Wrong Mez/Placate duration on Misdirection in PvP

[Ms Deadly]

The power Misdirection in concealment pool got a higher than intended placate duration, as it is now 9seconds duration, but should be 2seconds duration? 👽

[Rudra]

It's supposed to be 9 seconds in PvP.

https://cod.uberguy.net/html/power.html?power=pool.invisibility.misdirection&at=scrapper

 

 

[sessa]

as Ms Deadly pointed out a 9s placate duration in PvP is a bug.

[Rudra]

11 minutes ago, sessa said:

as Ms Deadly pointed out a 9s placate duration in PvP is a bug.

Considering placate effects are broken when you attack the target and the in game data says it is supposed to be 9 seconds duration in PvP as opposed to 15 seconds in PvE, how can you say it is a bug?! (Edit: If the game says something is supposed to work a certain way and it does, then it isn't a bug. If you think a 9 second duration is too long, then submit a suggestion.)

Edited April 17 by Rudra

[Glacier Peak]

1 hour ago, Rudra said:

Considering placate effects are broken when you attack the target and the in game data says it is supposed to be 9 seconds duration in PvP as opposed to 15 seconds in PvE, how can you say it is a bug?! (Edit: If the game says something is supposed to work a certain way and it does, then it isn't a bug. If you think a 9 second duration is too long, then submit a suggestion.)

I think what Deadly is pointing out is the standard PvP mez duration "rule" of 2 seconds for non-Controller/Dominator Archetypes and 4 seconds for Controller/Dominator Archetypes. This rule applies to Primary, Secondary, and Epic/Patron Pool powersets.

 

Pool powers appear to use the Melee_One attribute to determine the number of seconds for mez duration in Misdirection, as well as in the Presence Pool powerset. 

[macskull]

2 hours ago, Rudra said:

(Edit: If the game says something is supposed to work a certain way and it does, then it isn't a bug. If you think a 9 second duration is too long, then submit a suggestion.)

Being a pedant about "if the game says something then it's not a bug" doesn't make you right. The game also says all the debuffs from Blaster and MM Possess apply to the caster and not the target but I can promise you that's not how it's supposed to work. For example, Sentinel Dark Grasp was lasting something like 8 seconds in 2019 when Sentinel mezzes are supposed to be 2 seconds - the power worked exactly like it was written to work, but the way it was written to work was incorrect.

 

Placate duration in PvP is supposed to be standardized to 6.0*melee_taunt based on the information on CoD for Stalkers and Banes, but Misdirection is using 9.0*melee_ones. This is clearly incorrect despite "the game saying something is supposed to work a certain way."

 

Regardless, 2 seconds is also the incorrect duration, since taunt and placate don't follow the same 2 second/4 second rule that stun/sleep/hold/confuse/immobilize do.

Edited April 18 by macskull

[Rudra]

2 hours ago, Glacier Peak said:

I think what Deadly is pointing out is the standard PvP mez duration "rule" of 2 seconds for non-Controller/Dominator Archetypes and 4 seconds for Controller/Dominator Archetypes. This rule applies to Primary, Secondary, and Epic/Patron Pool powersets.

 

Pool powers appear to use the Melee_One attribute to determine the number of seconds for mez duration in Misdirection, as well as in the Presence Pool powerset. 

And yet Stalker placate effects are all 6 seconds in duration in PvP according to the game (and 12.3 seconds according to CoD). So it doesn't look like that "rule" applies to placate effects.

 

1 hour ago, macskull said:

The game also says all the debuffs from Blaster and MM Possess apply to the caster and not the target but I can promise you that's not how it's supposed to work.

Then that would be a typo bug because the description says the effect is one thing but the power does something else, and what the game says as the description is wrong. In the OP, what the game says something should do and what it does are the same. That makes it not a bug.

[Glacier Peak]

2 hours ago, macskull said:

Regardless, 2 seconds is also the incorrect duration, since taunt and placate don't follow the same 2 second/4 second rule that stun/sleep/hold/confuse/immobilize do.

I think there's also a caging and intangible status effect rule in there too. And fear. And teleport mag/resistance. And invulnerable status. 

 

One rule to rule them all though? Not so much. I guess I thought it was more rigid design than it actually is. 

[macskull]

19 minutes ago, Rudra said:

And yet Stalker placate effects are all 6 seconds in duration in PvP according to the game (and 12.3 seconds according to CoD). So it doesn't look like that "rule" applies to placate effects.

You should do yourself a favor and actually take a look at CoD sometime. You'd be amazed what you can learn about how the game is supposed to work, and you'd stop saying incorrect things in these kinds of discussions.

 

19 minutes ago, Rudra said:

In the OP, what the game says something should do and what it does are the same. That makes it not a bug.

Let's try a thought exercise here: let's say I have an end mod IO set, we'll call it, I dunno, Energy Manipulator. Let's say this set has a proc that stuns the target. The power data for this proc says "target" and not "enemy," resulting in the user being able to stun allies with powers like Speed Boost, or themselves by slotting it in powers like Stamina. Is this a bug?

Edited April 18 by macskull

[macskull]

3 minutes ago, Glacier Peak said:

I think there's also a caging and intangible status effect rule in there too. And fear. And teleport mag/resistance. And invulnerable status. 

 

One rule to rule them all though? Not so much. I guess I thought it was more rigid design than it actually is. 

Cages are 4 and 8 seconds, but the rest of the stuff on there doesn't have an AT-specific modifier.

[Glacier Peak]

3 minutes ago, macskull said:

Cages are 4 and 8 seconds, but the rest of the stuff on there doesn't have an AT-specific modifier.

I think Slows are also a form of mez too? 

 

Edit: wow even more - repel, knockback, knockdown, sleep, confuse, fly, only affect self, and  blinded. Sorry for the tangent, learning and sharing as I go!

Edited April 18 by Glacier Peak

[Rudra]

7 hours ago, macskull said:

You should do yourself a favor and actually take a look at CoD sometime. You'd be amazed what you can learn about how the game is supposed to work, and you'd stop saying incorrect things in these kinds of discussions.

When I cite CoD, it is because I just finished looking at it for the topic in question. Ex.:https://cod.uberguy.net/html/power.html?power=stalker_melee.electrical_melee.placate&at=stalker

 

7 hours ago, macskull said:

Let's try a thought exercise here: let's say I have an end mod IO set, we'll call it, I dunno, Energy Manipulator. Let's say this set has a proc that stuns the target. Obviously this proc should not stun friendly targets, because that makes no sense and would be an excellent griefing tool, let alone that no other mez procs affect friendly targets. The power data for this proc very specifically says "target" and not "enemy," resulting in the user being able to stun allies with powers like Speed Boost, or themselves by slotting it in powers like Stamina. Is this a bug?

https://cod.uberguy.net/html/power.html?power=boosts.attuned_energy_manipulator_c.attuned_energy_manipulator_c

States does not affect friendly. (Screen capture provided below.)

 

Now to continue with the thought experiment. Let's say the Energy Manipulator: Chance to Stun simply said target rather than foe rather than what it actually says. When slotted into a power that accepts endurance modification enhancements, does it stun? Are the targets the power is affecting being stunned? If it only affects enemies and not players, then it is a bug and it should be reported for having an incorrect description. If it affects both, then it isn't a bug, it was a very, very, very poorly designed enhancement and needs to be changed with a suggestion. (Edit: Yes, it is my inclination to say the dev that made it could not possibly have meant for it to work that way, and so it would be a bug, but I am not the dev that made it and I can't speak for the dev's intentions other than what the power/effect says it does compared to what it actually does.) (Edit again: Why won't I just call it a bug in the thought experiment? Because for all anyone knows, that dev may have intended for the set to only be used in offensive powers and it also being able to affect the players is to dissuade them from using it in buffing powers. Who knows. I'm not psychic. And I'm relatively sure neither is anyone else.)

 

 

Edited April 18 by Rudra

[macskull]

12 hours ago, Rudra said:

When I cite CoD, it is because I just finished looking at it for the topic in question.

 

Now to continue with the thought experiment. Let's say the Energy Manipulator: Chance to Stun simply said target rather than foe rather than what it actually says. When slotted into a power that accepts endurance modification enhancements, does it stun? Are the targets the power is affecting being stunned? If it only affects enemies and not players, then it is a bug and it should be reported for having an incorrect description. If it affects both, then it isn't a bug, it was a very, very, very poorly designed enhancement and needs to be changed with a suggestion.

Let’s talk Misdirection again. You’re looking at the final number instead of the actual math behind it, which is why you’re coming to the conclusion that it is working correctly. Because Misdirection is using melee_ones instead of melee_taunt to determine its duration, two problems arise: 1) the duration is the same for every archetype and 2) the duration is the same regardless of level. Neither of these issues are present in any other placate power. The way the scales are used does mean that the PvP duration is 60% of the PvE duration (which is correct) but the rest of the way the power behaves is not. To put this in perspective, this is the same as if Tough and Weave gave the same protection values for every archetype. Considering we know that’s not how it’s supposed to work, we can conclude that such behavior would be a bug.

 

EDIT: I will reiterate again that the OP’s premise is wrong and the placate should not be 2 seconds, but the power is using incorrect scales, so it is bugged, just not in the way OP thinks it is.

 

Now, let’s talk Energy Manipulator. I chose that very specific example because the way I described the proc in my thought exercise is exactly how that proc worked when it was released (I.e., it did not distinguish between friendly and enemy targets and was an equal opportunity stunner). A reasonable person would conclude that a proc which puts a mez or debuff on a friendly target is very much not working as intended - and it wasn’t - so the proc was changed to its current, correct, behavior. You call it “poor design but not a bug” with the insistence that it must be working like it’s supposed to because that’s what the power info says. I call it a “bug” because it was clearly not intended to work that way and only did so because of an oversight.

 

At this point your argument is entirely semantics-based rather than standing on any actual merits, so I have to assume you’re no longer arguing in good faith and the only reason I’m still responding is so anyone doing a drive-by reading of this thread will understand the absurdity of your position.

Edited April 18 by macskull

[Rudra]

1 hour ago, macskull said:

Let’s talk Misdirection again. You’re looking at the final number instead of the actual math behind it, which is why you’re coming to the conclusion that it is working correctly. Because Misdirection is using melee_ones instead of melee_taunt to determine its duration, two problems arise: 1) the duration is the same for every archetype and 2) the duration is the same regardless of level. Neither of these issues are present in any other placate power. The way the scales are used does mean that the PvP duration is 60% of the PvE duration (which is correct) but the rest of the way the power behaves is not. To put this in perspective, this is the same as if Tough and Weave gave the same protection values for every archetype. Considering we know that’s not how it’s supposed to work, we can conclude that such behavior would be a bug.

I don't understand the formulae used in City of Data/Heroes. That is why any time I post anything from CoD and the reference is a formula, I state that I don't know what it means or I state that I am leaving that particular reference out of my discussion for not knowing how it works. And just because damage resistance and defense don't play by the rules Misdirection is for its placate means nothing to me. Give me a placate reference. If you want the formula changed, then you already know my response. Submit a suggestion to get it changed.

 

1 hour ago, macskull said:

EDIT: I will reiterate again that the OP’s premise is wrong and the placate should not be 2 seconds, but the power is using incorrect scales, so it is bugged, just not in the way OP thinks it is.

Which is why this discussion is so confusing.

 

1 hour ago, macskull said:

Now, let’s talk Energy Manipulator. I chose that very specific example because the way I described the proc in my thought exercise is exactly how that proc worked when it was released (I.e., it did not distinguish between friendly and enemy targets and was an equal opportunity stunner). A reasonable person would conclude that a proc which puts a mez or debuff on a friendly target is very much not working as intended - and it wasn’t - so the proc was changed to its current, correct, behavior. You call it “poor design but not a bug” with the insistence that it must be working like it’s supposed to because that’s what the power info says. I call it a “bug” because it was clearly not intended to work that way and only did so because of an oversight.

A little bit of background here. Yes, my initial inclinations should something like that happen is that it can't be what was intended and so must be a bug. However, after having had to perform several mishap investigations, I've learned that is not an acceptable approach to viewing problems. Just because I think something doesn't make sense and that there is no way the person involved meant for something to be the way it is, does not mean that the person/people involved did not make it that way because it makes sense to them. Hindsight is always 20/20, but foresight and intent are not. So, as much as it seems to annoy everyone, I will persist on not reading what I think may have been someone's intent on something and instead continue to look at what that person or those people did as compared to what was/is going on. So if something in the game says it is supposed to work a particular way and it in fact does, even if I think that makes no sense, it will remain as intended and I will continue to advise others to make suggestions to change it.

 

1 hour ago, macskull said:

At this point your argument is entirely semantics-based rather than standing on any actual merits, so I have to assume you’re no longer arguing in good faith and the only reason I’m still responding is so anyone doing a drive-by reading of this thread will understand the absurdity of your position.

My argument was that the OP was wrong, that Misdirection was not supposed to only have a 2 second duration, and you agreed with that. My justification for such was that the power said it was supposed to last longer than the OP supposed and it in fact lasts longer as described, making it not a bug. That is my take on the OP. You could have just said the OP was wrong, given your justification for it, and not dove down this rabbit hole of bug by intent you choose to read into things versus what I refuse to read into things. My arguments are in good faith, regardless of whether you can accept them or not.

 

 

[Ms Deadly]

!