Report 1160

Special Report #1160
Skillset: Wyrdenwood Skill: None
 Org: Shadowdancers Status: Completed Apr 2013
Furies' Decision:
We will try to reduce the firing rate of reactionaries from passives, but note
it may not be feasible.
Problem: Passives are currently triggering reactionaries individually, causing
even mundane passives like pixie or barghest to trigger what can be harsh
afflictions like stun or aeon. Passive effects like these already have existing
counters (love potion, paranoia, disloyalty, killing ents), they do not need to
effectively hinder the caster simply by existing, especially considering how
many of these passives are absolutely crucial and must be timed exactly to
successfully kill a target.
[A: 0 R: 0] Solution #1: Passive effects will no longer trigger chemantic and
 wood reactionaries. Only active abilities.
[A: 0 R: 0] Solution #2: Only passives that directly do damage will have a
 chance to trigger reactionaries. A couple of
 exceptions will need to be made such as barghest due
 to the importance of timing the effect, and that one
 single RNG passive should not reset an entire set up.
[A: 0 R: 0] Solution #3: Drastically reduce the % chance for reactionaries to
 fire on passive skills.
Player Comments:
---[Vadi on 4/23 @ 04:11 writes]:
#1 would be nice, but ent users do get a portion of their offensive get put away
into ents. It would be a bit wrong to ignore it. I'll support #2, no effects
ticking on non-damage passive ent attacks.
---[Shuyin on 4/23 @ 04:43 writes]:
Solution 1 or 2 is fine.
---[Synkarin on 4/23 @ 05:19 writes]:
I feel this is one of those all or nothing reports. If we go with solution 2,
it's got to be all damage causing passives, without exceptions. I'd be ok with
solution 1 though
---[Eventru on 4/23 @ 17:35 writes]:
My only thoughts about #2 are a) exceptions rarely exist b) damage seems a poor
indicator; Banshee, for example, would trigger it, but Spix would not. What if
instead ents and other passives simply had a lower chance of ticing it (like
1/10th of an active attack)? There's also the reality you can time your ents
when fighting chems so as to make them largely fall together, so that the chance
of double-firing reactives is greatly lessened. I think a paradox exists between
'they suck they don't do anything' and 'they fire too often and totally are OP'
- at some point they're either 'too good' or 'not good enough', and it feels
like they're both being argued!
---[Vadi on 4/24 @ 01:08 writes]:
Lower chance of proccing sounds good.
---[Celina on 4/24 @ 23:47 writes]:
Solution 3 added
---[Ushaara on 4/25 @ 20:44 writes]:
Supported.
---[Kregarn on 5/2 @ 12:06 writes]:
I think when you compare ent classes, IE: Guardians vs. Wiccans you're looking
at a HUGE difference in the number of opportunities for an attack to proc
reactionaries. The guardian's one to maybe 5 passive attack per few seconds
doesn't even come close to touching a wiccan's 9+ chances for these skills to
proc. Even if timed, fae can proc reactionaries individually because they're not
a stacked attack, they're 9+ individual attacks. The grand majority of
reactionaries aren't game breaking until you get to Aerochem who have some
really nasty high level effects that can basically wreck you without much
effort. I would rather see 1 put in place but will also support 3 if the chance
to proc is very very low.
---[Llandros on 5/2 @ 15:21 writes]:
Support 3
---[Enyalida on 5/4 @ 04:58 writes]:
This is fine, solution 3. The same thing was done with monks on previous
occasions, making each attack in a combo have only 1/3rd of the chance to fire,
there being three times as many. A similar scaling down of passive attacks to
compensate for their frequency and quantity would be appropriate.