credits on Complexity v Depth; I'm sure you're familiar). But, a mechanic is not inherently evil: there's some middle ground. In Pox more than other games I'll embrace oddities or corner-case material, and in this case I think the minor complexity cost is in balance with what Scrying provides. I see it doing no harm to the game; let it be. I respect, however, an interest in changing it.

Your last point about scaling avatars to the revamp has been the one I've found most persuasive. I think scaling back the their damage and defense values - ~15 and ~3? - makes perfect sense, and I would fully support it. Additionally, you are quite right about bringing this up. Lets use the crate while it's here. I've found your posts well-reasoned and informative, and by no means want to say that this is a topic that doesn't need discussing, quite the contrary: if this wasn't worth talking about, I certainly wouldn't have collaborated with you to fill pages of material about it.

 

Agreed.

 

The way the text reads I would say yes but agree it seems unintuitive.

 

I hope the new fw bonus will benefit witches because right now,playing witches feels like playing without a faction bonus.

 

Haunt destroys the relic after a set time anyway so I do not see a problem with that.

 

Btw I would go for more buffing and less nerfing. Keeps it interesting.

 

Council: Spells is 10 nora. Doesn't pay off unless opponent casts 3 spells during its time out. Drop to 8?

 

Since Channel Damage lost it's base nora cost, should Train: X abilities be revised aswel?

 

Agreed. Camaraderie could get the same treatment, although I think the discount is so low that you might as well remove the ability entirely.

 

Sok, I think it's way past due time that we start thinking at the very least about a spell/equip/relic "revamp", Not really an actual revamp because most stuff out there could just receive a nora cost reduction, as many are incredibly outdated.