Paladins Invuln Capping in Onsal Hakkar

[Misteltien]

A few friends of mine and I were doing this last night, its super easy to pull off and can easily shift the game...in one particular match both enemy teams were focusing ours and had us pushed almost all the way into spawn while my 2 partners and I would just cap under both teams trying to nuke us... this really really needs to be fixed.

[Azuri]

I actually started to appreciate the cover thing. With more players realizing the futility of going for ovoos there are now nice pockets of just simple fun PvP brawling in Onsal. I say let the PLDs spend 20 minutes clicking on interactables in their own game of PvObjective.

[Absurdity]

I actually started to appreciate the cover thing. With more players realizing the futility of going for ovoos there are now nice pockets of just simple fun PvP brawling in Onsal. I say let the PLDs spend 20 minutes clicking on interactables in their own game of PvObjective.

I'd have to disagree. As fun as mindless zergs can be, knowing that no matter how many team fights you win you're still going to lose to a bunch of paladin cheese is just not a fun experience.

The other, less subjective, problem with the objective cheese is that you're not necessarily just playing frontlines for fun. Rewards are based on whether you end up in 1st, 2nd or 3rd place and losing out on rewards simply because the other team had more paladins is just bad design, especially during the current moogle event since those are based on your place as well.

[Saraide]

Is there anything that can stop a covered player outside of another covered player capturing first?

[Garten]

Is there anything that can stop a covered player outside of another covered player capturing first?

A really good warrior with its pull, or maybe a monk? i dunno how far it push. nono for mch, cause its push is only 10y (and cover iirc is 15)

[Llynethil]

Onsai day again, played 2 games, lost both literally to cover exploiting by the enemy paladins, just gonna play something else now, not worth queueing for this crap.

[GordonGeeko]

It would be so easy to fix too. Just change Cover to prevent 99% of damage. The 1% would stop the node capping and the covered target would still pretty much take no damage. You'd just lose on the ability to potion while covered but that's kind of a weird design.

[Leathium]

It would be so easy to fix too. Just change Cover to prevent 99% of damage. The 1% would stop the node capping and the covered target would still pretty much take no damage. You'd just lose on the ability to potion while covered but that's kind of a weird design.

That and at least make it cover the "Damage" part, not even the cc and make them immune to every cc while in cover. Crystalline Conflict is already plagued with this.

[InkB]

It would be so easy to fix too. Just change Cover to prevent 99% of damage. The 1% would stop the node capping and the covered target would still pretty much take no damage. You'd just lose on the ability to potion while covered but that's kind of a weird design.

Its not even that. Sage LB makes you take 100% less damage (its worded "negates all damage"), but you still take 0 damage that will interrupt your flag capture.

Its how cover is coded to transfer all damage instead of making you take 100% less. You are literally unable to take even 0 damage by press of a single button every 25 seconds (nodes last 30 seconds so its always up for next ones)

But im just nitpicking, your suggestion would work. You could make it so that target takes 100% less damage, but still "takes 0" so it would interrupt casts that you probably arent meant to use middle of brawl.

[Kedrah]

Please, please, PLEASE change this, PvP dev team. It is incredibly frustrating and can decide the course of an entire match with very little to do about it. The fact that it takes so little effort from the offending paladin(s), but tremendous effort of people trying to stop them (which usually fails anyway because PLD has too many countermeasures, especially if there are several paladins working in tandem), is just plain bad design. I'm sorry but this oversight is particularly egregious.