241
Sell/Trade / Re: Selling loompoint
« on: March 24, 2012, 09:32:27 pm »
600k latest offer from Azalo.
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.
243
Sell/Trade / Selling loompoint
« on: March 24, 2012, 05:45:30 pm »
Starting at 530k.
Also WTS/trade +1 poleaxe
Also WTS/trade +1 poleaxe
244
General Discussion / Re: A fue Named ricky (apology letter)
« on: March 13, 2012, 04:48:51 am »
Ricky was banned for exploiting for one hour in an empty server, to the tune of 300k xp. He was banned about 30 hours later, that single hour being the only time he exploited. Allers exploited even less, about 30 minutes. Autoblockers using third party hacks, directly affecting gameplay and other players for orders of magnitude longer, were unbanned within a month. I think there's this misconception that they were eagerly and gleefully taking advantage of the system to bypass the the game's intended direction. It's simply not true and that they did not exploit more than the one time after being shown how, even when there was no hint of punishment, demonstrates that fact in no uncertain terms.
I showed them the exploit, they tried it out for a while, and then they decided the mind-numbing boredom of babysitting bots every round was too much and went to battle. In fact, I had to hassle them over Steam to even get them to join the server when I first told them about it. I assumed a very clear leadership role in this ill-conceived endeavor, which, given my seniority and their youth, can be seen as a mitigating factor for them.
Maybe I'm missing some key bit of information or am too focused on legalistic notions of precedence (i.e. contrast to autoblockers), but I feel like a permaban is not warranted when the final decision is made (hasn't been yet).
disclaimer: I'm friends with both of them and was banned (and unbanned) for QML abuse myself.
I showed them the exploit, they tried it out for a while, and then they decided the mind-numbing boredom of babysitting bots every round was too much and went to battle. In fact, I had to hassle them over Steam to even get them to join the server when I first told them about it. I assumed a very clear leadership role in this ill-conceived endeavor, which, given my seniority and their youth, can be seen as a mitigating factor for them.
Maybe I'm missing some key bit of information or am too focused on legalistic notions of precedence (i.e. contrast to autoblockers), but I feel like a permaban is not warranted when the final decision is made (hasn't been yet).
disclaimer: I'm friends with both of them and was banned (and unbanned) for QML abuse myself.
245
General Discussion / Re: Players you dislike/think are bellends
« on: February 08, 2012, 11:20:23 pm »
There are certain folks who can beat me a hundred times in a row, (like saul, serge and cyranule) and be cool and encouraging every time, and other folks (Like This tkov guy or Godkind_kaoliwhatever) who will beat you once then talk smack and tell you how bad you are, and duck out of fights if they are losing. We all know who they are.
You were literally backpedaling in a straight line across the map and when I offered a duel to someone else to cancel our fight, you started talking shit to me. I responded in kind, but don't act so innocent. In fact, before that incident we were pretty friendly; you're the one who turned hostile the instant I cancelled our duel. Anyone who frequents the NA duel server knows that I can be kind of trolly, but I am rarely malicious. I've literally spent hours at a time there helping new players learn how to play.
246
Suggestions Corner / Re: Basic game imbalances
« on: December 17, 2011, 01:39:52 am »
While people are busy jizzing themselves over OP's presentation and conciliatory tone, I thought the whole thing reeked of the sort of armchair game-design, that, if followed, would destroy the game. I would almost be afraid of the overwhelming support it has received if I didn't have faith that it will mostly be ignored by the developers, who, despite being lazy, corrupt eurotrash, are intelligent enough to recognize garbage ideas when they see them.
You couch your argument in numerical terms that you arrived at with some very basic arithmetic, but the original values were assigned through an individual's arbitrary judgment. Your methodology is so loosely defined that the results are meaningless. It is just your opinion being paraded around with the facade of real analysis.
As others have noted, you mostly consider one vs one situations and do not take the holistic approach to balance required in a predominantly team-based game.
Your whom can attack who key is simply ridiculous. When archers and cavalry die to melee infantry, it isn't because they "allowed" themselves to be killed. This is borderline insulting to infantry.
This doesn't make any sense, "Another important point is, what player THINK is easier. It doesn't matter how it is in reality, but most players should be afraid of manual blocking, and most of them should think it's easier to become a master archer with good aiming rather than a master infantryman with good blocking skills."
Your proposed equipment system does not promote player diversity, but restricts it. Making a tradeoff between skill/attributes and "budget" means that everyone who chooses to trade the same amount (every "veteran warrior" infantry for example) will have similar gear because your balance would entail similar items having similar budget requirements. Simply put, you are restricting the item pool for each build and therefore users of each build will be more alike. You're just creating arbitrary build divisions that reinforce similarities within themselves, and then pointing to the multiple builds you created unnecessarily and yelling diversity. Different builds and loadouts already occur organically.
Furthermore, you erroneously conflate equipment effectiveness with price. Not explicitly, as I'm sure you'll strenuously deny, but that is the story your graphs tell, while the "best" equipment is only what people prefer to use and personal preferences vary widely, even with identical character builds.
I disagree with your methodology, pretty much everything it tries to prove, and your "solutions." I hope people will actually read your post and come to their own conclusions instead of being dazzled by numbers and graphs.
You couch your argument in numerical terms that you arrived at with some very basic arithmetic, but the original values were assigned through an individual's arbitrary judgment. Your methodology is so loosely defined that the results are meaningless. It is just your opinion being paraded around with the facade of real analysis.
As others have noted, you mostly consider one vs one situations and do not take the holistic approach to balance required in a predominantly team-based game.
Your whom can attack who key is simply ridiculous. When archers and cavalry die to melee infantry, it isn't because they "allowed" themselves to be killed. This is borderline insulting to infantry.
This doesn't make any sense, "Another important point is, what player THINK is easier. It doesn't matter how it is in reality, but most players should be afraid of manual blocking, and most of them should think it's easier to become a master archer with good aiming rather than a master infantryman with good blocking skills."
Your proposed equipment system does not promote player diversity, but restricts it. Making a tradeoff between skill/attributes and "budget" means that everyone who chooses to trade the same amount (every "veteran warrior" infantry for example) will have similar gear because your balance would entail similar items having similar budget requirements. Simply put, you are restricting the item pool for each build and therefore users of each build will be more alike. You're just creating arbitrary build divisions that reinforce similarities within themselves, and then pointing to the multiple builds you created unnecessarily and yelling diversity. Different builds and loadouts already occur organically.
Furthermore, you erroneously conflate equipment effectiveness with price. Not explicitly, as I'm sure you'll strenuously deny, but that is the story your graphs tell, while the "best" equipment is only what people prefer to use and personal preferences vary widely, even with identical character builds.
I disagree with your methodology, pretty much everything it tries to prove, and your "solutions." I hope people will actually read your post and come to their own conclusions instead of being dazzled by numbers and graphs.
247
Realism Discussion / Re: When will you finally take out retarded things like jump-poking with pikes etc?
« on: December 15, 2011, 08:48:57 pm »
You know what is even more unrealistic? People taking 12-17 foot poles, sprinting forward, stabbing them into the ground, and propelling themselves 20 feet in the air. Oh wait, that's called pole vaulting and trained athletes do it every day. I have no doubt, that if a trained pikeman had the inclination or need to jump while thrusting a merely 9-12 foot pole, he could do so. As to the real world efficacy of this possible action as a tactic, we will not speak, for any game lacking a one-to-one mapping of the human body only entails an abstraction of combat, not a true representation. After all, I don't seem to recall infinite feinting, infinite sprinting, instant turning, turning on one's own axis without a pivot, strictly perpendicular blocks, or strictly four attack directions in any medieval or renaissance fechtbücher.
On a more serious note, the more things a player can do and defend against, the more opportunities there are for skill to shine through. Ceteris paribus, a game with 100 moves has a higher skill ceiling than a game with 10. I like these little idiosyncrasies because it allows a player who can master and defeat them to be more successful than one who cannot, that is, it raises the skill ceiling and makes the game more variable.
On a more serious note, the more things a player can do and defend against, the more opportunities there are for skill to shine through. Ceteris paribus, a game with 100 moves has a higher skill ceiling than a game with 10. I like these little idiosyncrasies because it allows a player who can master and defeat them to be more successful than one who cannot, that is, it raises the skill ceiling and makes the game more variable.
248
Historical Discussion / Re: Awlpike, with shield or without a shield
« on: October 16, 2011, 08:10:19 pm »
Anything with that Peter Woodward bloke shouldn't be taken seriously. Absolutely full of historical inaccuracies and totally imaginary weapons.
249
Closed Requests / Re: NA_CRPG_5
« on: August 31, 2011, 03:58:30 am »
Thanks for the swift response. I did not take screenshots, but I will if I witness such abuse in the future.
250
Closed Requests / NA_CRPG_5
« on: August 31, 2011, 02:25:19 am »
I was playing siege on NA_CRPG_5 at 8:10 pm ET, 8/30/2011. There were four people playing and the teams were 1(me) vs 3. I was taking them on three at a time and winning. Either Armand or kaos(string of random digits) accused me of hacking and said he had "logged the speeds" or something similarly retarded. Map changed, now 2v2, and either Armand or kaos(random digits) votebanned me and it passed. So I'm writing to request a lifting of this ban, removal of the voteban function on that server, and possibly some sort of reprimand or punishment for whoever started the vote for vote abuse.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your time.
251
Suggestions Corner / Re: Rethinking Halfswording
« on: August 22, 2011, 05:27:30 am »Is it possible to half-sword and still use the WPF for two handed weapons? Does the flamberge use polearm skill?
All two-handers in halfsword mode use polearm wpf. Flamberge uses two-hander wpf only, it just uses the halfsword animation for thrust.
252
Suggestions Corner / Re: Rethinking Halfswording
« on: August 22, 2011, 04:33:32 am »
Would you dis/agree that halfswording as it stands is fairly unsatisfying to use and mostly useless practically? Even though a large part of the text is exploring an alternative, I'm as interested in how halfswording is regarded now.
And since you seem to be in the know, would implementing a simple polearm overhead and/or halfsworded right swing, changing wpf back to two-handers, or removing horse-stop be possible under the current system?
And since you seem to be in the know, would implementing a simple polearm overhead and/or halfsworded right swing, changing wpf back to two-handers, or removing horse-stop be possible under the current system?
253
Suggestions Corner / Rethinking Halfswording
« on: August 22, 2011, 02:41:40 am »
Rethinking halfswording
As it stands in cRPG halfswording is underused, underpowered, and altogether underwhelming. You exchange range on the thrust for power, lose both power and range on swings, and lose the overhead completely. Secondly, it uses an entirely different wpf than in primary mode, discouraging use amongst the vast majority of people who actually carry two-handers namely people who invest in two hander proficiency. As it stands, the only reason to halfsword is to perhaps stop a horse.
That's what I see wrong with halfswording. Id like to see if other players agree or disagree with this assessment of its general uselessness more than the response to what I will propose below. With that said, the following are some (probably poorly thought out) ideas to improve halfswording. As a disclaimer, I am a polearmer and am not arguing for the improvement of any equipment I use.
1. Use two hand wpf while halfswording
Encourage use amongst the principle owners of weapons that can be halfsworded; remove the silliness of using polearm wpf for something that is not a polearm
2. Have both right and left swings use a halfswording animation while in that mode (decreased range and damage)
Ensure that the benefits are mitigated by certain disadvantages; make halfswording only beneficial situationally
3. Keep the same halfswording thrust (decreased range, increased damage)
Same reasoning
4. Use Mordhau, striking with the pommel while holding the blade, as the halfswording overhead (greatly decreased damage but using blunt damage type, decreased range).
No overhead makes the weapon feel extremely awkward; makes halfswording versatile at a price
Picture of Mordhau from the Wallerstein fechtbuch
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
5. Remove horse stop stab
Its for polearms and halfswording shouldnt turn your weapon into one. Halfswording was also not used against horses in reality; though thats a lesser argument, I feel that a degree of realism should be applied where possible.
Halfswording was meant for close infighting where full swings were not possible or advantageous and against heavily armored opponents where the added stability of a hand gripping the blade would allow you to more easily penetrate armor (or bash him with the pommel). While historical veracity is not always the best guide for game design in terms of fun or balance, I believe the enumerated changes could enhance both. You would lose the deceptive and smooth two-hander animation, a large amount of range (on all attacks), and damage on anything besides thrust. You would gain the much more obvious but crisper (for lack of a better word) animation of the hands-apart grip, varied damage types (swing-cut, overhead-blunt, thrust-pierce), and a larger sweet-spot relative to the striking surface beyond the leading hand (though not to the entire weapon).
Some separate musings about the system Ive proposed that Im not sold on.
Use the ability to halfsword to differentiate between similar weapons (e.g. Great Sword can halfsword while Heavy Great Sword cant). Maybe increase the price of the one that can.
Make one of an exceedingly similar pair of two-handers halfsword exclusively.
Introduce a couple new two-handers that halfsword exclusively, while removing halfswording from all or most of the old ones.
Remove halfswording from a bunch of weapons that currently have it (Sword of War, Heavy Great Sword, etc.).
Give Mordhau knockdown. Mordhau would already hugely decreases range and damage with the only benefit of blunt damage-type. Possibly overpowered, though.
The Mordhau animation might be very difficult (maybe even impossible) to make. If so, replace with a regular overhead or a shortened halfsworded overhead (not sure how realistic this is).
Ignore everything I wrote and remove halfswording as a separate mode and just have some more swords use the halfswording thrust animation normally, like the Langes Messer and Flamberge do.
Anyway, just some thoughts. Id love to hear yours on the subject.
As it stands in cRPG halfswording is underused, underpowered, and altogether underwhelming. You exchange range on the thrust for power, lose both power and range on swings, and lose the overhead completely. Secondly, it uses an entirely different wpf than in primary mode, discouraging use amongst the vast majority of people who actually carry two-handers namely people who invest in two hander proficiency. As it stands, the only reason to halfsword is to perhaps stop a horse.
That's what I see wrong with halfswording. Id like to see if other players agree or disagree with this assessment of its general uselessness more than the response to what I will propose below. With that said, the following are some (probably poorly thought out) ideas to improve halfswording. As a disclaimer, I am a polearmer and am not arguing for the improvement of any equipment I use.
1. Use two hand wpf while halfswording
Encourage use amongst the principle owners of weapons that can be halfsworded; remove the silliness of using polearm wpf for something that is not a polearm
2. Have both right and left swings use a halfswording animation while in that mode (decreased range and damage)
Ensure that the benefits are mitigated by certain disadvantages; make halfswording only beneficial situationally
3. Keep the same halfswording thrust (decreased range, increased damage)
Same reasoning
4. Use Mordhau, striking with the pommel while holding the blade, as the halfswording overhead (greatly decreased damage but using blunt damage type, decreased range).
No overhead makes the weapon feel extremely awkward; makes halfswording versatile at a price
Picture of Mordhau from the Wallerstein fechtbuch
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
5. Remove horse stop stab
Its for polearms and halfswording shouldnt turn your weapon into one. Halfswording was also not used against horses in reality; though thats a lesser argument, I feel that a degree of realism should be applied where possible.
Halfswording was meant for close infighting where full swings were not possible or advantageous and against heavily armored opponents where the added stability of a hand gripping the blade would allow you to more easily penetrate armor (or bash him with the pommel). While historical veracity is not always the best guide for game design in terms of fun or balance, I believe the enumerated changes could enhance both. You would lose the deceptive and smooth two-hander animation, a large amount of range (on all attacks), and damage on anything besides thrust. You would gain the much more obvious but crisper (for lack of a better word) animation of the hands-apart grip, varied damage types (swing-cut, overhead-blunt, thrust-pierce), and a larger sweet-spot relative to the striking surface beyond the leading hand (though not to the entire weapon).
Some separate musings about the system Ive proposed that Im not sold on.
Use the ability to halfsword to differentiate between similar weapons (e.g. Great Sword can halfsword while Heavy Great Sword cant). Maybe increase the price of the one that can.
Make one of an exceedingly similar pair of two-handers halfsword exclusively.
Introduce a couple new two-handers that halfsword exclusively, while removing halfswording from all or most of the old ones.
Remove halfswording from a bunch of weapons that currently have it (Sword of War, Heavy Great Sword, etc.).
Give Mordhau knockdown. Mordhau would already hugely decreases range and damage with the only benefit of blunt damage-type. Possibly overpowered, though.
The Mordhau animation might be very difficult (maybe even impossible) to make. If so, replace with a regular overhead or a shortened halfsworded overhead (not sure how realistic this is).
Ignore everything I wrote and remove halfswording as a separate mode and just have some more swords use the halfswording thrust animation normally, like the Langes Messer and Flamberge do.
Anyway, just some thoughts. Id love to hear yours on the subject.