CAC 1 - Part 3a - Skill Concept Discussion

[quote=TehGus]I think we should stay away from (too many) on-hit effects from items when making a skillset. I mean, if we made Q reduce armor on attacks, W reduce Magic Resistance and E reduce Mana, if the champion gets Stark's Fervor, Black Cleaver, Malady, Abyssal Scepter and Wit's End, the numbers will be ridiculously high and we'll be being way too repetitive (Kog'Maw's Bio-Arcane Barrage is a different case). Other than that, it's an obvious idea that probably everyone has thought upon the mention of "debuffs" and "on hit effects" in the original champion concept and there are many "better" things to do with this champion concept. Also, since it's an anti-support champion, imo we should focus on crowd control and things that affect support champions heavily, having a less damaging effect on normal champions, instead of the opposite - doing something that is terribly OP for someone without a support, and just coverable/"cancels my effect thingy" by a support champion. I mean, if you give him a skill that reduces 5 armor on attack and stacks up to 4 times (20), you're going to be damaging a team without Taric heavier than a team with Taric. Meanwhile, if you give him a "heal steal", you'll only damage supportless teams if they are using lifesteal/spell vamp, while you'll be hated if the enemy team has a healing support champion. TL;DR: 20 armor reduction will affect a team without a support champion heavier than a team with a support champion, and adding too many item effects to a skillset is a flaw. Also, didn't Kassadin's W remove mana, and the effect was cancelled because Riot considered it broken?[/quote]

[quote=HuntrKilr]how about a skillshot that steals buffs/auras[/quote]

[quote=Visfarix][quote=HuntrKilr] how about a skillshot that steals buffs/auras [/quote]That actually sounds pretty cool, though I think it'd be more interesting if you could "exchange" buffs with the person you hit. This way you can debuff urself or purposely get debuffed by enemies, and then pass it back to them.[/quote]

[quote=Jebus McAzn]Exchanging buffs would be a bit overdone, and would really vary in usefulness hugely depending on who you face.[/quote]

[quote=Visfarix]lol i think actively trying to steal blu, red, and/or baron buff would be pretty funny. And if the exchange effect were considered a type of CC you might even be able to steal shields since they can be counted as "buffs"[/quote]

[quote=Nighthawk][quote]and is designed to work with on hit effects to cripple the enemy team and their support, through applying mass debuffs to the enemy that affect positioning and regeneration.[/quote] quote from Jet's original post. As to how it would fit, Madred's, Malady, Wit's End etc are all anti support/debuff items, and just making this as a passive or active skill lets us move away from the repetitiveness of having debuff skills for q/w/e/r etc. tl;dr would help free up space for other anti support skills rather than Arpen/Mpen/Mana burn skills and you would still have to build towards the anti support items..you would just be slightly better than others at using them.[/quote]

[quote=HuntrKilr]global reduction in healing ala [[ignite]]+[[requiem]]?[/quote]

[quote=Nighthawk]^ Pretty useless skill unless you have 5 Support's with a heal on their team. Maybe if it debuffed something other than healing or something and had a nice long debuff.[/quote]

[quote=Jebus McAzn]We don't want it to be an anti-healer, per se. That would also be extremely effective against, say, Vlad, Mundo, and Warwick. We want this champion to excel against supports but to still be viable when there isn't one. That's why I suggest the "untargetable by allies" mechanism, which would drastically weaken supports but still bring down the average champ too. Kat can't Shunpo to you, for example.[/quote]

[quote=Nighthawk]I really like the untargetable by allies aspect of it, i'll give it that. I like the onhit effects part a bit more too though, at the very least that will allow CAC 1 to function as something other than an anti support, I suppose.[/quote]