You can also see in the same screenshot that he has abilities that interact with "Armor effects". This means any armor up, whether it's a buff or a passive. So if he gets an armor up buff from any source (synergy, nodes, boosts), it will still interact with his abilities. But only with the one's that interact with "effects" and not only his passive armors
Just so we're clear, you say "Armor effects" refers to "any Armor Up." Where did the "up" come from? If IMIW gets an armor bonus from a synergy, is that an "Armor effect" as you define the term? If not, why not?
I think about it like based on other example.
A champion can trigger a bleed debuff on the opponent. There is a synergy in the game that allows this champion (don't remember who) to replace his bleed debuffs for passive bleeds.
Now let's pick some bleed immune champions. These champions are immune to "bleed effects", meaning both debuffs and passive bleeds.
On the other side, Corvus Glaive is immune to the damage of bleed debuffs, while his glaive charges are on. But he isn't immune to passive bleeds, and therefore he takes full damage from them, with or without glaive charges.
Some abilities of IW IM will interact with both armor buffs and passives. So nodes that gives him armor buffs (explosive personality) are included here.
The term "armor up" that I used is what was is usually described on champions abilities, and are usually what can appear visible under the HP bar.
You’re thinking of Goldpool (and AV I think.) I didn’t realize that was a thing. That with that synergy it bypasses Corvus’ pseudo immunity.
Well I guess this is starting to come together a little bit. I still don’t agree with their terminology and interactions but at least I can start to look for this more. So if there were also passive Coldsnap and shock effects, it would damage him too because they’re effects and not debuffs?
Exactly. Passives shocks can be found in the Ultron boss on Variant 3.3, and Corvus takes full damage from them
I feel we're sliding away from the topic at hand here @V1PER1987; but Corvus also takes full damage from Nightcrawler's Deep Wounds; which inflict bleed damage but no debuff.
I don’t think so. The topic is more or less understanding the definitions Kabam has giving mechanics in game and how they interact with other mechanics.
You can also see in the same screenshot that he has abilities that interact with "Armor effects". This means any armor up, whether it's a buff or a passive. So if he gets an armor up buff from any source (synergy, nodes, boosts), it will still interact with his abilities. But only with the one's that interact with "effects" and not only his passive armors
Just so we're clear, you say "Armor effects" refers to "any Armor Up." Where did the "up" come from? If IMIW gets an armor bonus from a synergy, is that an "Armor effect" as you define the term? If not, why not?
I think about it like based on other example.
A champion can trigger a bleed debuff on the opponent. There is a synergy in the game that allows this champion (don't remember who) to replace his bleed debuffs for passive bleeds.
Now let's pick some bleed immune champions. These champions are immune to "bleed effects", meaning both debuffs and passive bleeds.
On the other side, Corvus Glaive is immune to the damage of bleed debuffs, while his glaive charges are on. But he isn't immune to passive bleeds, and therefore he takes full damage from them, with or without glaive charges.
Some abilities of IW IM will interact with both armor buffs and passives. So nodes that gives him armor buffs (explosive personality) are included here.
The term "armor up" that I used is what was is usually described on champions abilities, and are usually what can appear visible under the HP bar.
I don't believe this answers my question. I asked, since you mention synergies, and since you inserted an extra word into your description, if you believe armor bonus synergies are "armor effects." IMIW mentions "armor effects." Are armor bonuses from synergies an armor effect? You seemed to imply that you consider them to be, but I wasn't certain that's what you intended to say.
When I gave the synergies example, I was thinking of any unique synergie that could appear in the future, that might give him a new way to get armor ups during the fight.
The current synergies that increase armor only add a number to his already existence base armor. Every champion has a base armor rating (even if it's 0) , and these sinergies increase that armor rating. It's different from an armor up "charge" that is visible on the fight.
But that's a question of iconography. If the synergy had its own icon as active and passive effects currently do, would they then be an effect? This is not a rhetorical question as there are effects that didn't originally have buff bar iconography that had them added later. Whether something is "visible" or not is not an absolute indicator of what the thing is. For example, Hulk Ragnarok's Face Me is a passive ability whose effects have no associated passive icon.
The synergy just increases the base armor that the champion already has. This base armor doesn't appear anywhere in the fight as an icon or so. Is just considered armor rating.
Armor up buffs or passive's increase this base armor rating as well, while at the same time appear as an icon on the screen for additional abilities. For buffs, they need to appear on the screen so that abilities that interact with buffs (buffet, nullifies) can do their job. In the case of IW IM for example, they are used for his auto-block mechanic, as well as other abilities he can perform around his armor's charges. So they need to appear on the screen so that the player can known what's happening in the fight.
I saw that, and in fact I've been working to get this particular situation clarified in a more definitive, or at least authoritative way, with Kabam. If Kabam is standardizing on that kind of language, there are certain things they must never do in the game. Conversely, if Kabam is not going to honor that language in the game mechanics, then they must not standardize on language that has the potential to be reversed by a new champion down the road.
What's doubly dangerous is that technically speaking, (what the game calls) passive buffs aren't buffs, Buffs (capital are buffs and Passive Buffs are "passive buffs." In English, the adjective implies a specific kind of the general thing. But computers don't interpret language that way. "Red socks" are not socks to a computer, they are "red socks."
So whether "Passive Buffs" are "buffs" just like "Buffs" are buffs depends singularly on a piece of technical information we currently don't possess: does the game contain any mechanical rules that group "Passive Buffs" and "Buffs" together in a way the developers intend to honor in the game. Because if it does, it will be extremely difficult to describe that behavior to other players in any way other than "this affects both kinds of buffs." If, on the other hand, they intend to never do that, then since "Passive Buffs" will never act like "Buffs" in the game, it makes more sense to ignore what they are called technically and refer to them with a term that separates them from "Buffs" because they will never share behavior.
To put it another way, the only reason for the terms "passive buff" and "passive debuff" to exist is if the game intends to treat those things differently. If the game intends to treat all passive effects identically (at least in terms of types) then those two terms serve no useful purpose in describing the game and should go away.
It is also possible that even calling anything a passive buff/debuff was something intended to be used by game features that were abandoned, and the current game direction is to simplify all passive Blanks as passive effects, and this is a vestige that also should go away.
I disagree about being unable to separate the two, Kabam has already done so with something similiar to buffs=effects, Effects=/=buffs. This allows abilities to work with either buffs, or both buffs and effects. Still it’s confusing but so are many other things like driving stick/standard, some people will never understand and be error prone.
The transition of descriptions most defintely had a period where they didn’t get it right, they do need to clear out the ambiguous language to remove confusion. Looking at you Cw.
I mean, it clearly states on his abilities. Armor up buffs.
Ice armor is not an armor up buff.
IW IM passive armor's are not buffs.
As the previous member said, Killmonger's passive armor is not a buff as well, so it doesn't work (same passive armor as IW IM).
Some champions with Armor up buffs are: Colossus, Angela, Vulture, Iron Patriot, Hulkbuster, Iron Man, Ultron, Howard the Duck, Red Skull.
A lot of tech champions have these armor up buffs, and some cosmic champions (which are known for having buffs) can also proc armor up buffs.
And why doesn’t IMIW’s armor work? Just because it’s passive? It’s still an armor buff that increases armor just like OG IM’s.
The same reason Medusa's armor shatter doesnt stop IMIW armor is cause is PASSIVE not a BUFF.
I disagree about being unable to separate the two, Kabam has already done so with something similiar to buffs=effects, Effects=/=buffs. This allows abilities to work with either buffs, or both buffs and effects.
That's not what I meant. What I meant was that if the game ever decides to make some game feature that distinguishes between passive beneficial effects and passive detrimental effects, but calls them both "passive effects" in game text but "passive buffs" and "passive debuffs" in the actual game construction (because they have to distinguish between them) that would be a broken source of confusion.
"Buffs" and "Debuffs" are not just colloquial names for the good stuff and the bad stuff. We have those terms because the actual game treats them differently. We don't *need* the two terms, we could simply rewrite every description to talk about "beneficial active effects" and "detrimental active effects" and eliminate both the words buff and debuff, but that would be silly. It would be equally silly to actually have game mechanics that distinguish between passive beneficial effects and passive detrimental effects, design them in the game with "passive buff" and "passive debuff" tags, and then deliberately call them something else just to preserve a semantic quirk.
In the last months/years, the game did a great job distinguish buffs from passive abilities, and creating character's with clear abilities about what they can or can not do against these effects.
But I do agree about revisiting some champions , specially old ones, and fix/update their description of abilities. Some champions have something like "gain armor, increasing X armor rating" or "gain fury, increasing X attack". But in the actual fight, they actually get a buff, so the description is incomplete here. Probably since because this was long time ago, and they didn't knew that buffs and passive abilities would end up having a big role like they have today.
In the last months/years, the game did a great job distinguish buffs from passive abilities, and creating character's with clear abilities about what they can or can not do against these effects.
But I do agree about revisiting some champions , specially old ones, and fix/update their description of abilities. Some champions have something like "gain armor, increasing X armor rating" or "gain fury, increasing X attack". But in the actual fight, they actually get a buff, so the description is incomplete here. Probably since because this was long time ago, and they didn't knew that buffs and passive abilities would end up having a big role like they have today.
Another related issue I want to try to get resolved is "what is a passive ability?" I have a colloquial idea what that means, but in strict terms I don't think an ability can actually be passive. But I think "ability" and "effect" are also improperly used interchangeably.
Text wall after text wall... not to be rude, but can u guys make a private chat for this? I got my question answered in like 5 comments and specifically requested that the dialogue be non-theoretical and legit “I’ve tested this and yes/no”. The OP has spoken cheers fellas.
In the last months/years, the game did a great job distinguish buffs from passive abilities, and creating character's with clear abilities about what they can or can not do against these effects.
But I do agree about revisiting some champions , specially old ones, and fix/update their description of abilities. Some champions have something like "gain armor, increasing X armor rating" or "gain fury, increasing X attack". But in the actual fight, they actually get a buff, so the description is incomplete here. Probably since because this was long time ago, and they didn't knew that buffs and passive abilities would end up having a big role like they have today.
Another related issue I want to try to get resolved is "what is a passive ability?" I have a colloquial idea what that means, but in strict terms I don't think an ability can actually be passive. But I think "ability" and "effect" are also improperly used interchangeably.
A passive ability would be an ability that activates absent players control.
Text wall after text wall... not to be rude, but can u guys make a private chat for this? I got my question answered in like 5 comments and specifically requested that the dialogue be non-theoretical and legit “I’ve tested this and yes/no”. The OP has spoken cheers fellas.
As long as the discussion is productive and relevant to other players, the answer to your question is "no." You are free to leave the discussion, but you are not free to assert ownership of it.
In the last months/years, the game did a great job distinguish buffs from passive abilities, and creating character's with clear abilities about what they can or can not do against these effects.
But I do agree about revisiting some champions , specially old ones, and fix/update their description of abilities. Some champions have something like "gain armor, increasing X armor rating" or "gain fury, increasing X attack". But in the actual fight, they actually get a buff, so the description is incomplete here. Probably since because this was long time ago, and they didn't knew that buffs and passive abilities would end up having a big role like they have today.
Another related issue I want to try to get resolved is "what is a passive ability?" I have a colloquial idea what that means, but in strict terms I don't think an ability can actually be passive. But I think "ability" and "effect" are also improperly used interchangeably.
A passive ability would be an ability that activates absent players control.
That requires some semantic gyration to make true. Archangel's neurotoxin is labeled a passive ability, but that passive ability obviously requires the player to act to trigger it. You could argue that the player action doesn't initiate neurotoxin, it creates the circumstance that causes neurotoxin to active on its own, but that's very squirrelly. It doesn't help that there is an ability Neurotoxin that creates passive effects also called Neurotoxin. Unless you want to go even further and claim there is no ability called Neurotoxin only the effect called Neurotoxin, which means the ability descriptions incorrectly make no mention of the ability that generates neurotoxin effects.
Also, Dr. Voodoo's signature ability is called "Brother Daniel" and it is listed as a passive, but that ability also involves player actions. Note that once again I'm not talking about the effects called Brother Daniel, of which there are two (the even and odd variants). I'm talking about the signature ability which allows the player to switch between the odd and even effects.
I think you can have a buff or passive effect that is either active or inactive.
When IM gets an armor up it's an active buff, when imiw gets an armor up it's an active passive effect. When either aren't getting the benefit they are both inactive respectfively.
Both can be deactivated, but passive effects will list the only way to do this in a champions ability while buffs are generally accepted as being nullifiable.
This is where the language gets in the way of logic. We use terms interchangably in English, in this case buff and effect, which operate under different rules in the game, and can be active or inactive depending on circumstances and triggers. Conflating all of this is the call-out for imiw and his molecular armor. It should be changed from armor up in game to something different to avoid confusion since it is not signifying the activation of an armor buff.
I think you can have a buff or passive effect that is either active or inactive.
When IM gets an armor up it's an active buff, when imiw gets an armor up it's an active passive effect. When either aren't getting the benefit they are both inactive respectfively.
Both can be deactivated, but passive effects will list the only way to do this in a champions ability while buffs are generally accepted as being nullifiable.
This is where the language gets in the way of logic. We use terms interchangably in English, in this case buff and effect, which operate under different rules in the game, and can be active or inactive depending on circumstances and triggers. Conflating all of this is the call-out for imiw and his molecular armor. It should be changed from armor up in game to something different to avoid confusion since it is not signifying the activation of an armor buff.
I'm not going to correct you or anything, but I'll just explain the way how I see this in the game.
When thinking of a buff, I never think about being active or passive. I assume that a buff is always an active ability, so it's not necessary to say "active buff" since it would repeat the same meaning. For the regular Iron Man, he triggers armor up buffs. For the IW Iron Man, he triggers passive armor's (I wouldn't call this an "active passive armor", since it's not a buff (and therefore I don't consider it active), so I'll just stay with "passive armor").
Passive abilities, in a big majority of the times, can't be deactivated. They can be avoided with ability accuracy reduction, or just like you said, avoided/deactivated by a champion specific ability (again, IW IM is a good example here).
Outside of the game rules, a buff is an improvement or a better version of the previous product. I get that, and I agree with it for sure. But in the actual game, a buff is different than a passive ability. Both can upgrade and improve a champion stat, but they work differently from one another
Comments
I don’t think so. The topic is more or less understanding the definitions Kabam has giving mechanics in game and how they interact with other mechanics.
But that's a question of iconography. If the synergy had its own icon as active and passive effects currently do, would they then be an effect? This is not a rhetorical question as there are effects that didn't originally have buff bar iconography that had them added later. Whether something is "visible" or not is not an absolute indicator of what the thing is. For example, Hulk Ragnarok's Face Me is a passive ability whose effects have no associated passive icon.
Armor up buffs or passive's increase this base armor rating as well, while at the same time appear as an icon on the screen for additional abilities. For buffs, they need to appear on the screen so that abilities that interact with buffs (buffet, nullifies) can do their job. In the case of IW IM for example, they are used for his auto-block mechanic, as well as other abilities he can perform around his armor's charges. So they need to appear on the screen so that the player can known what's happening in the fight.
On buffs and passives.
“Hey there, Cap (Infinity War)'s ability specifically Nullifies Unstoppable Buffs. The Unstoppable from that node isn't a Buff, but a passive effect. Buffs and Debuffs will have a white border around their icons, while passive effects do not. I hope that can be helpful in planning for the fight!” https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/111407/night-thrashers-unstoppable-not-getting-stopped-by-caiw
Miike on buffs and passives.
“This is something that I need to work with our team to clear up, because there is some confusion amongst our players on what is considered a Debuff, and what is a Passive Effect. They are sometimes confused for one another.” https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/731098#Comment_731098
What's doubly dangerous is that technically speaking, (what the game calls) passive buffs aren't buffs, Buffs (capital
So whether "Passive Buffs" are "buffs" just like "Buffs" are buffs depends singularly on a piece of technical information we currently don't possess: does the game contain any mechanical rules that group "Passive Buffs" and "Buffs" together in a way the developers intend to honor in the game. Because if it does, it will be extremely difficult to describe that behavior to other players in any way other than "this affects both kinds of buffs." If, on the other hand, they intend to never do that, then since "Passive Buffs" will never act like "Buffs" in the game, it makes more sense to ignore what they are called technically and refer to them with a term that separates them from "Buffs" because they will never share behavior.
To put it another way, the only reason for the terms "passive buff" and "passive debuff" to exist is if the game intends to treat those things differently. If the game intends to treat all passive effects identically (at least in terms of types) then those two terms serve no useful purpose in describing the game and should go away.
It is also possible that even calling anything a passive buff/debuff was something intended to be used by game features that were abandoned, and the current game direction is to simplify all passive Blanks as passive effects, and this is a vestige that also should go away.
The transition of descriptions most defintely had a period where they didn’t get it right, they do need to clear out the ambiguous language to remove confusion. Looking at you Cw.
The same reason Medusa's armor shatter doesnt stop IMIW armor is cause is PASSIVE not a BUFF.
That's not what I meant. What I meant was that if the game ever decides to make some game feature that distinguishes between passive beneficial effects and passive detrimental effects, but calls them both "passive effects" in game text but "passive buffs" and "passive debuffs" in the actual game construction (because they have to distinguish between them) that would be a broken source of confusion.
"Buffs" and "Debuffs" are not just colloquial names for the good stuff and the bad stuff. We have those terms because the actual game treats them differently. We don't *need* the two terms, we could simply rewrite every description to talk about "beneficial active effects" and "detrimental active effects" and eliminate both the words buff and debuff, but that would be silly. It would be equally silly to actually have game mechanics that distinguish between passive beneficial effects and passive detrimental effects, design them in the game with "passive buff" and "passive debuff" tags, and then deliberately call them something else just to preserve a semantic quirk.
But I do agree about revisiting some champions , specially old ones, and fix/update their description of abilities. Some champions have something like "gain armor, increasing X armor rating" or "gain fury, increasing X attack". But in the actual fight, they actually get a buff, so the description is incomplete here. Probably since because this was long time ago, and they didn't knew that buffs and passive abilities would end up having a big role like they have today.
Another related issue I want to try to get resolved is "what is a passive ability?" I have a colloquial idea what that means, but in strict terms I don't think an ability can actually be passive. But I think "ability" and "effect" are also improperly used interchangeably.
As long as the discussion is productive and relevant to other players, the answer to your question is "no." You are free to leave the discussion, but you are not free to assert ownership of it.
That requires some semantic gyration to make true. Archangel's neurotoxin is labeled a passive ability, but that passive ability obviously requires the player to act to trigger it. You could argue that the player action doesn't initiate neurotoxin, it creates the circumstance that causes neurotoxin to active on its own, but that's very squirrelly. It doesn't help that there is an ability Neurotoxin that creates passive effects also called Neurotoxin. Unless you want to go even further and claim there is no ability called Neurotoxin only the effect called Neurotoxin, which means the ability descriptions incorrectly make no mention of the ability that generates neurotoxin effects.
Also, Dr. Voodoo's signature ability is called "Brother Daniel" and it is listed as a passive, but that ability also involves player actions. Note that once again I'm not talking about the effects called Brother Daniel, of which there are two (the even and odd variants). I'm talking about the signature ability which allows the player to switch between the odd and even effects.
Neurotoxin is a passive effect, you are incorrectly parsing it as an ability. The description is how you gain that effect.
Brother Daniel is a passive effect. DV has an ability to determine where he goes.
ELI5: You are incorrectly describing effects as abilites and conflating their passive effects with their abilities.
When IM gets an armor up it's an active buff, when imiw gets an armor up it's an active passive effect. When either aren't getting the benefit they are both inactive respectfively.
Both can be deactivated, but passive effects will list the only way to do this in a champions ability while buffs are generally accepted as being nullifiable.
This is where the language gets in the way of logic. We use terms interchangably in English, in this case buff and effect, which operate under different rules in the game, and can be active or inactive depending on circumstances and triggers. Conflating all of this is the call-out for imiw and his molecular armor. It should be changed from armor up in game to something different to avoid confusion since it is not signifying the activation of an armor buff.
I'm not going to correct you or anything, but I'll just explain the way how I see this in the game.
When thinking of a buff, I never think about being active or passive. I assume that a buff is always an active ability, so it's not necessary to say "active buff" since it would repeat the same meaning. For the regular Iron Man, he triggers armor up buffs. For the IW Iron Man, he triggers passive armor's (I wouldn't call this an "active passive armor", since it's not a buff (and therefore I don't consider it active), so I'll just stay with "passive armor").
Passive abilities, in a big majority of the times, can't be deactivated. They can be avoided with ability accuracy reduction, or just like you said, avoided/deactivated by a champion specific ability (again, IW IM is a good example here).
Outside of the game rules, a buff is an improvement or a better version of the previous product. I get that, and I agree with it for sure. But in the actual game, a buff is different than a passive ability. Both can upgrade and improve a champion stat, but they work differently from one another