About Archangel

So, we all know Kabam recently "nerfed" Archangel, whether you are on the side that he was always supposed to work the way he used to or on the side it was always a bug. But, I feel a proper solution should have been, and now should be, to add a percent chance to stun stun immmunes with his neurotoxin in his awakened ability.

How I imagine this working is that kabam could add a second part to Archangel's awakened ability, stating. "Every stun that Archangel would apply due to his neurotoxin expiring has a _____% [same percent as his ability accuracy reduction] to apply a stun to a character immune to stun affects. This increases by a flat __% [number kabam can decide upon] every time a neurotoxin stun does not apply, and resets every time a stun does apply."

I believe this would both solve the lashback that kabam had from nerfing him, and it would allow characters to once again utilize the utility that was at least some of the reason that so many people boosted him up. What do you guys think about this?

Comments

DNA3000

I think there's zero chance that Kabam would do this. Whatever your feelings about the change, the change itself was a case of something being flagged passive that shouldn't have been flagged passive. Addressing that almost certainly required no more work than changing one cell in an Excel spreadsheet. What you're describing would almost certainly require very special mechanics to be added to the core game engine, and they would be mechanics that would be dangerous to use in any other circumstance other than this one. It would also allow AA to do something Kabam has explicitly stated they don't want *any* champion to currently do, which is to completely bypass the normal mechanics associated with status effects and debuffs. Unless, once again, Kabam adds even more ad hoc mechanics in the game engine to deal with all the one-off cases this would generate, and decouple immunity from magnitude reduction effects.

I don't think the developers would subject themselves to that without a gun to their heads. It would be both short-term costly in dev time and resources and long-term costly in complexity. Given current development priorities, I don't think it is possible to make a convincing case this is worthy of any tech time.

Keep in mind Kabam didn't just change archangel because they just decided one day that stuns shouldn't be passive. They changed AA because they realized that error made it literally impossible for them to make certain kinds of content. Uncollected Thanos, for example, was designed with intricate mechanics with different stages that required the player to face several different combinations of abilities. Unless you could just perma stun him, in which case you wouldn't see any of that at all. So he was made immune to stun, which AA completely ignored. They couldn't allow AA to ignore stun immunity because it would forever hamper the kinds of content they could make in the future. The whole *idea* of stunning unstunnable things is what they decided to eliminate.

What you are in effect trying to do is to convince the developers that when they decide to make something unstunnable, they should always be forced to allow Archangel to ignore that design choice, because they don't get the final say on how the content works. That's an argument that is impossible to win.

unknown

This content has been removed.

unknown

This content has been removed.

LeNoirFaineant

I'm fine with the decision to nerf him but the decision to not take responsibility for official false information given to the players with rank downs was unethical and wrong. Still pisses me off.

shchong2

I think for them to say, "Sorry it was our fault in the past, and it was miss informed, however to better balance the game we would have to nerf it. We would take the blame for taking so many months to confirm it is not intended and only to nerf it now." ...... I think by being honest, apologetic with proper reasoning and be transparent, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, clear but humble COMMUNICATION, I think most players would understand. Very often I noticed people are not too hung up with a very specific nerf, or incident, or occasion, but rather the way they communicate, response, admit mistake / wrong wording, etc. For the AA case, personally I'm not too affected by the nerf so I don't quite mind, but like many others, I think they are improve better in their communication and taking responsibility portion. A blessing in disguise, AA is still fun to play, and the nerf on him is not as huge as SW/Thor/DS during v12.0 .... haha

LeNoirFaineant

The fact that they didn't offer compensation since they were "fixing a bug" rather than changing the champ is what bothers me. Once they told us he wasn't bugged and people made real money decisions based on that they had a responsibility to treat it as if they were changing the champ. It doesn't matter that it was misinformation, it was their misinformation.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Starkiller_KE2_0

DNA3000 wrote: »

I think there's zero chance that Kabam would do this. Whatever your feelings about the change, the change itself was a case of something being flagged passive that shouldn't have been flagged passive. Addressing that almost certainly required no more work than changing one cell in an Excel spreadsheet. What you're describing would almost certainly require very special mechanics to be added to the core game engine, and they would be mechanics that would be dangerous to use in any other circumstance other than this one. It would also allow AA to do something Kabam has explicitly stated they don't want *any* champion to currently do, which is to completely bypass the normal mechanics associated with status effects and debuffs. Unless, once again, Kabam adds even more ad hoc mechanics in the game engine to deal with all the one-off cases this would generate, and decouple immunity from magnitude reduction effects.

I don't think the developers would subject themselves to that without a gun to their heads. It would be both short-term costly in dev time and resources and long-term costly in complexity. Given current development priorities, I don't think it is possible to make a convincing case this is worthy of any tech time.

Keep in mind Kabam didn't just change archangel because they just decided one day that stuns shouldn't be passive. They changed AA because they realized that error made it literally impossible for them to make certain kinds of content. Uncollected Thanos, for example, was designed with intricate mechanics with different stages that required the player to face several different combinations of abilities. Unless you could just perma stun him, in which case you wouldn't see any of that at all. So he was made immune to stun, which AA completely ignored. They couldn't allow AA to ignore stun immunity because it would forever hamper the kinds of content they could make in the future. The whole *idea* of stunning unstunnable things is what they decided to eliminate.

What you are in effect trying to do is to convince the developers that when they decide to make something unstunnable, they should always be forced to allow Archangel to ignore that design choice, because they don't get the final say on how the content works. That's an argument that is impossible to win.

I'm not necessarily trying to say they need to change the way the game works, and I think adding an ability that I believe would max out at 50% doesn't mean archangel would be always the answer to stun immunity. I also understand why they did it, I know they wanted to make content harder and that archangel was a roadblock they needed to cross, however prior comments indicated that Kabam thought that's how archangel should have worked.

The way archangel used to work is a 100% reliability to stun any opponent immune to stun with an expiring neurotoxin, duped or not. My suggestion requires you to have an awakened archangel, and even at sig level 99 it is no higher than a 50% reliability. Considering how he used to be never broke the game, I doubt this mechanic would. Not to mention the fact that this is after a 15sec neurotoxin, with the additional 5-15 sec it might take to apply a neurotoxin against a stun immune, in shorter fights this wouldn't even be the main reason you would bring in archangel.

And I understand that Kabam wanted to eliminate the idea of it, but I don't think making a suggestion for a possible compromise in a forum where suggestions are encouraged is necessarily a bad thing. And this wouldn't be the first time they have only one character that does certain stuff (i.e iceman, domino, massacre, etc...), I think it would be an interesting mechanic to have in the game, especially since they already had it in the game on an even larger scale.

Karuseus

Bypassing immunity never should have been introduced in the first place...
I mean if groot for example cannot bleed due to lack of blood, and if someone can bypass or ignore bleed immunity and make groot bleed, that doesn’t make sense at all, right?

So in a similar way Kabam should admit that they were wrong in the past, and players should admit that stun ignoring stun immunity should be removed.

Pool

It affected aa everywhere else too. Not just on stun imune nodes.

Developers don't want aa to stun on stun imune node. I am fine with it.

Just add in description of node that passive stun also won't work on stun imune nodes.

But changing his stun to normal stun was a bad move. Now its affected by limber.
And people ranked him for what he was and it was confirmed by mod too.
I also ranked aa for lol because of 1.5 sec confirmed stun after nurotoxin. Now he's useless for lol because of limber.

Yes he is still great champ. And yes there are other great options to do lol. But that's not the question.

A champ was nerfed ( not fixed) . And players used there rare resources on him ( awakening gem , t2 alpha) and kabam team just ignored it.

Starkiller_KE2_0

Karuseus wrote: »

Bypassing immunity never should have been introduced in the first place...
I mean if groot for example cannot bleed due to lack of blood, and if someone can bypass or ignore bleed immunity and make groot bleed, that doesn’t make sense at all, right?

So in a similar way Kabam should admit that they were wrong in the past, and players should admit that stun ignoring stun immunity should be removed.

I think stun is different to a damage over time debuff, much like weakness or powerlock. But I understand your point and thats what my post was about, seeing if people actually wanted this utility of not, and, if so, a possible mechanic for it to work.

Namelez

His stun was a PASSIVE debuff. So should debuff immune fights be immune to Power Steal ? It's a PASSIVE debuff just like AA stun was. So what's the difference if power steal is technically a debuff and can be used in a debuff immune fights why is it that AA can't stun stun immunes with his passive debuff ?

Starkiller_KE2_0

Namelez wrote: »

His stun was a PASSIVE debuff. So should debuff immune fights be immune to Power Steal ? It's a PASSIVE debuff just like AA stun was. So what's the difference if power steal is technically a debuff and can be used in a debuff immune fights why is it that AA can't stun stun immunes with his passive debuff ?

that's what they changed though, it is no longer passive.