@Meddler / Any Game Dev : Lux's passive interaction with electrocute proc; Why this path?

Final Spark Lux·Nov 12, 2017·5 votes·474 views

I received confirmation from Rioter Skiwi that the interaction between Lux's passive and electrocute is working as intended (It doesn't proc it). I'm just wondering why riot decided this was a necessary course of action, as she was able to use her passive to proc thunderlords in the past, but they've removed her ability to proc electrocute with it, while leaving Lulu's and Bard's interactions (which are exactly the same by the way) in tact.[sg-lux-2]

This isn't a QQ thread, I'm just genuinely interested in the reason why it was changed. I'd really appreciate some clarity on the subject.

Sincerely~

Someone who plays Lux; way too much from other people's point of view, not enough from my own [sg-lux]

10 Comments

TheHappyReaperzNov 12, 20172 votes

Becuase Lulu's and Brand's are separate, while Lux's isn't. Lulu's is transferable, making it a separate spell, from her auto attacks. Brand's is a separate proc of damage, essentially another spell. Lux's is pretty much Lichbane, just bonus damage on an auto. Since it is just a modified auto-attack, there is no reason for it to proc as 2 autos. Or you know, I could be completely wrong.

Final Spark LuxNov 12, 20172 votes

No disrespect, but you aren't a game dev, and you aren't associated with riot in any way, shape, or form. Thanks for your opinion though. I'll continue to wait for a proper response from someone who knows what they're talking about.

SlythionNov 12, 20172 votes

This person actually does know what they are talking about. They're answer and reasoning makes perfect sense and is 100% valid, and it is pretty rude to disregard it and say he doesn't know what he's talking about.

But if you're just posting this to get a Red's attention and not to actually find an answer well...carry on I guess.

Final Spark LuxNov 12, 20172 votes

Reasoning doesn't make for an accurate answer. I don't want an opinion on why it was set this way regardless if it makes sense or not, and TBH I don't really care that they've chosen to go this route. That being said, anyone who isn't associated with Riot , IE a game dev who worked on the interaction and knows exactly what they're talking about, won't know why Riot made a certain decision.

It isn't rude. I clearly marked that I'd like a response from one of the game developers because THEY are the people who can tell me exactly why things were made this way. Any response from anyone not associated with Riot is purely speculation.

Akali is SO HOTNov 12, 20171 votes

If you actually took the time to read the rune and what Riot has already said about it, then you wouldn't need to ask this question (that's already been asked about 100 times now).

Final Spark LuxNov 12, 20171 votes

Actually it's been asked more I'm sure. Also, I have read the rune, and I've searched for info regarding Riot's direction with this, but came up empty handed. If you know where to find any, by all means direct me to it.

LightIsMyPathNov 13, 20171 votes

Lux illumination procs on final spark too so I highly doubt it's considered attached to the auto (unless they coded an augmented damage of ultimate too)

AnonagonNov 12, 20172 votes

From a game code perspective, the way Electrocute likely interprets Lux auto w/Passive is as one single instance of damage (as they happen on the same frame and come from the same source). Therefore E-Auto is just two of three needed sources of damage. Bard and Lulu's passives likely get around this is from the fact that their damage does not happen at the same time as the damage of their associated autoattack.

Now, I would say that, from a balance perspective, none of them should be able to do it. After all, things like Lux E-Auto was the entire reason that Electrocute works differently from TLD in the first place. I would hope they change Bard and Lulu's interactions to be in line with Lux's, rather than the other way around.

Final Spark LuxNov 12, 20171 votes

I understand this. I'm just wondering why it was coded this way. I've always believed her passive to be considered a spell; based off the fact that it doesn't make your auto do mixed damage, and it shows up separately in the death recap as it's own spell. Unless Riot tells me otherwise, I'm gonna go on believing that.

It isn't just the E+auto combo that I miss. I can't tell you how many times I've killed, or come very close to killing the enemy with just an E+R combo because I didn't have Q for one reason or another. Electrocute procing could make all the difference in that situation.

Regardless, I personally don't think it's that big of a problem as far as balance goes. It's balanced by a very hefty cooldown. Infact, if you compared it to Summon Aery with someone consistently poking, Aery's damage is actually going to be much higher, just because it's so consistent with such a small internal CD. I just prefer the burst over constant damage. Can't keep up with Aery as Lux to get the most out of her; you go oom too fast.

Again, I'm not asking them to change anything; I'm just curious as to the reasoning behind why they'd choose to make it interact the way it does while leaving 2 champions with the same interactions in tact. I got a response saying the Lux interaction was intentional, so surely there was some thought put into this, and Lulu / Bard may not be a random oversight.

AnonagonNov 12, 20171 votes

I'm pretty sure all typical on-hits work the same as Lux's passive, even the ones that are also treated as spells (just tested with Jax, whose W is also treated the same way as a Lux passive proc. Doesn't work for him either). 2-hit electrocute procs on Bard and Lulu are probably an unintended oversight on Riot's part.