Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Slamz

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 51
1
General Discussion / Re: What has cRPG come to?
« on: August 15, 2012, 07:39:23 am »
I believe all problems stem from the Courser and the Arabian.

Remove those two from the game and you'll see a lot of stuff fall back into line because everything that happens with infantry and ranged is a reaction to loomed coursers and arabians (mostly coursers).

After your 25th time being lanced in the back by a horse that's so fast you had no chance to hear it coming, you start thinking about things like spears.

After your 25th time being lanced in the back by a horse that's so fast you had no chance to hear it coming while trying to stab some other horse that simply stayed out of range of your spear, you start thinking about things like ranged.

So you either give up entirely and pick up a bow so you can hide in a tower and shoot horses or else you at least pick up power throw 4 so you can throw axes at horses, which I can tell you is WAY more effective than trying to spear them (good cav easily avoid spears but avoiding throwing means staying 50 meters away at all times).

The people who toughed it out and stayed infantry are now being shot and axed to death by ranged attacks that were originally picked up to be used on horses.  When there's no horses around, you use it on infantry instead.  These remaining infantry, tired of being peppered by ranged, will either go cav or ranged.  (They may briefly try shield only to realize it leaves them nearly defenseless against cav.)


I think if the best horse was the Destrier, you wouldn't see this cascade of failure occur because destriers aren't so awesome-fast or awesome-maneuverable to just make infantry give up.

The refusal to nerf coursers and arabians means this mod can never really find a balance.



Incidentally, what's up with horse acceleration in cRPG?  I was noticing in single player native, if you ram your horse into a crowd of people you're liable to grind to a halt.  cRPG seems to slow you down too but you recover speed so fast that unless you jam your horse into a smashed crowd of 10 infantry, you'll hit 1 and have your speed back before you hit the 2nd one, 5 feet further in.  Consequently you can ram through formations in cRPG that you would never attempt in native. Combine that with loomed courser speed and it's generally a free lance and a free getaway.

2
You should be using heavy throwing axes, not throwing lances, especially if you're throwing at archers a lot.

Having a hard time dredging up sympathy after you said you're a lancer, which are typically the top scoring killers.

3
General Discussion / Re: How to destroy balance in one move
« on: August 11, 2012, 05:56:06 pm »
Welcome to EU:
(click to show/hide)

Rampant on EU.  Haven't noticed it at all on NA so far.

4
Strategus Issues / Re: stuck on lonely island
« on: August 09, 2012, 09:00:26 pm »
Aye that's a good plan mate :). But the rum is all gone, I gotta get off this bloody island..

(click to show/hide)

5
Guild Wars / Re: Stress test tommorow (August 9) 21:00 CEST
« on: August 09, 2012, 10:50:20 am »
I wanna pop in because I want to try playing with "fields":
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Combo

So, for example, an engineer can drop a Fire Bomb, creating a Fire Field.  He can then drop a Big Ol' Bomb in it to create a blast effect within the field that results in all friendlies in the area getting Might.


Or a Ranger can set a Frost Trap, which creates an Ice Field, and then a guardian can do a Whirling Wrath while standing in it add a Chill effect to all of his bolts.

These combos aren't really given much of a highlight that I could see in the game, so I never think to mess with them much.  I knew I could drop a fire wall and then shoot through it to add burning attacks to my bullets but there's a lot of fields and things you can do with them and some aren't very obvious.  I want to take a closer look at the fields I can create and see what effects I can maybe get some real use out of.

6
Guild Wars / Re: The Gem System: Pay to Win?
« on: August 09, 2012, 10:43:59 am »
I don't think Guild Wars 2 is that brilliant... They took Guild Wars 1's
There's your first mistake: comparing it to Guild Wars 1.  It seems to me that almost all of the vehement complaints about GW2 come from GW1 players who were expecting more of the same.

It's kinda like all my comic book nerd friends who go see some movie based on a comic and say "Man that movie sucked".  I thought it was awesome!  But they came in the door with preconceptions about what it was going to be like and left disappointed that it didn't match the comics.  I think you'd like GW2 more if you stopped trying to compare it to what you thought it was going to be.


Quote
I was very disappointed to see bla skills and NO HEALING CLASS basically.
Not sure why you think they have "bla skills".  Knockdowns, knockbacks, teleports, ranged AE, PB AE, line AE, etc -- they have a pretty complete set of "things you can possibly have in an RPG".

No healing class (and also no tank class) is a design decision some people definitely won't like but I personally think it's brilliant.  The old "healer - tank - DPS" formation lead to boring gameplay all around, IMO.  Even in PvP you knew you had to deal with the healer and if you didn't, you lost.  Tended to make all the combat very predictable.  I find combat in GW2, both PvE and PvP, to be far more active and involved for all members.  Everyone is responsible for their own survival because there's really nobody out there who can do it for it for you, as in other games where you basically just got hit and did nothing in particular about it because it was the healer's job to play whack-a-mole with the health bars.

Quote
But more on topic: Hopefully they don't let P2P get people OVERPOWERED items, hopefully it's just better items or cool skins, etc. But this is a free to play game, so how are they going to make some more money?

You'd be surprised how much money people put down on cosmetic items.  I thought Pirates of the Burning Sea was going to die shortly after launching "free to play" with a cash store for cosmetic items but apparently it did so well, they actually expanded the development team and started hiring again.  There's money in there somewhere.

Another interesting thing here, though, is that there's no "pay to win" because there's no "win" that I can see.  In WOW, Rift, WAR, etc, there was a PvE progression and you might say you "win" after you got through that progression, which was necessarily long and arduous (grindy).  People would be pissed if you simply sold the end-game armor for money because the grinders would feel robbed of their "job" of grinding for gear.

As far as I can tell, GW2 gear hits a plateau right at 80 and the only thing after that is cosmetic stuff.  So basically either you have fun and you keep playing purely because you find the game fun, or you don't have fun and you stop.  No more of what I see too much in those other games, which is people apparently not having much fun but playing anyway because they really have to get the +11 additional STR from that next helmet in the next set.  Since GW2 is free to play, they have no reason to build the usual "carrot on a stick" system that keeps players logged in 10 hours a day, 7 days a week for two years.    You play til you get bored of the content and then you do something else until the expansion comes out.


Personally I think World vs World is where it's at and is where I expect I'll be for at least a couple months.

7
General Discussion / Re: What do you listen to While playing cRPG?
« on: August 08, 2012, 11:12:25 am »
ITT: we discover why so many people are so easily lanced from behind.

8
Guild Wars / Re: Read here for Strategies for Reserving Names!!
« on: August 08, 2012, 09:18:42 am »
Someone explain to me why there are name reservations.

If you make a character named "Bob", you actually become something like "Bob.8762", presumably so that other people can also be named Bob.  They would just be Bob.1247 and Bob.9130.

Instead, there can apparently only be one "Bob" anywhere, possibly across all servers?

So what's the point of the numbers after the name?

9
Suggestions Corner / Re: Full on horse collisions
« on: August 07, 2012, 09:37:20 am »
It isn't realistic because a horse would never fucking run into a wall and die, I'm sure if one ever did it would, but it would be highly unlikely unless it was blind.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x94w5m_fatal-horse-collision-in-kentucky_news

Bzzt.  You're wrong.  Horses: not really as smart as you seem to think they are.  Granted this was a horse vs horse collision but it just plowed straight in from behind so it might as well have been a wall.  Took me about 5 seconds on Google to find that.


Although really your argument boils down to the fact that there should be "horse AI".  I agree that in the name of realism, horses should have proper A.I. but I think my solution is a much more feasible compromise between "realistic A.I." and the "magical Mario bumper karts" we have today.



But really this isn't a realism debate so much as a factual statement that cavalry in this game is is too easy and forgiving because both "horse A.I." and physics are dumb.

Make horses smarter or make physics more realistic.  Pick one.

Failure to do either is why we're playing Mario Kart.

10
Suggestions Corner / Re: Full on horse collisions
« on: August 06, 2012, 11:55:14 am »
FYI: Maps in cRPG/Warband are littered with various invisible/microscopic obstacles, that rear horses.

Only the bad maps.  They also block arrows and throwing.

These maps should be identified and removed from rotation until they can be fixed.  It should have been done a long time ago.

11
Suggestions Corner / Re: Full on horse collisions
« on: August 06, 2012, 11:54:02 am »
A horse should never take moredamage from hitting an obstacle, as a man (no matter how armored) taking damage from being hit by a horse.

This is probably the 100th time it has been suggested, please stop making these threads. It's not realistic and it wouldn't be fun for anyone involved, I can't even remember the last time I crashed into an obstacle but this is an awful suggestion.

Dear sir,
You are a moron.  Let me count the ways.

What hurts more:
A) A 200 pound man running into a 40 pound child
B) A 200 pound man running into a 50,000 pound brick wall

(click to show/hide)

Whether people should take more damage when being hit by horses is a separate debate unrelated to this thread and you should start your own thread for it.  Off the top of my head, I might support it.

The previous 99 times this was suggested, the devs didn't have a fancy script capable of doing this sort of thing.

It is, in fact, realistic, as I have described.  Or do you think horses normally take no damage from brick walls when running into them?

You not crashing into obstacles is an example of expert mode cavalry play, which is what I would like to separate from noob level play, which I see every 30 seconds in the game as someone crashes into a wall, a tree, a fence, another horse, a stump, a rock, etc.  Frankly there are some cav players out there who shouldn't be allowed on a horse and are only succeeding because the game is unrealistic Mario Kart style no-collision damage easy mode.


This concludes my discussion of why you are a moron.  If you feel I have reached this conclusion in error, please submit another reply and try again.

12
Suggestions Corner / Re: Full on horse collisions
« on: August 06, 2012, 11:45:40 am »
So in other words, if I will have a choice to ride into the wall or through my teammates, I will be forced to hurt my teammates not to kill/hurt my horse?

Yes.

Because if you have reached a point in your cavalry career where your only choice is "run over teammates" or "smash into a wall", you have done something terribly wrong and should be punished for a cavalry mistake that would see you demoted back into infantry IRL anyway.

The main purpose, in my eye, is to put some extra challenge into playing as cavalry.  Currently the main thing keeping everyone from playing cavalry isn't that it's hard -- it's that it's expensive.




I would, incidentally, support lowering the maintenance cost of cavalry if this was implemented.  Once cavalry becomes "hard mode", it will be its own deterrent and we don't need horses to cost 3000+ gold in maintenance as the only way to stop everyone from wanting to use one.

13
Suggestions Corner / Re: Full on horse collisions
« on: August 06, 2012, 12:14:17 am »
Optionally, we could leave it as-is and include things like turtle shells for riders to throw, including red seeking shells, as well as stars you can pick up to go invulnerable and banana peels for riders to throw under the hooves of other horses.



'Cause if we're gonna do Mario Kart, let's do it right.

14
Suggestions Corner / Full on horse collisions
« on: August 06, 2012, 12:13:17 am »
Is this feasible?  Cavalry collision.

Currently, cavalry is like an X-Box racing game set to easy mode.  If you smash into a railing, you just come to a halt and then continue on your merry way.  "Mount & Blade: Nintendo Mario Kart Edition."  What makes "expert mode" racing games expert level is that collisions are serious business and one good high speed smash might be game over.


So what we should really be seeing in M&B is:

* Horse hits horse.  Horses take moderate damage, riders dumped for light damage.
* Horse hits obstacle.  Horse takes moderate to severe damage, rider takes moderate to severe damage.

Ideally the horses would actually spill and get back up but I don't think there is a "horse getting back up" animation so I'd settle for the horse rearing, taking damage and throwing the rider, who also takes damage.  The faster you were moving when you got reared, the more damage you take.


Let's take the noob out of cavalry and reward the experts by making collisions more realistic.  No more Mario Kart.


(The "rear horse" button should also be more like a fast brake than a sudden stop, too, or else it should also spill the rider for light damage.)

15
General Discussion / Re: Crossbow cav RAGE thread....
« on: August 06, 2012, 12:03:21 am »
I thought Napoleonic Wars worked pretty well for how they handle mounted guns:  You can reload while mounted but you have to stop moving first.  Actually crossbows should be easier so I would think reloading at a slow trot would be acceptable.

Reloading while careening around a corner, circus trick style, on a loomed Arabian at maximum speed is just unrealistic, dumb and makes the game worse.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 51