Nexus Clash

I would like to make the suggestion of removing the unholy immunity that advocates gain innately from their free T3 skill. The unholy immunity present on advocates is an anomaly that doesn't really match any of the other existing classes. Other classes that have immunities to elements such as Revenants/Liches with death immunity and WMs with acid immunity don't really have immunities to elements that basically negates the most prominent form of attack that their morally opposite alignment has access to. There is no equivalent immunity on the side of the demons to counter this fact either, the direct evil counterpart to Advocates i.e DOs not having access to holy immunity (not that I am asking to add that to them). It is even stranger considering the recent debate and subsequent changes that made it so that holy/unholy soak enchantments would be eroded from taking good/evil actions thus making them practically unsustainable if you are the wrong alignment.

The arguments I have seen so far that are in favor of keeping the immunity are 1: It makes sense thematically and 2: Removing that risks turning advocates into nothing but a prayer vending machine. For 1, I would say that when trying to mechanically balance an aspect of a PVP game then thematically making sense should always be a second concern if it is giving an uneven advantage to one particular side. Sure it may thematically make sense that the advocates are such staunch beacons of holiness that they are protected from unholy damage then why is it not conversely true for dark oppressors that are the evil equivalent of advocates so to speak? In my opinion rather than actually adding holy immunity to DOs to address this fact the unholy immunity of Advocates should be removed or else we would have a similar situation that caused the unholy/holy soak enchants changes to happen. For 2, I would say that is no reason for Advocates to retain such a busted and frankly unbalanced facet of their skillset. It can be counteracted by adding other things that advocates can do that doesn't actually give them an unfair advantage but even that considered I don't think removing unholy immunity from Advocates would completely decimate the class. They are in a fairly decent position even without it. So there, my suggestion. Remove unholy immunity from Advocates.

As far as my memory serves unholy immunity was reintroduced in B3 when advocates had had most of their good toys like SotW and EoJ stolen, STOLEN by the Archon.

Back then they were a very weak and underutilised class with only really enchants going for it (and the at-that-point under-developed blessing tree). Their population was also comparatively low.

Also, VWs were real terrors back then and bloodclaw VWs were very popular.

In B5 the advo was given a great overhaul in faction support, defense and offense.

Whilst unholy immunity made sense back then to supplement a weak class it feels less needed with this current iteration of Advos. Although I have always liked the thematic angle of Advos being unholy immune (due to NW nostaglia).

I wouldn't mind seeing it go or be transformed into a skill or supplement to a more expensive skill instead of being attached to the base skill

Is having any kind of free damage invulnerability really that much of a problem? In the roughly nine months my Advocate has existed I cannot recall a single time when Unholy resistance kept him alive. In truth, he has been beset by multiple damage types almost every time he died. In other words, professional killers have multiple weapons on their belt.

It is true my Advocate does faction support so he's rarely out in the wild and come upon by ferals. Are raid teams better prepared to deal with Advocates than lone hunters are? I would say no. How many characters can only inflict one type of damage? How many choose to inflict only one type?

Is it "fair" that a 30 CP Infernal Behemoth skill (Burning Aura) completely negates an entire damage tree? What about Wizards who have chosen to specialize in Fire magic and therefore cannot lay a finger on those demons? Is the answer to remove Fire immunity from IBs? For a measly 30 CPs IBs get a damage aura, can change their damage type to Fire, and ignore a damage type? Shouldn't that instead be pulled out into at least two skills?

All of this is to say, I don't think this is a problem. I do think some characters had a difficult time killing one of the over two dozen classes in the game and therefore that class needs to be nerfed.

I also think we need to stop thinking that if one class has one ability it is therefore necessary for the opposing class to have an equal and opposite ability. That this is somehow the definition of balance. Yes, it is true the Advocate- opponent Dark Oppressor does not have Holy immunity. It is also true that Advocates cannot hand out Good pacts. Seraphs cannot self– heal with their weapon attacks like Infernal Behemoths can (neither can the Unaligned Tank, Eternal Soldier). So, is that an argument to give Seraphs the same ability (in the interests of balance and fairness) or to take it away from Behemoths (my personal choice, since I think that synergy is way, way, waaaaaay too powerful and out of whack)? If you look at the three Tank classes, you'll see the even through they are all Tank classes they don't get the same additional bonus HP from Tier 3 skills.

I don't think balance means equal and opposite. I think it's fine for some things to be asymmetrical I think Advocates having Unholy immunity is one example of this (out of many, across many classes and skills), and there's nothing wrong with it.

I believe it has been a well known fact that IBs have been decently overtuned compared to the majority of classes in the game and can do so much more than other classes and even do certain things better than the actual classes that are supposed to do them. Obviously the answer to that is either nerfing IB or improving the other classes to be equivalent to it. And no I do not mean equal and opposite. I know that takes the charm away from these classes and in the end would just result in a glorified red vs blue conflict.

I usually believe that given the option of nerfing A or buffing B to get to the level of A it is always more constructive to buff B but in this case the unholy immunity of Advocate is an anomaly and from what I have gathered speaking with other players, a relic of the past that was utilized as a stopgap measure to breathe more life into a then underpowered class, which is no longer the case now and thus is unnecessary. Heck I have seen devs admit that Advocate is actually one of the strongest classes right now.

Even the example you used of an Infernal Behemoth gaining fire immunity isn't free and actually has to devote some CP into it. And fire immunity cannot rightfully be compared to unholy, one being an element that is niche enough to not see widespread use while other is arguably one of the strongest arsenal that evil has going for it. The catalyst that actually sparked this conversation, H2H VW, can only do meaningful damage in terms of unholy towards enemies and that falls flat when faced with a naturally immune advocate that has an aura to the boot for some reason. From what I can see Advocates are already considered strong, and if it doesn't play any meaningful role in stopping your advocate from dying then it should be no problem to remove it yeah? Since the whole reason of it's existence was to give something to Advocates since their skills had been recently appropriated by the then new Archons, which is no longer the case and Advocates now have a lot going for it.

Enchanters getting tanky abilities or even immunity to restricted damage types is nothing new.
Conduit can get soak/immunity to all three restricted types (Arcane/Holy/Unholy). Dark Oppressor could also have Holy Immunity, but opted to go for high Soak and Defense so giving them holy immunity wasn't really a choice.

I also don't understand the idea that the immunity is bad because its "free". Every T3 gets a first skill worth roughly 60 CP.

Conduit's immunity isn't passive and is based on an active status effect, hence it isn't always useful in defense. I can get behind a skill with restrictions like that. Dark Oppressor again have to be in their own domain to have a fraction of what Advocates can already get super cheap by stacking their buffs. I have seen Advocates with 10+ soak and like 20-30% defense which isn't *that* high maintenance.

Holy Intercessor as a skill itself already has things going for it that put it into the 60 cp category and unholy immunity just feels like an additional tacked on effect.

The two main Classes I have played the longest Are VW and Advocate. I will second that my advocate has never seems to benefit from the unholy immunity or has not seemed to stop a kill from happening. I don't see how it is an issue for better or worse. I will point out that when I first got to 20 to 30 that part of the skill mattered much more as I was not fully enchanted up and potioned up but later in the game it feels very minimal and I find myself leaning on prayer more but at the start payers felt very weak and more centered around camping till you sink cp in the tree.
I also play a VW and I understand the frustration, but I have that frustration with every thing that is a level 30 or a ward. Gone are the days of old. honestly its to the point I just grind badges. I don't think That the Advocate having immunity is not the issue as VW can cut passed or ignore most forms if defenses with the different marks so it only fair that there are some roadblocks. You also should have a Back up killing weapon if you want to hunt everyone as that fairly standard with most classes(I rock a black gantlet and laser bracer on my h2h). I find that the VW feels like you are playing a t2 class not a t3 and for those of us that like the class for sentimental reasons.

Just some observations on this topic.

I'm not sure that the Advocate's skill is that far out of line of other, similar skills. The Advocate gets Unholy immunity along with the ability to hand out blessings, which seems like a slow way to gain XP (if my experience with Prayer is any indication) and might be more useful in raid situations, assuming the character is willing to keep rerolling for good Prayer results. Compare this to:

• Lich, who gets immunity and a respawn AP reduction
• Wyrm Master, who gets immunity and a pseudo-aura
• Revenant, who gets immunity and +10% accuracy, +2 damage, and 10HP healed on tick
• Infernal Behemoth, who gets immunity and a damage aura
• Conduit, who just gets immunity (for 60CP)

True, Advocates are getting immunity against a common element that their biggest opposition uses against them, especially the charge attacks. But the Conduit gets the same thing against transcendents and I'm sure that Death would be a lot more popular if there weren't two classes and their entire line of pets immune to the damage type.

The second point is that, while Advocate players aren't likely to see people attack them with unholy skills, this doesn't mean that people aren't looking at that unholy immunity and making target decisions based on it. They aren't seeing people APing out due to spamming Hellfire or Taint Spell against them, but I have to wonder how many Pariahs just see that "Adv" label next to the character's name and keep on hunting.

On the contrary, I have definitely seen wasted rage strikes and flurries of blood claws fail miserable against my advocate, and it is hilarious every time.

erikune wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 5:55 pm Just some observations on this topic.

I'm not sure that the Advocate's skill is that far out of line of other, similar skills. The Advocate gets Unholy immunity along with the ability to hand out blessings, which seems like a slow way to gain XP (if my experience with Prayer is any indication) and might be more useful in raid situations, assuming the character is willing to keep rerolling for good Prayer results. Compare this to:

• Lich, who gets immunity and a respawn AP reduction
• Wyrm Master, who gets immunity and a pseudo-aura
• Revenant, who gets immunity and +10% accuracy, +2 damage, and 10HP healed on tick
• Infernal Behemoth, who gets immunity and a damage aura
• Conduit, who just gets immunity (for 60CP)

True, Advocates are getting immunity against a common element that their biggest opposition uses against them, especially the charge attacks. But the Conduit gets the same thing against transcendents and I'm sure that Death would be a lot more popular if there weren't two classes and their entire line of pets immune to the damage type.

The second point is that, while Advocate players aren't likely to see people attack them with unholy skills, this doesn't mean that people aren't looking at that unholy immunity and making target decisions based on it. They aren't seeing people APing out due to spamming Hellfire or Taint Spell against them, but I have to wonder how many Pariahs just see that "Adv" label next to the character's name and keep on hunting.

Some of the immunities you mentioned are either not a part of their base skill or don't give a passive immunity and instead has to be activated. Lich and Revenants are immune to a niche element that only they themselves have innates for, same with WMs, acid element being even more niche since I think only they and Fallen have an innate which uses them. (And fallen's innate is a throw which I think is a subpar tree in itself but that's an entire different can of worms.) Probably the conduits are the only case I'd consider the most similar since Arcane is the main element of transcendents so to speak but it's locked behind a 60cp child skill of a 30 cp skill. (Well tbf you'd have to be crazy to not have wisp form.) Even IBs, their aura skill is not their free skill and is a quality that's a thing for every "tank" class and fire I've only seen a couple classes use in it's kit. I also haven't come across many spellcaster using fire spells either. I still do feel like the other abilities granted by holy intercessor are enough to make it much better than many of the free skills granted to other t3s even if unholy immunity is not included. It just feels a bit weird that unholy immunity would be a thing on an angel when enchantments that provide said immunity were nerfed on angels (and opposite for demons) and nobody thought this was a big deal.