**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Comments
A. Corvus Glaive does not crit
you could say something like
"this character is immune to crits if it is a glancing attack" but that is still a much larger pain in the butt to say and understand then, "glancing hits cannot be critical"
it is kinda like when I was younger:
Me: Mom I had an epiphany
Mom: huh, whats an epiphany
Me: A sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something.
Mom: why didnt you just say that
Me: Because that is a PITA and it is just easier to say epiphany.
Glancing attacks cannot be criticals...
it reminds me of a conversation with my mother when I was younger:
Me: Mom I had an epiphany
Mom: huh, whats that?
Me: a sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something
Mom: why didnt you just say that?
me: Because it is longer than it has to be and means the same thing
You want soemthing that is less clear becuase for some reason it makes it clearer to you. It defies the rules of English though
Hit --> Whether evade/autoblocked --> If hit, whether crit --> If crit, whether glanced.
First input - Corvus attempts to crit.
Second input - Glaive charges decreases by 1.
Third input - Game calculates that the crit is glanced and hence will be unable to register as a crit.
Net shown - Corvus doesn’t crit, glaive decreases by 1, “Glancing” is shown.
Same as true strike.
First input - Attacker attacks.
Second input - Game calculates whether defender evades.
Third input - If Defender evades, check whether attacker has true strike. If yes, evade fails, if no, defender evades.
Net shown - “Evade failed” or “Evade”
There is no predictability and consistency because we are at the mercy of what the dev team decides. They could make up any rule for any scenario at any time. They don't have to follow "the rules" because they are the rules.
I think you are trying too hard to cast the entire logic as flawed when it's not. It's simply an arbitrary decision that has to be made one way or another.
You end up with the fascinating sensation of a cross cancellation calculation situation without need for further calibration.
As my main man Stan Lee would say,
NULL SAID?
-The Dude
As for Shrimkin's criticism that "we are at the mercy of what the dev team decides" and that "they could make up any rule for any scenario at any time" - yes no doubt they can do whatever they like. This would however be a defeatist mindset. The point is that taking such an arbitrary approach would not be in the interest of the game. In a game this complex, a huge aspect of the end game comes from the knowledge and understanding of the various game mechanics and how they interact. If they are simply changed on whim, thereby removing any aspect of predictability, it takes a lot away from the game. Wanting predictability in game mechanics is not the same as saying that new mechanics can never come about, or new counters/meta cannot be developed. Of course they can, but it should always be consistent with the understanding of the game mechanics that we had before.
So back to my original point, I think that the distinction of "cannot" and "always" is not a sound basis to explain how decisions between seemingly incompatible abilities are to be resolved.
And does Corvus actually spend his glaive charges and not crit? If so, is this intended and why?
Is a critical hit an "always" crit, or is it a "cannot" land a non-crit? That is my point.