Critical Hit Restrictions?

LunarFog wrote:
Haha.  You aren't even being serious anymore are you?  You might never have said it flat out but the fact is that you're saying BS is fine as it is, and as it is right now the PvP revolves around it.  I can deal with it fine.  I never lose and the majority of my kills are all from bs. 


And why are you even talking about ganking in the first place?  This thread is about the BS problem.

O1va_ wrote:Now that is entirely your own proplem and fault, if you choose to revolve your gameplay around a single winning tactic, don't blame others for doing it to you. And now you're joking, no-one never loses.

I'm talking about ganking because all your suggestion was ever going to change was making fighting ganks even harder, and as many duelists never fight ganks (unless forced) I'm bringing a point of view in to the conversation that might not be considered otherwise. No need for your arrogance.

LunarFog wrote:

O1va_ wrote:Now that is entirely your own proplem and fault, if you choose to revolve your gameplay around a single winning tactic, don't blame others for doing it to you. And now you're joking, no-one never loses.

I'm talking about ganking because all your suggestion was ever going to change was making fighting ganks even harder, and as many duelists never fight ganks (unless forced) I'm bringing a point of view in to the conversation that might not be considered otherwise. No need for your arrogance.

My gameplay doesn't revolve around bs fishing.  It revolves around counter bs fishing.  See the difference?  And do you see how sad the situation suddenly got?  I guess you wouldn't.  Since you seem to be flip-flopping around whether or not you think ganking is a problem based on if you could use it to support some asinine point.


If you don't realize how many garbage windows for BSing my suggestion would close in 1v1 fights then you're apparently not very adept at PvP and in that case I shouldn't even be bothering.

O1va_ wrote:
Your suggestion was that you couldn't be BSd if you're not in some animation. If you're not in an animation it's already pretty hard to BS you, unless you're just standing still or running at me. I don't see how that solves anything. Sure BS fishers are boring to fight, but even without BS those people would find whatever works best and rely on that one tactick, which would still be boring to fight. Thats not an issue with mechanics it's about playstyle.

So don't bother, I'll do the same.

LunarFog wrote:It's hard to BS?  In what way?  Even without any lag you can easily lure someone into a backstab almost as easily as you can counter that with a backstab.  Backstabbing is easier and more viable to do in a fight than to turtle successfully.


Your argument of "don't fix backstabs because the people who BS fish will just find another way to be boring" makes about as much sense as "don't arrest anyone breaking the law because other people will still break it".  If they find a mechanic to abuse that is actually functional and not broken then that'd be perfect.

LunarFog wrote:

O1va_ wrote:
Your suggestion was that you couldn't be BSd if you're not in some animation. If you're not in an animation it's already pretty hard to BS you, unless you're just standing still or running at me. I don't see how that solves anything. Sure BS fishers are boring to fight, but even without BS those people would find whatever works best and rely on that one tactick, which would still be boring to fight. Thats not an issue with mechanics it's about playstyle.

So don't bother, I'll do the same.

It's hard to BS?  In what way?  Even without any lag you can easily lure someone into a backstab almost as easily as you can counter that with a backstab.  Backstabbing is easier and more viable to do in a fight than to turtle successfully.


Your argument of "don't fix backstabs because the people who BS fish will just find another way to be boring" makes about as much sense as "don't arrest anyone breaking the law because other people will still break it".  If they find a mechanic to abuse that is actually functional and not broken then that'd be perfect.

O1va_ wrote:

LunarFog wrote:It's hard to BS?  In what way?  Even without any lag you can easily lure someone into a backstab almost as easily as you can counter that with a backstab.  Backstabbing is easier and more viable to do in a fight than to turtle successfully.


Your argument of "don't fix backstabs because the people who BS fish will just find another way to be boring" makes about as much sense as "don't arrest anyone breaking the law because other people will still break it".  If they find a mechanic to abuse that is actually functional and not broken then that'd be perfect.

You say that BS mechanic is broken, then that you only counter BS fish and now you say you lure people to BS and then counter it? What are these luring tactics? To me it's pretty obvious when someone is going for BS, and I allmost never get BSd unless I made an error. Fighting someone with any competence you're not just going to BS, they'll just counter you. How can it be easy to counter and be viable at the same time?

Last part of your post made no sense at all.

LunarFog wrote:The problem with that statement though, is that backstabbing isn't meant to be a playstyle in the first place.  Am I wrong? 

LunarFog wrote:You should at least put in the effort required to make sure you're reading properly.  I never said that I lure people to BS.  Let me take a step back and slow it down for you.


I'm sure that if you tried your super hardest, you can understand that anything can be countered, even the most safe and viable techniques like turtle poking, and dark bead/pursuers spam.  Backstabbing, the thing we're currently about, is much like one of those playstyles.    The problem with that statement though, is that backstabbing isn't meant to be a playstyle in the first place.  Am I wrong?  

And I'm sorry for using that analogy you didn't get.  I should have been more considerate to your limited understanding and only use the simplest of ideas and sentences so you can understand me better.  That was completely my fault.

O1va_ wrote:

LunarFog wrote:You should at least put in the effort required to make sure you're reading properly.  I never said that I lure people to BS.  Let me take a step back and slow it down for you.


I'm sure that if you tried your super hardest, you can understand that anything can be countered, even the most safe and viable techniques like turtle poking, and dark bead/pursuers spam.  Backstabbing, the thing we're currently about, is much like one of those playstyles.    The problem with that statement though, is that backstabbing isn't meant to be a playstyle in the first place.  Am I wrong?  

And I'm sorry for using that analogy you didn't get.  I should have been more considerate to your limited understanding and only use the simplest of ideas and sentences so you can understand me better.  That was completely my fault.

Why would there be weapons with poor damage on normal attacs and boosted criticals if they were not meant to be used for criticals?

Your analogy and the rest of the paragraph made no sense, I never said I didn't understood the words you were using. Maybe instead of slowing down you should go to the playground and play with the other kids, there you can win an argument by being the loudest, I have no need for your condescending attitude. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees with you.

Jansports wrote:

LunarFog wrote:The problem with that statement though, is that backstabbing isn't meant to be a playstyle in the first place.  Am I wrong? 

 Yes you are.

Playstyles develope based on what's possible within the game. Exclusively using bleed weapons, trying to stunlock with hammers, using 58 casts of GC(it is some peoples favorite sword) and yes even exclusively looking for a chance to critical are all play styles that have developed throughout the course of this game.

On what authority can you even begin to define what is and is not meant to be a playstyle? If it's doable in game then logically it could become a play style.

Serious_Much wrote:you know you could just talk to two people in one post, lunar. Besides, I don't think anyone really minds double posting if I'm honest. It's never bothered me and I've done it occasionally

Serious_Much wrote:On the posting bit, there is a page icon at the top with all the buttons that changes the editor mode back to how it used to be so you can do everything easily again. I can't use the new formatting either

Jansports wrote:

On what authority can you even begin to define what is and is not meant to be a playstyle? If it's doable in game then logically it could become a play style.

LunarFog wrote:Now think of backstabs.  There's a thing called "Dominant Strategy" and basically what that means is that if one strategy is better than any others, players will use it even if it's a bug, faulty programming, cheap, a mechanic that needs to be fixed, or any other word you want to use to describe backstabs.  

You're confusing "Possible Playstyles" with "Intended Playstyles".

SirArchmage wrote:I rather like the way they are implementing it in Dark Souls 2. Currently it's just a bit too easy  

SirArchmage wrote: and powerful