I made a UD deck, trying just to look at whats good, and its sitting with 4 LEG runes and I would consider the angels if I had them. Speaking of which, I feel angels are auto in every faction bar SL/FW/ST but I seem unable to find them to trade for. The greens talked about a vamp theme, that is going to take multiple high rank exo/LEG I would think (try and trade for a demonologist or bloodbinder atm). Yes, the revamp neutered many high rarity runes but we are slowly and surely seeing them buffed back again - and I would predict that we will see the same when new runes are released, but that's more a gut feeling than fact. And yes, some champs have meaningful choices. Some have rend. Overall I do like this new upgrade system though, however I do wish they would often put more thought that rank 1, 2 and 3 (being 1-2 nora differences as well). But I guess that is a lot to expect for how many runes we have. Oh and Badger, I feel a more apt analogy is that while I am trapped in a burning building, someone has screamed out "I'll help", and I am still waiting while they combat the smoke/heat at the door. Nice gesture, but I am still waiting for results.
Ah, but if someone has said that they'll help and you're waiting for the results you aren't going to scream back "Seriously? What the hell's taking so long? I might as well off myself save the fire some effort."
I'm wondering what your UD deck looks like. My meta deck has 2x demonologist, grimlic, banner and retribution. So 2 runes hard to get. You don't really 'need' demonologist though i agree it is really good. UD angel isn't very good. I'm actually having a debate with myself right now regarding which runes to nominate as buffs for the upcoming patch, I don't really want to buff high rarity stuff but most of the genuinely worse runes are exo or leg. I think this is because these runes had manual -nora modifiers pre-revamp and so when things are reset they come out bad. Also, your analogy is terrible. There is a healthy lobby as i speak, 110 players in ranked (at a naturally low period in the expansion cycle). If the game was left to SoE there would be probably no one there - I had certainly given it up for dead. Even if you take a pessimistic view, a better analogy would be an apparently terminal case, left for dead, whom new doctors have taken an interest in and revived but may possibly still die in a number of months -- but may not.
I run reavers. > I think this is because these runes had manual -nora modifiers pre-revamp and so when things are reset they come out bad I agree in part, but I think the devs under costed stats and over costed abilities (this goes in tandem) and ended up giving Legs bad stats to make up for their abilities, but that was not enough to carry them (looking at defiler knights 9 dmg). And yes, the analogy is poor. I think my general point for the revamp is: some of the changes were negative (large imbalances in the rune costing, main mechanics ignored/damaged, themes gutted), some were neutral (some of the "complexity" reduction mitigated by implementing new more complex abilities), and some were positive (pack price cost, attitude to accessibility, some re-balancing), but the end result is much of a muchness. So I am sitting here wondering what's going on. Seeing so much effort, but IMO little if any gain.
I'd argue that we are going through a necessary transitory period where one system is transferred to another. I've entirely expected it to be rocky from the start (the tree business was unfortunate though probably not the worse that could have happened). There were all sorts of practical problems which are tedious to go into, but real, and which it is easy to ignore if you want to blame someone for whatever bad feeling you have. That said, I expect this game to live or die by it's ability to attract and keep new players, and already i'm seeing enthusiastic newbies. The active promotion and launch of the game hasn't happened yet, the devs are putting it in the right state for this (tutorials, steam compatibility, NUX stuff), I think only then can we really judge the success of the new devs.
instead of one person in the burning building you have 3. one is yelling to be saved, one is yelling for the fireman to save himself, and one is fanning the flames.
One thing that is nice is that the people that is nocive to the game is clearly identified as that now.
You forgot one the guy standing on the sidewalk, not helping, and watching all this so that a story could be made of it all the while yelling "If only you'd of implemented a subscription model this wouldn't have happened!!"
Opposites attract; positivity attracts negativity. It's basic physics. If we want all the negativity to go away, we need to stop being positive.
