Report 1711

Report #1711
Skillset: Skill: Impale
 Org: Glomdoring Status: Completed Jul 2017
Furies' Decision:
Yes.
Problem: Cavalier and Pureblade impale is a bit strong with the recent change
for 2h weapons to build wounding and an affliction at the same time-- once you
get it, it is very easy to continually re-apply. This report seeks to adjust it
to remove the potential for perma-pin-spam, while not hamstringing 2h weapons
once more.
[A:15 R: 0] Solution #1: When receiving the Impaled affliction from a
 *modifier* (not from anything else that does not use
 the Wounding system, such as Pincharge), the victim
 should get a cooldown of two seconds from the time
 the impale *ends* (writhed out, withdrawn, rended, or
 carved) during which they are immune to being
 reafflicted by the Impale modifier. If the victim
 receives another attack within that window that is
 using the Impale modifier, the attack should be
 treated as if the victim did not have enough wounding
 for the modifier to land (so it will do the full
 wounding instead).
Player Comments:
---[Xenthos on 6/29 @ 21:41 writes]:
The goal here is to provide a window that the target can initiate commands and
act-- to escape, protect themselves, etc, instead of trying to spam through
someone doing an alias that does both "rend-attack" to immediately reapply the
impale.
---[Xenthos on 6/29 @ 21:41 sets as pending]
---[Shedrin on 6/29 @ 22:30 writes]:
This is a good change. It's quite possible in groups, if you can get the initial
wounds, to chain impales indefinitely, with there being no realistic counter
other than hoping an ally can save you. The 2her wounding buff to modifiers
makes this easier to achieve as well.
---[Danquik on 6/30 @ 03:38 writes]:
Ok
---[Bandeon on 7/1 @ 19:59 writes]:
I'm on board
---[Veyils on 7/1 @ 20:44 writes]:
Sounds good.
---[Veyils on 7/1 @ 20:44 writes]:
Sounds good.
---[Anelissa on 7/2 @ 15:58 writes]:
Supported
---[Veyils on 7/2 @ 19:30 writes]:
As a note I'd be keen to see this immunity to to impale extend to all types of
impales. Pincharge, Stag etc.
---[Iytha on 7/3 @ 00:32 writes]:
This is a g ood change, but I am not certain that this is the best
implementation. Why not make impale not do wounds instead?
---[Xenthos on 7/3 @ 00:44 writes]:
Wounds are an important part of a warrior's progress. If you do that, you're
basically making it so if a warrior is going for the gut the only thing they can
ever hope to do is be a sometimes-impale-and-otherwise-accomplish-nothing. If
you can keep building wounds, however, it does allow you to pursue other options
as well instead of giving up your entire wound-building offense to play support.
---[Tarken on 7/7 @ 20:39 writes]:
Supported.
---[Wobou on 7/14 @ 01:10 writes]:
I'm not sure pincharge should get a free pass on immunity just because it uses
power directly instead of wounds but otherwise I support this change.
---[Falaeron on 7/14 @ 04:28 writes]:
I'm kind of thinking that it should be all impales, just like all stuns and
blackouts respect their respective immunities.
---[Veyils on 7/14 @ 23:09 writes]:
Agreed on it effecting all impales irregardless of source or power cost. Power
cost stuns work the same as regular stuns and can hit immunity so I think
impales should be the same.
---[Xenthos on 7/14 @ 23:18 writes]:
That is not part of the report-- power cost stuns don't use a separate (longer)
balance, and provide the full effect of their stun when it is applied whereas
pincharge is not part of a warrior's offense. Burning your beast balance during
an immunity window is a pretty significant nerf above and beyond what is
necessary.
---[Falaeron on 7/15 @ 08:32 writes]:
Power cost stuns come with.. a power cost which are usually significant (6p
discordantchord?) - much more significant than a beast balance. I would argue
pincharge is overpowered. Most cavaliers, including myself when I played it,
found it too easy and effective to just spam pincharge on a target while allies
killed them slowly.
---[Xenthos on 7/15 @ 13:40 writes]:
Power cost stuns, especially ones with that high a cost, usually have other
effects, too. Discordantchord is not only a stun. You're comparing apples and
oranges here. You're welcome to envoy Pincharge separately if you want, but
this solution is not a good one for it given its separate balance.
---[Veyils on 7/17 @ 16:43 writes]:
Can't see any reason why it would not effect all impales. If you feel an impale
skill is too weak after this change you could envoy that skill for a buff but
it'd just make sense to standarise immunities across the board to me.
---[Xenthos on 7/17 @ 22:48 writes]:
Nah. Far better to report a skill that has completely different requirements /
timing on its own if you think it has issues than trying to shoehorn it into
something else. You literally cannot spam pincharge because it has a much
longer, separate balance (beast balance) and the victim can writhe out before
you're able to do it again anyways. Adding yet another timer on top of that is
unnecessary.
---[Falaeron on 7/17 @ 23:02 writes]:
Just because this report wasn't originally written with pincharge in mind, it
doesn't mean that the scope doesn't actually extend to it. I think that all
impales should be given the same treatment just like all stuns and blackouts
are. If pincharge, or any other impale, needs a buff later (not that I think it
would) then we can do so with this mechanic already being part of it.
---[Iytha on 7/18 @ 09:34 writes]:
As a cavalier, I'd like to note that applying this solution to pincharge would
only matter in the case of 2+ cavaliers; with a single cavalier, the writhe time
+ 2s immunity would still be less than beast balance recovery time.
---[Veyils on 7/18 @ 18:45 writes]:
Fair point Iytha it'd only really matter to cavaliers where someone else in the
room was spamming impale. Effecting all impales sounds good.
---[Xenthos on 7/18 @ 21:09 writes]:
I disagree, and will point at my previous statements. The two are different in
terms of execution, timing, cost, and (wounding)effect, and I strongly feel that
they should be treated differently.
---[Wobou on 7/19 @ 23:57 writes]:
Last I checked a bard can spend a huge chunk of power on a dchord which can be
overwritten by stun immunity so I think that the possibility of burning 2p and a
beast balance is not beyond the pale but that said I'm fine with solution 1 as
it is written as well.
---[Xenthos on 7/20 @ 00:07 writes]:
DChord is doing more than just the stun, though. My main issue with the bulk of
the arguments stated really comes down to: The room requirements are different,
the cost is different, the effects (sans impale) are different, they have
significantly different balances, they have different blocks, they're just not
the same skills at all. And the counterargument mostly seems to be 1) "But
Impale!" and 2) "If it's a problem we can envoy it again". That is not,
however, the way this should work-- we shouldn't be trying to shoehorn a
different skill because it has *one* similarity in this case, with a "report it
again later if you have a problem". If it's a problem as-is, it should have its
own solution designed for it, not a "who cares if we break it" attitude. I
don't mind reviewing it in its own report-- my objection is to trying to pin
something onto the report that is specifically and -explicitly- not being
requested.
---[Falaeron on 7/20 @ 00:36 writes]:
You are discounting the fact that most of us are actually saying we don't think
pincharge or any other impale are going to be broken as a result of this. We are
just saying that -if- it does end up being broken, it is better that we fix it
with this change already factored in. Solution 4s are added at times. You may
not believe that pincharge fits into the scope of this report, but clearly there
are many of us who do.
---[Xenthos on 7/20 @ 01:12 writes]:
Solution 4s are added at times, but in this case it is unnecessary for the
reasons I've outlined. It is better to write a report to make a change than to
try to sol4 something in that by your own admission, in the statement you have
just made, may need a future report to adjust it yet again.
---[Veyils on 7/23 @ 00:19 writes]:
I don't think its unnecessary Xenthos I think a standard immunity to all impale
works as a good concept. I understand the points your making but generally I
think a standard immunity would be good overall. I mean pin charge isnt just an
impale in the same way that dchord isnt just a stun as you point out. There is
nothing wrong with individuals and teams having to use pincharge/dchord/any
stuns/impales in a controlled manner with the risk of failure if they use them
incorrectly.
---[Ciaran on 7/23 @ 09:40 writes]:
I support the aforementioned idea of adding a blanket impale immunity a la
stun/blackout. The original report wasn't meant to nerf pincharge, but I think
it's in order. Two birds with one stone and all.
---[Ejderha on 7/29 @ 22:23 writes]:
Support the solution, I think blanket impale immunity makes sense too. I will
note that - unless my memory fails me - Pureblade CARVE does NOT end the impale,
though the solution lists it on the list of 'impale end conditions.' The
immunity vs pureblade impale should only be applied on writhe out, not on carve.