Passive Bedevil discussion

Trey

He's write though. You're losing a lot of tread in an argument when you've written three term papers on the subject that say the same thing (more or less) over and over again. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, because I am not as familiar with priest as I am with the knight classes, but I'd probably trust Mak-daddy @Makarios to know what he's talking about, particularly regarding intent of design. 

Jinsun

Slow day in court. It is so very hard not to fall off the front row in a giggle. This is such an undeniably pathetic attempt to garner sympathy for a great class over one not-that -bad defensive weakness. I will probably enjoy my day off tomorrow rereading this and snickering like a funny YouTube video.

Ernam

Jinsun said:

Slow day in court. It is so very hard not to fall off the front row in a giggle. This is such an undeniably pathetic attempt to garner sympathy for a great class over one not-that -bad defensive weakness. I will probably enjoy my day off tomorrow rereading this and snickering like a funny YouTube video.

It is one of, if not the most significant "defensive weaknesses" in existence in the game.  No other class can have an entire skillset disabled for a two minute interval, nor can any other class be cut off from every single form of active healing available to it.

Also, I sincerely hope that a moderator finds this thread and cleans it up.

Trey said:

He's write though. You're losing a lot of tread in an argument when you've written three term papers on the subject that say the same thing (more or less) over and over again. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, because I am not as familiar with priest as I am with the knight classes, but I'd probably trust Mak-daddy @Makarios to know what he's talking about, particularly regarding intent of design. 

I don't for a second discount @Makarios' mind-boggling level of comprehension and theorycrafting, however, it is a simple fact that he doesn't play an active priest combatant, and I do.  Theory can only predict how things are going to ultimately work out to a certain degree, (see: Blademaster implementation), and I think it's more than fair to say that this was a good concept that simply didn't pan out as anticipated.

Mishgul

Ernam, it doesn't matter really whether you are right or wrong if you aren't convincing and have the ability to talk to people without being patronizing or condescending. This discussion in itself is in the wrong forum in my opinion, so I do hope a mod comes in here to clean the entire thing up too.

Ernam

I'm just going to start flagging every de-rail.  I don't know what else to do, other than of course, to stop replying to trolls and insults.

Mishgul

See, now you are being petty and digging yourself into this deeper hole of "constructive criticism must be criticised and then insulted because no matter what I am always right and everyone else is out to get me." Are you actively trying to make people hate you?

Jhui

i find it strange that in all of your scenarios, you assume the 100% best possible person fighting the priest, but remarkably assume the priest has absolutely no offensive capability.

Priest is about as hindery as it gets while building to absolve and passive bedevil helps that a ton.   I would personally never not use passive bedevil if I were priest.

Did i properly italicize to get my point across?  I may need some pointers.

Dunn

i love this thread and everything about it.

Jules

What floors me is that you guys actually do seem to be saying that not having the ability AT ALL is an advantage (at least for all but the select few who are capable of managing the ability effectively), but no... don't let people "opt out" of having access to that ability.  

That's a lot different than saying there should be a vulnerability (against certain classes, yes) when the ability is actually in use.  It effectively says "yes, sucker, you transed your skills, now you have this ability that you might learn to use effectively someday, but which in the meantime will be a constant thorn in your ass whenever you fight people of certain classes - even if you're willing to (and wish you could) forego all access to it until a much later date.  LOL".

Kyrra

Jules said:

What floors me is that you guys actually do seem to be saying that not having the ability AT ALL is an advantage (at least for all but the select few who are capable of managing the ability effectively), but no... don't let people "opt out" of having access to that ability.  

That's a lot different than saying there should be a vulnerability (against certain classes, yes) when the ability is actually in use.  It effectively says "yes, sucker, you transed your skills, now you have this ability that you might learn to use effectively someday, but which in the meantime will be a constant thorn in your ass whenever you fight people of certain classes - even if you're willing to (and wish you could) forego all access to it until a much later date.  LOL".

I would think that be an opportunity for people to learn and actually encourage them to get better though? I mean, if they want to be involved in combat at all, surely they will eventually want to learn to use their class to the best of their ability in pvp? Why should they theoretically hamstring themselves when it's going to be something they will have to get used to dealing with and using eventually anyway?

And people are only going to get experienced and improve if they actually have to deal with it.

Jules

I don't think so no... especially as the people commenting were already pretty decent, just not top tier.  When people are trying to learn, you can't just overwhelm them, or they just get frustrated.  

Achaea really does sometimes forget that not everyone is Mizik when they design stuff.  That's actually great, and is why the game has such depth.  It's great that the initial impulse is always just to make skills awesome.  But here, you have an opportunity to leave ALL of that awesomeness intact for the players who are capable of handling it, while providing a literal off switch for those who aren't, and obviously, if the ability is turned off, the player isn't getting a benefit from it.  

Jinsun

Ernam said:

Jinsun said:

Slow day in court. It is so very hard not to fall off the front row in a giggle. This is such an undeniably pathetic attempt to garner sympathy for a great class over one not-that -bad defensive weakness. I will probably enjoy my day off tomorrow rereading this and snickering like a funny YouTube video.

It is one of, if not the most significant "defensive weaknesses" in existence in the game.  No other class can have an entire skillset disabled for a two minute interval, nor can any other class be cut off from every single form of active healing available to it.

Oh, sweet baby Jesus, in your little manger, with your hay, and your cows and your wisemen, please forgive me for not learning from the error of my ways. I am about to argue with stupid. 

How is a class that has a weakness against what, 3 classes?, the most significant defensive weakness in the game. I'm absolutely gobsmacked how you think that you healing being reduced from godmode to passive curing + passive afflicting and massive offense to be the "most significant defensive weakness in the game." What about classes with passive curing with no chance from that for passive afflictions. You legitimately have what most classes have as your fallback weakness and it still has an advantage over their passive curing. You seriously do just want every advantage, eh? And if not, it is the worst thing to ever happen in the history of Achaea woe is me?

Also, I sincerely hope that a moderator finds this thread and cleans it up.

Why, so no one can see the horse that you beat to death? I'm calling PETA

Jinsun

Jules said:

I don't think so no... especially as the people commenting were already pretty decent, just not top tier.  When people are trying to learn, you can't just overwhelm them, or they just get frustrated.  

Achaea really does sometimes forget that not everyone is Mizik when they design stuff.  That's actually great, and is why the game has such depth.  It's great that the initial impulse is always just to make skills awesome.  But here, you have an opportunity to leave ALL of that awesomeness intact for the players who are capable of handling it, while providing a literal off switch for those who aren't, and obviously, if the ability is turned off, the player isn't getting a benefit from it.  

This is why we tell people to fight people around their skill level in the arena. No one needs to dumb down the game so that you can learn it slowly. You can learn it slowly in the arena with someone around your might or just fight someone who can't or doesn't know how to force Bedevil. It makes no sense for someone like Xinna or Jarrel not to have an advantage over a newbie priest. Why? Because fighting them should be uneven because they have years of experience and work. It -should- be overwhelming. 

Jules

They almost certainly will still have the advantage, no?  If the ability is inaccessible to the priest, neither the priest, nor the priest's opponent can use it.  It should become a non-factor.    

If a priest having access to bedevil *is* necessary, what a bizarre way to "balance" a class.  "You must trans all your skills so you will have an ability that can be exploited so Achaea will be balanced, but it's really neat if you're super good, so umm, if you have the option just never learn it until you're awesome, okay?  But actually, no, you need to learn it now because balance"!  

Kross

The point is also the fact that forceable bedevil only takes away an advantage, rather than giving you a disadvantage. And at the same time, forcing the bedevil (as stated hundreds of times by now), still keeps your advantage in that while you're being afflicted, your opponent is too. With high priority afflictions, no doubt.

Force Bedevil is just as double-edged as certain people are claiming bedevil itself to be. The only difference is that it is inconceivable, if not impossible, for a serpent or bard to lock a priest that knows what they are doing (If force bedevil didn't exist, or off of a lucky stupidity rng tic or some magical disrupt). 

Essentially, Priests are completely unaffected by forced bedevil when fighting any class other than the ones Makarios mentioned as benefiting the most from forcing a bedevil, and that is because without the bedevil skill the way it is set up, mediocre scripting could make it simple to heal a priority affliction specifically and attack, or heal a priority affliction specifically and shield/run/fly/escape.

Keep in mind too, that Serpents aside from pinshot have no solid hinderance to stop someone from walking out, duanathar'ing, leaping, mountjumping or otherwise. Which could be said equally for any other class escaping a priests' piety, so you can't argue that it's better or worse, except that piety lasts significantly longer than pinshot. Bards have no way of hindering unless they prep a leg and prone/break, or prep the room in harmonics with percussia and time it specifically when they -think- you might try to run, giving you a 60 second-long heads up that shit is about to go down.

TL;DR - Forcing bedevil takes away a huge healing advantage from a priest while leaving a small advantage in offensive ability for the time it is active against its opponent. It's only used in select situations against specific classes that benefit from it, and using it against any other affliction class is just plain smart. I wish monks had kai-bedevil...let's make that a thing.

Edit: I think this arguement is like arguing serpents vs hamstring stopping evade. It's a highly localized complaint, but being turned into this crying, whining facade of "It's the worst mechanic possible in this entire game". (over exaggerated on purpose for effect)

Xinna

I can trivially afflict and/or truelock as priest with passive bedevil up. You can hinder while you work towards your kill, and no one is bringing you down.

Ernam, your argument would be much stronger if you based it on actual true facts, rather than false premises. For how often you say it's "based on evidence," a surprising amount of what you say is flatout wrong.

Some examples, for your benefit:

You said that offensive hindrance is "essentially non-existent for priest." When I played priest, some people literally refused to fight me because they could not attack me while I killed them. Priest has amazing hinder, that is perfectly incorporated into its offense.

You said repeatedly that passive bedevil being forceable was unintended, but Makarios made it very clear you were wrong there, as he designed it!

You for some reason said that passive bedevil is useless against people who can lock you, or who benefit from sticking afflictions on you. I have no idea why this would be the case. A priest with spiritwrack and passive bedevil up can literally outafflict -any- other class. We're talking 1 passive affliction every 5 seconds, plus another passive affliction approximately every 2-3 seconds. In addition to enemy herb balance being increased to 2.1 seconds, and two afflictions being delivered by the priest every 2.1 seconds. When I was priest, I never coded anything for heal, sacrifice, or active bedevil. I literally just put up rite of healing and then went full offense. Would agree with Makarios about a potential active curing ability for priest usable while passive bedevil is up, though. Just not targeted healing, and it needs a counter. Bear in mind that priest isn't the only affliction class that only has passive curing as a defense (when bedevil is up). Bard is the same way.

You implied that fitness cannot be used prone, which is untrue, albeit not particularly related to your argument.

You stated that all people who disagree with you here think that several other mechanics are not broken. I know I personally never argued that any of those mechanics weren't broken, so I am unsure where this accusation is coming from.

And of course, you threw several other untrue insults at myself for no reason (telling me who taught me combat, why I went priest, how I affliction track, among other things).

Please, be more coherent when you want things. Think through. Learn your class. At least two of those criticizing you have played priests very well. We know how the class works!

Jinsun

Jules said:

They almost certainly will still have the advantage, no?  If the ability is inaccessible to the priest, neither the priest, nor the priest's opponent can use it.  It should become a non-factor.    

If a priest having access to bedevil *is* necessary, what a bizarre way to "balance" a class.  "You must trans all your skills so you will have an ability that can be exploited so Achaea will be balanced, but it's really neat if you're super good, so umm, if you have the option just never learn it until you're awesome, okay?  But actually, no, you need to learn it now because balance"!  

Every single class has abilities that can be forced or used to their disadvantage, a lot of these things are a mechanical double-edged sword. This is a lot of how upper-end combat in Achaea works. That's where their advantage is, knowing what to do and when to do it. Such as forcing a holocaust on a low health magi or forcing priest to bedevil. If you want abilities that can't be forced to your disadvantage, dear god do not get a tree tattoo.

Jeslyn

Actually as a priest, I almost always use a passive bedevil against serpents and alchemists, because it seems to work very well against them. The reason why I asked that question, was because I was doing an arena against a paladin. In those types of Arenas, the paladin usually asks if we can forego rites. Which cuts out my healing rites (Milabar cheated a couple of times by using the rite of piety). So against this paladin, they were forcing passive bedevil every time they noticed I was severing all of my channels and then trying to put them back up. Everytime you try to simultaneously put up channels, it costs about 1k mana. Which gets really expensive. So I stopped trying to do that. All I was asking is if there is a way to get around this. Because seeing seven afflictions being stacked on me, as a priest, is tell tale sign that I'm going to be damned by a paladin. I need details too, being a newer combatant, not just being told to fight more offensively.

Sidenote: Passive bedevil against a Paladin was not seemingly working and only healed me once during the entire fight.

Mishgul

Fights between rites users is a whole other can of worms

Jonathin

eta: I really don't have anything against you, Ernam, but please stop making a thread, writing a dissertation, then writing 3 more of the same with different wording. We're not idiots, we understand what you're saying and we disagree. Saying it 500 more times isn't going to change that.

Jarrod

One thing that should come from what Jules talked about is that Bedevil should probably be moved below key afflictions in terms of skill order in Healing.

The idea of a Priest intentionally not Trans'ing so they can live forever vs affliction classes is silly.

Jules

So the priest does need to have access to the ability for Achaea to be "balanced"?  Gah... Thank God I'm just a runie.  

Makarios

@Jules: just for clarity, that's not quite what it means. Its more a case of if the priest wants access to all of the defensive options available to them, they'll also need to learn bedevil (which is an exceptionally potent defensive ability in its own right). Bedevil is actually very newbie friendly, as (I'd tentatively) say its our most powerful passive afflicting defence in the game. However, the points about the healing skill order being a bit outdated is very valid. I'd recommend filing an idea, as that's something that we should probably address and doesn't really have any major combat implications, outside of making things more streamlined.

Ernam

The supposition that it's somehow impossible to lock a priest without forced bedevil is just flat wrong.

Priest does not have the best curing in the game, by a longshot.  Magi and Sylvan are better in every quantifiable way (active curing, passive curing, affliction mitigation).  Many other classes can also perform more healed afflictions per time than Priest, as well, such a dragon, jester, occultist, blademaster, serpent, and again, magi and sylvan.  Knights, monks, and BMs are also significantly harder to lock due to Fitness (which is much better than Heal Asthma) and both paladins and runewarden also have a passive heal going as well.

I think the biggest misconception being perpetuated is that Priest healing still works like it used to.  It doesn't.  It's extremely slow, and like most other defensive abilities, significantly detracts from a priest's offense.  Neither of these used to be true, but recent changes have made Heal very easy to handle for affliction classes, particularly since the opponent gets to see what you cured (unlike literally every other active heal in the game).

I realize that I'm once again repeating myself, but people keep raising points that are good but were specifically addressed in the OP.

It's just so silly.  Nobody ever says Magi are impossible to lock, but their curing is better in every possible way.


@Makarios I hope you see how ironic it would be to agree with @Jules that the ability is literally on there as a negative ability that exists only so that it can be forced, then move it down in the skillset, just to make it even easier to devoid Priests of their entire capacity to Heal.

One last time.  If Healing is OP, then nerf it.  This whole "Healing is OP, so we're going to make an unstoppable ability that completely disables it" logic is just... terrible balancing work.  If it's broken, then fix it.  If it isn't broken, then leave it be.  It's absurd to balance a class around being able to heal, then competely taking the ability to heal away against the only classes that it actually needs to Heal against.

I proposed several solutions, all of which are great compromises that would leave the priest class with a comparable amount of affliction mitigation as most other classes, with simple changes to various mechanics.

Kresslack

Ok...let's try this:

Ernam, you're arguing a moot point and just dissolving whatever point you were trying to make. Sometimes you have to know when to fold the hand. Also, I'm not sure how many people bother reading your mini-novelas at this point, especially when you just seem to make a point of lashing out at anyone who even remotely disagrees with you.

There, hope that is a more appropriate response to...whatever this is.

Jinsun

w

What I picture when @Ernam demands that something that is "Wrong" with his class be "fixed."

Austere

I love the fact you are going to argue with @Makarios‌ , one of the few people that honestly just want combat balance.  He might not play an active priest,  but I guarantee that he rolls one on test server sometimes.  Insulting and crying about other people who do have reasons not to want priest op is one thing,  but leave mak-daddy out of this.  He does nothing but try his best to make sure no one is at a complete advantage and I have seen nothing but positive changes since I started noticing his name.  If anything,  be thankful he took the time to break it down for you, and let it drop.  

Also,  as for magi having more op healing,  I agree fully.  You have to remember that magi are going to lose purity,  though.  I saw nothing in the new skill set that could even be compared to any healing ability. It could be added later,  but as of right now,  it doesn't even fit thematically with the new skillset. 

Jules

Thanks Makarios - the fact that an admin seems to be aware of (and care) that an extremely popular class isn't going to be played exclusively by extremely knowledgeable and talented people, and appreciates that while Achaea is wonderfully complex and deep, we don't need to go out of our way to frustrate people, is good to see in a thread like this.  

Ernam

Some of you guys seriously just need to give it a rest.  I am earnestly just trying to improve something that I've observed needs fixed, for the betterment of the game itself and everyone who plays it.  I also play every class in the game, on rotation, and currently play four.  At some point, this whole "You only want to buff your class" crap became pretty silly.  It's also pretty damn offensive to call something as clearly defined and elaborated as the OP "crying and whining".  If anything, it's a statement of opinion, backed by a lot of facts and rational logic, as seen from one person's perspective (mine).  Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it "whining".  I'd also point out that almost every monk player on the forums repeatedly told people to stop "whining" about web/axk and enfeeble/absolve.

@Makarios -  I trust that you read my comment as I meant it - simply as a statement that I don't feel the same way about it as you, not as an argument.

Jules

Ernam, a certain element of this forum is just going to troll you, because they can.  I would know  I've found that admin actually takes this stuff very seriously though, especially in the past few years, and even if people troll the crap out of you, sometimes admin quietly makes (good, needed) changes you never dreamed they would anyway.  I honestly have no idea how right or wrong you are on most points, since when it comes to combat, someone like me simply doesn't have the expertise to judge correctly whether something is mechanically broken or not, but I can sanity check whether people's statements are consistent with each other, and the attitude I was getting about this was honestly driving me insane until Markarios chimed in (and his statements obviously matter more than other posters').  I mean, not everyone, but there was a lot of "screw noobs, lrn2play" stuff in there that is sheer poison - not that anyone wants to see Achaea "dumbed down", but it really could do a better job of providing an "upramp", and at the very least, we don't want to actively frustrate the hell out of players.  I think/hope this is in good hands.