Spark

"

Vipermagi wrote:

"

VapidActions wrote:

To clarify, I don't have a problem with abilities having thematic mechanical weaknesses. My problem is that extremely few abilities (in fact spark is the only one I can think of) which suffers from this. My problem is not that it exists, but that it's not consistent.

Arctic Breath, Lightning Strike.

I didn't know lightning strike had this behaviour - I've never actually seen or heard of anyone using the ability, and never tried it myself - good to know. Arctic breath, doesn't the explosion still effect flying targets? It just can't collide with flying targets.

"

Vipermagi wrote:

It is internally consistent. Earthquake is not a ground-based projectile, it's just an AoE. AoE does not differentiate between ground-based and hovering AoE - the animation is entirely unrelated to the area that is hit. Another example thereof is Rain of Arrows: a monster doesn't have to be hit by any of the "arrows"; as long as it's in the AoE, it takes damage. Similarly, a monster cannot take damage multiple times from one use even if multiple "arrows" landed on it.

I can see your argument, but "ground based" is not an ability modifier. Comparing a hidden mechanic to a mechanical label "aoe" is not an apt comparison. We're talking about hidden thematic mechanics of abilities unrelated to mechanical labels. There's no reason earthquake couldn't just as easily be a "ground based aoe".

"

Vipermagi wrote:

On the other hand, ground-based Projectiles are mechanically distinct from hovering projectiles. Small debris on the ground will stop a ground-based Projectile like it would your character, whereas an arrow or fireball will simply pass right over. The animations of Spark and Lightning Strike do show this difference by being emitted from the base of your character model, as opposed to the center like a Fireball would be.

Sure, colliding with terrain is an interesting mechanic. But saying "this type of environment interaction means certain enemies simply can not be damaged by it" isn't really a fair mechanic. Bouncing off low obstructions vs going over depending on scenario is neither a weakness nor strength, that's utility. But having one that simply can not hurt certain enemies is only a weakness. What's the weakness of non "ground based projectiles"; or what's its strength in being "ground based"? It's not more effective against ground targets. There's no trade here, it's physically unable to hit certain enemies, but gains nothing in return, where other thematic mechanics have no such weakness.

"

Vipermagi wrote:

Somewhat unrelated but perhaps interesting to note: You're not alone with SRS woes. Raging Spirits are entirely untargetable enemies, which can be quite an issue for Totem users. Gets em every time. As a hardcaster, you at least have the option of running a backup Skill.

Totems won't target SRS, that's true. But they *can* damage SRS. If they have any sort of area of effect, or launch projectiles those can still damage SRS, so long as it's not spark (or I guess lightning strike as well).

I'm not sure what you mean about having the option of running a backup Skill, we don't have more ability gems. Do you mean having increased spell damage over totem damage/minion damage allows you to run a secondary ability to try to address SRS? Maybe if you're running a 2h so you have 2-6 links, but typically all your 4 links are utility (cursing), defence (cwdt), or movement. There's not a lot of room for a secondary offensive spell unless you run a weapon swap (eg ball lightning). Which again - I don't have a problem with this mechanical necessity. I have a problem that nothing else in the game works like this. No other ability type are you forced to change your setup because you are physically unable to damage an entire class of target no matter what, it is actually impossible.

I agree, not being able to deal with SRS with totems is annoying. But there isn't bosses, and actual enemies you can't interact with, maps are physically impossible to clear because they contain animated weapons (end boss of arsenal map can't be damaged). SRS is consistent problem, but totems aren't mechanically prevented from being able to clear the game.

Like the argument against mobs being "ignite immune", "poison immune", or such - a mechanic which makes it physically impossible to interact with a target is typically not a healthy mechanic. At least with those immunity mechanics you'll still get the initial hit damage, spark doesn't get even a tiny bit.

"

Vipermagi wrote:

"Arctic breath, doesn't the explosion still effect flying targets? It just can't collide with flying targets."
Yes. Like I explained in that very post, AoE just happens, it has no interaction with the ground-based/normal/hovering distinction.

"There's no reason earthquake couldn't just as easily be a "ground based aoe"."
It could be, but AoEs just don't make that distinction because there's no reason to.

"I'm not sure what you mean about having the option of running a backup Skill, we don't have more ability gems."
That's a problem of your own. You can just have a second Damage dealing Spell in your weapon swap or inventory :/ Just swap the Spark gem for that one boss fight. Oh nose. I used to do that all the time when my TShot character wasn't up to par yet; swap in Barrage for single-target.

But your not up to par TShot character "can" still hit the target, and with patience you could still kill them. That's a swap out because you're impatient, not a swap out because you're physically unable to do something. But I have said, multiple times I don't have a problem swapping out gear, not sure why you're being hostile towards me about it -w-; I was pointing out that it was a necessity rather than a desire.

"

Vipermagi wrote:

--------
It's worth noting, Spark being ground-based isn't a disadvantage of Spark. Instead, Raging Spirits being a hovering entity is an advange of theirs that happens to make them immune to Spark. Spark and ground-based Projectiles in general have existed long before hovering entities were a thing.

Sticking to SRS a little hard, but ok, again, I see your point. So lets attack this from an angle of SRS/Animate Weapons advantage - Why should SRS or Animate weapon - A map boss in particular have an advantage that doesn't just make it more resilient to something, but outright immune to the point it can't even be contacted by it to even effect it by proxy? How is that an acceptable mechanic?

Why not introduce a class of enemies that has 100% dodge to "arrow" attacks, a class of enemies that has a 100% chance to deflect "mace" attacks, etc. In your own words - "Oh nose", you have to use a weapon swap. But we're not OK with these kinds of mechanics for other types of attacks, why are we OK with it on spark / lightning strike?

To clarify - you say it's consistent because all three types of "ground based projectiles" have the same thematic interaction. I say its inconsistent because this thematic attack type is the only thematic attack type to have any sort of special interaction in the game. Other attack types don't have any special interactions, even if it would make sense that they would - such line target attacks (eg cold arrow) being less effective against anything with front facing armor, or volley attacks having a minimum range.

"Hovering entities have an easier time getting to their target, and can occupy the same space as other entities"

We already have a mechanic for this - it's called phasing.

"Making an enemy 100% immune to Maces does nothing except make them immune to Maces."

Not really, we're talking about thematic effects. There's no reason because an enemy is hovering above the ground that it should be immune to arcing electricity. Primary or secondary effect. How is my comparison on equal terms? Lets say you have a target wearing plate armor. Plate armor was designed specifically to deflect blade attacks. A sword against plate armor is near useless as you physically can not cut through plate armor (go physics!)- your only options are to use an extremely thin "sword" (such as a rapier, which often doesn't even have an edge) to try to get into small gaps, or a technique called "half swording" in which you use your sword like a mace hitting your opponent with the pommel. Thematically - an enemy which uses plate armor should not be effected by sword based attacks, similarly with other armor types designed to fend off different types of weapons. As well elemental enemies (such as golemms which consist entirely of a specific element should be outright immune to that element, not just resistant. But they're not because most mechanics may make certain engagements better or worse, GGG has decided in these scenarios that the attacks should not be outright shut down, just weakened. But that's not the case with spark.

Spark is the only damaging ability in the game in which it is in both theory and application impossible to complete the game. Any other damaging ability could in theory clear the game.

Haha, I see you've just devolved to fallacies by misquoting me and making strawman arguments. I thought you might be able to intelligently debate the requirement for such a mechanic so I persisted, but I was sadly mistaken. Was fun while it lasted. If you have an intelligent argument to make about the mechanic itself instead of trying to attack me, let me know.

Then debate how you think it's unrelated. Bring up new points. Debate! Don't just attack your opponent, that's the act of a child, and we both know you're capable of better. https://www.sfu.ca/cmns/130d1/HOWTODEBATE.htm - See the section on "rebuttals".

I made the points because I didn't feel they were unrealted. Im arguing "thematic mechanics". You're trying to debate "flying mechanics", you're trying to address a subtopic and claiming that I'm off topic when I'm just debating the larger picture.

I don't want to be rude to you, never have. When I quote you, I'm not quoting you as a person, I'm quoting your statement for reference of a rebuttal. You however on several occasions have quoted me as an attack on me rather than the point - known as an ad homonym fallacy. I'm not a perfect debater, but if we want to find the best solutions, we have to start by learning how to talk about the topic appropriately and efficiently.

My basis of debate is that:
Spark follows a thematic mechanic of "ground based projectiles", however this is the only theme in the game which is mechanically limited from completing the game, is a hidden and unclear mechanic, and forces the player to change or adapt instead of encouraging them to; as such making it an unhealthy, and unnecessary mechanical interaction.

I'm going to try to continue this in a logical manner. Viper's anger seems to have stemmed from from confusion, causing him to aggress the debater instead of the debate. With the goal of attempting to resolve this, I will add clarification as pertaining to my suggested scenarios for other interactions.

We start off with a base of an "attack action" or "theme". An attack action is a method in which a character imparts force or energy with the goal of causing damage to an enemy unit. Firing an arrow towards the target, Firing an arrow into the air to arc back down onto the target, striking an enemy directly with a sharp weapon, striking an enemy directly with a blunt weapon, striking the ground with a blunt weapon, or striking the air with a sharp weapon are all examples of "attack actions" or "attack themes". Categories in which attacks fall into that visually represent how a character is imparting energy onto an enemy or enemies.

Taking this a step further; with each of these attack actions, we can draw logical conclusions of how these modes of energy transfer would interact with the world around them. A projectile fired at the ground traveling forward would collide with short sharp outcroppings, where an above ground projectile fired directly at a target could pass over them, though if the outcropping is tall enough (eg. a cliff) the line of sight could be blocked, causing the projectile to collide with the terrain; where a projectile fired into the air in an arc would not be effected by either of these as the arc would overtake the outcropping. These are called "thematic interactions", or when implemented into the game "thematic mechanics". - Logical conclusions of how an attack method would be influenced by different environmental factors.

As such, we can compare a "ground based projectile" being unable to reach an airborne target to a sharp direct blow interacting with plate armor as it is also is a thematic interaction - a logical conclusion of how an attack method would interact with its environment. Also, we can compare an ability such as "earthquake" to "spark" as both are ground based energy delivery. Earthquake being "area of effect" does not change how it thematically imparts energy to enemy units.

Normally these thematic interactions are limited to a "utility" roll - colliding with terrain isn't a limitation, the projectile is not necessarily prevented from reaching the other side of the obstruction, it must simple take a different angle or path to do so. However, in the case of ground based projectile's thematic interaction with "flying enemies", this is not the case. This is a hard limitation which can not be overcome. No method of play style or action on part of the player can interact with this. The player must simply abandon their current method of attack action. Other thematic interactions encourage players to adjust for greater benefit, such as changing positioning to avoid obstacles, changing attack placement to increase number of projectiles hit. This is a very important point, as the goal of thematic mechanics is to encourage interaction from the player - not to prevent them from being able to interact. Therefore this is an unhealthy mechanic.

This specific thematic interaction is also not consistently drawn. Many enemy units in the game display visually as though they are flying, such as "ribbon" type enemies. However while they visually appear to glide on the same plane as animated weapons, they are not considered flying enemies as animated weapons are. This thematic interaction is also poorly visually represented as spark's visual arcing above ground can actually clip through these enemies, causing it to "visually" hit the enemy, even though it's unable to do so - and as such this is an unclear mechanic.

This specific thematic interaction is not labeled or interacted with in any way (such as through passives or item modifiers), and only in flavor text on only some abilities which use the base attack method infer the attack method, and further the potential thematic interaction. As such, this is a hidden mechanic.

And lastly, there was a good point made pertaining to select enemies which have this particular thematic interaction; Summon Raging Spirits and Animate Weapon require a special mechanic so that multiple units can exist within the same game space (clip through each other). However, this can just as easily be achieved by providing these enemy types with the "phasing" mechanic. Therefore this is an unnecessary mechanic.

This thematic interaction was brought up in the spark thread, as spark as an ability suffers the greatest from this interaction, however it's not spark that is the topic to be changed, but the interaction - and perhaps may mean changing Summon Raging Spirits and Animate Weapon instead depending on how the interaction is coded.