Seems like it's a perception thing more than anything, because it seems probable in the situation where you no longer get the SDZ for kills... you already had the +2 SDZ, and so while you don't get the immediate impact feel, you actually still had the benefit and had it more consistently and longer.
Because of the lerper change, and because the meta was already changing before the nerfs happened anyways. I never ran into many worms players, and when I did, I had black blade Baron out more frequently, and I had more board presence. Not sure why I would play worms rather than the type of deck wolfeet runs (check fw forums). The fact that bz is used outside of theme proves how strong it is (high elo player won vs me only because his deck could fit 2X bz and mine never can, skells. That game just felt stupid).
He can be deployed behind you. When trying to approach an enemy font (say he has aspect of chaos , Serkan or even unholy tomb). Saying that I should be able to play around that without hard counters is dishonest. "The counter to aoe is to split your units" Well, duh. That doesn't mean it's a valid choice.
Because what he is running is mostly worse than a real worms list, except for running Essence Devourer (which his most recent list does not opt to do). Worms can splash in any of the value non-worms that they want anyway. What, do you think its theme is zombies? Honestly, its theme is worms at this point -- that's how it's used, that's where it works.
I agree it wouldn't be shoebox, but no need to change something because its strong in one particular bg. I think the big issue people have is that you have no way of stopping necrosis. Once it deploys its permanents. Maybe make it so the deployment zone bonus only lasts until the unit is killed, then it recedes back
It does recede when a unit dies outside SDZ. Relocation abilities and side font outside SDZ aggresion go a long way in disturbing worm strategy.
Honestly just change that to when the unit dies in general the deployment zone shrinks back and I think people would be far happier with it. Deployment abilities are tricky because if its something the other player can't possibly have any effect on then it can start to seem unfair
Ok, back to that question Sok asked about using the original Necrosis in modern worms -- I'm going to set out a list of takeaways with a bit of explanation, and I can elaborate more if someone would find that helpful. Worms become more matchup volatile -- their old issue of being highly kill-dependent comes back, and so they would suffer exceptionally against super champs and defensive strategies, while cleaning up against moga, kanen, and some aggro. I remember that this was one of the criticisms leveled against old forms of Necrosis: by grounding growth directly in getting kills, worms were incredibly matchup dependent and feast-or-famine. Worms lose their current defensive playstyle, and shift over to aggression and low-resource aims -- without any reason to play inside their SDZ, and an increased need to gain kills, worms would need to shift to an aggressive strategy that has them contesting more fonts and pushing for kills early on. A few upgrade priorities on things like Putrid, Eye, and Colossus would change -- need to have Necrosis much more so than right now. Reduces splash-ability out of and into worms -- a couple worms in a deck won't be able to generate any permanent or consistent growth, and even a few non-worms could easily cannibalize all of a worm deck's growth. Permanent growth (perhaps from Creeping Harvest or Worm Lord) would remain potentially usable in other contexts. Less certainty about late-game growth -- currently, worms have a certain threshold where most of the fighting and dying will happen inside SDZ, and so simply deploying champs and playing the game will mean escalating the SDZ. Worms would lose an element of certainty about their late-game, even when playing well. (Related, and to the above: the Necroweave OTK becomes much less viable) On the whole: large nerf. Worms have more powerful champs a wider variety of tools than they have in the past, but those tools are not well-calibrated to support the more aggressive playstyle implied by the potential change to Necrosis. The current competitive meta-game does not favor aggressive styles, and worms would be a volatile one at that.
When a worm is out of the starting deployment zone then the necrosis effect is nulled. However if necrosis expands the original deployment zone, does the extension also count as the original deployment zone or only the tiles that were there at game start?
In that case destroying worms doesn't make a ton of difference unless someone for some reason runs a bunch of relocation. I stick with my original idea of undoing the necrosis effect when the unit dies. The ability is still useful but opponents can counteract it if they play well which currently isn't the case
bile zombie / worms deployment zone increase (in combination)... should be nerfed. the games ive played where the fw player turns the game around so easily, or steam rolls you from a winning position. if you dont get a quick victory vs them your probably not getting one. its op as fk.
In my experience lategame FS or slags are comparably good at turning around games and in my opinion that's something that should exist in the game. Just having rush bgs and midrange goodstuff is kinda boring.
This whole thread topic was about nerfing bile zombie though, I wasn't even talking about in the context of worms. Lategame FS?
