Invasion League - Clearly not overtuned.

"
reboticon wrote:
Some are still OP as hell, but they can't off screen you, so it's fair.

Would you still avoid some of them unless you have a really good gear to face them, or not ?
Not necessarily speaking of risk/reward here, just about the ability to kill them or not.



"
1982 wrote:
IDK how much money Fruz and real_wolf are getting paid to spam the forums with how the game's mechanics are already perfectly balanced. GGG must be paying them well.

The inability of some to read and then jump to completely false conclusions ( or making stuff up ) will never cease to amaze me, and keep confirming the quite not so high faith that I have in humanity :(.

"
bars wrote:

And that is the problem with the thread - it is about a potentially rage-inducing subject, and people are mixing up this thread with others that are similar.

In a perfect world, people would not rage about video games ...
SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading.
"
Fruz wrote:
"
reboticon wrote:
Some are still OP as hell, but they can't off screen you, so it's fair.

Would you still avoid some of them unless you have a really good gear to face them, or not ?
Not necessarily speaking of risk/reward here, just about the ability to kill them or not.


In Invasion I probably would (avoid them). In ambush it would depend on my level. Some of them are easy for ranged builds but would be pretty much impossible for a facebreaker. The snake with RoA simply moves to fast for a char with no movement skills.
Anarchy/Onslaught T shirt
Domination/Nemesis T shirt
Tempest/War Bands T shirt
Last edited by reboticon#2775 on Mar 14, 2014, 1:21:45 PM
"
Legatus1982 wrote:
"
Xendran wrote:
"
reboticon wrote:
Some are still OP as hell, but they can't off screen you, so it's fair.


I think most people have no problem with OP as hell, they have a problem with OP as hell when combined with an instant kill.

There has to be more interesting ways of getting to the "you can't kill this boss, run" stage other than oneshots. For instance, why are there no invaders that can curse you with Cannot Create Portals?

Or even better, make it an Aura with a huge radius that prevents portals from being created within it, and destroys any that it touches. An alternative perhaps would be to give invaders an aura that make portals one way. You can leave, but you cant go back until the invader has moved somewhere else. If you REALLY want to spam refill your portals you're going to have to put in the effort of pulling the boss to a zone entrance.


How about a boss that prevents logouts? That could be perfectly balanced and still generate enough QQ for Chris to enjoy, the sadistic bastard.

Balancing around the game for instant logout and portals is dumb anyway.

Remove both during combat and then we don't need one shot mechanics constantly.
"
Legatus1982 wrote:

How about a boss that prevents logouts? That could be perfectly balanced and still generate enough QQ for Chris to enjoy, the sadistic bastard.


What i was going for was a scenario where if you kill the boss, you get rewarded with a strongbox (which is still guarded by enemies, by the way), but if you chicken out and leave in any way other than running, you can't go back there unless you walk it or somebody else pulls the invader away from the portal.
"
Fruz wrote:

In a perfect world, people would not rage about video games ...


Repeat after me:

theory =/= practice (x10, like a mantra)

;)
You have to be realistic about these things.
Logen Ninefingers
"
RagnarokChu wrote:
"
Legatus1982 wrote:
How about a boss that prevents logouts? That could be perfectly balanced and still generate enough QQ for Chris to enjoy, the sadistic bastard.
Balancing around the game for instant logout and portals is dumb anyway.

Remove both during combat and then we don't need one shot mechanics constantly.
There's no such thing as preventing logouts. You can't stop the client from using Alt+F4 or Task Manager to shut down the client, and you also can't wave a magic wand to ensure there are no more power or internet outages again, ever. It's not about preventing them, it's about deciding what to do when they happen, and since there are some completely innocent folks involved, anything overly punishing is simply not the right answer.

Designing the game assuming instant logout is actually the correct move here, because trying to sort out the guilty and the innocent in terms of Alt+F4 and power outages is essentially impossible.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Mar 14, 2014, 1:38:58 PM
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
There's no such thing as preventing logouts.


Sorry but this made me laugh really hard, and makes me think that you may not have any previous experience with online games.

It's called being online on the server without the client being there. Happens in tons of game. Client crashes, character remains in game, sometimes long enough that it can hinder your next login attempt.

You can't prevent client shutdowns. You can prevent logging out.

Either that, or the way you worded it was just incorrect. That may be a possibility.


EDIT: Remember boys and girls, always refresh when you see me post because i edit every post i make excessively. If something i said seems a bit off, refresh to see if it's still there.

EDIT: This is the 7th edit in the 2 minutes this post has been up...
Last edited by Xendran#1127 on Mar 14, 2014, 1:45:55 PM
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
"
RagnarokChu wrote:
"
Legatus1982 wrote:
How about a boss that prevents logouts? That could be perfectly balanced and still generate enough QQ for Chris to enjoy, the sadistic bastard.
Balancing around the game for instant logout and portals is dumb anyway.

Remove both during combat and then we don't need one shot mechanics constantly.
There's no such thing as preventing logouts. You can't stop the client from using Alt+F4 or Task Manager to shut down the client, and you also can't wave a magic wand to ensure there are no more power or internet outages again, ever. It's not about preventing them, it's about deciding what to do when they happen, and since there are some completely innocent folks involved, anything overly punishing is simply not the right answer.

Designing the game assuming instant logout is actually the correct move here, because trying to sort out the guilty and the innocent in terms of Alt+F4 and power outages is essentially impossible.



You mean like in Diablo 2? The game (as in the original classic version) was balanced around the fact that you weren't going to alt+f4 or run like a bitch. And guess what? Game was fun. Same with LOD.
"
IceM wrote:
I was talking about anyone that complained about anything here got bullied. Personally it never bothered me, I called you people out on it last year. Your trying to do it again belittle anyone that says anything.

I remember that and it was what earned you a probation. You come across as more mature and thoughtful now and that's a good outcome. But crying "bully" is regressive and I think you can make a stronger statement than that.
"
Xendran wrote:
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
There's no such thing as preventing logouts.
Sorry but this made me laugh really hard, and makes me think that you may not have any previous experience with online games.

It's called being online on the server without the client being there. Happens in tons of game. Client crashes, character remains in game, sometimes long enough that it can hinder your next login attempt.

You can't prevent client shutdowns. You can prevent logging out.

Either that, or the way you worded it was just incorrect. That may be a possibility.
I think it's very important to remember that the game is played by players, and not by servers. As such, no, when there is a power outage, you are not logged in. The server may give you the status of "logged in," it may treat you as if you are logged in, and your character may suffer consequences as a result. But you're not.

Now in terms of terminology, you're probably right. After all, the word "log" means a register, which implies that one is registered with someone. Perhaps the phrase "session termination" is more appropriate.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info