A - Your champions cost 5 more nora. B - Your spells cost 5 more nora. C - Your opponent's champions cost 5 less nora. D - Your opponent's spells cost 5 less nora. E - When you play a non-champion rune, this champion loses 3 HP. F - When this champion is destroyed, enemy champions gain +3 MAX HP. G - When this champion comes into play, enemy champions gain 2 AP. H - When this champion comes into play, friendly champions lose all AP. I - When this champion comes into play, enemy champions gain +3 MAX HP. Note: These aren't necessarily new abilities coming or anything, I am just curious how people see negative abilities and their value in different situations.
A - Your champions cost 5 more nora. 20 nora B - Your spells cost 5 more nora. 15 nora C - Your opponent's champions cost 5 less nora. 20 nora D - Your opponent's spells cost 5 less nora. 15 E - When you play a non-champion rune, this champion loses 3 HP. 10 F - When this champion is destroyed, enemy champions gain +3 MAX HP. 9 G - When this champion comes into play, enemy champions gain 2 AP. 11 H - When this champion comes into play, friendly champions lose all AP. 5 I - When this champion comes into play, enemy champions gain +3 MAX HP. 7
Are you considering the player's ability to build around A and B here? In particular with B, you can play with no spells and completely negate this drawback.
A - Your champions cost 5 more nora. (-20) (I think that paying the discount on this champ with the next 4 deploys would be ok) B - Your spells cost 5 more nora. (-8) (its kinda Spell Aegis but you choose when and why) C - Your opponent's champions cost 5 less nora. (-15) (Less than A because your opponent should get the adventage on nora sooner than you) D - Your opponent's spells cost 5 less nora. (-15) (More than B because an opponent spell can be your demise, its a gamble) E - When you play a non-champion rune, this champion loses 3 HP. (-6) (If you are able to use 4+ non-champ runes so the dmg taken is considerable then you would have the adventage anyway. too little drawback) F - When this champion is destroyed, enemy champions gain +3 MAX HP. (-6) (worth less than a half banner, by the time the champ dies you might have dealt more dmg than what they gain) G - When this champion comes into play, enemy champions gain 2 AP. (-12) (basically battle drums for the enemy on deploy) H - When this champion comes into play, friendly champions lose all AP. (-8) (this drawback is as controlable as Drudgery, you can simply deploy it after spending all your ap) I - When this champion comes into play, enemy champions gain +3 MAX HP. (-9)
I think it is hard to determine a cost for most things right now. There's many things that are under and over costed. For example, giving +5 nora to the opponent spells won't ever be worth deploying if the rune is balanced when arctic wail costs 25, even though it has the value of a 50 nora rune. That's my take on it. It is " biased " but it doesn't mean it is wrong.
I will agree with Kampel, solid reasoning. Howeever G i would go (-8 or 10) Can be controlled with a champ with drudgery, and there is an AP cap most people leave their champs with 4-5 ap so on their turn they still get same amount of AP 11 even if + 2AP could. Can be used for extra dmg with punish/Rebuke also gain more Ap if one gonna posess. First unit to deploy completly negates this.
You people are freaking crazy @Sokolov can you give examples of other negative ability costs plz? Because just eyeballing the things you listed, the people above me are too heavy-handed with their nora costs. Also, this question of yours basically exemplifies why a set cost of an ability is so problematic if not done on a sliding scale or taken into consideration with other abilities/stats on the champ.
Off the top of my head: A - 10 Nora B - 6/8 or something. Easy to build around. C - Slightly more of a discount than A. D - Slightly more of a discount than B. E - 4 or something. F - 4 G - 6. Easy to play around. H - Again something like -6. I - 5 I feel like people underestimated the ability to build around these drawbacks. Things like granting your opponent ap can be so easy to play around.
Anything for you, BB. Ammunition 1 (-8) (This is basically mostly ignored in favor of some modifier that takes into account the champion's actual RNG) Aquatic (-15) Autophobia (-10) Careless (-8) Corrosion (-5) (-2 HP/round - not used on champions atm) Lethargic (-6) Lumbering (-18) Mercenary (-12) Nora Induction (-6) Ponderous (-10) Short-Lived 1 (-20) Short-Lived 2 (-15) Sole Purpose (-6) (This is changing to be -3 HP on each basic attack with no charge mitigation) Unequippable (-5, but going to -3) Vuln: Fire (-4)
Absolutely, especially in a game with so many abilities created at different eras and costed differently (and in some eras weren't even cos heted at all). In the actual game, this is mitigated by three things: Adjustment of ability costs over time Manual modification of champion costs which allows for specific synergies to be accounted for or the inverse, lack of synergy such as when a champion has too many AP-hungry abilities at the same time or a Stitched with multiple Reconstructs Most champions are built with synergies Of course, it's not perfect, and things fall through the cracks, but I think one can imagine how much more unbalanced the game would be if my approach was different. For example, imagine champions were designed with random stats and abilities with the cost fixed and not changed. THAT would be a case where no synergies (or lack thereof) are accounted ever. It is why I always say that the cost formula is a guideline, not a rule. But not having a guideline would actually make things a lot more difficult, as we saw in the latter half of the SOE era. ~ Note too that this problem doesn't actually go away without ability costs. It just manifests itself differently. Imagine if the game had no costs, and you got to play X runes per turn or whatever. The "cost" of a rune in this scenario would be the rune slot and the opportunity cost of not playing other runes. So what does this mean? It means that we could say, "This basically exemplified why a set cost for runes is so problematic because it doesn't take into consideration what other abilities/stats are on the champion." And it'd be true. The "balance" or "design" there would have to try and make everything as equal as possible. At the same time, the existence of these "problems" are, of course, also what makes games interesting. If everything was always perfectly balanced and easily calculated, why would we play or think about these games? It'd get boring very quickly.
I'm curious, how would you cost an ability that rellys on negative effects on the champ but grants expensive stats, for example: Speed of the Damned: This champ has +1SPD for each negative condition it has. And lets say the champ is built with "Relieve"
I would be interested in some champ that does something like Renovate but instead deals +2 for every positive condition on the unit.
More abilities: Good More Battlegroup building: Excellent More Rune synergy: Excellent More Battlegroup efficiency: Very good More risks: Fun Nefari Griefthief.
A to D I couldn't really say. E, depends how much healing you have, very cheap F, very cheap, you don't want your champ dead anyway and 3hp isn't very much G, very cheap if in a theme that likes to sit back, build up and force stalemates H, very cheap if in a theme that rushes a lot I, maybe 8 nora? 25% of a warbanner; no dmg, half the hp, only affects current champs and yeh most of these are able to be played around and depend on the champ they're on
How much would a negative ability that only allows the unit to attack spaces in a straight line cost? It would significantly reduce the number of spaces that could be targeted by the unit but in certain situations be completely unnoticeable.
