EVERYTHING sounds good except the immunity timer -general agreement?. - Page 3

MaxDamage · 2013-01-10, 04:49 AM

Anyone opposed to damage immunity is a cheap fuck.
The immunity timer is the single best idea in the patch thread.

A necessary addition that was already present in the original game, and is common for good reason in many other MMOs.

It is anti noob-farming.

I don't agree it should be used for revives though, that is dangerous.

It should just be available for sunderer/spawntubes spawns.

It is posts like this that show the confusion some players seem to have:
(the immunity is broken when the user performs any function, precisely as this person wishes)

Originally Posted by Neurotoxin

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.

Happytrail · 2013-01-10, 05:02 AM

it may force players not to spawn camp just right outside spawn, which i think is good, may make the fights longer and harder

KaskaMatej · 2013-01-10, 05:25 AM

IMO, the spawn invulnerability is acceptable (depends on the limitation and duration) but the revive one is bad because you have the ability to accept or deny the revive request.

ShadetheDruid · 2013-01-10, 05:34 AM

Originally Posted by KaskaMatej

IMO, the spawn invulnerability is acceptable (depends on the limitation and duration) but the revive one is bad because you have the ability to accept or deny the revive request.

Like people have said though, you can't really tell what's going on most of the time so you can't really make an informed decision on whether to accept or not.

Gortha · 2013-01-10, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

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.

It´s only okay, when it wears of with MOVING.

Evertything else is FAIL.

Gortha · 2013-01-10, 05:58 AM

This is just a solution to buff stupidity.

PredatorFour · 2013-01-10, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by Gortha

It´s only okay, when it wears of with MOVING.

That's really terrible ! Think if someone got revived and just stood there invulnerable not moving !

It simply can't just wear off when they move it really needs a 2 second timer at most.

Figment · 2013-01-10, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

Like people have said though, you can't really tell what's going on most of the time so you can't really make an informed decision on whether to accept or not.

Suggestion: talk to your squadmates and base it on what occured just before.

This is an acceptable risk: if you die, eh, you were dead before anyway and about to respawn.

Baneblade · 2013-01-10, 06:40 AM

Umm, doesn't immunity cancel upon movement?

Rago · 2013-01-10, 07:17 AM

I basically not against a Spawn Protection on Sundy´s
However on a Turrent ? C´mon thats Stupid, i shoot the Turrent down and the Gunner gets out alive without taking Damage from the Bomb or the Rocket ?

NO WAY !

Assist · 2013-01-10, 07:30 AM

I just don't understand why it's needed. Do people really get farmed at Sunderer's that much? How is the immunity going to change that if it works like some here suggest? To me it doesn't solve anything.

The only thing it does is add immunity to revives, which makes no sense to me at all.

If it's not broken don't fix it, I personally didn't see anything wrong with how it has been working.

Figment · 2013-01-10, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by MaxDamage

A necessary addition that was already present in the original game

Ehr, no it was not.

We had painfields instead indoors (only after some years) and cloak fields outdoors to obscure your presence to the enemy (less chance of shooting what you can't see).

AMSes often had you spawn and die to an OS that had launched before you had even spawned.

MaxDamage · 2013-01-10, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Ehr, no it was not.

We had painfields instead indoors (only after some years) and cloak fields outdoors to obscure your presence to the enemy (less chance of shooting what you can't see).

AMSes often had you spawn and die to an OS that had launched before you had even spawned.

I remember camping AMSs for kills (when I didn't have anything to kill it with).
If a player spawned, there was an electricky effect on them, and my first few shots wouldn't register.
The same occured in regular spawn tubes, the effect was so short and temporary as to barely be noticeable, it just gave the person spawning the briefest of chance to look around.

It was effectively an immunity shield.
You couldn't kill a player until they had control.

The fact that you don't even realise it existed is precisely how "game breaking" this change is. Rofl.

In hindsight, I had always assumed it was just lag, but it was very much real.

Gortha · 2013-01-10, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by PredatorFour

That's really terrible ! Think if someone got revived and just stood there invulnerable not moving !

It simply can't just wear off when they move it really needs a 2 second timer at most.

Use common sense!

Of course it should last a maximum of one second.
BUT should waer of/break with every kind of action, ADS, shooting and MOVING!!!

___________
But i really think, this change is just not needed and if implemented in the wrong way, gives smart players loads of ways to exploit it. I.e. break enemy lines of defense with shield(invulnerability) if moving would not break it.

In short: It just buffs stupidity. Not more or less.
Accepting a revive is your decision... do not accept it, if you know u´ll die directly after the rezz.

Frotang · 2013-01-10, 09:59 AM

So you have proven it was there in PS1 or just assume? Bc im pretty sure there was no invuln in PS1 at all. Also this is a stupid idea, it does nothing for spawning in a spawn room as those are protected anyways. And if it truly only cancles when you fire a weapon or enter a vehicle (as Higby stated) then it will be insanely cheap.

Here is a scenario where there is no spawn camping and the invuln fucks over an attacker. 1 guy attacking a small outpost, hes half way to capping when 2 enemies show up. The lone attacker takes down an HA and injurs a medic but not before he can chuck a revive nade and run around the corner. The attacker then positions his crosairs over dead dudes rising body. His body pops up and attacker blasts 5 rounds to his head that do jack shit, recently revived HA switches to Decimator, strafes left, then fires his rocket thus breaking his invuln but 1 shotting the attacker. There are numerous other scenarios where this game mechanic will completely fuck over small engagements where there was no spawn camping going on in the first place. People who like this change are the baddies who get spawn camped all day.