Implemented Remove the Slowness Module or Combine it with the Laser Module

[Malen]

I want to say that after messing around in /c train and having an actual fight with Slowness Modules in place I can honestly say that slowness is the new weakness module. Slowness presents the same issue weakness did, it does too much for something that passively effects every enemy. I think everyone on Loka can agree defending is much easier to do than attacking, in a very noticeable way. And whilst I think most would agree it should be that way, there is a reason Inhibs get a single module that dies after a lamp is broken on the Tgen, and Tgens get four modules, that is their advantage as the defenders.

If you look at all fights so far on Balak there has been one, a single attack that has been won, excluding fights where Dong Dank in month one of Balak would claim and then not have anyone to defend (1-2 DD members showing up to defend). The single fight that was won was Elysia vs Iblis on Tile 1, and I can honestly say we shouldn't have won that fight, unfortunately for Iblis a lot of their key members were not able to appear due to irl commitments I would assume, you can see here they are missing many of their top players whilst Elysia had most of our main fighters.

What does it say when defenders literally always win excluding a single fight when two forces of presumably somewhat equal strength go head to head? Something isn't right. With the limited strategies you can employ in Conquest fights on Balak wiping the enemy forces is essentially the only way to win as of how things stand, meaning attackers must push up to the defenders tgen and fight around it and go for charges when the opportunity is open. Sadly getting charges off with how the setup currently is is nearly impossible if anyone is there to stop you. And while I think pushing the lamp out one block would help with this, I don't think this is the underlying issue to the extent that slowness is.

Weakness brought forth the persistent issue that you need to break it to win, and it made it so getting kills was much, much harder. Weakness was gutted out of Conquest because it was unanimously agreed that in the state it was in it was too strong and made the meta stale. Now we have come to a cross road once again with the same issue, now in the form of the Slowness Module. Weakness giving a 20% reduction to your strength, slowness giving a 20% reduction to your speed. They are eerily similar, and both represent the same issue, they do too much for what they are, both are simply too strong for a module.

Weakness' primary issue was that it was too strong in the sense it stopped attackers from getting kills, and while Slowness' AOE is smaller it still presents the same issue just in a different light, it not only stops attackers from being able to crit chain to kill a defender, it slows attackers to let defenders get kills easier.

Now some may say that you should employ x/y/z strategy to counter the module, the issue with this argument is very simple, the only somewhat valid strategies to counter something like the slowness module are either not effective or too time consuming to be a valid strategy. Bowing would take too long, countering the Slowness module with debuff pots isn't realistic in the scale of how large fights are, only using kb2/punch2 to slow fighting to get charges isn't realistic as the same can be done unto you, etc etc.

The other opinion I've heard is that we need more time testing modules to see how they are. I disagree with that because in the /c train fights and the actual fight I've had against slowness, it becomes very apparent who the offender is. Sure, the lingering pot module's bleed is good, and creates a zoning effect that slows attackers and makes them play more carefully (and in the fight on tile 1 yesterday, the defenders had to watch out was well lol) around the Tgen, and spectral in it's current state also does a good job at helping defenders focus their defense against attackers. Rallying charge puts out a cool new counter-push mechanic. All of the golem focused modules bring out a new and interesting strategy of making your golems much more formidable compared to their not buffed counterparts, but then when you get to Slowness, it flat out doesn't work in practice. In theory it shouldn't be too strong, but in PvP as crit focused as Loka is, and in Conquest fights where kills are as important as they are, slowness does too much for the defenders making it bring forth the same issue weakness did, it's too strong and does too much.

Balak has brought out a "don't attack if you want to win" mentality, attacking nets you loss after loss and anyone who disagrees with that or brings up the single outlier fight as a counterargument should join in for an attack on Balak to see how broken Slowness in it's current state is, it's truly comparable to Weakness. Attacking should definitely be slightly harder than defending, but it shouldn't be inconceivable for the attackers to win.

Lastly, I want to mention that I believe diversity in strategies and the sort is obviously more fun, which is why I believe that combining the slowness module and the laser module would also work, if removing the slowness module seems too harsh to you. Simply put per every 5 attackers, there would be 1 laser that applies slowness within the same 35 block AOE (i.e. 15 attackers 3 lasers, 23 attackers 4 lasers, etc). I believe this is a much more balanced module than the current Slowness Module and would prove to be useful but not overpowered as the Weakness Module was, and how the Slowness Module is now.

And lastly, no, get good isn't a valid argument either, I'm bad lol.

 

[ModernMozart1787]

During that fight it was almost impossible to do anything, I would have 2-4 Iblis people on me at all times and I literally couldn't chase if someone was low, or if I was being attacked on all sides it was impossible to get away because of the pearl cooldown. And also, who wants to use 10 pearls every time any enemies are near? I personally think it should be removed completely. Thanks for reading,

 

[Skuhoo]

These are all really bold claims to make after just a single fight with the new slowness module, especially considering that the defenders were able to get plenty of kills at the inhibitor despite there being also slowness module on it. When we had the weakness module we also had the old buff module that lowered lamp overload damage from 33% to 20%, increasing the total charges needed per lamp from 3 to 5. This module increased the effectiveness of weakness by making it harder to destroy. We've also reduced the time it takes to overload a lamp as well as reduced golem respawn time in an effort to make it easier to get charges off on important modules.

During that fight it was almost impossible to do anything, I would have 2-4 Iblis people on me at all times and I literally couldn't chase if someone was low, or if I was being attacked on all sides it was impossible to get away because of the pearl cooldown. And also, who wants to use 10 pearls every time any enemies are near? I personally think it should be removed completely. Thanks for reading,

Your complaints seem completely irrelevant to the thread. People gang up on you because they probably see you as an easy kill, not because of a slowness module. And why does the pearl cooldown prevent you from pearling back to your inhib? Don't blame your missed pearls on the system.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like you're complaining about getting ganged up on and the pearl cooldown, then using that as your reasoning behind why the slowness module should be "removed completely". Can you elaborate if that's not the case?

 

[Malen]

These are all really bold claims to make after just a single fight with the new slowness module, especially considering that the defenders were able to get plenty of kills at the inhibitor despite there being also slowness module on it. When we had the weakness module we also had the old buff module that lowered lamp overload damage from 33% to 20%, increasing the total charges needed per lamp from 3 to 5. This module increased the effectiveness of weakness by making it harder to destroy. We've also reduced the time it takes to overload a lamp as well as reduced golem respawn time in an effort to make it easier to get charges off on important modules.



Your complaints seem completely irrelevant to the thread. People gang up on you because they probably see you as an easy kill, not because of a slowness module. And why does the pearl cooldown prevent you from pearling back to your inhib? Don't blame your missed pearls on the system.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like you're complaining about getting ganged up on and the pearl cooldown, then using that as your reasoning behind why the slowness module should be "removed completely". Can you elaborate if that's not the case?

I was hoping as a staff member you would care more to not completely ignore what I wrote, I find it greatly disheartening and disappointing to see someone in your position make arguments that I already answered in my post, but you very clearly chose not to read it so I guess I'll respond here and quote what I said for you.

These are all really bold claims to make after just a single fight with the new slowness module, especially considering that the defenders were able to get plenty of kills at the inhibitor despite there being also slowness module on it.

I was hoping after seeing that you responded to be given some points to talk about, but I can't even believe that you blatantly ignored what I wrote :/ as I said "I want to say that after messing around in /c train and having an actual fight with Slowness Modules in place I can honestly say that slowness is the new weakness module." I am not sure as to why you chose to not even read my first sentence but I suppose it is what it is.

When we had the weakness module we also had the old buff module that lowered lamp overload damage from 33% to 20%, increasing the total charges needed per lamp from 3 to 5. This module increased the effectiveness of weakness by making it harder to destroy. We've also reduced the time it takes to overload a lamp as well as reduced golem respawn time in an effort to make it easier to get charges off on important modules.

You also must be aware that the current design of tgens/inhibs make it nearly impossible to get charges off if anyone around you is using kb2 or punch2 to knock you off the charging zone. It seems you're ignoring the very obvious issues that exist to further your own agenda.

Your complaints seem completely irrelevant to the thread.

No, his complaint is directly correlating to the fact that he had slowness, hence why he mentioned it in this post about the slowness module.

And why does the pearl cooldown prevent you from pearling back to your inhib? Don't blame your missed pearls on the system.

His opinion is that the pearl cooldown is too high, it has nothing to do with missing pearls? I'm not quite sure how you're extrapolating to these conclusions.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like you're complaining about getting ganged up on and the pearl cooldown, then using that as your reasoning behind why the slowness module should be "removed completely". Can you elaborate if that's not the case?

He is saying all of these situations wouldn't arise or be more easily avoidable if the slowness module wasn't in effect, hence why he mentioned them in a thread about removing the slowness module. I'm not quite sure how his post doesn't make sense, he has put forth the reasons why he doesn't like the slowness module.

 

[RedSkilZZ]

you can see here they are missing many of their top players whilst Elysia had most of our main fighters.

First off, I feel as if your example here is invalid because this fight was before many (if any) of the major conquest changes. This fight was "so long ago" that it would have still included the weakness module. The fact that Silverhand was missing many of there PvPers was the main reason they lost. This shows that although you can still have all the modules you like, it requires skill, coordination and numbers to win fights. With Elysia able to kill us with both slowness and weakness it shows us how these modules aren't/weren't really overpowered. With their top PvPers SH is very capable of winning most fights (trust me, I've fought against em more than a few times in the past ;p), this is likely why you guys have only won one fight.

While yes you may say "get good" is not a valid response, I can justify why it just might be (not trying to flame, I just want to explain with facts who SH has been winning (and its not because of the modules they have)). With or without the slowness module it requires I feel as if you cant complain that the defenders always win because of fair conquest fights like this which occurred after the conquest changes. During this conquest fight, although SH had the numbers advantage, there were no modules installed on the TGen and the attacking inhibitor had a slowness module. This shows that the slowness module is not OP because the side that has it was clearly wiped even with it. Regardless, even if the TGen did have a slowness module it should always be harder to attack a TGen than defend one.

Lastly, I was able to still get crit chains off on Mtn with slowness on my testing server. Yes I was at a clear disadvantage as he was able to land a couple more hits on me but I was able to heal faster than him and kill him a couple times. After training with it a bit I'm sure I could do it in a conquest battle.

In conclusion, we can separate the aspects of battle into three parts, meat-shields, PvPers and modules. In order to win SH needs to have their PvPers. Meat-Shields and modules won't cut it for a W. With their PvPers (even with the other side having a slowness module), SH does not need modules to win a fight. The fact that this module in both cases did not stop each side from winning the fight and the fact that you can still PvP with slowness shows us that this module really isn't that OP.

(Not to say that Jotun is bad, just saying that modules aren't a huge deciding factor in fights) (Sorry it may be a bit confusing but I didn't really how to word most bits ;p)

 

[Malen]

First off, I feel as if your example here is invalid because this fight was before many (if any) of the major conquest changes. This fight was "so long ago" that it would have still included the weakness module. The fact that Silverhand was missing many of there PvPers was the main reason they lost. This shows that although you can still have all the modules you like, it requires skill, coordination and numbers to win fights. With Elysia able to kill us with both slowness and weakness it shows us how these modules aren't/weren't really overpowered. With their top PvPers SH is very capable of winning most fights (trust me, I've fought against em more than a few times in the past ;p), this is likely why you guys have only won one fight.

While yes you may say "get good" is not a valid response, I can justify why it is (not trying to flame, I just want to explain with facts who SH has been winning (and its not because of the modules they have)). With or without the slowness module it requires I feel as if you cant complain that the defenders always win because of fair conquest fights like this which occurred after the conquest changes. During this conquest fight, although SH had the numbers advantage, there were no modules installed on the TGen and the attacking inhibitor had a slowness module. This shows that the slowness module is not OP because the side that has it was clearly wiped even with it. Regardless, even if the TGen did have a slowness module it should always be harder to attack a TGen than defend one.

Lastly, I was able to still get crit chains off on Mtn with slowness on my testing server. Yes I was at a clear disadvantage as he was able to land a couple more hits on me but I was able to heal faster than him and kill him a couple times. After training with it a bit I'm sure I could do it in a conquest battle.

In conclusion, we can separate the aspects of battle into three parts, meat-shields, PvPers and modules. In order to win SH needs to have their PvPers. Meat-Shields and modules won't cut it for a W. With their PvPers (even with the other side having a slowness module), SH does not need modules to win a fight. The fact that this module in both cases did not stop each side from winning the fight and the fact that you can still PvP with slowness shows us that this module really isn't that OP.

(Not to say that Jotun is bad, just saying that modules aren't a huge deciding factor in fights)

What is with people and not reading today?

The fact that Silverhand was missing many of there PvPers was the main reason they lost. This shows that although you can still have all the modules you like, it requires skill, coordination and numbers to win fights. With Elysia able to kill us with both slowness and weakness it shows us how these modules aren't/weren't really overpowered.

Slowness in it's past iteration and it's current are very different, trying to compare the two is just plain nonsensical. Furthermore at no point in time did I say fights don't require skill, coordination, numbers, etc, the argument your making literally doesn't make sense. You agreed with what I said and then went on to use "The fact that Silverhand was missing many of there PvPers was the main reason they lost." to correlate to "With Elysia able to kill us with both slowness and weakness it shows us how these modules aren't/weren't really overpowered." No, that plain just doesn't make sense. How do you correlate one side having more numbers to the balance of modules? You're comparing an unfair situation with imbalanced numbers to try and say modules are fair and balanced, does that not sound wrong to you?

While yes you may say "get good" is not a valid response, I can justify why it is (not trying to flame, I just want to explain with facts who SH has been winning (and its not because of the modules they have)). With or without the slowness module it requires I feel as if you cant complain that the defenders always win because of fair conquest fights like this which occurred after the conquest changes. During this conquest fight, although SH had the numbers advantage, there were no modules installed on the TGen and the attacking inhibitor had a slowness module. This shows that the slowness module is not OP because the side that has it was clearly wiped even with it. Regardless, even if the TGen did have a slowness module it should always be harder to attack a TGen than defend one.

You fail to take into the account of many disadvantages the attackers had, the imbalance of where you get charges off and how easy it easy to knock people from it, the tgen being on a plateau, iblis having more numbers on defense, etc etc. You can't just discredit all points against you under the guise of "ha ha, they are good." I would assume you must've forgot the fight because you were there but seem to have forgotten every reason why that tile is extremely difficult to attack.

Lastly, I was able to still get crit chains off on Mtn with slowness on my testing server. Yes I was at a clear disadvantage as he was able to land a couple more hits on me but I was able to heal faster than him and kill him a couple times. After training with it a bit I'm sure I could do it in a conquest battle.

You are comparing a 1v1 where both players are attempting to kill each other whilst one has speed 2 no debuffs, and one has speed 2 with slowness 1. This isn't comparable to someone crit chaining someone from behind while they have speed 2 and slowness 1 and the person running having speed 2. You are comparing things that don't correlate so I am not quite sure as to why you're putting forth these arguments.

In conclusion, we can separate the aspects of battle into three parts, meat-shields, PvPers and modules. In order to win SH needs to have their PvPers. Meat-Shields and modules won't cut it for a W. With their PvPers (even with the other side having a slowness module), SH does not need modules to win a fight. The fact that this module in both cases did not stop each side from winning the fight and the fact that you can still PvP with slowness shows us that this module really isn't that OP.

I only have one question then, why has Silverhand lost every attack they've done on Balak? You are making arguments that are nonsensical, not based on factual information, are completely narrow minded, and ignore all cases that discredit what you've said. I don't think you're purposefully ignoring all of these points, but I feel you rushed into this without much thought about it.

 

[Skuhoo]

I was hoping after seeing that you responded to be given some points to talk about, but I can't even believe that you blatantly ignored what I wrote :/ as I said "I want to say that after messing around in /c train and having an actual fight with Slowness Modules in place I can honestly say that slowness is the new weakness module." I am not sure as to why you chose to not even read my first sentence but I suppose it is what it is.

Where are you getting the idea that I didn't read what you said? /c train is not equivalent to a real fight. Not only do the attackers lack the ability to place a module of their own, but the two structures are extremely close to each other (far closer than a real fight) and respawns are instant instead of restricted to 8 minute warps. I feel more real fights are needed to determine what the real issues are.

You also must be aware that the current design of tgens/inhibs make it nearly impossible to get charges off if anyone around you is using kb2 or punch2 to knock you off the charging zone. It seems you're ignoring the very obvious issues that exist to further your own agenda.

If only Mag was here to tell you how strongly I was against the inhib/tgen design changes. If you feel that getting charges off is "nearly impossible", don't you think your core issue should be with the structure's design rather than modules? If destroying lamps weren't nearly impossible then you would've been able to destroy the slowness module, no?

No, his complaint is directly correlating to the fact that he had slowness, hence why he mentioned it in this post about the slowness module. His opinion is that the pearl cooldown is too high, it has nothing to do with missing pearls? I'm not quite sure how you're extrapolating to these conclusions.

His post makes no mention of the slowness module or effect. His complaint of being unable to chase is in the sentence right after he said he had "2-4 Iblis on me at all times", suggesting that the reason he was unable to chase was because of the people actively attacking him. He also says that it was "impossible to get away because of the pearl cooldown". He again, did not accredit the cause of his complaint to the slowness module. Additionally, the only way the pearl cooldown could have prevented him from getting away would be if he missed his pearl, which is why I brought that up. It's hardly extrapolating.

He is saying all of these situations wouldn't arise or be more easily avoidable if the slowness module wasn't in effect, hence why he mentioned them in a thread about removing the slowness module. I'm not quite sure how his post doesn't make sense, he has put forth the reasons why he doesn't like the slowness module.

Why do you think I asked him to elaborate? His response was filled with unrelated complaints with alleged causes and I wanted to know which one he feels slowness is to blame for.

Overall, I think you need to settle down, friend. Throwing out baseless accusations that I'm pushing some sort of agenda doesn't help your argument whatsoever, and suggesting that I am is rather insulting.

 

[RedSkilZZ]

I only have one question then, why has Silverhand lost every attack they've done on Balak?

As you said,

I think everyone on Loka can agree defending is much easier to do than attacking

- Attacks should be harder
-> Explains why SH has lost attacks, removing the slowness module would just make it easier for attackers to win attacks, making it harder to defend, or in the best possible case, remain just as difficult as it is now not making it any easier for the attackers to win.

You are comparing a 1v1 where both players are attempting to kill each other whilst one has speed 2 no debuffs, and one has speed 2 with slowness 1. This isn't comparable to someone crit chaining someone from behind while they have speed 2 and slowness 1 and the person running having speed 2. You are comparing things that don't correlate so I am not quite sure as to why you're putting forth these arguments.

- People can always run from attacks
-> Speed 2 or not, getting out of a 1v1 is as simple as pearling away. Speed 2 may prevent you from chasing them on foot but if they have pearls you likely aren't going to kill them anyway.
-> Yes 1v1s are diff from TGen fights but so are c train fights where you tested the power of the weakness module.

If you look at all fights so far on Balak there has been one, a single attack that has been won

- You make it sound like to you having slowness is a deciding factor in a fight
-> Which only serves to show that fights can be won against people who have the slowness module and the weakness module.
-> Might I also remind you that there have been fewer attacks.

there is a reason Inhibs get a single module that dies after a lamp is broken on the Tgen, and Tgens get four modules, that is their advantage as the defenders.

- If you think slowness is so OP for a defender to have, just put it on your inhibitor
-> Takes the same amount of charges to remove and is equally as hard to get charges off

No, that plain just doesn't make sense. How do you correlate one side having more numbers to the balance of modules? You're comparing an unfair situation with imbalanced numbers to try and say modules are fair and balanced, does that not sound wrong to you?

- The fights I pointed out describes the situation well
-> In both cases the losing side had a slowness module and, in one case, a weakness module showing that attacks/defenses can still be won if you're fighting against the slowness module and that the real deciding factor is the people you employ to fight for you
-> The fact that one side had a small numbers advantage and the other had a slowness module even off. I was describing how SH was able to win fair fights and showing that them having slowness modules in future fights will only make the fight faster. It likely won't change the outcome.
-> Removing slowness won't affect the outcomes of the fights by much but it will remove possible module combinations and starts that the defenders can preform.
-> You still need good PvPers to win fights. Simply having a slowness module doesn't automatically determine the outcome.

You are making arguments that are nonsensical, not based on factual information, are completely narrow minded, and ignore all cases that discredit what you've said.

- Calm down, I read your entire post that detailed your opinion, I respect that, respect mine

 

[Malen]

- Attacks should be harder
-> Explains why SH has lost attacks
- People can always run from attacks
-> Speed 2 or not, getting out of a 1v1 is as simple as pearling away. Speed 2 may prevent you from chasing them on foot but if they have pearls you likely aren't going to kill them anyway.
-> Yes 1v1s are diff from TGen fight but so are c train fights
- You make it sound like to you having slowness is a deciding factor in a fight
-> I pointed out why it isn't
- If you think slowness is so OP for a defender to have, just put it on your inhibitor
-> Takes the same amount of charges to remove and is equally as hard to get charges
- Calm down, I read your entire post that detailed your opinion, I respect that, respect mine

> Explains why SH has lost attacks

SH Has lost all of their attacks on Balak against people who actually show up to fights, DongDank fights where they have 2 people for defending don't count.

> Speed 2 or not, getting out of a 1v1 is as simple as pearling away. Speed 2 may prevent you from chasing them on foot but if they have pearls you likely aren't going to kill them anyway.

Why bring this up? The issue here is that even without pearling players get away, so idk why you bring this up. Players constantly die without or with pearling.

> Yes 1v1s are diff from TGen fight but so are c train fights

/c train fights are referenced to show time put into testing a module and fighting with it, they are much more similar to conquest fights than a 1v1 on your test server.

> I pointed out why it isn't

You didn't point out anything about slowness being a deciding factor in a fight?

> If you think slowness is so OP for a defender to have, just put it on your inhibitor

Defenders don't need to push to win, you're ignoring the basics of conquest to push your points.

> Calm down, I read your entire post that detailed your opinion, I respect that, respect mine

I am calm? Not sure how you're coming to the conclusions you are though.

 

[Malen]

Where are you getting the idea that I didn't read what you said? /c train is not equivalent to a real fight. Not only do the attackers lack the ability to place a module of their own, but the two structures are extremely close to each other (far closer than a real fight) and respawns are instant instead of restricted to 8 minute warps. I feel more real fights are needed to determine what the real issues are.

The entire point of bringing up /c train is to show we've tested out slowness multiple times, not sure why you're trying to discredit that.

If only Mag was here to tell you how strongly I was against the inhib/tgen design changes. If you feel that getting charges off is "nearly impossible", don't you think your core issue should be with the structure's design rather than modules? If destroying lamps weren't nearly impossible then you would've been able to destroy the slowness module, no?

This post isn't about the design of the inhib or tgen though, it's about a module that I feel isn't balanced. The tgen/inhib's design isn't mentioned a ton here because that isn't the point of the post.

His post makes no mention of the slowness module or effect. His complaint of being unable to chase is in the sentence right after he said he had "2-4 Iblis on me at all times", suggesting that the reason he was unable to chase was because of the people actively attacking him. He also says that it was "impossible to get away because of the pearl cooldown". He again, did not accredit the cause of his complaint to the slowness module. Additionally, the only way the pearl cooldown could have prevented him from getting away would be if he missed his pearl, which is why I brought that up. It's hardly extrapolating.

If someone makes a post under a thread titled "Remove the Slowness Module or Combine it with the Laser Module" one would assume he is accrediting his post to correlate to the topic being discussed, no?

Why do you think I asked him to elaborate? His response was filled with unrelated complaints with alleged causes and I wanted to know which one he feels slowness is to blame for.

Answered this above.

Overall, I think you need to settle down, friend. Throwing out baseless accusations that I'm pushing some sort of agenda doesn't help your argument whatsoever, and suggesting that I am is rather insulting.

Throwing out baseless accusations that you're pushing some sort of agenda? Everyone pushes their own agenda with their argument, that's not even an insult so I am not sure why you're taking it as one? Every single person that ever proposes an argument does so to further their agenda, my agenda is to try and make Loka a more balanced and fun server that my friends and I enjoy playing on, hence why I put time, effort, and money into it. Agenda's aren't a bad thing, it literally means to strongly promote the things you want to get done, I do apologize if you took it that way though.

 

[RedSkilZZ]

> Explains why SH has lost attacks

SH Has lost all of their attacks on Balak against people who actually show up to fights, DongDank fights where they have 2 people for defending don't count.

> Speed 2 or not, getting out of a 1v1 is as simple as pearling away. Speed 2 may prevent you from chasing them on foot but if they have pearls you likely aren't going to kill them anyway.

Why bring this up? The issue here is that even without pearling players get away, so idk why you bring this up. Players constantly die without or with pearling.

> Yes 1v1s are diff from TGen fight but so are c train fights

/c train fights are referenced to show time put into testing a module and fighting with it, they are much more similar to conquest fights than a 1v1 on your test server.

> I pointed out why it isn't

You didn't point out anything about slowness being a deciding factor in a fight?

> If you think slowness is so OP for a defender to have, just put it on your inhibitor

Defenders don't need to push to win, you're ignoring the basics of conquest to push your points.

> Calm down, I read your entire post that detailed your opinion, I respect that, respect mine

I am calm? Not sure how you're coming to the conclusions you are though.

Sry bout that, hit post reply 2 early, mb. I've edited it to better explain my points ;p.

 

[Skuhoo]

The entire point of bringing up /c train is to show we've tested out slowness multiple times, not sure why you're trying to discredit that.

I'm not discrediting that. You accused me of ignoring your post and countered my belief that we need more real fights by saying you tested it a lot in /c train in addition to the single real fight. I rebutted that by saying /c train is not equal to a real fight. Nowhere did I say testing in /c train was useless, I'm saying that even with extensive /c train testing, its no replacement for real fights, which I feel are needed to see what needs to be balanced.

This post isn't about the design of the inhib or tgen though, it's about a module that I feel isn't balanced. The tgen/inhib's design isn't mentioned a ton here because that isn't the point of the post.

What? How is that at all a reasonable response? I'm suggesting that the reason you feel slowness isn't balanced is because of other unbalanced aspects of Conquest. Because it's not directly related to your argument against the slowness module it's somehow not relevant?

If someone makes a post under a thread titled "Remove the Slowness Module or Combine it with the Laser Module" one would assume he is accrediting his post to correlate to the topic being discussed, no?

One would assume that, yes, unless their post is also filled with other complaints. I really don't understand why you're clinging to my response to ModernMozart. All I want is for him to explain what about slowness he feels is unbalanced, rather than using unrelated complaints about the pearl cooldown and getting ganged up on.

Throwing out baseless accusations that you're pushing some sort of agenda? Everyone pushes their own agenda with their argument, that's not even an insult so I am not sure why you're taking it as one? Every single person that ever proposes an argument does so to further their agenda, my agenda is to try and make Loka a more balanced and fun server that my friends and I enjoy playing on, hence why I put time, effort, and money into it. Agenda's aren't a bad thing, it literally means to strongly promote the things you want to get done, I do apologize if you took it that way though.

Then why would you use "agenda" in a negative manner? You accused me of "ignoring the very obvious issues that exist to further [my] own agenda". Do you not think I also strive to balance Loka? You're right that agendas aren't necessarily a bad thing, but the way you used the word suggests you think my agenda is less pure than yours.

For someone who is constantly criticizes others for "not reading" you sure did miss what I was saying an awful lot.

 

[Malen]

I'm not discrediting that. You accused me of ignoring your post and countered my belief that we need more real fights by saying you tested it a lot in /c train in addition to the single real fight. I rebutted that by saying /c train is not equal to a real fight. Nowhere did I say testing in /c train was useless, I'm saying that even with extensive /c train testing, its no replacement for real fights, which I feel are needed to see what needs to be balanced.

Normally you don't discredit something by not mentioning at all in your first response to something.

What? How is that at all a reasonable response? I'm suggesting that the reason you feel slowness isn't balanced is because of other unbalanced aspects of Conquest. Because it's not directly related to your argument against the slowness module it's somehow not relevant?

The post is a suggestion to remove/combine existing modules, some of the reasoning aside it has nothing to do with the design of a tgen/inhib. Just because there is an apparent issue with tgens/inhibs design, doesn't mean that negates the entirety of the post.

One would assume that, yes, unless their post is also filled with other complaints. I really don't understand why you're clinging to my response to ModernMozart. All I want is for him to explain what about slowness he feels is unbalanced, rather than using unrelated complaints about the pearl cooldown and getting ganged up on.

I've explained this already, it's obvious why he brought those issues up.

Then why would you use "agenda" in a negative manner? You accused me of "ignoring the very obvious issues that exist to further [my] own agenda". Do you not think I also strive to balance Loka? You're right that agendas aren't necessarily a bad thing, but the way you used the word suggests you think my agenda is less pure than yours.

Who said I used it in a negative manner? I never said we had polarizing views, you assuming the worst of me is not my fault. Saying I hold better views for my friends and I in terms of what we would like and think would make the server better is quite normal. I believe everyone has different approaches and think in terms of what would work out best for them, and in some cases that blinds some to issues that others do see. I never used agenda in a negative manner, sorry you perceived it that way.

For someone who is constantly criticizes others for "not reading" you sure did miss what I was saying an awful lot.

I mean coming from someone who completely ignored half of what I said and made me quote myself, that's a bit ironic.

 

[ModernMozart1787]

These are all really bold claims to make after just a single fight with the new slowness module, especially considering that the defenders were able to get plenty of kills at the inhibitor despite there being also slowness module on it. When we had the weakness module we also had the old buff module that lowered lamp overload damage from 33% to 20%, increasing the total charges needed per lamp from 3 to 5. This module increased the effectiveness of weakness by making it harder to destroy. We've also reduced the time it takes to overload a lamp as well as reduced golem respawn time in an effort to make it easier to get charges off on important modules.



Your complaints seem completely irrelevant to the thread. People gang up on you because they probably see you as an easy kill, not because of a slowness module. And why does the pearl cooldown prevent you from pearling back to your inhib? Don't blame your missed pearls on the system.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like you're complaining about getting ganged up on and the pearl cooldown, then using that as your reasoning behind why the slowness module should be "removed completely". Can you elaborate if that's not the case?

I could pearl back to the inhib, and I didn't misspearl, but they had pearls too, and I couldn't run or even move properly because of the slowness. I think you missed my entire point.

 

[Skuhoo]

Normally you don't discredit something by not mentioning at all in your first response to something.

You're absolutely right. Not mentioning something does not in any way mean you're discrediting it. I'm not exactly sure what you meant to write, but I assume you're trying to say that failing to directly talk about something means you're discrediting it. That is just objectively untrue. My post also made no mention of global warming. Am I discrediting that as well? The act of discrediting something isn't a passive action. What I did do is discredit using /c train to test as an equal replacement to real fights, but not /c train as a whole.

I've explained this already, it's obvious why he brought those issues up.

How does slowness affect one's ability to pearl out of a dangerous situation? It's true that slowness would reduce the maximum range of an enderpearl throw, but the amount it'd reduce it by is negligible and certainly wouldn't reduce it enough to prevent someone from escaping. Additionally, way before slowness was changed, whenever I've seen people like ModernMozart in a fight they're always getting ganged up on. ModernMozart's status quo has not changed whatsoever with the module update. This is why I want him to elaborate on what he finds wrong with the current implementation of the slowness module.

Who said I used it in a negative manner? I never said we had polarizing views, you assuming the worst of me is not my fault. Saying I hold better views for my friends and I in terms of what we would like and think would make the server better is quite normal. I believe everyone has different approaches and think in terms of what would work out best for them, and in some cases that blinds some to issues that others do see. I never used agenda in a negative manner, sorry you perceived it that way.

This just screams of backpedaling after you figured out you put yourself in an indefensible position.
For context, you claimed that I was "ignoring the very obvious issues that exist to further [my] own agenda". If you believed my "agenda" was to balance the server, why would I ignore issues? How would that help me balance the server? If you didn't think my agenda was to balance the server, then what else would it be other than something that would benefit me personally? Do you see how no matter what your claims don't hold up? You tried to attack my character and it didn't work out. There's no need to go through ridiculous mental gymnastics to try excusing yourself.

The post is a suggestion to remove/combine existing modules, some of the reasoning aside it has nothing to do with the design of a tgen/inhib. Just because there is an apparent issue with tgens/inhibs design, doesn't mean that negates the entirety of the post.

If I thought tgen/inhib design issues completely negated your post then my only response would be talking about tgen/inhib design issues. I simply suggested that other, more core issues like tgen/inhib design could be the reason behind why you think slowness is unbalanced.

 

[Malen]

You're absolutely right. Not mentioning something does not in any way mean you're discrediting it. I'm not exactly sure what you meant to write, but I assume you're trying to say that failing to directly talk about something means you're discrediting it. That is just objectively untrue. My post also made no mention of global warming. Am I discrediting that as well? The act of discrediting something isn't a passive action. What I did do is discredit using /c train to test as an equal replacement to real fights, but not /c train as a whole.


How does slowness affect one's ability to pearl out of a dangerous situation? It's true that slowness would reduce the maximum range of an enderpearl throw, but the amount it'd reduce it by is negligible and certainly wouldn't reduce it enough to prevent someone from escaping. Additionally, way before slowness was changed, whenever I've seen people like ModernMozart in a fight they're always getting ganged up on. ModernMozart's status quo has not changed whatsoever with the module update. This is why I want him to elaborate on what he finds wrong with the current implementation of the slowness module.



This just screams of backpedaling after you figured out you put yourself in an indefensible position.
For context, you claimed that I was "ignoring the very obvious issues that exist to further [my] own agenda". If you believed my "agenda" was to balance the server, why would I ignore issues? How would that help me balance the server? If you didn't think my agenda was to balance the server, then what else would it be other than something that would benefit me personally? Do you see how no matter what your claims don't hold up? You tried to attack my character and it didn't work out. There's no need to go through ridiculous mental gymnastics to try excusing yourself.


If I thought tgen/inhib design issues completely negated your post then my only response would be talking about tgen/inhib design issues. I simply suggested that other, more core issues like tgen/inhib design could be the reason behind why you think slowness is unbalanced.

I'm about to sleep so I'm not gonna put much time into this atm, but to touch on some things.

You're absolutely right. Not mentioning something does not in any way mean you're discrediting it. I'm not exactly sure what you meant to write, but I assume you're trying to say that failing to directly talk about something means you're discrediting it. That is just objectively untrue. My post also made no mention of global warming. Am I discrediting that as well? The act of discrediting something isn't a passive action. What I did do is discredit using /c train to test as an equal replacement to real fights, but not /c train as a whole.

When you are directly responding to my statement about experience with a module and ignore the fact that /c train was paired with an actual conquest fight in my reasoning, that is discrediting it, you're just simply wrong and grasping for straws by trying to parallel a completely polarized thought.

This just screams of backpedaling after you figured out you put yourself in an indefensible position.
For context, you claimed that I was "ignoring the very obvious issues that exist to further [my] own agenda". If you believed my "agenda" was to balance the server, why would I ignore issues? How would that help me balance the server? If you didn't think my agenda was to balance the server, then what else would it be other than something that would benefit me personally? Do you see how no matter what your claims don't hold up? You tried to attack my character and it didn't work out. There's no need to go through ridiculous mental gymnastics to try excusing yourself.

The fact you don't understand server's can be balanced in multiple fashions show you clearly are thinking about this in a very narrow minded way. There is dozens of ways to balance Loka and certain aspects of each different system very obviously benefit one side more than another while still being towards a more balanced Loka, i.e. Slowness being removed, Tgens/Inhibs design, any module's changes, etc. Also the fact you are claiming what I've said was to attack your character is laughable, if I wanted to do that I would resort to ad hominem, please don't flatter yourself, there is no mental gymnastics.

 

[S4NTA]

Just remove all modules on balak. Being serious. Put everyone on equal ground, there's no reason whatsoever to have a defenders advantage there.

 

[kallious]

This thread has been here for a bit now and yet there has been nearly no real discussion on the topic despite the amount of posts. After reading the initial post I understand why this is. It's not about the idea of the post, so much as it is about the post itself The point of a suggestion is to try and convey something that you want to change, and have other people discuss the change. However bad comprehension can hurt people’s ability to understand your post. There’s a lot of areas in your initial post and responses where poor writing is seriously detracting from what you’re saying.

One of the most glaring issues is the sheer amount of run-on sentences being used. Your initial post has an average sentence length of 30 words. That's insane. Longer sentences that are trying to shove two or three ideas at the reader make it harder for any of these points to be fully looked at, and should be shortened.Another issue is that extra words are being added to sentences that don't need them. This isn’t an essay and you’re five hundred words under the requirement, this is you making a discussion post. Extra words don’t do anything but detract from the point you are trying to make.

I think everyone on Loka can agree defending is much easier to do than attacking, in a very noticeable way. And whilst I think most would agree it should be that way, there is a reason Inhibs get a single module that dies after a lamp is broken on the Tgen, and Tgens get four modules, that is their advantage as the defenders.

For example, right here you repeat the the same point across two different sentences. The only thing this is going to do is annoy readers and distract them from what you're saying. Removing "And whilst I think most would agree it should be that way" from the second sentence here would help with the coherence greatly. In addition, why bother putting "in a noticeable way" to the first sentence here? What does this add to anything?

If you look at all fights so far on Balak there has been one, a single attack that has been won, excluding fights where Dong Dank in month one of Balak would claim and then not have anyone to defend (1-2 DD members showing up to defend).

This would be much better being shortened to just "So far on Balak there has been one attack that has been won, excluding fights where Dong Dank did not have anyone to defend."

The single fight that was won was Elysia vs Iblis on Tile 1, and I can honestly say we shouldn't have won that fight, unfortunately for Iblis a lot of their key members were not able to appear due to irl commitments I would assume, you can see here they are missing many of their top players whilst Elysia had most of our main fighters.

And here you have four sentences mashed together with commas. Why? How does turning four sentences into a single sentence using commas add anything to what you're trying to say? This is just the first two paragraphs of your post. The rest of it is littered with extra words and run on sentences.

If you want people to take your suggestions seriously, you're going to want to take your own suggestion seriously too. This was embarrassing to read and a waste of time.

 

[Skuhoo]

Let me break down what's happened as I understand it:

1. You claimed that after a real conquest fight and testing in /c train, you feel slowness is overpowered
2. I said that I believe more real fights are needed before determining if slowness is an issue
3. You claimed I ignored your testing in /c train
4. I explained why I felt /c train isn't an accurate simulation of a real conquest fight and reiterated that I believe more real fights are needed to determine where the issues are
5. You claimed I'm trying to discredit your efforts in /c train
6. I explained how I'm not trying to discredit /c train, but simply believe the current efforts put into testing are not sufficient without more real fights.
7. You claimed that not mentioning /c train in my first response is discrediting it
8. I argued otherwise, and said that not talking about something isn't enough to discredit it

Now, after all of that, you're trying to claim that not explicitly saying "I recognize your efforts in /c train but don't feel they're a sufficient replacement for a real fight" somehow discredits /c train entirely while simultaneously saying that I'm "grasping for straws". Do you understand how ridiculous that is?

Your objective with a suggestion thread should be to convince others to support your viewpoint. Accusing people of not reading your mess of a post and "pushing their agendas" has completely derailed this thread to the point where you're not going to convince anyone not already sharing your beliefs to agree with you.

In an effort to get the thread back on topic, I will again post my criticism of your suggestion concisely in the hopes that you will address it:

I feel an insufficient amount of experience has been had with these new modules/mechanics. /c train's expansion has been a great addition to the server but due to a list of reasons, it's not a substitute for the real thing. More real Conquest fights are needed to determine where and what the issues are with the balance as we've only had a single real fight with modules this month.
.

 

[ModernMozart1787]

This is why I want him to elaborate on what he finds wrong with the current implementation of the slowness module.

I am quite happy to do so. Normally, speed II is an important asset to a conquest fight, but this completely negates it for one side while the other side keeps it and gives them a massively unfair advantage. For instance, if you get an enemy player low, they can just run and it's very hard to catch up even with pearls because of the cooldown. Think about it, if a player runs from you and you throw a pearl to catch up, they can then throw a pearl and you can't pearl for another 12 seconds, which gives them time to heal and your advantage is gone. The same works in reverse. If you're low it gives you no chance to run whatsoever while they can just crit you out. If something in here doesn't make sense, or if I missed something, please tell me.