Messages

1

Announcements / Re: Version 0.286

« on: June 09, 2012, 03:44:53 am »

You're all missing the main point... The removal of polestagger is a major nerf to polearm users, 2h vs polearm duels are unbalanced now (assuming there was balance before the nerf).

I am fine with removing the stagger, but the stats on polearms should have went up alongside the removal, to prevent the nerf from being too overbearing.

The way I see it now, there is just no reason to play a polearm infantry, the pros of 2h greatly outweigh those of polearm.

2

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Equalize weapon master & agility builds

« on: June 03, 2012, 02:34:00 am »

The main problem is, WM is a useless skill to non-hybrid infantry and cavalry.

3

Game Balance Discussion / Re: What's the primary weapon of an archer ?

« on: May 30, 2012, 05:26:51 am »

I had suggested a slightly better 0 slot melee weapon in IRC a day or two ago. Still inferior to 1 slot weapons, but with at least 70 length and so. The current 0 slot weapons are only useful for blocking a few attacks before getting a chance to run away.

What a terrible idea that serves no real purpose. Most archers don't put points into powerstrike, and thus won't melee even with a German Greatsword. Those that do put points in it carry the 1slot mace and will melee as things stand now. No one is going to put points into PS just to wield a 0 slot weapon, unless it gets a significant buff (which would eliminate the whole idea behind it being 0 slot).

As someone already suggested, making the arrows weigh significantly more (double or something similar) would solve the problem, because they would only be able to run away from tincans (and let's face it, it would be silly of them not to).

4

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Equalize weapon master & agility builds

« on: May 27, 2012, 07:31:48 pm »

As it is now, WM is purely for ranged & hybrids. For other characters it's one of those "I have extra points and don't know what to do with them" stats.

5

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Armor

« on: May 27, 2012, 07:26:28 pm »

Wearing plate makes you literally invulnerable to players of low level, players of mid level who aren't using blunt/pierce, and all agil-heavy builds. If anything, it needs a nerf.

And pseudo-health-regen is a terrible idea.

6

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Final Solution for Cavalry. (Make it.. different)

« on: May 27, 2012, 07:23:45 pm »

Why not? You currently have to use a shield, if you don't want to get shot. Does this, too, mean that balance is off?

That's not the point, the point is who tops the scoreboards, and I see more cav than anyone else, by far.

Honestly, my only character is cav, if I am for nerfing cav, it's most likely overpowered.

7

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Final Solution for Cavalry. (Make it.. different)

« on: May 26, 2012, 07:14:18 pm »

Actually, it should be like that. In medieval times, cavalry was kind of the deciding factor. You can always carry a lawlpike along with your 2h sword, you know. Or play siege.

You won't be able to force the majority of the players to do something like that, and the entire point is, when the majority of your team is vulnerable to cavalry, it doesn't matter if a small number can handle them without effort. Yeah, it is realistic when cav is the deciding factor, it would also be realistic if plate armor made you immortal, but c-rpg is about balance, not realism.

However, I suppose to account for the nerfs I suggested, horse bump damage should be doubled (or something along those lines), since with low maneuver, it would be significantly easier to avoid a horse. Cav would be much more interesting this way, and it would also appeal to the realism crew (which isn't even the aim, but two birds with one stone, why not).

8

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Final Solution for Cavalry. (Make it.. different)

« on: May 25, 2012, 09:51:56 pm »

Nerf both acceleration and maneuver. Everything will be fine after that, people will still play cav, and will still top scoreboards, but they will require far more skill, and will be seen less frequently (as they should).

As it is now, at the beginning of every round I check out how many cavalry players my team has, if it's a healthy number, I know we will win 90% of the time, and if it's not, I know we will probably lose. It shouldn't be like that.

9

Nations Cup / Re: cRPG Nations Cup

« on: May 22, 2012, 10:55:29 pm »

Holy crap it's Balton.

I've returned, to lead the lost souls and cleanse the unworthy trolls, because if not I, then who.

2 words, Alaska, Hawaii.
And Balton, no, it's not.  Try manually blocking with 240 ping, let me know how many you block even when the enemy telegraphs the swing they are coming at you with.

I've topped the scoreboard on EU many times, and I have 240 ping there. The best defense is a good offense.

10

Nations Cup / Re: cRPG Nations Cup

« on: May 22, 2012, 10:33:21 pm »

If you guys manage to assemble a good NA east team and get used to the increased ping the disadvantage is quite small, you just have to adapt your fighting style a bit. It's more about ping spikes then higher ping in general.

It doesn't even have to be east-only. Given the proper playing style, the ping disadvantage is minute, as long as it's under 240.

11

Strategus General Discussion / Re: Fix neutral fiefs not paying, Siege on Karindi example of downward spiral

« on: November 09, 2011, 03:02:59 am »

Or we could just let Fallen take all the villages. Tulbuk was taken during the most awkward hour and still people showed up in mass for the AI

Like I said, it's a downward spiral. The tulbuk battle occured 8 days ago, & the attackers outnumbered the Tulbuk defenders by more than 2:1, less than 20 showing up to defend Tulbuk. But on the very first strat 3.0 siege, IIRC 60 or so defenders showed up. With no pay, people are losing interest.

12

Strategus General Discussion / Re: Fix neutral fiefs not paying, Siege on Karindi example of downward spiral

« on: November 09, 2011, 02:56:25 am »

Less than 10 players showed up due to superior goon tactics, but neutral fiefs should pay money.

'Tis true actually. As things stand now, sieging during the off-hours results in practically no defenders showing.

But this would not be a problem if EU players showed to defend NA fiefs, and NA players showed to defend EU fiefs, which would most certainly occur as a result of mercenaries being paid that which they are owed.

13

Strategus General Discussion / Fix neutral fiefs not paying, Siege on Karindi example of downward spiral

« on: November 09, 2011, 02:47:54 am »

Less than 10 defenders showed up, which resulted in flags being capped almost instantaneously.

This is a sign that neutral fiefs failing to pay should be a top priority hotfix. It's only going down-hill from this point, pretty soon less than 5 people will show.

These endeavors are turning Strategus into a mockery.

14

General Discussion / Re: i got scammed on market

« on: November 04, 2011, 06:26:42 pm »

Rofl, what OP did doesn't even make logical sense.

8/10 I had a good laugh.

15

Strategus General Discussion / Re: NPC fiefs need more defenders tonight

« on: November 02, 2011, 03:17:18 pm »

If neutral fiefs payed, I am sure practically all players would disregard politics. 28 rounceys for having 10 clan members help defend a neutral fief? Who wouldn't sign up.

As of now, by signing up for neutral fiefs, you wither political ties, but gain nothing from it. The only people who sign up now do it purely for the fun.