Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


potatomcwhiskey last won the day on December 10 2015

potatomcwhiskey had the most liked content!

About potatomcwhiskey

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Dublin, Ireland
  1. Yup, and there are only a few general options because you cannot rely on the "honour" system for people to not do it: Design the game around their existence, rendering their use unecessary. Design the game around the assumption everyone will use them, penalizing people who don't. Implement extremely invasive anti-cheat software. Its a no win situation imo.
  2. Zergs are inevitable, however there are things you can do to mitigate the advantages Zergs have. Anyone who has played Rust knows that zergs are powerful, but they also understand the limitations of zergs. The first one is Friendly Fire. Being unable to hurt your allies means you can spam attacks willy nilly. If you have the potential to damage your allies then you must take the time to differentiate between enemies and allies which gives an advantage to smaller groups because of statistics. 2 guys vs 5 guys randomly hitting each other, the smaller are statistically less likely to hit thei
  3. Because it gives the developers another lever to design and balance the gameplay around. It really is that simple and its the only justification the mechanic needs.
  4. I am personally fan of diverse buffs and debuffs that offer players choices and tactical utility aswell as passive power. I like there to be a good mix of short term - high impact buffs, [E.G 200% Movespeed for 2s for allies in x radius or next attack crits], medium term medium impact buffs, [Next 10 attacks reduce skill cooldowns by 0.4s each / Gain 500HPregen per sec for 15 seconds] long term low impact buffs [increase Stamina Regen by 20% for 30s / 8% Movespeed for 30s] and passive buffs/debuffs [Every 10 basic attacks heal for Weapondamage + 400 / Enemies hit by you deal 1.5% less damage f
  5. This has already been heavily requested however I think currently its not within the scope of this testing environment. Trading will be implemented at some point, however I don't think it will be implemented in the Big World phase of the testing.
  6. The problem is that movement speed IS mitigation. If you can outrun them you don't take damage. Therefore movement speed is also the counter to movement speed mitigation - meaning everyone wears the lightest armour. Its pretty simple, tried and tested in every game that tried to implement it.
  7. CC Durations too long [Mino net 5s], cooldowns too short [Mino net 10s = 50% uptime]. Not enough ways to counter CC. E.G. Cleansing CC from allies. VETO: Giving people immunity from CC after getting hit by CC. Properly stacking your crowd-control with teammates should be rewarded. Giving people magical shields from crowd control is a shoehorn way to fix the problem when the most elegant solution is working the numbers and mechanics.
  8. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt before I discard their entire existence. Our friend came up short.
  9. Ok so you don't have an argument thank you for proving my point that you have nothing positive to contribute to this discussion. Thanks for admitting defeat!
  10. Stating the historical facts of how armour was used and the realities of armour actually impacted warriors in combat was a silly argument? I can provide you countless links to back up everything I wrote if you would like to fact check me as to what reality is. Please explain how armour creates a more diverse enviroment and raises the tactical skill-ceiling. You keep making these statements but offer no actual argument as to why you think these things are true. And I think it is because you have no real way to justify your belief. I would like you to prove me wrong. A statement made wit
  11. I mean if you're not even going to read my posts before you respond to them I don't see any value to your contributions here or anywhere else. Did you not see my refutation of the "It makes sense in the real world" argument a page ago? I'll quote it for you. Let me know if you need clarifications on any parts.
  12. I like how you made a show of responding to what I wrote but actually wrote nothing that directly addresses what I wrote. I fail to see how this is a reasonable response to the statement that in order for there to be a reason to wear heavy armour that penalizes your movement speed or mobility there needs to be signifcant advantages that you get as a trade off. But hey feel free to talk past people while you quote them. I also like how you are making very specific statements about gameplay flow and interactions that haven't been tested and don't exist yet. Except I have provided a very
  13. In any game where movementspeed and mobility differ between characters there is a huge over-representation of high movespeed/mobility characters because of the raw power such a statistic gives you in player-player interactions and time saved travelling. In order for there to be movespeed and mobility differences between the archetypes/classes [in this case armour] there needs to be a significant and major advantage to giving up that movementspeed or mobility elsewise the only logical choice will be to go for maximum movement speed in the majority of cases. Having heavy armour reduce moveme
  14. Killer-Socializer. Achievement [Aquisition of in-game advancement or progression] and Exploration [Finding things and learning] are the least interesting thing I could possibly imagine in a game. I am more interested in player-player interaction whether friendly or confrontational.
  • Create New...