[Incomplete] Nightbringer the C'Tan of Death**

and no i was jsut stating i find it entertianing that my risky ult is bad but his risky ult is good

im saying how your skill could be ruined by chance happening inside the skilsl mechanics, while mine cant be ruined by a chance happening in the skills mechanics, only player actions.

no lol i already showed how yours can be ruined by chance it can be ruined if the computer forges a faulty path for you or makes you do an unintended action in taht time u cnat control him how is taht not cahnce?

see again a contradiction mine has chance because of the skill mechanics making it random so something in the game causes it to go awry while urs has chance again in its skill mechanics because the computer (and in game aspect not palyer skill controlled) could perform and unintended and unwanteda ction/path but then you say yours has no chacne computer related...

lets try this again:
your skill can fail because the *skill* gives you a crap effect
my skill can fail because of *other players* dodging the hero, or getting bad pathing

yours is an inherant fault in the skill
mine is an inherant fault with... wc3...

Grass Hopper wrote:lets try this again:
your skill can fail because the *skill* gives you a crap effect
my skill can fail because of *other players* dodging the hero, or getting bad pathing

yours is an inherant fault in the skill
mine is an inherant fault with... wc3...

This must be where the last 6 pages of arguments started:

Grass Hopper wrote:as a general rule: avoid using random chance (numbers) to balance (unless its in theme like warphead )

Anyways - I agree with Grass's ability concept. It's best to stick with player actions than to dive into random chance.

lmao grass mine "fails" because the somputer could choose bad variables

ur skill "fails" because again the computer chooses bad variable (wrong path/unintended action not palyer influenced at all because they lose all influence after .4 scs)

yet your skill is ok and mine is not and they have this same "inherent" flaw

u said urself

my skill can fail because of *other players* dodging the hero, or getting bad pathing

OR GETTING BAD PATHING that has nothing to do with any players that is an inherent flaw in the skill because it gives control to the computer

again xeno my quarrel isnt with his concept but with his contradiction of his concept he states randmoness is bad and yet kharns new ult has its own inherent randomness

oh, and the same fault applies to *any melee hero* you chase a hero, and he runs into the fog (unless your a good palyer, the hero stops)

bad pathing is an inherant flaw in WARCARFT 3 not a flaw in the skill
agian, the same bad pathing applies to ANY hero who choses to attack another one, it doesnt only apply to this skill

the differenece is your super buffed with this skill, and have slightly less control over where you go

but you are allowing your skill to easily succumb to this inherent flaw therefore by increasing its chacne to succumb to an inherent flaw is that not a falw in itself?

Betrayer_kharn wrote:again xeno my quarrel isnt with his concept but with his contradiction of his concept he states randmoness is bad and yet kharns new ult has its own inherent randomness

You could defend your point with DotA's Chaos Knight target ability in which the stun is random between very low and very long duration - but you could counterargue at the same time by identifying the Chaos Knight has the only random ability in the entire game.

no, because i offer alternatives to this flaw (a manner of controling the hero)
you offer no way to fix the flaw in your skill

edit: and chaos knight gets at least 2 seconds which is average. his skill only gets better with chance, wheras kharns gets only worse with chance(im talking bout the blind duration here)

Grass Hopper wrote:no, because i offer alternatives to this flaw (a manner of controling the hero)
you offer no way to fix the flaw in your skill

edit: and chaos knight gets at least 2 seconds which is average. his skill only gets better with chance, wheras kharns gets only worse with chance(im talking bout the blind duration here)

That's even a better point towards the negative effects of Kharn's ability.

but that second part is really irrelvant

the fact is (ive never palyed) but does that randomness make him utterly useless or more entertaining and in a sense can make him better then he could be but at the sae time that randomness doesnt drive people away from the hero if anythign it makes people go more towards it for the fact that it could be extremely powerful

Shouldn't that be argued in Kharne's thread then AND doesn't Dragon already have this ability + it fits him more thematically? This discussion shouldn't be happening, and even less here.

and how does it get worse? 4 seconds is not long at all and thats worst case if we r going on average then average would be 2-3 secs about and in that aspect it gets barely worse (1 sec more) or abrely better (1 sec less)

4 seconds of blind i hardly worse even so so i make it 1-3 then 3 is hardly bad at all 3 seconds of delay is nothing but it could be 1 second and this encourages you to use it more in the prospect of it being very useful or semi useful it will never be as bad as u procalim it to bo

and again we alrdy stated even with a ,4 second control there is still no solution to the inherent flaw of it opening kharn up to the inherent flaw of bad pathing more oftne then necessary because there is still mroe time to fall into this flaw then there is to get out

also fro fromu we arent designing dragon and we decided that eating a star fits dragon this isnt eating a star this is summoning a collapsing star so there are only similar in the fact that they both contain start

bout time this guy got moved to dev XD

haha sure

bump

so as i stated if we are no longer applying deus' hypothesis (if we did the dragons ult couldnt work) then my ult is still viable.... and i already stated i will rename gaze of falme and make it Fear of death then make it that larger lifesteal he suggested just not as powerful

I'm not gonna lie, I still dislike either of these ults... Not my decision, but this star/black hole thing is something which is going to make people scratch their heads and wonder where the hell we got it from.

Hell, I'm still doing it, and I read through the last 10 pages XD

That being said, it's not my hero, so meh.

its not a star anymore and we ahve already established where its from......
c'tans have the ability to warp time and space so out c'tan does such and summons a temporary black hole hell if we truly want we can jstu make it a time/space rift that opens up no black hole involved

which again we have establishedas within the realm of power in a c'tan

so the blind would be while its opening and then the final drag in effect would be after it has opened

I realize it's POSSIBLE, and I saw how it was argued. Nightbringer doesn't really invoke thought of time/space mastery though.

I know it's pretty much set in stone now and going to be implemented, I'm just voicing my opinion.

itsn ot set in stons lol and to be fair we dont know what he invokes jsut what we are told he invokes tere is alot of things in this map thhat arent necessarily said to happen (e.g. your tomb spyder and his adaptive technolongy) but we use it to make the aos more interesting

Okay... But I am just stating my personal opinion on this one move... That is all.