The next patch is going to focus on re-costing. As many of you are aware its not a quick and easy task, but its something I feel needs to be addressed before we continue the flow of balance patches. This post is going to be a real treat for you numbers/graph nerds out there, the rest of you, just know we are working on champion costing! First off, hats off to Xirone who turned out to be a player council member with a real head for heuristics. He actually, completely on his own, engineered his own costing algorithm. There were parts of that I found to be just excellent and are included in the version that may go live. The Problem Very cheap champs are a little too cheap, and very expensive champs are not efficient enough to play. This is because in the old algorithm, champions get more expensive in a linear fashion. Where as the truth is there is a hidden "opportunity" cost that you have to pay when you have to "save up". I have heard some players refer to this as a "tempo hit". The Soloution Diminishing returns. As certain stats get higher, they need to get less efficient at a diminishing rate to compensate for the opportunity cost. Below are the charts showing the diminishing returns for damage and HP RE stands for "Revamp". This is the costing algorithm that is currently on live X stands for Xirone (yay), and his numbers RC1 stands for "Release Candidate 1". Its not the final algorithm but its pretty close. Now this following chart tells a bigger story. This is a chart of every champion in the game. The black line is every champion's current cost (post revamp) Each green dot is the champion's new cost using the RC1 algorithm Basically note that the cheaper champions tend to get slightly more expensive, while the higher costed champions lean more towards being cheaper. Basically there is a slight "hug" towards that 75 nora mark. Again, work in progress, I just wanted to show an update!
I'm curious what the champion right at the bottom of that cost graph is I mean, anything costing ~5 nora is a hazard waiting to happen in terms of death benefit.
The 5 nora is LE carrionling And Ash is still cca 120 nora. I'm wondering what's the rune that costs around 85-90 nora, and in 2.0 it's 100+.
Looking at that final graph and i notice some significant outliers. It will be interesting to see which runes they are!
Motion seconded. I hate having to either look up runes in my manager or, if i don't own them, resort to poxbase to look at upgrades. While I love the poxbase site, that feature should be available internally.
I know DOG has alot on their plate right now. This recosting is important, and the runechecklist even takes priority to my wishes. However, Gedden told me we'd have a mass delete function for the rune manager. I though this was gonna roll out with the revamp. Im just going to wait patiently. Fumbling with way too many decks that don't matter anymore and making my custom opponents wait 5min while i try to find my deck.......but waiting....patiently :/
Thank you Owls. It's tough to find a place in your battlegroup for 100+ nora champions. Bringing the top end down and the bottom end up should allow the higher-priced champs to see activity while it brings the undercosted runes more in line with the rest of the rune efficiency ratios. Personally, I think the costing issues are higher priority than the Rune Checklist. It might be a minor inconvenience to have to look elsewhere for the upgrades on runes you don't have. There have been many more complaints about rune costing than the rune checklist.
I agree with the general theory behind the first graph, as long as it applies to HP and DMG only. SPD and DEF, instead, are on a complete different boat and need to have their price rised in an exponential way; also, in the DMG formula RNG type needs to be accounted like a multiplier. To give some numbers: DEF 0 or SPD 3: minimum value, so no cost DEF 1 or SPD 4: 30% of base cost DEF 2 or SPD 5: 60% of base cost DEF 3 or SPD 6: 100% of base cost DEF 4 or SPD 7: 150% of base cost DEF 5 or SPD 8: 200% of base cost RNG 1-1 : multiply DMG cost by 1 RNG 2-3: multiply DMG cost by 1.25 RNG 1-2: multiply DMG cost by 1.5 RNG 3-4: multiply DMG cost by 1.5 RNG 2-4: multiply DMG cost by 1.75 RNG 1-3: multiply DMG cost by 2 RNG 3-5: multiply DMG cost by 2.5 RNG 4-6: multiply DMG cost by 2.5 RNG 1-4: multiply DMG cost by 3 RNG 2-5: multiply DMG cost by 3 RNG 3-6: multiply DMG cost by 3 This, in a vacuum...
I think this is a good idea, but I disagree that 1-4 and 2-5/3-6 should cost the same since 1-4 allows you to choose between melee and range attacks. Back when the first ambassadors came out with range 1-3, they were changed not long after because it was said to be too powerful due to that fact.
Unless Gedden has radically changed the formula, DEF is dependent upon HP (the more HP a champion has on base the more expensive each point of DEF is) and RNG is a rather complicated formula that makes high range more expensive than low range (2-4 costs less that 3-5) and greater range more expensive (2-4 costs less that 2-5).
