This is not a rant thread, but it's quite unpleasant to play against, and I myself have used the spell spam tactic a lot; especially in my KF/SL Beast bg. There should be a limit as to how many spells should be cast within a single turn, or at least AoE damaging spells. I've eaten Thorn Collection + 2x Stellar Horizons, Firestorm + Acid storm + Fire blast, and a lot more, and I myself have done them. Spell spam can cost up to roughly 150 nora in order to eliminate 2-4 champions that have a net worth of...per say... 150-250 nora, and includes font advantage. As it stands, it's quite hard to position champions so far away from each other due to the sole fact that the game has become a more of a complete turtle or rush game. It's absolutely insane that this has gone through for so long. Not only is it unpleasant to play against, but it's quite toxic to the strategic aspect of the game. Yes, I did face a spell spammer today, but this is not WHY I'm posting the thread. What're your thoughts on this topic? Should DAMAGING spells have a limit as to how many can be used per turn? A side note, I am emphasising on the "damaging" spells because I am quite aware of the fact that there are many combos that require a certain amount of spells to be casted in order for the combination to work, hence why this is targeting damaging spells only.
Take spell presence off non-magical champs. Makes for an interesting design space and makes spell casting a little more thought provoking.
Except that would basic.y require all battlegroups to have magical champs in them.... I'd rather not have that restriction.
it's too big a redesign in reality. I do think it would open up interesting champion possibilities and add another level to bg design. As it stands, you simply include meta spells in a bg, it doesn't require too much thought and we see the same hand full of spells every game. Only being able to cast within the presence of a magic user would change the spells you would use. You could go further and categories spells, (dmg,aoe,def) and allow certain classes to cast certain types. I know it's too complex, I just think it would be interesting.
I, to some extent, like this idea. But, unfortunately, it would limit deck building into forcing certain classes into the battlegroup, making them staples. This could also potentially corrupt themes due to the fact that there are class related themes (i.e Wizards, Monks, Brutes, Paladins, etc.)
It hasn't happened to me in a long time but it honestly annoys me that it's such a reliable win tactic. Seems like every high ranked SL player is doing the Sandstorm/Sandspray/Burning Sands combo to close out the game in just about every game i have spectated. I even feel bad for the losing player, i think it's such a shitty way to win a game. You can have someone spend all game carefully building up their board strength and devising a strategy to win and then their opponent just has to save nora for a turn and then faceroll their spells out in the right place. I'm sure some idiot with terrible rating is already thinking about telling me that i need to learn to position but that isn't the point, you shouldn't have to spend all game spending AP to space your champions out for the AOE spam that might never come.
On top of this, there have been so many calls to make abilities AOE, that there is more pressure than ever to keep champs reasonably close. I'd like to see something like the following: Target spells: Max dmg 15 2x2: Max dmg 10 3x3: Max dmg 8 Removal of DOT from all spells. This seems more in keeping with some of the range nerfs. There has been an effort to reduce dmg by ranged champs, but not spells. This leaves spells disproportionately effective.
If you lose to spellspam, you were already losing the board anyway if your opponent could save up nora and not get heavily punished. Your average spell spam is not a viable stand alone win tactic.
Appriaser - 39hp Commando -42hp Hunter - 35hp Trapper - 40hp Combined Nora: 278 Sandstorm x2 = 14dmg burrning Sands x2 = 24dmg DOT = 3dmg Total dmg = 41 Combined Nora: 160 Pretty effient use of nora, you can still depoly 118nora of champs and wipe out the Salaman. You're mostly right, spell spam isn't an effective way of winning games. But at times, it just destroys your game.
That seems a bit presumptuous considering the many different situations that could allow this to occur.
Eh, what you could do is remove it from all champions and have relics/fonts grant spell presence. Of course you could have champ ability that provides mobile spell presence like maybe replace those fontish abilities.
If anything i would say that over the course of recent expansions etc. The game has been given too many cheapish good damage high AOE spells that can make it very difficult to position around avoiding them.
Alright then. Define spellspam (how much nora?) Then define board in Pox Then explain to me how you can be winning on board and still lose to spellspam. Im gonna throw this one out just to be sure, if you kill a champ but line up your champs to get Gale Forced, or all your champs in an AoE2, you were never winning the board. What you did was make a poor turn that is only good if your opponent doesnt punish it. The punishing move can be spells, or bombs/cones etc. Pox just doesnt work like this: I was beating him super hard but then he cast 5 spells in one turn and I lost. Such no skill yada yada. It just doesnt. Because of nora management, board control and positioning, almost always when the other guy spellspams you, you made a mistake (excluding spell spam that works in such a way that its inherently broken for example if you could drown a shrine). I believe that if you don't grasp this concept, you just dont grasp the fundamentals of pox well enough.
Not being able to grasp a concept and disagreeing with it are not the same thing, also that comment seemed awfully *****y. The game is just too vast and has too many possible instances for you to make a totalitarian statement like 'If X happens then Y never could have happened'. I'm honestly surprised that someone as experienced at the game and as seemingly intelligent as you would say something that is so thoughtless. All your argument is based on is the assumption that i am positioning my champions badly and losing to AOE but if you read my original comment you'll find that isn't the case. It honestly really pisses me off when i make an objective statement about something that i think is unbalanced and people just jump to the conclusion that i'm whining about something because i lost to it. I honestly don't remember the last time i lost to AOE but that doesn't change my opinion of it.
I get destroyed by AOE whenever I come up against it with my Salaman - whether champ based or spell based. You have to group certain champs within close proximity - that's how they play. If someone can tell me how to avoid this, I'm all ears!
His post was actually pretty objective man. Specially this part: The truth is, if you let your opponent save 200+ nora for a spellspam turn and didnt captalize on it, either by contesting a font, wipeing his small board or threatening to charge at the shrine, you deserved to be spellspammed and lose. It's pretty straightforward, actually. Save AP on your key units and put them apart by the end of your turn. "Well, but then I can't double tap". Then you should either: A) Choose another time for your powerturn; B) Realize that you will be spellspammed and have a backup plan for it. The worst possible solution is this: C) "I have a risk of getting AOE to death but I'm still going all in with it".
Ha! That's the truth. The problem is, I never have the patience against turtle tactics... this is why I'm average. The path to greatness in Poxnora... Wait them out, until they get bored and charge!
Pretty objective doesn't do it for me. I kept my response to his comment entirely objective, anyone who packs some passive little insults into their reponse to an objective disagreement can go ******** the nearest cliff for all i care.
