thanks for the read. about theme synergies, I agree. they were pushed too much sometimes. the middleground between what you said and what it is now would definitely please me. I'm big fan of modules. however, some of things you mentioned like BBND (I wasn't there around those times, but I'm pretty sure I do understand what it does since I thought I will be clever enough "repeating" it myself (sight). those were BAD for the game. basically, we should mix deckbuilding with actual interaction on the board. those had very little interaction on the board and big part of those decks were played alone, by yourself, in your rune manager. however, I do get what you mean by saying "real synergies" (if you didn't use the exact those words). also, while those maljaran split races were premade decks, you can't deny something like stitcheds are being played differently so some success have been achieved here!
Firstly, I never bash Sokolov, have no idea why you would say that. He´s a friend. Secondly, I was talking about the "AlphaPSA" era, who unfortunately had no clue on Pox. I thought that much you would figure. /sigh
Awesome post, but I disagree about themes. I really enjoy themes, like a lot. It's very possibly because I am bad, but I honestly feel better about a deck that is connected by both flavor and mechanics than just a weird group of dudes that are only connected by mechanics. While I do agree that themes can make deckbuilding a little too obvious at times, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. And even if deckbuilding is too brainless (which for most themes is the case because they aren't developed at all), themes, when done correctly, change how you play the game. Kanen are awesome because of this and I love playing kanen. I actually feel like a swole dog man leading around an army of nerds. Playing kanen is not brainless at all. I know this because I make mistakes not utilizing their main strength as much as I should. Stitched, creeps (in theory), hyaenid/djinn, and others also accomplish this goal of changing how you play the game. They add a lot to pox and throwing them out would be a huge disservice to the game and to the people who play it. I do agree that not all themes are well developed in deckbuilding or gameplay. But that is a case of terrible design of those themes and not terrible design of all themes. Still I think there is more than enough room in the design of pox to accomodate both you and me. In discussions of MTG design, the terms timmy, johnny, and spike get used a lot. These refer to the ways in which different players approach and enjoy the game. Timmy likes large flashy things which feel powerful, johnny likes expressing himself through the game and interesting interactions, and spike likes to win as consistently and efficiently as possible. The goal of MTG game design is to appeal to all of those profiles and their combinations. DOG will have to do the same thing to be successful. Edit: Also I disagree with a rigid ability cost formula for two reasons 1. It doesn't take into account synergy. An example I read earlier in this thread: a champion with low damage and life siphon will cost less than a champion with high damage and life siphon, but the high damage champ will always be more efficient. On the low damage champion, life siphon is really just raising it's cost and giving it nothing in return. 2. Different factions should have different strengths and weaknesses and so, for example, healing should be rarer and with a higher cost in certain factions. A rigid formula would restrict design too much in my opinion.
I feel like Pox Nora could do more with themes. I really think that the themes that have "obvious" deckbuilding are obvious because there aren't enough runes in that strategy to actually force the player to have to choose between different runes, sometimes there's barely enough champions to fill out a champion line up.
Am I the only one who thinks bounty hunter is a stupid ability, that should be removed from the game?
I've read other people mention a dislike of Bounty Hunter. I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment, but you aren't alone in thinking it.
With that said, more people I feel are more upset at hunter:x than bounty hunter, due to randomness/etc.
No, I definitely agree with you. I think all of the Hunter: Faction abilities are stupid and should be removed.
I really dislike Hunter:X. As for Bounty Hunter... I just don't really get the point. Against FF it could just as well read "this unit is going to roflstomp after attacking once". I also don't get the name. For an ability named Bounty Hunter, I would rather expect something that provides a bonus after taking out a target, like extra nora.
Rework Hunter to only increase damage, not decrease incoming damage, rebalance champions overnerfed by that (Shadow Hunter, Salaman Hunter), kick all "HUnter:X" abilities to mars.
hunter abilities is fine, but booty hunter should be replace by something like hunter split battlegroup (if a champion have 2 faccion bonus, bla bla bla hunter abilitie) or else booty hunter its just hunter everything, like it is today, and that sux
GREENS !!! you shoud release some champions spot light, just to we see what you all are planing, the same you did with magnus and bonecrusher. PLEASE !!!
I don't know about that change to Bounty Hunter, GIFTbr. I can only think of a few UD elves, and the Barbarian Huntress, where Booty Hunter could work.
- I find adaptive, escalation, eternal storm and (old) Black tempest in the same annoying category. Lazy "wait and win" nonsense. Should be reworked in general to infuse and promote some active gameplay.
