I've been asking for shard to give either 20% or 30% before and I still think that hold true, since amp is 10% having 25% is such a waste. Either give it 20% and lower its cost to maybe 30, or up it to 30% and maybe keep it the same or lower to 35. Way way back when amp was 25% on champs then there was a reason to have 25% on the shard also, but now when its 10% on champs it should be a multiple of 10 on the shard also.
You asked a question, and I answered, nobody will use the relic as long as amp on champions is so cheap and convenient. I think both the cost of the ability has to go up and the price of the relic go down a little
tbh I would be fine with it going to 20% with a 30 nora cost as suggested. The 5% is a waste and is a good excuse for lowering the cost.
Well that was the point. It's not convenient any more. That's what I was saying the patch was trying to do by removing it from a few of the more convenient units.
jakei shaman is a worse lonx adept,for now . blizzard elemental is missing something ( i would like if he had orb of frostfall XD). ice shard is not cost efficient , i used to run it after the ravamp , but then i noticed i already had 8 ampers in the deck, with it i would, most of the time, be at *60% amp. i didn't understand why they nerfed chronomancer , was she even played ? i think that buffing ice golem and ice wurm would be cool since they do fit the theme (both could use -5nora + amp frost)
i said the same thing about chronomancer and I removed ice shard after i realized the samething post revamp
I would further the development of the frost them by splitting it into three directions: One, the "classic" way, basically long range jakeis pewpewing from afar and tanks upfront. Second, the elemental/eater way, blasting AoE frost damage everywhere, with nova, death nova, deep freeze and auras and third, the snow way, generating tons of impending snow and taking advantage of it with domain and tunnel and arctic. of course these would be very dynamic and wold mix constantly.
the thing is that all of those decks are not opponent friendly . first deck forces your opponent to focus the pewpew jakeis that are behind the tanks and that usually works bad . second deck is mostly unfair in general , feels like you are fighting a wave of unstopable force ( if at 50% amp) third deck would be mega rage , since snow is very annoying .i recall when orb of frostfall was global , making it insane vs certain decks i think the best way to do it , is probably a mixture of the three , but not extremes , we shouldn't be able to have a deck entirely of auras and eaters or of pewpew or of snow.
first deck ( pewpew) "omg that champ does Bane Shift ton of dmg nerf him pls" nerfed in 2 weeks second deck ( auras and eaters and stuff that deals aoe dmg and heals) "omg that champ does damage while tanking and being at full hp all the turns . HALP ME DEVS!!!"nerfed in a week third deck ( snow and stuff) "OMG i spent 35 ap to move 3 squares, OP OP OP OP OP OP OP" nerfed in 3 days
it is too easy to hate those decks . this week half the guys that lost to me complained that it was super unbalanced to have 40% amp and said that amp shouldn't stack . if you are able to do a deck made out of ice eaters that have aoe and amp it will be the biggest bullseye for haters possible. what i want is for amp frost to be balanced/meta viable. i dont want it to be super insane or it will get nerfed . remember shardseer kayun ? she was super strong after launch a month later they nerfed her hard. and in my opinion amp frost took a huge hit this week , most of it was completly unnecessary . removing amp frost from wisp makes him a mediocre unit , he doesn't really help the team . Yeti is still okay , although the problem is not incorporal. But ice caster was too much , we have no good cheap amper
My interpretation of the nerf is that they want there to be some sort of tempo cost to getting amp on the field and maxed out. It shouldn't be a matter of simply deploying champs and getting up to 50%. You should have to pay some extraneous costs to max out. Shard should be treated like a spell that sticks around basically forever. It's also a heaping helping of amp for just one spot in your deck.
Reworks: Blizzard elemental: Path 1 {ice veil, ice front, wind aura}, Path 2 {snow blast, frost nova 3, amplify frost}, base: elemental fortitude replaced with orb of frostfall, arctic flight replaced by regular flight. Ice elemental: path 1 same, path 2 {fascinate, chill 2, trail ice}, base: elemental fortitude removed, arctic flight replaced by regular flight. Ice golem: Path1 {assault, bind, clamp} path2 same, base, reflection replaced by resistance physical 3 Snowman: path1 {domain snow, snow fall 1, snow fall2}, path 2 {absorb, trail snow, horrific aura 2}, base: add snowball Frostfall hydra: Path 1 { ice eater, attack: acid, spontaneos regeneration} path 2 {tunnel snow 2, tunnel snow 3, sweep}, base: added rapid attacks 3. Ice wurm: base: terraform ice replaced with domain snow Jakei shaman: speed to 6, path 1 {revere: icesnap, leverage elemental, solidify} path 2 {savage exploit, surge elemental}
Frost had explicit weaknesses - poor melee, poor detection, poor single target capabilities, limited DMG type diversity, poor answers to "super champs" - that were offset/worth gambling on by having powerful amp. The amp was removed, but the weaknesses were kept. I hope I'm proven wrong, but it seems like a flat-out mistake to try and run Frost at a competitive level now. Just using whatever runes are the most efficient/powerful seems like a far better option. Sad
Aside the nice imput, why do you want to have Flight over Arctic Flight? They revamped all these with the purpose of flying unit don't having Ready on ice...
