[from: Quick Combat Questions]
I'm sorry if this was asked before, but how do other priests keep people from forcing bedevil? There is no off switch after it is done! Any tactics you all have for this?
you can't really stop someone forcing you to bedevil, other than not having the ability in the first place. If someone forces you to bedevil, then you need to go all offence (within reason) and punish them for the reflecting affs.
I thought I'd (re)create a thread for this topic since it is a deviation from the question asked, and is an open invitation for other non-quick-combat-related discussion.
Jovolo's answer was accurate and complete. Not even being off balance or being prone stops it.
Before I get into my personal suggestions for it, I'll summarize my knowledge of how it works, and why it works that way.Assumptions:
TL;DR so far:
- Passive bedevil was, by design, intended to prevent all forms of elemental healing, which prevents the use of the entire Healing skillset, aside from blessings and Disrupt (earth/air/etc). Specifically, it prevents, HEAL <affliction>, HEAL (a random single cure that respects the same cooldown), and active use of Bedevil (which is a form of elemental healing). This effect is (imo) well-balanced based on the relative power of the passive ability (randomly reflects some afflictions onto attackers), for two minutes. However, this balance assumes the Priest has control over when to use the ability (it is, in fact, almost the complete opposite).
- Passive bedevil (again, this is an assumption) was designed to not require or consume any balances, primarily due to the fact that the priest class already has a 10-15 second spinup at the beginning of combat (Inspiration, Heresy, several angel abilities (notably Spiritwrack), and rites (several of which are essentially "required")). It also allows the ability to be used mid-combat without a significant loss of offensive momentum. The trade-off for making passive bedevil balance-free is that it has a massive mana cost (650mp).
- After months of this being how Bedevil worked, someone realized that it could be forced, and that forcing it could not in any way be prevented - and for classes that are able to force commands, this allows a player to completely shut off a Priests' access to almost an entire skillset, resulting in a Priest with less healing ability than literally any other class in the game (a slow/random active heal and zero active healing abilities), while simultaneously draining them of 650 mana (around 15-20% for most players), making it one of the most damaging mana attacks in the game (angel sap is 11%, by comparison, and doesn't cut people off from a skillset either).
- Once it was realized this could be done, everyone started doing it, and priests (@Tesha) flipped, and it was discussed on forums, then classleaded. It was, at that time, decided that while unintentional, the mechanic was "fine" because it gave some classes (those able to force commands) a method of mitigating Priests' curing power. [[ One of my major problems with this argument is that this statement assumes that Priests' healing power is somehow so good that it needs such a fix, which is arguable, considering that priest curing has been massively nerfed, several times, and that if this is the case, then the fix should not arbitrarily be given only to classes that have the ability to force commands, while totally failing to address it for other affliction-heavy classes (like alchemist, apostate, knights, blademaster, sentinel, druid, and arguably magi).
- The forum discussion and classlead resulted in no change, due to this logic of "yeah, that's a little broken, but it helps deal with that other thing that's also a little broken", with it being abundantly clear that broad (and perhaps erroneous) assumptions were being made, and without realizing the actual extent of the impact this mechanic has on combat (for example, the massive mana cost is rarely mentioned, among other things).
- More of a note than an assumption, but important: The class that is perhaps most benefited by this ability is serpent, which is capable of reliably locking an opponent with no active curing abilities in about 4-10 seconds (depending on artefact dirk, tree balance, and affliction/curing priority). Without access to Healing (typically used to cure asthma during lock attempts, akin to Fitness (but much slower), or active Bedevil (has a very long cooldown), Priest has essentially no way to avoid being venomlocked aside from offensive hindrance (essentially non-existent for priest without completely sacrificing offensive momentum), or completely turtling (spamming shield/aura/rebounding/lyre) until Passive Bedevil wears off, two minutes later. Important: Serpents, thus, benefit the most from this mechanic, and yet: Serpents have by far the most powerful force ability in the game, which can not only force as many commands as they like, but can be initiated with absolutely no balance cost, unlike every other foce ability in the game. Thus, a serpent can mathemically guarantee a lock by either forcing tree tattoo (before or after bedevil) and using the 11 second window provided to lock their target. That's not all though. Since Snap is balance free, the serpent doesn't even have to hedge bets on his lock attempt working. He can simply prepare the lock before snapping, dramatically shortening the window of opportunity for the priest to run or shield before being locked (to as low as 1.5-2 seconds). If somehow the lock isn't achieved, the serpent still has TWO MINUTES to keep trying, at which point, all he has to do is force it again (which can easily be timed via script (I do this), and suggested/sealed prior to that two minutes). The same exact train of logic can be applied to Bard Minuet, since the ability can be used off balance (after jabs).
- (personal opinion) Passive bedevil actually kinda sucks, and is very rarely, if ever, worth its various costs and penalties.
(not personal opinion) It is paradoxical in that its only positive effects are best used against affliction classes, which are specifically the classes that you would never want to use it on, eliminating your ability to mitigate incoming affliction rate and/or venomlocks.
Passive Bedevil is only good to use against an opponent with the following traits:
+ They do use a lot of afflictions
+ They are not actually able to lock you (ie. no access to impatience and/or hypochondria)
+ Their affliction rate / count on you is not a key metric in their offense (as it is for priest, shaman, occultist, etc)
This pretty much leaves... Sentinels, Druids, and Knights. Correcting for classes that priests actually fight against, that leaves two classes in the game, Infernals and Runewardens. Against everyone else it has either a slightly or massively negative impact (many of which are able to force it).
- Note: For classes able to force commands that benefit from doing mana damage, forced passive bedevil is definitely an oversight. There are only a few abilities in the game that use more mana in a single command, most of which are specifically not allowed to be forced, and all of which are not forceable off balance. Fortunately, two of the classes that can really take advantage of this oversight are both of the Devotion classes, however, an example of a class that dramatically benefits from both the mana damage and depriving a priest of huge amounts of mana, is Jester - a class that hardly needs any more unintended buffs.
- Key assumption: Most people don't seem to be fully aware of how massively Healing has been nerfed. This is vital to the discussion since "the need for a way to counter Healing" is the primary justification for Passive Bedevil being forceable at all. Healing used to be absolutely freaking ridiculous, but it got MASSIVELY and repeatedly nerfed, to the point that it is essentially now a glorified, albeit actually worse, version of Fitness. Here's how Healing actually works:
+ Healing, unlike every other active heal in the game (other than Fitness) shows what it is healing (indirectly, but specifically).
+ The HEAL command (unspecified affliction) has a 3 second balance (limb balance), and has 10 second cooldown.
+ The HEAL <aff> command uses elemental balance, and thus significantly detracts from priest's offensive affliction pressure, to the extent that if things have come to the point that using HEAL <aff> is required, total abandonment of offensive pressure is almost certainly prudent.
+ Heal uses 300 mana, which in combination with attacks (which also use mana), drains about 600-900 mana PER ATTACK, which needless to say, is both unsustainable, and quite dangerous against many classes.
+ Heal is prevented by either arm being broken, including level 1 "breaks" (aka shriveled).
It is my honest to god opinion that simple "random cure" abilities (shrugging, salt, alleviate, etc) are in general far more valuable than Heal <affliction>, particularly since they mask what is cured (a mind bogglingly-underrated detail), whereas Healing shows exactly what was cured, an can easily be afflicted in about 20% of the balance time that it took to cure it (two doublestabs and a loki bite and/or hypnosis affliction in the same 3 seconds, for example). Also, most of these abilities have additional benefits (such as being abled to be used prone, not using any actual balances (no impact on offense), or healing TWO afflictions at a time (bloodboil), and so on.
Healing is actually cumulatively worse than Fitness, as well, particularly when acknowledged that Heal <affliction> (on yourself) is virtually only used to cure Asthma to prevent venomlocks. I have personally never actually used it to cure any other (Healable) affliction, since in almost all other cases, a better method or counter is better. With the simple (and reasonable) assumption that Healing is only actually used to cure Asthma, Fitness is actually better in every way. It is much faster, is much harder to prevent, does not use 300 mana, does not have a cooldown or use a class balance (Heal has both), and, of course, can't be prevented for 2 minutes with a single unstoppable forced command.
The mechanic of making forced bedevil unpreventable wasn't intended, and was left in place as a "lazy" fix to a different problem, that may or may not actually be a problem anymore - and the "fix" only works for an almost entirely arbitrary list of classes based on which are able to force commands (which nearly inversely correlates to which classes actually rely on afflictions in combat, with the exceptions of occultist, bard, and serpent). Also, there were many unconsidered factors and effects of this mechanic (some of which I listed), including the mana cost of the ability, and the absolutely blatant overpowered nature of the mechanic when used by bards and serpents to achieve venomlocks.
[continued] (wtf is this, this is 2014, why do forums have character limits?)
So, with that in mind...
I understand that it was previously determined to be "fine", but I strongly feel that this conclusion was based on incomplete or simply incorrect information, without adequate understanding of the impact it would have on priest combat. While this is totally fine, as it's often difficult to tell how things will ultimately be used, especially regarding a class with so few active combatants, we have now had time to see exactly how it's used, and I think it's fairly clear that it's a "bad" mechanic in numerous ways (to the point that its existence actually detriments the class).
As a semi-experienced priest combatant (subjective statement), I would very much rather passive bedevil not exist, than have it exist and be unstoppably forcible. It is a fact that in many fights, it would be dramatically advantageous for a priest to not have learned the ability, at all. Like many priests, if I could UNLEARN the ability, I actually would (and have actually considered dropping and re-embracing class in order to do this, despite the massive credit cost). Against bards, serpents, occultists, priests, and paladins, the ability to heal (Using the Heal ability) key afflictions (namely asthma, and sometimes slickness/anorexia) is simply far more important than either active or passive Bedevil - period. A point that is also frequently mentioned is that the only actual advantage to passive bedevil (passive affliction pressure) is a completely unnecessary facet of priest offence, and is often virtually non-existent, since without Healing, you're typically venom-locked or enlightened long before it actually has time to benefit the priest.
Alternatively, I would rather see Active Bedevil nerfed in exchange for making Passive Bedevil either unforceable or more difficult to force.
Here are a few suggestions (will absolutely be classleading one or more of these):
1) Just get rid of passive bedevil. Its existence hurts priest more than it helps it*, and we already have adequate affliction pressure without it. If its only real reason for existing is to help affliction classes deal with healing, then healing needs balanced - not deleted in two minute intervals.
2) Lower the probabilities on active bedevil in exchange for making passive bedevil unforceable.
3) Lower the probabilities on active bedevil in exchange for modifying passive bedevil in such a way that forcing it can be actively prevented by a player, in one of the following ways:
4) Let active bedevil remain easily forceable, but buff passive bedevil such that it has a positive net value for Priests. (not easily accomplished, without significant modification to what it actually does, without making it blatantly overpowered.)
5) Make both forms of Bedevil unforceable, make Healing only work on other players, and give Priest Fitness (in lieu of all of Healing). Considering that priest is almost certainly about to lose Angel Sacrifice as well, I think this is actually a great, albeit dramatic, suggestion.
- my suggestion: Give it a dramatically shorter duration (10-15 seconds) but give it a 75-100% proc chance during that time (it already has a 3rd party (room) message). This would make it function more like a "Kaido deliverance" or "Kaido immunity" than how it currently works, with a massive mana cost. Have it share a cooldown with active Bedevil (an instant ability) such that it can only be used every so often. This would, in fact, still be able to be used offensively via forcing, but only for 10-15 second periods, which would be far more survivable by priests, and would only allow a single lock attempt per use, instead of a massive (and easily repeatable) two minute window.
6) Give priest a drain ability that prevents (all or most) forced commands, while active. This would actually (at a cost) help with several other abilities priests have that are pretty dangerous when forced.
If you don't read the post, then don't reply to it. I love ya and totally get that it's a long post, but it really is annoying when people raise arguments or ask questions that were already addressed and/or answered in the actual post.
- The name at the top of the post.
- They suck at fighting priests and assume that it's because it is OP.
- They play serpent/bard/occultist and really love the fact that priest is the easiest class in the game to kill because of forced bedevil, and refuse to look at the issue objectively (ie. from the priest's perspective, as well as your own)
- You just a hata' and all you do is hate on things.
For people with valid questions, thoughts, comments: Please share!
If you feel that strongly about it you should probably just file a classlead report over it next month or w/e.
It has never been discussed by me, in any depth, nor have I (along with any other priest player, aside from @Tesha) been privilege to any of what you just listed.
Also, I think it is more than a fair assertment to state that several of the points I made have not been previously mentioned in any light, and at no point have all of them ever been presented together in a structured argument (I've seen the ACC forum, it isn't as wonderful and educated as some individuals like to let on).
I absolutely will not accept "This was briefly mentioned a year ago without adequate context or real-world experience and was dismissed, therefore it is clearly perfect in every way, despite the various mechanical/meta changes and realizations that have occurred since that time" as a rational response.
If you don't want to discuss it, then don't. The topic of the thread is not "Do you want to talk about the topic of this thread?".
In short, take your negativity elsewhere, unless you have an actual reason to provide for your general disagreement.
Please don't even respond to this or carry on this line of discussion in any form. If you want to talk about the actual topic, I absolutely encourage you to do so. If you want to bitch about me, any form of "wanking", or any real or perceived "infestations", please do so elsewhere.
@Makarios himself has said that passive bedevil was implemented with the intention of being forceable and usable as a counter to healing. That's really the entire reason the ability was created. Priest didn't need another offense bonus. It was given it as a creative means of stopping healing.
Likewise, it was implemented as a balanceless ability solely so it could be forced.
Heal was not stopped by -anything- when bedevil was implemented (other than disrupt, entanglement, things no lock class can reasonably use to maintain a lock). It was later made so that it was also stopped by broken arms, to give classes that could not force a chance.
The ability is fine, though. It's a massive benefit to priest, for the cost of no healing. Priest does not require healing to survive.
P.S. Why is priest about to lose angel sacrifice? Where do you get your information? Angel sacrifice needed a nerf, and it got one. No one really cares about it anymore, and there's been no indication it will be removed.
Also, heal (with specified affliction) uses only class balance. You can still attack while using it (albeit only half of your offense). Fitness uses balance, and belongs to classes that have no separate balance. They cannot attack at all while using it. No knowledgeable combatant would -ever- say that fitness is better than healing, without regarding passive bedevil.
Heal also has no cooldown if the affliction is specified, and I am unsure why you would ever not specify the affliction. It is better than fitness (and every other active curing ability) in about every imaginable way. It is usable prone, as well - you seemed to imply that it wasn't?
I should add that active bedevil is, likewise, better than pretty much every other active curing ability. It supplements your offense AND heals all your afflictions at the same time.
Passive bedevil is the only thing that tames these abilities and makes them reasonable.
One metric I would also like to point out is that Healing an affliction every 3 seconds (particularly since your opponent can clearly see what is being cured) is made almost irrelevant by two things:
- healing an affliction every 3 seconds is 0.333 affs / second. Serpent, for example, can easily exceed 2-2.5 affs per second during relapse/hypnosis bursts.
- The affliction is shown, so unlike with normal active cures, it should be assumed that what you cure (assuming it is high priority) can and will be easily re-afflicted well before you regain healing balance again. In almost all cases (doublestab, evileyes, curses, DSL, bard jab, among others) it is almost certain that you can land two full attack combos, as well as any additional inter-combo afflictions (harmonics, snake pet bites, relapses, hypnosis suggestions, infestation, etc) in that time as well.
I can personally say that as several classes, I've venomlocked opponents who were doing nothing but rebounding/fitness. Since in this context, (speed being the only metric of concern), fitness is unarguably better (because it is much faster) than Heal, I think that it's completely, empirically false to base anything upon the conjecture that Serpents (or any other class) needs a way to get around either Heal or Bedevil.
Even with all this said, if you were correct, then by sheer correlation, Fitness, Fool Tarot, Rage, Bloodboil, and particularly, Shrugging and Dragonheal, would then also be overpowered, particularly since the classes (generally speaking) that have access them also have other healing abilities.
I think you're being intentionally obtuse, because I know that you (@Xinna) are fully aware of priest's actual healing potential, and you, like myself, are aware that it is not, by a longshot, the best affliction mitigation in the game (I'd place it around 4th or 5th place). It doesn't even have the best cure-all in the game, by a longshot (phoenix, cage, mog all easily trump it - particularly phoenix).
If this offends you, then please feel free to disregard. I would just honestly like to hear your take on this without the whole "Priest so OP" crap - because again, we both know that simply isn't true.
I'm sorry, I stopped reading at "I distinctly remember teaching you combat basics" and "As someone who I know uses basic affliction tracking" because I was laughing too hard to continue.
Anyone who knows me knows that I do not have any sort of automated affliction tracking (which I presume is what you are referring to), and I would -much- -much- ten thousand times -much- rather a priest try to use non-specified heal against me than targeted heal. And Jaegerl taught me combat! Not you.
You always say incorrect things about your class, but please do not make them about me. I won't be responding to the rest of your post, as I did not bother finishing.
If you don't understand the value of masked healing, then you absolutely have something to learn, still.
There is only really one affliction that, in certain cases, would trump the value of masked healing, and that is Asthma, particularly if you already have a kelp stack or any of the other venom-lock criteria. In fact, if you have asthma (but aren't near a lock) that's actually one of the reasons that you should use a masked heal, so that your opponent has to deal with the fact that you might have cured it, by re-applying the affliction (which you probably still had - thus wasting his affliction and doubling the value of your heal). Creating entropy/uncertainty against venomlocks is both statistically and practically one of the best possible defences, and masked heals are the premiere methods of doing this.
There are times that paralysis and impatience are also vital to heal, but only if... drumroll ... you have asthma. As I know you're aware, this is what makes a monk, knight, or BM who uses Fitness correctly in conjunction with correct curing and use of class abilities (and mobility) theoretically unlockable. It's the only affliction that when cured completely and instantly undoes a * venomlock. (* kelp-stack based )
This fact is the core of why Fitness is better than Healing. If you deleted the entire Heal <affliction> ability, and left priest with only Fitness and the random "heal" ability, it would be a massive improvement. A perfect example of this is Paladin, which is far more difficult to lock, when used correctly, than a priest (even without having Heal, at all).
Again, the fact that Fitness is significantly faster than Heal Asthma pretty much settles this. (unlike Heal Asthma, it is almost for some, and completely for other classes, impossible to get two attacks in between two uses of Fitness. Serpents can do it, but only just barely, and it can't be done consecutively)
I mean, it boils down to this:
Forced Bedevil makes Priest the worst healing class in the entire game for two full minutes, and it's completely unstoppable, and costs almost nothing to do.
It's up for debate if Healing is or isn't "too good" for a serpent or bard to lock without additional mechanics, but I don't think it should be up for debate that completely preventing every form of active heal available to the class is a good solution, or the only possible one.
Under the assumption that anything is actually needed at all, I think something much less devastating could be implemented. As it stands, priest is quite literally the easiest class in the game to kill for a bard, serpent, or occultist. There is absolutely no room for "but only if you force Bedevil" in this statement, as there is absolutely no reason why you wouldn't do so. It's an absolute that if you're able to force it against a priest as an affliction class, then you should.
And again, if such a "fix" is necessary, then it shouldn't just arbitrarily be given to classes that happen to be able to force commands. If Healing is OP, then fix it. Don't leave it OP and give a shoddy fix to half the classes that it affects.
Penwize has cowardly forfeited the challenge to mortal combat issued by Atalkez.
I mean, I was trying to rephrase things I said in the OP, because so far everything that was said (that wasn't an insult) was specifically accounted for in it.
I will probably stop responding to blanket "There is nothing wrong with forced bedevil, but I can't be bothered to explain why any of the three pages of evidence you provided is actually incorrect or irrelevant", because frankly, it's pretty clear that certain people would disagree with me if I stated that web/axk, enfeeble/absolve, tramplesect, pit, kill rooms, or 50% damage kai-chokes were broken.
Oh, goshdarnit... they did. The very same people.
how is this true? You have all the basic healing stuff, with like two forms of passive affliction curing. Especially with the nerfs on the active abilities last class lead go round, I'm not sure why priests are significantly worst then other classes.
I've discussed this in depth in other topics, but the short version is this. With Passive bedevil up, Priest has zero class-specific active cures*, and only has a single passive cure ability (at one time). [ * not factoring in angel sacrifice, which essentially ends a 1v1 fight ]
Every other class in the game either has an active cure (almost all do) and/or a passive heal ability, and every passive healing ability in the game except one (the only real exception is Dagaz) is better than both Rite of Healing and Angel Care.
If you want the full explanation, I'll try to dig up the link (I listed them all, including proc rate and unique aspects), in a similar topic, the goal of which was also to dispel this false belief that priest healing is somehow top tier (it mathematically simply isn't. Magi and sylvan, for example, have both active and passive heals that are far better than priest's respective abilities, and they also have reflection, and can use rebounding with little to no risk of disrupting limb preps (which is a huge form of affliction mitigation).
Basically, the proc rate on most of passive cures in the game is either 10 seconds, or very near 10 seconds (I think one of them was 11). Not only is this quite fast, but it's also very reliable (and can be depended on).
Both priest passives (again, which do not stack - RoH overrides angel care) occur on a random interval, with significantly longer intervals (Angel care procs can be and often is up to 45-50 seconds apart).
Necklace of Purity, for example, is better in almost every possible way. Not only is it not room dependant or a drain of any kind (both priest passives are) but it procs several times faster than Angel care, and almost twice as fast as Rite of Healing (RoH). Also, it is dependable, which is, again, really important. Also, unlike both priest passives, it's impossible to strip (assuming you trigger re-wearing it when forced to remove it), and can be re-deffed instantly, which is not the case, again, with either of priests abilities. Furthermore, and probably most importantly, Purity only heals venom afflictions, which is a massive advantage, as it has a much higher chance to cure venom-lock afflictions, particularly against classes that aren't venom-based, but used venoms to lock (in which case, it's essentially guaranteed that every Purity tick will cure a venom-lock affliction). Bloodboil is also nearly identical to the random "Heal" ability, with the exception that it heals two afflictions, instead of one, and is actually faster.
The other passive heals (hallelujah, panacea, syphon, and dagaz) all have similar advantages, and are all also better by every quantitative measure, with the exception of Dagaz, which is particularly less "good" due to the fact that it is the only passive heal that has a 3rd party (room) proc message (although it does not state what affliction was cured to other parties).
Shrugging is also kindof a hybrid active-passive heal (in that it is technically active, but requires/uses no balance), which if thought of as a passive, is by far the most powerful in the game.
Quick disclaimer: not going to get into a discussion on this. We're more than happy to talk about this more during a classlead season, but I'm fine going over the reasoning behind passive bedevil in some greater depth.
Firstly, the choices for classes who could force passive bedevil was pretty specifically thought out. The primary thing here is that bard and serpent have no real (sensible) recourse against a decent fighter using priest due to the lack of a way to stop healing outside of disrupt. With the advent of high end curing systems, the window between a lock and a disrupt suggestion for serpents isn't a reasonable expectation for most people not to be able to heal a crutial affliction in. This might not be quite as significant an issue after the hypochondria changes, but given the ability to couple the aff cure with an active defence (shield, for instance), I'd still be very hesitant to say that. Bard lacks disrupt entirely, so is pretty out of luck. Artefacts or general tanking can offset a bards chance to kill a priest with damage (which is already fairly unlikely).
Apostates/alchemists/blademasters all have very potent kill methods outside of affliction-based kills (in blademaster and alchemists case, arguably they're the primary methods). Occultist falls somewhere in the middle here.
The main problem with healing isn't that it can cure any affliction. We could cut it down to impatience/asthma/a couple other big ones and likely there'd be no tangible change. The issue is that it is able to be combined with other abilities (its selling point), particularly abilities such as shield, permitting the user to actively attempt to escape a situation with fly/leap/etc. This essentially let's you continue to escape the situation while allowing you to optimally heal afflictions, something (assuming equal skill level of both players and no extenuating circumstances) that isn't reasonably counterable. There are options of course (knife sigils was the big one), but these are all based upon the priest not being aware of the appropriate counter measures, which isn't something we can really assume when making changes.
There is however something to be said for the lack of any form of active heals on the class with active bedevil up. The change I'd personally be inclined toward would be something along the lines of allowing the eq-based untargeted heal to work with active bedevil up, but to have an affliction to stop it. That's a purely spontaneous thought however; we've not talked about it at all and I haven't really considered implications. I'm pretty sure that's the most extreme change we'd make though, given the existence of their passive healing and fairly hindering offense.
We don't want priests to feel safe at all times anymore - your offence is your defence, and thus your defence is dictated by how smart your offence is.
And please, please, please stop using (paraphrased) "I am knowledgeable" "I am experienced" "If you disagree you are wrong" as arguments. They aren't. They're arrogant, subjective, unquantifiable and insulting statements that do not help your point brah
I'm sure we could just discuss an affliction that stops all healing entirely like vernalius for fitness and we can assuage all of these worries.
Results of disembowel testing | Knight limb counter | GMCP AB files
Regarding the line of thought that passive bedevil is valuable as an offensive tool:
It simply isn't. Some real, and significant, albeit not entirely obvious reasons come to mind: (assuming a 33% base proc chance for passive bedevil).
1) Its proc is RNG and is entirely based on what afflictions your opponent chooses to use. Both of these factors are out of your control, and neither of which can be relied upon to deliver a specific affliction at any point in combat, or technically, to deliver any affliction, at all.
2) It frequently procs on common "high priority afflictions" which the opponent already has, which effectively lowers effective proc rate as your opponents' affliction count increases. An opponent with 30 afflictions could hit you with all 30 of those afflictions indefinitely, with a 0% chance that passive bedevil would give them an affliction they didn't already have. The true impact of this effect varies between class, but it is particularly high for classes that use kelp, ginseng, or mental stacks, as this directly coincides with the list of afflictions Priests tend to already have afflicted with (which increases the odds that you'll "overlap" those afflictions with passive bedevil). Now, technically, a smart opponent could prioritize offensive use of afflictions that he knows that he has, and completely ignore Passive Bedevil, because there'd be a fixed 0% chance that he'd ever be afflicted with anything he doesn't already have. I've never seen someone be smart/talented enough to do this, but it happens accidentally in almost almost every fight in which Passive bedevi is used.
Against a serpent that is only using a basic kelp stack and venom lock affs (so, clumsiness, weariness, sensitivity, asthma, slickness, anorexia, paralysis) - of those afflictions, two can be cured instantly with no impact on priest momentum due to being smoke/salve cures (anorexia/slickness). Thus the effective proc rate of passive bedevil has already been reduced to by 28% (of an already low chance). Anyone knowledgeable about Priest offense also knows that most fights revolve around leading with Chasten Body. Of the remaining 5 afflictions mentioned, 4 of them are afflicted by Chasten body (only exception being sensitivity, which happens to be giving by Spiritwrack). 20-30 seconds into combat, it is far from unrealistic to say that they might (and ideally would) have all five of those afflictions. Assuming your opponent 3 of the 5 of those afflictions (likely sensitivity and paralysis missing), and taking into account that anorexia/slickness are also instantly healed, then your effective proc rate of Passive Bedevil against this theoretical (and frequently real) opponent has dropped to whatever it's actual proc rate is (lets say 0.333?) multiplied by 2/7, which is an effective proc rate of about 7.9%. As in, there's a 7.9% chance that Passive Bedevil will actually hit your opponent with an affliction that they don't already have. That just continues to decrease as you give them more afflictions (at this point, they only have three).
But wouldn't this scenario make it pretty easy to venomlock the player? Theoretically, it could, but only based on three assumptions:
3) Due to being RNG and unpredictable, any true value from the ability would be cumulative over a significant period of time, and is only valuable in retrospect (ex: Noticing that they gave themselves clumsiness after-the-fact). This is opposed to almost all other attacks, which can be relied upon and thus actually incorporated into a strategy (for example, I know that at almost any point in a fight, I can afflict with dizzy/confused using Dazzle. This doesn't rely on RNG (luck), and thus can be incorporated into a strategy before it is occurs in combat (which is immeasurably more valuable in "real" fights).
It requires massive amounts of skill (read: coding) to use it in any meaningful way, and even as such, still requires huge amounts of luck to yield anything that actually impacts the fight. At a glance it looks cool, but in reality, it virtually never actually contributes anything to a priests' offense, particularly against classes that use herb stacks (which is... every class except monk?).
I think your summary was quite accurate, in that without a shadow of a doubt, having the ability (regardless of whether or not you ever use it) totals out to a significantly net negative for Priests. Even for the theoretically "perfect" combatant, it remains terrible against any affliction class, and as you mentioned, any extremely minute advantage to using the ability is essentially non-existent to anyone not incredibly talented at combat (which would be required in order to quickly and competently factor in bedevil procs, using Succor, into your offense).
The fact that it's only supposedly "good" against affliction classes, and yet affliction classes are forcing Priests to use it, should probably be a tip-off.
I can personally say that I've never (read: zero times) had passive bedevil specifically lead to winning a fight that I wouldn't have won without it. Meanwhile, I can absolutely say, without a shadow of a doubt, that I've lost dozens of fights due to passive bedevil being up, and not having access to any form of anti-venomlock active healing.
The thing is, yes you do. It's the last ability, which means you can very easily just avoid learning it, which would be an extremely wise thing to do.
As I mentioned, I have contemplated dropping / re-embracing class just to drop Bedevil. It is that bad. The only reason I haven't is because of the credit cost. If it was free, I'd unlearn Trans Healing in a heartbeat.
This logic would imply that passive bedevil is proportionally good offensively as not using it would be defensively, which could not be farther from actually being the case.
Furthermore, no other class in the game has to sacrifice their only active cure abilitiy(s) in order to perform any kind of attack. I don't understand why you think that passive bedevil's impact on offense is somehow so good that it justifies making Priest the weakest defensive class in the game for two minutes.
If not using passive bedevil was proportionally valuable to how "powerful" it is offensively, then it would be a passive heal that procs once every two or three RL weeks. Cutting off 90% of a skillset (including every single active cure the class has) is just... a blatant imbalance.
Like write your entire argument in 2 paragraphs and try not to repeat yourself.
One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important
Try to "right" something that is actually on topic, and not a jab at me or anything about what I wrote, aside from its actual content.
I didn't make the thread to have my writing style criticized by the peanut gallery. I will say that my intention was to cover all known arguments that have been previously mentioned in one post - to preclude the thread becoming a clone of other brief discussions on the same topic.