{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/27/2011 1:05:58 AM
163
How can anyone think that this is fine?
[b]Number of people who didn't fully comprehend the OP: 18.[/b]
Armour lock is an [i]absolute counter[/i] to the sword.
Here's the scenario: I have a sword, and I lunge at you. You armour-lock, taking out my shields and stunning me, and then you pop out and pummel me.
I've done nothing wrong. I've simply used the sword the only way it can be used. Despite this, any competent armour-locker (Lol oxymoron) can kill me with ease.
There is [i]no way I can prevent this,[/i] save not using the sword at all.
How is that [i]fine?[/i] How is that [i]balanced?[/i]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8x0-DFi5Jg]Proof.[/url]
[Edited on 04.15.2011 1:56 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] VahnTitrio If someone armors locks while you have the sword, it sounds stupid but just stand as close to possible to them and press melee over and over again. The armor locker will inevitably come out and try to melee you, but being that you have a sword they simply die trying. I used to back up but have found this to be far more effective.[/quote] You're right, that does sound stupid. Considering the stunning effect and shield loss that occurs from melee'ing an active armour-locker, I doubt that that would work.
