I think this is worthy discussion because there are times when pacify mastery seems to reduce the ability accuracy of a beneficial part of the node.
Two examples I have witnessed are Slumber, where the stun but not the power lock proc, and flux dispersal where when stunned a heavy attack does not remove charges.
I think this is a symptom of a mastery that was designed in 2015 that was intended to help prevent Magik limbo, SW poison, etc during a stun and greatly benefited champs like Elektra that already had base AAR. Additionally the complex interactions we see today did not exist back then so there may be some unintended consequences.
There are times when the mastery works as intended but can impede your fight flow, for example Thing’s rock stacks.
For me personally, I need points to lead to mystic dispersion and I have just recently swapped out my 2 points in pacify to more points in limber.
I don’t think this is a “bug” but more a change in the complexity of game mechanics which has made a mastery’s initial function somewhat out dated.
A bit off topic but why not go 3/3 into Petrify as a stepping stone for MD?
Not a bad idea. I chose limber for my defenders. I find if I need heal reversal I have other means of achieving it, and as for giving them less power during stun that can be nice unless it’s a fight where you need to keep them throwing specials for openings or something. I wouldn’t want petrify on 100% of the time because there may be scenarios where I want to feed them the normal amount of power.
Might sound like a weird explanation but that was my reasoning.
Ah yes I see what you mean. In those cases I wait until the stun timer is almost up and then only the M gives reduced power.
I dont encounter that problem often but in the end it comes down to personal preference and Limber might help on War def thats true.
This is the type of discussion that’s useful in forums (and hopefully for the team as well).
I’d be curious to know what some other denizens like @DNA3000 and @LeNoirFaineant and @Worknprogress think as well as anyone else who has constructive thoughts.
Dr. Zola
I have a number of thoughts about this, but I'll focus on one of them. In general, and there are always exceptions that require special case review, I like the fact that game mechanics interact in these unexpected but predictable (with sufficient knowledge) ways. It comes down to the notion of what interesting content is.
I think it is a given now that when it comes to higher tier content, most players want more interesting content rather than just be hammered with super high stats. We don't all agree what "interesting content" is, but I think a strong common denominator is content that requires a deeper understanding of the game mechanics and the champion roster, to allow for thoughtful game play to be rewarded by the game.
If game mechanics interactions always favored the player, then the game has to presume that all content is going to be tackled under those favorable situations, and it has to be made much more difficult to compensate for that. But if game mechanics are "neutral" and they can go either in favor of or work against the player, we can balance content to be intrinsically less difficult and reward players for smarter play (and punish them for dumber play) relative to the average. I personally think this is a good thing.
I also think this is a large component of many players expressing the notion that higher end content is "easier." Until relatively recently, all content required higher and higher levels of twitch reflexes, because those were the only counter to the ever higher numerical stats and punishing nodes that higher tier content contained. But more recent content has shifted to more meta-gaming, where players are encouraged to find optimal champions and strategies for dealing with content. I think a lot of us are discounting the effort required to do that. If you have deep knowledge of the game's mechanics and champions, picking the right champs for the right path and using the right tactics in those fights can seem trivial, and that gets assigned zero effort. But for the average player, this can be even harder to do than learn combos and intercepting. The overall effort is the same or higher, but a lot of it has been shifted away from the hands and towards the brain.
All of this is jeopardized, I believe, if we are too judgmental about how different mechanics interact. If we start targeting Pacify as "not doing the right thing" when interacting with nodes where we want certain effects to trigger because they are helpful, it isn't a very long drive to the devs deciding that what we call cheesing the content by finding especially powerful interactions that favor the player is actually an exploit that violates the design intent of the content. And that narrows the field of opportunity for the developers to design interesting content and the players to find out of the box strategies for dealing with that content.
To put it another way, if the players demand that all of their abilities always benefit them in every possible circumstance, then it is logical to assume the content designers will want all of the defender nodes to only benefit the defender in response. And the whole idea of players trying to turn a situation to their advantage disappears, and to me that's the foundation of interesting content: to turn a bad situation around with knowledge, skill, and strategic gameplay.
@DrZola I've noticed the downside lately. UC didn't have power lock with the slumber node on the side quest a few times, fighting Thing, etc. The truth is I hate using units to redo masteries and I still like the benefits and haven't felt like the downside was enough to make me drop it. The last big mastery change I've made was dropping willpower a few months ago and I haven't really missed it. I don't think it's worth the mastery points in defense if you aren't running suicides. I've recently been considering running suicides in which case I'll add willpower again, but I've actually never unlocked LC and hate to burn the units lol. Used to run max DE before the willpower nerf. Anyway, I think Pacify is still worth having though it's not enough of a net gain to make it necessary. I dropped willpower not because it wasn't beneficial but because of the other points needed to keep it open. At the moment I'm not looking for other places to put mastery points so I'll keep pacify.
Comments
I dont encounter that problem often but in the end it comes down to personal preference and Limber might help on War def thats true.
I think it is a given now that when it comes to higher tier content, most players want more interesting content rather than just be hammered with super high stats. We don't all agree what "interesting content" is, but I think a strong common denominator is content that requires a deeper understanding of the game mechanics and the champion roster, to allow for thoughtful game play to be rewarded by the game.
If game mechanics interactions always favored the player, then the game has to presume that all content is going to be tackled under those favorable situations, and it has to be made much more difficult to compensate for that. But if game mechanics are "neutral" and they can go either in favor of or work against the player, we can balance content to be intrinsically less difficult and reward players for smarter play (and punish them for dumber play) relative to the average. I personally think this is a good thing.
I also think this is a large component of many players expressing the notion that higher end content is "easier." Until relatively recently, all content required higher and higher levels of twitch reflexes, because those were the only counter to the ever higher numerical stats and punishing nodes that higher tier content contained. But more recent content has shifted to more meta-gaming, where players are encouraged to find optimal champions and strategies for dealing with content. I think a lot of us are discounting the effort required to do that. If you have deep knowledge of the game's mechanics and champions, picking the right champs for the right path and using the right tactics in those fights can seem trivial, and that gets assigned zero effort. But for the average player, this can be even harder to do than learn combos and intercepting. The overall effort is the same or higher, but a lot of it has been shifted away from the hands and towards the brain.
All of this is jeopardized, I believe, if we are too judgmental about how different mechanics interact. If we start targeting Pacify as "not doing the right thing" when interacting with nodes where we want certain effects to trigger because they are helpful, it isn't a very long drive to the devs deciding that what we call cheesing the content by finding especially powerful interactions that favor the player is actually an exploit that violates the design intent of the content. And that narrows the field of opportunity for the developers to design interesting content and the players to find out of the box strategies for dealing with that content.
To put it another way, if the players demand that all of their abilities always benefit them in every possible circumstance, then it is logical to assume the content designers will want all of the defender nodes to only benefit the defender in response. And the whole idea of players trying to turn a situation to their advantage disappears, and to me that's the foundation of interesting content: to turn a bad situation around with knowledge, skill, and strategic gameplay.
Dr. Zola