It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
StarryKnight wrote: »I think this misunderstands the problem entirely. Dying is not the problem here, the vilification of it is. Dying is not a punishment, its a carrot on a stick. Its suppose to make you want to succeed more, it's not meant to be some kind of three strikes and your out rule. It never was.Aggraphine wrote:So then we add a decay period to the counter. If no deaths/no level-ups in x-amount of days, reset counter.
The only time dying is even an issue here is when we are talking specifically about suicide kanna's, and people are only caring because suicide kanna's have turned something that is meant to dissuade dying into something encouraging it. Ergo the whole "unintended gameplay".
Punishing all players of all levels and all classes for making too many mistakes, forgetting to pot, forgetting to buy safety charms, forgetting to turn on pet, or just playing maple distracted or drunk, is not a solution, its stupid. You're all suggesting things that would basically kill the game. No one wants to play a game where having a bad day is enough to get you banned.
How about people stop making suggestions that punish people for making mistakes, or just playing badly. Implementing a rule like this is absurd, and even if you aimed to only apply it to kanna's, and only during the level ranges of which suicide kanna's is a thing, it would still be singling out an entire class, and punishing players for incidental game mechanics that are fundamentally built into the game.
No, these are not good solutions. If you want a reasonable solution, the simpler ones are better. Eliminate exp loss on death, entirely. Boom, every conceivable problem from this is solved. And yet, even that is a bad solution, because now dying doesn't mean anything, its a meaningless action, might as well make everyone not lose exp too.
How about a way to have a character turn off exp growth? Then kanna farmers dont need to suicide, thus don't aren't violating any kind of "intended gameplay" rules. Better solution, but then the hackers will simply turn their exp growth off too. Fine, let them, but how about the game detects when a player has farmed a map non-stop for 24 straight hours, and find a way to do more intensive bot detection then? Maybe do an actual captcha? Some hackers will eventually solve that one, but its an infinitely better idea than treating people who die, for whatever reason, as though they've done something wrong.
That's just not a good idea, period.
Still not a detriment. It can then be argued that all skills that offer invincibility frames are partly, if not entirely, intended to be used for defense since they specify that you will be invincible for a period of time upon using it.StarryKnight wrote: »I wasn't referring to invincibility frames that are clearly marked and intended to be used for defense, hence my reference towards Final Pact, which is obviously intended to be used to avoid death. [...]So once again, it's very clearly intended to be a detriment, while iframes are not.
My point was *specifically* with respect to *attacks* that happen to contain iframes due to the way the animations work, for those I would say are clearly not "intended" to be used for defense (or rather, are not clearly described in game as permitted to be used for defense). Using an *attacking* skill, to defend against death, because it has iframes, is clearly counter to the "intended" purpose of "attacking".
No, I would not say that, because Dark Sight is not an iframe and doesn't protect you against anything and everything.If it were intended to be used in this way, then why do some characters not have iframes? For example: Night Lord. You might say Dark Sight, but both Shadower and Night Walker have iframes AND dark sight, so clearly one cant say Dark Sight is the reason, and clearly this puts both of these classes at an advantage over Night Lord in boss fights.
So IF you're claiming that using attacking skills to avoid enemy attacks that would otherwise kill the player is legitimate gameplay, it would seem to say that Nexon has intentionally advantaged certain classes and disadvantaged others.
I did admit some similarities within specific situations and those are things that can be improved upon if Nexon sees fit. But it still doesn't draw the conclusion that using skills that offer invincibility frames to become invincible is not intended gameplay.SO I think it fair to say using attacking skills to avoid boss mechanics is not intended gameplay. Ergo, I would say you've not satisfied the warrant of your claim that iframes on attacking skills are intended to be used in that manner. Thus yes, these both fall under the same category of "not intended gameplay", whether you feel one is more or less egregious is besides the point, a reductio argument still applies, you just don't find it compelling.
So while I mostly agree with you, the clear delineation between which of these is a violation and which of these is not, is still not so obvious as one might assume at first glance. I'm not saying its a good argument, Im just saying that the situation is more similar than most seem willing to admit.
It's a good thing they've clarified it then. All we're doing here is make assumptions after all, mine just happened to be aligned with Nexon on this one.Prior to the recent clarification, one could have turned that on its head and said that losing exp when dying "proves that it's nexon's intention" that you have the ability to prevent yourself from leveling. So it might be preemptive to assume that Nexon has iframes in attacking skills intentionally to provide you the opportunity to avoid boss mechanics. More than likely they are an unintended and difficult to eliminate consequence of the way the skills are animated.If anything it just further proves that it's Nexon's intention to give you every chance to stay alive, not reward you for dying.
