Yeah I had to make another account for this... But... This is some shady news by Kabam. Looks like there will be changes in the future such as this one. Why don't we just go play some video games on console or PC at this point hahaha
??? I still don’t get what’s going on Did @GroundedWisdom get a sense of humor Lolololololololol
Yeah I had to make another account for this... But... This is some shady news by Kabam. Looks like there will be changes in the future such as this one. Why don't we just go play some video games on console or PC at this point hahaha
??? I still don’t get what’s going on Did @GroundedWisdom get a sense of humor Lolololololololol
Yeah I had to make another account for this... But... This is some shady news by Kabam. Looks like there will be changes in the future such as this one. Why don't we just go play some video games on console or PC at this point hahaha
??? I still don’t get what’s going on Did @GroundedWisdom get a sense of humor Lolololololololol
Keep dreaming.
Who made the 2nd acc then I’m so confused right now
However to say my quick opinion. If you are going to have balanced standard of play for a short (Nick Fury nerf) or long (this or any other silent nerf) period of time then all of a sudden change it, then that is very poor on your playerbase. It'll only go downhill from here assure that. And to make it worse, this forum has banned the entire playerbase that opposes this awful and money making decisions. All thats left are the fee that defend any Kabam update. It's almost as if they work for them ...
Yeah I had to make another account for this... But... This is some shady news by Kabam. Looks like there will be changes in the future such as this one. Why don't we just go play some video games on console or PC at this point hahaha
??? I still don’t get what’s going on Did @GroundedWisdom get a sense of humor Lolololololololol
Keep dreaming.
Who made the 2nd acc then I’m so confused right now
That is definitely not me. All kinds of ***kery going on in this Thread.
Preach. How are we suppose to assume that? Should it not be phrased differently if 'cannot' can actually be bypassed by another ability that states 'always'? The statements and ignorance, twisting the meaning of English vocabulary to justify an error on their part, instead of admitting there was a mistake or trying to amend it, is very unethical and unprofessional.
This is a 9 figure net worth company, solely thanks to this game, we really need an overhaul on the staff running these forums. It's almost like a power trip for them, instead of taking the real problems head on that most people post, they pick and choose easy posts and even joke around, and ignore all the real issues and problems that the community is revealing. Come on, work together with us to patch up the numerous glitches and issues this game currently has. It'll only benefit Kabam in the long run
Fundemantally I dont agree with this new explanation of glancing and crits interaction but it doesnt matter as its their game and they choose whatever needs to be done in it. However all these new node abilities like psycic thorns and OP champ abilities and the new map7 kind abilities will start contradicting each other soon and because of these interations the game will implode. Its looking like a venom slime web now...lol.
Corvus spend his Charges because those are what make the hit Critical. And Glancing only works if the hit is critical.
First, Corvus use his charge which make the hit Critical.
Second, Glancing convert it into Non- Critical hit
I don't understand why everyone's trying to exaggerate this topic. Glancing is nothing new in this game. Corvus's abilities clearly say he have 100% chance to Crit. But it doesn't say it can Crit through Glancing.
I think that this has always been a part of the game, but with the wider usage of Corvus, it has rose to attention. However, in the case of Elektra, the same thing has occurred long before Corvus was put into the game. When below the guranteed crit range, she would have her hits glance, and therefore not be critical. This has been around for a long time, but again, it has only recently been made important. Just use some other champs 😉
Wooooo... I'm getting the GroundedWisdom treatment from GroundedWisdom himself! Flagging all my posts. I've said nothing wrong buddy so keep flagging me
Wooooo... I'm getting the GroundedWisdom treatment from GroundedWisdom himself! Flagging all my posts. I've said nothing wrong buddy so keep flagging me
@Mitch98284 That was for you... I'm sure that money you spent getting him was put to good use at that point eh!?
I didn't spend any money @GroundedDodo I bought 5 crystals to celebrate making uncollected, and got him on the third. It was very lucky. Besides that, I haven't used cull very much, and don't plan to until I rank him up. Ill use lots of other champs when he can't do anything though.
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.
First off it was never called out as bug in the year or so Corvus has been around. Pulling that "they're just fixing a bug" is nonsense. Second you've said how many times in the inevitable agreement with the decision "but never trumps always", well the node on YJ is the highest percentage chance to glance at 85%, Corvus crits at 100% rate, you can do the math there, at least you might be able to. So by the number Corvus shouldn't trigger glancing at all while his GUARANTEED crits are active.
Pretty sure Micro Reflect hasn't been around for a year.
Didn't know glancing started with micro reflect, wonder what Antmans been doing all this time. 100% > 85% or below, hence guaranteed crits should never glance.
Math disagrees that 85 has to trigger sometimes even if the other is 100.
And if.glancing hits cannot be critical and corvus has gaureenteed crits then corvus shouldnt be able to even touch a glancing target.
It would trigger plenty once the guaranteed crits run out. Why exactly does that 85% have to trigger and take precedence over something set to trigger 100% of the time? Funny these changes literally never benefit the player or champ being used by the player. Same way buffet and maso still remove every single buff/debuff regardless how they're worded.
If you have a 100 percent chance to do something and someone else has an 85 percent chance to stop you.
You dont always win automatically sorry that's simply not logically how it works
It's things like this and all the other junk that go into the game that is making me quit. After 4 years, I've quit my alliance, I'm solo-ing things at my time and I'm spending a lot less. This whole "always" debate has always confused me.
If it's a matter of technicality, "always" is absolute, and "cannot" refers to glanced hits only, therefore the only logical result to the equation is that CG's hits cannot glance.
But it is not a matter of technicality, it's a matter of Kabam figuring another way to mess with the players, as I'm sure there are a ton of people who have ranked up CGs but nobody cares about AM if they don't also have Wasp and Ghost.
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.
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.
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 ran into this issue a while ago in a game i play a lot. A term called damage mitigation, another term for damage protection which generally reduces damage, and a character that executes other characters below a certain health threshold. Given high enough protection and damage mitigation 1 particular character could have through their abilities, they could survive this execute because the execute was just 9999 physical damage. This was later changed to true damage which cuts through protections and stopped this issue. For Kabam in this instance of always vs never, they took a bad stance. Glance should be whenever applicable, glancing hits may(will) not be critical. But leave crits for Corvus and MODOK still crit, just reduce their damage as it was before.
This sets a dangerous precedent for the game and I would like by this thread for the game team to clarify their intentions going forward. Ideally, this should not be the reasoning employed to explain the recent change to the interaction between guaranteed critical hits and glancing.
By way of background, corvus used to always be able to crit on opponents even if they had the ability to glance. The result was that corvus would register a critical hit, since he has a guaranteed crit when using his glaive, but that hit would have a chance to glance and have reduced damage. The interaction has been changed in the latest update so that corvus will not crit when the opponent procs glance.
The official explanation for this is that the game team made a decision that an ability like glancing, against which you "cannot" crit, will henceforth take precedence over abilities, like corvus' landing critical hits, which are expressed as "always" going to happen.
But if one thinks further about this, this is fundamentally flawed and is simply a matter of semantics. Any ability or mechanic in the game can be expressed in both - "always" or "cannot". For example:
- Corvus' ability to crit on every hit can be expressed as (1) "always" land a crit when using his glaive; or (2) "cannot" land a non-crit when using his glaive - Iceman's coldsnap can be expressed as (1) "always" prevent enemy from evading when attacking; or (2) enemy "cannot" evade when iceman is attacking - Spider Gwen's ability to evade unblockable special attacks can be expressed as (1) "always" evade unblockable special attacks; or (2) enemy unblockable special attacks "cannot" hit her - Even glancing abilities can be expressed both ways: (1) enemy attacks that glance "always" do not crit and suffer ability accuracy reduction; or (2) enemy attacks that glance "cannot" crit and suffer ability accuracy reduction.
The list goes on and on. The distinction between "cannot" and "always" is not a principled way for the game to decide how mechanics interact. My view is that the glancing/guaranteed crit interaction should just be called what it is - the game team made a decision to change the interaction.
If the game team decides to stick to its position that "always" trumps "cannot", then these terms must be made clear in every single champ description.
Thoughts?
If you cut someone you are "always" going to make them bleed. However if you cut someone made entirely of metal you "cannot" make them bleed. Now unless your knife warps reality and gives the person made of metal blood then you "cannot" make them bleed. In short unless "always" was made or said to specifically to get around "cannot" then it loses.
On a more serious note, while this change seems like its here to stay, anyone notice guaranteed crits failing vs critical resistance? That's definitely not a case of 'always' vs 'cannot' but rather 'always' vs 'might not'.
^ A year from now when they change the meta to destroy your Cull, Ill make sure to tell you "Just use other champs"
This entire thread reads as I cant win without my crutch corvus hes the only way I know how to play wah wah wah
Statements like this shows just how much you don't read or fail to understand about this thread. I've said at least 3 times that this thread is not about the corvus/glancing interaction. It is more fundamental and about how we define actions in this game since that has a bearing on how game mechanics work.
Still no clear definition for what constitutes an "always" as opposed to a "cannot".
Arguably the best justification so far is by @DNA3000 - looking at it as "take action" vs "prevent action". But even then I can still see difficulties. The relevant action as far as the game is concerned can still be flipped around depending how you look at it - it could be either a critical hit or a non-critical hit, it could be a hit or an evade. So it really seems to me to be a matter of perspective.
Sorry for the super-late reply, but to clarify one point, one of the reasons why I've come to believe in the "action" vs "prevention" perspective on resolving "always" vs "never" (or cannot in this case) is because while it is semantically true that anything you can describe as "action" can be described as the opposite thing not acting, it is always true that in any game like MCOC there is one and only one reasonable interpretation of those terms that actually describes what the game is doing. For example, you can say that something evades, or something fails to evade. But in MCOC, evasion is an effect that must be triggered. "Not evade" is not a real thing in the game that can be actively triggered. So when you're in a situation where different people can choose to argue a perspective semantically, you have a non-arbitrary referee: the game itself.
Also, I'm not suggesting that the "prevent" beats "action" is always the best result. I believe it is the best default rule, and when there's a situation where "action" should beat "prevent" then that should be specified in the descriptions explicitly. But I believe there should be a really good reason to override this rule, because this rule protects designers against a lot of bad things happening that are difficult to foresee down the road. In my experience, bad things happen when a designer tries to stop something from happening in the game and their implementation fails because someone else as an override that they themselves can't override. It is much rarer when the reverse happens and causes a similar magnitude problem.
Comments
I still don’t get what’s going on
Did @GroundedWisdom get a sense of humor
Lolololololololol
I’m so confused right now
This is a 9 figure net worth company, solely thanks to this game, we really need an overhaul on the staff running these forums. It's almost like a power trip for them, instead of taking the real problems head on that most people post, they pick and choose easy posts and even joke around, and ignore all the real issues and problems that the community is revealing. Come on, work together with us to patch up the numerous glitches and issues this game currently has. It'll only benefit Kabam in the long run
First, Corvus use his charge which make the hit Critical.
Second, Glancing convert it into Non- Critical hit
I don't understand why everyone's trying to exaggerate this topic. Glancing is nothing new in this game.
Corvus's abilities clearly say he have 100% chance to Crit. But it doesn't say it can Crit through Glancing.
Everything is working as intended.
Bet half of these people don’t even have corvus
It’s a 85% to not happen
But it is not a matter of technicality, it's a matter of Kabam figuring another way to mess with the players, as I'm sure there are a ton of people who have ranked up CGs but nobody cares about AM if they don't also have Wasp and Ghost.
Still no clear definition for what constitutes an "always" as opposed to a "cannot".
Also, I'm not suggesting that the "prevent" beats "action" is always the best result. I believe it is the best default rule, and when there's a situation where "action" should beat "prevent" then that should be specified in the descriptions explicitly. But I believe there should be a really good reason to override this rule, because this rule protects designers against a lot of bad things happening that are difficult to foresee down the road. In my experience, bad things happen when a designer tries to stop something from happening in the game and their implementation fails because someone else as an override that they themselves can't override. It is much rarer when the reverse happens and causes a similar magnitude problem.