Thread: VS mode locked to normal

I agree about pounce being unbashable, but only if the pounce would have done 10 or more dmg to prevent spam.

"As for the situation Liq3 proposed, hunter stun doesn't do anything to us, because we assign a person to watch the back. We intentionally keep them far enough from the group (about 4 steps behind the last person) to where hunters don't stun them if they hit anyone in the group, leaving them free to instantly react to whatever happens."

Smoker grabs back guy, before he has a chance to shoot hunter off. Now what smarty pants?

Dude, before you post something, THINK about a way it could be coutered. You still haven't given me anything the infected can't counter.

liq3

You are saying in the best case scenario. Chances are the smoker is dead the moment he peaked around the corner or edge.

Originally Posted by Triskavanski

liq3

You are saying in the best case scenario. Chances are the smoker is dead the moment he peaked around the corner or edge.

Originally Posted by liq3

Dude, before you post something, THINK about a way it could be coutered. You still haven't given me anything the infected can't counter.

@Kaizoku: Please record a demo of a almost perfectly executed infected attack* against a highly skilled group of survivors and then share it with us.

Assume the infected get 4 attacks on every map (maybe 3 on the first map), they need to do about 500 damage in the first 3, then the 4th finishes them off (make sure the downed person gets vomitted, and disable the other 3).

*This means the boomer gets at least 3 people, both hunters pounce almost similtanously, and the smoker grabs someone within 1 seconds of the hunters landing. This is the kind of attack you should expect reguraly (i.e. 90% of the time) in tournament play.

Originally Posted by Kaizoku

With boomer, smoker, hunter, and hunter, the *best* I think it's normally possible to do against a skilled group is bile 3 people off the bat, then have both hunters land at the same time after the horde gets to the group, while the smoker just after that pulls someone away. If no hunters get bashed out of the air (unlikely), the back person doesn't bash a hunter before the smoker gets them (unlikely), the back person doesn't free themselves (more likely, dependant on weapon), the last person standing is 1. surrounded and can't bash through,(unlikely) 2. can't see enough to kill any of the hunters (unlikely) and or 3. Started with low health and gets downed by the horde (unlikely). THEN you end up with a severely wounded and or dead team of survivors. This is all ALREADY assuming the survivors are A. not in a hallway, B. Not bash spamming the second the bile hits them to stop the hunters and horde, and C. The survivors don't outright kill any of the infected in the initial attack attempt, which are all unlikely.

You are compunding many unlikely variables on top of each other, any of which can result in a failed infected attack, or negate most if not all damage taken by the survivors.

Unlikely, unlikely, unlikely. It means there is chance involved. There is no chance involved. Fix your post, and I'll think about refuting it.

The question is this. Assuming humanly perfect play by the survivors, can the infected kill them? Answer: We can't possibly know. I've yet to see an infected team (or survivor team) that good. Until we have tournament skilled teams, there are no balance issues large enough to warrant any further attention. So, good day to you sir.

^this^

and also this:"Above all else, my reasons or those against me, I don't think many people can argue the need to remove the option to choose a difficulty setting entirely, and that's the point over anything else."

This is an assumption based on nothing but... well... assumption:There is another reason they locked it to ONE difficulty. If they had it on multiple, the community would be split. Some people would train in different difficulties. What would happen, is that advanced difficulty players would end up worse at infected then normal difficulty players."

Using the same logic, we should lock it to one map, so people only learn one map and get much better at it instead of splitting their time and practice to two totally different maps.

As pointed out above, if all infected attack at the same time, and skip the bad attack points (doorways, indoors, linear areas) there will be anywhere from a 15 to 50 second wait before you can attack as a group again, meanwhile they're healing and getting much closer to the safe room. Hell, going by this attack cadence, on no mercy one, there's only *one* place where you can attack a good survivor group and have it be effective as the perfect succession of attacks. Outside of that, you can only cross your fingers for a tank.

Originally Posted by Alan

Play nicely please. liq3, posting idiotic images to answer a point raised by another makes you look moronic. Put some effort in please. Stop the asshattery. Cheers.

I really need to stop posting in this thread. I'll try to make this my last post. People like Kaizoku make any kind of intelligent discussion impossible, since they fail at basic logic.

Using the same logic, we should lock it to one map, so people only learn one map and get much better at it instead of splitting their time and practice to two totally different maps.

You don't see people playing different games on EXACTLY the same map. You see people playing EXACTLY the same game on different maps. They are not the same thing. You can't apply the same logic to them.

"You don't see people playing different games on EXACTLY the same map. You see people playing EXACTLY the same game on different maps. They are not the same thing. You can't apply the same logic to them."

^This^ doesn't follow the logic I was referring to, I'll explain it.

You assumed locking difficulty to normal will make people better at normal, and provide a better game at the sacrifice of difficulty options.

I assumed locking the map to one map will make people better at that map, and provide a better game at the sacrifice of map options.

Explain to me how that is not the same logic, or you could stop posting like you said. Either way I really don't feel you've disproven my analogy in the least.