{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/13/2019 4:46:53 PM
89
Invader Penalties - Gambit Idea
There should be penalties for being killed as an Invader. Invading currently has no consequences. It's a lopsided mechanic. Some ideas...
- During Motes phase, Invader drops 10 motes on death.
- During Primeval phase, being killed as Invader restores health to your own primeval.
- Invaders can jump back through the portal to end invasion.
The reward from Invading should come with a risk. Invaders will need to be more cautious and tactful. I think these changes will add a new needed dynamic, improve gameplay, and reduce frustrations people currently have.
-
Invading is hard enough. You get benefits but there are plenty of "consequences" and obstacles. 1 is your literally in a 1v4 situation. You may have bonus HP but you also don't have bonus damage. Even if you super they can counter with 4 supers. In addition for the reward of pressure on the other team, your team loses man power towards the primary objective. Your on a time limit invading so you literally can't afford to be purely careful cause every second you aren't draining or killing the defenders is a second you won't get towards invading or collecting motes. Invasion is only every 25 motes until the other team has a primeval at which point so it's not even frequent unless you were already getting snowballed.
-
60 RepliesI can't imagine how many invaders killed this scrub for him to want penalties. I like to think I was one of those invaders 😊 If I can kill the whole enemy team in 1 invasion that's on them. Not my fault 😂
-
Well for one invasions in general are too frequent. Along with that, someone should not be able to invade multiple times in a row. There are too many matches where people just sit at portal and invade every 20 seconds or they do nothing for their team but invade and die. Your “wallhack” is also BS. You shouldn’t be able to see anyone if they don’t have motes. You should ALWAYS see the player WITH the MOST motes. Anyone else with motes should only be seen on proximity OR once you kill the mote leader you have eyes on the next highest mote holder. Last I checked the point of invading was to DENY motes, not play it like crucible because you need PvE distractions to kill something. Someone with no motes shouldn’t have the same “priority” as someone who holds the most on the team. Invasion portals shouldn’t be active if the team has no motes also. While we are on the topic of gambit... [b]TAKE OUT THE CATCH UP MECHANIC[/b]
-
4 RepliesI've always thought that it should cost a large blockers worth of motes to activate the portal. Either put motes in bank to go toward the primeval/send a large blocker, or put motes in portal to activate it for an invader. This would make invasion more strategic and a bit of a gamble(...gambit).
-
-
1 you cant get as many motes as an invader 2 you cant be dps so 1 4th of the dps is gone 3 you cant defend your team 4 you cant clear blockers
-
You already have enough of a penalty. Nothing should be added it make it unfair. It's already 4 v 1. That s as much an advantage as you need
-
5 RepliesJust remove wallhack from the invader and give it to the team that's being invaded.
-
I don’t think there’s much of a problem in the motes phase, but in the primeval phase, I think the frequency of invaders should be slightly reduced. Why? In my opinion, invading should be seen as a bit of a risk. If you only get one kill while invading in the primeval phase, no big deal, you can invade again very soon.
-
1 ReplyI like the idea of Invaders dropping more motes when killed, but 10 motes is way too much. It should be 5 instead of 3. Also, I feel like if an Invader is killed, they should then receive a Debuff that prevents them from Invading, forcing their team to send another player to Invade. Once that player is returned, the Debuff wears off. (This is to keep the bad Invaders from consuming a teams Invades as well as forcing a "good" Invader to the bench for a while if they get outplayed by the other team.)
-
4 RepliesIf you think getting an overshield, wallhacking, and the best perks from reckoning are all fair and balanced, you are an idiot.
-
Honestly just no wallhacks for invaders, they already have an overshield and element of surprise. (In terms if spawn locations, maybe add more?)
-
Some of these would be horrible and nobody would want to invade! I say give them a non revivable 30 second respawn time if they die, or drop like 5 motes on death and special ammo for the enemy team on their body
-
8 RepliesTheres no consequences for killing the invader? Mate You stopped him from doing his job. Invaders can turn a match around in a single invasion. Litterally seen matches turned during primevil cause of a good invader. That IS the consequence of them not doing their job...
-
I dont agree with some of these. The healing primeval one in particular. Dropping ten motes is a little too much, maybe up it to five instead of three. I like the idea of the invader jumping through the portal if they want, but I dont see people doing it. I do have a suggestion how ever. The invader should only get three chances to invade during the boss fight. That way they have to choose carefully when to invade, and if they blow it, they blow it. The boss fight should not be "who has the more annoying/better invader." rather it should be which team can burn the boss down faster. It would also make it so if the invader does do their job well during those chances, its all the more satisfying.
-
No. The balance that you want is too hard to achieve. What these changes will do is make it a little bit harder for 5% of playerbase. Rest will be even worse.
-
I'm Split. i dont play much gambit. the least fun i had in this game was gambit prime with the non stop invades, but killing invaders in gambit is exciting as hell. I just wish I was better at it.
-
Edited by Tiberius: 6/15/2019 1:04:43 AMAlso, the same player shouldn't be spaming invades. For the same player to invade it needs to cycle through the other 3 players to invade again.
-
2 RepliesIs the risk of failing and giving the opposing team an open window to pull ahead not enough? Invading is the dominant mechanic that wins matches. If you fail to invade properly, you risk losing the match. That's the risk, and in my books a match loss is a pretty decent consequence.
-
You obviously do understand the concept of gambit.
-
Why does there need to be a penalty? It's balanced because you're supposed to be invading the opposing team at the same time. Like that's how the mode is supposed to be played. Hampering the invader would just make an even more PVE focused mode. Just don't see what it's necessary.
-
Disagree
-
3 RepliesI think Gambit is kind of a failed game mode. There are some ppl out there that legit like it, but I’d wager the overwhelming population just does powerful gear quests and maybe pinnacle weapons there. I think gambit isn’t really worth the effort to try and fix it lol. There’s always some game-breaking mechanic of weapon that just makes it not fun.
-
3 RepliesThan the rewards would have to be bigger for invading as well.
-
invaders already drop motes, you stop him from doing his job and he waste time on the respawn timer oing nothing and you want more? Seems too big of a change
-
12 Replies-blam!- off. It's your fault if you can not kill invaders.
