Yet you still have not proven that shield cancelling was unintended. Do you have any proof it wasn't intentional? Did a dev ever imply as much? Do you have anything to back up what you said as anything but your own personal opinion? Also, did you just get offended because I am arguing something different than you and am trying to show you are wrong?
Why OOO needs to bring back the old Shard Bombs, or add them again.
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 01:20
#52
Yet you still have not proven
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 02:08
#53
See
Thats what I am talking about. You are tryin to argue, also nice religion logic there. "You cant prove it wasnt intended." Infact you proved me right. Why CAN'T we shield cancel on the last attack? Its weird isnt it? if its intended why not put it on ALL attacks? Right? Stop being immature and let things die off.
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 02:42
#54
You can't shield cancel the
You can't shield cancel the final attack because the final attack is the "best" attack of a combo. It does the most damage and generally has the ability to flinch/interrupt monsters. Thus, there is a penalty for using the final attack of a combo. One, that it requires build up and two, that it has a longer lockout period where you can't do anything for a bit afterwards. That is why they intended for you to not be able to shield cancel the final attack and interrupt the animation like you can with any swing of a combo prior to the final one.
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 02:54
#55
*buzzer*
Wrong. You can shield cancel 3 times on a 3 swipe sword and it will still interrupt the enemy. You sacrifice that final swing for safer, more reliable hits and a faster damage output. Face it, the shield canceling was not meant to be. Also, if it was then why do guns not benefit from it? it would make at last those 2 benefit. Yet it doesn't. Stop arguing things you will lose. You will only make a fool of yourself in the long run.
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 03:42
#56
@Dorael
Are you saying that if the guy had said "like one-shotting Slags with Shard Bombs" he would've been RIGHT ON THE MONEY?
Are you saying Nick's incomplete statement is like this?
"The current shard-style bombs are functionally, not very bomb-like. They are the standouts in the system we've tried to build whereby: guns fire bullets, bombs create areas of damage, swords do a mix of the two and shields let you bypass attack animations."
Nice vision there, Nick!
@Darkparadox
Guns do benefit from shield-canceling, just not as much as they benefit from gun-swapping.
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 07:17
#57
@Dorael
My take on why old RSS is critical to full time bombers. This is a reply in response to Rawcake.
I believe the argument is sound and it is something Nick and non-full-time bombers easily overlooked. Right now, I'm on the fence to continue with SK or not. This is not about "oh you are rage quitting over a change that is better for everyone but you", but rather the way OOO (or Nick, in particular) handled this type of significant change to the game.
The way Nick explained the rationale of the change is just self contradictory. Why not make every swords shooting swords then? That would fit into the description of swords do a mix of the two (swords explode on impact while acting like projectile during payload delivery). Same argument can be said about Polaris, Catalyzer (they both shot bombs, mind you). Of course, if Nick changes every swords to shoot swords, I, for one, will be raging also over this ridiculous decision. Why? Because it's not very sword like, much like how Nick claimed the old RSS isn't very bomb like.
It is perfectly fine to have weapons that are out of characters and being inconsistent. Because more creative people would have more fun using them! And think about it for a second too: this change will now be forcing bombers to carry a gun (so if you are soloing or all your party members drop dead, you can still hit switches and escape to safety). This takes away 25% (or more) of our effectiveness because 1 / 4 slot would have to be a non-bomb!
If we consider the alternative: implement the new change into a new line of bomb and keep the old RSS as is. This makes more sense because you are changing the mechanism of a weapon in a significant way and people have already developed their gaming style over the old RSS. So this change should really be an addition to the arsenal, not a replacement.
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 08:39
#58
I'm not really going to get
I'm not really going to get into this since I'm just observing, but I do find it a tad bit odd that the old RSS was against their vision so much when it had been there for more than a year. Possibly nearly two, I'm not aware how early in alpha/beta the shard bombs were developed.
That being said, I am also doubtful it'll change because of the UV ticket exchange, if they revert it, basically people got free money as well as the bomb they actually wanted back.
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 08:41
#59
Dont worry, you will get used to it soon.
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 09:04
#60
Aplauses, from the rage I see, nobody will even give a chance if getting used to them.
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 13:18
#61
Dorael, you missed where I
Dorael, you missed where I said we get the intent and what they are saying. We don't AGREE with what they are saying. Most people I know that actually used RSS used it the way I did too. Maybe they should have added more shards and then take down the damage per shard if they didn't want it used that way. They knew at release of the game they didn't like the way the bomb was being used. If they had liked the way the bomb was being used they would have come out with a five star bomb a long time ago. They have clearly been sitting on this idea a while. They should have taking the bomb out of the game at release or as soon as they knew they were changing this bomb up in such a manner.
Even at that, Doarel, that isn't so much my issue right now. My issue right now is in testing I and a bunch of other people reviewed the bomb and we basically all agreed that something had to be changed on the bomb because of how it stood right now the bomb was not all that useful. It is a different play style... they are different and fun bombs. But a bunch of us full-time bombers agreed that SOMETHING had to be changed about them. We gave fair reviews that didn't completely knock the bomb down. We suggested all kinds of stuff. None of it has been changed. THAT is my personal issue with this.
RSS as it was is gone. I've come to terms with this. I don't like that we got lame UV tickets in return because of the change... but whatever. I'm saying... i made suggestions, as did many others.... and many of us made around the same suggestions because we all agreed the initial and second blasts were too long. That SOMETHING in the bomb needed to be changed. The bomb was not ready to be released yet. we made suggestions... they didn't use or as far as I know consider our suggestions. So as far as me... i've said what I needed to say. There is nothing more I can say or do from here.
You're trying to explain their reasoning when the majority of us don't agree with it... is just like throwing rocks at a brick wall. You're not going to get through. Especially when we know EXACTLY what you're saying. And you're right two wrongs doesn't make a right. I get this too and many others do too. Three Rings can't fix everything. The least they could have done was recognize PUBLICLY that there are other issues in the guns and swords area that need to be changed too. Things don't just happen at the snap of your fingers... it takes time and planning and thought. That's understandable. Because you don't care about the bomb you don't know anything about how this bomb is used and what we need as bombers. Which is why what you're saying and what you're trying to argue about comes off as... arguing for the sake of arguing.
Anyways... I've said everything I've wanted and needed to say. I'm staying off the forums for a while, unless it's my guild recruitment thread. see ya.
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 13:40
#62
@Dancinjen
There's a reason I didn't respond to your first post and it's because I didn't find anything you said to be grossly wrong. While you might understand what I am trying to explain it is obvious that many others do not because they continue to use the same irrelevant arguments. Allow me to reiterate.
Three Rings cared about how the old RSS compared to other bombs in a play-style way.
It did not matter how it compared to guns and/or swords (people like to bring this one up a lot).
It did not matter how balanced the bomb (or once again, other weapons) was damage-wise.
I have no opinions on the bombs itself, the old or the new.
I never argued for or against the old bomb, argued for or against the new bomb, never claimed that it was overpowered or make any claims on the practicality of any of its uses.
I claimed that some people used it in a manner that Three Rings did not see fit for bombs. Because some people could use it this way anyone could, and the only way to make it so not anyone could use it in a way that Three Rings saw unfitting of a bomb was to change it. It does not matter how many people did or did not use it that way.
I am not saying that I don't think Three Rings shouldn't bring back the old bomb. I am not even saying that Three Rings should have done what they did. I am only saying what I think Three Rings will do, and why. There is a huge difference here, understand it. I then explained why, because they did exactly what they sought out to do and fulfilled their goal. There is like no reason to argue with me on this point on the stance that the bombs should be changed because I have no opinion on that. If you want to argue with me about what Three Rings will do, you can take a position. If you are trying to argue with me on what Three Rings should do, then you are wasting your time because I have no position on it. You are the one that's trying to argue with me for the sake of argument simply because you perceive me to be an opponent.
I also argued against people who used completely unreasonable arguments, but those were mostly unrelated to the topic of the thread/discussion itself.
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 13:55
#63
+1
But it ain't gonna happen, never.
Not even if we went on and threw stones at their windows.
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 15:50
#64
+90000000000000000
To everything Dorael has said
http://i.imgur.com/JSBTl.gif
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 12:57
#65
/clap
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 14:10
#66
+1
the new bomb is a fail
+1
the new bomb is a fail totally different and it dont work as intended
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 16:37
#67
+1
Yes, I also totally agree that it was useful not only as an extraordinarily convenient weapon but it also enabled bombers to efficiently take out enemies such as Greavers, Trojans, Zombies, and many other enemies. Changing it basically, again, forces pure bombers further into a corner and is just like OOO saying, "Okay, you guys (and gals) all have to go get guns and swords. Sorry to those of you who have invested your entire SK career in it, but we don't really care."
@Dorael: Nicely put.
Sat, 08/11/2012 - 02:35
#68
@roarr, please read the top
@roarr, please read the top of my post. I am not a hypocrite and I am not "bipolar" or anything about it, you just didn't read.
Mon, 08/13/2012 - 14:12
#69
bipolar lol
whoever called you that had just earned a round of applause
yes , all i read was a bunch of hypocritical points you have made. You mentioned OOO should change the bomb in the test server for great goods, and now you are saying that this change was too much?
there are onli 2 explanations for u not to be a hypocrite and bipolar XDDDD
1) You didnt give ur test review much thoughts
2) you didnt test it at all
that is why i m telling other not to read ur so called "review" at the test feedback forum becuz you are hummmmmm, i dont know whats a gd word for people like you without hurting ur feelings. anyway u get the gist of it
Mon, 08/13/2012 - 14:48
#70
Okay
Okay, like... two things. First, someone can, objectively, state the pros and cons for both sides of an argument. I think it's what any reasonable person ought to do regardless of the situation in question or their stance. Second, regardless of someone's previous stance, they could always... I dunno, change their mind, maybe?
I'm not saying either does or doesn't apply here but I find it weird that people are such sticklers about what side everyone is always on.
However they will not fix them for it can mean more income and more people playing it. The cancel means more power to swordsman, the almchemer swap means more power to gunners. unintentional things are found every day. They are not foreseen. They are not always intentional. they see how people like it. Canceling and swapping made it better with no downsides. RSS was an issue for LD due to people complaining about the range and the damage and QQ. If you think that jut because a Gm knows about an exploit means its intentional, you are sorely wrong.
I'm done arguing with you. its pointless because you are not willing to think before you post. You even went out of your way to try to make me be proven wrong. That's just... come on.