Why morbius is getting void passive burst damage

In aw I was playing with morbius with decay tactics. But I was getting void passive DOT. Even I have applied 10+ bleed on him. I didn't get it. As per tactics the damge should be avoided. I think this is a bug with void only. Because I killed killmonger, Mysterio, domino. I didn't get any passive damege if there is 3+ bleed on opponent.

If anyone faced the same plz post here you thoughts.

Comments

Pikolu

Decay doesn't protect you from void damage. Morbius's dupe would allow him to heal some of it back though.

AverageDesi

Why not? If it can stop Korg and Attuma thorns and havoks plasma?

LordSmasher

Void's damage is not a DOT. He does damage to you for each debuff on you, regardless of the source and type.
As its not a DOT then Decay cannot protect.

Pikolu

Thorns is an instant DoT, voids direct damage is not a DoT.

SecondSkriller

There is no such thing as instant damage OVER TIME…

Avnish

Throne, reverberation, even recoil damage is DOT. Then why void damage is not DOT. Void damage is also direct damge as others. This should be a bug. I am not sure who can explain this better.

@Kabam Miike could you please clear the confusion.

Captainaiden

Void damage is came from his abilities, not from damage over time. It said for each unique debuff type, the opponent takes certain Direct Damage per second. It's clearly direct damage is not DOT. It almost same with burst damage like hercules and so on

Pikolu

Eh, semantics. Nightcrawler inflicts instant bleeds and those count as a DoT.

Captainaiden

Same as sam wilson, instant rupture

AverageDesi

Thers nothing as instant damage OVER TIME. . If anything it's void that is done over time.

And no. Nightcrawler is not DOT. It's a bleed and a damaging effect . That's it

Zuro

The thing with void that makes him different is that there is no direct trigger for his damage if that makes sense. All other DOT effects have a direct trigger in this game (hitting electro/attuma, etc.), while for void there is so many different ways to apply debuffs (nodes, synergies, prefights) that it makes it hard to simply categorize it as DOT. Especially considering each unique debuff further increases the damage.

ItsClobberinTime

If this somehow makes sense

I really don't understand how this Void situation doesn't

WOLF_LINK

Just ban Void whenever you see one.

Vegeta9001

It's what I do, I can't be bothered dealing with that mess.

Or use shang chii

Because void is king

There's even Valk

I had something weird. I had loads of Debuffs but was still taking damage. Is it possible you need the Debuffs before the dot effect is applied for it to not deal damage?

Bendy

Before the dot is applied

Pikolu

Again semantics. In the game, it is coded as a DoT. You can either accept it, or scream at a brick wall because it is extremely unlikely it'll ever change. Also Mysterios damage reflection is also a DoT 😉

AverageDesi

I don't think it's semantics but rather a description error. We saw with grandmaster Damage over time was stated in his kit but it meant any damaging effect. The point here isn't whether dot should only apply to dot. That's upto kabam for how clean and intuitive they want their game to be instead of whatever lingual mess they see it become because they can't correct a text error.

But there isn't anything different for Void that doesn't apply to other champions' effects that makes it different. Plenty other champions' do damage according to debuffs. Havok(heavy feedback), MN, and void ottomh. It's either a hit damage or it's not

LordSmasher

An effect can be a DOT (incenerate, bleed, feedback, some burst stuff etc) or not a DOT (petrify, stun etc)
Its the definition of the effect that determines if its a DOT or not, nothing else.
Decay gives resistance to DOTs.

Now Void is not doing DOTs. You're taking direct damage base on the debuffs on your, regadless if they were DOTs or not.

Sw0rdMaster

I've seen kabam use instant to distinguish it from regular dot.

DNA3000

You're right, kinda. There is no such thing as instant anything. That's just what things are sometimes called to explain colloquially to players. In actuality there are two kinds of effects: those with duration, and those without duration. Those without duration happen once. Those with duration happen every half second.

Any damaging effect with a duration is described as a damage over time effect. However, any such effect whose duration is less than half a second will only happen once, at activation. It will look like an "instantaneous damage over time effect" because all of its effects happen just once, the moment it triggers. However, that is still technically a damage over time effect.

The difference is more than semantic, when it comes to game mechanics. Damage (or anything else) without a duration just happen. Damage with a duration create an actual Effect on the target, and the damage comes from that Effect that is sticking to them. Or to put it another way, damaging effects without duration come from the attacker and just damage the target. Damaging effects with a duration apply an Effect on the target, and the damage comes from this effect. When the game says something protects from "damage over time" that means, in technical terms, damage coming from these kinds of effects.

Void's intimidating presence damage does not come from a damaging effect. The debuffs do not themselves generate damage. Void simply causes the target to experience damage when they have debuffs. This damage does not come from any debuff, and there is no damaging effect placed on the target. It just ... happens (as far as the players are concerned: there is a more technical explanation, but it isn't helpful here).

My memory may be hazy here, but I seem to recall that way back when Nightcrawler's "instantaneous bleed" was actually described by the developers as a tenth of a second bleed whose duration could not be modified, which emulated an "instant" bleed. In fact, if I recall correctly the whole reason why this even came up in discussion was because originally deep wounds was extending the duration of Nightcrawler's "instant" bleed which was unintentional, thus the need to make its duration unmodifiable, and thus the reason for the discussion in the first place.

unknown

This content has been removed.