Honestly, not having to worry about rejecting allies is basically the way the game's always been. It's not like it'd be a huge shift in the dynamic, more like a return to the status quo.
You realize lust to the dramaturgist is a "freebie" affliction either way just like "pacifism"? Lust can be subtext(hidden) and tea/rubeus can be stripped with a double pacifism meaning PeacefulCompanion is going to hit. The hidden lust is virtually untraceable. This means that if you are at 90% ego then the double climax is going to kill you. This is what this post was supposed to be about. The lust fix isn't a fix at all. It is hardly a nerf to climax. So four balances you can hit a double climax for 2 hits of ego each. The issue really is CompatriotofChaos and how it works with Climax.
My kills will not in any way be hindered by the lust nerf since I normally prime my climax with a subtext lust anyway.
@Parhelion Care to expand or should I just change my mind because you say so?
I think you're missing the point, and I can't tell if it's intentional or not
I understand and agree that a dramaturgist (?) Should be able to lust you and have that as an affliction that adds damage and stun to their climax on you. No arguments here.
I have an issue with the idea that I should not be able to be lusted to anyone at all without it adding damage to my climax. If Azula, or Alexandria, or Nelras, or Aramel lusts me for empress, this shouldn't be a 20% damage buff for Silvanus. If rolsand or some other psymet is walking around with pheromones locked, this shouldn't give Silvanus a damage buff. If Magnagora douses themselves in love potion, it shouldn't give Silvanus a damage buff.
If Silvanus has love potion up and it procs on his target? Sure. If my ally has love potion up and it makes me fall deeply in love with them, Silvanus shouldn't get a 20% increase to his damage.
Everyone would just be able to not worry about rejecting allies.
You realize lust to the dramaturgist is a "freebie" affliction either way just like "pacifism"? Lust can be subtext(hidden) and tea/rubeus can be stripped with a double pacifism meaning PeacefulCompanion is going to hit. The hidden lust is virtually untraceable. This means that if you are at 90% ego then the double climax is going to kill you. This is what this post was supposed to be about. The lust fix isn't a fix at all. It is hardly a nerf to climax. So four balances you can hit a double climax for 2 hits of ego each. The issue really is CompatriotofChaos and how it works with Climax.
My kills will not in any way be hindered by the lust nerf since I normally prime my climax with a subtext lust anyway.
@Parhelion Care to expand or should I just change my mind because you say so?
I think you're missing the point, and I can't tell if it's intentional or not
I understand and agree that a dramaturgist (?) Should be able to lust you and have that as an affliction that adds damage and stun to their climax on you. No arguments here.
I have an issue with the idea that I should not be able to be lusted to anyone at all without it adding damage to my climax. If Azula, or Alexandria, or Nelras, or Aramel lusts me for empress, this shouldn't be a 20% damage buff for Silvanus. If rolsand or some other psymet is walking around with pheromones locked, this shouldn't give Silvanus a damage buff. If Magnagora douses themselves in love potion, it shouldn't give Silvanus a damage buff.
If Silvanus has love potion up and it procs on his target? Sure. If my ally has love potion up and it makes me fall deeply in love with them, Silvanus shouldn't get a 20% increase to his damage.
Everyone would just be able to not worry about rejecting allies.
Yes, and this is the desired behavior.
Not the bard's or mage's desired behavior because it means that monks, warriors, and to an extent guardians/wiccans can just sip love potion/pheromones vastly hindering a mage or bard.
I thought the desire was to nerf the kill condition of climax?
The lust thing seems like a red herring here. I mean it's strange behaviour, but it doesn't seem as important as the actual issue of 3 affs into chainstun into kill.
Huge stuns are imo poor design. Players taking actions and reactions is good fun. Players not being able to act or react is not good fun. Hard CC's should be limited more and more.
Having the kill check on start or curing affs on climax seems like the intended fix. But a six second stun off beast breath into climax, even at a small chance, seems kinda dumb.
The lust thing seems like a red herring here. I mean it's strange behaviour, but it doesn't seem as important as the actual issue of 3 affs into chainstun into kill.
Porque no los dos, though.
Both are bad. Everyone thinks the second issue is bad. Some people think the first issue is also bad and probably unintended.
Her voice firm and commanding, Terentia, the Even Bladed says to you, "You have kept your oath to Me, Parhelion. You have sworn to maintain Justice in these troubled times."
Yet if a boon be granted me, unworthy as I am, let it be for a steady hand with a clear eye and a fury most inflaming.
If Lust to the caster is included and so is clearing affs on a successful Climax, would that cause the victim to automatically reject the caster as well?
>--------------------------[ Changelog Entry #2201 ]--------------------------<
Entered by: Orael the Anomaly Date: 2020-09-05 04:14:16
o Using Lust in Dramaturgy Climax now requires the target to be lusted
to the caster of Climax.
o Climax afflictions will be cured on a climax now (prevents back to
back climaxes).
- This includes lust.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<
I went ahead and added the original solutions.
I don't think forcing players to reject all their lusts all the time is a good idea. If adding lust is really that trivial anyway, then that means it is not much of a counter as it stands, so no point in punishing players that harshly.
The intent behind Climax was to have players work to stick afflictions to hit the climax for the kill. Given that it's hard to stack afflictions as it is (outside things like beast breaths), I think checking the kill condition before the afflictions takes away an interesting route that could potentially reward coordination. We'll see how this works out.
Comments
I thought the desire was to nerf the kill condition of climax?
Huge stuns are imo poor design. Players taking actions and reactions is good fun. Players not being able to act or react is not good fun. Hard CC's should be limited more and more.
Having the kill check on start or curing affs on climax seems like the intended fix. But a six second stun off beast breath into climax, even at a small chance, seems kinda dumb.
Both are bad. Everyone thinks the second issue is bad. Some people think the first issue is also bad and probably unintended.
>--------------------------[ Changelog Entry #2201 ]--------------------------< Entered by: Orael the Anomaly Date: 2020-09-05 04:14:16 o Using Lust in Dramaturgy Climax now requires the target to be lusted to the caster of Climax. o Climax afflictions will be cured on a climax now (prevents back to back climaxes). - This includes lust. >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<I went ahead and added the original solutions.I don't think forcing players to reject all their lusts all the time is a good idea. If adding lust is really that trivial anyway, then that means it is not much of a counter as it stands, so no point in punishing players that harshly.
The intent behind Climax was to have players work to stick afflictions to hit the climax for the kill. Given that it's hard to stack afflictions as it is (outside things like beast breaths), I think checking the kill condition before the afflictions takes away an interesting route that could potentially reward coordination. We'll see how this works out.