Faction Bonuses - Scale Down?

dont know if this is a good idea, dont know if i like it all or not, but just got the idea and want to share it

What if we make like this on all Champs:

4 upgrade paths:

path 1: from faction: yes or no
path 2: from race, same in the whole race
path 3: from class, same for the whole class
path 4: special abilities for the champ like now
optional path 5 for special abilities for ex or leg champs

 

I'm not so sure about that, as it might be expensive to get that +1 speed now.
And well, that just made the FW champs a bit cheaper than, which is good too and for some FW themes you might just want the bonus.
And well maybe you can make SP and FS 2 nora or something. Or make it indeed a cheap faction bonus!
I mean better faction bonuses could be decided, it's more the general idea what I'm talking about here: to add a faction bonus as an upgrade.

Also I think with this system runes in splits should be 5% more expensive (and/or they should not have acces to the bonus?) else everyone would play splits I guess.

 

for split, you could have the choice to take both split bonuses or no bonus at all

 

The 4 upgrade path seems to much in my opinion on top of that I don't like it that race and class have abilities sticked to them. Theme identity can be aquired in a different way as Sokolov has tried to explain to you. But I do feel that faction identity is important.

I would not run any split bonuses in this system and would make the runes 5% more expensive. You can have a bigger rune pool, but you lose the option to add an ability and your runes will be a bit more expensive in return. (Maybe the rune should not lose the option to add its faction bonus but only be 5% more expensive?)


Sincerely,

Josh753

 

Repost after positive discussion in KF forums:

What about:

FF: After this champ performs an action which costs atleast 1 ap it gets +1 speed for 1 round. This effect can only trigger once per champion per turn.
Split: After this champ performs 2 actions which costs atleast 1 ap it gets +1 speed for 1 round. This effect can only trigger once per champion per turn.

So basically for FF you would only need to attack once; or use one ability per champ, while in split BGs you would need to use at least 2 actions (atacks or abilities to get the buff).


Sincerely,

Josh753

 

too complicated, takes too much attention away especially for the new players. Id rather see just increase the max ap: +2 in FF and +1 in split, or make it +1 in both split and FF and give it some small dmg bonus for 3+ in FF. but of course im still against any kind of change from +1 speed / +1 max ap.

 

How is this complicated?
You attack once or use an ability once you gain +1 speed for a round.


Sincerely,

Josh753

 

I kinda like the engage for free bonus proposition.

Perhaps Engagement in general could go up to 4 ap.
Then KF FF - 0 ap to disengagement
KF SF- 2 ap to disengagmenet

Also Mobility would still be useful in the faction because you technically can only engage once a turn even if it only costs you 0 ap. You'd still get trapped if you disengage/re-engage so mobility would still be beneficial just not the ap portion.

 

This idea is very bad, it will just make KF impossible to play against. Cheap ranged units with all have retreat free basically. Jumping around and shooting and disengaging for free. No thanks.

 

Its a terrible idea!

 

What about KF champs being able to disengage twice per turn? the second time costing 1 less AP?

 

...

 

Yeah, but that is 5hp on EVERY champ, not every champ is going to be hit by a spell, and how many are going to be hit by more than one?

 

This. Also, it's not -5 dmg on each spell, since not every spell does damage.

 

What is that supposed to mean?

Are you saying that you won't get damaged by reclaim or something like that?

 

Emotional damage, yes. HP damage, no.

 

What I'm saying for the most part is that it's comparing apples to oranges. Extra HP on all your champions is always useful, whether you're being hit by champion attacks, spells, global damage or even loss of life. Spell damage reduction is, on the other hand, situational.