For Honor: Invulnerability/Resurrection Removal

[FinePoint]

Tiandi, Warmonger, and Astrea all have invulnerability, Tiandi for abilities that give them shields.
Anyone who's played the game can tell you this is blatantly wrong for Tiandi. The shield just gives them an extra health bar, it in no way makes them unkillable.
Apparently Warmonger and Astrea do become temporarily invincible during the Draconite event, but that's not nearly proof enough for invulnerability.

Warmonger and Astrea have resurrection for reviving themselves.
This is blatantly wrong. They're not dead when they're downed, that's why they can be revived by any teammate.
They're not dead unless they're executed, ledged, or let the entire revive timer deplete.

 

[Confluctor]

Invulnerability removal seems fine, neutral on the resurrection thing.


Invulnerability might need to be replaced with something else, maybe stamina?

 

[FinePoint]

Invulnerability removal seems fine, neutral on the resurrection thing.


Invulnerability might need to be replaced with something else, maybe stamina?

Not exactly sure how we deal with health bars, or what adding an extra temporary health bar would be.
Resurrection should just be replaced with healing, frankly.

 

[Peppersalt43]

Have you contacted @Naitodesu? He is one of the few For Honor supporters in this wiki

 

[FinePoint]

Have you contacted @Naitodesu? He is one of the few For Honor supporters in this wiki

Have now. I suppose I should add myself to the supporter page.

 

[Naito-desu]

I'm fine with these, though Astrea and Warmonger invulnerability is because of the Warmonger Draconite not because of shields. You couldn't hurt them unless you had a Draconite Weapon during the event, regardless of feat usage and damage buffs.

 

[FinePoint]

I'm fine with these, though Astrea and Warmonger invulnerability is because of the Warmonger Draconite not because of shields. You couldn't hurt them unless you had a Draconite Weapon during the event, regardless of feat usage and damage buffs.

Then they could still be damaged, and that's not really good proof for invulnerability by this wiki's standards regardless.
That just means their durability would be higher than the regular weapons available.

 

[Naito-desu]

Then they could still be damaged, and that's not really good proof for invulnerability by this wiki's standards regardless.

No you specifically needed Draconite Weapons to negate their invulnerability. Incoming damage worked so as long as you got one hit in with a Draconite weapon, it's plainly Invulnerability and Invulnerability Negation. Prior to any single hit with a Draconite weapon, no incoming damage would hurt them, even feats intended to one-shot the player.

 

[FinePoint]

No you specifically needed Draconite Weapons to negate their invulnerability. Incoming damage worked so as long as you got one hit in with a Draconite weapon, it's plainly Invulnerability and Invulnerability Negation. Prior to any single hit with a Draconite weapon, no incoming damage would hurt them, even feats intended to one-shot the player.

That's simply not enough evidence.
Ant makes it very clear.
Just being immune to conventional (average?) weapons isn't enough for invulnerability.
There are larger siege weapons in For Honor than can't be used as feats, and those aren't tested.
Not to mention the Sun exists, and other things which could technically, possibly, harm them.

For reference, he called labeling Creative Mode in Minecraft as invulnerability as "too liberal".

 

[Naito-desu]

Others have more conditional invulnerability, such as one that just prevents harm from conventional weaponry, but can be easily circumvented by supernatural abilities.

Only characters whose invulnerability is clearly more than simply being exceptionally durable for the verse's setting qualify.

Sounds like Ant probably needs to word his argument better because I'm pretty sure the present page description allows for this to be defined as Invulnerability. You can no-sell catapults, ballista barrages, and bombs, while most other warriors at the very least flinch or take some damage, unless you're being unnecessarily nitpicky about it, this does qualify for more than simple exceptional durability by the present description of the page, given we already have examples of exceptional durability that are nowhere near as tough as Draconite-shields.

 

[FinePoint]

Sounds like Ant probably needs to word his argument better because I'm pretty sure the present page description allows for this to be defined as Invulnerability. You can survive catapults, ballista barrages, and bombs (which should be more impressive than whatever siege weapons could accomplish honestly)

I do agree the page itself probably isn't clear enough.
What it means by preventing harm from conventional weapons is just that the weapon isn't supernatural.
So, for example, a nuclear bomb (minus the radiation for argument's sake) would not phase them, nor a supernova, nor a rod going at near light-speed.

And the last thing you bolded is right after "clearly more than simply being", meaning what you bolded is NOT enough.

 

[FinePoint]

I recognize that both sides use the word "conventional", which is probably where confusion arises.
I think more accurately, it applies to negating any and all non-supernatural weapons.
Meaning negating "normal" weapons you would commonly see, like an assault rifle, is not enough.

 

[Naito-desu]

So, for example, a nuclear bomb (minus the radiation for argument's sake) would not phase them, nor a supernova, nor a rod going at near light-speed.

Are those within the verse's setting? I don't think so. It might just be a little pedantic to presume every natural phenomena as a test of durability rather than what occurs within the setting's intended combat context, we are trapped in a pseudo-medieval setting, let's keep it there.

And the last thing you bolded is right after "clearly more than simply being", meaning what you bolded is NOT enough.

Draconite Armor don't just block conventional weaponry though, even DoTs like Fire and Bleed don't damage them or hurt them. Even Warmonger's own Corruption (which is made from the same material Draconite that grants their Draconite Armor) and Nuxia's own Infection don't dent their health.

Again, the page SPECIFICALLY notes immunity from harm from conventional weaponry but negated by supernatural means as a case for conditional invulnerability, which I am fine with as well, you cannot tell me it's "not enough" if we have an ability that actually is perfectly described by that note from the page.

 

[FinePoint]

Are those within the verse's setting? I don't think so. It might just be a little pedantic to presume every natural phenomena as a test of durability rather than what occurs within the setting's intended combat context, we are trapped in a pseudo-medieval setting.

Well, even discounting natural phenomena, there's larger siege weapons.
Do you remember if there was even a ballista present?
I did play the event but it was a while ago.

Draconite Armor don't just block conventional weaponry though, even DoTs like Fire and Bleed don't damage them or hurt them. Even Warmonger's own Corruption (which is made from the same material Draconite that grants their Draconite Armor) and Nuxia's own Infection don't dent their health.

I don't think it matters much. They could just gain resistance to those things as well while infused with draconite.

 

[Naito-desu]

Do you remember if there was even a ballista present?

The Astrea vs. Gryphon event did, and ballistas did nothing to them.

Also Scorching deluge with fire artillery and catapults were perfectly usable during the events with Draconite Armor and they didn't do anything until their shields were disabled.

I don't really see why this needs to be removed if we can just add a more specific provision to it rather than just nitpicking how "it's not enough" just because it can't tank a city level explosion. It no-selled the best the verse had to offer, that should be enough with specification. The page itself even specifies to be wary about NLF, I don't see why adding the ability with defined limits is so problematic rather than just setting a bar so unfairly high that it essentially means no character gets to have it.

I have to add that this is barely a nerf, as something like Damage Reduction or Forcefield Creation with proper description can more or less can reflect this without completely underselling the ability, but I find the logic behind the proposed removal to be misleading contrary to what the present page says.

I am willing to compromise for something that more properly reflects it, but at the moment, I'm staying firmly on the disagree side for removing Invulnerability just plainly because I find the reasoning counter-intuitive to what the ability page tells us upfront, the rest of changes are fine in my opinion.

 

[FinePoint]

The Astrea vs. Gryphon event did, and ballistas did nothing to them.

Also Scorching deluge with fire artillery and catapults were perfectly usable during the events with Draconite Armor and they didn't do anything until their shields were disabled.

I don't really see why this needs to be removed if we can just add a more specific provision to it rather than just nitpicking how "it's not enough" just because it can't tank a city level explosion. It no-selled the best the verse had to offer, that should be enough with specification. The page itself even specifies to be wary about NLF, I don't see why adding the ability with defined limits is so problematic rather than just setting a bar so unfairly high that it essentially means no character gets to have it.

I have to add that this is barely a nerf, as something like Damage Reduction or Forcefield Creation with proper description can more or less can reflect this without completely underselling the ability, but I find the logic behind the proposed removal to be misleading contrary to what the present page says.

I am willing to compromise for something that more properly reflects it, but at the moment, I'm staying firmly on the disagree side for removing Invulnerability just plainly because I find the reasoning counter-intuitive to what the ability page tells us upfront, the rest of changes are fine in my opinion.

I found another staff statement, this one specifically addressing temporary invincibility in a video game.
The standards were changed at some point. One of the examples on the page doesn't even have invulnerability anymore.
So I think the page may be out of date.

The compromise I propose is a "far higher when infused with draconite" on their durability, and resistance to whatever abilities they resist in that form.
A new key is probably in order regardless, since Warmonger isn't always infused with draconite.

 

[Naito-desu]

Preparation probably should be added to given that we don't know how long Draconite armor takes. For future reference this could theoretically be added as separate keys for other heroes given we see other heroes with this, but it should be restricted to Draconite Users like Astrea, other Warmongers, and Holden.

 

[FinePoint]

Bump

 

[FinePoint]

Bump

 

[FinePoint]

Bump

 

[FinePoint]

Invulnerability removal seems fine, neutral on the resurrection thing.


Invulnerability might need to be replaced with something else, maybe stamina?

Bump.

Do you have anything else to say, Confluctor?
Maybe we should ask Ant to comment about the invulnerability thing since I'm just attempting to parrot his sentiments anyways.

 

[Confluctor]

nothing new since then.

@Antvasima

 

[Antvasima]

The first post makes sense to me, and seems uncontroversial to apply, unless there are any serious objections.

 

[FinePoint]

The first post makes sense to me, and seems uncontroversial to apply, unless there are any serious objections.

Naitodesu wanted to keep Invulnerability because in a certain section of the game characters become invincible except to a specific kind of weapon. This includes being invincible to catapults, ballista, and all their melee weapons.

I told them that based on the standards for invulnerability that I've seen you argue for in the past that this didn't seem like enough proof. Could you just elaborate on why this is/is not invulnerability for the sake of this wiki?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, invulnerability means exactly that, and extreme resistance to attacks should generally simply be covered by the degrees of the durability statistics, to avoid no-limit fallacies. However, in certain games, for example, characters such as Sonic genuinely are treated as invulnerable to all damage in the setting, and we have allowed the ability to be added due to this.

That said, if this is a low level setting, and there are exceptions to the invulnerability, it still seems rather inappropriate in this case.

 

[FinePoint]

Okay. That's that what I thought. Thank you. That's all I needed from you here.

Preparation probably should be added to given that we don't know how long Draconite armor takes. For future reference this could theoretically be added as separate keys for other heroes given we see other heroes with this, but it should be restricted to Draconite Users like Astrea, other Warmongers, and Holden.

I'd be fine with a Draconite key for certain characters. The other option would be removing it since it's not a normal state nor typical equipment.

 

[Antvasima]

So should somebody apply what has been accepted here now?

 

[FinePoint]

So should somebody apply what has been accepted here now?

Naitodesu and I are the only supporters for the verse. We both agreed on changing Resurrection to Healing, which Confluctor was neutral on.
So that one's fine to apply I think.

Confluctor and I agreed to remove Invulnerability, but Naitodesu disagreed. I was waiting for him to see your comment, but in the event he doesn't even comment it's probably fine to remove as well, since it has staff support and half of the verse's supporters.

A Draconite key is the best way to do that, since it allows us to change the invulnerability to a higher durability and Draconite weapons as a weakness, and also fitting because the characters usually don't have Draconite. We could calc minimum durability by calcing the best feat they no-sell.
Obviously either Naitodesu or I would have to create that, which is why it would be preferable if he agreed to it.

 

[Antvasima]

Naitodesu and I are the only supporters for the verse. We both agreed on changing Resurrection to Healing, which Confluctor was neutral on.
So that one's fine to apply I think.

Confluctor and I agreed to remove Invulnerability, but Naitodesu disagreed. I was waiting for him to see your comment, but in the event he doesn't even comment it's probably fine to remove as well, since it has staff support and half of the verse's supporters.

A Draconite key is the best way to do that, since it allows us to change the invulnerability to a higher durability and Draconite weapons as a weakness, and also fitting because the characters usually don't have Draconite. We could calc minimum durability by calcing the best feat they no-sell.
Obviously either Naitodesu or I would have to create that, which is why it would be preferable if he agreed to it.

Okay.

@Naitodesu

What do you think?

 

[Naito-desu]

I'm alright with these

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. What has been accepted here can probably be applied then.

 

[FinePoint]

I'm alright with these

How much of this did you want to do?
I personally keep myself busy with render requests, and there's a lot of Pokémon stuff happening right now, but if you can't make the changes then it naturally falls to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. What has been accepted here can probably be applied then.

Well, I seem to have given a go-ahead earlier.

 

[FinePoint]

Well,I seem to have given a go-ahead earlier.

You did, I'm just asking if they want to do it or if they want me to do it.
I don't have experience making profiles, so I'm hesitant.

Also, we should probably get a calculation properly evaluated for the tanking a ballista bolt feat.
It was calced before, but just in a Q&A thread. It'll be Wall Level either way, so it doesn't change the profile much except we could link to an actual value in the new key.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, we need a finished blog if anybody is going to evaluate it.

 

[FinePoint]

Well, we need a finished blog if anybody is going to evaluate it.

Wait, nevermind.
It was already made as part of a blog.

I'm unsure if "noice" counts as it being accepted, though.
And KLOL brought up a correction that I'm not sure was addressed.

 

[Antvasima]

Wait, nevermind.
It was already made as part of a blog.

I'm unsure if "noice" counts as it being accepted, though.
And KLOL brought up a correction that I'm not sure was addressed.

@KLOL506

Would you be willing to create an updated blog for these feats?

 

[KLOL506]

@KLOL506

Would you be willing to create an updated blog for these feats?

Not sure if there's any need to, the blog itself is pretty old and newer, more updated values for the projectiles have long since been added to the Projectile Dodging Feats when I was adding the new guns a few years back with approval from you, Bambu and DMUA. Only the ballista remained, since I couldn't find much on it other than the Deadliest Warrior stuff online.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. We should preferably use the new values instead then.

Projectile Dodging Feats

There will be times where you will see a character reacting to, or sometimes outright dodging various projectiles, such as arrows, bullets, and even something much, much faster. Thus, in order to calculate how fast one must move in order to dodge incoming projectiles, there are a couple of...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[FinePoint]

Not sure if there's any need to, the blog itself is pretty old and newer, more updated values for the projectiles have long since been added to the Projectile Dodging Feats when I was adding the new guns a few years back with approval from you, Bambu and DMUA. Only the ballista remained, since I couldn't find much on it other than the Deadliest Warrior stuff online.

The feat in question is no-selling being hit by a ballista bolt, not dodging one.

Is there a value to use for that?