Non-Linear Rune Cost Calculator

My current understanding of the new champion rune costs is that each stat costs the same for each champion (i.e. 1 speed costs the same, 1 health, 1 damage, etc.) and abilities each cost the same (invig costs the same for each champion). My suggestion is that this linear approach MIGHT not be the best way of assigning nora costs to champions long term.

Instead, it might make sense to reduce the cost of stats/abilities as a champion's nora cost increases. A player loses more when a higher nora cost champ is crowd controlled, loses ap, or is instant killed by a spell. By that, I mean a larger nora investment is made useless than when a cheap champ is crowd controlled. And a champion with 10 abilities is still limited in using those abilities by the amount of AP it generates. While it's more valuable than a champion with 5 abilities since it's a jack of all trades, it's less valuable than 2 champions with 5 abilities each because it will generate less ap and be able to use fewer total abilities.

I think there's SOME anecdotal evidence that this approach might make more sense. If we compare the costs of some higher stat champions (thirion, blackguard) and the cost of some lower stat champions (silverclan tinkerer), it's difficult to imagine those higher cost champions being played rather than larger numbers of lower nora cost champions. Obviously we'll have to see how the revamp turns out, and we should try the current calculator before tinkering with it, but I wanted to raise the issue as a possible consideration for refining the pricing mechanism long term.

 

I agree, but we don't know how the calculator works now, so it's hard to make observations this way.

 

Sounds fun.

Once the revamp is released, and we have a list of the cost of all abilities, we, as a community, could go and try to find a non-linear algorithm that accounts for already existing abilities and allows to calculate an approximately balanced nora cost for champions.

 

I'm with you on the non-linear part, but I'm more worried about the specific ability side. Evasive 3 is worth more on a champ who also has Reflexes 3 than a champ who has Defenseless, for example - defensive abilities increase the benefit you get from other defensive abilities and should be costed accordingly. That this doesn't appear to be happening makes me wary of any sort of discounting based on total cost.

 

That seems to be the problem with the previews right now. There is no accounting for the efficiences and deficiencies of certain combinations.

 

Practically every defensive ability works with other defensive abilities constructively, so maybe you could designate defensive abilities and give them kind of a diminishing return.

 

Look, some runes have to be better than others, I'm ok with the runes with built in synergy being better than the others standalone, as long as there is room for cross champion synergy making some champions better than those with built-in synergy in certain combinations/themes/decks, if we agree with this power pyramid, there is no need to cost abilities with variations between champions and that would be easy.

I would have approach the stat costing setting some "standard" builds: and working from there, for example, basic melee body with 10 damage, 6 speed, 1 range, 0 def and 40 hp would cost, say, 50 nora, and then make adjustments for each of this basic builds, and in this way, you would be able to cost +1 DMG= 1 nora for this body and +1 DMG = +3 nora for the ranged beater build with 6 range.
With this system you would have 5 basic templates (melee, 2-4, 3-5, 4-6, passive) with two variations (combat, support) that's 10 different calculators but it seems more viable than making a single algorithm able to balance each champion properly.

 

It is not worth the effort for the developers to create an efficient algorithm that can cost champions squarely, considering all possible ability interactions. (Almost) no matter how complex the algorithm is, a developer will always be required to check the rune for imbalances and re-cost it. So, some algorithm with low complexity is probably the best solution.

If we want some really cool cost formula, I guess we will have to make one ourselves and convince the devs to use it!

 

I think they should move away from the idea that some champs have to be better. It just sounds like a cheap excuse for lazy balancing in a strategy game. pox isn't a card flip tcg. the fun is winning a tactical battle that is evenly matched, not in being the first to find or buy the 'best' cards.

 

There are, what, 1000 champions?

Confessing that some champs have to be better isn't a design goal, it's just realistic.

 

If there are no better runes, you would just throw 30 in a bg and go to play, and any argument against that would end in some runes being better than the others.

 

Actually, true balance would mean that you could any rune as your first rune in a BG and it wouldn't lower your chances if you built a BG around it. That synergy beats random champs should be the reason for your selection, nit "this champ is better than that one".

 

that depends on the degree of variance you're willing to accept.

 

I'd prefer not to get into an abstract debate about which champions are "equal." My point was that the value of a champion cannot be calculated based on its individual stats or abilities. For example, in WOW total health didn't matter much; effective health did. There's a similar issue in Pox. Giving Reflexes 3 is more "valuable" on a champion with Evasive 3. Giving block to a champion with evasive 3 is more valuable than giving block to a champion to without evasive 3. The list goes on.

I think we'll see that this is true long-term, and we can adjust the calculator eventually. I wanted to introduce the idea now, but I completely agree that we should move to a calculator model and use it as-is. We can adjust later on. My thanks to Senshu and Gedden--the calculator system is much better.

Edit: My only request is that some of my favorite sprites don't get destroyed....wasting those sprites hurts me

 

I find myself flip flopping on the issue. on the one hand a champs cost should reflect its stats and abilities. should it also reflect how well those abilities work with each other? initially im thinking that it should. but on the other hand, those same abilities can have a greater or lesser impact depending on when the champ is deployed in the match, the other runes in the deck, what your opponent has the board... etc. should the cost try to reflect those things as well?

it might be easier to just think of nora the same way as ap. a basic attack costs 3 ap regardless of how impactful that attack is on the match (a basic attack that kills its target is surely more valuable than a basic attack that gets dodged).