Worms...

Worms are pretty interesting because it's mechanically different than anything else in the game.

The Necrosis and related abilities provide a permanent advantage on the board - which nothing else in the game really does - everything else can be technically erased somehow. Someone is ahead of you by 500 nora in champions? You can theoretically make up that deficit even if it's unrealistic, but someone who has +15 Shrine Deployment Zone on you isn't something you can actually "counter play."

The word counterplay gets through around a lot on these forums, but I think a lot of times it gets mis-used. Because if Necrosis has no "counterplay" and is therefore bad then most of the game also falls into this category. If I deploy an initiative champion, it gains the AP no matter what and you have no "counterplay" but the fact of the matter is that the board state and the nora invested in the ability is what allows for that benefit to be manifested.

In the case of Necrosis/Worms design, the fundamental idea of them has always been slow creep. They were, by design, intended to be investing some of their nora into a long term advantage. This is why their champions are not quite right by normal standards for the most part (recently Surge was removed from one of them partly for this reason) and Necrosis itself really doesn't DO anything side from the creeping. The permanence IS a potential problem, and I will admit it's clearly a perception problem, but I am not sure it's a balance problem in of itself. The fact that X or Y build/ability can derive a long-term advantage by paying some additional short-term isn't specifically a Worms/Creepers thing, but is how much of the game is structured. Again, the difference is primarily that this is "permanent" but even then in most cases, built up advantages are realistically not counterable - at some point, you are just too much behind and lose. But the Necrosis advantage often doesn't FEEL like the enemy is winning because it's kind of in the background - you are aware of it, but it doesn't feel threatening the same way as being surrounded by enemy champions, but either way, he has X nora invested in some advantage now over you in either scenario.

So what IS the problem with Worms? I think anyone following the discussions on Worms over the past while will notice one consistent theme - BILE ZOMBIE.

It is always mentioned, and fundamentally one can see why. The Bile Zombie design is an overefficient AE that has severe restrictions on its use - a restriction that Necrosis eventually mitigates almost completely. When this is achieved in a Worms deck, it makes it very difficult to fight back at that point since the Bile Zombie can be used over and over, dealing both damage and applying Blinded.

So what's the solution, if there is need of one? Perhaps it's as simple as introducing an SDZ reduction not to non-Worms again, so that deploying BZ over and over will contract the Creep. Additionally or alternatively, it can be argued that the benefit of the SDZ growth is worth more than the 4 nora it current costs.

But I really don't think the solution is to fundamentally redesign the whole thing and change the way the theme plays from the ground up, especially to something more "normal" or "standard." It seems to me the game will be more interesting if we embraced playstyle differences between themes as opposed to trying to push them towards a homogenized state.

 

There's a fundamental difference between theme playstyle vs "gimmick-BGs" that largely rely on the interactions of a couple specific runes.

The thing is that such decks have existed throughout the entire history of Pox and have consistently been nerfed, but in either case most players play fairly standard decks (which also get complained about as being boring/samey while at the same time any decks that play even slightly different are complained about).

I also don't think many of them are "super efficient" but are instead often described hyperbolically. That said, if they are actively "abusive" and consistently winning, they are pretty much nerfed immediately. I mean, next patch is actually nerfing at least 3 of those decks you mentioned so... yea.

Regardless, whatever happens to be ran recently people complain about as super broken, no matter how broken it actually may or may not be; it's just how it goes.

 

This is what people say about decks they don't like in general though. It's very rare for anyone to say, "This deck is OP and broken and I love playing against it."

 

There's a fundamental difference between theme playstyle vs "gimmick-BGs" that largely rely on the interactions of a couple specific runes.

And that is that theme playstyles are defined by the design of all of the runes within the theme. It's something that's specifically intended by the game and will continue to be developed. Most of the runes in such a deck work thematicaly with the other runes in the deck or are just generally good runes in a variety of situations.

Nerfing one or two random runes in a theme typically does not change the way the theme plays, but modifies its power level.

~

On the other hand, a "gimmick" BG is typically about one or two specific interactions between runes which may or may not even be designed with each other in mind. Often, it is an older rune interacting with a new rune, or may even be a bug. Most of the other runes in such a deck are designed to aid in the interaction of the gimmick or stall long enough to allow the gimmick to manifest.

In most cases, nerfing any of the non-key runes does nothing to the deck other than slow it down slightly or make it a bit more vulnerable against certain decks. But nerfing the key runes in the deck will almost certainly destroy the entire deck and render it unplayable.

~

See the difference?

 

I think it's more of a perception problem. Worms occupy a fairly unique space - it's really the only deck of its type. If there were more of these "alternative" decks, people would start to evaluate the board states different and perhaps more accurately. A lot of times the complaints against Worms stem from the fact that it's difficult to evaluate the "value" of the expanded SDZ and if you feel like you were winning until the forward deploys, then you will be frustrated and consider it unhealthy - but if you are evaluating the expanded SDZ as a significant advantage then it makes more sense. Now, again, maybe it's overpowered and should cost more for the advantage you get, but that's a different issue.

All other decks are evaluated largely based on board state of champions and relics, but Worms isn't, particularly with BZ.

 

Also, keep in mind Pox has very few players now and we have always nerfed stuff just because people hated it. So maybe that's been the wrong approach?

Regardless, the next patch does nerf Necrosis with a -2 SDZ for non-Worms, so we'll see if that helps at all, but I suspect it won't - as you said, people just don't like Worms.