I dont mind this change tbh, just want it to be mentioned in the champions description.
What would you want added to Hero Descriptions ? Wording like (using Bleed as example instead of Crits)... “SP1 has 100% chance to cause Bleed, EXCEPT against Bleed Immune champs or against champs on a Bleed Immune Node or Synergy”. And... “This champ is Immune to Bleed, EVEN against champs that otherwise would cause guaranteed Bleed and even on nodes that cause Bleed”.
Extrapolate that to a whole bunch of scenarios, and a Description would be a Harry Potter novel.
Yes, include the word immune instead of cannot
Except in this case they are not immune, they only cannot be critied in case of glanced. Doing what you would want would make the statement less clear, not more clear.
'Glancing attacks are immune to being crit' Simply using the word immune would go a logn way. Personally it would help me understand the mechanics better.
How are attacks immune to something? attacks are a verb not a noun, so the adjective "immune" does not work. And are we talking about attacks to or from the person with the ability? you just made it vastly more confusing.
Attack can be used as a verb or a noun... Does it matter? Glanced hits are immune to crit. I dont see where the problem is
except you are using it as a verb, not a noun...Still how are they immune to being crits. You are assigning the immunity to the attack not to the character, when it is the character receiving the immunity. Immunity modifies the character, not the attack.
you could say something like
"this character is immune to crits if it is a glancing attack" but that is still a much larger pain in the butt to say and understand then, "glancing hits cannot be critical"
it is kinda like when I was younger:
Me: Mom I had an epiphany Mom: huh, whats an epiphany Me: A sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something. Mom: why didnt you just say that Me: Because that is a PITA and it is just easier to say epiphany.
I dont mind this change tbh, just want it to be mentioned in the champions description.
What would you want added to Hero Descriptions ? Wording like (using Bleed as example instead of Crits)... “SP1 has 100% chance to cause Bleed, EXCEPT against Bleed Immune champs or against champs on a Bleed Immune Node or Synergy”. And... “This champ is Immune to Bleed, EVEN against champs that otherwise would cause guaranteed Bleed and even on nodes that cause Bleed”.
Extrapolate that to a whole bunch of scenarios, and a Description would be a Harry Potter novel.
Yes, include the word immune instead of cannot
Except in this case they are not immune, they only cannot be critied in case of glanced. Doing what you would want would make the statement less clear, not more clear.
'Glancing attacks are immune to being crit' Simply using the word immune would go a logn way. Personally it would help me understand the mechanics better.
How are attacks immune to something? attacks are a verb not a noun, so the adjective "immune" does not work. And are we talking about attacks to or from the person with the ability? you just made it vastly more confusing.
Attack can be used as a verb or a noun... Does it matter? Glanced hits are immune to crit. I dont see where the problem is
You didnt state how attacks can be immune to something. The character is what becomes immune, not the attacks....
Glancing attacks cannot be criticals...
it reminds me of a conversation with my mother when I was younger:
Me: Mom I had an epiphany Mom: huh, whats that? Me: a sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something Mom: why didnt you just say that? me: Because it is longer than it has to be and means the same thing
You want soemthing that is less clear becuase for some reason it makes it clearer to you. It defies the rules of English though
I dont mind this change tbh, just want it to be mentioned in the champions description.
What would you want added to Hero Descriptions ? Wording like (using Bleed as example instead of Crits)... “SP1 has 100% chance to cause Bleed, EXCEPT against Bleed Immune champs or against champs on a Bleed Immune Node or Synergy”. And... “This champ is Immune to Bleed, EVEN against champs that otherwise would cause guaranteed Bleed and even on nodes that cause Bleed”.
Extrapolate that to a whole bunch of scenarios, and a Description would be a Harry Potter novel.
Yes, include the word immune instead of cannot
Except in this case they are not immune, they only cannot be critied in case of glanced. Doing what you would want would make the statement less clear, not more clear.
'Glancing attacks are immune to being crit' Simply using the word immune would go a logn way. Personally it would help me understand the mechanics better.
How are attacks immune to something? attacks are a verb not a noun, so the adjective "immune" does not work. And are we talking about attacks to or from the person with the ability? you just made it vastly more confusing.
Attack can be used as a verb or a noun... Does it matter? Glanced hits are immune to crit. I dont see where the problem is
You didnt state how attacks can be immune to something. The character is what becomes immune, not the attacks....
Glancing attacks cannot be criticals...
it reminds me of a conversation with my mother when I was younger:
Me: Mom I had an epiphany Mom: huh, whats that? Me: a sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something Mom: why didnt you just say that? me: Because it is longer than it has to be and means the same thing
You want soemthing that is less clear becuase for some reason it makes it clearer to you. It defies the rules of English though
Not only are you confusing me but I think you are also confusing yourself
I dont mind this change tbh, just want it to be mentioned in the champions description.
What would you want added to Hero Descriptions ? Wording like (using Bleed as example instead of Crits)... “SP1 has 100% chance to cause Bleed, EXCEPT against Bleed Immune champs or against champs on a Bleed Immune Node or Synergy”. And... “This champ is Immune to Bleed, EVEN against champs that otherwise would cause guaranteed Bleed and even on nodes that cause Bleed”.
Extrapolate that to a whole bunch of scenarios, and a Description would be a Harry Potter novel.
Yes, include the word immune instead of cannot
Except in this case they are not immune, they only cannot be critied in case of glanced. Doing what you would want would make the statement less clear, not more clear.
'Glancing attacks are immune to being crit' Simply using the word immune would go a logn way. Personally it would help me understand the mechanics better.
How are attacks immune to something? attacks are a verb not a noun, so the adjective "immune" does not work. And are we talking about attacks to or from the person with the ability? you just made it vastly more confusing.
Attack can be used as a verb or a noun... Does it matter? Glanced hits are immune to crit. I dont see where the problem is
You didnt state how attacks can be immune to something. The character is what becomes immune, not the attacks....
Glancing attacks cannot be criticals...
it reminds me of a conversation with my mother when I was younger:
Me: Mom I had an epiphany Mom: huh, whats that? Me: a sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something Mom: why didnt you just say that? me: Because it is longer than it has to be and means the same thing
You want soemthing that is less clear becuase for some reason it makes it clearer to you. It defies the rules of English though
Not only are you confusing me but I think you are also confusing yourself
I dont mind this change tbh, just want it to be mentioned in the champions description.
What would you want added to Hero Descriptions ? Wording like (using Bleed as example instead of Crits)... “SP1 has 100% chance to cause Bleed, EXCEPT against Bleed Immune champs or against champs on a Bleed Immune Node or Synergy”. And... “This champ is Immune to Bleed, EVEN against champs that otherwise would cause guaranteed Bleed and even on nodes that cause Bleed”.
Extrapolate that to a whole bunch of scenarios, and a Description would be a Harry Potter novel.
Yes, include the word immune instead of cannot
Except in this case they are not immune, they only cannot be critied in case of glanced. Doing what you would want would make the statement less clear, not more clear.
'Glancing attacks are immune to being crit' Simply using the word immune would go a logn way. Personally it would help me understand the mechanics better.
How are attacks immune to something? attacks are a verb not a noun, so the adjective "immune" does not work. And are we talking about attacks to or from the person with the ability? you just made it vastly more confusing.
Attack can be used as a verb or a noun... Does it matter? Glanced hits are immune to crit. I dont see where the problem is
You didnt state how attacks can be immune to something. The character is what becomes immune, not the attacks....
Glancing attacks cannot be criticals...
it reminds me of a conversation with my mother when I was younger:
Me: Mom I had an epiphany Mom: huh, whats that? Me: a sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something Mom: why didnt you just say that? me: Because it is longer than it has to be and means the same thing
You want soemthing that is less clear becuase for some reason it makes it clearer to you. It defies the rules of English though
Not only are you confusing me but I think you are also confusing yourself
In what way am I confusing you?
The entire second half of your comment which has no relevancy to the topic at hand. Lets just drop this since I am sure no matter what we say to each other ours minds wont be changed. I believe that simply including the word immune goes a longer way than cannot and you seem to disagree and go on about the intricacies of this even though I was simply giving an example and others can word it much better using the word discussed. You disagree for a variety of reasons, some valid and others not but this doesnt seem to be going anywhere so agree to disagree.
I didn't read DNA's wall of text but I'm assuming he's probably right.
Glancing has always overridden all other abilities. Has been like that since AM was first released years ago. This isn't anything new, and it's surely not "fundamentally flawed and dangerous."
You miss the point because this thread is not about the corvus/glancing interaction alone. It is about the justification and rationalisation provided - namely, that "cannot" beats "always". I have set out instances describing how every form of "always" can be re-cast as a "cannot", and that makes the entire basis of the distinction fundamentally flawed as I mentioned in the title. It is dangerous because it precludes any form of consistency and predictability across basic game mechanics, and allows one game mechanic to prevail over another simply because it is (arbitrarily) phrased as a "cannot" as opposed to an "always".
If an event X have 100% chance to take place, and an event Y have 100% to oppose/stop X from taking place if X takes place.
THEN UNDERSTAND IT LIKE THIS X -> 100% to take place -> X will take place If X takes place: Y ->100% chance to stop X -> X will not take place.
So eventually X never happen.
Now connect it to the game. X= Critical Hit chance Y= Glancing chance.
Games work on LOGIC and not on GRAMMAR.
This actually makes the most sense to me. I could see a "last in time" basis being applied to every aspect of game mechanic. I guess the point then is figuring out what exactly is the entire chain of events that is coded in the game mechanic, for instance:
Hit --> Whether evade/autoblocked --> If hit, whether crit --> If crit, whether glanced.
My view on this is that it goes by a first in first out logic.
First input - Corvus attempts to crit. Second input - Glaive charges decreases by 1. Third input - Game calculates that the crit is glanced and hence will be unable to register as a crit.
Net shown - Corvus doesn’t crit, glaive decreases by 1, “Glancing” is shown.
Same as true strike.
First input - Attacker attacks. Second input - Game calculates whether defender evades. Third input - If Defender evades, check whether attacker has true strike. If yes, evade fails, if no, defender evades.
I didn't read DNA's wall of text but I'm assuming he's probably right.
Glancing has always overridden all other abilities. Has been like that since AM was first released years ago. This isn't anything new, and it's surely not "fundamentally flawed and dangerous."
You miss the point because this thread is not about the corvus/glancing interaction alone. It is about the justification and rationalisation provided - namely, that "cannot" beats "always". I have set out instances describing how every form of "always" can be re-cast as a "cannot", and that makes the entire basis of the distinction fundamentally flawed as I mentioned in the title. It is dangerous because it precludes any form of consistency and predictability across basic game mechanics, and allows one game mechanic to prevail over another simply because it is (arbitrarily) phrased as a "cannot" as opposed to an "always".
Well anytime you have an "always" vs a "cannot" situation something has to prevail over the other and of course that decision is completely arbitrary.
There is no predictability and consistency because we are at the mercy of what the dev team decides. They could make up any rule for any scenario at any time. They don't have to follow "the rules" because they are the rules.
I think you are trying too hard to cast the entire logic as flawed when it's not. It's simply an arbitrary decision that has to be made one way or another.
I didn't read DNA's wall of text but I'm assuming he's probably right.
Glancing has always overridden all other abilities. Has been like that since AM was first released years ago. This isn't anything new, and it's surely not "fundamentally flawed and dangerous."
You miss the point because this thread is not about the corvus/glancing interaction alone. It is about the justification and rationalisation provided - namely, that "cannot" beats "always". I have set out instances describing how every form of "always" can be re-cast as a "cannot", and that makes the entire basis of the distinction fundamentally flawed as I mentioned in the title. It is dangerous because it precludes any form of consistency and predictability across basic game mechanics, and allows one game mechanic to prevail over another simply because it is (arbitrarily) phrased as a "cannot" as opposed to an "always".
Well anytime you have an "always" vs a "cannot" situation something has to prevail over the other and of course that decision is completely arbitrary.
There is no predictability and consistency because we are at the mercy of what the dev team decides. They could make up any rule for any scenario at any time. They don't have to follow "the rules" because they are the rules.
I think you are trying too hard to cast the entire logic as flawed when it's not. It's simply an arbitrary decision that has to be made one way or another.
Actually until this update you had a "cannot" vs "always" where both/neither fully prevailed. Always remained always and the guaranteed crit remained but the glancing still stunted the damage significantly. It never was an issue before and I don't see why it is now.
As I said in a post above which I would love an official response to (not gonna happen) the glancing node and champ glancing ability don't have a 100% glance rate, with that being the case shouldn't guaranteed (100%) crits avoid glancing (85% chance at most) until the crits run out? Again it's been a year since Corvus came out, why now?
If it never Crits, it shouldn't be taking any Damage. Same as Guaranteed Crits don't land on Maw. A small amount is still Damage.
Logically can't should beat always. For example: if an attack always causes an opponent to bleed but he can't bleed because he's immune then logically... can't beats always. If a champ can't be crit hit when glanced then the same concept should apply. It's like he's crit immune when glanced.
It's an interesting point but I think it's really clearer you are making it out to be. Always in this case is a 100% chance for an ability to proc. Cannot is a 0% chance. Corvus has a guaranteed crit... except for times when there is a 0% chance. Glanced hits cannot crit. AA has a 100% chance to stun...except for times in which there is a 0% chance like a stun immune node. So we should read 100% chance as 100% in situations in which the action is possible.
Actually, I think this not true, and not a safe assumption in games. If we assume that "always" is synonymous with "100%" then we have to ask the question "does critical resistance affect Corvus' "always" chance to crit? And in fact there are games that arbitrarily set things that "always" happen to some ridiculously high percentage, just to make sure another developer doesn't come along later and debuff that percentage. I've seen game effects that have a 10,000% chance to occur, for example.
That ridiculous thing already exists for Goldpool. Yes, I know, he is a joke champion, but his regen has a 999% chance to trigger. Some skill champions reduce ability accuracy, but even 70% AAR will still result in Goldpool's regen.
I tend to assume (softly, because this isn't done consistently) and if I were writing the description myself I would follow the rule, that when something has a 100% chance to occur, it should state that it has a numerically 100% chance to occur (and this number could theoretically be affected by other things in the game), and when something is said to "always" occur this should mean that the game doesn't even roll the dice.
I will say that if this were true and we could rely on the devs always obeying the "always = 100%" rule, then this is a simple situation. Probability percentages multiply. When something with a 60% chance to occur runs into something that prevents it from happening 50% of the time, this thing ultimately happens 30% of the time. So the direct assumption to make is when something with a 100% chance to occur runs into something that only allows it to occur 0% of the time, 100% x 0% = 0% and it doesn't occur.
But does it work like that in all situations? According to the description, Mephisto's soul entrapment should reduce the triggering of buffs by 100%. But last month when facing SIM on a enhanced abilities node, his armor ups and even regen did pop up despite being entrapped. It does seem that the calculation of trigger chances is additive and AAR is not applied on the additive in the equation.
The independent effect rule of mechanics design would hold the above to happen. In other words, we think of every effect mentioned in the game as happening, so Corvus' 100% crit chance simply means nothing stops him from triggering the critical effect, but then when that critical effect reaches the glanced target the glancing effect "admits" exactly zero percent of those crits. Games with conflicting descriptions would then always behave in a specific way you could deduce. So of course practically no one obeys this rule when they design mechanics.
I wouldn't say there is a conflict here. Both effects should be calculated simultaneously. 100% - 100% should still result in 0 and if it wasn't, it was a bug.
Moving away from the preoccupation and back to the subject, what's the real issue here? The wording, or the interaction? Seems to me there's a great deal of implied conspiracy over it, when it's not likely many people were even depending on that minute amount of Damage. It was a bug, that's about all that really matters concerning it. We can speculate on the wording and what that implies for situations, but that's a given. If there's a bug or unintended interaction, they will fix it if they can.
Moving away from the preoccupation and back to the subject, what's the real issue here? The wording, or the interaction? Seems to me there's a great deal of implied conspiracy over it, when it's not likely many people were even depending on that minute amount of Damage. It was a bug, that's about all that really matters concerning it. We can speculate on the wording and what that implies for situations, but that's a given. If there's a bug or unintended interaction, they will fix it if they can.
I didn't read DNA's wall of text but I'm assuming he's probably right.
Glancing has always overridden all other abilities. Has been like that since AM was first released years ago. This isn't anything new, and it's surely not "fundamentally flawed and dangerous."
You miss the point because this thread is not about the corvus/glancing interaction alone. It is about the justification and rationalisation provided - namely, that "cannot" beats "always". I have set out instances describing how every form of "always" can be re-cast as a "cannot", and that makes the entire basis of the distinction fundamentally flawed as I mentioned in the title. It is dangerous because it precludes any form of consistency and predictability across basic game mechanics, and allows one game mechanic to prevail over another simply because it is (arbitrarily) phrased as a "cannot" as opposed to an "always".
Well anytime you have an "always" vs a "cannot" situation something has to prevail over the other and of course that decision is completely arbitrary.
There is no predictability and consistency because we are at the mercy of what the dev team decides. They could make up any rule for any scenario at any time. They don't have to follow "the rules" because they are the rules.
I think you are trying too hard to cast the entire logic as flawed when it's not. It's simply an arbitrary decision that has to be made one way or another.
I think I can address both of these comments together. The issue really is making sure that the game progresses in a predictable way. Predictability requires game mechanics to be based on principle. In this case, the question is how do you tell if an action is "cannot" or "always" since, as I have shown in my first post on this thread, any action can be recast as either "cannot" or "always". Therefore, this semantic description of an action cannot be a satisfactory basis for explaining and predicting game mechanics.
As for Shrimkin's criticism that "we are at the mercy of what the dev team decides" and that "they could make up any rule for any scenario at any time" - yes no doubt they can do whatever they like. This would however be a defeatist mindset. The point is that taking such an arbitrary approach would not be in the interest of the game. In a game this complex, a huge aspect of the end game comes from the knowledge and understanding of the various game mechanics and how they interact. If they are simply changed on whim, thereby removing any aspect of predictability, it takes a lot away from the game. Wanting predictability in game mechanics is not the same as saying that new mechanics can never come about, or new counters/meta cannot be developed. Of course they can, but it should always be consistent with the understanding of the game mechanics that we had before.
So back to my original point, I think that the distinction of "cannot" and "always" is not a sound basis to explain how decisions between seemingly incompatible abilities are to be resolved.
It's actually pretty explanatory. One mechanic involves always, and that always is based on the premise that Crits can occur. Never means never. Same interaction was rectified with AA being able to bypass Stun Immune.
It's actually pretty explanatory. One mechanic involves always, and that always is based on the premise that Crits can occur. Never means never. Same interaction was rectified with AA being able to bypass Stun Immune.
It's actually pretty explanatory. One mechanic involves always, and that always is based on the premise that Crits can occur. Never means never. Same interaction was rectified with AA being able to bypass Stun Immune.
Read my initial post. Any "never" or "cannot" can always be re-framed as an "always". My question is how is that choice determined? Is it based on wording in the champ abilities? Because many abilities do not actually use that word.
Moving away from the preoccupation and back to the subject, what's the real issue here? The wording, or the interaction? Seems to me there's a great deal of implied conspiracy over it, when it's not likely many people were even depending on that minute amount of Damage. It was a bug, that's about all that really matters concerning it. We can speculate on the wording and what that implies for situations, but that's a given. If there's a bug or unintended interaction, they will fix it if they can.
I didn't read DNA's wall of text but I'm assuming he's probably right.
Glancing has always overridden all other abilities. Has been like that since AM was first released years ago. This isn't anything new, and it's surely not "fundamentally flawed and dangerous."
You miss the point because this thread is not about the corvus/glancing interaction alone. It is about the justification and rationalisation provided - namely, that "cannot" beats "always". I have set out instances describing how every form of "always" can be re-cast as a "cannot", and that makes the entire basis of the distinction fundamentally flawed as I mentioned in the title. It is dangerous because it precludes any form of consistency and predictability across basic game mechanics, and allows one game mechanic to prevail over another simply because it is (arbitrarily) phrased as a "cannot" as opposed to an "always".
Well anytime you have an "always" vs a "cannot" situation something has to prevail over the other and of course that decision is completely arbitrary.
There is no predictability and consistency because we are at the mercy of what the dev team decides. They could make up any rule for any scenario at any time. They don't have to follow "the rules" because they are the rules.
I think you are trying too hard to cast the entire logic as flawed when it's not. It's simply an arbitrary decision that has to be made one way or another.
The issue really is making sure that the game progresses in a predictable way. Predictability requires game mechanics to be based on principle.
... ...
In a game this complex, a huge aspect of the end game comes from the knowledge and understanding of the various game mechanics and how they interact. If they are simply changed on whim, thereby removing any aspect of predictability, it takes a lot away from the game.
Agrees with this. Otherwise, very likely one Mod says it is not a bug, another says will bring to team to have a look.
Rather than debate the interaction between always and cannot, I'm just going to point out that an existing interaction in the game was fundamentally changed. I could understand if a new node or different form of "glancing" was introduced, but it wasn't. Well, I suppose you couldn't call it "glancing" in this case because that ability exists and has been defined already. So you'd have to call it something else now. Wouldn't you? I believe existing interactions and the rules that govern them should not be altered. If you wish to introduce a new interaction, introduce a new node or mechanic. And does Corvus actually spend his glaive charges and not crit? If so, is this intended and why?
It's actually pretty explanatory. One mechanic involves always, and that always is based on the premise that Crits can occur. Never means never. Same interaction was rectified with AA being able to bypass Stun Immune.
It's actually pretty explanatory. One mechanic involves always, and that always is based on the premise that Crits can occur. Never means never. Same interaction was rectified with AA being able to bypass Stun Immune.
Read my initial post. Any "never" or "cannot" can always be re-framed as an "always". My question is how is that choice determined? Is it based on wording in the champ abilities? Because many abilities do not actually use that word.
As per the original discussion this took place in, they discussed it, and never trumps always. That's what they determined. If you wanted to simplify it, then yes. Whatever conclusion they come to goes. It's their call to make. However, what I (and I believe a number of others) are saying, is this conclusion is sound. It's also not really a precedent where we need to be concerned that they're going to sweep through and alter any interaction they come across. I find that to be a bit reactive, TBH.
Rather than debate the interaction between always and cannot, I'm just going to point out that an existing interaction in the game was fundamentally changed. I could understand if a new node or different form of "glancing" was introduced, but it wasn't. Well, I suppose you couldn't call it "glancing" in this case because that ability exists and has been defined already. So you'd have to call it something else now. Wouldn't you? I believe existing interactions and the rules that govern them should not be altered. If you wish to introduce a new interaction, introduce a new node or mechanic.
People made that point about AA, but no Champ was meant to bypass Stun Immune.
It's actually pretty explanatory. One mechanic involves always, and that always is based on the premise that Crits can occur. Never means never. Same interaction was rectified with AA being able to bypass Stun Immune.
It's actually pretty explanatory. One mechanic involves always, and that always is based on the premise that Crits can occur. Never means never. Same interaction was rectified with AA being able to bypass Stun Immune.
Read my initial post. Any "never" or "cannot" can always be re-framed as an "always". My question is how is that choice determined? Is it based on wording in the champ abilities? Because many abilities do not actually use that word.
As per the original discussion this took place in, they discussed it, and never trumps always. That's what they determined. If you wanted to simplify it, then yes. Whatever conclusion they come to goes. It's their call to make. However, what I (and I believe a number of others) are saying, is this conclusion is sound. It's also not really a precedent where we need to be concerned that they're going to sweep through and alter any interaction they come across. I find that to be a bit reactive, TBH.
You aren't getting the point. This is my last attempt. I am not talking about guaranteed hits vs glancing. Move past that. My issue is how do we define, conceptually, what is a "cannot" action and what is an "always" action? It is not as obvious as one thinks.
Is a critical hit an "always" crit, or is it a "cannot" land a non-crit? That is my point.
Rather than debate the interaction between always and cannot, I'm just going to point out that an existing interaction in the game was fundamentally changed. I could understand if a new node or different form of "glancing" was introduced, but it wasn't. Well, I suppose you couldn't call it "glancing" in this case because that ability exists and has been defined already. So you'd have to call it something else now. Wouldn't you? I believe existing interactions and the rules that govern them should not be altered. If you wish to introduce a new interaction, introduce a new node or mechanic.
People made that point about AA, but no Champ was meant to bypass Stun Immune.
And yet there is Wasp with a passive stun that can bypass stun immune
Comments
A. Corvus Glaive does not crit
you could say something like
"this character is immune to crits if it is a glancing attack" but that is still a much larger pain in the butt to say and understand then, "glancing hits cannot be critical"
it is kinda like when I was younger:
Me: Mom I had an epiphany
Mom: huh, whats an epiphany
Me: A sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something.
Mom: why didnt you just say that
Me: Because that is a PITA and it is just easier to say epiphany.
Glancing attacks cannot be criticals...
it reminds me of a conversation with my mother when I was younger:
Me: Mom I had an epiphany
Mom: huh, whats that?
Me: a sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something
Mom: why didnt you just say that?
me: Because it is longer than it has to be and means the same thing
You want soemthing that is less clear becuase for some reason it makes it clearer to you. It defies the rules of English though
Hit --> Whether evade/autoblocked --> If hit, whether crit --> If crit, whether glanced.
First input - Corvus attempts to crit.
Second input - Glaive charges decreases by 1.
Third input - Game calculates that the crit is glanced and hence will be unable to register as a crit.
Net shown - Corvus doesn’t crit, glaive decreases by 1, “Glancing” is shown.
Same as true strike.
First input - Attacker attacks.
Second input - Game calculates whether defender evades.
Third input - If Defender evades, check whether attacker has true strike. If yes, evade fails, if no, defender evades.
Net shown - “Evade failed” or “Evade”
There is no predictability and consistency because we are at the mercy of what the dev team decides. They could make up any rule for any scenario at any time. They don't have to follow "the rules" because they are the rules.
I think you are trying too hard to cast the entire logic as flawed when it's not. It's simply an arbitrary decision that has to be made one way or another.
You end up with the fascinating sensation of a cross cancellation calculation situation without need for further calibration.
As my main man Stan Lee would say,
NULL SAID?
-The Dude
As for Shrimkin's criticism that "we are at the mercy of what the dev team decides" and that "they could make up any rule for any scenario at any time" - yes no doubt they can do whatever they like. This would however be a defeatist mindset. The point is that taking such an arbitrary approach would not be in the interest of the game. In a game this complex, a huge aspect of the end game comes from the knowledge and understanding of the various game mechanics and how they interact. If they are simply changed on whim, thereby removing any aspect of predictability, it takes a lot away from the game. Wanting predictability in game mechanics is not the same as saying that new mechanics can never come about, or new counters/meta cannot be developed. Of course they can, but it should always be consistent with the understanding of the game mechanics that we had before.
So back to my original point, I think that the distinction of "cannot" and "always" is not a sound basis to explain how decisions between seemingly incompatible abilities are to be resolved.
And does Corvus actually spend his glaive charges and not crit? If so, is this intended and why?
Is a critical hit an "always" crit, or is it a "cannot" land a non-crit? That is my point.