Welcome to the Achaea Forums! Please be sure to read the Forum Rules.

Passive Bedevil discussion

ErnamErnam Member Posts: 2,416 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
edited December 2014 in The Golden Dais of Creation
[from: Quick Combat Questions]
Jeslyn said:
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?
Jovolo said:
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:

  1. 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).

  2. 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).

  3. 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).

  4. 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).

  5. 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).

  6. 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).

  7. (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).

  8. 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.

  9. 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.



TL;DR so far:  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?)
Jeslyn
«1345

Comments

  • ErnamErnam Member Posts: 2,416 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    [continued]


    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:
    • make it require balance (thus, being off balance would prevent forcing it)
    • make it require 100% mana to initiate (would require forcing at the very beginning of combat, instead of forcing it directly before a priest would need to use it (mid-combat)
    • all it to be disabled by the priest, but have deactivation trigger a (reduced) cooldown for active bedevil
    • prevent passive bedevil from being able to be used while active is currently on cooldown (which would allow a priest to use it early in combat to prevent forcing, at the expense of not being able to use either form of the ability until the cooldown is over).

    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.)
    • 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.
    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.

    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.



    For TL;DRers:
    I'm not going to open up a previously settled discussion without fully explaining why it is justified, and offering up full, positive solutions to the issues presented.

    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.

    For haters:
    You just gonna hate.  I can already think of about half a dozen people who are automatically going to violently hate this idea purely because of:
       - 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!
  • SantarSantar Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 2,424 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited December 2014
    Holy shit this has been discussed about a million times all over these forums, ACC, etc and deemed to be acceptable. It's even been commented on and tinkered with multiple times by Makarios, who explained the exact purpose and intent of the implementation. It's working completely as intended and it is fine as is.

    If you feel that strongly about it you should probably just file a classlead report over it next month or w/e. 

    image

    XinnaShirszae
  • ErnamErnam Member Posts: 2,416 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    edited December 2014

    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.
  • ErnamErnam Member Posts: 2,416 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    Ernam said:
    [...]
    For TL;DRers:
    I'm not going to open up a previously settled discussion without fully explaining why it is justified, and offering up full, positive solutions to the issues presented.

    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.

    For haters:
    You just gonna hate.  I can already think of about half a dozen people who are automatically going to violently hate this idea purely because of:
       - 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!

  • XinnaXinna Member Posts: 691 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean

    @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.


    ShirszaeSantar
  • KuyKuy Member Posts: 1,497 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    All you have to do is search bedevil on the forums to find one of your numerous posts about everything wrong with Priest.
    [2:41:24 AM] Kenway: I bet you smell like evergreen trees and you could wrestle boreal mammals but they'd rather just cuddle you
  • XinnaXinna Member Posts: 691 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    edited December 2014

    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.

    Shirszae
  • ErnamErnam Member Posts: 2,416 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    edited December 2014
    Xinna said:

    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.

    I am a knowledgeable combatant, and I firmly believe (and explained why) that Fitness is better than Heal.  If you don't think that I'm a knowledgeable combatant, then I don't think there's a point to any further discussion with you.  I don't know how to quantify this other than 12+ years of active experience, thousands of kills & several thousand more deaths, three dragons, five marks, all (but one) class tri-trans, and the fact that I distinctly remember teaching you combat basics in the Shadowsnakes.  If you're qualified to state that I'm not knowledgeable enough, then that'd be quite a paradox.




    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?

    There are advantages to not specifiying an affliction (again, which I listed in the OP), the primary of which being that it masks what is healed.  As someone who I know uses basic affliction tracking, I am sure you can appreciate this.

    Heal Asthma is certainly not better than Fitness in every way, particularly since I listed 5 specific measurableunarguable ways that this is not the case, followed by a detailed explanation of why most of the advantages of Heal are in actuality useless (the best example of which being the fact that it can cure a long list of afflictions, which nobody actually ever uses).  The only other significant advantage is that it can be used on other people, which has absolutely no bearing on 1v1 combat balance, and could potentially exist as a completely unrelated skill, with no consequence to 1v1 balance.  The only true advantage to Heal over Fitness is that it can be used prone (which is also true of many of the other active cure abilities, which is what I was also comparing to Heal).  However, as is true of most of the "advantages" of heal, the situation in which you are stuck prone, while trying to heal, particularly against a venom-lock class, is quite rare.  I can't say that I've ever been venomlocked by a serpent, in 1v1 combat, while prone.  Thus, one could argue that it's "better" than Fitness in that way, but only in a hypothetical scenario that doesn't actually occur, or at least, rarely does so.

    The same "realistic scenarios are more important than hypothetical ones" logic was applied (in the OP) to your comment about Heal using offensive combat balance (Healing/elemental balance) as well.  Yes, it is possible to combo some attacks with Heal.  However, due to the significantly negative impact this has on priest's offense (assuming a curing opponent, it results in a negative net affliction rate - ie, loss of momentum) even with no active shielding/hindrance, actually using it in this way is rarely if ever actually theoretically a good thing to do, nor is actually ever done in real fights.  In almost all cases that a priest is willing to sacrifice their offense to use Heal, they're near death or venomlock, and they're going to go full defensive (ie, shield, hands, rebounding, heal, run), until they reach a point they're comfortable to return to offensive focus.  It is extremely uncommon that you'd reach a point in combat that you'd want to use chasten/smite or dazzle, or anything else, while combo'ing healing.  If you ever reach the point you need to use healing, you're already past the point where you should also be shielding or running, and it's hard to imagine a scenario where a smite or dazzle is going to win you the fight, that wouldn't be possible without using that Heal in the combo.  It might be true that such a case doesn't even exist.

    So again, on paper, that seems like an "advantage", but any priest (such as yourself) knows damn well, that this isn't a tangible advantage, particularly with all of the other reasons factored in as well (heavy mana cost, easier to prevent, longer balance/cooldown, and the fact that it shows what is healed to your opponent).



    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.


    Active bedevil is probably the best cure ability in the game - solely because it can give some of the afflictions back to your opponent (the only thing that really separates it from Phoenix).  DSB also happens to be the best broken torso damage in the game, Staffcast is the best three-target high-damage lightning attack in the game, and Radiance is easily the best area-wide insta-kill in the game.  Every class has key strengths - ability to cure is Priests - and has already been massively axed, several times, in several different ways.

    You are right that it is really good, but it has a massive cooldown, an even more massive mana cost (I believe 2000-2500 mana), and the results are purely RNG.  It also has a very long balance cost, is easily prevented (via other means) and is easily comparable to several other abilities in the game that do similar things (phoenix, soulcage, mog, lifestone, hamstring/evade, and fast-travel, among other less obvious things).


    Passive bedevil is the only thing that tames these abilities and makes them reasonable.

    That is absolutely not true, and I am confident that you, I, and most everyone else knows it.  There are ample ways of stopping Active Bedevil, not the least of which is simply locking someone in the massive window afforded after they use it, during which they simply can't use it at all.  This is, again, similar to phoenix, cage, mog, fast-travel, etc, for the same reason.

    Furthermore, I made it quite clear that alterations to Active Bedevil are perfectly good suggestions for compensation to Priest for "fixing" this issue, among other "downgrades" to various abilities.  I certainly don't think Priest "needs" Active Bedevil, however I also certainly don't think it's a big deal, as it has a significant cooldown, severe mana and balance costs, does not produce dependable results, and rarely truly changes the end outcome of a fight (as in, I've never seen a priest win a fight using Bedevil that they wouldn't have won without it).

    It's also pretty damn easy to stop Healing, particularly Bedevil, in its tracks, by severing elemental bonds.  It's fast, easy, cheap, and typically works (only way to stop it is Binding, which most people don't (and shouldn't) always be using, in which case it forces them to use it, for even more significant mana/WP drains).

    In short, there are plenty of things that tame Heal and Bedevil, and several more ways that they could be modified to accommodate a fix.  I went to great length to detail why The existence & mechanics of Heal/Bedevil do not justify forced Bedevil, and you have also completely failed to address why only a handful of classes get access to this "fix", arbitrarily based on which classes had prior access to force abilities.  [ I would honestly say that alchemist, apostate, and a few others need this more than Bard or Serpent, who already have more than enough capability of locking a Priest, even in full "turtle" mode. - If serpent "needed " this change, then it'd almost be silly to suggest that apostate, or other significantly less volatile affliction classes, did not.  Serpent and Bard (as it currently exists) are already two of the three best classes in the game for venomlocking.  Anything added to the game to "fix" Healing for aff classes should not be contingent on having access to force abilities, which arbitrarily gave this "fix" to serpent and bard - two of the classes that needed this fix the least - which was and is one of the reasons it was and is obvious that it wasn't adequately thought through, or probably intended at all (upon implementation). ]


    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).

    @Xinna
    I ran the OP past three people for editing before I posted it, two of which immediately stated that you'd vehemently attack it, because of your devotion to Bard combat, and your dedication at anti-priest meta (creating a tri-trans character just to learn how to beat it, then never using it again).  I have done the same thing, and am not criticizing, I am just going to ask, politely, that you do try to set aside the fact that you really do, obviously, like the way things currently are, because it's EXTREMELY easy to kill priests as bard/serpent (coincidentally, the classes of your two main characters).

    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.
  • XinnaXinna Member Posts: 691 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean

    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.

    Austere
  • ErnamErnam Member Posts: 2,416 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    edited December 2014

    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)
  • ErnamErnam Member Posts: 2,416 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    edited December 2014

    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.
  • AtalkezAtalkez Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 5,280 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    You make people not want to read when you post like 3 times in a row, saying the same general stuff.

    Just sayin'

    Deucalion has cowardly declined the challenge of Atalkez to engage in mortal combat.

    You hug Aurora compassionately.
    AustereXinnaJonathinTzond
  • ErnamErnam Member Posts: 2,416 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    edited December 2014
    Atalkez said:
    You make people not want to read when you post like 3 times in a row, saying the same general stuff.

    Just sayin'

    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.

  • NakariNakari Member Posts: 596 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    Ernam said:


    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.

    Fine, I'll bite.

    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. 

  • ErnamErnam Member Posts: 2,416 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    edited December 2014
    Nakari said:
    Ernam said:


    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.

    Fine, I'll bite.

    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.

  • KresslackKresslack Florida, United StatesMember Posts: 6,336 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    That was the short version? Bloody hell....


    Atalkez
  • MakariosMakarios Administrator Posts: 1,922 Achaean staff

    Alright.

    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.

    ShirszaeAtalkezXinnaSynbios
  • JovoloJovolo EnglandMember Posts: 3,270 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited December 2014
    And also, I think you are missing the point of why bedevil prevents active healing: the more they hit you, the more momentum you gain. If they use high prio affs, you now have high prio affs integrated in your offence passively. Priest has access to on-demand peace and confusion as well as one of if not the best snowball offences in the game. The fact the only class-specific method of curing is a passive one in which they do not have to stop and start with while bedevil is up is not a coincidence, it's by design. 

    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
    ShirszaeXinna
  • DunnDunn Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 6,257 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited December 2014
    That deep belly laugh that I just experienced was better than a cup of coffee. This horse was beaten to death, buried, revived by a shitty necromancer, staked through the heart by Buffy herself, made into glue, and is now holding my toilet paper holder together very inadequately. 


    ShirszaeAtalkezDorn
  • JulesJules Member Posts: 2,169 @ - Epic Achaean
    edited December 2014
    I have a question.  This mechanic seems like the player has to be *very* skilled in order to not get screwed by it.  Is there any chance that admin would let players completely TURN OFF their own access to the skill (would be long term, not something they could turn back on mid combat)?  I understand that Achaea wants to cater to people who are highly skilled, and it sounds like this does that (provides a powerful benefit, if you are devilishly clever about dealing with the counters they've installed), but something like this sounds absolutely horrible for anyone else.  It's sort of the same thing as never learning the ability... (which it sounds like a number of priests wish they hadn't).  
    Shirszae
  • DunnDunn Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 6,257 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited December 2014
    "Firstly, the choices for classes who could force passive bedevil was pretty specifically thought out." - Makarios, 2014.

    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.


  • JulesJules Member Posts: 2,169 @ - Epic Achaean
    edited December 2014
    I did see that, but reading over old comments... it sounds like a lot of those priests would still be happier if they didn't have access to the skill at all (at least for now).  
    Ernam
  • AntoniusAntonius Member Posts: 5,004 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    So what? They're not happy about having it because it's actually a defensive weakness. You don't get to opt out because of it.
    ShirszaeDunnXinna
  • JulesJules Member Posts: 2,169 @ - Epic Achaean
    I thought people were saying it was a "double-edged sword", that required great skill to use in a way that benefits you more than your enemy can use it to harm you.  If it's just a weakness that's being called an ability, and the not so great at fighting non-trans priest now has an advantage over the not so great at fighting priest who is trans in the skill, that's weird and I admit I don't get it.    
    Nim
  • ErnamErnam Member Posts: 2,416 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    edited December 2014

    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:  
    • Firstly, that you're able to predict or quickly assimilate random procs (many of which you can't even see) of passive Bedevil into your offensive strategy (which realistically would require a powerful tracking and automation system to do without error or delays in the magnitude of 5-8 seconds at best, or never at worst, since the only way for you to reliably detect what they've been given is via Succor (diagnosing them), which occurs in tandem with your next attack, meaning that you typically can't use the information until 3-6 seconds after it actually occurred).  A 3-6 second delay is more than enough time to cure a key affliction in a venomlock setup.
    • Secondly, you'd have to assume that your opponent ever reaches a state that makes locking him as a priest actually feasible.  Priests, unlike serpents, can only afflict one venom at a time (quite slowly, and can't drop rebounding) and cannot afflict impatience at will.  This means that even if you get every single affliction needed for a lock except one, but the priest isn't currently able to afflict that single ingredient in the lock (typically impatience), the entire thing is worthless (which is what nearly always actually occurs).  The only time this doesn't happen is if your opponent has a significant mental stack (which requires a significant physical stack), and at this point, the Priest has already probably won the fight, and a venomlock would be more or less meaningless aside from "cool points".
    • Third, that you are able to lock them before they lock you, which is inherently unlikely, since 100% of their afflictions that hit you actually afflict, and only 0-33% of them actually reflect.  Since there's a 3-6 second delay on you actually being able to use the bedevil procs in any meaningful way, and considering that venomlocks are essentially a "linear" strategy (you work you way up a series of afflictions, ie. offensive priority), the chances of you ever actually locking them before they lock you are extremely low.


    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).


    Jeslyn
  • ErnamErnam Member Posts: 2,416 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    edited December 2014
    Jules said:
    I thought people were saying it was a "double-edged sword", that required great skill to use in a way that benefits you more than your enemy can use it to harm you.  If it's just a weakness that's being called an ability, and the not so great at fighting non-trans priest now has an advantage over the not so great at fighting priest who is trans in the skill, that's weird and I admit I don't get it.    

    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.

    Antonius said:
    So what? They're not happy about having it because it's actually a defensive weakness. You don't get to opt out because of it.

    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.

    JeslynJules
  • ErnamErnam Member Posts: 2,416 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    edited December 2014
    Jovolo said:
    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.

    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.
  • ErnamErnam Member Posts: 2,416 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean

    Makarios said:

    Alright.

    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).

    Sounds to me like you could make weariness stop Heal, and make passive bedevil unforceable, and it'd be comparable to Fitness classes.  Also, it's simply not true that it's "impossible" to lock someone with healing.  If that were true, it'd be (more) impossible to lock someone with Fitness, since Fitness is in almost every way better than Heal.  It's been pretty clearly established that Fitness users can be venomlocked, although it can (as intended) very challenging when used correctly.

    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.

    I would certainly disagree that Brokenstar is BM's primary kill method.  It is, however, by far the most common - purely because the community has yet to realize how to properly counter it, making it artificially much more effective than it should be.  With that said, your point stands, that they have other recourses than affliction combat.  I would like to point out that Serpent also does, as it has one of the highest damage burst potentials in the entire game (Shecks can one-shot anyone without fullplate and < 4800 health during the duration of backstab stun, from full health).  Backstab, garrote, camus (and of course, snipe) are all amazing damage abilities, all of which (aside from snipe) are viable options in 1v1.  I used to complete about half of my contracts (back before the earring and dragon epochs) by blocking people in a room and spamming camus + sileris illusion until they died - which in many cases, took about 8-12 seconds.  Bard also has several other options, most obvious of which is there insane damage potential, but also Funeralmasse, which is extremely dangerous when used correctly.  

    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.

    I talked about this in the OP as well, but:  both bard and serpent can absolutely lock an opponent Priest who is actively using Heal to cure.  Like all defensive abilities in the game, use of it comes at the expense of bleeding offensive power, which is huge for Priest, as it relies purely on momentum to win.  Arguing that Heal makes venomlocks impossible is arguing that every active heal or affliction mitigating ability in the game (reflection, etc) makes them impossible.  First of all, it simply doesn't, and secondly, it is already balanced by sacrificing offensive momentum (attack/heal combos for priest are 100% useless - I described this in depth in the OP).


    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.

    I'd like to know what you have to say regarding this logical statement.

    If forced bedevil is necessary, that implies that Healing is somehow too good.

    If Healing is somehow too good, then why not just fix Healing, instead of giving priest an ability that is virtually never useful, and only exists for other classes to force?


  • ErnamErnam Member Posts: 2,416 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    edited December 2014
    Mishgul said:
    You are doing that thing where you explain something that can be adequately explained in one sentence using about 30 sentences with some insane belief that the more you right, the more likely people will understand your argument, when the opposite seems to be proving true. Have you considered consolidation?

    Like write your entire argument in 2 paragraphs and try not to repeat yourself.

    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.

    JeslynShirszaeElphaba
This discussion has been closed.