91 réponses à ce sujet

[themaxzero]

GracefulChicken wrote...

themaxzero wrote...

GracefulChicken wrote...

themaxzero wrote...

GracefulChicken wrote...
Unless you're constantly nova cancelling, it's only real use is in really really bad situations, to get around a corner when no life and close to null barriers, then you stop cancelling. Every class has a similar thing they rely on in an "oh ****" situation, it just doesn't require the timing nova cancelling does, which speaks more for the Vanguard player if anything.

Seriously are some of you Vanguard players playing any other classes? Or above Bronze difficulty?

Basically no other class has anything like invulnerability and before you say Cloak, popping that under fire and trying to run out will get you killed.

"Look at me i'm spamming invulnerability, I am skilled!"

And running around nova cancelling when you're nearly dead will get you killed just as quick. And you say "you vanguard players," when infact, I'm a mass effect player. I can play all of the classes well, although I prefer others. My favourite class happens to be Infiltrators, so how about that? 

And of course I play on Silver and Gold. Bronze is boring past level 6, but necesary until like 13 or so. Past that, I play exclusively on silver until the character I'm on is 19 or 20, then I play exclusively gold with that character, and I've done this for ever class except one so far (the Adept, if you're curious). Sorry if you don't like the nova cancelling, but it was clearly designed just like I pointed out in my first post, so don't get mad at players for using it, especially because it does nothing but help you...

Clearly designed? Pure opinion. How do you know cancelled Nova's are meant to keep invulnerability? You don't, so don't make it up.

Well, if you cared to read my first post, you'd see I give you evidence that it's designed that way. The Claymore reload trick works on the same principle (animation cancelling), and it was stated by the dev who designed it that it was on purpose. There's no reason to think Nova cancelling isnt on purpose as well, considering how it's one of the one skill animations you can cancel. The chances of that being by accident are pretty low...please don't make me state all this a THIRD time because you're butthurt over something that helps you anyways..

Who said anything about Nova Cancelling? We are talking about the immunity being carried over. You claim it's designed, I say it's a unintended. Both are opinions, the difference is I don't claim mine as fact.

[GracefulChicken]

Of course it would be carried over by default... it's the frames in the animation that have the invincibility. So, for example, frames 1-10 have invincibility, so when you nova cancel, you cancel as close to that 10th frame as possible (street fighter fans understand this timing better than anyone, Ithink) to maximize the time you're invincible. The part that tells me it's designed is that you can cancel EXACTLY on that "10th" frame. If it was by mistake, you'd assume the cancel-cutoff as it were would be a few frames off, but it's dead on. A frame is 1/60th of a second, which is a pretty precise thing to hit without trying for it.

Basically, if the animation goes, so do all of it's traits. There's active frames on Nova you can't cancel during, which are also parts you aren't immune... hmm, I wonder why that is. 

Modifié par GracefulChicken, 03 mars 2012 - 05:22 .

[themaxzero]

GracefulChicken wrote...

Of course it would be carried over by default... it's the frames in the animation that have the invincibility. So, for example, frames 1-10 have invincibility, so when you nova cancel, you cancel as close to that 10th frame as possible (street fighter fans understand this timing better than anyone, Ithink) to maximize the time you're invincible. The part that tells me it's designed is that you can cancel EXACTLY on that "10th" frame. If it was by mistake, you'd assume the cancel-cutoff as it were would be a few frames off, but it's dead on. A frame is 1/60th of a second, which is a pretty precise thing to hit without trying for it.

Or it could just be a bug which gives you unintended invulnrability on a class that is one of the strongest in the game even without using it.



Working as intended according to GracefulChicken.

Modifié par themaxzero, 03 mars 2012 - 05:27 .

[GracefulChicken]

I'll agree it could just be a bug. And if it is, until it gets patched, exploit the hell out of it for everyone's mutual gain. Problem? We all win in the end from it. Not like everyone is going to play Vanguards because of it.

[themaxzero]

GracefulChicken wrote...

I'll agree it could just be a bug. And if it is, until it gets patched, exploit the hell out of it for everyone's mutual gain. Problem? We all win in the end from it. Not like everyone is going to play Vanguards because of it.

I have a level 20 Vanguard. Why would I care?

Why does it take 3 pages and what, 50 posts, to agree that it might well be a bug and that Vanguards don't need it to get by?

I mean seriously.

If you had just said this as your first post I wouldn't of said a thing.

[GracefulChicken]

I think I said "it benefits everyone," or "it only helps you in the end," or something to that effect in the first 3 posts I made. So, I kind of did say that. I just think it looks designed, it could be a bug. I didn't develop the game, how the hell would I know? I stated my evidence for what I thought. I was under the assumption that's how debates work. And I also said I never really use the "glitch" because it isn't as helpful as it's made out to be in a practical situation. That implies we can do without it. I recall saying "they weren't high risk to begin with"

Modifié par GracefulChicken, 03 mars 2012 - 05:36 .

[themaxzero]

GracefulChicken wrote...

I think I said "it benefits everyone," or "it only helps you in the end," or something to that effect in the first 3 posts I made. So, I kind of did say that. I just think it looks designed, it could be a bug. I didn't develop the game, how the hell would I know? I stated my evidence for what I thought. I was under the assumption that's how debates work.

You actually stated your evidence just a few posts ago.

My evidence is a video of it in action and playing it. It looks and feels stupid. Not scientific I know but I suspect a feeling shared by many (if not a strong majority) of players. My reasoning is that immunity is not something that is giving out lightly in games, especially to a class that is called high risk, high reward.

Modifié par themaxzero, 03 mars 2012 - 05:38 .

[GracefulChicken]

Eeehhh, I'm bored of this though. My opinion is out there now. Bug, design, it is what it is.

[Shin0biwan]

themaxzero wrote...
So let me get this straight: you call me a liar. When I offer a way to prove it 100%, you turn it down and still call me a liar? Seriously? Where do you get off?

You can't prove it 100%. The demo is down, and one match wouldn't show you've done gold on every class. AND I don't have a PC for ME3. AND you still haven't haven't addressed the reason I think that (cloaking and running ineffective? laughable). So yes, I still think you're lying and blowing smoke to cover it up.

themaxzero wrote... 
You engaged in hyperbole. I called you on it. Yeah shooting from cover isn't ideal but it's better then dying.

You clearly don't understand the purpose of hyperboles. They're intended to be recognized as an overexaggeration. You simply missed that.

Remember what you're arguing. You're saying that instead of applying a tactic that Vanguards are good at - getting close to deal damage, they should instead hide and shoot behind cover, a tactic that their ability set doesn't support at all. No thanks, I'd rather stick to what they were meant to do.

themaxzero wrote... 
As for the designer quip? Ad hominem AND a strawman. Doubly impressive.

Ad hominems only apply when used as justification for an argument. I clearly marked that comment as an aside. It's also in no way a strawman. I can't even understand why you would say that.

Further, the argument isn't ad hominem. Ad hominems use personal attacks as support for a conclusion. In this case, the comment about the person IS the conclusion.

Major Premise: Good designers use varied mechanics to differentiate classes.
Minor Premise: You would limit the variety of mechanics available to classes in ME3.
Conclusion: You would be a bad designer for ME3.

The argument checks out fine. No ad hominems in either premise.

themaxzero wrote... 
The rest of my posts have been dedicated to a poster who has called me a liar (but is too chicken to take up my offer for evidence)

Speaking of ad hominem....

themaxzero wrote... 
does not understand quoting (gets called out on it and then dodges)

It's absolutely irrelevant to the content of the discussion. You're grasping at straws here.

themaxzero wrote... 
and engages in hyperbole, ad hominem and strawmans.

Hyperbole is an accepted rhetorical device. I've already covered your claim of fallacies. Protip: know how fallacies operate before making an argument based on them.

[themaxzero]

Shin0biwan wrote...

themaxzero wrote...
So let me get this straight: you call me a liar. When I offer a way to prove it 100%, you turn it down and still call me a liar? Seriously? Where do you get off?

You can't prove it 100%. The demo is down, and one match wouldn't show you've done gold on every class. AND I don't have a PC for ME3. AND you still haven't haven't addressed the reason I think that (cloaking and running ineffective? laughable). So yes, I still think you're lying and blowing smoke to cover it up.

themaxzero wrote... 
You engaged in hyperbole. I called you on it. Yeah shooting from cover isn't ideal but it's better then dying.

You clearly don't understand the purpose of hyperboles. They're intended to be recognized as an overexaggeration. You simply missed that.

Remember what you're arguing. You're saying that instead of applying a tactic that Vanguards are good at - getting close to deal damage, they should instead hide and shoot behind cover, a tactic that their ability set doesn't support at all. No thanks, I'd rather stick to what they were meant to do.

themaxzero wrote... 
As for the designer quip? Ad hominem AND a strawman. Doubly impressive.

Ad hominems only apply when used as justification for an argument. I clearly marked that comment as an aside. It's also in no way a strawman. I can't even understand why you would say that.

Further, the argument isn't ad hominem. Ad hominems use personal attacks as support for a conclusion. In this case, the comment about the person IS the conclusion.

Major Premise: Good designers use varied mechanics to differentiate classes.
Minor Premise: You would limit the variety of mechanics available to classes in ME3.
Conclusion: You would be a bad designer for ME3.

The argument checks out fine. No ad hominems in either premise.

themaxzero wrote... 
The rest of my posts have been dedicated to a poster who has called me a liar (but is too chicken to take up my offer for evidence)

Speaking of ad hominem....

themaxzero wrote... 
does not understand quoting (gets called out on it and then dodges)

It's absolutely irrelevant to the content of the discussion. You're grasping at straws here.

themaxzero wrote... 
and engages in hyperbole, ad hominem and strawmans.

Hyperbole is an accepted rhetorical device. I've already covered your claim of fallacies. Protip: know how fallacies operate before making an argument based on them.

How convinient. You keep calling me a liar and claim I have no avenue to prove otherwise. I think it's more likely that you can play ME3 on the PC but your too much of a coward to do it because then you would have to admit you were wrong. Considering I have played a couple of hundred games, N7 of 118 and have every single race and gun unlocked I am pretty comfortable when I claim to have beaten Gold with every class.

Be quite a risk to offer to play MP Gold with someone I don't know if I was lying wouldn't it? I mean it only takes a minute or two to log on. Easily verifiable.

If you are under heavy fire and you cloak you will still die. Enemies still shoot where you stealthed for a few seconds. You can't always move fast enough to get out of the line of fire. Especially on Gold.

Actually my claim was if charging was too dangerous you can shoot. For some reason this is too hard for you. If you are not willing to be flexible with how you play your class you will have trouble.

You minor premise is based on what exactly? How does removing the invulnrability from Nova cancelling imply limited power diversification? Since I have said nothing about removing power variety where exactly does your conclusion that I am a bad designer come from?

It was a personal attack based on nothing so why put it in there? Spite?

Irrevelvant? You were wrong (yet again), I called you out. Man up and admit your mistake.

Modifié par themaxzero, 03 mars 2012 - 06:26 .

[Shin0biwan]

themaxzero wrote...
How convinient. You keep calling me a liar and claim I have no avenue to prove otherwise.

I think you're a liar because you said something absolutely retarded about Infiltrators. You still haven't owned up to that. I still think you're a liar, and every time you ignore your ridiculously stupid comment and try to "prove it" through a method that's TOTALLY UNAVAILABLE (and wouldn't "prove" anything even if it was available), you make yourself look more and more like a liar.

themaxzero wrote... 
If you are under heavy fire and you cloak you will still die. Enemies still shoot where you stealthed for a few seconds. You can't always move fast enough to get out of the line of fire. Especially on Gold.

Only if you stay right next to them. Again, something that someone who's played on gold repeatedly would absolutely know.

themaxzero wrote... 
Actually my claim was if charging was too dangerous you can shoot. For some reason this is too hard for you. If you are not willing to be flexible with how you play your class you will have trouble.

Which was in the context of a discussion about how Vanguards are ineffective against Atlases. Saying that they have to do what they're absolutely worst at against them only proves that point.

themaxzero wrote... 
You minor premise is based on what exactly? How does removing the invulnrability from Nova cancelling imply limited power diversification? Since I have said nothing about removing power variety where exactly does your conclusion that I am a bad designer come from?

You're clearly confused. You said that invulnerability is a mechanic that no one else had. Your implication was that Vanguards shouldn't have it. That's a ridiculous argument because variety of mechanics is a goal sought by developers.

The minor premise is grounded in your own statement.

themaxzero wrote... 
It was a personal attack based on nothing so why put it in there? Spite?

It's to show that you shouldn't be offering opinion on a design decision because you're paricularly bad at it.

themaxzero wrote... 
Irrevelvant? You were wrong (yet again), I called you out. Man up and admit your mistake.

It is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the substance of the conversation. If it was relevant, I'd tell you to man up to the fact that you're ACTUALLY spouting off ad hominems and have been completely wrong about obvious game issues several times throughout the conversation. But it's not, so I didn't go there, even though you're miles ahead of me in terms of mistakes.

Modifié par Shin0biwan, 03 mars 2012 - 06:35 .

[Relix28]

HEAVY NO RISK, BUT THE PRIIIIIZE! /thread

[alex90c]

the first replier to this thread had a jacob avatar

heavy risk ...

[Hyrist]

alex90c wrote...

the first replier to this thread had a jacob avatar

heavy risk ...

Thank you! <3 Oh Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou!

I'd kiss you but I don't know what gender you are!

I'm sitting here skimming through the thread going:



WHY NO U MAKE JAKOB MEME!?

But you have satasfied my slavery to popular media for the moment!


That said, speaking seriously. I'm holding off on the whole Nova Roll cancle issue until the full game is out. It might have already been patched, or it might not be as effective in other wave types.

Modifié par Hyrist, 03 mars 2012 - 06:44 .

[themaxzero]

Shin0biwan wrote...

themaxzero wrote...
How convinient. You keep calling me a liar and claim I have no avenue to prove otherwise.

I think you're a liar because you said something absolutely retarded about Infiltrators. You still haven't owned up to that. I still think you're a liar, and every time you ignore your ridiculously stupid comment and try to "prove it" through a method that's TOTALLY UNAVAILABLE (and wouldn't "prove" anything even if it was available), you make yourself look more and more like a liar.

themaxzero wrote... 
If you are under heavy fire and you cloak you will still die. Enemies still shoot where you stealthed for a few seconds. You can't always move fast enough to get out of the line of fire. Especially on Gold.

Only if you stay right next to them. Again, something that someone who's played on gold repeatedly would absolutely know.

themaxzero wrote... 
Actually my claim was if charging was too dangerous you can shoot. For some reason this is too hard for you. If you are not willing to be flexible with how you play your class you will have trouble.

Which was in the context of a discussion about how Vanguards are ineffective against Atlases. Saying that they have to do what they're absolutely worst at against them only proves that point.

themaxzero wrote... 
You minor premise is based on what exactly? How does removing the invulnrability from Nova cancelling imply limited power diversification? Since I have said nothing about removing power variety where exactly does your conclusion that I am a bad designer come from?

You're clearly confused. You said that invulnerability is a mechanic that no one else had. Your implication was that Vanguards shouldn't have it. That's a ridiculous argument because variety of mechanics is a goal sought by developers.

The minor premise is grounded in your own statement.

themaxzero wrote... 
It was a personal attack based on nothing so why put it in there? Spite?

It's to show that you shouldn't be offering opinion on a design decision because you're paricularly bad at it.

themaxzero wrote... 
Irrevelvant? You were wrong (yet again), I called you out. Man up and admit your mistake.

It is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the substance of the conversation. If it was relevant, I'd tell you to man up to the fact that you're ACTUALLY spouting off ad hominems and have been completely wrong about obvious game issues several times throughout the conversation. But it's not, so I didn't go there, even though you're miles ahead of me in terms of mistakes.

Actually at the time I made the offer I had no idea whether it would be taken up or not. The Demo was up, most people here have access to a computer. It only takes a few minutes to log in and get going. Most people would be keen right?

It seems you want to put up as many barriers as possible for me to prove myself. Suspicious.

Actually not only if you stand right next to them at all. Any Infiltrator on Gold can tell you about the times you Cloak to get away from a Phantom and they pop you from a distance with their hand cannon. Nemesis do it too. Hasn't it ever happened to your Infiltrator on Gold?

Yes it's not great for Vanguards. Is dying better? Learn to be flexible.

My implication? If I wanted all invulnerability removed wouldn't I ask it to be removed off Charge and Nova (uncancelled) too? I have simply asked to be removed from Cancelled Nova. You know this so why do you continue with your flawed premise?

It's a pity you aren't on PC (or so you claim).

Modifié par themaxzero, 03 mars 2012 - 06:50 .

[nuclearpengu1nn]

Why do people use nova cancelling anyway? I saw someone do once and he pretty much didn't even do any damage, unlike the normal nova; which does tons of dmg to barriers and shields.

[Shin0biwan]

themaxzero wrote...
Actually at the time I made the offer I had no idea whether it would be taken up or not. The Demo was up, most people here have access to a computer. It only takes a few minutes to log in and get going.

No it wasn't. The first time you made the offer was here: http://social.biowar...92040/2#9599901 

Timestamp? 2 hours ago. Demo was down. Not doing well for proving yourself not to be lieing.

It seems you want to put up as many barriers as possible for me to prove myself. Suspicious.

themaxzero wrote... 
Actually not only if you stand right next to them at all. Any Infiltrator on Gold can tell you about the times you Cloak to get away from a Phantom and they pop you from a distance with their hand cannon. Nemesis do it too.

Phantoms do have stealth detection, I'll give you that, but it's still plenty viable to run away in time, especially with Energy Drain. It happens very, very often, and to say it's not a viable tactic on gold is completely ridiculous and indicative of you not having much experience on that difficulty.

themaxzero wrote... 
Yes it's not great for Vanguards. Is dying better? Learn to be flexible.

Red herring. The point is that Vanguards don't do well on Atlases and can be killed by them. Saying that you'll die unless you basically do nothing only supports that fact. Learn to make comparative evaluations.

themaxzero wrote... 
My implication? If I wanted all invulnerability removed wouldn't I ask it to be removed off Charge and Nova (uncancelled) too? I have simply asked to be removed from Cancelled Nova. You know this so why do you continue with your flawed premise?

At the point you jumped into the conversation, it was about nerfing Nova in general. It was already established that cancelling Nova into rolls not only isn't overpowered, but doesn't really help at all. If you missed that and kept trying to argue nonetheless, that's your fault.

themaxzero wrote... 
It's a pity you aren't on PC (or so you claim).

In the real world, we don't settle debates with children's card games. The fact that you're resorting to this completely empty threat shows how little ground you have to stand on.

GreyWarden36 wrote...

Why do people use nova cancelling anyway? I saw someone do once and he pretty much didn't even do any damage, unlike the normal nova; which does tons of dmg to barriers and shields.

 

That was my point from page 1. It actually increases the time you're vulnerable and horrendously decreases your damage output. It's not only OP, it's stupid.

Modifié par Shin0biwan, 03 mars 2012 - 06:55 .

[themaxzero]

Shin0biwan wrote...

themaxzero wrote...
Actually at the time I made the offer I had no idea whether it would be taken up or not. The Demo was up, most people here have access to a computer. It only takes a few minutes to log in and get going.

No it wasn't. The first time you made the offer was here: http://social.biowar...92040/2#9599901 

Timestamp? 2 hours ago. Demo was down. Not doing well for proving yourself not to be lieing.

It seems you want to put up as many barriers as possible for me to prove myself. Suspicious.

themaxzero wrote... 
Actually not only if you stand right next to them at all. Any Infiltrator on Gold can tell you about the times you Cloak to get away from a Phantom and they pop you from a distance with their hand cannon. Nemesis do it too.

Phantoms do have stealth detection, I'll give you that, but it's still plenty viable to run away in time, especially with Energy Drain. It happens very, very often, and to say it's not a viable tactic on gold is completely ridiculous and indicative of you not having much experience on that difficulty.

themaxzero wrote... 
Yes it's not great for Vanguards. Is dying better? Learn to be flexible.

Red herring. The point is that Vanguards don't do well on Atlases and can be killed by them. Saying that you'll die unless you basically do nothing only supports that fact. Learn to make comparative evaluations.

themaxzero wrote... 
My implication? If I wanted all invulnerability removed wouldn't I ask it to be removed off Charge and Nova (uncancelled) too? I have simply asked to be removed from Cancelled Nova. You know this so why do you continue with your flawed premise?

At the point you jumped into the conversation, it was about nerfing Nova in general. It was already established that cancelling Nova into rolls not only isn't overpowered, but doesn't really help at all. If you missed that and kept trying to argue nonetheless, that's your fault.

themaxzero wrote... 
It's a pity you aren't on PC (or so you claim).

In the real world, we don't settle debates with children's card games. The fact that you're resorting to this completely empty threat shows how little ground you have to stand on.

GreyWarden36 wrote...

Why do people use nova cancelling anyway? I saw someone do once and he pretty much didn't even do any damage, unlike the normal nova; which does tons of dmg to barriers and shields.

 

That was my point from page 1. It actually increases the time you're vulnerable and horrendously decreases your damage output. It's not only OP, it's stupid.

Actually the demo wasn't down for me. Usually you see heaps of post with people complaining that the servers are down. But it's pretty clear that you would of never taken me up on my offer no matter the circumstances.

Actually I didn't say it wasn't a viable tactic I said it's not the same as being invulnerable when under heavy fire. Which is 100% true.

Oh so now it's basically doing nothing? Before it was just plain old nothing. The fact is basically nothing is better then laying as a corpse at the Atlas' feet.

So you now know (and I suspect you have know for some time) I was simply referring to the invulnerability on roll cancelling. Will you now admit your premise was in error?

Yes how crazy would it be to test theories in an actual practical environment rather then on a message board. Silly me.

[Shin0biwan]

themaxzero wrote...
Actually the demo wasn't down for me. Usually you see heaps of post with people complaining that the servers are down. But it's pretty clear that you would of never taken me up on my offer no matter the circumstances.

I made it pretty clear that it's irrelevant and impossible even if the servers weren't down. I say this in good will to help you save face - you're making yourself sound like a child by screaming about how someone wouldn't play with you. In the real world, we can't solve everything with a pokemon duel.

themaxzero wrote... 
Actually I didn't say it wasn't a viable tactic I said it's not the same as being invulnerable when under heavy fire. Which is 100% true.

Oh so now it's basically doing nothing? Before it was just plain old nothing. The fact is basically nothing is better then laying as a corpse at the Atlas' feet.

False dilemma. Still irrelevant to the issue that your comment came up in. Surprised you keep bringing it up.

themaxzero wrote... 
So you now know (and I suspect you have know for some time) I was simply referring to the invulnerability on roll cancelling. Will you now admit your premise was in error?

You're still off from the discussion. The OP pointed out what the thread was about (which you apparently ignored), and I told you what the discussion changed into, and you didn't address either as not being what you were arguing. That's your fault.

Plus, as I've said numerous times already, roll cancelling nova hurts far more than it helps. 

themaxzero wrote... 
Yes how crazy would it be to test theories in an actual practical environment rather then on a message board. Silly me.

I don't even know what you're referring to at this point. Your arguments are off topic, irrelevant, and so far have only served to make you look completely ridiculous.


We've been around the block on the substantive issues plenty of times already. At this point, you're just trying to save face. I'm really not interested in making you look stupid (and even if I was, you've done that just fine by yourself) or getting you on track as to what this thread is actually about, so you're going on ignore. You can figure it out on your own time.

Modifié par Shin0biwan, 03 mars 2012 - 07:22 .

[themaxzero]

Shin0biwan wrote...
We've been around the block on the substantive issues plenty of times already. At this point, you're just trying to save face. I'm really not interested in making you look stupid (and even if I was, you've done that just fine by yourself) or getting you on track as to what this thread is actually about, so you're going on ignore. You can figure it out on your own time.

Good riddence.

Hopefully you will play some other classes and get over your Vanguard fixation and gain some perspective.

Modifié par themaxzero, 03 mars 2012 - 07:26 .

[Shin0biwan]

I don't know why the block function doesn't stop me from seeing your posts. Oh well. Guess I'll stay in the business of making you look stupid.

themaxzero wrote...
Good riddence.

Hopefully you will play some other classes and get over your Vanguard fixation and gain some perspective.

Shin0biwan wrote...
I routinely take out multiple Phantoms with both my Turian Sentinel and Salarian Infiltrator and come out of it just fine.

On top of that, other classes have options so that they don't have to take Phantoms out face-to-face. Vanguards lack such an option - they get into melee range because they have to.

themaxzero wrote...
Seriously are some of you Vanguard players playing any other classes? Or above Bronze difficulty?

Yes. I routinely play gold with my Turian, Salarian, and Asari. Only the Turian contributes less than my Vanguard, but not by much.

 

Good job with your reading comp fail.

You're making this too easy, lol.

Modifié par Shin0biwan, 03 mars 2012 - 07:32 .

[themaxzero]

Shin0biwan wrote...

I don't know why the block function doesn't stop me from seeing your posts. Oh well. Guess I'll stay in the business of making you look stupid.

themaxzero wrote...
Good riddence.

Hopefully you will play some other classes and get over your Vanguard fixation and gain some perspective.

Shin0biwan wrote...
I routinely take out multiple Phantoms with both my Turian Sentinel and Salarian Infiltrator and come out of it just fine.

On top of that, other classes have options so that they don't have to take Phantoms out face-to-face. Vanguards lack such an option - they get into melee range because they have to.

themaxzero wrote...
Seriously are some of you Vanguard players playing any other classes? Or above Bronze difficulty?

Yes. I routinely play gold with my Turian, Salarian, and Asari. Only the Turian contributes less than my Vanguard, but not by much.

 

Good job with your reading comp fail.

You're making this too easy, lol.

Thought I was blocked? Ha. Thought you would bite.

Either way I think your lying. I think you really only play Vanguard and have no real Gold experience. Just a forum warrior who can't back it up.

Anyone who thinks I am BSing (and this offer extends to anyone) can find me on PC (ID is the same as the forum name) and I will take any class (if you have the mod patch I have the 4th row races too) into Gold. I usually only run with mates but hey.

I have played with a fair few people from this board.

Modifié par themaxzero, 03 mars 2012 - 07:46 .

[Shin0biwan]

themaxzero wrote...
Thought I was blocked? Ha. Thought you would bite.

Shin0biwan wrote...

I don't know why the block function doesn't stop me from seeing your posts. Oh well. Guess I'll stay in the business of making you look stupid. 

Massive reading comp fail. Still too easy. 

themaxzero wrote... 
Either way I think your lying. I think you really only play Vanguard and have no real Gold experience. Just a forum warrior who can't back it up.

No you. (Hint: the difference is that I was saying things that make sense to people who are experienced on gold, while you spout nonsense like Infiltrators can't run away with Cloak and Vanguards should be shooting from cover).

themaxzero wrote... 
Anyone who thinks I am BSing (and this offer extends to anyone) can find me on PC (ID is the same as the forum name) and I will take any class (if you have the mod patch I have the 4th row races too) into Gold. I usually only run with mates but hey.

I have played with a fair few people from this board.

I'm sure they're just your alts.

Still too easy. Got any more?

[themaxzero]

Shin0biwan wrote...

themaxzero wrote...
Thought I was blocked? Ha. Thought you would bite.

Shin0biwan wrote...

I don't know why the block function doesn't stop me from seeing your posts. Oh well. Guess I'll stay in the business of making you look stupid. 

Massive reading comp fail. Still too easy. 

themaxzero wrote... 
Either way I think your lying. I think you really only play Vanguard and have no real Gold experience. Just a forum warrior who can't back it up.

No you. (Hint: the difference is that I was saying things that make sense to people who are experienced on gold, while you spout nonsense like Infiltrators can't run away with Cloak and Vanguards should be shooting from cover).

themaxzero wrote... 
Anyone who thinks I am BSing (and this offer extends to anyone) can find me on PC (ID is the same as the forum name) and I will take any class (if you have the mod patch I have the 4th row races too) into Gold. I usually only run with mates but hey.

I have played with a fair few people from this board.

I'm sure they're just your alts.

Still too easy. Got any more?

Shrug whatever.

Anyway my offer is open to anyone here. Again ID is the same as my forum name. Willing to play any class in gold, ideally having the mod patch would help cause I want to have a go with the Drell Adept and Quarian Infiltrator.

As much fun as forum warrioring is playing the game is better then talking about it.

Modifié par themaxzero, 03 mars 2012 - 07:55 .

[Shin0biwan]

themaxzero wrote...
Shrug whatever.

Anyway my offer is open to anyone here. Again ID is the same as my forum name. Willing to play any class in gold, ideally having the mod patch would help cause I want to have a go with the Drell Adept and Quarian Infiltrator.

As much fun as forum warrioring is playing the game is better then talking about it.

Lol. Cutting your losses is probably the best thing you can do at this point.