Does that health bonus/penalty change in different tiers? T1 has base values, T2 doubles the base, T3 quadruples the base? I never play Lockdown but that seems more sensible than having it be the same when damage drastically increases in higher tiers. In fact, everything should scale up by tier. Why would things be the same in all tiers if all tiers are not the same?

Striker-
First thing is a derp, I have no clue why they make it -3 (which doesn't even take effect in t3), instead of by percentage.

Already thought of this and agree.

Uh, I don't really want this. I think it'd be easier on OOO if they just had to balance all three tiers at once.

Guardian-
Derp is derp.

I didn't know it worked that way o.O. I personally feel that shields need to have some other method for defending themselves, something like shield bumping, and less shield strength, because right now they're just not fun to fight.

Uh, I think you get a sixth of a heart for t1, a third in t2 and a half in t3 (1/6, 2/6, 3/6), but I'm not totally sure about this. However, I really don't like how the guardian shield works; it takes no skill to use. You have to press ONE button and you give all your allies support, but on the other hand, the other two classes have something similair, strikers get increased cap speed (since they can get around quick), and recons get death marking. So yeah, OOO should keep these three skilless traits balanced (I'm not implying that death-marking takes no skill to do properly, rather that doing it improperly in a large fight works).

Recon-
Derp is herp.

I had no idea that that existed.

Yay. Sensible LD balancing.

"Cause striker boost to break when attacked while dashing.
Giving them non-breaking shields is a bit too much. (While I'll try to keep this out of my suggestion/argument, players with higher pings (Slower) won't be able to hit the strikers often enough to be able to kill them currently.)"

I have a question here. Currently, Striker's shields don't break, and they recharge all at once. Since you want to change this to just like all the other equipment, shouldn't they recharge like the others too? Instantly begin recharging but slowly recharge. If they get ping'd by a haphazard AP bullet and are disabled for like 3 seconds, I feel that's a bit much.

"Make the striker boost last 1 second in T1, 2 in T2, and 3 in T3. (Or something like that.)
I'm not sure about this one. This is more a loose idea, and I'm willing to remove it if it's a bad idea."

You'd have to make the Recon cloak last 5 seconds in T1, 6 in T2, and 7 in T3, or something like that, as well. If you want to make the equipment that only affects the user dynamic, it needs to be across the board. But I don't see any sense in this suggestion to be honest, no real reason to have it.

"Also, as a bonus idea, those rank points you get from lockdown should be based on how many caps, defends, and the damage given by the knight in question, but not the team's point count. Doing that would turn the rank points into a measure of skill rather than a measure of activity."

I have what I believe is a really important addition to this suggestion. To change matchmaking. Currently rank points affect absolutely NOTHING except your ranking on the boards. I think your ranking should affect the matchmaking and who gets put on whose team.

The reason I say this is, in most cases, in a group of 7 mediocre players and 1 pro, whichever team the pro is on will likely win. He's the game decider. But, when you have 4 pros and 4 mediocre players, as I've had many times in the past, it inexplicably puts all 4 pros on one team and the 4 mediocres on the other. It makes for a massacre game, repeated massacre games, and quitting players. It's happened to me before.

So when you have 4 pros who have (random number) 5,000 rank points each, and 4 mediocre players which might have a collective rank of 5,000, matchmaking would split the teams evenly.

Sure, the first days of each month (when rank points reset) might be hectic, but they wouldn't be any worse than what it is already. I really don't like the fact that it's totally random, like on a dice-roll, which team wins or loses because of matchmaking. If each game is evenly matched, it'll always be a challenge and always be fun.

+1 to everything else, especially HP percentage scaling.

~Sev

"Make the striker boost last 1 second in T1, 2 in T2, and 3 in T3. (Or something like that.)"

Striker's boost lasts for 3 seconds in T3 , so you are not changing anything except for other Tiers ? Or do you mean something else with this sentence ?

Note : In my opinion if you nerf the Striker Class VERY MUCH , I think you have to nerf other Classes too not with same amount , but in a small amount so you don't make another class OP as you stated . I don't really want to see in the future a :

• A Holy Tank

: Guardian

• Super Ninja

: Recon

• Speedy Ant

: Striker

Also, recons should be immune to AA. This should be obvious enough but it was never done. I'm not against AA as a concept and don't mind when people use it normally, but it seems like an incredibly, incredibly unfair way to cheat recons who are trying to hide and have no way to defend when their cloak is broken by a magical backwards 85% angle mid-combo from a teethpick.

I've heard mixed opinions on it.

Personally, I've only heard the one opinion. From my experience, I can often tell which players are good and not using AA, which players are not using AA and the people who kill me from impossible angles with AA. When someone is FF attacking around to find you and ou've been cloaked for a couple of secs, then they decide to combo and throw the first two ahead then the 3rd spins around 160 degrees and nails perfectly into your face. Either they became omniscience or AA kicked in.

Well I'm neither here nor there on AA really, I feel it's a part of the game and no one can really decide why they think it's a bad thing. Some will say AA is noobish because it's cheaty and unfair, some say it's because it's a crutch and should be left behind, others say AA is nooby because you actually play worse with it; until someone can convince me of one single, fair reason I'll just be like "idc".

What I do oppose is any mechanism in a game that allows auto-targetting of invisible players (I've seen this in other games too; plenty of MMOs have inviso classses, and it's universally agreed upon that being able to target invisible players is a pretty scummy thing to do, because it just defeats the point of hiding if people don't need to look).

Clearing facts up with AT. Yes, it's called auto target.

1. Only works on visible, targetable enemies. When recons are cloaked AT has absolutely no effect. However, the instant you release your shield key, AT will find you if you are in approximately 180 degree angle from the direction the player is facing.

2. AT does NOT work while anyone is moving in ANY way with guns, however, it does work while moving with swords because it is impossible to swing and move at the same time.

In summary, if you are not visible, you're not being targeted. If you are being hit by guns while invisible, that's your fault. If you're being hit constantly by sword swings, that's your fault.

Has anyone ever stop to think that the problems with the game play is not the fault of the other players, but the fault of their own?

Or is everyone so perfect, everything they do is right, so the enemy must be wrong.

*I'm not supporting AT in any manner, I would honestly rather have it removed completely from the game and/or lockdown. I just hate when people blame their own faults on game mechanics they do not fully understand.

Bacon, I am fairly certain that #2 is not true if you have a good enough ping and are working at close range, or if the player is moving straight towards you or at an angle that makes their degree movement around you negligible.

Brady, I am very doubtful that that is the case. When I used AA I didn't see it working like that.