1
General Discussion / Re: You win some, you lose some. It's all a game to me.
« on: April 25, 2016, 03:16:23 pm »
I got a +3 Goedendag for you, Panos, if you come back with a new account!
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.
2
General Discussion / Re: [THEMED BATTLE] PRIZES - VERY IMPORTANT
« on: April 25, 2016, 11:06:42 am »
RobBrewn
RebBrown
RebBrown
5
Announcements / Re: 0.3.3.9.1
« on: July 24, 2014, 09:34:41 am »
Flaming arrows don't work. The velocity of the shot will ensure that that fire won't be burning when the arrow hits. It's a Hollywood-ism :p
6
General Discussion / Re: Inappropriate banner?
« on: July 24, 2014, 09:18:35 am »
Does this mean Xesta and his Dildo crew lost their Hello Kitty banner?
7
General Off Topic / Re: Board Games
« on: July 23, 2014, 07:10:04 pm »
Ticket to Ride is an amazing boardgame. First timers can play and compete straight away, playing a game doesn't take TOO long and it's just a whole lot of fun to play.
8
Historical Discussion / Re: What Vikings really looked like. (Spoiler: They looked like women)
« on: July 22, 2014, 01:14:54 pm »9
General Discussion / Re: Can I reasonably expect a change to the current EXP/Multiplier system?
« on: July 21, 2014, 10:29:41 pm »
Lower upkeep for non-loomed items and lower upkeep in general for anything but the highest of difficulty gear (difficulty 16+ weapons and armor) would be a vast improvement for newer players. Not dying from being bumped by heavy cav is a nice experience and it brings you closer to being competitive with better equiped players. Add changes to the xp/gold system and you got yourself a stew goin'.
10
General Discussion / Re: Can I reasonably expect a change to the current EXP/Multiplier system?
« on: July 21, 2014, 09:26:26 pm »
Same shit as always: +3 loomed lvl33-35s wreck havoc and get valor, even if they lose the round. They got enough gold to survive some setbacks so they rock expensive gear. If you're under level 20, you're cannonfodder. You might say 'lol, get skill' but only the 1% can contribute - assuming they do not face the tougher opponents.
The current system favors clan/vet stacking and that's all there is to it. If you're on the wrong side, you'll lose money unless you run ghetto gear. Run ghetto gear and you increase your team's chances of losing. For all those who say 'lol, sell ur first loom point' - you're asking new players to invest a ridiculous amount of time into a game before they can 'enjoy it'. Do you think they'll stick around? Hell no. I've had three friends who I introduced to c-rpg leave after only 3 days. The first left pretty much straight away, the second gave it a couple of hours before saying he felt like he kept running up against a wall and the third thought he could have fun as an archer. Then he realized that as a lvl20 he could only get kills by shooting enemy peasants - who are snatched up by cavalry within the first 40 seconds of the round. Say a new player uses medium armor in the 6 to 10k range together with a shield that's anywhere from 2 to 4k, he'll immediately run into the danger zone when he uses a difficulty 12+ weapon. Getting the armor and weaponry itself is hard enough, but once he has them, he can't use it all the time. Even with said gear he won't be competitive so go figure how killing it is to having to resort to the crappier stuff.
If the mod wants to extend its lifespan, things will have to change and the xp system is part of that. Let it favor those who contribute and give bonusses dependant on the level of the player (a lvl1-10 should see a huge bump in gold/xp for hitting and killing enemies). I'm not asking for lvl1 to 30 to be a one day affair, but right now the crawl is absolutely killer on newbies. Timesinks are bad and level 1 to 20 simply is a timesink.
The current system favors clan/vet stacking and that's all there is to it. If you're on the wrong side, you'll lose money unless you run ghetto gear. Run ghetto gear and you increase your team's chances of losing. For all those who say 'lol, sell ur first loom point' - you're asking new players to invest a ridiculous amount of time into a game before they can 'enjoy it'. Do you think they'll stick around? Hell no. I've had three friends who I introduced to c-rpg leave after only 3 days. The first left pretty much straight away, the second gave it a couple of hours before saying he felt like he kept running up against a wall and the third thought he could have fun as an archer. Then he realized that as a lvl20 he could only get kills by shooting enemy peasants - who are snatched up by cavalry within the first 40 seconds of the round. Say a new player uses medium armor in the 6 to 10k range together with a shield that's anywhere from 2 to 4k, he'll immediately run into the danger zone when he uses a difficulty 12+ weapon. Getting the armor and weaponry itself is hard enough, but once he has them, he can't use it all the time. Even with said gear he won't be competitive so go figure how killing it is to having to resort to the crappier stuff.
If the mod wants to extend its lifespan, things will have to change and the xp system is part of that. Let it favor those who contribute and give bonusses dependant on the level of the player (a lvl1-10 should see a huge bump in gold/xp for hitting and killing enemies). I'm not asking for lvl1 to 30 to be a one day affair, but right now the crawl is absolutely killer on newbies. Timesinks are bad and level 1 to 20 simply is a timesink.
11
Historical Discussion / Re: Who were the greatest generals in history?
« on: July 21, 2014, 01:55:14 pm »
No mention for Louis de Bourbon, Prince of Condé? He's a textbook 'great general'.
12
Historical Discussion / Re: How was real melee like?
« on: July 21, 2014, 10:39:33 am »
A bit late to the party, but for historians there is one simple rule that you must always adhere to: the truth lies within the source. If the sources do not mention that all Romans wore red uniforms then you simply cannot assume they did. If you cannot find it within the sources you must simply drop the thought, immediately. There are so many historical lies that are embraced as universal truths simply because people cannot be bothered to take a proper look at their sources.
As for the melee bit: in medieval Europe (1000-1400) a lot of wars were initiated by the nobility, those who possessed land. Battle was a means to an end to make a name for yourself and create a legacy. Honor, courage, bravery - that's the stuff your name was written with in the epos of the ages. Conquest was an afterthought for most smaller nobles. There were a few 'danger zones' where the struggle between peoples were fierce and one of those areas was the northern part of Holland, where Frisian farmers - who enjoyed relatively great freedom compared to their brethren elsewhere - clashed with the Count of Holland. The political landscape on both sides changed so fast that I won't go indepth on that, so the generalization above will have to suffice. The fighting between the two sides was so fierce that when you compare the lethality of the conflicts they are an anomaly within western Europe. The conflicts in Belgium, France, England and Germany are less lethal. What is to blame for this? I can't answer that question with a 100% certainty, but the idea that one side could lose their (once again - relative) freedom surely upped the stakes. People are willing to die for what they stand for and events such as World War II have shown us that people are willing to go to war, even the wars of others, to protect an ideal like freedom. The wars fought between the two sides more often resembled guerrila warfare, with raiding parties striking out to burn down farmsteads and killing whoever they encountered. When the two sides met, the fighting wasn't for glory and honor. In a way, the conflicts resemble those of the Teutonic Order and the Baltic tribes when the Order first moved into the area: both regions were covered with forests, were marshy and had plenty of water - the Dutch area had more open water, but both regions used rivers as a mainway of transporting troops and getting to conflict zones.
The stakes were high with freedom hanging in the balance for one side, the fighting was often of the guerilla warfare type and the environment allowed for quick strikes with small forces. Another indicator of the lethality of the Holland-Frysian conflicts is the death rate of the nobility. The list of counts of Holland and members of their entourage who died in these struggles is staggering.
So what was the melee like in Holland around 1200-1400? Brutal, merciless and unforgiving if you were caught between a rock and a hard place. Elsewhere in Europe you'd be taken as a hostage as a nobleman. Those who showed any kind of wealth (the armor and weaponry you wore were indicators of wealth) were normally not killed, because they were worth more alive. The fate of peasants and the poor always hangs in the balance. Bow, goedendag, spear, shield and for those who could afford it, swords, were the primary weapons used in the conflict. Plate was reserved for the rich and wealthy, the level of technology meant that medicine would often fail to treat a wound or infection and spear, bow and goedendag were very effective weapons against chain.
I never thought that the above would be the case for the region of Holland. I stumbled upon a great book about the history of Holland in this timeframe and was utterly amazed when I read how lethal the conflicts were, in comparison to other European conflicts of hte time. It broke the mold.
tl;dr the objective of the war and the consequences that the objective bears for either side heavily influence the level of grimdarkness of the battlefield. Death was a constant, but the lethality greatly varied. What use is there in subdueing a people or nobleman if those who make the region profitable are all dead? Or hold a permanent grudge against you for being a ruthless murderer? Honor and courage were two great prizes to be won in battle, the defeat of your enemy was the icing on the cake. Where this wasn't the case, the death rate of a conflict greatly increased.
As for the melee bit: in medieval Europe (1000-1400) a lot of wars were initiated by the nobility, those who possessed land. Battle was a means to an end to make a name for yourself and create a legacy. Honor, courage, bravery - that's the stuff your name was written with in the epos of the ages. Conquest was an afterthought for most smaller nobles. There were a few 'danger zones' where the struggle between peoples were fierce and one of those areas was the northern part of Holland, where Frisian farmers - who enjoyed relatively great freedom compared to their brethren elsewhere - clashed with the Count of Holland. The political landscape on both sides changed so fast that I won't go indepth on that, so the generalization above will have to suffice. The fighting between the two sides was so fierce that when you compare the lethality of the conflicts they are an anomaly within western Europe. The conflicts in Belgium, France, England and Germany are less lethal. What is to blame for this? I can't answer that question with a 100% certainty, but the idea that one side could lose their (once again - relative) freedom surely upped the stakes. People are willing to die for what they stand for and events such as World War II have shown us that people are willing to go to war, even the wars of others, to protect an ideal like freedom. The wars fought between the two sides more often resembled guerrila warfare, with raiding parties striking out to burn down farmsteads and killing whoever they encountered. When the two sides met, the fighting wasn't for glory and honor. In a way, the conflicts resemble those of the Teutonic Order and the Baltic tribes when the Order first moved into the area: both regions were covered with forests, were marshy and had plenty of water - the Dutch area had more open water, but both regions used rivers as a mainway of transporting troops and getting to conflict zones.
The stakes were high with freedom hanging in the balance for one side, the fighting was often of the guerilla warfare type and the environment allowed for quick strikes with small forces. Another indicator of the lethality of the Holland-Frysian conflicts is the death rate of the nobility. The list of counts of Holland and members of their entourage who died in these struggles is staggering.
So what was the melee like in Holland around 1200-1400? Brutal, merciless and unforgiving if you were caught between a rock and a hard place. Elsewhere in Europe you'd be taken as a hostage as a nobleman. Those who showed any kind of wealth (the armor and weaponry you wore were indicators of wealth) were normally not killed, because they were worth more alive. The fate of peasants and the poor always hangs in the balance. Bow, goedendag, spear, shield and for those who could afford it, swords, were the primary weapons used in the conflict. Plate was reserved for the rich and wealthy, the level of technology meant that medicine would often fail to treat a wound or infection and spear, bow and goedendag were very effective weapons against chain.
I never thought that the above would be the case for the region of Holland. I stumbled upon a great book about the history of Holland in this timeframe and was utterly amazed when I read how lethal the conflicts were, in comparison to other European conflicts of hte time. It broke the mold.
tl;dr the objective of the war and the consequences that the objective bears for either side heavily influence the level of grimdarkness of the battlefield. Death was a constant, but the lethality greatly varied. What use is there in subdueing a people or nobleman if those who make the region profitable are all dead? Or hold a permanent grudge against you for being a ruthless murderer? Honor and courage were two great prizes to be won in battle, the defeat of your enemy was the icing on the cake. Where this wasn't the case, the death rate of a conflict greatly increased.
13
General Discussion / Re: EU Tournament Livestream (raffle tickets)!
« on: July 20, 2014, 07:23:47 pm »
One thing that might help those experiencing lag:
Go to: http://www.adobe.com/support/documentation/nl/flashplayer/help/settings_manager07.html
Set the data that sites can store on your computer to 10mb. This helps A LOT. Sadly I got plenty of experience with Twitch thanks to following the League of Legends pro scene .. and Twitch lag is pretty much a topic that always comes back, time and time again.
Go to: http://www.adobe.com/support/documentation/nl/flashplayer/help/settings_manager07.html
Set the data that sites can store on your computer to 10mb. This helps A LOT. Sadly I got plenty of experience with Twitch thanks to following the League of Legends pro scene .. and Twitch lag is pretty much a topic that always comes back, time and time again.
14
General Discussion / Re: What would your cRPG character's theme song be?
« on: July 20, 2014, 05:08:50 pm »15
Guides / Re: I can Pike and so can you.
« on: July 19, 2014, 03:56:25 pm »
You have my everlasting love for using a MoM screenshot.