From what I understand from the explanation, “having a buff” and “gaining a buff” are separate interactions. S99 and Red can’t “have a buff” but they aren’t immune to the “gain” aspect. Like how S99 refreshes Debuffs whenever he would gain a buff, or RG gains shield charges when he would gain a buff. The neutralize is triggering off the “would gain” which is also why his debuff pausing won’t activate while he’s affected by it. I use S99 religiously so I wish the interaction here was different for sure, but to the best of my knowledge that’s kinda what’s going on.
- did a buff get prevented by his immunity? No, because the buff was actually prevented by the neutralise, he would never have gotten the buff to trigger his immunity. It doesn’t matter that he was immune, because that’s later on in the flow chart
But why should that be the order of precedence? The abilities of a specific champion are the only constant in any fight in which that champion is used, those abilities should hold water in any situation where similar, extra abilities are competing.
I guess what I'm asking is have there been similar instances/interactions in the past that would at the very least show this kind of prioritisation in action, or if it has been coded specifically to counter buff immunity and essentially reduce the effectiveness of these champions.
I have been feeling that my recent comments are leaning into what can be classified as conspiratorial, and that is unfortunate.
My guess is that this is simply a design decision to prioritize the “neutralize (Y/N)?” question before the “immune (Y/N)?” question.
It seems odd to me, but when asked whether SM2099 is immune to buffs, I suppose the design team would answer “it depends on what the definition of ‘immune’ is.”
I’m now taking a closer look at other champs with similar unique abilities (Guardian, CB) that don’t trigger but “would have” triggered to make sure I’m comfortable with those abilities being amended by technicality before I rank any further.
The game is riddled with cautionary tales of descriptions and interactions (and interpretations thereof) plucked from somewhere down the rabbit hole: Drax and Moleman are just the current bookends, and SM2099 may be in that group as well. Why I or anyone else comes to these forums looking for clarity after nearly 8 years can only be described as derangement—the answers, when they do come, are often as halting and cryptic as the utterances of some fickle Delphic oracle.
Dr. Zola
The logic here is that you cannot be immune to what is not applied.
A rather crude example. But let’s say you are immune to tennis balls. Whenever a tennis ball is thrown at you and hits your face, you lift your arm up and wave.
Normally, someone throws a tennis ball at your face, it hits you and you wave.
But here, someone called Neutralise holds a tennis racket in between the ball and your face.
The ball is thrown at you, it hits the tennis racket and it never hits your face. You never raise your arm and wave, because you never got hit.
The tennis ball is the buff attempted to trigger, the racket is neutralise, you are immune to buffs and you waving your arm is pausing the debuffs.
It’s the same theory here, the buff attempts to be triggered and trigger the immunity, but neutralise stops the buff from ever triggering, so how can it trigger the immunity if it’s never been triggered itself?
I’ll add my diagram in of what I sent you on Line to explain it, because I think it does a good job explaining the logic here.
From what I understand from the explanation, “having a buff” and “gaining a buff” are separate interactions. S99 and Red can’t “have a buff” but they aren’t immune to the “gain” aspect. Like how S99 refreshes Debuffs whenever he would gain a buff, or RG gains shield charges when he would gain a buff. The neutralize is triggering off the “would gain” which is also why his debuff pausing won’t activate while he’s affected by it. I use S99 religiously so I wish the interaction here was different for sure, but to the best of my knowledge that’s kinda what’s going on.
- did a buff get prevented by his immunity? No, because the buff was actually prevented by the neutralise, he would never have gotten the buff to trigger his immunity. It doesn’t matter that he was immune, because that’s later on in the flow chart
But why should that be the order of precedence? The abilities of a specific champion are the only constant in any fight in which that champion is used, those abilities should hold water in any situation where similar, extra abilities are competing.
I guess what I'm asking is have there been similar instances/interactions in the past that would at the very least show this kind of prioritisation in action, or if it has been coded specifically to counter buff immunity and essentially reduce the effectiveness of these champions.
I have been feeling that my recent comments are leaning into what can be classified as conspiratorial, and that is unfortunate.
My guess is that this is simply a design decision to prioritize the “neutralize (Y/N)?” question before the “immune (Y/N)?” question.
It seems odd to me, but when asked whether SM2099 is immune to buffs, I suppose the design team would answer “it depends on what the definition of ‘immune’ is.”
I’m now taking a closer look at other champs with similar unique abilities (Guardian, CB) that don’t trigger but “would have” triggered to make sure I’m comfortable with those abilities being amended by technicality before I rank any further.
The game is riddled with cautionary tales of descriptions and interactions (and interpretations thereof) plucked from somewhere down the rabbit hole: Drax and Moleman are just the current bookends, and SM2099 may be in that group as well. Why I or anyone else comes to these forums looking for clarity after nearly 8 years can only be described as derangement—the answers, when they do come, are often as halting and cryptic as the utterances of some fickle Delphic oracle.
Dr. Zola
The logic here is that you cannot be immune to what is not applied.
A rather crude example. But let’s say you are immune to tennis balls. Whenever a tennis ball is thrown at you and hits your face, you lift your arm up and wave.
Normally, someone throws a tennis ball at your face, it hits you and you wave.
But here, someone called Neutralise holds a tennis racket in between the ball and your face.
The ball is thrown at you, it hits the tennis racket and it never hits your face. You never raise your arm and wave, because you never got hit.
The tennis ball is the buff attempted to trigger, the racket is neutralise, you are immune to buffs and you waving your arm is pausing the debuffs.
It’s the same theory here, the buff attempts to be triggered and trigger the immunity, but neutralise stops the buff from ever triggering, so how can it trigger the immunity if it’s never been triggered itself?
I’ll add my diagram in of what I sent you on Line to explain it, because I think it does a good job explaining the logic here.
Here is Spidey dexing normally
Here is when neutralise is applied.
I understand that and agree that’s how it seems to be working.
But I would counter that you shouldn’t be able to neutralize something that never occurs. It appears to be a design decision—whether intended or stumbled upon—and I disagree with the order of operations and the logic underlying it.
From what I understand from the explanation, “having a buff” and “gaining a buff” are separate interactions. S99 and Red can’t “have a buff” but they aren’t immune to the “gain” aspect. Like how S99 refreshes Debuffs whenever he would gain a buff, or RG gains shield charges when he would gain a buff. The neutralize is triggering off the “would gain” which is also why his debuff pausing won’t activate while he’s affected by it. I use S99 religiously so I wish the interaction here was different for sure, but to the best of my knowledge that’s kinda what’s going on.
- did a buff get prevented by his immunity? No, because the buff was actually prevented by the neutralise, he would never have gotten the buff to trigger his immunity. It doesn’t matter that he was immune, because that’s later on in the flow chart
But why should that be the order of precedence? The abilities of a specific champion are the only constant in any fight in which that champion is used, those abilities should hold water in any situation where similar, extra abilities are competing.
I guess what I'm asking is have there been similar instances/interactions in the past that would at the very least show this kind of prioritisation in action, or if it has been coded specifically to counter buff immunity and essentially reduce the effectiveness of these champions.
I have been feeling that my recent comments are leaning into what can be classified as conspiratorial, and that is unfortunate.
My guess is that this is simply a design decision to prioritize the “neutralize (Y/N)?” question before the “immune (Y/N)?” question.
It seems odd to me, but when asked whether SM2099 is immune to buffs, I suppose the design team would answer “it depends on what the definition of ‘immune’ is.”
I’m now taking a closer look at other champs with similar unique abilities (Guardian, CB) that don’t trigger but “would have” triggered to make sure I’m comfortable with those abilities being amended by technicality before I rank any further.
The game is riddled with cautionary tales of descriptions and interactions (and interpretations thereof) plucked from somewhere down the rabbit hole: Drax and Moleman are just the current bookends, and SM2099 may be in that group as well. Why I or anyone else comes to these forums looking for clarity after nearly 8 years can only be described as derangement—the answers, when they do come, are often as halting and cryptic as the utterances of some fickle Delphic oracle.
Dr. Zola
The logic here is that you cannot be immune to what is not applied.
A rather crude example. But let’s say you are immune to tennis balls. Whenever a tennis ball is thrown at you and hits your face, you lift your arm up and wave.
Normally, someone throws a tennis ball at your face, it hits you and you wave.
But here, someone called Neutralise holds a tennis racket in between the ball and your face.
The ball is thrown at you, it hits the tennis racket and it never hits your face. You never raise your arm and wave, because you never got hit.
The tennis ball is the buff attempted to trigger, the racket is neutralise, you are immune to buffs and you waving your arm is pausing the debuffs.
It’s the same theory here, the buff attempts to be triggered and trigger the immunity, but neutralise stops the buff from ever triggering, so how can it trigger the immunity if it’s never been triggered itself?
I’ll add my diagram in of what I sent you on Line to explain it, because I think it does a good job explaining the logic here.
Here is Spidey dexing normally
Here is when neutralise is applied.
I understand that and agree that’s how it seems to be working.
But I would counter that you shouldn’t be able to neutralize something that never occurs. It appears to be a design decision—whether intended or stumbled upon—and I disagree with the order of operations and the logic underlying it.
Dr. Zola
I think you’re misunderstanding how it works when you say “you shouldn’t be able to neutralise something that never occurs”.
The buff *does* occur, it just triggers an immunity and doesn’t activate on the champion. There’s an important distinction between what you’re saying “a buff immune champion never has buffs occurring” and what actually happens which is “a buff immune champion has buffs occurring, but they don’t actually stay on the character because they’re immune”
Like how when you use wolverine and apply a bleed to colossus, the bleed does occur but it triggers an immunity. If it never occurred, how would you get an immune call out?
It’s exactly what Cat said. “‘having a buff’ and ‘gaining a buff’ are separate interactions.”
Colossus can be subject to the “gaining a bleed debuff”, at which point he is immune to it so his immunity triggers. He is not subject to having a bleed debuff which is why it doesn’t ever get put on him.
From what I understand from the explanation, “having a buff” and “gaining a buff” are separate interactions. S99 and Red can’t “have a buff” but they aren’t immune to the “gain” aspect. Like how S99 refreshes Debuffs whenever he would gain a buff, or RG gains shield charges when he would gain a buff. The neutralize is triggering off the “would gain” which is also why his debuff pausing won’t activate while he’s affected by it. I use S99 religiously so I wish the interaction here was different for sure, but to the best of my knowledge that’s kinda what’s going on.
- did a buff get prevented by his immunity? No, because the buff was actually prevented by the neutralise, he would never have gotten the buff to trigger his immunity. It doesn’t matter that he was immune, because that’s later on in the flow chart
But why should that be the order of precedence? The abilities of a specific champion are the only constant in any fight in which that champion is used, those abilities should hold water in any situation where similar, extra abilities are competing.
I guess what I'm asking is have there been similar instances/interactions in the past that would at the very least show this kind of prioritisation in action, or if it has been coded specifically to counter buff immunity and essentially reduce the effectiveness of these champions.
I have been feeling that my recent comments are leaning into what can be classified as conspiratorial, and that is unfortunate.
My guess is that this is simply a design decision to prioritize the “neutralize (Y/N)?” question before the “immune (Y/N)?” question.
It seems odd to me, but when asked whether SM2099 is immune to buffs, I suppose the design team would answer “it depends on what the definition of ‘immune’ is.”
I’m now taking a closer look at other champs with similar unique abilities (Guardian, CB) that don’t trigger but “would have” triggered to make sure I’m comfortable with those abilities being amended by technicality before I rank any further.
The game is riddled with cautionary tales of descriptions and interactions (and interpretations thereof) plucked from somewhere down the rabbit hole: Drax and Moleman are just the current bookends, and SM2099 may be in that group as well. Why I or anyone else comes to these forums looking for clarity after nearly 8 years can only be described as derangement—the answers, when they do come, are often as halting and cryptic as the utterances of some fickle Delphic oracle.
Dr. Zola
The logic here is that you cannot be immune to what is not applied.
A rather crude example. But let’s say you are immune to tennis balls. Whenever a tennis ball is thrown at you and hits your face, you lift your arm up and wave.
Normally, someone throws a tennis ball at your face, it hits you and you wave.
But here, someone called Neutralise holds a tennis racket in between the ball and your face.
The ball is thrown at you, it hits the tennis racket and it never hits your face. You never raise your arm and wave, because you never got hit.
The tennis ball is the buff attempted to trigger, the racket is neutralise, you are immune to buffs and you waving your arm is pausing the debuffs.
It’s the same theory here, the buff attempts to be triggered and trigger the immunity, but neutralise stops the buff from ever triggering, so how can it trigger the immunity if it’s never been triggered itself?
I’ll add my diagram in of what I sent you on Line to explain it, because I think it does a good job explaining the logic here.
Here is Spidey dexing normally
Here is when neutralise is applied.
I understand that and agree that’s how it seems to be working.
But I would counter that you shouldn’t be able to neutralize something that never occurs. It appears to be a design decision—whether intended or stumbled upon—and I disagree with the order of operations and the logic underlying it.
Dr. Zola
I think you’re misunderstanding how it works when you say “you shouldn’t be able to neutralise something that never occurs”.
The buff *does* occur, it just triggers an immunity and doesn’t activate on the champion. There’s an important distinction between what you’re saying “a buff immune champion never has buffs occurring” and what actually happens which is “a buff immune champion has buffs occurring, but they don’t actually stay on the character because they’re immune”
Like how when you use wolverine and apply a bleed to colossus, the bleed does occur but it triggers an immunity. If it never occurred, how would you get an immune call out?
It’s exactly what Cat said. “‘having a buff’ and ‘gaining a buff’ are separate interactions.”
Colossus can be subject to the “gaining a bleed debuff”, at which point he is immune to it so his immunity triggers. He is not subject to having a bleed debuff which is why it doesn’t ever get put on him.
“Prevent” is the operative term in SM99 description. What does the word mean if not “stop from occurring”?
From what I understand from the explanation, “having a buff” and “gaining a buff” are separate interactions. S99 and Red can’t “have a buff” but they aren’t immune to the “gain” aspect. Like how S99 refreshes Debuffs whenever he would gain a buff, or RG gains shield charges when he would gain a buff. The neutralize is triggering off the “would gain” which is also why his debuff pausing won’t activate while he’s affected by it. I use S99 religiously so I wish the interaction here was different for sure, but to the best of my knowledge that’s kinda what’s going on.
- did a buff get prevented by his immunity? No, because the buff was actually prevented by the neutralise, he would never have gotten the buff to trigger his immunity. It doesn’t matter that he was immune, because that’s later on in the flow chart
But why should that be the order of precedence? The abilities of a specific champion are the only constant in any fight in which that champion is used, those abilities should hold water in any situation where similar, extra abilities are competing.
I guess what I'm asking is have there been similar instances/interactions in the past that would at the very least show this kind of prioritisation in action, or if it has been coded specifically to counter buff immunity and essentially reduce the effectiveness of these champions.
I have been feeling that my recent comments are leaning into what can be classified as conspiratorial, and that is unfortunate.
My guess is that this is simply a design decision to prioritize the “neutralize (Y/N)?” question before the “immune (Y/N)?” question.
It seems odd to me, but when asked whether SM2099 is immune to buffs, I suppose the design team would answer “it depends on what the definition of ‘immune’ is.”
I’m now taking a closer look at other champs with similar unique abilities (Guardian, CB) that don’t trigger but “would have” triggered to make sure I’m comfortable with those abilities being amended by technicality before I rank any further.
The game is riddled with cautionary tales of descriptions and interactions (and interpretations thereof) plucked from somewhere down the rabbit hole: Drax and Moleman are just the current bookends, and SM2099 may be in that group as well. Why I or anyone else comes to these forums looking for clarity after nearly 8 years can only be described as derangement—the answers, when they do come, are often as halting and cryptic as the utterances of some fickle Delphic oracle.
Dr. Zola
The logic here is that you cannot be immune to what is not applied.
A rather crude example. But let’s say you are immune to tennis balls. Whenever a tennis ball is thrown at you and hits your face, you lift your arm up and wave.
Normally, someone throws a tennis ball at your face, it hits you and you wave.
But here, someone called Neutralise holds a tennis racket in between the ball and your face.
The ball is thrown at you, it hits the tennis racket and it never hits your face. You never raise your arm and wave, because you never got hit.
The tennis ball is the buff attempted to trigger, the racket is neutralise, you are immune to buffs and you waving your arm is pausing the debuffs.
It’s the same theory here, the buff attempts to be triggered and trigger the immunity, but neutralise stops the buff from ever triggering, so how can it trigger the immunity if it’s never been triggered itself?
I’ll add my diagram in of what I sent you on Line to explain it, because I think it does a good job explaining the logic here.
Here is Spidey dexing normally
Here is when neutralise is applied.
I understand that and agree that’s how it seems to be working.
But I would counter that you shouldn’t be able to neutralize something that never occurs. It appears to be a design decision—whether intended or stumbled upon—and I disagree with the order of operations and the logic underlying it.
Dr. Zola
I think you’re misunderstanding how it works when you say “you shouldn’t be able to neutralise something that never occurs”.
The buff *does* occur, it just triggers an immunity and doesn’t activate on the champion. There’s an important distinction between what you’re saying “a buff immune champion never has buffs occurring” and what actually happens which is “a buff immune champion has buffs occurring, but they don’t actually stay on the character because they’re immune”
Like how when you use wolverine and apply a bleed to colossus, the bleed does occur but it triggers an immunity. If it never occurred, how would you get an immune call out?
It’s exactly what Cat said. “‘having a buff’ and ‘gaining a buff’ are separate interactions.”
Colossus can be subject to the “gaining a bleed debuff”, at which point he is immune to it so his immunity triggers. He is not subject to having a bleed debuff which is why it doesn’t ever get put on him.
“Prevent” is the operative term in SM99 description. What does the word mean if not “stop from occurring”?
Dr. Zola
Exactly what you think it means. But how does Spidey’s immunity prevent a buff that never got triggered?
From what I understand from the explanation, “having a buff” and “gaining a buff” are separate interactions. S99 and Red can’t “have a buff” but they aren’t immune to the “gain” aspect. Like how S99 refreshes Debuffs whenever he would gain a buff, or RG gains shield charges when he would gain a buff. The neutralize is triggering off the “would gain” which is also why his debuff pausing won’t activate while he’s affected by it. I use S99 religiously so I wish the interaction here was different for sure, but to the best of my knowledge that’s kinda what’s going on.
- did a buff get prevented by his immunity? No, because the buff was actually prevented by the neutralise, he would never have gotten the buff to trigger his immunity. It doesn’t matter that he was immune, because that’s later on in the flow chart
But why should that be the order of precedence? The abilities of a specific champion are the only constant in any fight in which that champion is used, those abilities should hold water in any situation where similar, extra abilities are competing.
I guess what I'm asking is have there been similar instances/interactions in the past that would at the very least show this kind of prioritisation in action, or if it has been coded specifically to counter buff immunity and essentially reduce the effectiveness of these champions.
I have been feeling that my recent comments are leaning into what can be classified as conspiratorial, and that is unfortunate.
My guess is that this is simply a design decision to prioritize the “neutralize (Y/N)?” question before the “immune (Y/N)?” question.
It seems odd to me, but when asked whether SM2099 is immune to buffs, I suppose the design team would answer “it depends on what the definition of ‘immune’ is.”
I’m now taking a closer look at other champs with similar unique abilities (Guardian, CB) that don’t trigger but “would have” triggered to make sure I’m comfortable with those abilities being amended by technicality before I rank any further.
The game is riddled with cautionary tales of descriptions and interactions (and interpretations thereof) plucked from somewhere down the rabbit hole: Drax and Moleman are just the current bookends, and SM2099 may be in that group as well. Why I or anyone else comes to these forums looking for clarity after nearly 8 years can only be described as derangement—the answers, when they do come, are often as halting and cryptic as the utterances of some fickle Delphic oracle.
Dr. Zola
The logic here is that you cannot be immune to what is not applied.
A rather crude example. But let’s say you are immune to tennis balls. Whenever a tennis ball is thrown at you and hits your face, you lift your arm up and wave.
Normally, someone throws a tennis ball at your face, it hits you and you wave.
But here, someone called Neutralise holds a tennis racket in between the ball and your face.
The ball is thrown at you, it hits the tennis racket and it never hits your face. You never raise your arm and wave, because you never got hit.
The tennis ball is the buff attempted to trigger, the racket is neutralise, you are immune to buffs and you waving your arm is pausing the debuffs.
It’s the same theory here, the buff attempts to be triggered and trigger the immunity, but neutralise stops the buff from ever triggering, so how can it trigger the immunity if it’s never been triggered itself?
I’ll add my diagram in of what I sent you on Line to explain it, because I think it does a good job explaining the logic here.
Here is Spidey dexing normally
Here is when neutralise is applied.
I understand that and agree that’s how it seems to be working.
But I would counter that you shouldn’t be able to neutralize something that never occurs. It appears to be a design decision—whether intended or stumbled upon—and I disagree with the order of operations and the logic underlying it.
Dr. Zola
I think you’re misunderstanding how it works when you say “you shouldn’t be able to neutralise something that never occurs”.
The buff *does* occur, it just triggers an immunity and doesn’t activate on the champion. There’s an important distinction between what you’re saying “a buff immune champion never has buffs occurring” and what actually happens which is “a buff immune champion has buffs occurring, but they don’t actually stay on the character because they’re immune”
Like how when you use wolverine and apply a bleed to colossus, the bleed does occur but it triggers an immunity. If it never occurred, how would you get an immune call out?
It’s exactly what Cat said. “‘having a buff’ and ‘gaining a buff’ are separate interactions.”
Colossus can be subject to the “gaining a bleed debuff”, at which point he is immune to it so his immunity triggers. He is not subject to having a bleed debuff which is why it doesn’t ever get put on him.
“Prevent” is the operative term in SM99 description. What does the word mean if not “stop from occurring”?
Dr. Zola
Exactly what you think it means. But how does Spidey’s immunity prevent a buff that never got triggered?
How does a buff get neutralized if it was prevented from triggering in the first place?
We can go around and around here. The design team decided to shoehorn neutralize into the split second a hypothetical buff doesn’t happen. It is what it is.
I was part joking with @Cat_Murdock earlier, but the answer turns out to be as simple as “just ‘cus.”
From what I understand from the explanation, “having a buff” and “gaining a buff” are separate interactions. S99 and Red can’t “have a buff” but they aren’t immune to the “gain” aspect. Like how S99 refreshes Debuffs whenever he would gain a buff, or RG gains shield charges when he would gain a buff. The neutralize is triggering off the “would gain” which is also why his debuff pausing won’t activate while he’s affected by it. I use S99 religiously so I wish the interaction here was different for sure, but to the best of my knowledge that’s kinda what’s going on.
- did a buff get prevented by his immunity? No, because the buff was actually prevented by the neutralise, he would never have gotten the buff to trigger his immunity. It doesn’t matter that he was immune, because that’s later on in the flow chart
But why should that be the order of precedence? The abilities of a specific champion are the only constant in any fight in which that champion is used, those abilities should hold water in any situation where similar, extra abilities are competing.
I guess what I'm asking is have there been similar instances/interactions in the past that would at the very least show this kind of prioritisation in action, or if it has been coded specifically to counter buff immunity and essentially reduce the effectiveness of these champions.
I have been feeling that my recent comments are leaning into what can be classified as conspiratorial, and that is unfortunate.
My guess is that this is simply a design decision to prioritize the “neutralize (Y/N)?” question before the “immune (Y/N)?” question.
It seems odd to me, but when asked whether SM2099 is immune to buffs, I suppose the design team would answer “it depends on what the definition of ‘immune’ is.”
I’m now taking a closer look at other champs with similar unique abilities (Guardian, CB) that don’t trigger but “would have” triggered to make sure I’m comfortable with those abilities being amended by technicality before I rank any further.
The game is riddled with cautionary tales of descriptions and interactions (and interpretations thereof) plucked from somewhere down the rabbit hole: Drax and Moleman are just the current bookends, and SM2099 may be in that group as well. Why I or anyone else comes to these forums looking for clarity after nearly 8 years can only be described as derangement—the answers, when they do come, are often as halting and cryptic as the utterances of some fickle Delphic oracle.
Dr. Zola
The logic here is that you cannot be immune to what is not applied.
A rather crude example. But let’s say you are immune to tennis balls. Whenever a tennis ball is thrown at you and hits your face, you lift your arm up and wave.
Normally, someone throws a tennis ball at your face, it hits you and you wave.
But here, someone called Neutralise holds a tennis racket in between the ball and your face.
The ball is thrown at you, it hits the tennis racket and it never hits your face. You never raise your arm and wave, because you never got hit.
The tennis ball is the buff attempted to trigger, the racket is neutralise, you are immune to buffs and you waving your arm is pausing the debuffs.
It’s the same theory here, the buff attempts to be triggered and trigger the immunity, but neutralise stops the buff from ever triggering, so how can it trigger the immunity if it’s never been triggered itself?
I’ll add my diagram in of what I sent you on Line to explain it, because I think it does a good job explaining the logic here.
Here is Spidey dexing normally
Here is when neutralise is applied.
I understand that and agree that’s how it seems to be working.
But I would counter that you shouldn’t be able to neutralize something that never occurs. It appears to be a design decision—whether intended or stumbled upon—and I disagree with the order of operations and the logic underlying it.
Dr. Zola
I think you’re misunderstanding how it works when you say “you shouldn’t be able to neutralise something that never occurs”.
The buff *does* occur, it just triggers an immunity and doesn’t activate on the champion. There’s an important distinction between what you’re saying “a buff immune champion never has buffs occurring” and what actually happens which is “a buff immune champion has buffs occurring, but they don’t actually stay on the character because they’re immune”
Like how when you use wolverine and apply a bleed to colossus, the bleed does occur but it triggers an immunity. If it never occurred, how would you get an immune call out?
It’s exactly what Cat said. “‘having a buff’ and ‘gaining a buff’ are separate interactions.”
Colossus can be subject to the “gaining a bleed debuff”, at which point he is immune to it so his immunity triggers. He is not subject to having a bleed debuff which is why it doesn’t ever get put on him.
“Prevent” is the operative term in SM99 description. What does the word mean if not “stop from occurring”?
Dr. Zola
Exactly what you think it means. But how does Spidey’s immunity prevent a buff that never got triggered?
How does a buff get neutralized if it was prevented from triggering in the first place?
We can go around and around here. The design team decided to shoehorn neutralize into the split second a hypothetical buff doesn’t happen. It is what it is.
I was part joking with @Cat_Murdock earlier, but the answer turns out to be as simple as “just ‘cus.”
Dr. Zola
That's what I keep asking and just cus truly does seem to be the answer. It looks like it has to do with the order but to me, it still doesn't make sense. I get the whole even though they are immune they trigger "gain" for the buff, but that shouldn't matter because neutralize shouldn't take precedent over their natural immunity
From what I understand from the explanation, “having a buff” and “gaining a buff” are separate interactions. S99 and Red can’t “have a buff” but they aren’t immune to the “gain” aspect. Like how S99 refreshes Debuffs whenever he would gain a buff, or RG gains shield charges when he would gain a buff. The neutralize is triggering off the “would gain” which is also why his debuff pausing won’t activate while he’s affected by it. I use S99 religiously so I wish the interaction here was different for sure, but to the best of my knowledge that’s kinda what’s going on.
- did a buff get prevented by his immunity? No, because the buff was actually prevented by the neutralise, he would never have gotten the buff to trigger his immunity. It doesn’t matter that he was immune, because that’s later on in the flow chart
But why should that be the order of precedence? The abilities of a specific champion are the only constant in any fight in which that champion is used, those abilities should hold water in any situation where similar, extra abilities are competing.
I guess what I'm asking is have there been similar instances/interactions in the past that would at the very least show this kind of prioritisation in action, or if it has been coded specifically to counter buff immunity and essentially reduce the effectiveness of these champions.
I have been feeling that my recent comments are leaning into what can be classified as conspiratorial, and that is unfortunate.
My guess is that this is simply a design decision to prioritize the “neutralize (Y/N)?” question before the “immune (Y/N)?” question.
It seems odd to me, but when asked whether SM2099 is immune to buffs, I suppose the design team would answer “it depends on what the definition of ‘immune’ is.”
I’m now taking a closer look at other champs with similar unique abilities (Guardian, CB) that don’t trigger but “would have” triggered to make sure I’m comfortable with those abilities being amended by technicality before I rank any further.
The game is riddled with cautionary tales of descriptions and interactions (and interpretations thereof) plucked from somewhere down the rabbit hole: Drax and Moleman are just the current bookends, and SM2099 may be in that group as well. Why I or anyone else comes to these forums looking for clarity after nearly 8 years can only be described as derangement—the answers, when they do come, are often as halting and cryptic as the utterances of some fickle Delphic oracle.
Dr. Zola
The logic here is that you cannot be immune to what is not applied.
A rather crude example. But let’s say you are immune to tennis balls. Whenever a tennis ball is thrown at you and hits your face, you lift your arm up and wave.
Normally, someone throws a tennis ball at your face, it hits you and you wave.
But here, someone called Neutralise holds a tennis racket in between the ball and your face.
The ball is thrown at you, it hits the tennis racket and it never hits your face. You never raise your arm and wave, because you never got hit.
The tennis ball is the buff attempted to trigger, the racket is neutralise, you are immune to buffs and you waving your arm is pausing the debuffs.
It’s the same theory here, the buff attempts to be triggered and trigger the immunity, but neutralise stops the buff from ever triggering, so how can it trigger the immunity if it’s never been triggered itself?
I’ll add my diagram in of what I sent you on Line to explain it, because I think it does a good job explaining the logic here.
Here is Spidey dexing normally
Here is when neutralise is applied.
I understand that and agree that’s how it seems to be working.
But I would counter that you shouldn’t be able to neutralize something that never occurs. It appears to be a design decision—whether intended or stumbled upon—and I disagree with the order of operations and the logic underlying it.
Dr. Zola
I think you’re misunderstanding how it works when you say “you shouldn’t be able to neutralise something that never occurs”.
The buff *does* occur, it just triggers an immunity and doesn’t activate on the champion. There’s an important distinction between what you’re saying “a buff immune champion never has buffs occurring” and what actually happens which is “a buff immune champion has buffs occurring, but they don’t actually stay on the character because they’re immune”
Like how when you use wolverine and apply a bleed to colossus, the bleed does occur but it triggers an immunity. If it never occurred, how would you get an immune call out?
It’s exactly what Cat said. “‘having a buff’ and ‘gaining a buff’ are separate interactions.”
Colossus can be subject to the “gaining a bleed debuff”, at which point he is immune to it so his immunity triggers. He is not subject to having a bleed debuff which is why it doesn’t ever get put on him.
“Prevent” is the operative term in SM99 description. What does the word mean if not “stop from occurring”?
Dr. Zola
Exactly what you think it means. But how does Spidey’s immunity prevent a buff that never got triggered?
How does a buff get neutralized if it was prevented from triggering in the first place?
We can go around and around here. The design team decided to shoehorn neutralize into the split second a hypothetical buff doesn’t happen. It is what it is.
I was part joking with @Cat_Murdock earlier, but the answer turns out to be as simple as “just ‘cus.”
Dr. Zola
I think the thing here is that you’re arguing here for what it *should* be in your opinion. And I’m arguing for what it actually is.
This is the way it’s turned out with how the game is coded, there are thousands of interactions in the game that could have gone either way and this game is what we’ve ended up with.
Why should it be the way you prefer? Both ways make equally logical sense, but you just prefer it your way. I get that, and from a player perspective I would prefer that too as a Spidey user. But unfortunately that’s not a good enough reason for how the game to work. There’s plenty of things I would prefer in the game, doesn’t make them illogical.
I’m not arguing “it should be this” or “it should be that”. You’re arguing that it’s illogical to be one way, but I strongly disagree.
From what I understand from the explanation, “having a buff” and “gaining a buff” are separate interactions. S99 and Red can’t “have a buff” but they aren’t immune to the “gain” aspect. Like how S99 refreshes Debuffs whenever he would gain a buff, or RG gains shield charges when he would gain a buff. The neutralize is triggering off the “would gain” which is also why his debuff pausing won’t activate while he’s affected by it. I use S99 religiously so I wish the interaction here was different for sure, but to the best of my knowledge that’s kinda what’s going on.
- did a buff get prevented by his immunity? No, because the buff was actually prevented by the neutralise, he would never have gotten the buff to trigger his immunity. It doesn’t matter that he was immune, because that’s later on in the flow chart
But why should that be the order of precedence? The abilities of a specific champion are the only constant in any fight in which that champion is used, those abilities should hold water in any situation where similar, extra abilities are competing.
I guess what I'm asking is have there been similar instances/interactions in the past that would at the very least show this kind of prioritisation in action, or if it has been coded specifically to counter buff immunity and essentially reduce the effectiveness of these champions.
I have been feeling that my recent comments are leaning into what can be classified as conspiratorial, and that is unfortunate.
My guess is that this is simply a design decision to prioritize the “neutralize (Y/N)?” question before the “immune (Y/N)?” question.
It seems odd to me, but when asked whether SM2099 is immune to buffs, I suppose the design team would answer “it depends on what the definition of ‘immune’ is.”
I’m now taking a closer look at other champs with similar unique abilities (Guardian, CB) that don’t trigger but “would have” triggered to make sure I’m comfortable with those abilities being amended by technicality before I rank any further.
The game is riddled with cautionary tales of descriptions and interactions (and interpretations thereof) plucked from somewhere down the rabbit hole: Drax and Moleman are just the current bookends, and SM2099 may be in that group as well. Why I or anyone else comes to these forums looking for clarity after nearly 8 years can only be described as derangement—the answers, when they do come, are often as halting and cryptic as the utterances of some fickle Delphic oracle.
Dr. Zola
The logic here is that you cannot be immune to what is not applied.
A rather crude example. But let’s say you are immune to tennis balls. Whenever a tennis ball is thrown at you and hits your face, you lift your arm up and wave.
Normally, someone throws a tennis ball at your face, it hits you and you wave.
But here, someone called Neutralise holds a tennis racket in between the ball and your face.
The ball is thrown at you, it hits the tennis racket and it never hits your face. You never raise your arm and wave, because you never got hit.
The tennis ball is the buff attempted to trigger, the racket is neutralise, you are immune to buffs and you waving your arm is pausing the debuffs.
It’s the same theory here, the buff attempts to be triggered and trigger the immunity, but neutralise stops the buff from ever triggering, so how can it trigger the immunity if it’s never been triggered itself?
I’ll add my diagram in of what I sent you on Line to explain it, because I think it does a good job explaining the logic here.
Here is Spidey dexing normally
Here is when neutralise is applied.
I understand that and agree that’s how it seems to be working.
But I would counter that you shouldn’t be able to neutralize something that never occurs. It appears to be a design decision—whether intended or stumbled upon—and I disagree with the order of operations and the logic underlying it.
Dr. Zola
I think you’re misunderstanding how it works when you say “you shouldn’t be able to neutralise something that never occurs”.
The buff *does* occur, it just triggers an immunity and doesn’t activate on the champion. There’s an important distinction between what you’re saying “a buff immune champion never has buffs occurring” and what actually happens which is “a buff immune champion has buffs occurring, but they don’t actually stay on the character because they’re immune”
Like how when you use wolverine and apply a bleed to colossus, the bleed does occur but it triggers an immunity. If it never occurred, how would you get an immune call out?
It’s exactly what Cat said. “‘having a buff’ and ‘gaining a buff’ are separate interactions.”
Colossus can be subject to the “gaining a bleed debuff”, at which point he is immune to it so his immunity triggers. He is not subject to having a bleed debuff which is why it doesn’t ever get put on him.
“Prevent” is the operative term in SM99 description. What does the word mean if not “stop from occurring”?
Dr. Zola
Exactly what you think it means. But how does Spidey’s immunity prevent a buff that never got triggered?
How does a buff get neutralized if it was prevented from triggering in the first place?
We can go around and around here. The design team decided to shoehorn neutralize into the split second a hypothetical buff doesn’t happen. It is what it is.
I was part joking with @Cat_Murdock earlier, but the answer turns out to be as simple as “just ‘cus.”
Dr. Zola
I think the thing here is that you’re arguing here for what it *should* be in your opinion. And I’m arguing for what it actually is.
This is the way it’s turned out with how the game is coded, there are thousands of interactions in the game that could have gone either way and this game is what we’ve ended up with.
Why should it be the way you prefer? Both ways make equally logical sense, but you just prefer it your way. I get that, and from a player perspective I would prefer that too as a Spidey user. But unfortunately that’s not a good enough reason for how the game to work. There’s plenty of things I would prefer in the game, doesn’t make them illogical.
I’m not arguing “it should be this” or “it should be that”. You’re arguing that it’s illogical to be one way, but I strongly disagree.
Not exactly. You’re arguing for how it shows up in game, which is akin to the Moleman fracas. Either words mean something or they don’t, but if they don’t then don’t even release champ descriptions and just let us play with them to figure out how they work.
Your Colossus example: his immunity “protects” him from bleeds. Not same as “prevents.” Team should stop playing fast and loose with the way things are worded.
From what I understand from the explanation, “having a buff” and “gaining a buff” are separate interactions. S99 and Red can’t “have a buff” but they aren’t immune to the “gain” aspect. Like how S99 refreshes Debuffs whenever he would gain a buff, or RG gains shield charges when he would gain a buff. The neutralize is triggering off the “would gain” which is also why his debuff pausing won’t activate while he’s affected by it. I use S99 religiously so I wish the interaction here was different for sure, but to the best of my knowledge that’s kinda what’s going on.
- did a buff get prevented by his immunity? No, because the buff was actually prevented by the neutralise, he would never have gotten the buff to trigger his immunity. It doesn’t matter that he was immune, because that’s later on in the flow chart
But why should that be the order of precedence? The abilities of a specific champion are the only constant in any fight in which that champion is used, those abilities should hold water in any situation where similar, extra abilities are competing.
I guess what I'm asking is have there been similar instances/interactions in the past that would at the very least show this kind of prioritisation in action, or if it has been coded specifically to counter buff immunity and essentially reduce the effectiveness of these champions.
I have been feeling that my recent comments are leaning into what can be classified as conspiratorial, and that is unfortunate.
My guess is that this is simply a design decision to prioritize the “neutralize (Y/N)?” question before the “immune (Y/N)?” question.
It seems odd to me, but when asked whether SM2099 is immune to buffs, I suppose the design team would answer “it depends on what the definition of ‘immune’ is.”
I’m now taking a closer look at other champs with similar unique abilities (Guardian, CB) that don’t trigger but “would have” triggered to make sure I’m comfortable with those abilities being amended by technicality before I rank any further.
The game is riddled with cautionary tales of descriptions and interactions (and interpretations thereof) plucked from somewhere down the rabbit hole: Drax and Moleman are just the current bookends, and SM2099 may be in that group as well. Why I or anyone else comes to these forums looking for clarity after nearly 8 years can only be described as derangement—the answers, when they do come, are often as halting and cryptic as the utterances of some fickle Delphic oracle.
Dr. Zola
The logic here is that you cannot be immune to what is not applied.
A rather crude example. But let’s say you are immune to tennis balls. Whenever a tennis ball is thrown at you and hits your face, you lift your arm up and wave.
Normally, someone throws a tennis ball at your face, it hits you and you wave.
But here, someone called Neutralise holds a tennis racket in between the ball and your face.
The ball is thrown at you, it hits the tennis racket and it never hits your face. You never raise your arm and wave, because you never got hit.
The tennis ball is the buff attempted to trigger, the racket is neutralise, you are immune to buffs and you waving your arm is pausing the debuffs.
It’s the same theory here, the buff attempts to be triggered and trigger the immunity, but neutralise stops the buff from ever triggering, so how can it trigger the immunity if it’s never been triggered itself?
I’ll add my diagram in of what I sent you on Line to explain it, because I think it does a good job explaining the logic here.
Here is Spidey dexing normally
Here is when neutralise is applied.
I understand that and agree that’s how it seems to be working.
But I would counter that you shouldn’t be able to neutralize something that never occurs. It appears to be a design decision—whether intended or stumbled upon—and I disagree with the order of operations and the logic underlying it.
Dr. Zola
I think you’re misunderstanding how it works when you say “you shouldn’t be able to neutralise something that never occurs”.
The buff *does* occur, it just triggers an immunity and doesn’t activate on the champion. There’s an important distinction between what you’re saying “a buff immune champion never has buffs occurring” and what actually happens which is “a buff immune champion has buffs occurring, but they don’t actually stay on the character because they’re immune”
Like how when you use wolverine and apply a bleed to colossus, the bleed does occur but it triggers an immunity. If it never occurred, how would you get an immune call out?
It’s exactly what Cat said. “‘having a buff’ and ‘gaining a buff’ are separate interactions.”
Colossus can be subject to the “gaining a bleed debuff”, at which point he is immune to it so his immunity triggers. He is not subject to having a bleed debuff which is why it doesn’t ever get put on him.
“Prevent” is the operative term in SM99 description. What does the word mean if not “stop from occurring”?
Dr. Zola
Exactly what you think it means. But how does Spidey’s immunity prevent a buff that never got triggered?
How does a buff get neutralized if it was prevented from triggering in the first place?
We can go around and around here. The design team decided to shoehorn neutralize into the split second a hypothetical buff doesn’t happen. It is what it is.
I was part joking with @Cat_Murdock earlier, but the answer turns out to be as simple as “just ‘cus.”
Dr. Zola
I think the thing here is that you’re arguing here for what it *should* be in your opinion. And I’m arguing for what it actually is.
This is the way it’s turned out with how the game is coded, there are thousands of interactions in the game that could have gone either way and this game is what we’ve ended up with.
Why should it be the way you prefer? Both ways make equally logical sense, but you just prefer it your way. I get that, and from a player perspective I would prefer that too as a Spidey user. But unfortunately that’s not a good enough reason for how the game to work. There’s plenty of things I would prefer in the game, doesn’t make them illogical.
I’m not arguing “it should be this” or “it should be that”. You’re arguing that it’s illogical to be one way, but I strongly disagree.
Not exactly. You’re arguing for how it shows up in game, which is akin to the Moleman fracas. Either words mean something or they don’t, but if they don’t then don’t even release champ descriptions and just let us play with them to figure out how they work.
Your Colossus example: his immunity “protects” him from bleeds. Not same as “prevents.” Team should stop playing fast and loose with the way things are worded.
Dr. Zola
Apologies if my posts have led you to believe otherwise, but I absolutely am not arguing for how it shows up in game, as you have said. (edit, assuming by “shows up in game” you mean how it’s written)
I am arguing that the logic is sound for either way, if Kabam would like to update the description to clarify what happens then that’s absolutely fine by me. I’m all for more clarity, so if that’s your only point then we are in agreement.
So, is your issue with the wording, or how it actually works? (which is what your posts seem to imply, apologies if I’ve misunderstood).
From what I understand from the explanation, “having a buff” and “gaining a buff” are separate interactions. S99 and Red can’t “have a buff” but they aren’t immune to the “gain” aspect. Like how S99 refreshes Debuffs whenever he would gain a buff, or RG gains shield charges when he would gain a buff. The neutralize is triggering off the “would gain” which is also why his debuff pausing won’t activate while he’s affected by it. I use S99 religiously so I wish the interaction here was different for sure, but to the best of my knowledge that’s kinda what’s going on.
- did a buff get prevented by his immunity? No, because the buff was actually prevented by the neutralise, he would never have gotten the buff to trigger his immunity. It doesn’t matter that he was immune, because that’s later on in the flow chart
But why should that be the order of precedence? The abilities of a specific champion are the only constant in any fight in which that champion is used, those abilities should hold water in any situation where similar, extra abilities are competing.
I guess what I'm asking is have there been similar instances/interactions in the past that would at the very least show this kind of prioritisation in action, or if it has been coded specifically to counter buff immunity and essentially reduce the effectiveness of these champions.
I have been feeling that my recent comments are leaning into what can be classified as conspiratorial, and that is unfortunate.
My guess is that this is simply a design decision to prioritize the “neutralize (Y/N)?” question before the “immune (Y/N)?” question.
It seems odd to me, but when asked whether SM2099 is immune to buffs, I suppose the design team would answer “it depends on what the definition of ‘immune’ is.”
I’m now taking a closer look at other champs with similar unique abilities (Guardian, CB) that don’t trigger but “would have” triggered to make sure I’m comfortable with those abilities being amended by technicality before I rank any further.
The game is riddled with cautionary tales of descriptions and interactions (and interpretations thereof) plucked from somewhere down the rabbit hole: Drax and Moleman are just the current bookends, and SM2099 may be in that group as well. Why I or anyone else comes to these forums looking for clarity after nearly 8 years can only be described as derangement—the answers, when they do come, are often as halting and cryptic as the utterances of some fickle Delphic oracle.
Dr. Zola
The logic here is that you cannot be immune to what is not applied.
A rather crude example. But let’s say you are immune to tennis balls. Whenever a tennis ball is thrown at you and hits your face, you lift your arm up and wave.
Normally, someone throws a tennis ball at your face, it hits you and you wave.
But here, someone called Neutralise holds a tennis racket in between the ball and your face.
The ball is thrown at you, it hits the tennis racket and it never hits your face. You never raise your arm and wave, because you never got hit.
The tennis ball is the buff attempted to trigger, the racket is neutralise, you are immune to buffs and you waving your arm is pausing the debuffs.
It’s the same theory here, the buff attempts to be triggered and trigger the immunity, but neutralise stops the buff from ever triggering, so how can it trigger the immunity if it’s never been triggered itself?
I’ll add my diagram in of what I sent you on Line to explain it, because I think it does a good job explaining the logic here.
Here is Spidey dexing normally
Here is when neutralise is applied.
I understand that and agree that’s how it seems to be working.
But I would counter that you shouldn’t be able to neutralize something that never occurs. It appears to be a design decision—whether intended or stumbled upon—and I disagree with the order of operations and the logic underlying it.
Dr. Zola
I think you’re misunderstanding how it works when you say “you shouldn’t be able to neutralise something that never occurs”.
The buff *does* occur, it just triggers an immunity and doesn’t activate on the champion. There’s an important distinction between what you’re saying “a buff immune champion never has buffs occurring” and what actually happens which is “a buff immune champion has buffs occurring, but they don’t actually stay on the character because they’re immune”
Like how when you use wolverine and apply a bleed to colossus, the bleed does occur but it triggers an immunity. If it never occurred, how would you get an immune call out?
It’s exactly what Cat said. “‘having a buff’ and ‘gaining a buff’ are separate interactions.”
Colossus can be subject to the “gaining a bleed debuff”, at which point he is immune to it so his immunity triggers. He is not subject to having a bleed debuff which is why it doesn’t ever get put on him.
“Prevent” is the operative term in SM99 description. What does the word mean if not “stop from occurring”?
Dr. Zola
Exactly what you think it means. But how does Spidey’s immunity prevent a buff that never got triggered?
How does a buff get neutralized if it was prevented from triggering in the first place?
We can go around and around here. The design team decided to shoehorn neutralize into the split second a hypothetical buff doesn’t happen. It is what it is.
I was part joking with @Cat_Murdock earlier, but the answer turns out to be as simple as “just ‘cus.”
Dr. Zola
I think the thing here is that you’re arguing here for what it *should* be in your opinion. And I’m arguing for what it actually is.
This is the way it’s turned out with how the game is coded, there are thousands of interactions in the game that could have gone either way and this game is what we’ve ended up with.
Why should it be the way you prefer? Both ways make equally logical sense, but you just prefer it your way. I get that, and from a player perspective I would prefer that too as a Spidey user. But unfortunately that’s not a good enough reason for how the game to work. There’s plenty of things I would prefer in the game, doesn’t make them illogical.
I’m not arguing “it should be this” or “it should be that”. You’re arguing that it’s illogical to be one way, but I strongly disagree.
Not exactly. You’re arguing for how it shows up in game, which is akin to the Moleman fracas. Either words mean something or they don’t, but if they don’t then don’t even release champ descriptions and just let us play with them to figure out how they work.
Your Colossus example: his immunity “protects” him from bleeds. Not same as “prevents.” Team should stop playing fast and loose with the way things are worded.
Dr. Zola
Apologies if my posts have led you to believe otherwise, but I absolutely am not arguing for how it shows up in game, as you have said.
I am arguing that the logic is sound for either way, if Kabam would like to update the description to clarify what happens then that’s absolutely fine by me. I’m all for more clarity, so if that’s your only point then we are in agreement.
So, is your issue with the wording, or how it actually works? (which is what your posts seem to imply, apologies if I’ve misunderstood).
I suppose I’m against how it works given the wording specific to SM2099. I don’t play RG at all but I do play SM2099.
His kit “prevents” buffs from triggering on him. Tying it all up in the language of “immunities” clouds the issue.
From what I understand from the explanation, “having a buff” and “gaining a buff” are separate interactions. S99 and Red can’t “have a buff” but they aren’t immune to the “gain” aspect. Like how S99 refreshes Debuffs whenever he would gain a buff, or RG gains shield charges when he would gain a buff. The neutralize is triggering off the “would gain” which is also why his debuff pausing won’t activate while he’s affected by it. I use S99 religiously so I wish the interaction here was different for sure, but to the best of my knowledge that’s kinda what’s going on.
- did a buff get prevented by his immunity? No, because the buff was actually prevented by the neutralise, he would never have gotten the buff to trigger his immunity. It doesn’t matter that he was immune, because that’s later on in the flow chart
But why should that be the order of precedence? The abilities of a specific champion are the only constant in any fight in which that champion is used, those abilities should hold water in any situation where similar, extra abilities are competing.
I guess what I'm asking is have there been similar instances/interactions in the past that would at the very least show this kind of prioritisation in action, or if it has been coded specifically to counter buff immunity and essentially reduce the effectiveness of these champions.
I have been feeling that my recent comments are leaning into what can be classified as conspiratorial, and that is unfortunate.
My guess is that this is simply a design decision to prioritize the “neutralize (Y/N)?” question before the “immune (Y/N)?” question.
It seems odd to me, but when asked whether SM2099 is immune to buffs, I suppose the design team would answer “it depends on what the definition of ‘immune’ is.”
I’m now taking a closer look at other champs with similar unique abilities (Guardian, CB) that don’t trigger but “would have” triggered to make sure I’m comfortable with those abilities being amended by technicality before I rank any further.
The game is riddled with cautionary tales of descriptions and interactions (and interpretations thereof) plucked from somewhere down the rabbit hole: Drax and Moleman are just the current bookends, and SM2099 may be in that group as well. Why I or anyone else comes to these forums looking for clarity after nearly 8 years can only be described as derangement—the answers, when they do come, are often as halting and cryptic as the utterances of some fickle Delphic oracle.
Dr. Zola
The logic here is that you cannot be immune to what is not applied.
A rather crude example. But let’s say you are immune to tennis balls. Whenever a tennis ball is thrown at you and hits your face, you lift your arm up and wave.
Normally, someone throws a tennis ball at your face, it hits you and you wave.
But here, someone called Neutralise holds a tennis racket in between the ball and your face.
The ball is thrown at you, it hits the tennis racket and it never hits your face. You never raise your arm and wave, because you never got hit.
The tennis ball is the buff attempted to trigger, the racket is neutralise, you are immune to buffs and you waving your arm is pausing the debuffs.
It’s the same theory here, the buff attempts to be triggered and trigger the immunity, but neutralise stops the buff from ever triggering, so how can it trigger the immunity if it’s never been triggered itself?
I’ll add my diagram in of what I sent you on Line to explain it, because I think it does a good job explaining the logic here.
Here is Spidey dexing normally
Here is when neutralise is applied.
I understand that and agree that’s how it seems to be working.
But I would counter that you shouldn’t be able to neutralize something that never occurs. It appears to be a design decision—whether intended or stumbled upon—and I disagree with the order of operations and the logic underlying it.
Dr. Zola
I think you’re misunderstanding how it works when you say “you shouldn’t be able to neutralise something that never occurs”.
The buff *does* occur, it just triggers an immunity and doesn’t activate on the champion. There’s an important distinction between what you’re saying “a buff immune champion never has buffs occurring” and what actually happens which is “a buff immune champion has buffs occurring, but they don’t actually stay on the character because they’re immune”
Like how when you use wolverine and apply a bleed to colossus, the bleed does occur but it triggers an immunity. If it never occurred, how would you get an immune call out?
It’s exactly what Cat said. “‘having a buff’ and ‘gaining a buff’ are separate interactions.”
Colossus can be subject to the “gaining a bleed debuff”, at which point he is immune to it so his immunity triggers. He is not subject to having a bleed debuff which is why it doesn’t ever get put on him.
“Prevent” is the operative term in SM99 description. What does the word mean if not “stop from occurring”?
Dr. Zola
Exactly what you think it means. But how does Spidey’s immunity prevent a buff that never got triggered?
How does a buff get neutralized if it was prevented from triggering in the first place?
We can go around and around here. The design team decided to shoehorn neutralize into the split second a hypothetical buff doesn’t happen. It is what it is.
I was part joking with @Cat_Murdock earlier, but the answer turns out to be as simple as “just ‘cus.”
Dr. Zola
I think the thing here is that you’re arguing here for what it *should* be in your opinion. And I’m arguing for what it actually is.
This is the way it’s turned out with how the game is coded, there are thousands of interactions in the game that could have gone either way and this game is what we’ve ended up with.
Why should it be the way you prefer? Both ways make equally logical sense, but you just prefer it your way. I get that, and from a player perspective I would prefer that too as a Spidey user. But unfortunately that’s not a good enough reason for how the game to work. There’s plenty of things I would prefer in the game, doesn’t make them illogical.
I’m not arguing “it should be this” or “it should be that”. You’re arguing that it’s illogical to be one way, but I strongly disagree.
Not exactly. You’re arguing for how it shows up in game, which is akin to the Moleman fracas. Either words mean something or they don’t, but if they don’t then don’t even release champ descriptions and just let us play with them to figure out how they work.
Your Colossus example: his immunity “protects” him from bleeds. Not same as “prevents.” Team should stop playing fast and loose with the way things are worded.
Dr. Zola
Apologies if my posts have led you to believe otherwise, but I absolutely am not arguing for how it shows up in game, as you have said.
I am arguing that the logic is sound for either way, if Kabam would like to update the description to clarify what happens then that’s absolutely fine by me. I’m all for more clarity, so if that’s your only point then we are in agreement.
So, is your issue with the wording, or how it actually works? (which is what your posts seem to imply, apologies if I’ve misunderstood).
I suppose I’m against how it works given the wording specific to SM2099. I don’t play RG at all but I do play SM2099.
His kit “prevents” buffs from triggering on him. Tying it all up in the language of “immunities” clouds the issue.
Dr. Zola
Whether you call it preventing or immunity, it’s the same result.
Spidey pauses debuffs if and only if *his prevention/immunity is the thing that stopped the buff triggering *.
If something else stops the buff from triggering, then he cannot pause his debuffs.
This Neutralize - Buff Immunity interaction makes me wonder - does Domino have the same effect on Buff Immunity? If RG dexes to 'fail to gain Precision', does Domino's signature ability cause damage (like Wiccan's Incinerate)
As I understand this interaction, it is working as described.
Neutralize does something very specific. It reduces the ability accuracy of buffs.
Immunity also does something very specific. It blocks effects from happening that otherwise would happen.
Now, when you dex with Red Guardian, the dexterity mastery gives him a 100% chance to gain a buff. When that buff triggers, it should place a buff effect on RG, but RG’s immunity blocks it. However, the buff still *triggered*. That’s important.
Wiccan does not care if a target is immune to buffs or not. He doesn’t care if the buff “wouldn’t have worked anyway”. His ability states if an ability fails *because of reduced ability accuracy* he applies his incinerate. If he neutralizes his opponent, buffs will start to fail to trigger because of reduced AA, and that includes the precision buff from Dexterity.
It doesn’t matter if the target is immune to buffs, nor should it matter. Champs like Red Guardian do not exist in a separate universe where buffs don’t exist. They still exist. Their immunity just blocks them. IF they are triggered in the first place.
Colossus is immune to bleed. That does not mean his ability magically rewrites opponents so their bleed abilities no longer exist. They still exist. They still trigger. And then his immunity block them. Dexterity still exists. It still can trigger buffs on *any* champ with Dexterity. *Some* champs have an immunity to those buffs. Which kicks in *if they trigger*. But immunity doesn’t magically prevent triggering.
I understand some people think immunity to buffs means they can pretend buffs just don’t exist for that champion. But that’s not how the game works, nor how it is described or implied to work. Immunity doesn’t rewrite the laws of physics of the game. Immunity blocks things that actually exist. It prevents them from taking effect. It doesn’t magically change history so they never happened. The game first decides if a buff comes into existence, and then decides if the target is immune to it.
If immunity prevented effects from even triggering, then champs Like Colossus could not gain benefits from his immunities preventing an effect. Because if immunity to bleed meant that all bleed effects just didn’t even attempt to be triggered, they would never exist for his immunity to protect him from.
Cannot agree with this. If thats what you agree is happening, domino DOES NOT critical fail immunities, you DONT see her "failing" s99's and redguardians abilities to trigger dex, she fails their chances to refresh debuffs or gain ablation charges, sure. but NOT this immunity. It is an immunity for a reason. Wiccan's interaction here is BS and cannot be ka-splained away.
As a matter of fact, domino does fail Spidey’s immunities, so your premise is flawed.
See here there are no debuffs on domino, so nothing to pause. Spidey tries to dex, but his buff fails, so his immunity isn’t triggered.
This is precisely the same situation as Wiccan.
Champ dexes, champ fails to trigger a buff because of a reason other than his immunity, champ does not pause debuffs
And see here, this is when there is a debuff on domino. I tried to dex her heavy and my dex failed, so the debuff wasn’t paused.
As I understand this interaction, it is working as described.
Neutralize does something very specific. It reduces the ability accuracy of buffs.
Immunity also does something very specific. It blocks effects from happening that otherwise would happen.
Now, when you dex with Red Guardian, the dexterity mastery gives him a 100% chance to gain a buff. When that buff triggers, it should place a buff effect on RG, but RG’s immunity blocks it. However, the buff still *triggered*. That’s important.
Wiccan does not care if a target is immune to buffs or not. He doesn’t care if the buff “wouldn’t have worked anyway”. His ability states if an ability fails *because of reduced ability accuracy* he applies his incinerate. If he neutralizes his opponent, buffs will start to fail to trigger because of reduced AA, and that includes the precision buff from Dexterity.
It doesn’t matter if the target is immune to buffs, nor should it matter. Champs like Red Guardian do not exist in a separate universe where buffs don’t exist. They still exist. Their immunity just blocks them. IF they are triggered in the first place.
Colossus is immune to bleed. That does not mean his ability magically rewrites opponents so their bleed abilities no longer exist. They still exist. They still trigger. And then his immunity block them. Dexterity still exists. It still can trigger buffs on *any* champ with Dexterity. *Some* champs have an immunity to those buffs. Which kicks in *if they trigger*. But immunity doesn’t magically prevent triggering.
I understand some people think immunity to buffs means they can pretend buffs just don’t exist for that champion. But that’s not how the game works, nor how it is described or implied to work. Immunity doesn’t rewrite the laws of physics of the game. Immunity blocks things that actually exist. It prevents them from taking effect. It doesn’t magically change history so they never happened. The game first decides if a buff comes into existence, and then decides if the target is immune to it.
If immunity prevented effects from even triggering, then champs Like Colossus could not gain benefits from his immunities preventing an effect. Because if immunity to bleed meant that all bleed effects just didn’t even attempt to be triggered, they would never exist for his immunity to protect him from.
Cannot agree with this. If thats what you agree is happening, domino DOES NOT critical fail immunities, you DONT see her "failing" s99's and redguardians abilities to trigger dex, she fails their chances to refresh debuffs or gain ablation charges, sure. but NOT this immunity. It is an immunity for a reason. Wiccan's interaction here is BS and cannot be ka-splained away.
As a matter of fact, domino does fail Spidey’s immunities, so your premise is flawed.
See here there are no debuffs on domino, so nothing to pause. Spidey tries to dex, but his buff fails, so his immunity isn’t triggered.
This is precisely the same situation as Wiccan.
Champ dexes, champ fails to trigger a buff because of a reason other than his immunity, champ does not pause debuffs
And see here, this is when there is a debuff on domino. I tried to dex her heavy and my dex failed, so the debuff wasn’t paused.
This logic all holds up.
It will be interesting to see if she crit fails colossus bleed or incinerate immunity. Or him gaining armor ups from said immunities.
As I understand this interaction, it is working as described.
Neutralize does something very specific. It reduces the ability accuracy of buffs.
Immunity also does something very specific. It blocks effects from happening that otherwise would happen.
Now, when you dex with Red Guardian, the dexterity mastery gives him a 100% chance to gain a buff. When that buff triggers, it should place a buff effect on RG, but RG’s immunity blocks it. However, the buff still *triggered*. That’s important.
Wiccan does not care if a target is immune to buffs or not. He doesn’t care if the buff “wouldn’t have worked anyway”. His ability states if an ability fails *because of reduced ability accuracy* he applies his incinerate. If he neutralizes his opponent, buffs will start to fail to trigger because of reduced AA, and that includes the precision buff from Dexterity.
It doesn’t matter if the target is immune to buffs, nor should it matter. Champs like Red Guardian do not exist in a separate universe where buffs don’t exist. They still exist. Their immunity just blocks them. IF they are triggered in the first place.
Colossus is immune to bleed. That does not mean his ability magically rewrites opponents so their bleed abilities no longer exist. They still exist. They still trigger. And then his immunity block them. Dexterity still exists. It still can trigger buffs on *any* champ with Dexterity. *Some* champs have an immunity to those buffs. Which kicks in *if they trigger*. But immunity doesn’t magically prevent triggering.
I understand some people think immunity to buffs means they can pretend buffs just don’t exist for that champion. But that’s not how the game works, nor how it is described or implied to work. Immunity doesn’t rewrite the laws of physics of the game. Immunity blocks things that actually exist. It prevents them from taking effect. It doesn’t magically change history so they never happened. The game first decides if a buff comes into existence, and then decides if the target is immune to it.
If immunity prevented effects from even triggering, then champs Like Colossus could not gain benefits from his immunities preventing an effect. Because if immunity to bleed meant that all bleed effects just didn’t even attempt to be triggered, they would never exist for his immunity to protect him from.
Cannot agree with this. If thats what you agree is happening, domino DOES NOT critical fail immunities, you DONT see her "failing" s99's and redguardians abilities to trigger dex, she fails their chances to refresh debuffs or gain ablation charges, sure. but NOT this immunity. It is an immunity for a reason. Wiccan's interaction here is BS and cannot be ka-splained away.
As a matter of fact, domino does fail Spidey’s immunities, so your premise is flawed.
See here there are no debuffs on domino, so nothing to pause. Spidey tries to dex, but his buff fails, so his immunity isn’t triggered.
This is precisely the same situation as Wiccan.
Champ dexes, champ fails to trigger a buff because of a reason other than his immunity, champ does not pause debuffs
And see here, this is when there is a debuff on domino. I tried to dex her heavy and my dex failed, so the debuff wasn’t paused.
This logic all holds up.
Immunities are absolutes, as we discussed i believe s99/ RG's "buff immunity" were coded as abilities and not immunities which causes them to fail, which makes no sense. You cannot bypass an immunity. AAR always works funky with "abilities" but not immunities. I like to think of it as a force of will sort of immunity, which i believe RG and S99 are not coded to be which is why this interaction is happening. Kabam should either go back an re code s99/RG to have an "immunity" or just state it as an ability which can be reduced. Of coruse they have left it all in the air, and im sure they did it this way to interact with s99's refresh ability, or RG's ablation charges. Mysterio was coded the right way, the callout should be IMMUNE, which it isnt.
From what I understand from the explanation, “having a buff” and “gaining a buff” are separate interactions. S99 and Red can’t “have a buff” but they aren’t immune to the “gain” aspect. Like how S99 refreshes Debuffs whenever he would gain a buff, or RG gains shield charges when he would gain a buff. The neutralize is triggering off the “would gain” which is also why his debuff pausing won’t activate while he’s affected by it. I use S99 religiously so I wish the interaction here was different for sure, but to the best of my knowledge that’s kinda what’s going on.
- did a buff get prevented by his immunity? No, because the buff was actually prevented by the neutralise, he would never have gotten the buff to trigger his immunity. It doesn’t matter that he was immune, because that’s later on in the flow chart
But why should that be the order of precedence? The abilities of a specific champion are the only constant in any fight in which that champion is used, those abilities should hold water in any situation where similar, extra abilities are competing.
I guess what I'm asking is have there been similar instances/interactions in the past that would at the very least show this kind of prioritisation in action, or if it has been coded specifically to counter buff immunity and essentially reduce the effectiveness of these champions.
I have been feeling that my recent comments are leaning into what can be classified as conspiratorial, and that is unfortunate.
My guess is that this is simply a design decision to prioritize the “neutralize (Y/N)?” question before the “immune (Y/N)?” question.
It seems odd to me, but when asked whether SM2099 is immune to buffs, I suppose the design team would answer “it depends on what the definition of ‘immune’ is.”
I’m now taking a closer look at other champs with similar unique abilities (Guardian, CB) that don’t trigger but “would have” triggered to make sure I’m comfortable with those abilities being amended by technicality before I rank any further.
The game is riddled with cautionary tales of descriptions and interactions (and interpretations thereof) plucked from somewhere down the rabbit hole: Drax and Moleman are just the current bookends, and SM2099 may be in that group as well. Why I or anyone else comes to these forums looking for clarity after nearly 8 years can only be described as derangement—the answers, when they do come, are often as halting and cryptic as the utterances of some fickle Delphic oracle.
Dr. Zola
The logic here is that you cannot be immune to what is not applied.
A rather crude example. But let’s say you are immune to tennis balls. Whenever a tennis ball is thrown at you and hits your face, you lift your arm up and wave.
Normally, someone throws a tennis ball at your face, it hits you and you wave.
But here, someone called Neutralise holds a tennis racket in between the ball and your face.
The ball is thrown at you, it hits the tennis racket and it never hits your face. You never raise your arm and wave, because you never got hit.
The tennis ball is the buff attempted to trigger, the racket is neutralise, you are immune to buffs and you waving your arm is pausing the debuffs.
It’s the same theory here, the buff attempts to be triggered and trigger the immunity, but neutralise stops the buff from ever triggering, so how can it trigger the immunity if it’s never been triggered itself?
I’ll add my diagram in of what I sent you on Line to explain it, because I think it does a good job explaining the logic here.
Here is Spidey dexing normally
Here is when neutralise is applied.
I understand that and agree that’s how it seems to be working.
But I would counter that you shouldn’t be able to neutralize something that never occurs. It appears to be a design decision—whether intended or stumbled upon—and I disagree with the order of operations and the logic underlying it.
Dr. Zola
I think you’re misunderstanding how it works when you say “you shouldn’t be able to neutralise something that never occurs”.
The buff *does* occur, it just triggers an immunity and doesn’t activate on the champion. There’s an important distinction between what you’re saying “a buff immune champion never has buffs occurring” and what actually happens which is “a buff immune champion has buffs occurring, but they don’t actually stay on the character because they’re immune”
Like how when you use wolverine and apply a bleed to colossus, the bleed does occur but it triggers an immunity. If it never occurred, how would you get an immune call out?
It’s exactly what Cat said. “‘having a buff’ and ‘gaining a buff’ are separate interactions.”
Colossus can be subject to the “gaining a bleed debuff”, at which point he is immune to it so his immunity triggers. He is not subject to having a bleed debuff which is why it doesn’t ever get put on him.
“Prevent” is the operative term in SM99 description. What does the word mean if not “stop from occurring”?
Dr. Zola
Exactly what you think it means. But how does Spidey’s immunity prevent a buff that never got triggered?
How does a buff get neutralized if it was prevented from triggering in the first place?
We can go around and around here. The design team decided to shoehorn neutralize into the split second a hypothetical buff doesn’t happen. It is what it is.
I was part joking with @Cat_Murdock earlier, but the answer turns out to be as simple as “just ‘cus.”
Dr. Zola
I think the thing here is that you’re arguing here for what it *should* be in your opinion. And I’m arguing for what it actually is.
This is the way it’s turned out with how the game is coded, there are thousands of interactions in the game that could have gone either way and this game is what we’ve ended up with.
Why should it be the way you prefer? Both ways make equally logical sense, but you just prefer it your way. I get that, and from a player perspective I would prefer that too as a Spidey user. But unfortunately that’s not a good enough reason for how the game to work. There’s plenty of things I would prefer in the game, doesn’t make them illogical.
I’m not arguing “it should be this” or “it should be that”. You’re arguing that it’s illogical to be one way, but I strongly disagree.
Not exactly. You’re arguing for how it shows up in game, which is akin to the Moleman fracas. Either words mean something or they don’t, but if they don’t then don’t even release champ descriptions and just let us play with them to figure out how they work.
Your Colossus example: his immunity “protects” him from bleeds. Not same as “prevents.” Team should stop playing fast and loose with the way things are worded.
Dr. Zola
Agreed - the text in champs abilities is supposed to convey how they are intended to work. If the coding is not allowing that it should be fixed. If the coding is limited and thus not acting according to the intent then they should improve it.
Wiccan's abilities seem designed to deal with champion buffs (which mainly but not only works vs the cosmic class advantage mystics have) in same way Tigra does (through her neutralise).
So my question is currently, when Tigra adds her neutralise to RG or SM 2099 do they get ruptured if a buff doesn't apply due to their immunities?
Ok, @pseudosane ’s post on domino got me thinking, and we came to the same conclusion at the same time in our line chat.
We think buff immunity could have been coded differently than bleed immunity.
When you dex with Spidey, it doesn’t say “immune” it says dex. The post I showed before showed Domino failing Spidey’s dex which shouldn’t be able to happen. Like, Domino applying a bleed to a champion who’s bleed immune can’t cause crit fail just because of their immunity. (Correct me if I’m wrong, I just did a 200 hit fight against dragon Man and it didn’t crit fail an immune call out once)
Bleed immune champions have bleed immunity as an absolute. It seems that buff immune champions may not have their immunity as an absolute which has been the premise of my argument throughout the post.
When @Cat_Murdock told us the developers said this “ having a buff” and “gaining a buff” are separate interactions. S99 and Red can’t “have a buff” but they aren’t immune to the “gain” aspect.” I assumed that this was what happened for all immunities. So when a bleed immune tries to gain a bleed debuff, that’s fine, but they cannot “have a bleed debuff”.
But if that’s the case, then domino should be able to make dragon man fail the “gaining a bleed” aspect. Like she can make Spidey fail the “gaining a buff aspect”.
So the question now is, is buff immunity coded differently than bleed immunity?
There’s nothing to suggest that in the description, but the two types of immunities are functioning differently in game, in reference to domino’s crit failure. And if the two immunities function differently there, then perhaps they function differently when subject to something like neutralise. If *that* is the case, then I think there is something wrong here. And I will have to change my mind back to the beginning, feels like the damn hokey pokey.
TLDR: Ok, so here’s where I am now. If Buff immunity is coded differently to bleed immunity, then I think it should be changed. I’m fine with the logic being consistent all around, even if it’s not favourable to me. I’m not ok with it being inconsistent
@Kabam Jax could you have a look into this for us, and ask the powers that be whether Spidey's buff immunity is coded the same as all the other immunities?
Forums mods don’t seem to weigh in on bugs anymore, they used to check with the team about interactions like this
This isn't the Bugs Section.
It can only be in the Bugs Section once someone from Kabam confirms it is one
I already put this in the bug section for Spidey, i dont believe i ever got a response, doesnt make sense, his immune to buffs works like immune to bleed or poison, so if you would go to put a poison and they are immune to it, you wouldnt place a debuff on someone that received a poison if they never received the poison to begin with. Unless im really misunderstanding this interaction
As I understand this interaction, it is working as described.
Neutralize does something very specific. It reduces the ability accuracy of buffs.
Immunity also does something very specific. It blocks effects from happening that otherwise would happen.
Now, when you dex with Red Guardian, the dexterity mastery gives him a 100% chance to gain a buff. When that buff triggers, it should place a buff effect on RG, but RG’s immunity blocks it. However, the buff still *triggered*. That’s important.
Wiccan does not care if a target is immune to buffs or not. He doesn’t care if the buff “wouldn’t have worked anyway”. His ability states if an ability fails *because of reduced ability accuracy* he applies his incinerate. If he neutralizes his opponent, buffs will start to fail to trigger because of reduced AA, and that includes the precision buff from Dexterity.
It doesn’t matter if the target is immune to buffs, nor should it matter. Champs like Red Guardian do not exist in a separate universe where buffs don’t exist. They still exist. Their immunity just blocks them. IF they are triggered in the first place.
Colossus is immune to bleed. That does not mean his ability magically rewrites opponents so their bleed abilities no longer exist. They still exist. They still trigger. And then his immunity block them. Dexterity still exists. It still can trigger buffs on *any* champ with Dexterity. *Some* champs have an immunity to those buffs. Which kicks in *if they trigger*. But immunity doesn’t magically prevent triggering.
I understand some people think immunity to buffs means they can pretend buffs just don’t exist for that champion. But that’s not how the game works, nor how it is described or implied to work. Immunity doesn’t rewrite the laws of physics of the game. Immunity blocks things that actually exist. It prevents them from taking effect. It doesn’t magically change history so they never happened. The game first decides if a buff comes into existence, and then decides if the target is immune to it.
If immunity prevented effects from even triggering, then champs Like Colossus could not gain benefits from his immunities preventing an effect. Because if immunity to bleed meant that all bleed effects just didn’t even attempt to be triggered, they would never exist for his immunity to protect him from.
Cannot agree with this. If thats what you agree is happening, domino DOES NOT critical fail immunities, you DONT see her "failing" s99's and redguardians abilities to trigger dex, she fails their chances to refresh debuffs or gain ablation charges, sure. but NOT this immunity. It is an immunity for a reason. Wiccan's interaction here is BS and cannot be ka-splained away.
As a matter of fact, domino does fail Spidey’s immunities, so your premise is flawed.
See here there are no debuffs on domino, so nothing to pause. Spidey tries to dex, but his buff fails, so his immunity isn’t triggered.
This is precisely the same situation as Wiccan.
Champ dexes, champ fails to trigger a buff because of a reason other than his immunity, champ does not pause debuffs
And see here, this is when there is a debuff on domino. I tried to dex her heavy and my dex failed, so the debuff wasn’t paused.
This logic all holds up.
Immunities are absolutes, as we discussed i believe s99/ RG's "buff immunity" were coded as abilities and not immunities which causes them to fail, which makes no sense. You cannot bypass an immunity. AAR always works funky with "abilities" but not immunities. I like to think of it as a force of will sort of immunity, which i believe RG and S99 are not coded to be which is why this interaction is happening. Kabam should either go back an re code s99/RG to have an "immunity" or just state it as an ability which can be reduced. Of coruse they have left it all in the air, and im sure they did it this way to interact with s99's refresh ability, or RG's ablation charges. Mysterio was coded the right way, the callout should be IMMUNE, which it isnt.
Immunities are mere status effects that are gained at the beginning of the fight. It's even possible to strip champs of this status effect like we saw with strikers bug
As I understand this interaction, it is working as described.
Neutralize does something very specific. It reduces the ability accuracy of buffs.
Immunity also does something very specific. It blocks effects from happening that otherwise would happen.
Now, when you dex with Red Guardian, the dexterity mastery gives him a 100% chance to gain a buff. When that buff triggers, it should place a buff effect on RG, but RG’s immunity blocks it. However, the buff still *triggered*. That’s important.
Wiccan does not care if a target is immune to buffs or not. He doesn’t care if the buff “wouldn’t have worked anyway”. His ability states if an ability fails *because of reduced ability accuracy* he applies his incinerate. If he neutralizes his opponent, buffs will start to fail to trigger because of reduced AA, and that includes the precision buff from Dexterity.
It doesn’t matter if the target is immune to buffs, nor should it matter. Champs like Red Guardian do not exist in a separate universe where buffs don’t exist. They still exist. Their immunity just blocks them. IF they are triggered in the first place.
Colossus is immune to bleed. That does not mean his ability magically rewrites opponents so their bleed abilities no longer exist. They still exist. They still trigger. And then his immunity block them. Dexterity still exists. It still can trigger buffs on *any* champ with Dexterity. *Some* champs have an immunity to those buffs. Which kicks in *if they trigger*. But immunity doesn’t magically prevent triggering.
I understand some people think immunity to buffs means they can pretend buffs just don’t exist for that champion. But that’s not how the game works, nor how it is described or implied to work. Immunity doesn’t rewrite the laws of physics of the game. Immunity blocks things that actually exist. It prevents them from taking effect. It doesn’t magically change history so they never happened. The game first decides if a buff comes into existence, and then decides if the target is immune to it.
If immunity prevented effects from even triggering, then champs Like Colossus could not gain benefits from his immunities preventing an effect. Because if immunity to bleed meant that all bleed effects just didn’t even attempt to be triggered, they would never exist for his immunity to protect him from.
Cannot agree with this. If thats what you agree is happening, domino DOES NOT critical fail immunities, you DONT see her "failing" s99's and redguardians abilities to trigger dex, she fails their chances to refresh debuffs or gain ablation charges, sure. but NOT this immunity. It is an immunity for a reason. Wiccan's interaction here is BS and cannot be ka-splained away.
As a matter of fact, domino does fail Spidey’s immunities, so your premise is flawed.
See here there are no debuffs on domino, so nothing to pause. Spidey tries to dex, but his buff fails, so his immunity isn’t triggered.
This is precisely the same situation as Wiccan.
Champ dexes, champ fails to trigger a buff because of a reason other than his immunity, champ does not pause debuffs
And see here, this is when there is a debuff on domino. I tried to dex her heavy and my dex failed, so the debuff wasn’t paused.
This logic all holds up.
Immunities are absolutes, as we discussed i believe s99/ RG's "buff immunity" were coded as abilities and not immunities which causes them to fail, which makes no sense. You cannot bypass an immunity. AAR always works funky with "abilities" but not immunities. I like to think of it as a force of will sort of immunity, which i believe RG and S99 are not coded to be which is why this interaction is happening. Kabam should either go back an re code s99/RG to have an "immunity" or just state it as an ability which can be reduced. Of coruse they have left it all in the air, and im sure they did it this way to interact with s99's refresh ability, or RG's ablation charges. Mysterio was coded the right way, the callout should be IMMUNE, which it isnt.
This is a very good point and meshes well with Bittersteel's.
So the interaction between Wiccan and these champs is working correctly. Some folks in here were correct in their explanations, but I just wanted to clarify things. Red Guardian and Spidey 2099's Buff immunity only comes into play when an attempt to apply a Buff would otherwise succeed, at which point the immunity prevents the Buff. But Neutralize prevents the attempt from working in the first place, so there's nothing for the Buff immunity to prevent by the time it could trigger.
Wiccan applies an Incinerate when an "opponent's ability fails due to reduced Ability Accuracy". Since Neutralize reduces ability accuracy and causes the ability (Dex) to fail before the immunity can trigger, the Incinerate is applied. Hope that helps to clarify this interaction a bit.
So the interaction between Wiccan and these champs is working correctly. Some folks in here were correct in their explanations, but I just wanted to clarify things. Red Guardian and Spidey 2099's Buff immunity only comes into play when an attempt to apply a Buff would otherwise succeed, at which point the immunity prevents the Buff. But Neutralize prevents the attempt from working in the first place, so there's nothing for the Buff immunity to prevent by the time it could trigger.
Wiccan applies an Incinerate when an "opponent's ability fails due to reduced Ability Accuracy". Since Neutralize reduces ability accuracy and causes the ability (Dex) to fail before the immunity can trigger, the Incinerate is applied. Hope that helps to clarify this interaction a bit.
Appreciate the clarification Zibiit. That’s what I thought happened. Could you confirm that Spidey 2099’s buff immunity works the same as other immunities?
The interaction with Domino’s critical failure could be due to the dex buff failing (which is a separate ability, not just a passive immunity), or due to him attempting to pause debuffs even when there aren’t any.
But since there’s a couple other weird things regarding his call out being “dexterity” instead of “immune” like other immunities, could we have confirmation that his immunity is coded correctly?
Comments
A rather crude example. But let’s say you are immune to tennis balls. Whenever a tennis ball is thrown at you and hits your face, you lift your arm up and wave.
Normally, someone throws a tennis ball at your face, it hits you and you wave.
But here, someone called Neutralise holds a tennis racket in between the ball and your face.
The ball is thrown at you, it hits the tennis racket and it never hits your face. You never raise your arm and wave, because you never got hit.
The tennis ball is the buff attempted to trigger, the racket is neutralise, you are immune to buffs and you waving your arm is pausing the debuffs.
It’s the same theory here, the buff attempts to be triggered and trigger the immunity, but neutralise stops the buff from ever triggering, so how can it trigger the immunity if it’s never been triggered itself?
I’ll add my diagram in of what I sent you on Line to explain it, because I think it does a good job explaining the logic here.
Here is Spidey dexing normally
Here is when neutralise is applied.
But I would counter that you shouldn’t be able to neutralize something that never occurs. It appears to be a design decision—whether intended or stumbled upon—and I disagree with the order of operations and the logic underlying it.
Dr. Zola
The buff *does* occur, it just triggers an immunity and doesn’t activate on the champion. There’s an important distinction between what you’re saying “a buff immune champion never has buffs occurring” and what actually happens which is “a buff immune champion has buffs occurring, but they don’t actually stay on the character because they’re immune”
Like how when you use wolverine and apply a bleed to colossus, the bleed does occur but it triggers an immunity. If it never occurred, how would you get an immune call out?
It’s exactly what Cat said. “‘having a buff’ and ‘gaining a buff’ are separate interactions.”
Colossus can be subject to the “gaining a bleed debuff”, at which point he is immune to it so his immunity triggers. He is not subject to having a bleed debuff which is why it doesn’t ever get put on him.
Dr. Zola
We can go around and around here. The design team decided to shoehorn neutralize into the split second a hypothetical buff doesn’t happen. It is what it is.
I was part joking with @Cat_Murdock earlier, but the answer turns out to be as simple as “just ‘cus.”
Dr. Zola
This is the way it’s turned out with how the game is coded, there are thousands of interactions in the game that could have gone either way and this game is what we’ve ended up with.
Why should it be the way you prefer? Both ways make equally logical sense, but you just prefer it your way. I get that, and from a player perspective I would prefer that too as a Spidey user. But unfortunately that’s not a good enough reason for how the game to work. There’s plenty of things I would prefer in the game, doesn’t make them illogical.
I’m not arguing “it should be this” or “it should be that”. You’re arguing that it’s illogical to be one way, but I strongly disagree.
Your Colossus example: his immunity “protects” him from bleeds. Not same as “prevents.” Team should stop playing fast and loose with the way things are worded.
Dr. Zola
I am arguing that the logic is sound for either way, if Kabam would like to update the description to clarify what happens then that’s absolutely fine by me. I’m all for more clarity, so if that’s your only point then we are in agreement.
So, is your issue with the wording, or how it actually works? (which is what your posts seem to imply, apologies if I’ve misunderstood).
His kit “prevents” buffs from triggering on him. Tying it all up in the language of “immunities” clouds the issue.
Dr. Zola
Spidey pauses debuffs if and only if *his prevention/immunity is the thing that stopped the buff triggering *.
If something else stops the buff from triggering, then he cannot pause his debuffs.
If RG dexes to 'fail to gain Precision', does Domino's signature ability cause damage (like Wiccan's Incinerate)
See here there are no debuffs on domino, so nothing to pause. Spidey tries to dex, but his buff fails, so his immunity isn’t triggered.
This is precisely the same situation as Wiccan.
Champ dexes, champ fails to trigger a buff because of a reason other than his immunity, champ does not pause debuffs
And see here, this is when there is a debuff on domino. I tried to dex her heavy and my dex failed, so the debuff wasn’t paused.
This logic all holds up.
You cannot bypass an immunity. AAR always works funky with "abilities" but not immunities. I like to think of it as a force of will sort of immunity, which i believe RG and S99 are not coded to be which is why this interaction is happening.
Kabam should either go back an re code s99/RG to have an "immunity" or just state it as an ability which can be reduced. Of coruse they have left it all in the air, and im sure they did it this way to interact with s99's refresh ability, or RG's ablation charges.
Mysterio was coded the right way, the callout should be IMMUNE, which it isnt.
Wiccan's abilities seem designed to deal with champion buffs (which mainly but not only works vs the cosmic class advantage mystics have) in same way Tigra does (through her neutralise).
So my question is currently, when Tigra adds her neutralise to RG or SM 2099 do they get ruptured if a buff doesn't apply due to their immunities?
We think buff immunity could have been coded differently than bleed immunity.
When you dex with Spidey, it doesn’t say “immune” it says dex. The post I showed before showed Domino failing Spidey’s dex which shouldn’t be able to happen. Like, Domino applying a bleed to a champion who’s bleed immune can’t cause crit fail just because of their immunity. (Correct me if I’m wrong, I just did a 200 hit fight against dragon
Man and it didn’t crit fail an immune call out once)
Bleed immune champions have bleed immunity as an absolute. It seems that buff immune champions may not have their immunity as an absolute which has been the premise of my argument throughout the post.
When @Cat_Murdock told us the developers said this “ having a buff” and “gaining a buff” are separate interactions. S99 and Red can’t “have a buff” but they aren’t immune to the “gain” aspect.” I assumed that this was what happened for all immunities. So when a bleed immune tries to gain a bleed debuff, that’s fine, but they cannot “have a bleed debuff”.
But if that’s the case, then domino should be able to make dragon man fail the “gaining a bleed” aspect. Like she can make Spidey fail the “gaining a buff aspect”.
So the question now is, is buff immunity coded differently than bleed immunity?
There’s nothing to suggest that in the description, but the two types of immunities are functioning differently in game, in reference to domino’s crit failure. And if the two immunities function differently there, then perhaps they function differently when subject to something like neutralise. If *that* is the case, then I think there is something wrong here. And I will have to change my mind back to the beginning, feels like the damn hokey pokey.
TLDR: Ok, so here’s where I am now. If Buff immunity is coded differently to bleed immunity, then I think it should be changed. I’m fine with the logic being consistent all around, even if it’s not favourable to me. I’m not ok with it being inconsistent
@Kabam Jax could you have a look into this for us, and ask the powers that be whether Spidey's buff immunity is coded the same as all the other immunities?
Wiccan applies an Incinerate when an "opponent's ability fails due to reduced Ability Accuracy". Since Neutralize reduces ability accuracy and causes the ability (Dex) to fail before the immunity can trigger, the Incinerate is applied. Hope that helps to clarify this interaction a bit.
The interaction with Domino’s critical failure could be due to the dex buff failing (which is a separate ability, not just a passive immunity), or due to him attempting to pause debuffs even when there aren’t any.
But since there’s a couple other weird things regarding his call out being “dexterity” instead of “immune” like other immunities, could we have confirmation that his immunity is coded correctly?