Rage? Or Nah?

Rage? Or Nah? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel Suggestions

Message

The berserker killer -> Rage? Or Nah? (12/28/2015 17:08:00)
I would like for there to be a feature that prompts the user, upon rage, whether or not they would like to rage the following attack or not

Foulman -> RE: Rage? Or Nah? (12/28/2015 20:43:08)
Not supported, I like to force people to choose between raging a nuke or a rageable energy skill.

One Winged Angel1357 -> RE: Rage? Or Nah? (12/28/2015 21:31:32)
It would be a fun test for tactics. Having the ability to choose your nuke at the cost of leaving yourself open to rage stealing moves for a longer period of time would promote some fun tricks

Foulman -> RE: Rage? Or Nah? (12/28/2015 23:03:55)
Actually, now that I think about it, it could be a way to buff merc, seeing as they are based on Rage control. I support it now.

One Winged Angel1357 -> RE: Rage? Or Nah? (12/29/2015 0:46:14)
With the planned removal of overlapping skills you could probably add rage control to a different class so if the meta shifts so that rage nukes are all the rage, couldn't help myself sorry, you have two classes that could be viable counters instead of just surgical strike and platinum's fury

Silver Sky Magician -> RE: Rage? Or Nah? (12/29/2015 2:22:32)
Not supported. This would severely penalise all strategies that attempt to waste an opponent's rage, notably those using the Ice Shield, Katherax's Curse and Azrael's Will cores. The few rage-draining skills/cores that exists are entirely predictable and easy to mitigate - this suggestion will reduce, not enhance, strategic play. Being able to keep rage at 100% while still attacking is having your cake and eating it too - this is not strategic play, which requires balancing trade-offs.

Satafou -> RE: Rage? Or Nah? (12/29/2015 6:12:46)
Not supported for the same reasons as silver sky magician, with the addition of the fact that currently making use of timing your rage is already strategic. You could say that even choosing to skip a turn inorder to not waste rage is very tactical. The implemention of this feature would just be a waste of time and actually do the opposite of it's desired effect.

The berserker killer -> RE: Rage? Or Nah? (12/29/2015 10:43:35)
So devs would rather think of skipping a turn in a PVP game to be more tactical than choosing to rage or not? Okay well that clears up a lot. If tactics like using azrael is your main concern, then why not just implement an exception where one will rage if their rage bar is full and you are forced... I mean if you want to talk about how "having your cake and eating it" is such a bad idea then I don't understand the tm assimilation change to sword requirement or many other changes in this game? Making azrael force a player to rage is the perfect fix that will solve everyones problems with this thread. Yet the problem forums nowadays is that instead offering suggestions to make an idea better you guys just veto.

One Winged Angel1357 -> RE: Rage? Or Nah? (12/29/2015 10:56:12)
If the problem is saving Rage makes moves to counter Rage useless why not have to player pick if they are using Rage prior to their opponents turn and have it very telegraphed that next round is Rage so you can shield or debuff as needed. And like ghost god said forced attacks would force Rage. Saving Rage again becomes a liability and not a win win because your opponents would have all the information needed to stop you when you decide to Rage and to punish you for every turn you are saving Rage

The berserker killer -> RE: Rage? Or Nah? (12/29/2015 11:05:52)
My point exactly, it's not as if you can save rage at all times. When youre forced you are still forced to use your rage and for every turn you decide to save your rage you risk it being loss.

Satafou -> RE: Rage? Or Nah? (12/29/2015 11:39:31)
Skipping a turn isn't the only way to conserve your rage lol... You can heal, shield, and energy drain. This idea is just pointless as it really doesn't offer anything. If this was implemented it would make no difference towards PVP and quite frankly it would prove to be a waste of time. There are far more major concerns this game has to worry about, not to mention that this game will inevitably die out in the not so distant future. The gifting event at the moment is just to pocket some extra cash for funding future projects not concerning the current ED. It's quite obvious that the devs have no interest in wasting time and effort on a game that's past it's expiration date.

The berserker killer -> RE: Rage? Or Nah? (12/29/2015 12:25:14)
If it would make no difference to pvp and be a waste of time then why veto it? Just becomes an idea seems futile to one doesn't mean it's futile to all. I've been in a ton of situations where I cant use a single move besides strike, but I would not like to rage strike (instead I am waiting for a skill to cooldown). As for the rest of your comment, it has nothing to do with this thread so forgive me for not responding to it.

Satafou -> RE: Rage? Or Nah? (12/29/2015 12:34:55)
I've played this game for over 6 years and there has never been a situation where i haven't been able to use an alternative instead of strike. You clearly lack the ability to make use efficent strategic planning if you have in fact been unable to use anything but strike in a battle, yet you want the devs to implement an idea of yours involving strategy despite lacking it in your play yourself? This suggestion is utterly pointless and the devs will not bother to waste any braincells even debating whether it's even a feasible option to implement this.

The berserker killer -> RE: Rage? Or Nah? (12/29/2015 13:00:51)
Well I do appreciate your input

Exploding Penguin -> RE: Rage? Or Nah? (12/29/2015 16:52:37)
Not supported, rage should have limitations because managing your own rage gain in and of itself is pretty important. It would also indirectly nerf tanks a bit since your tankbusting attack can now be used whenever you want after it's charged, forcing people to burn field medic when you can still save your rage. I might have liked this suggestion more if it was implemented when we couldn't see each other's rage.

Silver Sky Magician -> RE: Rage? Or Nah? (12/29/2015 18:39:13)
Even with OWA's suggestion, the result will be less strategic play since the need to manage cooldowns before rage is lessened. This will be an overwhelming buff to offensive playstyles because of the dearth of defensive rage-control options. You can't expect everyone to find 160 energy for Azrael's Will or use Cyber Yeti to respond to this change. In other words, players on defense will have to scramble for options while offensive playstyles can manage rage with no risk. Most importantly, this suggestion is unnecessary. It doesn't address any significant issue in the game. If one needs to skip, just skip. I would however be open to this idea if it were a core.

Cyber Dream -> RE: Rage? Or Nah? (12/29/2015 18:58:46)
Instead of rage being controllable , how about we have a rage round where each player can perform a rage attack. Rage rounds should loop, like every 10 turns you have a rage round. To me, this can bring strategy. Lets say player x gets rage before player b. Then player b can heal prior to the rage round, or take the opponents mana which could leave them with a gun attack, normal strike, or robot attack. If you use a heal/ buff (blood commander, field medic, hybrid armor, assault bot debuff, etc) in a rage round then you won't be able to use rage until another rage round comes up. Though the mercenary skill adrenaline rush will have to be worked. Could this be the solution for rage? (This was one of my earlier suggestions I posted a while back concerning this same issue, so there may be some things that don't make sense concerning the current stage of ED.)

The berserker killer -> RE: Rage? Or Nah? (1/2/2016 22:45:43)
A core....So would that be a passive armor core? Im not really sure how that would work. @Cyber Dream- Well rage was made to penetrate insane defenses, just like Crits. So by having rage rounds you will slow the game dramatically and force players to use insane defense builds. Surgical strike would also be useless

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition

9.399414E-02