lazy
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by lazy on Apr 9, 2013 22:38:41 GMT -5
Would anyone be opposed to a 1 inf/team limit, no sonic punch, and shocklance unbanned on everything except inf?
|
|
clout
New Member
Posts: 41
|
Post by clout on Apr 9, 2013 23:41:21 GMT -5
Those all sound like good ideas to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by mythdemeanor on Apr 10, 2013 1:40:42 GMT -5
Would it be better to ban Reach on INF instead of banning sonic punch? Near impossible to get instant returns with Sonic without Reach, and it would leave PTH standoff open to use it, while nerfing INF capping at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by tavarner17 on Apr 10, 2013 2:24:19 GMT -5
Would it be better to ban Reach on INF instead of banning sonic punch? Near impossible to get instant returns with Sonic without Reach, and it would leave PTH standoff open to use it, while nerfing INF capping at the same time. +1 |
|
|
|
Post by vornskr on Apr 10, 2013 2:51:40 GMT -5
Would it be better to ban Reach on INF instead of banning sonic punch? Near impossible to get instant returns with Sonic without Reach, and it would leave PTH standoff open to use it, while nerfing INF capping at the same time. +1 +1 tavarner is wise like an owl. please do as he says. |
|
|
|
Post by tavarner17 on Apr 10, 2013 4:09:07 GMT -5
+1 tavarner is wise like an owl. please do as he says.  |
|
|
|
Post by bootswiththefur on Apr 10, 2013 4:41:40 GMT -5
I support tavarner's suggestion. I also feel like banning LW on inf would do a lot do prevent inf backslides + disc + punt on drydock.
|
|
|
|
Post by mythdemeanor on Apr 10, 2013 4:43:01 GMT -5
wow k fuck you all where's my glory
|
|
|
|
Post by vornskr on Apr 10, 2013 5:15:12 GMT -5
clearly typing +1 took more wisdom than making a good proposal.
i'll bake you cookies?
But seriously, it sounds like a pretty sound idea to me.
|
|
clout
New Member
Posts: 41
|
Post by clout on Apr 10, 2013 13:06:38 GMT -5
Reach ban on Inf only is a great idea. Not only will it reduce the # of sonic insta-returns but it will nerf inf capping a little, making it so you actually have to clear the HoF for the inf grab to work. As it is right now you can toe grab over the HoFs head even if he is standing directly on stand.
Though I still think being able to instantly put the flag into the field from invisibility is pretty cheesy, boring and low-skill and should be removed.
|
|
|
|
Post by playbox on Apr 10, 2013 13:13:44 GMT -5
All of the above suggestions around INF sound like the right direction.
What I would find incredibly interesting is banning INF and any flag-force dropping belt items. (i.e. no more concs)
|
|
|
|
Post by tavarner17 on Apr 10, 2013 14:05:53 GMT -5
All of the above suggestions around INF sound like the right direction. What I would find incredibly interesting is banning INF and any flag-force dropping belt items. (i.e. no more concs) I think concs are necessary for stopping Soldier cappers, cluster plays, and heavies, considering how weak defense is right now. No concs would also change standoffs, instead of being focused almost exclusively on dueling. I would be down to play with it for a little bit to see for sure though. On Infs, honestly I don't remember the last time I saw a Sonic Punch return in game. I think the Jammer pack buff balanced it pretty well. |
|
|
|
Post by playbox on Apr 10, 2013 14:14:46 GMT -5
I agree with that tavern, it would just be interesting to test how bad it may get. I wish the jammer was buffed in terms of revealing INFs in an area - they still can get very close without revealing themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by blakwidow on Apr 10, 2013 19:26:12 GMT -5
If we were to ban concs, then we will have to ban egocentric on soldier.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidbowie on Apr 10, 2013 20:18:36 GMT -5
I dont see a good reason to ban concs, and taking away ego wont stop SLD capping.
I would rather Ban reach on inf only than ban SSF. Agree that without reach sonic punch would not be all that good.
|
|
