Is it time for a new condition?

[Rising_Dusk]

No, I just have all damage dealt in the map triggered now, so I can control it however I'd like to.

[Greenspawn]

I have a question about conditions:

Every condition that you have made for DoE is unique in that no other conditions share the same aspects, except for Bleed and Burn. This makes me think: "Why would you create 2 conditions that did essentially the same thing (damage per second), even though Burn does more damage per second?" Why not create other conditions that do similar things as other conditions, but differ in magnitude? Like, for instance:

Confuse: Causes 50% of attacks to miss. (Blind is 75% of attacks, so why not a lesser one as well?)

Or this (slightly more original): Confuse: This unit cannot attack other units.

[assassingao]

Then Confuse and Blind wouldn't stack.

And as you can see, all conditions stack with each other.


And bleed lasts helluvalot longer than burn, and is easier to apply.

[Cooldood]

Bleed is madly spammable and more widely used I think as well... Give you a condition which can be thrown around for more interaction...

[Rising_Dusk]

There is a good reason for bleed and burn being distinguished as such. You cannot find 45 second burns in the map, but a 45 second bleed is not unreasonable. Bleed was intended to be low DPS, but high duration and incredibly easy to apply, it's like a catalyst for all of those condition interacting skills. You need a condition on the foe to stun them as Atrius? Oh look, 22 second bleed on their face, that requirement won't have any problems for awhile. Burn, on the other hand, is short-lived but high-power. It hurts, a lot, but lasts for short durations. It also offers flavor distinction since God knows the Kazan Blazeguard would make no sense if Flickerflame was for bleeding and not burning.

[Greenspawn]

Very well then. My point has been mooted

[pandamanar]

I agree with Green... if its okay for Bleed and Burn to be the same effect with different magnitude, could it be reasonable for another condition, like Ruin, which is incredibly destructive to have a less powerful but would be applied for longer durations?
Shock : Lowers units armor by -5
This could allow for both longer and less OMFGPWNAGE armor debuffing while also adding another elemental-ish condition like burn. *Glyphe anyone?*

[Oxygen]

I agree with Green... if its okay for Bleed and Burn to be the same effect with different magnitude, could it be reasonable for another condition, like Ruin, which is incredibly destructive to have a less powerful but would be applied for longer durations?
Shock : Lowers units armor by -5
This could allow for both longer and less OMFGPWNAGE armor debuffing while also adding another elemental-ish condition like burn. *Glyphe anyone?*

Yes, and we can have freeze, 33% slow and attack slow

and entrangled, stunned and taking damage

and quaked, knocked down and blinded

and rainbow'ed, all conditions at once

and serathis, the game crashes



come on now

[Steve]

Ruin makes you take 12 more damage.

Clearly it's world-shattering.

[pandamanar]

Armor and its damage reduction is in a percent, is it not? So I doubt such a number as 12 more damage exists at all, does it?

Oh and thanks for making fun of me. I am not exactly suggesting Dusk to make new conditions, because I know its a pain in the ass and there are enough for the map to be fine without anymore.

But what makes the Bleed and Burn combination any different and any more necessary then two other conditions that are exactly the same except for how long they are applied? (and the integers that they deal with)

[Phox]

Because one of the main aspects of the condition system is to make less variance in buffs. e.x. There is ONE slow for move speed, ONE silence, ONE attacks speed slow, etc. This makes it less confusing and easier to figure out exactly how much you're being hurt by a given buff. By having variant degrees of this, you're destroying this aspect of the system. Burn and Bleed are innately a very good example of how this is a bad thing; however, the way that they are applied makes it work just fine: bleed is common and long-lasting, burn is rare and short. If it weren't for these application differences, they'd be very bad.

[Rising_Dusk]

Oh and thanks for making fun of me.

No one made fun of you, that you took it in such a manner is your problem. Oftentimes the best method to show someone the err of one's ways, in this case in your suggestion for shock, is to do so by example, ergo Oxy's post. The reason bleed and burn succeed is because they are the most simple of condition and therefore can extend to multiple places. Beyond the sense of the topic (Flavor touches, bleed vs. burn in skill logic), it is important to consider that although bleed and burn are essentially the same, they fill different rolls entirely. Something like -5 armor next to -10 armor wouldn't, and as a matter of fact stacked would be quite ridiculous. (As if -10 wasn't bad enough, now you can get -15 from them both) Damage is the easiest problem to remedy, whereas something like minus armor isn't. This extends similarly to blind and lesser variants or the slows because of how they stack. Damage is after all only damage.

Ignoring the basic mechanics, Phox' post above covers the reality of it perfectly. Outside of burn and bleed, which in itself is encroaching in design-failure (Barely missing it), lesser versions of the other conditions would bely a lack of generality in the system, thereby eliminating the very issue and position it was designed to correct and fill.