nora cost tiers

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by calisk, Jun 26, 2017.

  1. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    so I generally have a process of thinking when it comes to champ costs when relating them to other people.

    0-62 nora champs as 1 drops in magic.
    62-70 as 2 drops
    70-75 as 3 drops
    75-80 as 4 drops
    and 80+ as better be broken strong or never touch the damn thing.

    this line of thinking comes from mtg as well, but in competitive play anything above a 4 cost needs to change the game the second it hits the board, or be damn near indestructible or it isn't worth using, and that's about how i feel about 80+ units.

    obviously it's just an opinion but do you guys have similar rules of thumb or thoughts about it?
  2. Etherielin

    Etherielin The Floof Cultist

    Menalaus would have an identity crisis then.
  3. GoldTiger

    GoldTiger I need me some PIE!

    I play FS so high/low nora curve is mostly irrelevant. I just play runes that look cool in my meta BG and let my faction bonus carry me.

    Is curve super important in other factions?
  4. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    pox has very few units that that have an equivalent to MTG's immediately impact mechanics.

    the 80+'s that see play tend to just be extremly strong.

    though a couple like snogvie does has immediate impact those champs are rare and far between.
  5. GoldTiger

    GoldTiger I need me some PIE!

    I heard MTG has a different resource system.

    I'd see pox as more akin to HS where the nora cost/mana crystal cost of your units scales relatively with their power level.

    Hence 85 cost units don't need to have a super immediate impact they just need to be efficient/worth the 85 nora cost.
  6. Markoth

    Markoth Lord Inquisitor

    Difference there is that you can deploy pretty much any champion first turn in Pox while in HS you have to wait until you have enough Mana Crystals which can take several rounds.
  7. yobanchi

    yobanchi I need me some PIE!

    Would it be interesting or beneficial if rune costs were divisible by 5?
  8. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    Yep it's always been a loose example but it's the closest way i can describe the impact the champs need at those costs to be worth using.

    Especially with the options we have available
  9. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    That woukd be interesting though i'm not quite sure how it would work with the costing system
  10. GoldTiger

    GoldTiger I need me some PIE!

    What like spells or?
  11. Baskitkase

    Baskitkase Forum Royalty

    Add all your champions' nora costs together, divide by the number of champions you have, this gives you your Average Champion Cost (ACC).

    If you are >75, you are at a very high risk of being out-deployed and/or being unable to deploy two champions on your first two turns giving your opponent a heavy first-skirmish advantage.

    I shoot for 69 average champ nora cost. My expensive unit deck that I'm currently running (paladin/CTE) has an ACC of 72.8125 and I really dislike being that high and will most likely be making some substitutions and cut at least 20 total nora my champion total cost.
  12. kalasle

    kalasle Forum Royalty

    There are some fundamental differences between nora cost and mana cost that make parallels between the two systems clunky at best. I tried to bring a bunch of old MtG competitive theory into Pox years ago, and some of it works, but mostly only the abstract stuff and the linguistic tools -- structural, mathematical analogies fall apart quick. There certainly is a large range of costs in Pox, and I would agree that it's useful to break them down into tiers that have different qualities. But I think that the significance of those tiers not only depends upon basic game systems but also upon particular design environments.

    As a good example of that latter point, check out the difference between expensive champs in Hearthstone and in MtG (two games that have much more in common with each other than either does with Pox). MtG, especially formats such as Modern or Legacy, are flooded with cheap, near-universal single-target removal, and similarly powerful sweepers. Compare the classic MtG Wrath of God/Day of Judgement with Hearthstone's version, Twisting Nether; in game environments that feature similar resource progression (and have common, equivalent pegs such as Arcane Intellect // Divination), Twisting Nether costs twice as much as Wrath of God. Likewise, damage-indiscriminate single-target destruction was pegged at about 4 in Hearthstone between Assassinate, Polymorph, and Hex; in MtG, the standard for single-target removal has historically been CMC 2, with things like Terror or Doomblade, with some variants like Swords to Plowshares or Path to Exile coming in as low as CMC 1. Damaging removal also costs significantly more in HS, with HS Lightning Bolt coming with a delayed +1 CMC (to a base of CMC 1) through Overload compared to its MtG counterpart. The low cost of removal options in MtG has done as much as anything to curtail the importance of expensive creatures. You can see the designers responding to this with recent sets, as the de jure cost of single-target removal in Standard has bumped up to CMC 3, and with universal board whipes jumping to CMC 5. I think, and I'm not alone in this assessment, that those shifts in cost are a reaction to the noted worthlessness of most expensive creatures, with an intent to make expensive units more viable. In Hearthstone, due to the paucity and price of single-target removal, expensive minions have had comparatively more success even if they don't feature an immediate effect, although they are still subject to some of the same general problems (that is, extra vulnerability to single target removal).

    All of that analysis leaves aside the fundamentally different ways in which tempo manifests as an idea in Pox on account of featuring a movement board. I think it's sufficient, however, to illustrate why I disagree with trying to draw parallels with another game that, even ignoring its numerous systemic differences, features a very different design ecology.
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2017
    Woffleet and MrBadguy like this.
  13. Durand

    Durand Active Member

    That sounds good as a rule of thumb. I also calculate efficiency "dmg/nora" when deciding good basic runes to include in a deck. (Support is different and I usually compare melee and ranged in their own categories). Here is an example of two extremes, which are both efficient, even though the other one costs a huge 120 nora (this would really need a table to be readable):

    30 Broken Bones spd5 split dmg 9 35hp ske,ud 9dmg x1.4=13 0.43dmg/nora

    120 Ash the Bandit Prince spd6 phys 4-6, multi, banditry, split hero dmg 10+1 45hp elf,arc,rog 11dmg x2=22+24+21 0.56dmg/nora
    (+Deep Elf Mercenary(sum) spd6 multiattack, beset, melee spec dmg 8+2(+4) 45hp 1 demon,elf,rog ~12dmg x2=24)
    (+Elven Blademaster(sum) spd6 shatter, strike, melee spec dmg 9+2(+2)+s 43hp 1 elf,war ~13dmg x1.6=21)

    Ash is a split hero and assumed to be in a UD/x split. It comes with two level 1 summons which are counted in its value. Speed is included in the average damage/round calculations.

    Broken Bones has 0.43dmg/nora/round which is fairly good, but not awesome. Better than average in any case, among top 5 in FW (but its only a slow melee).

    Ash is very expensive, but you effectively get 3 champs. They have a total of 0.56dmg/nora/round, which is amazing. Additionally Ash has a good range (the 2 summons are melee, but fairly good and have even shatter as a bonus). There exist a few even better champs than 0.56dmg/nora, but they are melee and have some partly-negatives as well. (You can only have one split hero in a deck though, and having 120 nora at any moment is a lot).

    (I think I should reduce 1 from all damage assuming average DEF of 1. But I instead added +1 for "strike". Against SL, any damage less than 10 becomes even worse, relatively)
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2017
  14. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!

    If it's over 74 nora it won't be in my bg unless it's game changing. Won't pay more than 75 nora either if it's squishy unless it's ranged.
  15. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    well part of the reason i compare them to mtg 1 drops and what not is because in magic not all 1 drops are playable, and in pox not all low cost units are playable either.

    there is a degree of effectiveness that each of these tiers need to bring, and some expectations that need to be met to fit the decks.
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2017
  16. zorbot

    zorbot The King of Potatoes

    Efficiency has been the name of the game since always. Certain themes are unplayable because certain theme enabling runes are too expensive to run. The best deck building strategy (with a few exceptions like some FW stuff) has always been built around rushing and/or hyper efficiency. When a unit has a 1:1 hp to nora ratio it is almost always a good idea to run it because it is so efficient.

    This is why ST has been forever broken. Typically inefficient runes are made efficient, and efficient runes are made hyper efficient. SP and FS both have similar boons to their efficiency due to their bonuses.
  17. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    Not going to comment on the bonuses since that will completely de-rail this thread.

    It's more then effeciency it's synnergy+effeciency.

    It's about how much you can squeeze out of the tiniest amount of nora spent.

    When making a deck i don't just grab the first 16 champs with 1:1 hp ratio, in fact that thought never crosses my mind, I only think about abilities and what they can do together and how they mesh together.

    When looking for tanks it has nothing to do with hp it's the abilities they have that keeps it alive that matters.
  18. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    The beast/skeleton themes have been winning on the hp/nora ratio for awhile, but that's one type of deck, and not nearly the est deck.
  19. zorbot

    zorbot The King of Potatoes

    It really depends on the meta. For a very long time synergy took a backseat to splits that abused hyper efficient champs, spells, etc. from 2 factions. There were times when themes were clearly the dominant force but it's hard for me to think of a period of time when you couldn't just make a "good stuff" split and get to top 15 or so.

    I never look for "tanks" or "ranged" or "support" when building a bg. It's only, "will this champion actually do anything?" and if yes, "is it efficient?" Those are the only two questions I ask when building bgs. I may adjust my bg later if I need more alternate damage or if I've misjudged a champion's efficiency. Aside from that, this approach to deck building has been pretty successful for me.

    As for your last point, I vehemently disagree with you. When the meta is fertile there are tons of factors to consider when looking at a "tank." There can be a lot of counters to a tank and the one thing that does the most in most situations, is hp. When building a deck you are playing the odds. If you min/max efficiency on a tank, hp will always be the best factor to consider. Sure, in some games having a tank with arrow eater is clutch or having something with regen or having something with reflexes, etc. There are counters to all of those. The only "defensive" ability that isn't affected by anything is hp. It will always yield you, statistically, more of an advantage than any other factor.

    Lmao I can't believe you took a ss of that. ST tilts me off the face of the planet. Remember that time I played the f2p ST deck and beat your meta FW deck? ST is a really cool faction.
  20. GoldTiger

    GoldTiger I need me some PIE!

    Jakei extinguisher is the best tank in the game right.

Share This Page