Isn't this ability a little bit odd. "Ranged attacks made by this champion have a bonus of +2 damage for each space the target is beyond the champion's minimum range". So let me rephrase this for you. the further away you are from the enemy the greater the damage you'll deal. Isn't this a little bit,well, ridiculous. isnt the object to defeat enemy champions whilst keeping your own alive. isn't this ability a little bit of a handhold. Let me rephrase it yet again. The less risk you take the greater the reward. Quite frankly this is bad design, you should deal more damage the more of a risk you take not the less risk you take, i.e dissipate. the ability should either be removed or reworked. its fundementally backwards.
How is it bad design? I'm not sure of its nora cost, but the champs that have it usually have low base dmg, so when dealt with melee they get squashed. Both dissipate and kinetic impulse offer flavour: one is a positive, the other is a negative
its bad design because it encourages a player to do what they should be doing anyway i.e handholding and then rewards it with extra damage. the idea is to trade efficiently, so to destroy enemy champs while maintaining your own. how many people do you see blundering forward into the enemy and losing the damage? i already highlighted why its bad design, it rewards you for playing safe by giving you more damage, by taking less risk. that shouldnt be happening. if it does happen then dissipate doesnt actually make sense. and dissipate makes more sense than impulse. it forces you to choose play safe or deal more damage. kinetic impulse just says play safe and reap the reward, no thought required. no assessment needed. simply be able to read the descirption and profit from your reading comprehension skills. only dissipate should exist, it actually requires the player to think about whats to their greater benefit whilst offering an oppurtunity for it to backfire.
The deal is that both champions with Kinetic Impulse have low base damage, so that's where its base idea comes from, but your point is very interesting, specially given they can get damage(and range) boosts which probably boost their output more than the originally planned. I've seen a 1-6 range Gravitone once, it was insane - although it required a decent bit of nora and planning, and wasn't super hard to kill - so I can see where you're coming from. But the truth is, unless they're using a champion with dissipate or have to attack from a lower range due to AP, players will always try attacking from max range anyway. That's the main problem with wider ranges in the first place, and why they're so hard to cost. To resume, the problem to me is that when these champions get buffed their damage scales better than with other champions, but I ultimately don't think they're a problem because they still don't deal insane damage even with Impulse+ buffs. If anything, I have more problems with Slam than with the ability in question.
I don't mind the design, it allows you to counter it by getting in close. Though I think it would make more sense as a negative ability - every space beneath the maximum you lose 2 damage. In play it wouldn't make much difference, the champ would just have higher base damage and then be discounted, but it would feel better to me.
That would be roughly +6 damage to those champions. Not a bad idea at all, from a gameplay perspective. However I'm curious to see how some people would like it regarding flavor(although I do see your point).
i think IS players would be concerned about the impact this would have on certain champions especially those in UD with high damage values.
I see how the ability is backwards it doesn't really make sense, however the champs with it aren't extremely strong, my only problem is when those champs also have slam.
This assumes that the player is always able to have control over their unit's positioning, which is inherently flawed. The opponent (or you if playing against it at the time) have options to minimize their unit's effectiveness by limiting their options or forcing positional choices. It may not have a significant impact on how the person controlling the unit prefers to operate, but it can have an impact on the game to make things overall more interesting. In no way does it seem like bad design. I can't imagine a way that it negatively impacts the game in and of itself. (Though, certainly, it isn't necessary design either.)
