**KNOWN AW ISSUE**
Please be aware, there is a known issue with Saga badging when observing the AW map.
The team have found the source of the issue and will be updating with our next build.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Please be aware, there is a known issue with Saga badging when observing the AW map.
The team have found the source of the issue and will be updating with our next build.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Options
Which Node Makes Abs Man Immune to Power Burn?
Deacon
Posts: 4,155 ★★★★★
Just curious .. I keep reading them and can't seem to understand it. I know they aren't considering power burning of POWER a damage over time or passive damage type are they?
0
Comments
Nevermind ... the amount of poop they justify is insane.
Not the other way around. The damage comes after the power is lost. Either Kabam is illiterate, it’s bugged or they intended it to mislead and be deceptive.
Either way a bunch of people gonna pay for their problem before it gets fixed. Yay for increased revenue from faulty products.
The power taken is not a result of the damage done ... it's the opposite. The damage done is a result of the power taken. So then .. yeah .. but I get it ... like I said .. poop.
Edit: just tested peni, the power burn from her sp1 does like 100 a tick but it IS DOING DAMAGE, which means the abs is immune to it
Taking Vision as a example: special abilities state they "Burn X power and inflict Direct Damage"
1) Are these separate effects or a singular one?
2) Is "power burn" considered a DOT effect? Are power drain or power steal too?
3) is Direct Damage considered a passive damage effect or DOT?
It all seems very convenient that these unofficial explanations have been popping up, would be nice to have an official statement.
Previously it hasn't been an issue champs immune to power burn understandably wouldn't receive damage. However the new node introduced in Winter of Woe begs to question if this is correct or not.
The description in Vision 's abilities states:
"Burns up to X max power AND inflicts direct damage"
This sounds like they are two separate effects, 1) removal of power, 2) damage dealt based on power removed.
Peni Parker's Special 3 inflicts a Power Burn debuff, which already seems like a different power burn.
Perhaps there needs to be a larger discussion around the existing and planned effects within the game but it gets confusing from a player perspective if these interactions are bugs or intentional.
The issue here is a deep implementation issue that would probably not be appropriate to discuss in too much detail (in part because I don’t know all the details with enough certainty), but the simple truth is the English (or other conventional language) descriptions of what the game does are simplifications. No English description of any effect in the game is going to be 100% accurate and precise, because everything that happens in this game is actually a set of complex interactions between game engine primitives. And nowhere is this more true than in the case of what I’ll call “typed interactions.”
Once upon a time, there was no way to actually make a champ immune to, say, ability accuracy modification. When the game said “immune to ability accuracy modification” that was a lie. The way the devs implemented that lie was to find all the effects that affected ability accuracy and make the champ immune to them individually. Which works until you add a new one. And then every single AAR immunity has to be reviewed by hand and edited, or “immune to AA modification” no longer is.
In this case the reverse appears to be the case. Power burn does not seem to work the way we would expect a damage over time effect to work. It doesn’t directly deal damage, and it doesn’t apply its effects over time. However, to make Peni’s power burn over time effect work, power burn was tagged to be a DoT. I don’t know when that happened, but that seems to be the case.
Whether this is “intentional” or not doesn’t always have an easy yes or no answer. They obviously intended to do this, because it was done to make something work. They knew this would have side effects, and deliberately did it thinking the trade off was worth it. But whether they wanted this specific Wow interaction to occur is a separate question for the devs to decide, and they may still be deciding. Everything in the implementation of this game involves trade offs. What appears to be the case is this is intentional for now, subject to later review.
That’s probably not the answer you are looking for, but it might be the best one that exists. The devs cannot always foresee all of the downstream effects of an implementation decision into the future. Sometimes they intend for something to happen, but don’t find all of the consequences of that decision to be palatable, and then make revisions. But they have to live with the decisions they make, as we do. So sometimes the answer is, however unsatisfactory it may be, intended today, but might change tomorrow.
While I understand there there are a lot of closed-door discussions between Kabam and CCP, if something like this is identified, it would be nice to be forthcoming about it. Disclosing interactions that may be unexpected upfront helps with transparency.
Power Burn has been an in-game effect for a long time. It would make sense that the game has evolved past what that original effect was intended to be. Perhaps it's time for a larger discussion around it's implementation and impact on future content.
Originally power burn was simple, remove power and deal damage. Now we have power burn immune champs, no power burn = no damage.
But WOW week 1 is our first encounter with passive damage immunity.
As power burn is primarily a used as a method of power control, one could expect this interaction to remove power (similar to power drain) but deal no additional damage as the defender is immune to it.. but that's not happening.
That's where the confusion lies.
Official dev pronouncements are not a simple matter of just saying things. They get quoted, misquoted, and highly extrapolated. Those things get vetted, and even when they are, there are always consequences and fall out. Official statements take time over and above the time it takes to make the announcement, because they tend to prompt discussion. Sometimes, things are the way they are, and that’s all there is time for until time gets allocated to review and address.
To put it bluntly, some players just want a statement and will accept it. But many others want statements so that they can argue with them. That’s the reality of the devs directly entering a technical discussion before it’s been fully addressed or resolved. Think about literally every Kabam statement about any ongoing issue.
Sometimes, people like Pikolu and me try to be the plausible deniable unofficial conduit for information, because no one has to take the heat for anything I say except me. But that has to walk a fine line between trying to provide information to the community without placing the devs on the hook for what I say before they are prepared to take official actions.
The info Pikolu and DNA provided is insightful and helps explain the current state. Whether all power burn should be DOT effects or not is ultimately Kabams call. But hopefully the concerns voiced by others will be considered.
Side note: I forgot Guardians were added to the forums a while back. They really should give you guys some flair in the mobile view
Look at the issues NF has, the perfect parry in Shang Chi's kit that messed with normal parry windows...you start tweaking parameters, and it causes chaos elsewhere. Why release a fight where the node combinations would interact poorly with the tagged champs that were supposed to be used to complete the objectives?
Say what you want, there has to be some analysis of cause vs effect before putting content out like this. You don't put a jet engine into a hatchback. Sure, it would be cool to look at, but the car can't handle it. Same with nodes. Abs man was tuned down after he came out because his regen was too powerful when re-entering a fight. Fast forward to now, and it's having the same effect when trying to re-enter the fight. That's okay, we'll back out instead of using a revive, but only a handful of times before you have to use resources anyway.
Sure, for any one particular case, like say this one, with unlimited foresight there’s always a way to avoid the issue if the game was designed in a particular way. But in the general case, there’s no way to design champs in such a way that their design does not affect any other champ, because champs are built from mechanical parts. The parts interact with each other according to how they were originally implemented, irrespective of how you want the parts to behave for a particular champ.
You could choose to make every single champ with unique abilities that do not reuse any other champs abilities to guarantee that no champ’s design would ever interact with any other champ except in the precise way they were designed. But the only way to do that is to do exactly that. X23 would have X23’s bleed, while Nick Fury would have Nick Fury’s bleed. Every bleed in the game would be unique and custom created, and the players would never be able to extrapolate one champs abilities to another. Just because it worked a certain way for one champ, wouldn’t guarantee it would work in the same way for another champ.
Unfortunately there is only one kind of power burn, so the power burn that is a DoT to make
Peni work is also the power burn that Vision has that gets blocked by DoT immunity. Personally, I don’t like it, and I suspect it isn’t universally liked by all the MCOC designers either, but they have to try to pick a reasonable compromise between two bad extremes: everything works exactly the same way, even when that is nonsensical, or everything works in a unique specified way even if that means no one will ever understand how anything works ever again.
I’m not saying the way it works is the right way. It isn’t the way I would have decided. I’m simply saying that it is understandable that sometimes these things err on the side of making things more mechanically consistent, even if that consistency exposes a different kind of descriptive inconsistency. The devs have to make these kinds of choices every day, and it isn’t always obvious which one will end up being the optimal one in the long run. These are not easy decisions.
In a perfect world, a lot of these funky interactions would go away. But even in a perfect world, they wouldn’t all go away.