(NEW) Next Patch Feedback Suggestions

Ehhhh... No.
The reason they have Curse AND EC is because they combo well together. The "new" point of Curse is that it becomes more useful the more you use it. Also, I find Curse to be useful for the Witches that normally can't hit a certain range (beyond or below their normal range). And seeing as Curse does a reasonable amount of dmg and applies a debuff (which potentially can last longer than what the EC might be applying at that moment), and because it allows you to apply it when the enemy is avoiding DMZ, I'd say Curse is good to have.
Besides, what is the point, besides -1 Speed and Pain Curse, of having cursed enemies? I think Curse is good the way it is.

There are other ways to reduce the cost of Witches. There are some abilities that really aren't needed,
-Veiled Flight on Dark Seductress
-Revel in Misery on Inkblight (as you said)
-Loyalty on Swordmage (I bet I'll get flack for this, but honestly he doesn't need it, it'll reduce his cost, and with Forsaken Exploit, his damage is fine)
To name a few.
Also some are still overpriced imo (even with what they have).

Yes we do.

 

I duno about that, getting two votaries down is bad enough. With spells that can global curse and things like xulos/festering wounds i feel like having the ability to do 20 or even more global damage every two turns would be a bit ridiculous.

I think i have to disagree with your reasoning behind loyalty on swordmage too. It's a perfectly useful ability and makes him a great early game damage dealer which is especially useful as witches can take about a year to get set up.

I can't see any reason to remove it just because it makes him cheaper, it's probably more cost effective than exploit anyway. You get +3 dmg from loyalty which applies on magical bomb instead of +2 against cursed/diseased/afflicted which doesn't apply on magical bomb as well as the +1 def and +5 HP instead of the +1 AP on attack.

I guess it's a matter of opinion but to me loyalty seems way more cost effective than exploit in pretty much every situation. So running disease immunity instead of exploit achieves the same thing really.

 

I was thinking that Sarinda could be a possible candidate for another instance of Pain curse but only after she either becomes a hero or her deck limit goes to 1.

That way you'd only be able to do 15 if all three champs are out in the best circumstance.

 

True. Though, I think having it on at least one more champ would be good. Or, perhaps make into a spell or relic? If it's a spell, it needs to be something like 35 to 40 nora, with perhaps a 1 nora refund for witches or something. If it's a relic, it should be either a Spell Seal relic, or simply be limited to only one.
I want to see more of it, somehow. But you're right, we don't want it to be overpowered.

It is likely a matter of opinion. I guess the question becomes, do we need both? If not, remove Disease Immunity (does ANYONE run it on him? seriously?), and put Loyalty and Exploit in the same path, still reducing cost.
I like having both honestly, I'm simply looking for ways to reduce costs. Though, as I've said before, many champion costs don't seem to add up correctly. I came up with a pretty straightforward nora calculator that always seems to agree with the most balanced champions, be they few. By my calculations, most of the Witches have an extra 5-10 nora slapped on them.

Meh, whatever. My obsessive desire for efficiency in all things tends to annoy people. As I like to say: "I put the **** in analysis."

 

Tomb Lord needs Surge: Skeleton + Inspire again, thanks that is all.

 

Dear lord that was op. I'd say Skeletons are pretty set in the raw damage department... I remember seeing a summoned skeleton with 23 damage. It was beautiful and horrifying at the same time.

 

I agree with you on the Swordmage. I run my Swordmages with Curse 1 and Fear. Once I get a banner and Voltary up he is sitting at 16dmg, 3def, and 66hp. Toss in Witching Hour and Witches' Hourglass and this guy is amazing. If anything he is undercosted @ 73N.

In response to the poster about EC/Curse: As far as EC and witches with Curse goes.... there have only been very few times where I needed to use the skill curse, or where I needed the range on the skill from a low range rune. It is just kind of redundant to have a deck that applies curse so liberally with DMZ, and witches have it. I would LOVE curse to be changed with Hex or Afflict on the witches that currently have it. Need more debuffs
That being said, I run my Voltary with Shadestrike, I run a Shadestriker, and I am trying to find a viable way to run an Inkblight. 9 of 10 times, every one of my enemies runes are cursed for the entirety of the game.

On another note: Legendary Witches are terrible right now. They are highly overcosted, and not very effective at doing much of anything but pissing me off that I can't run them (borderline same thoughts on Inkblight). Mysian Lamia, Sarinda, Tortun Bokor, and Wretched Witch all need a complete overhaul. And yes, rarity SHOULD = higher power, or at least a Bane Shift ton more versatility through better upgrade paths.

The cheapest you can run the legendary Witches is:
Mysian: 90N
Sarinda: 87N
Tortun: 81N
Wretched Witch: 73

And sadly, there are much cheaper runes that bring much more to the table.

Again, need more pain curse

 

Pay to win is ********.Rarity should never mean more power.Get out.

 

Video game welfare rats, oh how I loathe thee.

Sorry I pay for packs to keep the game "free" for you. Maybe you should get a job so you can stop suckling at my teat of free gaming.

 

I did drop some cash on this game back when soe run things and will spend more if things pick up once again.Pay to win is a horrible system for a game that depends on balance and new players and pay to win is good for neither.And even more repulsive is people who feel there opinions matters more simply because they paid more or who think they should have a advantage in a game because they paid for it.High rarity runes should offer variety or interesting abilites and interactions but never any advantage because the whole meta will turn into:who paid more wins.

 

Errr how about you keep this on topic and stop trying to turn it into a juvenile ***** fight?

If you want to justify the idea of pay to win (which frankly i don't know why anyone would) then go to reddit.

 

Dude...




Watch those. Please.

As a side note,
Rarity should not equal power. in game NORA COST should equal power. And the legs often simply to don't pull their own weight in game. It has nothing to do with their rarity.
All rarity should mean for us, in ANY competitive game, is uniqueness. Allowing power through a new way to do something, not a better way to do it.
There have been so many threads on Pox, and other games and forums, that have made this clear it isn't even funny.

Yes please.

Referring back to Curse...
Perhaps Curse would be better if it didn't have ranks, and instead was the equivalent of the third rank, but with better debuff stuff?
Something along these lines:
Curse (Cooldown 1. AP +0. This unite makes an 8 damage Loss of Life attack at range 1-5. If successful, the target becomes Cursed 5. If the target was already Cursed, they lose 5 life and the effects of Cursed are tripled [ie. -3 to traits rather than -1].)
Basically making it far more useful and powerful, as well as giving it better debuffing power. In addition, with only one rank, it need only take up one slot, and it could easily be moved to an upgrade path alongside other abilities, thus allowing us to have more choices and reduce cost.
Also, looking at my Witches, I honestly don't run that many that have Curse strapped on them... Actually only three...

Again, I'm not trying to get rid of other loved abilities, I am simply addressing ways in which we can reduce the cost of Witches (which was mentioned earlier). I don't think that simply getting rid of Curse on many champs is the best option. Moving it to the upgrades paths as a single rank ability might however.

 

I'm liking the loss of life idea, part of the problem with curse at rank 1 is that with only 5 damage it often barely makes it past their defenses. Changing it to a loss of life attack would pretty much bring it in line with hex and i think that would be a great change to make.

 

This game allows people playing F2P to attain ALL runes with time invested. Using money to buy packs does not make this game Pay to Win. It allows you to get whatever runes you want quicker. I will agree that Nora cost should = power. Right now that is not even remotely the case as DOG's costing algorithm is complete, and utter Bane Shift.

On Curse: I would actually be ok if it was turned into an AOE2/3 instead of single target, or if it added shadestrike with area 2 or 3 on it. Increase cost to 4AP, keep it on attack chain. Would allow the curse/dmz aspect of witch deck to work, and would have great synergy with FW in general.

 

Give Blood Fiend +3 speed at no additional cost as a quality of life move. That way he can stock Exert 3 + Blood Fueled without needing to move or attack.

 

that will be crazy amont of damage if hex is lol

 

My only problem with this is exertion. This will KILL Elsari Bazaar imo, they shouldn't do that!!!
EDIT: Also, Serkan... YAAAAAY! So happy I am back.

 

Depending on how it's coded, that might not affect Bazaar. I would hope it doesn't, although Bazaar isn't much of a monster anyway.

 

Why not just make exertion a combat ability instead?

Exertion 1/2/3 (CD 2/2/2)
This champion loses 8 HP and gains 1/2/3 ranks of Retreat. This unit's next basic attack costs 1/2/3 less AP (Min. 0).

Assuming retreat only works while engaged (I assume that's the case) it would mean the unit would have no extra mobility outside of combat. However, the ability would now allow your unit to run in and still attack and retreat using only 1 remaining AP (at rank 3). So, stronger combat ability, but loses the mobility.

Would also make the Bazaar a useful disengagement tool for your ranged units.

 

I don't see why exertion is a big deal, I would rather they remove it from OP champs all togther.