Seeker Zuo not affected by Grimlic's Bane with Voil Seeker out.

Discussion in 'Bug Reporting' started by Etherielin, Aug 30, 2016.

  1. Etherielin

    Etherielin The Floof Cultist

    What I expected: Cast Grimlic's Bane on Voil Seeker. Voil Seeker and Seeker Zuo both take damage.
    What happened: Voil Seeker gets damage, Seeker Zuo remains unharmed.

    Zuo is just a reskin. Why does he not take damage just because he's an LE? That's pretty stupid and reskins shouldn't affect balance. Voils are stupid as it is and this is just a completely obscure kind of counter.

    @Sokolov Any idea why?
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2016
    IronStylus likes this.
  2. IronStylus

    IronStylus I need me some PIE!

    From what I know, all rune with a different name (LE) bypass grimlic's bane damage. Signing a petition here to change it.
     
  3. Etherielin

    Etherielin The Floof Cultist

    Bumping this as Grimlic's Bane is more commonly used now through Magic Amp and this sounds like one of these P2W counters.

    @Sokolov Is there any way to fix it in a simple manner like giving 2 runes a shared ID or making a 2-rune group with an ID that Bane would check for?
     
  4. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Not an easy fix - skins have a different database ID, and currently the rune-limit group isn't something that the game has access to (it's a deck building piece). So possible to fix someday, but not a quick/easy one.
     
  5. Etherielin

    Etherielin The Floof Cultist

    I see. Is it one of the long-term changes or something that could easily happen post-new client?
     
  6. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    It's unrelated to the client. It's more about exposing certain database values to the code so the code can call them.

    So Bane would check for rune group instead of database ID in this case.

    But that'd also make it inconsistent with everything else that currently uses IDs...
     
  7. Etherielin

    Etherielin The Floof Cultist

    I suppose it would, although Grimlic's Bane has a very specific effect (repeating itself on all copies of the target). The question is: is it something worth fixing for the sake of fair play or should the spell's wording simply be changed?
     
    Anima26 likes this.
  8. Anima26

    Anima26 I need me some PIE!

    Changing the runes text to explicitly state that the runes must have identical names seems like an easier solution for the time being.
     
  9. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I feel like it already does that... it does say "identical" but I guess it depends on your interpretation of the word.
     
  10. Etherielin

    Etherielin The Floof Cultist

    Bump - is it something that the new client can fix?

    @Sokolov
     
  11. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    As I said, it's unrelated to the client, so no.
     
  12. Etherielin

    Etherielin The Floof Cultist

    Let me rephrase - once all the new client-related hardships are dealt with, is it something that can be taken care of without applying an excessive amount of resources into it?
     
  13. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    No, this requires quite an extensive project to address. Nothing in the current framework supports this. The game understands these runes to be different runes.
     

Share This Page