and yes ik it's working as described because it's not an attack but really I think it should be. You are getting the bonus of not having to use that AP on movement why should you get all the other benefits of pounce not being an attack aswell? pounce 2 stronk
Massive leap is leap + tremor, which is fixed damage. (8 + potential 5) Pounce's damage varies and can reach insane values with next to no way of mitigating it.
I do care, that's why I had asked to have the Lumbering from Tremor to be cleansable. But etherielin's point is that Pounce has a far greater damage potential, and I'd add the Icing that is the UD spell. However it's just too recent a change to warrant a nerf, specially given nobody really cared much for Pounce before, so I think it deserves to be strong for a good while.
The fact is, when people complain about Pounce, they typically talk about it in terms of MECHANICS. They say stuff like "Pounce works through blind, lol" which is about the MECHANICS, not the EFFICACY of the ability. And the things they complain about regarding Pounce are traits it shares with Massive Leap. Yes, there are other differences, but that is what is initially complained about it.
(Note: Lumbering from Tremor should absolutely be cleansable, regardless of any other discussion here, but it's really quite a different discussion from whether Pounce should be subject to attack counters (while Massive Leap is not).)
In short, I have never heard someone suggest that Massive Leap should be prevented by Blind and other attack counters, and whether or not Lumbering is cleansable doesn't seem like it'd change that.
That's because everyone is trying to come up with a counter for it, Sok. I think it's fairer to say "Make it counterable" than "Gut it" in the grand scheme of things.
That was @pounce. Blinding Leap isn't such an issue, because - again - the damage is static, while Pounce's isn't. It's the damage difference with next to no way of countering it that is driving peeps insane here, not pounce itself. Most simply don't try to nerf the damage and just keep going for counters, but there are nearly none to be found.
Well, maybe I misunderstood Lush, as his point appeared to be he DOES care about Massive Leap working through blind, and so he asked for it to be nerfed via Lumbering cleansable, which didn't make any sense to me.
I understand there's a damage output difference, but again, people don't say that typically. They just say "it's weird that it isn't an attack" when it's absolutely logical.
In either case, note that we are moving away untargeted abilities making attacks in general because of the bugs/complication of interactions they cause, so don't expect Pounce to behave like an attack any time soon - it was switched away from an attack (a long time ago) for a reason.
It needs to have its behaviour changed then - perhaps even making its damage scale like cones (50, 65, 80%) would do the trick. It just needs to be made less ridiculous somehow.
I do think Lush has a point about it being more visible now because of the addition of a couple runes that grant Pounce recently - especially since Pounce has been this way for a long time.
Well - do keep a close eye on it as spot pounce in damage-heavy factions will give you a lot of bad blood. Is there any idea you've got in your mind for it, Sok?
Lonx Bonecharm is definitely getting nerfed, and Boundless Enthusiam is being monitored for a small cost increase (but honestly, you are paying X nora and it requires a champ, so you'd expect a bit more damage than a larger AE or something that doesn't have a champ requirement). The other "spot Pounce" has been around a long time and never been an issue that I know of.
I think of pounce and scythe whirl as counters to blind, not the other way around. I didn't believe scythe whirl would miss die to blind, but I was at work and couldn't test.
@Sokolov My point about tremor's Lumbering not being cleansable is that you said nobody cares about it being "dumb" and "weird". Comparatively, you actually can counter pounce with a damage debuff(if you're lucky enough to have the champion within your spell presence before it happens), but again Tremor mechanics there's absolutely nothing you can do, specially now that it also affects Flying champions.
here is the thing aight? pounce is good counter to alot of abilities like deflect, one with nora etc etc.. Is it good ? yes is it OP and needs a nerf absolutely not. Ive read this forum and I really cant tell why anyone has a problem with it and again in ranked pox you can never count on blind to stop ur opponent (everyone expects a keeneye / harlberd of jthir etc etc)
Issue being with pounce i think is everyone looks at it as relocation then a close combat attack against everything adjacent. Which is how it should work but cause it's an aoe all the things you would do to counter an attack just outright don't work. That's why it's a problem and that's why it should be changed
So that argument is exactly what I was referring to. People simply look at it as an attack for SOME reason - and don't see similar things like Massive Leap or Portal Blast as being attacks.
Or is it because it's tied to DMG? I can certainly understand this sentiment to some extent. And it's true that things that are tied to DMG are more likely to be attacks... but it's not a rule. We have things tied to DMG that aren't attacks, and things not tied to DMG that are.
Bottom line tho is that when the argument that "everyone looks at it as relocate then a close combat attack" is made, it's never quite clear WHY this is the case and whether it's valid, and why that reasoning doesn't apply to other damage effects as well (whether they have relocate or not).
(That said, at least now that Swarm is basic attacks only, there wouldn't be AE Swarms like there used to be when Cones and Pounce were pseudo-attacks. One of the problems with untargeted effects like this counting as attacks is that you get into all kinds of ambiguous scenarios with attack triggers.)
As a thought experiment, @themacca, would you say that everyone looks at it as a close combat attack would still be true if:
1 - It dealt 10 damage flat?
2 - It dealt damage in AE2?
3 - It didn't have relocate and was AE 1 (Adjacent champions take X damage?)
4 - it didn't have relocate and was AE 2 (Champions within 2 spaces take X damage?)
Thinking thru it like the above, I am actually thinking now it's because it's because it's AE1 that makes people think "attack."
Even tho the mechanical difference between AE1 and AE2 damage clauses is just the radius size, from a visual perspective you think of AE1 as "adjacent" and things next to each other attack each other, rather than dealing damage directly.
Comments on Profile Post by GemmaXylia