Report 1738

Report #1738
Skillset: Healing Skill: Sacrifice
 Org: Glomdoring Status: Submitted Aug 2017
Problem: Sacrifice is a 2 power ability that cures a targets affliction and
damage for the cost of two power and a large damage hit to the caster. Current
self healing is so strong that I can sacrifice an ally then be back to near full
health in seconds. The opportunity cost for sacrifice is too cheap for the
strength of the heal.
[A: 6 R: 5] Solution #1: Add a six second stun to casting sacrifice. This stun
 combined with the damage hit will give an enemy team
 the chance to switch targets and punish a healer for
 casting. It'll give good counter play in saving an
 ally but risking yourself and make casting it more
 risky.
[A: 7 R: 1] Solution #2: Increase the cost for sacrifice to 7 power. Its akin
 to true healing an ally but not as good so should be
 cheaper.)
[A: 6 R: 2] Solution #3: Sacrifice instead of simply curing an all afflictions
 and damage will transfer all of these afflictions to
 the caster of the sacrifice. EG if a target is at 70%
 health and has stupidity if I cast sacrifice on them
 my health gets shifted to 70% health and I get
 stupidity.
Player Comments:
---[Veyils on 8/13 @ 12:33 sets as pending]
---[Kaimanahi on 8/14 @ 21:24 writes]:
Agree with the problem statement. In my opinion, any solution must include an
increased power cost for this ability, some cooldown on usage, or a persisting
penalty (debuffs on the Healer?). Otherwise there is virtually no reason to do
anything other than spam it. Sentiments around having groups dynamically change
targets (i.e., solutions 1 and 3) are nice in theory but not a reality in
Lusternia's pvp environment. Supporting Sol 2.
---[Crek on 8/15 @ 00:50 writes]:
As said above, rather see a cooldown and power increase than a stun or health
shift. Solution 2 is ok but seven power without any lingering beneficial effect
is a little much. 15s (maybe even 30s) cooldown/debuff and five power sounds
more fair.
---[Ejderha on 8/17 @ 00:29 writes]:
I do not think I have seen this abused much in practice? I am not a huge fan of
any of these solutions. Sol1 and Sol3 are brutal - Sol3 kills it as a cure to
severe intoxication too, assuming that passes to the healer. Sol2 I think is
still a bit much. 2 to 7 is a big jump. I'm with Crek here - 5 power and a 15s
cooldown seems more in line (as the AB says, you are 'severely weakened' - not
just hurt). Alternately, you could just scale up the cost-per-affliction to make
it riskier. It is not clear to me how many afflictions were being used to
establish the Problem Statement. I could support 2, but not the others.
---[Veyils on 8/17 @ 16:03 writes]:
I personally prefer making sacrifice more dangerous to use than a straight
power/cool down increase. Solution 2 with 7 power works fine for me though if
people prefer it. It'll be strong for use with any option.
---[Shedrin on 8/18 @ 00:33 writes]:
I think adding more counterplay opportunity is the way we should go, which I
think Solution 1 accomplishes. Alternate idea: if the Burnout report is
approved, Sacrifice could force Burnout the Healer. Though that'd be a bigger
nerf than what's currently proposed, even if it's thematic.
---[Aeldra on 8/21 @ 11:30 writes]:
I will say that a six second stun is way too brutal for something like this,
that isn't even used that much. I agree with increase in power, but 7 power
still feels a little much.
---[Veyils on 8/27 @ 23:03 writes]:
The concept of some of the solutions is to make it a brutal and risky skill to
use as its a cure all with little cost. 7 Power with no downside seems ok to me
but if you want it to be cheap powerwise then it should have a bigger cost
elsewhere as well. I like the stun option as it means if the enemy team switches
to you you risk death if your allies don't salt or gust you out. A good team
could still Sacrifice and then cover for their healer to keep everyone in the
fight and it would require cordination on both teams to react to. I agree with
Kaimanahi to some extent about the power cost of 7 being a good amount for a
risk less sac if your not a fan of the counter play options.
---[Falaeron on 8/28 @ 01:22 writes]:
I think 6 seconds is too long for sol 1