First of all, I would like to point out I did not just lose to Hawk Attack, and the only time I faced it yesterday I won. With that out of the way, all I would like to say is that this ability is far more powerful than it should be, according to the standard set by several other similar abilities: Hawk Attack 1: 6 nora, 1-6 range, 2 cd, normal AP, +2 damage, Eviscerated 2 (total +5 damage). Hawk Attack 2: 9 nora, 1-6 range, 2 cd, normal AP, +3 damage, Eviscerated 2 (total +6 damage). Hawk Attack 3: 12 nora, 1-6 range, 2 cd, normal AP, +4 damage, Eviscerated 2 (total +7 damage). Throw Axe: 8 nora, 2-5 range, 2 cd, +1 AP, -1 Def debuff. Arrowshot: 7 nora, 3-6 range, 2 cd, +1 AP. Bola Attack: 4 nora, 1-4 range, 2 cd, +1 AP, Ensnared & Grounded 2, 70% damage. All of these deal purely physical damage, regardless of the attacker's damage type. Why the heck is Hawk Attack a 1-6 range attack for 3 AP that also deals extra damage? All its competitors are 4 AP and cost more nora (rank 1 will always be chosen if available). Why is +1 damage on Hawk Attack worth 3 nora a step? Ranks 2 and 3 seem rather pointless. No champion in the game has 1-6 range. Why should such a cheap ability give access to the most flexible range available? How much is 1-6 range itself worth in nora? Why does one single ability provide so many different bonuses, far more than any other similar ability? I rest my case. Opinions?
Axe Throw description is off and depending on number of attacks it can also lead to more + dmg. But I agree with your premise. It's range gives it an incredible amount of utility. It seems that Hawk Attack could go to something like 3-6 and be just as good. TBH, I think the main problem is just the scaling of the ranks. Something more along the lines of 8 10 and 12 seem more appropriate.
non basic attacks in general are a mess. the OP of this thread has my thoughts on the matter: http://forums.poxnora.com/index.php?threads/ability-issues-thread.4377/
Hadn't read that tbh, came to the same conclusions independently. I certainly agree with your post though! True.
What do people think about the fact that it doesn't have +1 AP? There is very little reason not to use it when it is off cd.
True dat. Hawk Attack 1: 6 nora, 1-6 range, 2 cd, normal AP, +2 damage, Eviscerated 2 (total +5 damage). Hawk Attack 2: 9 nora, 1-6 range, 2 cd, normal AP, +3 damage, Eviscerated 2 (total +6 damage). Hawk Attack 3: 12 nora, 1-6 range, 2 cd, normal AP, +4 damage, Eviscerated 2 (total +7 damage). Flamestrike 1: 6 nora, 1-3 range, 2 cd, +1 AP, fire damage, Charred 2 (total +3 damage). Flamestrike 2: 8 nora, 1-4 range, 2 cd, +1 AP, fire damage, +1 damage, Charred 3 (total +7 damage). Flamestrike 3: 10 nora, 1-5 range, 2 cd, +1 AP, fire damage, +2 damage, Charred 4 (total +12 damage). Flamestrike is +1 AP, Hawk Attack is not, which is a huge difference. It takes Flamestrike 3 to outdamage Hawk Attack 1 in immediate damage (Attack + 1 turn of dot), 6 to 4. Flamestrike 2 and Hawk Attack 1 are equal. It takes Flamestrike 3 to start approaching Hawk Attack 1's range, but it is still 1 less. Fire damage is better than physical, so advantage Flamestrike on that one. I would argue Flamestrike 3's range is too flexible, just like Hawk Attack. I think 3 squares of effective range is as much as any ability should give (ex: 1-4, 2-5 or 3-6). If against a champion that will not take dot damage (cleanse or resilient), Hawk Attack 1 is just flat out better than Flamestrike 3. If a champion had the following upgrade path Hawk Attack 1 (Selected), Flamestrike 3 (+4 Nora), 99% of players would choose Hawk Attack. In conclusion, this is closer than the first set of comparisons, but Hawk Attack still comes out ahead. Also, I think both should get a range nerf.
- where does hammer throw fit in there? Also def nerf hawk attack range to 2-5 or 3-6 at least or make range increase with levels. 4,5,6
Hammer Throw is a stronger Arrowshot with a longer cooldown. Seems balancedish. I really think functional 3 range is the most this kind of ability should give, so no 1-5 or 1-6, but 3-6 is fine.
