Messages

16

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Crossbow Skill Requirement Suggestion -- "Steady Hands"

« on: January 29, 2014, 11:48:12 am »

I should have rephrased that. Every xbow+Shield+1h hybrids I have ever seen in-game did not portray to me any of the qualities of why their build is overall better than other xbow hybrids.

Its not about being better - its about having no weaknesses.  Without the shield a crossbow is at the mercy of the map for cover and if you get caught in the open by a horse archer even the best player is fundamentally screwed.  This forces most crossbows to the edge of the fight, limiting the effectiveness.  I meanwhile am happy to run into the open because I know that if I do get into trouble I can just put my shield up and make my way back to cover.  I can also escape better players this way and simply s-key my way out of trouble whenever I come up against someone I know I can't kill. 

What I'm trying to get at is the shield is more limiting more often than not. You get a few shots off and now you're just a mediocre shielder once someone gets close... It just seems to me that the skill point allocation could be handled better. It also seems easier to shoot other ranged rather than chase them with a shield if you have a crossbow. The wpf difference between a melee+ranged hybrid and a pure melee is larger after the wpf patch and it would take a larger skill difference to come out on top.

I believe the class can be very strong , but I wouldn't classify it as OP or even the best hybrid build. Stats on 1h have been reduced to being extremely close to their old stats in performance. More stab animation tweaks are also in the pipeline (although the extra stuns/delays currently help).

@Tomas
I understand your sentiments, but I disagree that spending 3-5 points in shield and sacrificing a good chunk of your crossbow wpf is an optimal strategy for xbows.

You are thinking like a pure xbow.  I have 160 1H wpf (140 at level 30) as 130 crossbow wpf is enough for me.

When I read this:I just think of opponents that do not know how to utilize their own advantages/ you vastly outskilling them. Fighting with a crossbow+bolts on your back +shield + non-optimal melee build doesn't seem all that great to me. Skill requirements for xbows would be enough of a solution.

You've obviously never seen me fight.  Ask any Fallen and you'll find that "outskilling" is not something I am known for. 

Skill requirements for xbows would be enough of a solution.

What we have now is 4 types of Arbalest player

1) Pure Xbows that are good at melee.  Pros - high accuracy, can melee despite low wpf.  Cons - need to drop the xbow to fight, need cover to reload and move around the map
2) Other pure Xbows.  Pros - high accuracy.  Cons - dead if they get into melee, need cover to reload and move
3) Non shield hybrid.  Pros - can melee.  Cons - need cover to reload and move
4) Shield hybrid.  Pros - can melee/survive.  Cons - none

A skill requirement would kill the hybrids since they would lose their melee ability or become inaccurate with the crossbow.  The pure xbows that can't melee meanwhile would lose their only Pro leaving just the already good players with a decent class to play since they would still be able to maintain decent accuracy.

Its already been pointed out that xbows are one of the key classes for countering cav, especially ranged cav - we do therefore need them.

17

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Crossbow Skill Requirement Suggestion -- "Steady Hands"

« on: January 28, 2014, 01:59:12 pm »

This. I don't see 1h/shield + xbow. Phew uses it sometimes but like he mentions its pretty rare and it really slows you down which takes away any ability to kite plus it sucks for melee as well since footwork is terrible with the added weight.

The lack of Xbow/shield hybrids on NA1 is just one of those unpredictable things.  Just like HX/HA/HT or NA's Longsword users.  In fact there aren't too many xbow/shields at the moment on EU1 either but balance should never be about popularity like it seems to be at the moment. 

Just because something is popular does not make it OP and at no point have I said that pure Xbow users or even Xbow/non-shield hybrids are OP.  This is why I deliberately came up with a solution that maintains their current position.  This isn't a "there's too many of them - plz nerf" suggestion - it is an opinion that my own xbow/shield class is a little unbalanced compared to other xbow classes due to the lack of drawbacks and a suggestion to bring them back into line.

On EU 1 last night there were around 6-8 Arbalest users online so not that many in total for a server with 80+ on it at the time.  The split between shield and non-shield was roughly 40/60 towards non-shield users however at the end of the round it was the same 4 of us that were alive time and time again which was myself, Farewell, Massassin and Macbeth_Pliskin_the_Cat (or whatever his name is).  Of those only Massassin doesn't use a shield and he is ridiculously good at melee.  The rest of us are average to good melee players at best (no offense intended) but we've been elevated to the top of score boards because we survive.  Take us away and it will just be the likes of Massassin, DaveUKR and Segd at the top again on EU which is fair enough imo since they are highly skilled players.

Finally, for the record I've never struggled to outrun anybody except Ninjas and Kinngrimm on EU1 and I usually use:
 - Arbalest
 - Steel Bolts
 - Short Arming Sword
 - Heavy Round Shield
 - Mail Shirt with fur
 - Red Wisbys
 - Barbutte
 - Rus Cav Boots

I don't drop the xbow to fight either as doing so delays me running away again if I do kill my enemy in melee or an ally comes to help.  Yes there's a noticeable difference if i do drop the xbow or lower my armour level.  But its not necessary to do this to stay ahead of the vast majority of melee players in terms of agility/movement/footwork.

18

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Crossbow Skill Requirement Suggestion -- "Steady Hands"

« on: January 27, 2014, 09:45:16 pm »

First some history

In the past the Arbalest was the domain of the highly skilled, complete noobs and myself
 - noobs would use them because they could hit things easily, but then after being tormented by archers and especially HAs (Spleen!!!!) they would give up.
 - highly skilled players would use them because they knew they didn't need the survivability offered by IF or a shield and they had the manual blocking skills to go toe to toe with just a 1Hander or a Mace.
 - I used it because I knew i was useless in melee anyway and was therefore happy taking a shield and the hand axe in order to survive and escape.

0-slot weapons changed all that.
 - suddenly you could not only survive with a shield but you could also do real damage as well!
 - this means there are no drawbacks to xbow/shield classes at all, although I am still at a disadvantage to any equally skilled pure melee player.  On average they probably need 3 less Agility and 2 less WM in order to reach the same melee wpf and mobility as myself (i only have 130 Xbow wpf so have quite high melee wpf).  This translates into either more strength, more IF or more armour with the same mobility.

Does this mean Xbows are OP........no..........but it does make the class unbalanced since it has no significant downsides whilst every other class does (except HX, which has survivability due to being able to move whilst reloading - they should just be removed from the game imo).

The real problem was that 0-slot weapons were added to give archers melee options but they inadvertently and unnecessarily buffed Xbow hybrids as well.

The real solution is to revert 0-slot weapons to 1-slot, limit ammo to 1 quiver per player and then double the amount of arrows in a quiver.

This:
 - maintains the current status quo on bows as it is now (although I think they still need a separate re-balance anyway) with heavy bows having 1 slot spare for a melee weapon and lighter bows having 2 slots spare.
 - nerfs xbow/shield hybrids back to using the hand axe/hammer, giving them a proper drawback again
 - maintains the status quo on xbow/no-shield hybrids/non-hybrids since they still have the drawback of lacking survivability
 - means there's no need for any skills or a change in requirements (although I wouldn't be against an additional wpf requirement on them to stop them being spammed in Strat Castle defenses.  Say 25 wpf per level of xbow).
 - rightly buffs Tenne with more ammo but he is too manly an archer to use them anyway ;)

19

Diplomacy / Re: *******The Kalmarunion declares war on the Grey Order*******

« on: January 11, 2014, 07:29:58 pm »

Proud of Guray Order <3

I don't believe Coalition will be returning, but Fallen almost certainly will exist, remains to be seen if GK or HRE will return in some form.

The Coalition is over.  Fallen will probably appear somewhere but since we have no allies left and no faith in the competence or size of any potential anti-UIF block, then we see no reason to bother with it.  Instead we'll just do whatever seems fun at the time.

There we go - Fallen diplomacy finished for 2014.  Now I can get back to being inactive again

20

Faction Halls / Re: [Fallen] - Fallen Brigade - Recruiting EU - NEW!

« on: December 31, 2013, 12:41:34 am »

Nice thread Tizzango.  You need to pester that lazy leader of yours to get a proper image though ;)

21

General Discussion / Re: Serious decission about ranged(might contain qq stuff)

« on: December 28, 2013, 01:22:35 am »

Hehe - I'm in 2 of those screenies and its good to see Fallen causing some rage yet again

Seriously though the answer is simple....limit ammo, preferably according to the number of players on the server.

1 quiver per archer max.
If less than 25 players per team then reduce arrows per quiver by 40%

22

Faction Halls / Re: [Fallen] - The Fallen Brigade - (Recruiting Eu) - We are 3 years old!

« on: December 28, 2013, 01:13:08 am »

We're famous again

http://forum.melee.org/general-discussion/serious-decission-about-ranged%28might-contain-qq-stuff%29/

23

Events & Tournaments / Re: If I build it, will you come?

« on: December 22, 2013, 04:50:58 pm »

I'm contemplating wether or not I should get my own server that the community can do events in. The question is, if I build it will you come?

(click to show/hide)

NA server
Try to find the same provider as the other NA servers
40 ish slots?

Not really being utilised in EU right now and not quite finished (cosmetic stuff mainly) but if you provide a longterm server then NA clans are welcome to register in the clan League Tenne set up -  http://46.32.229.176/Chris_Project/Tournament_Website/index.php.

Since it is an ELO style system with no set fixture list then NA clans would not have to fight EU clans and could have their own prizes.  Once Tenne gets some time we'll be able to split the table properly between NA and EU as well.

Fundamental rules would have to be the same as EU (A match is 8 rounds on one of the official native maps with a spawn switch half way through) but the other restrictions we use are negotiable since they are really just a default set of rules that clan captains can use if they can't agree on their own rules for a specific match. 

Let me know if you are interested because I'd rather this get used by NA, than it continue to be ignored by lazy EU folk (myself included)

24

Diplomacy / Re: Coalition-Druzhina battle agreement aka Gentelmens War

« on: December 17, 2013, 08:06:57 pm »

This is exactly what they wanted

Actually no.

The last thing we want is a reset as we're in no state to play another round and it will probably be another 3-4 months before anybody has the time and energy to change that.

25

Game Balance Discussion / Re: How to nerf archery, without destroying it.

« on: December 15, 2013, 11:04:54 pm »

+1 but go even lower on the ammo count.  12 MW Bodkins per quiver should be max imo. 14 MW Barbeds, 16 MW Tartars and 18 MW Arrows

Reduce MW Steel Bolts to 8 whilst you are at it and MW Bolts to 12.

Also remove ammo looting for all ranged inc throwers. 

That will really make ranged have to melee at the end of rounds (or in the middle of them to conserve ammo)

26

Diplomacy / Re: Coalition-Druzhina battle agreement aka Gentelmens War

« on: December 15, 2013, 03:29:21 pm »

Apologies for coming late to the party but figured I'd just confirm the official stance from Fallen (warning - includes some hard truths and opinions, but I'm inactive so i don't care anymore )

Early Strat 4 was actually quite fun.  We had an alliance similar is size to the UIF and actually looked like we would be able to fight back although we always knew and accepted that full conquest was always unlikely.  Then the fail started.

First we had Kinngrimm pulling every small clan that ever existed into his alliance thereby unofficially making them part of the Anti-UIF.  They were never part of it in our eyes and we wouldn't have lifted a finger to help them, but other small clans couldn't know this for certain and so they themselves felt the need to join the stupid block war.  It would have been nice if all these other clans had fought amongst themselves.  There was certainly enough room for it with the current Strat mechanics but unfortunately the usual paranoia kicked in.

Then we had the Templol greed in taking over Yalen.  We took and held Veluca to hinder UIF trade.  Templols took an isolated corner of the map that was completely cut off from their other fiefs for nothing other than e-peen and it cost us.

Meanwhile we had the utter lack of Merc organisation.  Haboe at least tried but I guess with it being Mercs it was always a no-win situation.  In the end the only Merc armies that made it into the Uxkhal war were the ones that Coalition members picked up and led ourselves.  When the Mercs finally did get organised they started a war with our own side instead pushing yet more clans and resources towards the UIF. 

This was quickly followed up by the utter incompetence of gifting over half the resources of the Anti-UIF to the UIF through capped fiefs.  Suddenly we went from an even footing with the UIF to being completely out-resourced.  Naturally these extra UIF resources came straight at us and we had the month of hell where it wasn't just 1 battle a night, every night like at Uxkhal, it was 2 and sometimes 3 or even 4.

Put simply - people burned out.  Moving crap around the strat map has never been fun but the XP and the battles used to make up for it.  This was no longer the case though and activity plummeted.  We tried to find new people willing to take on responsibility but they either weren't up to the task or didn't have the time for it.  This is still the case in Fallen.  We haven't had a real Leader for months now and it shows on the cRPG servers.

This is why we are burning our resources - if we try to fight on all we will be doing is feeding yet more resources to the UIF who will use them to stomp other small clans.  Giving resources to small clans would have been a nice option but quite frankly it would have been a death sentence to the clans.  The UIF would have just gone for them next and I doubt there's a small clan out there capable of actually holding onto the resources long enough to do anything with them. 

At least with Segd we were fairly certain that he would honour his agreement to use the resources on XP battles which we could join in on.  We hoped that this was a sign the the UIF was getting bored itself and starting to break up.  Maybe not to the point where they would actually attack each other, but at least to a point where they don't have to hold each others hands when taking a piss.  Clearly we were wrong.  Thanks for trying though Segd .

27

General Discussion / Re: Interesting new thing :o

« on: November 20, 2013, 12:01:55 am »

"Heroes" are chars used for strat

Renown is the value of equipment used in battles where you were commanding, split between your own char and the other people in your faction (can't remember the split)

Unfortunately though when the equipment bug hits strat, it also hits renown and so what you will actually fins is the top players from both EU and NA are actually those who experienced the equipment bug most severely

28

Events & Tournaments / Re: cRPG EU Clan League

« on: November 17, 2013, 10:22:26 pm »

1) Is it allowed to use multiple characters in the league?

Yes - no limit on chars so long as they have the right banner

2) Is it allowed to use mercenaries for some matches? Say if they don't belong to any clan in league, joining for one match or two? Cause that would help shit tons due to inactive players.

Yes - Randomers (people from clans not in the league) can be used but only if they have not fought for any other clans recently (use common sense but as a guide lets say within the last 2 weeks). 


EDIT: In the spirit of getting as many games in as possible I am also going to say that so long as BOTH captains are happy then teams can also use other team's players.  For instance if your opponents can only manage 7 players and you have 9, then if both captains agree, one player can be transferred for the match to make it 8v8.

29

Events & Tournaments / Re: cRPG EU Clan League

« on: November 10, 2013, 10:23:33 pm »

Good to see some matches being played at the moment

Just a quick note though....

Each map is a separate "match" and therefore they need submitting separately.  This is because the automatic calculations are based on matches being a total of 8 rounds.  The current 16-0 listed for Greys v OdE therefore won't get calculated but I'll get Tenne/Bifi to fix it.

30

Strategus General Discussion / Re: Strategus Reset?

« on: November 10, 2013, 01:08:29 pm »

I don't think a reward system based off of total kills or even renown (however that calculates) is likely to be abused in the way you think. Say 5 actives get together and recruit 120 troops a day and launch a 1200 man attack every 10 days and do 1:1 in each fight. all the kills/renown are divided by 5 and they would likely get quite a bit. On the other hand... a clan with 100 members of which only 60 are recruiting troops at all and of which only 10 are actively doing stuff and they are so worried about keeping their lands and such that they play defensively so they only end up sending out 1200 troops every 10 days... now you have all the renown and kills of those 1200 troops per 10 days being divided by 100... no one gets shit. Even if the bigger faction uses its troops up at a better rate than 1200 every 10 days they would still be dividing everything by 100 and wouldnt be able to outperform the 5 man group... the best they could do is match the 5man group. the only advantage the 100 man clan would have is the ability to hold more territory and amass more wealth and gear their troops better. but if the 5 man group really has its shit together they could probably get a decent fief and make enough money to gear their troops well and hold out for a long time. or just go hang out in a friendly factions lands and take up contracts or something.

If there were cRPG incentives to strat youd get more people playing it actively and i really think you would see a lot more small active groups just seeking profit through mercing and such.

What about a 100 man faction where 60 of them recruit troops and then the faction hands over all those troops to a 5 man faction who do the actual battles?

Any score we give to factions needs to be divided by the total troops created by the faction plus the total troops received.  That way scores are always normailsed by each faction's true resource pool.

As for incentives - I would prefer them to be visual but these days with armouries, looms are completely devalued anyway so that won't make much difference.