Actually, thinking about bishop, I'd value a mod's view on whether bishop should gain prowess from tech champs basic attacks if they are energy, so Mysterio, imiw, sentinel; @Kabam Miike is this just missing text from Bishop's description?
It says he doesn't get prowess from dot inflicted by tech and when parrying tech, but it's missing from the section describing gaining prowess from energy attacks.
Working as intended and just a description error? Or a bug?
What are you even talking about? Your claim is objectively wrong and your suggested approach to identifying whether an attack is energy based or not is objectively horrible.
I even gave you an example as to why that is with mister sinister.
As to me being proven wrong, that's the whole point of my additional comment. Kabam's descriptions are flawed.
No where do I say I want any champ to be changed, please try to understand a point before mindlessly replying to it. I don't have any issue with that champ dealing energy damage and that champ dealing physical damage.
I have an issue with the consistency of descriptions. And I have an issue with your horrible piece of advice.
Cheers.
It has already been discussed before when Doom mediums were counting as energy attacks.Description wise so many characters still have to fix.Including SW, and many more champions
Doom's basic attacks are considered energy attacks. Is not that they "were", they ARE
Which of sentinel's attacks are energy? Heavy? Last medium?
His sp1 is definitely an energy attack Just confirmed. Only his sp1 is an energy attack. His sp2 isn't
How do you know? And testing him on torch is not definitive.
Torch gains a smoulder for energy damage It's basically the easiest way to clarify
But be my guest and believe what you will
I was thinking more that you'd probably need to test on a resistor node as I'm not sure torch will be interacting with every champion energy attack in the right way. If a plethora of other interactions are in question, then I don't think you can rely on torch as the bench mark.
Even resistor may not interact with all attacks in the right way. So again, may be something kabam needs to answer. (And have a like for the suggestion of torch, as it is sensible, just I'm doubting whether kabam got him right).
What are you even talking about? Your claim is objectively wrong and your suggested approach to identifying whether an attack is energy based or not is objectively horrible.
I even gave you an example as to why that is with mister sinister.
As to me being proven wrong, that's the whole point of my additional comment. Kabam's descriptions are flawed.
No where do I say I want any champ to be changed, please try to understand a point before mindlessly replying to it. I don't have any issue with that champ dealing energy damage and that champ dealing physical damage.
I have an issue with the consistency of descriptions. And I have an issue with your horrible piece of advice.
Cheers.
It has already been discussed before when Doom mediums were counting as energy attacks.Description wise so many characters still have to fix.Including SW, and many more champions
Doom's basic attacks are considered energy attacks. Is not that they "were", they ARE
But in his abilities it is nothing written that his attacks are energy ATTACKS
Which of sentinel's attacks are energy? Heavy? Last medium?
Go tell kabam.Not me.I didn't made this game.
But you said you know how It’s all about the animations right I tried voodoo against ultron no regen off of heavy But the animation looks pretty energy like
What are you even talking about? Your claim is objectively wrong and your suggested approach to identifying whether an attack is energy based or not is objectively horrible.
I even gave you an example as to why that is with mister sinister.
As to me being proven wrong, that's the whole point of my additional comment. Kabam's descriptions are flawed.
No where do I say I want any champ to be changed, please try to understand a point before mindlessly replying to it. I don't have any issue with that champ dealing energy damage and that champ dealing physical damage.
I have an issue with the consistency of descriptions. And I have an issue with your horrible piece of advice.
Cheers.
It has already been discussed before when Doom mediums were counting as energy attacks.Description wise so many characters still have to fix.Including SW, and many more champions
Doom's basic attacks are considered energy attacks. Is not that they "were", they ARE
But in his abilities it is nothing written that his attacks are energy ATTACKS
Which of sentinel's attacks are energy? Heavy? Last medium?
His sp1 is definitely an energy attack Just confirmed. Only his sp1 is an energy attack. His sp2 isn't
How do you know? And testing him on torch is not definitive.
Torch gains a smoulder for energy damage It's basically the easiest way to clarify
But be my guest and believe what you will
I was thinking more that you'd probably need to test on a resistor node as I'm not sure torch will be interacting with every champion energy attack in the right way. If a plethora of other interactions are in question, then I don't think you can rely on torch as the bench mark.
Even resistor may not interact with all attacks in the right way. So again, may be something kabam needs to answer. (And have a like for the suggestion of torch, as it is sensible, just I'm doubting whether kabam got him right).
I do get your point now And yes Kabam really needs to clarify on this matter
What are you even talking about? Your claim is objectively wrong and your suggested approach to identifying whether an attack is energy based or not is objectively horrible.
I even gave you an example as to why that is with mister sinister.
As to me being proven wrong, that's the whole point of my additional comment. Kabam's descriptions are flawed.
No where do I say I want any champ to be changed, please try to understand a point before mindlessly replying to it. I don't have any issue with that champ dealing energy damage and that champ dealing physical damage.
I have an issue with the consistency of descriptions. And I have an issue with your horrible piece of advice.
Cheers.
It has already been discussed before when Doom mediums were counting as energy attacks.Description wise so many characters still have to fix.Including SW, and many more champions
Doom's basic attacks are considered energy attacks. Is not that they "were", they ARE
But in his abilities it is nothing written that his attacks are energy ATTACKS
Which is the case for 90% of champion in the game
Exactly.That's what we are talking here but you somehow bringing some 3rd topic.
Which of sentinel's attacks are energy? Heavy? Last medium?
Go tell kabam.Not me.I didn't made this game.
But you said you know how It’s all about the animations right I tried voodoo against ultron no regen off of heavy But the animation looks pretty energy like
Great point @Unique_name ; Ultron should Regen from energy attacks, does he from all such attacks? Or are there exceptions and are these intended, or bugs. Same issue with Bishop.
Which of sentinel's attacks are energy? Heavy? Last medium?
Go tell kabam.Not me.I didn't made this game.
But you said you know how It’s all about the animations right I tried voodoo against ultron no regen off of heavy But the animation looks pretty energy like
Great point @Unique_name ; Ultron should Regen from energy attacks, does he from all such attacks? Or are there exceptions and are these intended, or bugs. Same issue with Bishop.
While I agree that physical and energy attacks should be described somewhere, I also understand why that won't happen. Some things you will just learn and understand when playing champions.
If they were to add info about physical and energy attacks to the champion abilities, it would be more confusing, and create a mess while trying to understand something.
Let's imagine a special attack with 8 hits. Now, 4 of them are physical, while the other 4 are energy. And on top of that, 3 of them are projectiles, while the other 5 are contact attacks. Do we really need an additional description in the abilities like "The first, the third, the forth and sixth hit on this special attack deal physical damage, and the second, fifth, seventh and eight hit deal energy damage. The second, third, and eight hit are projectile attacks, while the first, forth, fifth, sixth and seventh attack are contact attacks."
I'm not even going to add what hits or not apply a bleed, and what other hits apply a poison. You can already see that a description like that is not something great to be added on the abilities list
While I agree that physical and energy attacks should be described somewhere, I also understand why that won't happen. Some things you will just learn and understand when playing champions.
If they were to add info about physical and energy attacks to the champion abilities, it would be more confusing, and create a mess while trying to understand something.
Let's imagine a special attack with 8 hits. Now, 4 of them are physical, while the other 4 are energy. And on top of that, 3 of them are projectiles, while the other 5 are contact attacks. Do we really need an additional description in the abilities like "The first, the third, the forth and sixth hit on this special attack deal physical damage, and the second, fifth, seventh and eight hit deal energy damage. The second, third, and eight hit are projectile attacks, while the first, forth, fifth, sixth and seventh attack are contact attacks."
I'm not even going to add what hits or not apply a bleed, and what other hits apply a poison. You can already see that a description like that is not something great to be added on the abilities list
A simple line saying "a mix of physical and energy damage" or " some attacks of this champion's special deals energy damage" or a simple marker green for physical, pink for energy Or they could put it in champion spotlight. You just had to come up with an unrealistic design
While I agree that physical and energy attacks should be described somewhere, I also understand why that won't happen. Some things you will just learn and understand when playing champions.
If they were to add info about physical and energy attacks to the champion abilities, it would be more confusing, and create a mess while trying to understand something.
Let's imagine a special attack with 8 hits. Now, 4 of them are physical, while the other 4 are energy. And on top of that, 3 of them are projectiles, while the other 5 are contact attacks. Do we really need an additional description in the abilities like "The first, the third, the forth and sixth hit on this special attack deal physical damage, and the second, fifth, seventh and eight hit deal energy damage. The second, third, and eight hit are projectile attacks, while the first, forth, fifth, sixth and seventh attack are contact attacks."
I'm not even going to add what hits or not apply a bleed, and what other hits apply a poison. You can already see that a description like that is not something great to be added on the abilities list
A simple line saying "a mix of physical and energy damage" or " some attacks of this champion's special deals energy damage" or a simple marker green for physical, pink for energy Or they could put it in champion spotlight. You just had to come up with an unrealistic design
I wouldn't say it is unrealistic. It's based on some description that are already in the game actually. And sure I exxagerated a lot. That was the purpose
While I agree that physical and energy attacks should be described somewhere, I also understand why that won't happen. Some things you will just learn and understand when playing champions.
If they were to add info about physical and energy attacks to the champion abilities, it would be more confusing, and create a mess while trying to understand something.
Let's imagine a special attack with 8 hits. Now, 4 of them are physical, while the other 4 are energy. And on top of that, 3 of them are projectiles, while the other 5 are contact attacks. Do we really need an additional description in the abilities like "The first, the third, the forth and sixth hit on this special attack deal physical damage, and the second, fifth, seventh and eight hit deal energy damage. The second, third, and eight hit are projectile attacks, while the first, forth, fifth, sixth and seventh attack are contact attacks."
I'm not even going to add what hits or not apply a bleed, and what other hits apply a poison. You can already see that a description like that is not something great to be added on the abilities list
A simple line saying "a mix of physical and energy damage" or " some attacks of this champion's special deals energy damage" or a simple marker green for physical, pink for energy Or they could put it in champion spotlight. You just had to come up with an unrealistic design
I wouldn't say it is unrealistic. It's based on some description that are already in the game actually. And sure I exxagerated a lot. That was the purpose
No offense, but I'd suggest reading imiw's ability description. It's extremely easy and straightforward to properly explain this.
And the more those damage types as well as contact/non-contact interact with other nodes/abilities the more important it becomes to provide clarity.
It's not aesthetics, it is a full on game mechanic and it should be treated as such. That's like releasing a champ without any information regarding the trigger-chance of their abilities. Or a champ with no information on whether their effects are active or passive.
"Just play the game and find out" is a ridiculous statement, no offense.
Could not agree more @UmbertoDelRio - especially with the older champions. It's not like they have a huge list of abilities where clarification would add confusion. Just clarify the descriptions is not too much to ask. And for old champions like Ultron, bishop, let alone magneto and strange, there's no real excuse....
Unless there are unintended consequences of clearing up the text, where the text is not the issue and there are actually interactions that need to be changed? I don't think this is the case.....
Take bishop, just add in "this doesn't work against tech champions" at the end of his first paragraph.
Or magneto "all basic attacks are energy and do not make physical contact".
Unless there are interactions make such clarity impossible, it's easy to resolve.
I can't get over dormammu lmao. You guys rely on us explaining the concept of active and passive effects over and over again, but then you leave something as convoluted as "positive status effect" in the game? Come on.
Unfortunately, the devs tend to deprioritize correcting ability descriptions, unless there's an explicit issue with those abilities that itself requires correction.
As to the, err, discussion about energy attacks, as far as I'm aware it is actually possible for an attack to be "typed" as an energy attack in the game engine regardless of the damage it deals. Attacks have a type, damage has a type, and attacks can deal multiple damage types. In fact, confusingly, attacks can theoretically have no type. Type is not a radio button where one of them must be pushed. It is a sticker, and the developer has to stick it on or there's no sticker.
This can make the proper understanding of whether an attack is of the correct type to trigger an ability that is triggered when an attack of a particular type lands complicated in the general case.
Because the game engine doesn't care, it is all just tags to it, it is possible to use the tags in ways players would find non-inuitive. In my opinion, this is something to avoid. If you're going to do things in non-intuitive ways that should be carefully documented, or an overarching system describing how the non-intuitive things work in general should be communicated to the players. Unfortunately, I am not in charge of game mechanics or documentation.
For example, you might decide that the type of an attack should always be the type of its first tick of damage. Such a rule limits what the developers can do, but it makes the game easier to understand. That kind of structure is something that I think is a good system design principle in general. Those design principles, to the extent that they exist at all, aren't communicated to the players most of the time.
Comments
Just confirmed.
Only his sp1 is an energy attack.
His sp2 isn't
It says he doesn't get prowess from dot inflicted by tech and when parrying tech, but it's missing from the section describing gaining prowess from energy attacks.
Working as intended and just a description error? Or a bug?
It's basically the easiest way to clarify
But be my guest and believe what you will
Even resistor may not interact with all attacks in the right way. So again, may be something kabam needs to answer. (And have a like for the suggestion of torch, as it is sensible, just I'm doubting whether kabam got him right).
And yes
Kabam really needs to clarify on this matter
Some things you will just learn and understand when playing champions.
If they were to add info about physical and energy attacks to the champion abilities, it would be more confusing, and create a mess while trying to understand something.
Let's imagine a special attack with 8 hits. Now, 4 of them are physical, while the other 4 are energy. And on top of that, 3 of them are projectiles, while the other 5 are contact attacks.
Do we really need an additional description in the abilities like "The first, the third, the forth and sixth hit on this special attack deal physical damage, and the second, fifth, seventh and eight hit deal energy damage. The second, third, and eight hit are projectile attacks, while the first, forth, fifth, sixth and seventh attack are contact attacks."
I'm not even going to add what hits or not apply a bleed, and what other hits apply a poison. You can already see that a description like that is not something great to be added on the abilities list
Or they could put it in champion spotlight.
You just had to come up with an unrealistic design
And sure I exxagerated a lot. That was the purpose
Unless there are unintended consequences of clearing up the text, where the text is not the issue and there are actually interactions that need to be changed? I don't think this is the case.....
Take bishop, just add in "this doesn't work against tech champions" at the end of his first paragraph.
Or magneto "all basic attacks are energy and do not make physical contact".
Unless there are interactions make such clarity impossible, it's easy to resolve.
As to the, err, discussion about energy attacks, as far as I'm aware it is actually possible for an attack to be "typed" as an energy attack in the game engine regardless of the damage it deals. Attacks have a type, damage has a type, and attacks can deal multiple damage types. In fact, confusingly, attacks can theoretically have no type. Type is not a radio button where one of them must be pushed. It is a sticker, and the developer has to stick it on or there's no sticker.
This can make the proper understanding of whether an attack is of the correct type to trigger an ability that is triggered when an attack of a particular type lands complicated in the general case.
Because the game engine doesn't care, it is all just tags to it, it is possible to use the tags in ways players would find non-inuitive. In my opinion, this is something to avoid. If you're going to do things in non-intuitive ways that should be carefully documented, or an overarching system describing how the non-intuitive things work in general should be communicated to the players. Unfortunately, I am not in charge of game mechanics or documentation.
For example, you might decide that the type of an attack should always be the type of its first tick of damage. Such a rule limits what the developers can do, but it makes the game easier to understand. That kind of structure is something that I think is a good system design principle in general. Those design principles, to the extent that they exist at all, aren't communicated to the players most of the time.