Messages

1

Spam / Re: NA ALLSTARS - the best players by US state (now with votes!)

« on: August 01, 2012, 04:40:58 am »

How the fuck am I not on this bitch?

2

General Discussion / Re: Varyag's testimony on the current state of cRPG

« on: April 24, 2011, 10:42:50 pm »

Grinding is easier.

Great.

cRPG is not about grinding.

All you're advocating and pining for the loss of is, in essence, grinding.

I, for one, disagree wholeheartedly -- if you want to grind, go find a nice Korean mmo, there are lots of them. Many people now confuse "RPG" with "grind", but that's not necessarily true.

3

Events & Tournaments / Re: NA Tourny Poll 2

« on: April 15, 2011, 07:53:41 am »

You should check this out, Rhade.

And I can go find some other studies proving otherwise?

You really think that anyone can become elite at something simply by working consistenly at it?

No matter what I do, I will never be a professional singer, I am absolutely terrible at it and I have certain traits about me that block me from being professional at it.

4

General Discussion / Re: Chill with the elitism please

« on: April 15, 2011, 07:48:45 am »

Your responses are exactly what made me to post here. Everything you've posted in this thread was just proving my point, and I ultimately decided to voice my 'concerns'. I was pretty convinced, too, as I have a nasty habit of usually not bothering. Take subjectivity into account as well, so you can't argue that I was not relevant.

And perhaps the overall tone of my post wasn't conveying that most expressively, though I surely think that there are certain hints indicating that, but I wasn't particularly foaming at the mouth and cursing left and right when I was writing my thoughts. In any case, your solicitude towards my emotional health is very welcome.

Also, you have quite a strange idea of fun.

I'm glad you have such a moral and philosophical high ground that you feel obliged to rescue me from my obviously incorrect and wrong approaches on the subject. Perhaps you should spare me and write a book?

5

General Discussion / Re: Pew! Pew! Pew!

« on: April 15, 2011, 07:46:52 am »

I'll agree there. In strat before the patch, it was very hard to get up a ladder in a siege battle without a shield. Archers would pick you off very quickly.

Each style has its place where it shines. But it'd be hard to say that one is better than the other in a group battle.

And you cant say that 10 2-handers can auto win against 10 shielders. Shit happens. The battle can go either way.  It just depends on what all happens. You cant effectively test that either. No 2 ppls skill is the same.

Exactly.

It's a draw/stand off, it's hard to tell because they're pretty closely matched.

Then you have 1h's ability to block ranged and 2h can't, that was part of my initial point -- 1h/shield and 2h both have somewhat similiar effectiveness in melee yet 2h is extremely vulnerable to all range.

6

General Discussion / Re: Pew! Pew! Pew!

« on: April 15, 2011, 07:23:12 am »

This just isn't viable against good twohanders in a big fight. Maybe the shielders will get some, but they will lose.

Also, how many of you have actually tried this out in clan battles? It IS the way it works. In group fights, the only thing that matters(Apart from your dueling and blocking skills):

1) Reach

2) Damage

3)situational awareness

Assuming both groups have players of similar skill, the shielders doesn't stand a chance against good 2handers.

We can discuss this over and over, i get the feeling that you disagree, and since we can't test it properly, we might as well let the case rest. The reason why i brought this example is to show other areas were 2handers are good, not just in duels. 2handers are better in group fights than shielders, period.

You're also forgetting that range is being thrown in the whole time, and shielders can actively block this while they attack yet 2h'ers have to sacrifice all offense to shield, so even if you were right (you're not), it's still a bit lopsided.

7

General Discussion / Re: Pew! Pew! Pew!

« on: April 15, 2011, 07:20:49 am »

Playing a 2 hander is more fun, it does take more skill to be proficient at. Not to say that there are not good 1 handers, but it is easier to be decent at 1 hander, since there is no manual blocking. A noob would do far better to start off as a 1 hander.

Agreed

8

General Discussion / Re: Pew! Pew! Pew!

« on: April 15, 2011, 06:43:28 am »

I call that the turtle zerg.

A bunch of shielders rush you, surround you, and there's nothing you can do as they refuse to attack unless they're behind you.

2h'ers can't do that.

Also, the extended reach and damage of 2h'ers work against them as they're more likely to hit friendlies.

I don't see how the "10 2h beats 10 1hshield" works at all.

9

General Discussion / Re: Chill with the elitism please

« on: April 15, 2011, 06:35:39 am »

Common Sense says, 'Being good at a game doesn't automatically grant you the right to be pretentious and presumptuous.'

You just look silly. Honestly, this is such a small thing, such a trivial matter, yet you can't even admit it. It's horrible, really. And speaks volumes indeed.

I suggest you take a good look at the topic of this thread. Look at it, until it starts making sense.

I think you need to relax and lighten up a bit, I was having a bit of a joking happy fun time and you need to turn it into a Dr. Phil life lesson moment. I suggest you read my responses to the topic and the general agreement from them and THEN post.

10

General Discussion / Re: Chill with the elitism please

« on: April 15, 2011, 05:15:06 am »

Complete fail on Sarcasm detection...

It's text.

I was just being sarcastic, too, so you're actually the one who failed on sarcasm detection.

Got em.

11

General Discussion / Re: Chill with the elitism please

« on: April 15, 2011, 04:29:04 am »

A lot of people take this game very seriously.  When I play archer they constantly say mean things and it makes me feel real bad.  I can't play for 5 minutes without hearing about how archery takes no skill.  I worked hard to get what meager shooting and running away skills that I have.  And then they just say that it isn't skill and that anyone could do it even better.  Just point and click adventure they say!  But it's more than pointing and clicking, because people zig and zag around and it can be hard to point on them.  The worst part is that when I play poorly they say I suck and when I play really good they say I really really suck!

The issue, if you actually read the thread, that I have with players like you is that you take the easy way out and don't care to really improve or strive at all.

You simply circumvent the system that requires the most skill and take the easy path with no intent to risk or challenge yourself at all (running away from melee at all opportunities).

12

General Discussion / Re: Pew! Pew! Pew!

« on: April 15, 2011, 12:42:04 am »

And, you're forgetting the bigger picture: Where does a 2hander shine? Not necessarily in 1v1 (but certainly there as well) but in group fights. Imagine 10 good shielders against 10 good twohanders. Who wins?

Both are equally effective, one just takes more player skill to be effective with.

13

General Discussion / Re: Heirlooms/3 again thought of this?

« on: April 14, 2011, 11:40:46 pm »

Most heirlooms aren't really a problem. People with a lot of heirlooms have an advantage, but they have played a lot more and should be rewarded for their energy imo.

wtf?

Are you kidding me?

Rewarded for their energy?

Is this wow?

14

General Discussion / Re: Chill with the elitism please

« on: April 14, 2011, 11:23:24 pm »

Yer photoshop skills are ... lacking.
Take that layer yer head is on...
shrink that head better
adjust colour to better match the rest of the body.

alternatively, send to someone.
Good idea though!

The whole point of it was for the picture to be extremely obviously photoshopped, adding to the lulz. It wasn't a serious tryhard picture, it's a funny picture lol

15

General Discussion / Re: Pew! Pew! Pew!

« on: April 14, 2011, 09:27:28 pm »

Sure, I can explain.

First, to clarify that I understand you, you're arguing that every other class is better than 2H'ers. That's absolutely true under certain battlefield conditions , and absolutely false under certain conditions. We could probably argue as to what these are, fairly, but we'll stick with the obvious extremes- 2H'ers are weak in open fields and amazing with abundant sources of cover or in some tight spaces. The only ones they're very strong against in open fields are shielders, which are slower (foot and swing speed), and you say that have decent reach when in reality, their reach is worst of all archtypes. When they get into swinging distance, 2H'ers have the best damage, the best weapon abilities (crushtrough, for instance), and the second best reach (dividing cavalry into 2H, 1H, and Polearm, the latter being the vast majority). When it comes to pure melee power, 2H'ers stand supreme. The scoreboards reflect this.

An easy way to verify this is to look at siege maps. Who always tops the defender's scoreboard? 2H'ers. Not even ranged folks, being in virtually ideal conditions for their class, beat them with any frequency (I've seen some get close from time to time, but never beat them outright). Yet on offense, 2H'ers (and ranged) don't do nearly as well, usually because they lack any cover until they break through and take the wall. Only shield infantry outshine them, for obvious reasons.

I'd like to break down the other classes as well, where 2H'ers beat them and where they beat 2H'ers, but this really is a long, long discussion and it's after 4am. Maybe tomorrow. If anyone else wants to jump on it, feel free to. Your argument simply doesn't stand and the scoreboards reflect that consistently. 2H'ers are a very viable class with major benefits and equally major flaws. They dominate certain classes in certain cases, and they get dominated by certain classes in those very same situations.

This is all quite far from the original post, however. The only point that has to be reiterated is that, yes, 2H'ers should fear ranged, shields should fear axes, horsemen should fear pikes, ranged should fear shielders* (goddamn huscarls), and peasants should fear everything.

*Looking back, you seem to emphasize the point that ranged can easily shoot above, beside, or under shields. That really just isn't the case. I've poured hundreds of arrows into shields, trying to pierce (oh, wait, slashnerf, ugh, what?) that little toe and rarely with any effect, even when it's clearly unprotected. Really, maybe a dozen times out of HUNDREDS of attempts. The forcefield effect with even just 3 or so points in shield is truly amazing. I've never gotten a headshot on anyone while the shield was raised.

If you have 3 shield skill, you're obviously not a 2h player but a shielder with some 2h so that's invalidated.

2h doesn't "beat" 1h. 2h requires skill, timing, and precision to manual block while 1h has an AUTOBLOCK feature, most shielders wear huscarls, not kite shields, so good luck "breaking" their shield. You would have to block at least 12-15 times with most swords to break a shield, a feat 99% of the cRPG population cannot do.

1h reach is even longer here than it is in native and 1h+shield vs 2h is still even in native. In regards to your "range" argument, a 2h must backpedal while a shielder runs at them, shielding, and backpedalling is slower than walking forward so a 2h will get 1, maybe 2 swings off (on an auotblocking shielder) then the shielder is inside with extremely fast attack speed and good damage (once again, my example of losing half my hp to a 1h with 7 IF, 21 STR and full plate you didn't address), so while you can say that "2h'ers rule the boards" in public matches with bad players, sure, you have some validity in that decent 2h'ers will destroy bad players who can't block. I'm talking about the competitive end where people actually know how to play, 2h'ers don't have any area where they shine. The only time they shine is that they are able to capitalize more quickly when a player is bad.