stop TAUNTING heroes that are almost dead

[jujubear]

so i've seen many of these kids that taunt an enemy that's about to die, like when a guy is 50hp and gets taunted before the last hit, it's just pathetic.
it's against the very idea of taunting someone, which should be when your opponent is in a equal/superior position and yet you taunt and kill him to show how you've overplayed him.

it'd be a lot more interesting if you can only taunt someone who's high in HP (say more than 50% or 70%) and that's not under stun/hemorrhage/immobilize.
anyone agrees?

[En_Dotter]

I agree tbh. Humiliations should be part of fun and it is so hard to see them cus of taunt "abuse" current mechanics allow.

[Broodje]

I agree slightly, just needs a delay on it. Once you activate your taunt on someone it will be activated 3-5 seconds afterwards.

[jujubear]

I agree slightly, just needs a delay on it. Once you activate your taunt on someone it will be activated 3-5 seconds afterwards.

yup, a delay would totally work too!

[Tay_z0nday]

Great Idea, The delay would be great!!!
Sadly Inside me I know s2 wont change it D:

[SomethingOdd]

S2 would change it, because It'd lead to less smackdowns, which means less silver coins, which means more gold coins compared to silver.

[Thysios]

They did have the 0.5 second cast time on it in beta, but no one really used it.
I see your point but it doesn't really effect anything so doesn't worry me how it is atm.

[jujubear]

i see people voting against it but nobody says why...?

[Katieeee]

I do admit I've done that a few times (I only have like 2 Smackdowns though on this account lol), but I like doing it in confrontational situations in lane and such (I really like Taunting people here and there as Empath for the line she says - "You wanna die? I can help."). :3

I don't mind it as it is though. :P

[_Lateralus_]

I like taunt because of the graphic, and the fun of it, so I'll keep taunting before my last attack. Why would anyone randomly taunt someone at full hp? Especially in a team fight. If you don't get the kill, whether someone else gets it, or they just run away, it was a wasted taunt. How can this possibly offend you btw? Also you have 0 smackdowns on your account....get out there and try something before you come to the forums and whine about it man.

"which should be when your opponent is in a equal/superior position and yet you taunt and kill him to show how you've overplayed him." No this is what humiliation is for.

[Necroth]

Its possible to taunt someone right after you used ur ult as witchslayer.

Just make it so the enemy cant be taunted unless he has at least 50% health. I'd prefer this over the delay, though the delay is a great idea too.

[Broodje]

Its possible to taunt someone right after you used ur ult as witchslayer.

Just make it so the enemy cant be taunted unless he has at least 50% health. I'd prefer this over the delay, though the delay is a great idea too.

I've done that once as ws was quit stunned that it worked :-P

[Sherwood]

I dislike taunts. In my opinion they encourage 'douche bag' attitudes. However taunts exists and I think this suggestion makes them less douche baggy whilst keeping the 'intended' use of them. A fair compromise.

[_Lateralus_]

There should be no changes made to taunting.

[Apostate]

I disapprove of this idea. Taunt isn't used much as it is, to me it is less about showing your skill and more about making them feel bad once they are dead.

[PowerPinch]

First of all, the poll itself is worded in a way as to make supporting your idea more positive, which is pretty rude towards people who disagree.
Secondly, smackdowns aren't really anything but cosmetic and are just there for fun, they aren't used very often anyways, and don't warrant the effort of redesigning them.
Plus I like the fact that if you DO get away and you DO get a humiliation, it makes it all the more satisfying since it's so easy to get smackdowns and hard to get humiliations.

[jujubear]

First of all, the poll itself is worded in a way as to make supporting your idea more positive, which is pretty rude towards people who disagree.
Secondly, smackdowns aren't really anything but cosmetic and are just there for fun, they aren't used very often anyways, and don't warrant the effort of redesigning them.
Plus I like the fact that if you DO get away and you DO get a humiliation, it makes it all the more satisfying since it's so easy to get smackdowns and hard to get humiliations.

ok i give you a point on that about the poll.. it was just meant as a joke though :P
i also agree that humiliation is a million times more satisfying than smackdown, but in part the reason humiliations have become so rare is exactly because will only taunt those who are already dead... the idea would be exactly to make humiliations more frequent.

[H2Olga]

I dislike your idea for a very simple reason: Taunts are awesome.

To all the people that have any good announcer and a taunt effect, we love our taunts, they're incredible and so fun. It has no effect at all in the game mechanics, but if you're idea would be applied, it would, you'd to taunt someone before attacking him, risking to lose him because he ran away and he'll notice someone's taunting him so the surprise effect would be also dead.

No one is truly affected by this taunt politic, we gain very few silver coins (I bought my taunt nearly 2 years ago and I'm close to get the silver back now), a smackdown is no worse than any other death and smackdowns are very hard to place. I had lost a few easy kills because I taunted my enemy before placing the killing blow.

We paid 700 silver coins (plus all the Special Taunts) to have an awesome effect that already has no effect in the game and makes it funnier, why would anyone try to destroy this?