**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options

The "Cannot" beats "Always" concept is fundamentally flawed and dangerous

13567

Comments

  • Options
    VoltolosVoltolos Posts: 1,120 ★★★
    Ultra8529 said:

    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.
    Hard to understand: "You should never not avoid not using the most clear description"
    Easier version: "You should never not use the most clear description"
    Easiest Version: "You should always use the most clear description"

    Yeah I think this whole thing isnt a big problem because rewriting "always" as cannot usually makes the description harder to understand because you end up creating a double negativ statement.
  • Options
    CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,965 ★★★★★
    Ultra8529 said:

    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
    Can she? She can bypass debuff immune but iirc she cannot bypass stun immune. Duel an EF.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    I see what you're saying, and that depends if Crit is a separate occurrence I suppose. If it's Base Attack + Crit Boost, then it would land a regular Hit. If the Crit is all one Attack, then it would be "cannot land a non-crit".
    In the case of Corvus, it's Guaranteed Crit, so that's somewhat of a different entity altogether. There should be no separate Attack.
  • Options
    Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★

    Ultra8529 said:

    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
    Can she? She can bypass debuff immune but iirc she cannot bypass stun immune. Duel an EF.
    Oops my bad. I kept thinking debuff immune in my head lol.
  • Options
    Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★

    I see what you're saying, and that depends if Crit is a separate occurrence I suppose. If it's Base Attack + Crit Boost, then it would land a regular Hit. If the Crit is all one Attack, then it would be "cannot land a non-crit".
    In the case of Corvus, it's Guaranteed Crit, so that's somewhat of a different entity altogether. There should be no separate Attack.

    Yes so that is the real issue. It is not at all clear how you define something as a "cannot" or as an "always". If the game team intends to rely on this as the basis for game mechanics, then every champ description must be phrased in terms of "cannot" or "always" so that players know in which category each action falls.
  • Options
    Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★
    Voltolos said:

    Ultra8529 said:

    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.
    Hard to understand: "You should never not avoid not using the most clear description"
    Easier version: "You should never not use the most clear description"
    Easiest Version: "You should always use the most clear description"

    Yeah I think this whole thing isnt a big problem because rewriting "always" as cannot usually makes the description harder to understand because you end up creating a double negativ statement.
    It is not always the case that re-writing one as the other leads to a more convoluted sentence.

    Take for instance the example of evade. (1) the attacker "cannot" land a hit; and (2) the defender "always" evades a hit.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    I think you may be getting carried away with one interaction. Lol. I don't mean that with any disrespect. I just think this situation is not that wide-spread.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    edited June 2019
    Think of Maw and Corvus. Corvus "always" Guaranteed Crits. Maw "cannot" take Guaranteed Crit. Therefore, Attacks don't land. Same deal. If something is a "never", always doesn't matter.
  • Options
    Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★
    edited June 2019

    Think of Maw and Corvus. Corvus "always" Guaranteed Crits. Maw "cannot" take Guaranteed Crit. Therefore, Attacks don't land. Same deal. If something is a "never", always doesn't matter.

    How do you know what is a "never" or "cannot"?

    Maw can also be described as follows: guaranteed crit hits on Maw "always" miss.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    The use of terms like "do not", "cannot", "Immune", "negate", there are many ways to say it. They just aren't able.
  • Options
    Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★

    The use of terms like "do not", "cannot", "Immune", "negate", there are many ways to say it. They just aren't able.

    But why can't Maw be described in the way I mentioned above?
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    Never trumps always. Not always trumps guaranteed. Lol. The day Maw comes up agaisnt "Guaranteed Crits never miss", then we can worry. ;)
  • Options
    Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★
    You're missing the point again.

    How do you know Maw is a "never"? Why can't Maw be guaranteed crits "always" miss?
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    Honestly this is becoming way too focused on the wording. The harder you look at it, the more confusing it's becoming.
  • Options
    hungryhungrybbqhungryhungrybbq Posts: 2,117 ★★★★★
    edited June 2019

    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.
    Wasn't the AA thing described as a long standing bug that was finally corrected? It was a champ specific bug. And not really a decision to change an interaction, as this seems to be.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★

    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.
    Wasn't the AA thing described as a long standing bug that was finally corrected? It was a champ specific bug. And not really a retroactive ruling made on an interaction, as this seems to be.
    It was something that was changed. People argued that there were changes to a Champ. The bottom line is, the "intended" in "working as intended" is theirs. Lol.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    This is the Patch Notes.
    - Champions can land a Critical Hit on Glancing. This issue will be fixed so that Champions will no longer be able to land a Critical Hit when Glancing, even if it was a guaranteed Critical Hit. Therefore Micro Reflect will only reflect back regular, non-critical damage. This will be fixed in the 23.1 update.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    My point in posting that was because the comment on "always vs. never" was just a window into their thought process in coming to the resolution. The Micro Reflect was what prompted them to discuss it.
  • Options
    Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★

    Honestly this is becoming way too focused on the wording. The harder you look at it, the more confusing it's becoming.

    We have to be focused on the wording because that was the justification given by the game team. My point, as has been the case since I started this thread, is that there is no sound basis for deciding one way or another whether an ability is a "cannot" or an "always".

    Maw is an excellent example.
  • Options
    Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★

    This is the Patch Notes.
    - Champions can land a Critical Hit on Glancing. This issue will be fixed so that Champions will no longer be able to land a Critical Hit when Glancing, even if it was a guaranteed Critical Hit. Therefore Micro Reflect will only reflect back regular, non-critical damage. This will be fixed in the 23.1 update.

    Again, not debating the actual glancing/corvus interaction. I am taking issue with the justification provided - the justification is not sound or principled, and that is worrying for the game.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    Ultra8529 said:

    Honestly this is becoming way too focused on the wording. The harder you look at it, the more confusing it's becoming.

    We have to be focused on the wording because that was the justification given by the game team. My point, as has been the case since I started this thread, is that there is no sound basis for deciding one way or another whether an ability is a "cannot" or an "always".

    Maw is an excellent example.
    If they always miss, that's the same as cannot.
  • Options
    Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★

    Ultra8529 said:

    Honestly this is becoming way too focused on the wording. The harder you look at it, the more confusing it's becoming.

    We have to be focused on the wording because that was the justification given by the game team. My point, as has been the case since I started this thread, is that there is no sound basis for deciding one way or another whether an ability is a "cannot" or an "always".

    Maw is an excellent example.
    If they always miss, that's the same as cannot.
    This is exactly my point! Thank you!

    Once you accept that, then you realise that the phrasing of an ability is entirely arbitrary and therefore cannot be a sound basis for determining how various game mechanics interact.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    That wasn't likely the entirety of the conversation. That was most likely part of it. Which is why I said it was a window into their thought process. I doubt they made the conclusion based on the wording solely. That might have been one aspect of the conversation. In any event, that's the conclusion they came to.
  • Options
    Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★

    That wasn't likely the entirety of the conversation. That was most likely part of it. Which is why I said it was a window into their thought process. I doubt they made the conclusion based on the wording solely. That might have been one aspect of the conversation. In any event, that's the conclusion they came to.

    Again, not disputing the conclusion regarding glancing/corvus.

    The thought process is so unclear at this point that it needs to be clarified. Just seems entirely arbitrary at the moment as to what is "cannot" and what is "always", and consequently it is entirely arbitrary which game mechanic prevails over another.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    Ultra8529 said:

    That wasn't likely the entirety of the conversation. That was most likely part of it. Which is why I said it was a window into their thought process. I doubt they made the conclusion based on the wording solely. That might have been one aspect of the conversation. In any event, that's the conclusion they came to.

    Again, not disputing the conclusion regarding glancing/corvus.

    The thought process is so unclear at this point that it needs to be clarified. Just seems entirely arbitrary at the moment as to what is "cannot" and what is "always", and consequently it is entirely arbitrary which game mechanic prevails over another.
    I don't think we're going to get that much of a look at their decisions. Lol. Perhaps, but there's a difference between asking for a window and a play-by-play in their decision-making process.
  • Options
    LongtimegamerLongtimegamer Posts: 179 ★★★
    GW, what is so difficult to grasp about what @Ultra8529 is saying?

    He's saying that the exact same thing can be described in two different ways, and since the way something is worded is important in what gets precedent, how do they decide how things are worded in this game?

    He's saying that it's entirely arbitrary (which it is), and it can lead us down a slippery slope.

    "Bill is always on time for work"

    "Bill is never not on time"

    Both mean the exact same thing. Yet in this game, the "never" part gets precedent even though they're both the exact same thing. In MCOC we need clear guidelines on HOW and why things are worded the way they are so there is consistency and little confusion.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    It's taking one comment on the thought process and applying it to all the wording in the game, and that in itself is perpetuating confusion. It's literally one interaction they were looking at. Not all of them. The bottom line is they don't want Crit to happen with Glancing due to the effect Micro has with it. That's about it. It has less to do with the wording than is being expanded on here. They want Micro Reflect to reflect ordinary Damage only, and not Crit. Honestly, this was one comment Miike made that became stretched out.
  • Options
    LongtimegamerLongtimegamer Posts: 179 ★★★

    It's taking one comment on the thought process and applying it to all the wording in the game, and that in itself is perpetuating confusion. It's literally one interaction they were looking at. Not all of them. The bottom line is they don't want Crit to happen with Glancing due to the effect Micro has with it. That's about it. It has less to do with the wording than is being expanded on here. They want Micro Reflect to reflect ordinary Damage only, and not Crit. Honestly, this was one comment Miike made that became stretched out.

    No! We don't get to dismiss this important point.

    HOW they define things is VERY IMPORTANT. It literally decides how the game functions. So it can't be arbitrary. We need clear consistent rules on this otherwise they can literally change anything they want at any time like they did with guaranteed crits which we all know is nonsense.

    Many abilities in this game aren't worded as always, are they going to stop working from now on too? Will Icemans coldsnap or Void debuffs start glancing these days?

    Defining abilities are entirely arbitrary and we can't have that.
  • Options
    CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,965 ★★★★★

    It's taking one comment on the thought process and applying it to all the wording in the game, and that in itself is perpetuating confusion. It's literally one interaction they were looking at. Not all of them. The bottom line is they don't want Crit to happen with Glancing due to the effect Micro has with it. That's about it. It has less to do with the wording than is being expanded on here. They want Micro Reflect to reflect ordinary Damage only, and not Crit. Honestly, this was one comment Miike made that became stretched out.

    No! We don't get to dismiss this important point.

    HOW they define things is VERY IMPORTANT. It literally decides how the game functions. So it can't be arbitrary. We need clear consistent rules on this otherwise they can literally change anything they want at any time like they did with guaranteed crits which we all know is nonsense.

    Many abilities in this game aren't worded as always, are they going to stop working from now on too? Will Icemans coldsnap or Void debuffs start glancing these days?

    Defining abilities are entirely arbitrary and we can't have that.
    Most abilities are 100% chance (unless otherwise stated) and glancing requires being attacked so no coldsnap and void’s debuffs will not glance. GG chicken little.
  • Options
    LongtimegamerLongtimegamer Posts: 179 ★★★

    It's taking one comment on the thought process and applying it to all the wording in the game, and that in itself is perpetuating confusion. It's literally one interaction they were looking at. Not all of them. The bottom line is they don't want Crit to happen with Glancing due to the effect Micro has with it. That's about it. It has less to do with the wording than is being expanded on here. They want Micro Reflect to reflect ordinary Damage only, and not Crit. Honestly, this was one comment Miike made that became stretched out.

    No! We don't get to dismiss this important point.

    HOW they define things is VERY IMPORTANT. It literally decides how the game functions. So it can't be arbitrary. We need clear consistent rules on this otherwise they can literally change anything they want at any time like they did with guaranteed crits which we all know is nonsense.

    Many abilities in this game aren't worded as always, are they going to stop working from now on too? Will Icemans coldsnap or Void debuffs start glancing these days?

    Defining abilities are entirely arbitrary and we can't have that.
    Most abilities are 100% chance (unless otherwise stated) and glancing requires being attacked so no coldsnap and void’s debuffs will not glance. GG chicken little.
    So Iceman and Void's l1 should glance now since they cause Coldsnap and Intimidating Presence Debuffs?
Sign In or Register to comment.