Discussion Corner: Overpowered...?

I think it's time we stop talking about balance and start talking about seasonal rune changes. What i mean is something similar to magic the gathering where certain cards can't be played, pox at this point has to many runes to balance.

Or pox could do alternate game modes like free for all where all runes can be used, or seasonal which maybe gives a little extra gold for winning but some runes aren't allowed to be played.

 

I don't think boost needed changed at all. Things like sermon and bulwark are what is making champs way overpowered because they are "global" buffs. Things like boost are in the past now, except beasts but then again if you re-work boost at all beasts will become very very weak.

 

- It was/would be fun to have a monthly vote. One rune to buff and one to nerf, this would keep the meta fresh for sure.

 

I think it would only be fair to do 2 runes from every faction. Can you imagine playing an fs opponent and not having to worry about drown or hippos? Or playing against fw and no shadow shank or tomb, this is when you would truly see who plays pox well and who crutches.

 

So 12 buffs and 12 nerfs per year? That sounds god awfull

 

I'd rather the game would stay fresh by people actually making new BGs, rather than having new BGs made for them.

 

So would i but a lot of people want to stay comepetitive so they play the op nonsense everyone else does. However if every month the 2 most powerful runes were taken from a faction in a certain game mode this would really stir things up and change how bgs are made.

 

If FW can't shadowshank they essence drain; if FS can't hippo stampede they surrender ... more or less

 

Fixed that for ya, zealot.

 

People don't have a damn clue what's competitive, they just have some over-strong opinions. There are maybe one or two potential standouts onto which a few upper-level players latch, and that becomes meta representation. Pox has over 2300 complex runes which can be split and segregated into 36 faction combinations -- incredibly broad macro types -- and a community of some 300-400 players is supposed to have that all figured out? Hell, MtG standard evolves almost day-by-day, with a smaller and simpler card pool, because people take the time to look around and tech a deck. Shoebox buffs are great, maybe nerfs are sometimes necessary, but I'll be damned if those are based on much more than vague preferences of a select few players.

 

- Nah, This would be just player driven. The devs still control balance as a whole and make changes as they see necessary. The player driven changes would not be huge gamebreaking changes either. Just taps to hated runes and QoL bumps for shoebox. If your faction got voted one month it could not be the next etc.

 

No. Go away, please.

 

I didn't misread you. I just don't agree with your opinion. You say that a specific type of player isn't "motivated by having fun as much as [he is] motivated by winning." That's the part that is your opinion and that I disagree with. I believe that he IS motivated by fun and that winning is a goal that he values highly in having that fun, but your view separates the two unnecessarily. Winning is part of fun, not opposed to it, and just matters more to some people than others, as I keep saying. Some people like to play competitively so they make choices that value metagame power over aesthetics, but that is part of the fun for them.

Please don't be condescending by acting like I'm just misunderstanding you. I see what you're saying, but I just think you use the word "fun" to mean playing the game non-competitively. From many players' perspectives, playing competitively IS fun, so saying that fun and winning are different motivations is implying that they are not playing for fun, even though they are.

 

Just to elaborate on what Bellagion is saying here in a way that might help make things more clear: for these kinds of players, meta-game viability and cut-throat efficiency is part of the aesthetic. That kind of play has its own feel and look, and some players appreciate that as its own expression.

 

Eh when people say ut is op or drown is i tend to believe them in those scenarios. That's how the runes would be changed in and out each month, devs could get the percentages and ban the top 2 highest used cards from each faction. I agree that their are a lot of combos and bg's that haven't been figured out yet, but in pox it gets discouraging when you make a bg dominate with it then things get nerfed immediately after. Example being @iPox bgs first time i played him i laughed and said well played sir, unfortunately not everyone takes that approach. Which is why we have nerf after nerf after nerf to themes and bgs that are just the flavor of the month and actually not as op as everyone says.

 

Hell no to the player driven idea, i wanna see the top 2 cards of each faction removed and simply see how it shakes things up. Players shouldn't have the decision for something like this all the devs have to do is look at the numbers and band the most played 2 runes from every faction that month.

 

That's why it could be a different game mode, i wouldn't mind certain overpowered spells not being ran for once.

 

Getting back to the OP on this thread, well done.

 

Except that people run AoEs at all times, regardless of powerlevel. They just run the best. If every AoE in SL was removed and we were given a plain 10 damage aoe3 50 nora spell, it would still be autoinclude due to lack of other options. So then this bad spell wouod be deleted, even though its not overpowered in the slightest. Your reasoning is poor.

Just thought I'd elaborate on what Sok said, since you didn't get it the first time.