EVERYTHING sounds good except the immunity timer -general agreement?.

Ghoest9 · 2013-01-09, 07:09 PM

Im not saying the patch fixes everything or that every change will be implemented properly - but every suggestion sounds like it could improve the game.

Except the immunity timer.

Even a one or 2 second timer is basically an invitation to rush enemy position and drop mines, plant C4 or some other offensive actions.
A 5 second timer would be much worse even.

I think its actually fair that if people are killed in the open that it may not be possible to resuscitate them.
And I dont think it will be a concern with Sunderers. Now that killing fresh spawns gives low xp people should be trying to blow the Sundies anyway instead of camping them.

Invulnerability offers a few potential benefits for the game - but the assured downsides are much more significant.

Messatsu · 2013-01-09, 07:13 PM

give no xp at all for 5 seconds except of no invulnerability => problem solved.

Neurotoxin · 2013-01-09, 07:15 PM

Immunity til the player has provided input and received a response. I hate spawning to find myself dead to someone who killed me before I had control of the character. But once I have control of the character, I should be fair game. No player who is able to attack and inflict damage should be immune to damage, only players who are not yet able to control their character.

ShadetheDruid · 2013-01-09, 07:16 PM

I still don't get why people are assuming it's going to be flat invulnerability, no conditions, for a huge amount of time.

They already said it will cancel when you do stuff in the notes, but it's like people see the word "invulnerability" and freak the fuck out.

Brusi · 2013-01-09, 07:20 PM

I don't understand what everyone is so pissed about the immunity timer for?

If it is short enough, we won't notice it unless we are bring cheesy!

This is a direct buff to medic gameplay, and there is no real reason not to buff them, imo.

I personally hate getting instagibbed as soon as i accept a rez! Don't tell me that i shouldn't have accepted it if i died in a dangerous place, cause there is no way for you to know if it's enemies that killed you have already been cleared out or if it is safe or not before you click accept.

Beerbeer · 2013-01-09, 07:23 PM

I wonder how buggy their invul change will be, considering there are known invul hacks.

Rbstr · 2013-01-09, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

They already said it will cancel when you do stuff in the notes, but it's like people see the word "invulnerability" and freak the fuck out.

What, and act rational on an FPS forum?

Ghoest9 · 2013-01-09, 07:30 PM

I read the notes literally.
Some of you are adding stuff in to make it seem more palatable.

The notes say it would be canceled when you use a weapon or get in a vehicle.

It wouldneed to be canceled simply when you start moving - otherwise it will simple be a powerful exploit to rush the enemy with explosives.

StumpyTheOzzie · 2013-01-09, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

What, and act rational on an FPS forum?

Ha. ROFL indeed!

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

Im not saying the patch fixes everything or that every change will be implemented properly - but every suggestion sounds like it could improve the game.

Except the immunity timer.

Even a one or 2 second timer is basically an invitation to rush enemy position and drop mines, plant C4 or some other offensive actions.
A 5 second timer would be much worse even.

I think its actually fair that if people are killed in the open that it may not be possible to resuscitate them.
And I dont think it will be a concern with Sunderers. Now that killing fresh spawns gives low xp people should be trying to blow the Sundies anyway instead of camping them.

Invulnerability offers a few potential benefits for the game - but the assured downsides are much more significant.

So YOU say. I say everything is excellent except the AA buffs. We don't even know what the "player actions" are that render you vulnerable again. What if it's ANYTHING? Moving, looking around, equipping a weapon? and a 2 second timer as well so that you can accept a rez, take a beating for 1 second without moving at all and then run away *after* the tank shell hits your invulnerable arse? That scenario sounds wonderful to me. More infantry alive in the front lines = bigger and better fights.

What downsides do you see apart from suicide rushing? Because I see many potential benefits that outweigh those downsides.

Without knowing *how* it's implemented any commentary will be premature imaginings so we're all going to have to wait and see aren't we?

p0intman · 2013-01-09, 07:37 PM

i want to know what the context of the timer is, how long it lasts specifically, and why they thought its needed.

Azarga · 2013-01-09, 07:39 PM

We should not forget about huge loads of ammo wasted on those invulnerable targets.
And reload times that often come together with wasted ammo.

Sledgecrushr · 2013-01-09, 07:47 PM

If the immunity is a short duration plus any movement or action breaks immunity I think it would be ok. Though I think its pretty unnecessary and if its not done just right it will create an unbalanced gameplay.

VGCS · 2013-01-09, 07:54 PM

Why?? Why do I always seem to /Facepalm at every thread this guy starts. Everyone else on this board is just great, you're all terrific people.... but stuff like this, I just..... I don't even.

Case in point:

Even a one or 2 second timer is basically an invitation to rush enemy position and drop mines, plant C4 or some other offensive actions.
A 5 second timer would be much worse even.

YES, that is the ENTIRE EFFING POINT ... if they've surrounded you with Tanks or Libs, then a couple seconds to "Cheese" them back with weapons that require a second or two of Setup/Lockon-time is the entire point otherwise it doesn't even begin to address the Spawn camping issue.

If any Infantry die to this "Cheese" then it's their own damn faults for being BAD and they deserved to LOST TEH GAME. ....would we all prefer tons of base changes instead? OF COURSE we would. But in the meantime this requires a very aggressive Band-aid right now before any more blood is lost. I have never in my 17 years of online gaming ever seen a game start off with such a huge population only to then hit such an unbelievably steep downward spiral that this one took in only one month. And the incredibly lopsided spawn Spamming obviously played a big role in that. Hamfisting is the only course of action that could hope to reverse this trend.

GLaDOS · 2013-01-09, 07:56 PM

I don't really like the idea, but I think we should try it before complaining too much, as it does have potential. I just hope the community doesn't react to it like they did the health regeneration in late beta, that was embarrassing. Everyone freaked the hell out, SOE said they would remove it, people forgot about it, then SOE put it back in and nobody noticed. Hell, I can't think of a single time that has helped me out, I really hope they come up with a better biolab bonus.

james · 2013-01-09, 07:58 PM

Immunity will work fine. It causes next to no problems in battlefield. This is the second bf game with it.
It keeps inf from just sitting by a bang bus farming, and general just being a douche moves, that have caused this to be put in the first place