This seems like a continuation of discussions that have taken place a number of times over the years. Certain interactions occur but are prevented from having an effect, but still trigger other interactions. It really has to do with the way those backend interactions occur. Immunity doesn't always mean it won't apply. In some cases, it applies and is negated. In others, it doesn't apply. While I understand the argument for the logic in this, I'm concerned that the effort to make this consistent from an outside perspective would lead to more problems.
This seems like a continuation of discussions that have taken place a number of times over the years. Certain interactions occur but are prevented from having an effect, but still trigger other interactions. It really has to do with the way those backend interactions occur. Immunity doesn't always mean it won't apply. In some cases, it applies and is negated. In others, it doesn't apply. While I understand the argument for the logic in this, I'm concerned that the effort to make this consistent from an outside perspective would lead to more problems.
Appreciate the comment! If you could name one instance other than AAR in which an effect is able to still apply through an immunity that would be helpful. As far as I am aware, in every case where the description says “immune” then the corresponding effect cannot apply, with the exception of AAR immunity
Ultron should also be added to the list because his function abilities are "unaffected by ability accuracy."
Side note about that: Ultron can still inflict bleed on Maestro even with the glance because of this ability accuracy part
Something to keep in mind is immunity to Ability accuracy is not the same as immunity to ability accuracy reduction. The immunity to ability accuracy includes champions like OML and Shuri. For whatever reason, the devs decided to make ability accuracy immunity not mess with neutralize since it isn't explicit immunity to AAR. That's why you can place neutralize on them even if it does nothing.
More importantly, these two statements are not equal, for a very specific technical reason that the game actually used to tell players directly, although no one paid any attention.
- Champion is immune to ability accuracy modification - Champion's ability accuracy cannot be modified
Those two seem cut and dried identical, but they actually mean two different things that only sound the same. The first one says that no effect that modifies ability accuracy will work on this champion. The second one says that ability accuracy modifying effects will work on the champion, but the champion's ability accuracy won't change.
So what's the difference? The difference is that the champion has an ability accuracy but there are other ability accuracies that exist. Ability accuracy is literally a stat the champion possesses, like health, attack, and armor. When a champion's ability accuracy cannot be modified, it is this specific stat that is being protected. However, there exist other ability accuracies in the game. When a champion has an attack that can inflict bleed 10% of the time, that attack has a 10% ability accuracy bleed. That is NOT the champion's ability accuracy. That ability accuracy is not protected from modification when the champion's ability accuracy cannot be modified.
Most effects that lower ability accuracy target the champion's ability accuracy. They debuff that stat. This lowers the ability accuracy of every ability the champion possesses indirectly, because the ability accuracy of every ability is the product of the champion's innate ability accuracy and the ability's innate ability accuracy. If a champion has an attack with 10% chance to bleed, that means that attack has 10% ability accuracy for bleed. The attack will bleed 10% of the time assuming the champion's ability accuracy is 100%. But when a debuff lowers champion ability accuracy by, say, 50%, then the champion's ability accuracy is now 50%. That means that attack now has a 5% chance to bleed, 50% x 10% = 5%.
If that champion's ability accuracy cannot be modified, then that debuff would have no effect. The attack would still bleed 10% of the time. But what if the champion was affected by a debuff that lowered the ability accuracy of bleeds by 50%? In that case, the champion's actual ability accuracy would be unchanged, because it would be the attack's bleed ability accuracy itself that would be lowered from 10% to 5%. The champion's ability accuracy would continue to be 100% as described, but the attack would now bleed 5% of the time. This is entirely consistent with the game mechanics.
The game actually used to tell players this happened in loading screens no one ever paid attention to. One of them actually explicitly stated how these mechanics worked, but it was removed years ago and replaced with the bland "ability accuracy impacts the chance for an effect to occur" or something like that. Why I can only guess.
Compounding the issue is that I do not believe the text descriptions are consistently used everywhere. It is possible that champions are described as being immune to ability accuracy modification effects when it is their ability accuracy that is directly protected from modification, or vice versa. This is something that generally has to be deduced from how the game works in practice.
If it works the way you say, then is it a different ability accuracy stat overall and another one for buffs alone ? Then neutralize should still apply and prevent buffs on aar immune champs? But it was fixed to not do so?
Ultron should also be added to the list because his function abilities are "unaffected by ability accuracy."
Side note about that: Ultron can still inflict bleed on Maestro even with the glance because of this ability accuracy part
Something to keep in mind is immunity to Ability accuracy is not the same as immunity to ability accuracy reduction. The immunity to ability accuracy includes champions like OML and Shuri. For whatever reason, the devs decided to make ability accuracy immunity not mess with neutralize since it isn't explicit immunity to AAR. That's why you can place neutralize on them even if it does nothing.
More importantly, these two statements are not equal, for a very specific technical reason that the game actually used to tell players directly, although no one paid any attention.
- Champion is immune to ability accuracy modification - Champion's ability accuracy cannot be modified
Those two seem cut and dried identical, but they actually mean two different things that only sound the same. The first one says that no effect that modifies ability accuracy will work on this champion. The second one says that ability accuracy modifying effects will work on the champion, but the champion's ability accuracy won't change.
So what's the difference? The difference is that the champion has an ability accuracy but there are other ability accuracies that exist. Ability accuracy is literally a stat the champion possesses, like health, attack, and armor. When a champion's ability accuracy cannot be modified, it is this specific stat that is being protected. However, there exist other ability accuracies in the game. When a champion has an attack that can inflict bleed 10% of the time, that attack has a 10% ability accuracy bleed. That is NOT the champion's ability accuracy. That ability accuracy is not protected from modification when the champion's ability accuracy cannot be modified.
Most effects that lower ability accuracy target the champion's ability accuracy. They debuff that stat. This lowers the ability accuracy of every ability the champion possesses indirectly, because the ability accuracy of every ability is the product of the champion's innate ability accuracy and the ability's innate ability accuracy. If a champion has an attack with 10% chance to bleed, that means that attack has 10% ability accuracy for bleed. The attack will bleed 10% of the time assuming the champion's ability accuracy is 100%. But when a debuff lowers champion ability accuracy by, say, 50%, then the champion's ability accuracy is now 50%. That means that attack now has a 5% chance to bleed, 50% x 10% = 5%.
If that champion's ability accuracy cannot be modified, then that debuff would have no effect. The attack would still bleed 10% of the time. But what if the champion was affected by a debuff that lowered the ability accuracy of bleeds by 50%? In that case, the champion's actual ability accuracy would be unchanged, because it would be the attack's bleed ability accuracy itself that would be lowered from 10% to 5%. The champion's ability accuracy would continue to be 100% as described, but the attack would now bleed 5% of the time. This is entirely consistent with the game mechanics.
The game actually used to tell players this happened in loading screens no one ever paid attention to. One of them actually explicitly stated how these mechanics worked, but it was removed years ago and replaced with the bland "ability accuracy impacts the chance for an effect to occur" or something like that. Why I can only guess.
Compounding the issue is that I do not believe the text descriptions are consistently used everywhere. It is possible that champions are described as being immune to ability accuracy modification effects when it is their ability accuracy that is directly protected from modification, or vice versa. This is something that generally has to be deduced from how the game works in practice.
If it works the way you say, then is it a different ability accuracy stat overall and another one for buffs alone ? Then neutralize should still apply and prevent buffs on aar immune champs? But it was fixed to not do so?
There are as far as I’m aware only two “kinds” of ability accuracy. There’s the ability accuracy champions have, and there’s ability accuracy that actual abilities have. All other types of ability accuracy are descriptions, not things.
In other words, at least as far as I’m aware, “buff ability accuracy” is not a thing. Buff ability accuracy is a description of a set of things, and when the game claims something affects buff ability accuracy, it actually is designed to explicitly affect a list of things it believes are buffs. But how that list is specified is the question.
Once upon a time the only way to affect a set of things was to code them to affect an explicit list of things that was all inclusive. In other words, if you wanted to affect all buffs, you’d actually have to do that in-game by having the thing affect every buff by name. If you miss one or add a new one, it wouldn’t work on that new thing. Now, my understanding is the current tech is different, and it is possible to make something that affects a set of things with certain properties, like “all buffs.” But because these two ways to implement exists - explicit lists and implicit sets of descriptions - inconsistencies can arise in how things work vs how they are described to work.
I believe this is something that was discussed when the issues with neutralize first appeared.
Ultron should also be added to the list because his function abilities are "unaffected by ability accuracy."
Side note about that: Ultron can still inflict bleed on Maestro even with the glance because of this ability accuracy part
Something to keep in mind is immunity to Ability accuracy is not the same as immunity to ability accuracy reduction. The immunity to ability accuracy includes champions like OML and Shuri. For whatever reason, the devs decided to make ability accuracy immunity not mess with neutralize since it isn't explicit immunity to AAR. That's why you can place neutralize on them even if it does nothing.
More importantly, these two statements are not equal, for a very specific technical reason that the game actually used to tell players directly, although no one paid any attention.
- Champion is immune to ability accuracy modification - Champion's ability accuracy cannot be modified
Those two seem cut and dried identical, but they actually mean two different things that only sound the same. The first one says that no effect that modifies ability accuracy will work on this champion. The second one says that ability accuracy modifying effects will work on the champion, but the champion's ability accuracy won't change.
So what's the difference? The difference is that the champion has an ability accuracy but there are other ability accuracies that exist. Ability accuracy is literally a stat the champion possesses, like health, attack, and armor. When a champion's ability accuracy cannot be modified, it is this specific stat that is being protected. However, there exist other ability accuracies in the game. When a champion has an attack that can inflict bleed 10% of the time, that attack has a 10% ability accuracy bleed. That is NOT the champion's ability accuracy. That ability accuracy is not protected from modification when the champion's ability accuracy cannot be modified.
Most effects that lower ability accuracy target the champion's ability accuracy. They debuff that stat. This lowers the ability accuracy of every ability the champion possesses indirectly, because the ability accuracy of every ability is the product of the champion's innate ability accuracy and the ability's innate ability accuracy. If a champion has an attack with 10% chance to bleed, that means that attack has 10% ability accuracy for bleed. The attack will bleed 10% of the time assuming the champion's ability accuracy is 100%. But when a debuff lowers champion ability accuracy by, say, 50%, then the champion's ability accuracy is now 50%. That means that attack now has a 5% chance to bleed, 50% x 10% = 5%.
If that champion's ability accuracy cannot be modified, then that debuff would have no effect. The attack would still bleed 10% of the time. But what if the champion was affected by a debuff that lowered the ability accuracy of bleeds by 50%? In that case, the champion's actual ability accuracy would be unchanged, because it would be the attack's bleed ability accuracy itself that would be lowered from 10% to 5%. The champion's ability accuracy would continue to be 100% as described, but the attack would now bleed 5% of the time. This is entirely consistent with the game mechanics.
The game actually used to tell players this happened in loading screens no one ever paid attention to. One of them actually explicitly stated how these mechanics worked, but it was removed years ago and replaced with the bland "ability accuracy impacts the chance for an effect to occur" or something like that. Why I can only guess.
Compounding the issue is that I do not believe the text descriptions are consistently used everywhere. It is possible that champions are described as being immune to ability accuracy modification effects when it is their ability accuracy that is directly protected from modification, or vice versa. This is something that generally has to be deduced from how the game works in practice.
Very helpful 👌. On the topic of loading screens, am I the only one who remembers the old one when you were updating the game where it said things like spiderman is reloading his Web cartridges or cap is understanding that reference
This just needs to be added to the long list of unwritten rules to the Contest that don't need to be written but just beg to be detailed out for the players that don't want to get a degree in game design and coding. AAR and the delineation between champion and ability AA, things like armor breaks counting as nullify, the scaling factor of arbitrary numbers in things like crit rate and crit damage, and in-depth walkthrough of how scaling percentages work, and then also maybe some basic crystal algebra and statistics would all be helpful additions to what I would like to propose should be called the Contest of Champions Compendium of Cnowledge.
Whoah can someone explain how armour break counts as nullify? I never knew that
This just needs to be added to the long list of unwritten rules to the Contest that don't need to be written but just beg to be detailed out for the players that don't want to get a degree in game design and coding. AAR and the delineation between champion and ability AA, things like armor breaks counting as nullify, the scaling factor of arbitrary numbers in things like crit rate and crit damage, and in-depth walkthrough of how scaling percentages work, and then also maybe some basic crystal algebra and statistics would all be helpful additions to what I would like to propose should be called the Contest of Champions Compendium of Cnowledge.
Whoah can someone explain how armour break counts as nullify? I never knew that
There are certain nodes where armor breaks are considered as nullify
This just needs to be added to the long list of unwritten rules to the Contest that don't need to be written but just beg to be detailed out for the players that don't want to get a degree in game design and coding. AAR and the delineation between champion and ability AA, things like armor breaks counting as nullify, the scaling factor of arbitrary numbers in things like crit rate and crit damage, and in-depth walkthrough of how scaling percentages work, and then also maybe some basic crystal algebra and statistics would all be helpful additions to what I would like to propose should be called the Contest of Champions Compendium of Cnowledge.
Whoah can someone explain how armour break counts as nullify? I never knew that
There are certain nodes where armor breaks are considered as nullify
This just needs to be added to the long list of unwritten rules to the Contest that don't need to be written but just beg to be detailed out for the players that don't want to get a degree in game design and coding. AAR and the delineation between champion and ability AA, things like armor breaks counting as nullify, the scaling factor of arbitrary numbers in things like crit rate and crit damage, and in-depth walkthrough of how scaling percentages work, and then also maybe some basic crystal algebra and statistics would all be helpful additions to what I would like to propose should be called the Contest of Champions Compendium of Cnowledge.
Whoah can someone explain how armour break counts as nullify? I never knew that
There are certain nodes where armor breaks are considered as nullify
Ngl I thought this was gonna be a load of waffle but it was actually really well thought out. I think this is one of the most detailed logical posts I have ever seen on here. I completely understand and agree with what you are saying and hats off for the immaculate piece of work I just wrote. Also yh the spreadsheet loaded
I thought bro was just gonna cry, but he really knows what he’s talking about, and I completely agree.
This seems like a continuation of discussions that have taken place a number of times over the years. Certain interactions occur but are prevented from having an effect, but still trigger other interactions. It really has to do with the way those backend interactions occur. Immunity doesn't always mean it won't apply. In some cases, it applies and is negated. In others, it doesn't apply. While I understand the argument for the logic in this, I'm concerned that the effort to make this consistent from an outside perspective would lead to more problems.
Appreciate the comment! If you could name one instance other than AAR in which an effect is able to still apply through an immunity that would be helpful. As far as I am aware, in every case where the description says “immune” then the corresponding effect cannot apply, with the exception of AAR immunity
This would be testing an old man's memory. To be honest, it just feels reminiscent of other conversations had over the years about things like Nullify, and how it can trigger other reactions. I want to say Masochism? Perhaps Mystic Dispersion? I can't recall. More to the subject, my theory is that AAR isn't a specific ability, moreso a backdrop of how those abilities interact. For example, you can have between 0% and 100% AAR, but not anything more or less. In the case of 0% AAR, the specific reduction is applied, but 0% of an effect is 0%, as in the case or Immune to AAR. I could be wrong, but I suspect it's not an ability perse, but an inherent mechanic of how abilities interact with each other. Each Champ has their own AAR, between that spectrum, and the Immune apply a net 0% reduction.
Comments
While I understand the argument for the logic in this, I'm concerned that the effort to make this consistent from an outside perspective would lead to more problems.
In other words, at least as far as I’m aware, “buff ability accuracy” is not a thing. Buff ability accuracy is a description of a set of things, and when the game claims something affects buff ability accuracy, it actually is designed to explicitly affect a list of things it believes are buffs. But how that list is specified is the question.
Once upon a time the only way to affect a set of things was to code them to affect an explicit list of things that was all inclusive. In other words, if you wanted to affect all buffs, you’d actually have to do that in-game by having the thing affect every buff by name. If you miss one or add a new one, it wouldn’t work on that new thing. Now, my understanding is the current tech is different, and it is possible to make something that affects a set of things with certain properties, like “all buffs.” But because these two ways to implement exists - explicit lists and implicit sets of descriptions - inconsistencies can arise in how things work vs how they are described to work.
I believe this is something that was discussed when the issues with neutralize first appeared.
By contrast, Overseer and Mr Negative don't. No idea why, or if it 'makes sense' according to the intentions of the designers.
More to the subject, my theory is that AAR isn't a specific ability, moreso a backdrop of how those abilities interact. For example, you can have between 0% and 100% AAR, but not anything more or less. In the case of 0% AAR, the specific reduction is applied, but 0% of an effect is 0%, as in the case or Immune to AAR. I could be wrong, but I suspect it's not an ability perse, but an inherent mechanic of how abilities interact with each other. Each Champ has their own AAR, between that spectrum, and the Immune apply a net 0% reduction.