Why does Wiccan apply Incinerates to Red Guardin and Spidey 99 when they dex?

Very curious to understand how does Wiccan’s ability of applying an incinerate debuff when the opponent’s ability fail due to his neutralize, when the opponent in question is not triggering any buff.

If the answer is “but he would”, then it doesn’t make sense that the entire advantage of being immune to buffs won’t work against a Mystic champion designed to punish buffs.

Comments

BigBlueOx

Although thinking about it further, there might be a possibility that could work, although I’m not sure yet if it does what I think it should do.

Immunity *does not mean* zero ability accuracy, nor can we change the mechanics to make it mean that. That’s both nonsensical and problematic in the wide general case. But while we can’t change the mechanics, we might be able to change the champions. When someone says they expect a champ like SM2099 to have zero buff ability accuracy because they feel immunity should convey that behavior as well, nothing stops us from simply declaring that SM2099 and other similar champs have zero buff ability accuracy *as well as* buff immunity as a conceptual package. Buff immunity doesn’t mean zero buff AA, but SM2099 could simply have both. We could do this by setting the stat to zero somehow, or by adding a passive ability that confers -100% buff ability accuracy (and maybe buff AA modifier immunity). This would mean Dex would fail to produce a precision buff, and it would fail because buff AA was zero, but it would *not* fail because of reduced AA.

Would this make SM2099 and other buff immune champs avoid Wiccan’s incinerate? Not sure. It would depend on precisely how the game engine decides what “reduced ability accuracy” is. Reduced from what? This is an esoteric mechanical question. But I’m going to try to find out.

Normally enjoy a lot of what you post but neutralize impacting buff immune champs is the same logic as dividing by 0.

sheryf

Sorry @Kabam Zibiit but i don't buy this eplanation as solution of the issue. Red Guardian ans S2099 are designed to deal with annoying mystics. Just set order of the events correctly, immunity should trigger very first, if character is immune then he is just immune, immunity does not prevent anything, it just cannot happen.

SirGamesBond

What will happen if wiccan is placed on Icarus node (just one example of the nodes which gives attacker active buffs).

Buff immune champions getting punished for proccing buffs which they can't proc!
This do not sound right.

This may cause a serious interaction in future alliance wars or other quests.

DNA3000

What will happen if wiccan is placed on Icarus node (just one example of the nodes which gives attacker active buffs).

Buff immune champions getting punished for proccing buffs which they can't proc!
This do not sound right.

This may cause a serious interaction in future alliance wars or other quests.

What happens when a buff immune champ fights anyone else on that node? They get the benefit of their immunity stopping that buff from taking effect. They do not gain a benefit from preventing a buff from proccing, because they gain no benefit from a buff not being attempted at all. They only benefit from a buff being attempted, but being "deflected" by their immunity.

You can't have it both ways. If you take the benefit of a buff procing but being stopped by immunity, you cannot avoid the penalty of a buff procing but being stopped by immunity. Because in both cases, exactly the same thing is happening.

DNA3000

Also, whilst we're discussing Neutralise:
it's always described as acting by reducing Ability Accuracy:

Well, several champions are meant to be immune to Ability Accuracy modification. Their abilities state that their Ability Accuracy can't be reduced:
Mysterio
Archangel
Old Man Logan

And, predictably, whilst a player might have thought Wiccan's Neutralise would be a harmless source of Willpower for them, it seems to work on them normally. Is it supposed to?

After discussing this in depth with Kabam, I can now answer this question. The answer is no. Neutralize is not supposed to work on those champs.

To clarify a number of questions and points that have been brought up in this thread:

1. Neutralize definitively works the way it is described to work. It lowers buff ability accuracy. This means it lowers the ability accuracy of any ability that is tagged as a buff. (Note: this also means there is no separate "buff ability accuracy" that obeys different rules as ability accuracy).

2. Anything that claims to be immune to ability accuracy modification (or reduction, or whatever) should be immune to Neutralize, because that's what Neutralize does.

3. However, this doesn't always work as stated. The reasons are mostly historical. Once upon a time the way AA immunity was implemented was to make the champion immune to all effects that modified ability accuracy. The problem with this is that it cannot account for future game developments. If you invent some new effect in the future that alters ability accuracy, like say Neutralize, the champion won't be immune to it, because Neutralize did not exist when the champion was created and thus the champion could not be explicitly made immune to that effect at the time.

4. The only way to remedy this would be to remember every champ that was ever made immune to ability accuracy in this way, and adjust them accordingly. However, this is problematic because ability accuracy is not the only effect for which this might be true. It might seem obvious in hindsight to do this, but it would not necessarily be obvious to the developer creating Neutralize. It is important to note that the programmers who code the game engine and the engineers who make mechanics like Neutralize and the designers who use Neutralize in champion design are not the same people. It can be easy to get tunnel-visioned into your own sphere of work and not be fully aware of the impact of that work globally.

5. So when Neutralize was created, many champs who should have been immune to it by design intent were not updated to be so. *Some* champs could have been automatically immune to Neutralize because improved game engine technology eventually allowed developers to make champions immune to the effects of ability accuracy reduction rather than requiring them to be specifically immune to every single ability accuracy modifying effect. These champions are much more likely to retain their immunity to such effects even when new effects are created within the game. But many others like Mysterio are not.

6. This means - at least as a reasonable assumption moving forward - every champ that is stated to be immune to ability accuracy modification *should be* immune to Neutralize (and would have been had the current tech been available to implement them) and thus should be considered bugged. This means at some future point in time, players should assume that, barring some change in intent for those champions, champions that are supposed to be immune to ability accuracy modification but are being affected by Neutralize will be adjusted to make their immunity work correctly.

7. As this requires changing the champion's implementation (either by updating them to use more modern tech or to at least update their list of immunities), this is not something that can happen quickly.

This is my own distillation of my conversation with Kabam, and any translation errors within it are mine alone.

SirGamesBond

What will happen if wiccan is placed on Icarus node (just one example of the nodes which gives attacker active buffs).

Buff immune champions getting punished for proccing buffs which they can't proc!
This do not sound right.

This may cause a serious interaction in future alliance wars or other quests.
What happens when a buff immune champ fights anyone else on that node? They get the benefit of their immunity stopping that buff from taking effect. They do not gain a benefit from preventing a buff from proccing, because they gain no benefit from a buff not being attempted at all. They only benefit from a buff being attempted, but being "deflected" by their immunity.

You can't have it both ways. If you take the benefit of a buff procing but being stopped by immunity, you cannot avoid the penalty of a buff procing but being stopped by immunity. Because in both cases, exactly the same thing is happening.

Just saying, his neutralise is pretty long unlike other champs with shorter duration. It may result in a really bad fight design. Well that's a case for future.

Magrailothos

Also, whilst we're discussing Neutralise:
it's always described as acting by reducing Ability Accuracy:

Well, several champions are meant to be immune to Ability Accuracy modification. Their abilities state that their Ability Accuracy can't be reduced:
Mysterio
Archangel
Old Man Logan

And, predictably, whilst a player might have thought Wiccan's Neutralise would be a harmless source of Willpower for them, it seems to work on them normally. Is it supposed to?
After discussing this in depth with Kabam, I can now answer this question. The answer is no. Neutralize is not supposed to work on those champs.

To clarify a number of questions and points that have been brought up in this thread:

1. Neutralize definitively works the way it is described to work. It lowers buff ability accuracy. This means it lowers the ability accuracy of any ability that is tagged as a buff. (Note: this also means there is no separate "buff ability accuracy" that obeys different rules as ability accuracy).

2. Anything that claims to be immune to ability accuracy modification (or reduction, or whatever) should be immune to Neutralize, because that's what Neutralize does.

3. However, this doesn't always work as stated. The reasons are mostly historical. Once upon a time the way AA immunity was implemented was to make the champion immune to all effects that modified ability accuracy. The problem with this is that it cannot account for future game developments. If you invent some new effect in the future that alters ability accuracy, like say Neutralize, the champion won't be immune to it, because Neutralize did not exist when the champion was created and thus the champion could not be explicitly made immune to that effect at the time.

4. The only way to remedy this would be to remember every champ that was ever made immune to ability accuracy in this way, and adjust them accordingly. However, this is problematic because ability accuracy is not the only effect for which this might be true. It might seem obvious in hindsight to do this, but it would not necessarily be obvious to the developer creating Neutralize. It is important to note that the programmers who code the game engine and the engineers who make mechanics like Neutralize and the designers who use Neutralize in champion design are not the same people. It can be easy to get tunnel-visioned into your own sphere of work and not be fully aware of the impact of that work globally.

5. So when Neutralize was created, many champs who should have been immune to it by design intent were not updated to be so. *Some* champs could have been automatically immune to Neutralize because improved game engine technology eventually allowed developers to make champions immune to the effects of ability accuracy reduction rather than requiring them to be specifically immune to every single ability accuracy modifying effect. These champions are much more likely to retain their immunity to such effects even when new effects are created within the game. But many others like Mysterio are not.

6. This means - at least as a reasonable assumption moving forward - every champ that is stated to be immune to ability accuracy modification *should be* immune to Neutralize (and would have been had the current tech been available to implement them) and thus should be considered bugged. This means at some future point in time, players should assume that, barring some change in intent for those champions, champions that are supposed to be immune to ability accuracy modification but are being affected by Neutralize will be adjusted to make their immunity work correctly.

7. As this requires changing the champion's implementation (either by updating them to use more modern tech or to at least update their list of immunities), this is not something that can happen quickly.

This is my own distillation of my conversation with Kabam, and any translation errors within it are mine alone.

You're a Legend, mate.

Magrailothos

What will happen if wiccan is placed on Icarus node (just one example of the nodes which gives attacker active buffs).

Buff immune champions getting punished for proccing buffs which they can't proc!
This do not sound right.

This may cause a serious interaction in future alliance wars or other quests.

He really won't be an actual problem.

Wiccan isn't that tough - you can avoid his Neutralise by not Parrying him, or remove it with shrug-off. Elsa worked great here.

Alternately, you can largely ignore it with a champion who's immune to Incinerate like... Human Torch, perhaps?

Personally I used a 5/65 Havok in Cav EQ, and soloed him repeatedly, whilst healing from Neutralise-driven Willpower the whole time.

SirGamesBond

What will happen if wiccan is placed on Icarus node (just one example of the nodes which gives attacker active buffs).

Buff immune champions getting punished for proccing buffs which they can't proc!
This do not sound right.

This may cause a serious interaction in future alliance wars or other quests.
He really won't be an actual problem.

Wiccan isn't that tough - you can avoid his Neutralise by not Parrying him, or remove it with shrug-off. Elsa worked great here.

Alternately, you can largely ignore it with a champion who's immune to Incinerate like... Human Torch, perhaps?

Personally I used a 5/65 Havok in Cav EQ, and soloed him repeatedly, whilst healing from Neutralise-driven Willpower the whole time.

I just read neutralise come from parries.
I was wrong when I though neutralise triggered by hitting wiccan like rintrah.

And I completely agree, it wouldn't be an issue if an interaction can be ignored by not parrying.

I slipped up by not reading his abilities.