I hardly have Calisk's experience, but I tend to agree with his/her comments. I recently returned after leaving shortly after the hand-off from SOE to DOG, and I've noticed significant changes that have made the game far less exciting (presumably in the name of balance). First, the overall power-level feels lower. Champs seem to have less damage and speed; they seem to have fewer abilities on them; and those abilities are weaker than what they used to be (e.g., colossal became hunter: small, incorporeal reduces non-magic damage rather than eliminating it, etc.). Games can be "balanced" at higher and lower power levels, and games that make their players feel powerful tend to be more exciting. Football has changed its rules to promote offense for this exact reason. Second, a lot of powerful tricks or combinations have been removed from the game. To use three SP examples, Lance Admiral doesn't work in connection with Instigator + Transporter/Harpoon; Overcharged Golem lacks Power Attack and therefore doesn't work as well w/ Thunderhead Totem's paralysis; and Cyclops Hurler can no longer create chasms and knockback units into those chasms. KF lost similar tricks, and I presume other factions have as well. Rather than eliminating powerful combinations from the game or weakening them, I would prefer for us to focus on the set-up time and position required to implement the combination, whether there is enough advanced signalling to allow counterplay, and whether there are counterplay tools available. For example, Sceian w/ Instigator + Transporter/Harpoon required 3-4 runes to set up. It had enormous threat-range, however, with Initiative on Instigator and Harpoon's Pull being an on-deploy effect. Rather than eliminating this combination, it would have been better to ask (1) does the other player have enough advance notice of this combination; and (2) if so, does the other player have tools to counter it? If it was too powerful--and its threat range may have been too much--then a better solution would have been to preserve the combination, but to focus on requiring additional set-up time or providing other players with counter-play options. Pull from Harpoon could have been deployed on CD; Initiative from Instigator could have been removed; the Summons from Instigator could have been weaker and be deployed w/ 0 AP. Instead, we eliminated it from the game. In contrast, Golem + Totem required very little skill or time to set-up because it used two runes, one of which is a relic and could be deployed anywhere, and Hurler was an all-tools-in-one package. Rather than eliminating Overcharged Golem's burst, perhaps a better strategy would have been to remove the spot paralysis of totem. And rather than eliminating Hurler's combination, perhaps a better strategy would have been to separate the necessary abilities and put them on two different champions (e.g., one digs the holes, the other w/ slam). Instead of encouraging higher skill combinations, requiring appropriate set-up time (which allows counterplay), and creating counter-play tools for factions that lacked them, we eliminated a lot from the game, Finally, I'd say that balance frankly is an ill-defined concept that's largely irrelevant. There are ~ 2,400 runes in this game. Even if we could agree on what "balance" meant, it would be impossible to accomplish with that many runes. If by balance, we mean they are all equally playable or priced according to the same formula, what's the benefit to that? We don't need 2400 runes for the game to be fun or for there to be meta diversity. Or if by balance, we mean weak, why is that appealing? I enjoyed some of SP's overpowered cards; they were countered by KF's overpowered cards (like Time-Warped Skirmishers slamming spell-rooted targets); and then countered again. That was fun for me, and I'd like for us to "balance" the game in a way that encourages powerful combinations or deck modules rather than eliminating those combinations and encouraging blandness.
Lol dude, instakills were cancerous since day 1. I hated Hurler with all my guts, i'm sure other people are happy that he got nerfed. He was literally insane, you're just craving for overpowered sh**, just like calisk. Examples? KF is one of the strongest factions atm. I didn't witness the Voil OP so I have no say on this but usually that's the way a lot of the nerfs work, unfortunately. well, chasm insta kills won't work anyway so there'll be no point in that. How do you make Lightning Skewer not give Paralysis specifically on thunderhead? In doing so you would do significant collateral dmg to a whole array of other runes with that ability. It is relevant because without a concept of balance that we strive towards pox would be in total chaos. I don't want to play a chaotic game. A game has to have some kind of order and rules and I think it's a great thing that we got a formula introduced along with simplification of runes and reworking/nerfing old out of place classic runes. For example, if before you'd play pretty much the same spell set in all decks, now almost every spell can have its place in a deck. You just think it's weak cause you're used to the OP. just get over it, adapt, learn to play etc. There's plenty of powerful decks and combos, just because the particular ones that you like that were completely out of hand don't exist, doesn't mean the game isn't fun. The game isn't fun only for you (and perhaps a small group of people that most likely can't play anything weaker than something that's OP as Firk), for the rest of the peeps who enjoy a more or less balanced game and playing challenging and hard bgs this game is awesome right now.
@Alakhami Thunderhead Totem has a special, relic-only version of Lightning Skewer, so any changes to the totem are local.
I agree completely. 100%. However, the train has largely sailed - Sok has made great progress toward a vision I don't, personally, share. With that in mind, save a radical shift in design philosophy, we have to try and make this one work for us. Eventually, I suspect, Sok will kill off the last of the things I find sufficiently interesting. Others will be pleased. My personal feeling is that "balance" should really have focused on ensuring there were X number of deck archetypes roughly equivalent in capability, rather than trying to make every ability/stat costed appropriately. I think the latter is an increasingly impossible effort - in this game, that seems to have resulted in squeezing out anything particularly cool - anything that doesn't play the straight forward stat game is not going to last very long.
I completely agree with you, It seems like every time a theme reaches the higher tiers of play people whine about it until it gets nerfed and then it hits that mediocre level where it just can't keep up with meta bgs. I know i go on about zombies a lot but that's because i love the theme and I think they make a great example. Rotwrapper was released and the theme became quite popular because of it, he got nerfed which was deserved but then the theme got hit with a load of indirect nerfs like DoT duration and secondary effects and a load of ill advised and unnecessary nerfs like the Zombie Herder rework and a few others like Wandering Zombie losing Vulnerability: Fire as well as the cost increase to Resist: Physical which drove his cost up and lost him his cost efficiency. Since then the theme has been at an all time low in terms of performance and popularity and it all started with one problematic rune. I still agree with the idea of this thread but nerfing themes as soon as they become popular is pushing the game in a direction that I really don't like. For the first time ever I think I'm actually getting bored of the game.
I feel like @Raikan, @kthx, and @potatonuts are kind of talking about different things. Ultimately tho, we've tried adjustment/nerfs on a regular basis, and very few adjustment/nerfs. People hate both.
I actually generally try to preserve the combinations and weaken then, instead of eliminating them, but of course that's not always possible or practical, and certain things, like FW/FS AP Denial, was so universally hated that I simply gave it and broke it at some point despite fighting against changing that for about 2 years. In some other cases, it seems no matter how slight the nerf, it is always considered "nerfed to the ground." Alternative, it continues to get complained about and everyone says how it is ruining the game and that's all they play and it's difficult for me not to respond to such overwhelming feedback. I feel the game still fits the paradigm you speak - I see overpowered, amazing stuff in every faction and most themes, but it seems most people focus on what's been lost over time, instead of what's actually available now, though admittedly it is of a different flavor. I have moved the game towards a more tactical, board-play style of play - to me, this is a return to the earlier days of Pox when it was getting to be popular - rather than the mayhem of the SOE days under Corpse. I do understand that some people liked that paradigm, but many also longed for the days when champions didn't have 12 abilities and were one man wrecking machines with multiple roles and you could lose your entire board state to a few runes. The emphasis has been on champion diversity and staying power supported by non-champion runes. This, as far as I can tell, has been what the majority of players have requested, consistently, throughout the entire life of PoxNora. And I suspect, that had these changes not been made (let's pretend we never nerfed anything since 2012), that the game would have already shut down - this is evidenced largely by the data showing that after long lulls with lack of changes that people stop coming to play - even content updates (without adjustments to older content) tend to have short-lived effects on engagement and retention. It's a tough line to walk. It'd also be one thing if "strong countered by strong" was a specific goal - but as far as I can tell, most of the combinations in the history of PoxNora happened by accident, and largely existed in overlapping eras but not always at the same time. Thus, at most points of Pox history, rather than every faction having "powerful stuff" And I don't think "balanced" means "weak" or "bland" even here. The difference is less one of absolute power and more about where the power lies and where the skill lies. In the past you speak of, that skill was significantly in the realm of deckbuilding and finding those combinations. Execution still mattered, of course, but if you didn't have that combo in your deck, you simply didn't have that option. Now, the power level lies more in the execution, with the idea that more things are playable in combination with one another at a competitive level - and we have seen a rise in the variety of the meta (barring the recent population decline due to the new client). Thus, it's just a different kind of play, and I understand that for some, this is less interesting, but as I stated, it seemed to be what many players wanted. And I recognize I can't make the game for EVERYONE and keep everyone happy, that's an impossible task. After years of different designers and different directions for PoxNora, I picked a direction that differentiated the game from others and focused on what I felt made PoxNora unique and why it was created in the first place.
It's tough to say what "boredom" with a game as old as this one. Would you be less bored if the game's runes/direction had never changed, and we were still playing with Goblin Archers having just multi-attack? Or would you be less bored if the game had stopped at Maljaran's design direction with superchamps and single shot kill spells like VP/Blink/etc. everywhere? Or did your interest last longer because of the variety of changes/content over the years? Or are you bored right now because it's been a long time since a substantial patch? It's hard to tell with this stuff, but experience tells me that generally, "sameness" (no matter what direction it is in) is what makes things boring in the long run. Almost every successful game these days have a "live ops" team that's dedicated to changes to the live game to keep it interesting - whether that's just balance, new game modes, etc. - which is separate from new content.
Thanks for the response. And I apologize to @davre for derailing his effort to poll the community (although @calisk started it). I agree with much of what you said, particularly about everyone being a critic. I’m not saying I could have done better, and I have seen a lot of positive changes. One of the things I learned at Blizzard was that it’s usually better to buff weakness to equalize other’s strengths, rather than nerfing the strengths. The community accepts it more easily, and it forces folks to focus on how card x is problematic for the game (it can’t be countered, it increases win rates significantly, I have no counter or no way of knowing I need to prepare my counter, etc) and to innovate counterplay, whereas nerf discussions tend to focus on perceptions of unfairness, he has x but I don’t, and removing content from the game. Back to davre’s main thread, I do think Mika is a bit too much for her price point. I’d prefer to keep her as a low cost deploy because it’s good to have options for that point in the Nora curve, but I agree with @badgerale that maybe she’s too little of a tempo hit. Perhaps remove initiative from the summons or reduce the AP gained to 3?
It just feels like the game has somewhat stagnated, maybe it's just because of the fallout of the new client but around the release of Planar Disturbances i was seeing a huge variety of different themes being played and it really made the game feel more varied and interesting to me, now it seems like meta decks have taken over again.
It wasn't just new stuff though, Hyaenids, Slags, Lonx, Boghoppers, Voil, Skeletons and all sorts of other stuff were seeing a lot more play around that period and now people just aren't touching them with a bargepole. I guess some of them might have simply lost popularity but some of the themes had their moment in the sun until they got hit with nerfs and went right back to the shoebox. It's strange because some of them are still quite viable but maybe meta decks and crazy splits have just pushed ahead in efficiency. That's why I quite like this thread, overly efficient runes that dont require any particular kind of support is what pushes meta into popularity and I'd love to see themes in a more competitive position again, especially after they were so popular last year.
Well we all know how crazy Frost Amp is. Even though I think the game has gotten a bit boring now Duelyst seemed to really get it right for a while, each faction had 2-3 really strong and well developed themes and it made both playing the game and deckbuilding a lot more fun. I'd like to see that in Pox and I think it has a good opportunity to be like that.
We are. Raikan is talking about, it seems, essentially, unfiltered pox (presumably minus bug fixes and anything that just breaks the game entirely). Potatonuts means themes. I'm talking broader than themes (although I suppose a theme, like Zombies, could be included) - rather, deck archetypes. My preference is for a pox that has a place for some combo decks, some aggro decks, some control decks, etc.
I think the FW bonus needs to change. It is very polarizing, and you will never get to a balanced state with it around, realistically. Look at statecraft bw or Warcraft 3. Both games recieve changes to only maps if they are updated, but are considered overall "balanced" games. Even though undead is slightly weaker, and T is slightly op, games are still very engaging no matter the faction matchup.
That is largely why the concept of balance is unreachable everyone's goals and opinions are different and I don't even attempt to walk that path. As soko says the game stagnates if no patch occurs and that's boring in a different way so I still support patches and changing the game, where i differ from most is that I don't believe the goal should be to balance but to promote decks to playability. Nerfes should occur when a deck is so good nobody is playing anything else within the faction, but aside from that it should mostly be buffes in my book but always with the intent to create or promote decks and themes, getting players to play more things is a reachable goal unlike balance. There has from my perspective been four eras of pox but only two matter the corpse era and the soko era. The differences between the two are numerous and both have a large number of strong points but in relation to this topic corpse focused on making fun and interesting runes but never thought one bit about deck variety or themes so the only decks that were ever played was FF meta decks or split decks but if not for the filter back then it may of only been splits, on the flip side soko has made great strives towards themes and deck variety and has done a great job on that front, but imo the runes at the end of day feel bland and life less now. I think a middle ground between the two can be achieved but really like balance even that is to each persons own taste, so at the very least players need to stop trying to balance pox and start trying to get more decks played not less.
What would you do differently? Give more abilities? Stronger abilities? Or just let champs be stronger or weaker without being balanced.
I wouldn't read into the bland and lifeless comment, that just seems like unnecessary *****ing to me. We all do it at times, I usually edit these parts out of my own posts is the only difference. I agree with Calisks post for the most part. However, it should be obvious that no1 is looking for a completely balanced game, but rather many playable decks that can win 40-60? Also, there are obviously many runes which are stopping certain decks from being played, such as strig warlock and arctic wail / overload, and stealth shrine rush decks. These archetypes inherently limit diversity, and need counter play added. Meaningful counterplay.
disclaimer - all comments below are simply off the top of my head, real changes would take quite of bit of analyses and research before I would move forward with anything. well assuming I was suddenly put in charge today at a time where I was able to actually do patches(which by the looks of things is barely an option anymore) I would likely proceed as follows. rather then focus on runes my focus would be on decks and only the runes within the deck, this would involve outlining a deck and adjusting it with the intention to bring it up or down, but most importantly seem viable against other decks that can be run within the faction itself. As a whole a deck can have stand out runes that are vastly stronger then average if the deck as a whole is in line with the average strength of other decks. tbh if a single rune is what most would consider is OP I would only be considering it if it was effecting the viability other themed decks, for example from the sounds of it amp is up as usual which is nothing new I might adjust something like yeti spirit a popular amp unit in that deck to be better inside of a yeti deck and less useful in amp to try and bring it more in line with other themes while bringing up a less played theme in the process, meanwhile maybe do a few adjustment to some less popular yeti's to give that deck some new options, at the same time maybe hit kento, change her damage to psychic and maybe do an adjustment so she plays better in fs/st monks but less so in amp. Amp to me is an extreme situation because all it takes to be a viable choice in an amp deck is frost damage, which in a frost themed faction is extremely common, and thus is why it outshines just about every theme in ST, so keeping it in line with other themes in the faction which have vastly fewer runes available to them is a full time job to say the least. in the case of decks in separate factions an the interplay between them my goal would be to bring decks up that deal with any stand outs decks, if skeleton swarm is up, I'd focus on themes that can deal with summons and bring them up, if super champs are UP I'd focus on themes that can dispel and spot remove, etc. ultimately the goal would be to have at least one deck in every faction capable of dealing with just about any style of deck, but if not at least one or more decks within all the factions that can put the brakes on any deck that begins to thrive in the meta Players who only play a single faction are IMO the issue to this type of perfect imbalance system, as they refuse to adjust to a fluctuating meta or playing outside of their factions, so outside of the game design sphere I would focus on releasing things like "themed deck sales" in which you can buy decks for in game currency or for cash that complement answers to the existing meta problems, at the very least jump starting you on the path to playing decks to deal with top meta issues or just enjoying a new deck that's been put out. so if the current patch focused on changes to bring yeti's up as an answer to barbarians or some change like that, I would likely release a yeti's themed deck for players to get that would quickly let them adjust to it if they choose, but this would be but one way I'd try to encourage players playing off faction as IMO faction loyalty in a community this small is harmful to the meta, these would be temporary and on a weekly/month schedule I would stick to soko's point systems( most of the time >.> ) and rune ability limit as I think that's a good base line for champs, but I would embrace corpse era "cool is best" design philosophy to design lynch pin theme runes that are the center pieces of those theme decks. TLDR - no one change to any unit such as adding more abilities or nerfing and buffing a single rune would be my goal, it would be to look at factions as a whole and answer the question "how can I make a new deck be played with these runes."
