Report 1293

Report #1293
Skillset: Aeonics Skill: Timelessbody
 Org: Institute Status: Completed Aug 2016
Furies' Decision:
Solution 1.
Problem: TimelessBody is a defence which has a chance of blocking the following
afflictions from being applied to the user: piercedlimb, rigormortis,
dislocatedlimb, gashedcheek, puncturedlung, sliceddear, laceratedlimb. The
majority of these afflictions have been or will be removed, and thus should be
changed to to post-overhaul equivalents.
[A: 0 R: 0] Solution #1: Change Timelessbody to have a chance of blocking the
 following afflictions: rigormortis, damagedlimbs,
 internalbleding, damagedskull.
[A: 0 R: 0] Solution #2: Change Timelessbody to have a chance of blocking the
 following afflictions: rigormortis, paralysis,
 sickening, pox, haemophilia, internalbleeding.
[A: 0 R: 0] Solution #3: Change Timelessbody to not block any afflictions, and
 instead provide 1/4 balance bonus.
Player Comments:
---[Shedrin on 8/10 @ 13:16 writes]:
Solution 1 is the most direct equivalent (though recognizing that there are some
inevitable differences in converting). Solution 2 a different idea due to most
of the pre-overhaul afflictions being herb cures, and dust being closest to an
herb, sorta, and recognizing the changed context of ice afflictions makes
blocking them more powerful. Solution 3 changes the focus entirely away from rng
affliction blocker, to a small mostly offensive buff. Useful to both Institute
and Sentinels, due to Harmonics being balance-based.
---[Shedrin on 8/10 @ 13:19 writes]:
Timelessbody has always been a pretty simple and boring skill, but if anyone has
any cool ideas, let me know.
---[Synkarin on 8/10 @ 22:06 writes]:
I think solution 1 is the best. I could do sol 2 with the removal of asthma,
aeonics already provides mindclock for aeon resistance, they don't need to
resist the locking solutions either.
---[Raeri on 8/11 @ 13:22 writes]:
I could also see it being a RoA-esque thing potentially, thematically.
---[Shedrin on 8/11 @ 22:38 writes]:
Removed asthma from Solution 2. I agree it's probably too much.
---[Wobou on 8/13 @ 16:00 writes]:
Solution 1 sounds best to me.
---[Synkarin on 8/14 @ 19:07 writes]:
Thinking more about this - I'd actually lean towards sol 3, but with a power
cost and a limited time. Institue in general have a lot of affliction avoidance
already, between Mindclock, Insight, TimelessBody, PastGlimpse, FutureGlimpse,
Switchfate, Foresight and Contingency (which is a bit different) - aeonics
already has lots of affliction avoidance. I think it may be better to take this
oppurtunity to reduce some of this and change up Timelessbody into something
else. I realize that this report is trying to maintain status quo, but the
status quo is already really nice, Institue should have some weaknesses rather
than a good spread of protection against everything. Another option may be
prudent.
---[Shedrin on 8/14 @ 21:44 writes]:
I don't think that would be worth it, unless the balance bonus was quite
significant. Especially considering that many of those skills do already last a
limited amount of time.
---[Wobou on 8/17 @ 13:48 writes]:
Another option would be to have this ability cost power with a higher chance of
working, and last for a limited amount of time. That way instead of being
something that you leave on as a defense it's something you have to use
strategically to manage your power.
---[Synkarin on 8/22 @ 04:05 writes]:
I could get behind Wobou's solution.
---[Shedrin on 8/23 @ 16:43 writes]:
I don't mind a temporary power defense in principle, but I'd rather go with a
balance buff or other change over affliction avoidance for that. Reasoning being
that the chance to avoid will need to be higher to justify the cost, which can
be frustrating for any class reliant on those afflictions. At a lower rate, this
is less of a problem (though still existent, thus the appeal of Solution 3 as it
stands).
---[Synkarin on 8/28 @ 17:07 writes]:
The problem with a balance bonus is that spinning rubies and more importantly,
shatterplex use balance. You already have a limited time window to cure out of
massivetimewarp before dying to timequake. Adding a balance bonus lowers that
threshold. I simply can't support anything that makes an already strong kill
method even stronger. This is why I suggested a power cost + time limit instead
of a straight up balance bonus. This ideally would prevent it from being usuable
during the shatterplex/timequake but allow you use during other times. Institute
is already one of the strongest defensive AND offensive classes out there, it
certainly doesn't need help in either area.
---[Shedrin on 8/28 @ 20:49 writes]:
What numbers were you thinking that avoids interacting with Timequake? I don't
think Solution 3 will impact Shatterplex -> Timequake much. Right now, Malefact
and Shatterplex have a base of 2s. Based on testing, truetime enchant brings
aeon actions to .9s (please correct me if I'm wrong here), leaving 1.8s to
escape shatterplex + beast -> timequake in 2 actions, or 3.6 to escape malefact
+ beast -> shatterplex -> timequake. This should be more accurate should the
aeon action queue be implemented, reducing the ping factor. A balance bonus of 5
is required to equal the truetime aeon actions, only regularly achievable with
candy, I think, in which case this would have no effect. In the case of no
truetime, kabob by itself already gets under the threshold. I think it will
largely remain the case that surviving Timequake or not will rely on making the
correct curing and hindering decisions.
---[Synkarin on 8/29 @ 00:35 writes]:
If you lower the balance low enough to only allow one chance to cure the
shatterplex->timequake combo, that's a pretty substantial improvement. It would
only require you to lower your shatterplex balance by 0.3s to achieve. Most
importantly, I just don't think the Institute need that kind of buff to achieve
their kill strategies as they are already among the strongest in the game and
would instead be an unneeded buff with far reaching consequences. I think there
are other options you can go with here. I believe a 5 balance bonus is stronger
than 0.1s as well, and more along the lines of 0.2-0.3 bonus (this is testing
with my destruction and a red lollipop).
---[Shedrin on 8/29 @ 01:28 writes]:
What I meant was 5 balance making a 2s balance into 1.8, equaling two actions
under aeon with truetime. Solution 3 doesn't achieve that, thus there should be
little effect on Timequake viability. As it's not a 'pressure strategy', being
faster or slower by partial seconds doesn't matter except to reach specific
thresholds, which is not changed here. I see this having the most effect on
warriors (which is potentially reason enough to stray away from Solution 3 as
written).
---[Synkarin on 8/29 @ 02:38 writes]:
Right, so bumping that up above 5 is going to push you into that limit and
adding a balance bonus just makes that easier. I simply don't think it's needed,
you don't need that offensive buff. It doesn't take a large buff to put this
into 'crazy' zone.
---[Shedrin on 8/29 @ 02:53 writes]:
I was going to comment that I didn't know of a way to achieve 5 balance buff
without the candy, but then I realized the Death domoth minor blessing is a
balance buff. Kabob + Herofete + Balance rune = 3. +2 more from the domoth.
Though, with either the candy or the domoth, Solution 3 wouldn't have any effect
with the /4 limit.
---[Synkarin on 8/29 @ 13:26 writes]:
In that scenario, yes the /4 will mean this particular bonus will not affect
things, but we already have a rune that does 1/11. I don't think that Aeonics
needs a balance buff, I think it's an extraneous buff that is un-needed. Can you
explain why you think Sentinels and Institute need a balance buff?
---[Shedrin on 8/29 @ 18:37 writes]:
The intent of Solution 3 was to offer an alternative to chance-based affliction
blocking that would be the equivalent of pre-Overhaul Timelessbody
functionality. Imo, the buff and max are low enough to not be too significant,
though this will have the most effect on warriors due to the sustained nature of
their combat vs combo-oriented Institute. As I stated in earlier comments, I'm
not opposed to other potential implementations of the idea, though I'm not sure
what good numbers would be if a temporary and power-costing version were to be
implemented.