Potential FS Buffs/Reworks

I'm a strategic spell user too; I move my champions around, softening up my opponent's, and then I cast 3 AoEs in a row and win.

 

I don't think it would be that much of an issue. Besides, the only spells that can get "spammed" really are Nora Gen (Marsh Song and Noraweave generally), so Backlash can counter it.

But if it's really a fear in tandem with Counterspell Mastery, it could be replaced with something like Attack Charged or Death Charged. Ultimately, Spellcharged 1 is too slow to be particularly useful though, in my view.

But hey, that's what testing is for and stuff.

 

@Sokolov

It doesn't have to be these changes, but could we do something about extispicer and neuromancer?

 

^
PLEASE!

 

Fair enough. This post was mostly a reaction to other similar sorts of posts getting some traction. If there isn't any DoG interest then fair enough.

 

Yup, that is totally great for the neuromancer. Just out of curiosity what is the neuromancer's cost going to look like with those changes? About the same?

 

Hmm, difficult to gauge i guess. A lot of people talk out their asses half the time when it comes to this forum. Neuromancer as an example is a rune that really needs the love though because im pretty sure its literally seeing a big fat zero of play right now.

 

What I dislike is that it used to be a key unit in Psychic and now it's not. It lost a lot of its defining traits:

One of the highest ranged in Psychic
Psychic Amplifcation
Possession

Most of those were altered / removed through various iterations, but the point remains.

 

http://cardboard-crack.com/post/128759979176/what-do-you-like

 

It concerns me that this thread has been focusing on things that are already playable just not great rather than things that are outright terrible. How about we get a rework done on something that needs it like say. Firk Prophet

 

Corrupted Overlord and Neurmancer are playable?

Behemoth is ok IMO and Extispicer needs to be worked upon, but yeah there are several other FS runes that need some work like Angel, Prophet, Shardseer and many others...

 

pls. keep my nostalgic weeping to a minimum?

 

I actually think Corrupted Overlord isn't that bad (not "good" but not "bad" either). And actually, Prophet's not that bad either, Shardseer Argol is probably good, etc.

Certainly, there are far worse runes.

Aspect of Growth (Particularly in light of the Recharge and Supercharged nerfs, though I do understand it's a delicate balance for this rune... possibly that's all the more reason for a change.)

Fire Salaman (It's abilities suck [I do kind of like Flamestrike but it's largely redundant on a ranged champion] and it's probably overcosted on the base stats... but RNG 2-4 has always been very weird for costing)

Firk Thornflinger (If you think Firk Prophet is bad... *sigh* at least this guy remembered how to swim eventually)

Turtle Rider (Still)

Although really, that's pretty much it. There are a lot of unused runes (Froblic Bull, Dreadwing, etc.) but most of them aren't actually that bad, just forgotten or rather specific to certain splits/themes/playstyles not commonly utilized.

Well, just my own thoughts.

 

Are you serious?

 

We all want buffs and nerfs and reworks and all, but you guys gotta remember that good old sok, not only is working on future expansions, but also working on other bigger things.

I would love to see Turtle Rider rise again and be great, but I believe there is a time and a place for certain changes, and right now a few reworks here and there are good, but don't demand for a overhaul for all shoebox runes(not that all of you are, but I see a lot of X rune is bad. Idea to make X rune good.) and as Sok stated above, this rarely does anything. For old guys like me, who play those hipster bgs, I love the idea for old runes getting a much needed buff, but....in all honesty a good 75-80% of players usually just play meta or the best race/idea theme that is in current meta rotation which has been the formula for a while now. Meta always viable, 2-3 themes that are solid and rank stable.

I honestly don't think it's a bad formula, in a game like this, with such an immense amount of runes/combos, it is impossible to find a perfect harmony and balance(with all 8 factions mind you) so the idea that having 2-3 themes in each faction being viable and playable is easier on the overly worked devs. So keep those ideas fresh on the forums, and waiting, for an expansion/meta shift in the near future that can possibly bring them back to light. A rune has its time and place to shine, so just be patient

 

Well... I don't think it's a bad thing suggesting changes to runes that are barely played like buddha is doing, I simply don't do the same for all the runes that I think that need some work bcuz I just don't have the knowledge to do so... I think it makes Sok's job much easier instead of having to check which are the runes that see no play and could be done to them, I don't think we should just wait...

Sok is doing such a great job at enabling themes not only by adding new runes, but also changing existing ones, like the recost on all the mirefolk which was heavly needed and the total rework of salaman. So if we can help him rethink some old unused runes and help with some themes comeback, why shouldn't we?

On that matter I really hope next patch focus on Jellies!

 

Yes, outside of the context of the current meta. Though probably almost every ranged champion looks bad compared to Firk Voidmage.

In a fantasy meta however, Prophet could be good, Overlord could be good, Argol, etc.

They aren't "objectively bad" in the same sense as other runes, but they don't fit the current meta because they have "sandbags" or other issues that don't go well. But "Sandbag" is often just "useful ability that can't be optimized currently." Or in some cases "Decently useful ability that is slightly too expensive in general" rather than an issue for the specific champion.

Whether or not that fantasy meta for some specific champion ever again exists isn't actually that important in the long run.

It's fine to have runes that almost never (or actually never) see competitive play simply because the type of meta they'd do well in doesn't show up (often).

Even if Pox had half the runes it currently does, they wouldn't all see play (in fact I'd be surprised if "most" saw play), but you could still, in theory, have a healthy and diverse meta.


-----
To me, it seems like a lot of people want to buff specific runes because they like the rune, and want to justify using it/trading for it more. This is understandable. But it does lead to some of the things that Sok is lamenting in his post above. You can't please everyone. 'Hypothetical' examples: "Why buff this rune over that rune?" "Why did you change this rune when I liked how it was? Seriously, what was wrong with Lightbringer being ranged? Or Tortun Captain?" "Why hasn't Turtle Rider been buffed yet?"

Etc.

The main benefit, from a designer perspective, to buffing/changing old unused runes is that you don't need to get new card art or sprite animations while still effectively expanding your card-base. But you cannot and should not try and get all runes to be good for the current meta, whichever that meta happens to be at the time. Especially since, if you do try to do that, you'll either end up changing the meta into something else (and thus have a bunch more new "bad" runes) or you're simply swapping a "bad" rune for what was once a "good" rune.

Designing for balance of value makes more sense. Not only does it mean you can potentially use the "unused" cards as a sort of means of pivoting toward a new meta (new cards, synergies, etc.) but something might emerge on it's own due to player ingenuity. Or at least iPox ingenuity.

Balance of value makes particular sense for a strategic card-game/tbs like this.

It can, of course, mean that those that are "generally useful" will see more play, generally (funny that), but it's more stable than trying to constantly try to make everything equal within the context of the whatever the current meta is at the time. Not to mention means less work/man-hours for the developers that can be reallocated elsewhere (if applicable).