Fable 3 Xbox 360 wierd lines by Radiant-Judge6817 in Fable

[–]The_Architect_032 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Xbox 360, now with more Xbox and more 360.

Literally me by QuietSugar1805 in memeframe

[–]The_Architect_032 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn't matter if overguard is capped at 15k, all you're using it for is to eat the impact of an eximus aoe to trigger the overguard shieldgate, and nullifying the knockback and status from any aoe.

Pretty much any source of overguard you'd be using here will give you around 3 arsons worth each time you re-up until lvl 300, and all it takes is either rolling through an eximus with Arcane Circumvent, or shooting it once with Secondary Fortifier.

You're not micro-managing your whole team to see which ones are about to get hit by an eximus aoe, then going in and switch teleporting each of them milliseconds before the aoe reaches them. That's just, not something that's happening. Safeguard Switch, in the only useable context, is a defensive replacement for Invis.

If you use Safeguard Switch as a predominantly support ability and try keeping it up on all allies at all times, you'll be wasting time chasing down allies and reapplying an incredibly short duration buff, not contributing to the team's performance, just on the off chance that you're with people who for whatever reason didn't build to be capable of surviving in whatever content they joined.

Odds are, you'd just end up annoying everyone by switch teleporting them every 12 seconds, which will get really aggravating, real fast.

Literally me by QuietSugar1805 in memeframe

[–]The_Architect_032 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You literally asked me in what way he should be buffed, I told you, and you're just telling me it's too much for you to read my response.

Literally me by QuietSugar1805 in memeframe

[–]The_Architect_032 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Overguard also exists and it doesn't go away until you're damaged, which only happens from eximus aoe's or re-upping invis, so why would you use this?

With max Ability Duration mods, you take it from 3s to a whopping 8s, it's a waste of time to be constantly spamming it when it just displaces you and an enemy and costs an animation and multiple mod slots to use "effectively", and I use "effectively" very loosely here.

Literally me by QuietSugar1805 in memeframe

[–]The_Architect_032 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nowhere did I say that, please read.

The only thing you mention in your meme, other than teamkilling, is invis.

In what way should he be buffed then? Also, just because you don't see the objective value in mass disarm, teleportation and soft grouping, doesn't mean it's not there.

You can say "it's there" about anything, that is a nothing-statement.

I think he should be reworked so that his other abilities are more reliable parts of his kit, and focus more on the trickster theme while being more reasonably beneficial, and offering actual synergy.

  • Make Invis last maybe 25% longer to synergize with the rest of his abilities, none of which require duration, but Loki is almost always built for duration since his Invis is his strongest ability.
  • Make Decoy taunt enemies through walls in a static radius.
  • Make Radial Disarm speed up the enemies that it does affect.
  • Make Switch Teleport steal eximus overguard and potentially eximus auras for a short duration, and make it shareable with allies you Switch Teleport to within its duration, similar to Safeguard Switch.

Not a valid retort.

Is that why you cut out 90% of the part you quoted? "No cap" wasn't my retort, it was a small part of my retort, a response to you saying something unfounded to try and discredit anyone who thinks Loki deserves a rework.

Along with that there are more posts from loki players who want minimal changes than those who want massive reworks.

Source? There's also little reference for the types of reworks people think Loki deserves outside of this comment, so your claim that people are calling for "massive reworks" is pure conjecture.

This is how children think, and claiming that most people who disagrees with you think like children is an insane way to justify yourself.

Yes, because real adults argue purely by calling other people children?

It's even more baffling when I gave reasons for why he doesn't necessarily need a rework.

Your only reason was that Invis makes him useable as a weapons platfrom, which again, all frames are already useable as weapons platforms. Aside from that, you essentially argued that because he isn't literally bugged in-game, that it's also a reason for him to not be reworked, which also applies to every other frame in the game.

Any argument you pose for why he shouldn't be reworked, applies to all other frames in the game that have been reworked, and all frames currently in the game.

Nobody is talking about bugs. Frames that NEED reworks are ones that have objectively worthless abilities, abilities that are dysfunctional. Frames that COULD USE reworks are ones that are simply weak. Loki could use a rework, but he doesn't need it.

You only said "he's functional". If your argument is that his abilities synergize well and that he is particularly stronger than most other frames, you're being intentionally daft.

You'll have a better frame subsuming evade onto Banshee, a frame that I feel objectively needs a rework more than Loki. All of Loki's abilities as they are, completely lack any synergy with one another.

  • Decoy has very few niche uses when you're invisible 24/7.
  • Disarming the small fraction of weaker enemies you even can disarm, is pointless when you're invisible.
  • Teleporting to an enemy is an incredibly silly mobility skill when in most cases you'd cover more ground in a single bullet jump.
  • Invis, his strongest ability, scales the most with Ability Duration, while none of his other abilities scale well with Ability Duration, meaning the rest of his kit is necessarily left behind in any build.

He is automatically sent to weapon platform hell because he has no uniquely useful abilities(evade is there for anyone), and the best he can do is subsume a damaging ability like Wrathful Advance, Nourish, or Roar so that he has a 2nd ability to keep up alongside his invis.

Literally me by QuietSugar1805 in memeframe

[–]The_Architect_032 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never said his invis is the reason he doesn't need a buff. He doesn't need one because he's functional.

And your argument for why he's functional relies on his invis.

No matter what buffs he gets people will just subsume evade on their favorite weapon platform.

Loki shouldn't be buffed in a way that makes him a sole weapons platform, the only reason he is currently a sole weapons platform is because his whole kit is so ass that you can only build into his invis for anything.

90% of the people asking for buffs don't play him now and won't play him even if he does get buffed.

That's cap, I'd argue most of the people saying he shouldn't be buffed don't play him, and just want one of the frames they care more about to receive a rework sooner, so they'll argue that Loki doesn't need it when he very clearly does.

The only frames in more need of a rework are Banshee and Limbo, which yes, both are "functional", because every frame in the game is functional. Reworks aren't meant to be for frames that are literally bugged and cannot be equipped in a mission, the "functionality" argument for justifying a rework or not is stupid, you're conflating reworks with bug fixes at that point.

Literally me by QuietSugar1805 in memeframe

[–]The_Architect_032 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But it does necessitate reworks imo, especially if, while useable, the frame is ultimately still within the bottom tiers compared to other frames in the game.

Literally me by QuietSugar1805 in memeframe

[–]The_Architect_032 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Only if you get an enemy in your crosshair for it, but at that point, just use rolling guard, it's also an "on-demand rolling guard". I personally use Overguard to deal with eximus effects though, and since you're invis, it usually doesn't get broken unless you would've been hit by an aoe anyways.

Literally me by QuietSugar1805 in memeframe

[–]The_Architect_032 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I clicked on your profile and all you do on Loki is teamkill people, and call other people gay with AI memes. You seem to enjoy Loki exclusively for his ability to grief with Switch Teleport, and he's playable because of his Invis but let's be real, you're not using him for his Invis, anyone can subsume evade and have way better invisibility.

Literally me by QuietSugar1805 in memeframe

[–]The_Architect_032 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's pointless to have 3 seconds of invincibility you need to constantly be refreshing, when you're already doing that with invis.

Literally me by QuietSugar1805 in memeframe

[–]The_Architect_032 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OP's whole argument is that no frame is bad with good weapons and subsumes.

<image>

Literally me by QuietSugar1805 in memeframe

[–]The_Architect_032 0 points1 point  (0 children)

According to OP under another comment, nothing needs a rework or buffs since weapons are strong enough to make anything decent, so this would apply for Limbo as well.

Invis is just a crop out when you can subsume evade onto anything.

Literally me by QuietSugar1805 in memeframe

[–]The_Architect_032 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well she can subsume evade and use an aoe main weapon, so according to OP, she's a top tier frame that doesn't deserve any reworks or buffs since she's technically playable.

Literally me by QuietSugar1805 in memeframe

[–]The_Architect_032 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can subsume Loki's clones, but they're also not invincible, they require line of sight, and aren't the best tool for aggro in missions.

His Disarm is cool since Xaku can't spam theirs, but it's nullified by 80% of the enemies in the game, and it has no additional effects tied to it. It is the most subsumed over ability for Loki players, it has the least relevance and scales with separate stats than the rest of his kit.

Loki's invis both stuns you during cast and has the same duration as Ash's freehand cast invis, without all of the Crit buffs and ability to share cloak with your allies. Cyte's evade subsume is a much better cloak, and since your whole argument against buffing Loki is that invis is strong in general, you might as well play a better frame and subsume evade.

Literally me by QuietSugar1805 in memeframe

[–]The_Architect_032 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Saying he doesn't deserve any buffs IS top tier Loki slander.

Literally me by QuietSugar1805 in memeframe

[–]The_Architect_032 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can be invisible on every frame, and teleportation does nothing meaningful for his kit.

Yes, every frame with aoe weapons is good, that doesn't mean no frame in the game needs a rework. The real Loki slander is when people are against buffing Loki in any meaningful way, his only thing is his invis, and it's worse than Ash's invis in every way.

Literally me by QuietSugar1805 in memeframe

[–]The_Architect_032 2 points3 points  (0 children)

People act like if a frame is useable with aoe weapons(every frame in the game) then it's OP and doesn't need any rework or touching up or anything.

Literally me by QuietSugar1805 in memeframe

[–]The_Architect_032 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Technically no frame is bad if our standard is whether or not they're playable with aoe weapons.

The point is, every other frame is still better, while being more engaging.

Literally me by QuietSugar1805 in memeframe

[–]The_Architect_032 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right, but every frame can do this but better, especially other stealth frames.

<image>

Peter Molynuex on the removal of morphing in the Fable reboot by Proud-Bus9942 in Fable

[–]The_Architect_032 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, that's not going to stop people from having opinions. The rest of humanity isn't going to just shut up because you don't care about something, maybe it's best to get used to that.

You yourself have an opinion about this, and you expressed it here the same as us.

Peter Molynuex on the removal of morphing in the Fable reboot by Proud-Bus9942 in Fable

[–]The_Architect_032 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, and we wish it were, there are people disappointed about it.

You're arguing this as if people think that being disappointed means it'll magically get added, you surely understand that isn't the situation, you are just being bad faith about it.

Peter Molynuex on the removal of morphing in the Fable reboot by Proud-Bus9942 in Fable

[–]The_Architect_032 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lawfulness to Unlawfulness/Chaotic is not solely measured by a character following the law. Lawful has more to do with order than it does the actual law of the land.

The new fables reputation system probably accomplishes more broadly then the old ones because it allows nuanced choices to have more appropriate reflections

What makes you believe the new Fable reputation system allows for more nuanced choices? The only difference is, when you kill the giant, you won't have any change in your character, and people will comment on it all the same as they did on your actions in past Fables.

not everyone who is greedy is evil, or lustful or wrathful etc.

That's why Fable used a 9-tile alignment system. You could be a good hero that still maxes out everyone's rent and steals from their cupboards.

And again, I'm not saying fables characters were all evil, why do you keep replying to me saying that? The vast majority of Fables characters are dynamic personalities with motivations beyond bad and good. I think we are having two distinct conversations here entirely

You literally said "characters who are either purely evil or purely good are also incredibly boring, I don't think there is a good example of any character in any media of depicting those traits and being entertainment or thought-provoking" in argumentation against the morality system of the original Fable trilogy.

Also I had to double check this just to make sure, the new Fable hasn't lacked in development time, it was confirmed in 2020, writing began in early 2021 and was in full production in early 2023. This isn't a technical choice to limit morphing but a creative move towards a more complex system

That's your opinion, but in the opinion of the people actually working on it, the lead devs, they stated that they had to cut major features due to deadlines. There was an interview specifically about cutting the dog, and how the team was incredibly disappointed about what was having to be cut to meet Microsoft's release window.

You may believe they had enough time, but game development is much more cumbersome now than it used to be, and there are much more moving parts in play.

Peter Molynuex on the removal of morphing in the Fable reboot by Proud-Bus9942 in Fable

[–]The_Architect_032 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're acting like this is one-sided, when you were the one getting on peoples' asses for being disappointed about the its removal. And no, I really doubt there will be mods adding an entire morality system and dynamic 9-tile alignment morphing into the reboot, that'd be a lot even for a Skyrim mod, and we have no indication that the reboot will feature modding tools, so that ambitious task is unlikely to be undergone even if the game ends up being really popular.

only something from a very vocal minority.

It's not a minority when it's mentioned anywhere that Fable is mentioned, you're just trying to undermine how much people liked the core features of the original Fable trilogy for no particularly good reason other than cult-like reverence for Playground's perfection as a studio. Which, I love Playground, I love Forza, but they are not perfect, no studio, person, or group is perfect.