Personally, I do not enjoy Strategus at all. It has grown stale and I think that too much development time is invested into Strategus instead of cRPG.
And the solution would be.. to put less development time into strategus? Did I miss something very clever here?
Strategus got boring for me just before the last wipe. I just don't feel any excitement. I was foolish enough to think the c-rpg team was skilled enough to make the singleplayer into a full scale multiplayer. That didn't happen, instead we got a browser game with battles that we fight using the equipment we bought/made ourselves.
I'd like more love for c-rpg, which should be the foundation of this whole mod (I mean the damned site is even called c-rpg.net!).
C-rpg is dying! :cry:
I was foolish enough to think the c-rpg team was skilled enough to make the singleplayer into a full scale multiplayer.
The main problem with strat is despite the changes it is still just a game for leaders and non clan members.
Last strat clan members just had to sit and earn gold and transfer. Now we just sit and either recruit or craft then transfer. Its hard to make that fun for normal members :P
totally agree. I'm just running out of ideas :P
Shared bonuses on player marriage- divorce incurs a penalty.
totally agree. I'm just running out of ideas :PCrazy idea. You can't transfer stuff. AT ALL! No gold, troop, equipment or Trade Goods (ok, maybe trade goods) transfer. BUT! You can still reinforce people who are gonna fight (no time slots, all the time you want up until the battle starts), you can also "Follow" (should be improved from what it is now) and maybe some other stuff. Basically everyone is their own Warband, everyone doing their own stuff independently or in a groups where they are actually together.
"Archer imbalance" is laughable since archers are still very rarely topping the charts. #1 is almost always a premier cavalry guy. If there is no premier cavalry guy, it'll be a premier two-hander or polearm guy. Premier archers top the charts only rarely. Balance is actually better than ever now. People just don't like it because they don't want balance -- they want their two-hander/polearm to be unbalanced and they cry when it's not.
(click to show/hide)
You were foolish to think that this was the goal.Who said anything about goals? It was merely something I expected down the road, or at least hoped for. I was foolish enough to think it was possible, this has nothing to do with goals.
and make them balanced.
My advice is don't make the devs examine balance any further or you'll see cavalry and long reach melee weapons nerfed. I can support my position by playing c-rpg and screenshotting the scoreboard every round.
You got nothin'.(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
Crazy idea. You can't transfer stuff. AT ALL! No gold, troop, equipment or Trade Goods (ok, maybe trade goods) transfer. BUT! You can still reinforce people who are gonna fight (no time slots, all the time you want up until the battle starts), you can also "Follow" (should be improved from what it is now) and maybe some other stuff. Basically everyone is their own Warband, everyone doing their own stuff independently or in a groups where they are actually together.This is a tremendeous idea !
Crazy idea, I know.
chadz :)This , i totally agree !
I love the idea of strategus.. But perhaps it's just too slow?
What if it was greatly sped up, so that there were more, and faster battles? What's wrong with having 6 epic scale battles in one evening?
I'm thinking that it would be cool if you could move really fast around. Of course it would reward the "always there" members more than those who check in once a day, but even so, does it really matter?
If it was sped up, 1 player could gather an army alone in an active week and a attack a village the week after.
I think SPEED vs PLAYERBASE is a keyword. Perhaps one more server should be dedicated to strat.. Dunno :)
Just a solution for something of an easy fix. Resets would also happen more often..
Edit: And speed in a beta-phase wouldn't hurt either I think. Potential exploits and problems etc would be discovered quicker.
Edit2: And thanks for the loompoint!!
Archers are too effective in Strategus because of the low amount of armour, horses and quality shields arounds. Also it is a lot cheaper to field an archer instead of a halfway decently armed/armored infantry man.
And still it's unacceptable that shieldless inf has more or less a natural counter in archers.
totally agree. I'm just running out of ideas :PA good way to promote strat would be giving bonuses to all members, not just to leaders that have fiefs. Leaders don't need bonuses, they have a fief probably because they already enjoy strat and are willing to put effort in it.
This is a tremendeous idea !Crazy idea is crazy :P
But its not playable.
Everyone err well most of the people have a social life here if you do that only 5-10 guys will be able to play strat.
That would sound good if it was an interactive game but its too much time spending for a browser based game which has a 2d map and few commands to do.
The driving force behind the archer scare is hysteria and probably trolling from some selected individuals who actually know better.However in normal cRPG I firmly believe they are fine, if they wouldn't be roofmonkeys
Archers are too effective in Strategus because of the low amount of armour, horses and quality shields arounds. Also it is a lot cheaper to field an archer instead of a halfway decently armed/armored infantry man. That's why clans seek to increase their amount of ranged and especially archer mains. I have seen it in the clan I am. I'm pretty sure that if there is an increase of archers on the servers it is because of Strategus and not because archery suddenly went OP. Archers in Strategus will most likely change in some way to make them less effective. However in normal cRPG I firmly believe they are fine.
I tried it out, I recently respect my old 1 slot archer, taking away his melee abilites to make him a pure archer using 1 slot bow and bodkins only. I'm not a bad shot but this is my least effective class performancewise. With all other set ups I have a greater impact on the round outcome - even with the joke builds. Maybe with looms that would change drastically but I somehow doubt it.
The light armor and reduced awareness compared to a crossbowman(reloading) is a bad combination for me. With no other "class" I am as vulnerable to cav sneak attacks. Armor usually allows me to make at least one mistake in a round, a luxury I don't have as an archer. Also my damage output is rather low even with the expensive(increased break chance) bodkins. I usually end up shooting other lightly armored ranged instead of targeting armored inf.
In Native (where ranged is about twice or trice as effective) it has always been a running gag to tell a 2h or polearm guy to "buy a shield" if they complained about ranged. Different to Native in cRPG going without a shield as inf a viable option - even with skilled players on the other team. In fact, along with (expensive to maintain) melee cav, 2h and polearm guys perform best if one takes k/d ratio as an indicator. The same indicator that suggests that on average archers are pretty much at the bottom of the food chain, sharing the honor with our beloved throwers.
And still it's unacceptable that shieldless inf has more or less a natural counter in archers. Getting shot is unfair. Getting told to buy a shield is racism.
I tried it out, I recently respect my old 1 slot archer, taking away his melee abilites to make him a pure archer using 1 slot bow and bodkins only. I'm not a bad shot but this is my least effective class performancewise. With all other set ups I have a greater impact on the round outcome - even with the joke builds. Maybe with looms that would change drastically but I somehow doubt it.
totally agree. I'm just running out of ideas :P
The driving force behind the archer scare is hysteria and probably trolling from some selected individuals who actually know better.
Archers are too effective in Strategus because of the low amount of armour, horses and quality shields arounds. Also it is a lot cheaper to field an archer instead of a halfway decently armed/armored infantry man. That's why clans seek to increase their amount of ranged and especially archer mains. I have seen it in the clan I am. I'm pretty sure that if there is an increase of archers on the servers it is because of Strategus and not because archery suddenly went OP. Archers in Strategus will most likely change in some way to make them less effective. However in normal cRPG I firmly believe they are fine.
I tried it out, I recently respect my old 1 slot archer, taking away his melee abilites to make him a pure archer using 1 slot bow and bodkins only. I'm not a bad shot but this is my least effective class performancewise. With all other set ups I have a greater impact on the round outcome - even with the joke builds. Maybe with looms that would change drastically but I somehow doubt it.
The light armor and reduced awareness compared to a crossbowman(reloading) is a bad combination for me. With no other "class" I am as vulnerable to cav sneak attacks. Armor usually allows me to make at least one mistake in a round, a luxury I don't have as an archer. Also my damage output is rather low even with the expensive(increased break chance) bodkins. I usually end up shooting other lightly armored ranged instead of targeting armored inf.
In Native (where ranged is about twice or trice as effective) it has always been a running gag to tell a 2h or polearm guy to "buy a shield" if they complained about ranged. Different to Native in cRPG going without a shield as inf a viable option - even with skilled players on the other team. In fact, along with (expensive to maintain) melee cav, 2h and polearm guys perform best if one takes k/d ratio as an indicator. The same indicator that suggests that on average archers are pretty much at the bottom of the food chain, sharing the honor with our beloved throwers.
And still it's unacceptable that shieldless inf has more or less a natural counter in archers. Getting shot is unfair. Getting told to buy a shield is racism.
My advice is don't make the devs examine balance any further or you'll see cavalry and long reach melee weapons nerfed. I can support my position by playing c-rpg and screenshotting the scoreboard every round.
You got nothin'.(click to show/hide)
Noob trying to explain to Gnjus how to kill archer, fuckin'priceless.
Mate you didn't even know this game exist that Gnjus was slauthering archermy old friend.
The driving force behind the archer scare is hysteria and probably trolling from some selected individuals who actually know better.(click to show/hide)
Anyone can talk smart, though.
Really? Would you care to elaborate on this theory?
Berenger just did it mate.
(In his own way though, but he did.)
If the premise is that saying 9x9 = 81 is a smart thing to say, then yes, I suppose you've proved your point!
Well, my point is that anyone can use some words to look smart, however, if you ask about the meaning of their words, they'll either;
a; Rage at you for not knowing it and not believing his intelligence, masking their own stupidity ofc
b; Will just go to the nearest corner crying
c; Or, they'll tell you the exact meaning. Note that most people who know those words, don't overuse them because that makes them look like egomaniacs.
Point proven, I guess?
9x9 = 817x6=42 would look even smarter, though.
Leshma, I question your "low risk" labeling of cavalry, because all I do is play cavalry, and drink (of course). The "average" cavalry player--the one riding a horse of mere flesh, rather than an unaffordable iron skinned behemoth--faces many many risks when playing. Archers drop your horse in three or four hits (unless you're riding a champion something, in which case its five hits). Any competent polearm user can magically bring you to a dead stop, often literally, by waggling his or her weapon in the general vicinity of your horse's face. Competent 2h users can avoid your lance thrusts without too much difficulty, and then, jumping to Mario-esque highs, stab you in the face. Throwers rape your horse without trying. Horse archers and Horse xbowmen troll your horse to death.
I see where your label of "low-risk" comes from, though. What makes cavalry different than those mortals who walk on their feet is the cavalry player's control of when and where he or she will actually face those risks. Awareness on the virtual battlefield allows a cavalry player to easily avoid most of the above risky things--just ride away from them. But if a cavalry player wants to bridge the gap between "average" and "good", and actually contribute to his or her team, he or she will have to put him or her self in risky situations. He or she will have to ride into range of archers, throwers, and xbowmen; will have to risk getting the attention of an HA or HXbow; will have to get within arms reach of polearms and 2handers alike. Yes, cavalry players can and frequently do spend the entire match riding in circles far away from the actual fight, killing enemy afk's and stragglers and playing the "low-risk" role.
Fuck those guys. Cool cavs laugh in the face of pretend-death, lancing enemy V.I.P's from right under their team's nose.
tl;dr: I'm so fucking bored, and such a procrastinator, that instead of doing something productive this morning I sat here and sipped coffee while responding to Leshma's post, the point of which really was not cavalry at all.
How about you guys cut that crap and start balancing the game based on logic? You know, things like risk/reward. Archery and ranged in general are low risk roles
I agree with Kamikaze Joe, NERF CAV.
No room for a good melee weapon.
(...)
the "Mace" -- it's a 1-slot two-hander with knockdown and terrific damage for being a one-slotter. The irony is the highest scoring archers get a number of their kills by being able to finish people off with melee.
b) 70+ body armor. Long weapon good at killing infantry and cavalry alike.
If they don't have a building to stand on, they will invariably get mowed down by cavalry.
Standard melee: kill a dude, kill another dude, kill two more dudes, kill another dude, down a horse, kill the rider, get shot by an arrow, declare archery is op.
You are contradicting yourself.
70+ body armor ? Fat rich turtle ?
I think this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrrIaJCr2X8) might help you. It is very unlikely for a melee to kill anything else than infantry and the occasionnal cav. Therefore how can the "standard melee" kill more than one enemy ? At the end of a battle, the loosing team has 0 survivors, not minus 50.
*Facepalm*(click to show/hide)
What is wrong with Slamz' text, Zapper?The point is that archer is a very popular class, so unless you make them shit, a large percentage of the population will be archer, for reasons I just can't understand. One archer is not overpowered, but when 40% of the server is archer it becomes a problem.
I have recently checked the k/d of end level players who decided to skip retiring (level 31+). Of the main classes those archers have to worst k/d apart from throwers. So unless they manage only to hurt and never to kill their targets, which would kinda contradict the "OMG, archers 2 shot me in plate" statement, they aren't that effective.
Most likely roof laddering will be resolved and Strategus will get a solution too. To be honest I only see self-energising hysteria and no real problem, while the anti-range ringleader are also the most special forum members.
Still don't understand who let Tzar in 22nd. Ok, we got Rokema but there ought to be a lower bound somewhere.
What is wrong with Slamz' text, Zapper?Sigh, I don't have time for this, but nevermind.
Standard melee: kill a dude, kill another dude, kill two more dudes, kill another dude, down a horse, kill the rider, get shot by an arrow, declare archery is op.Sigh. What that video was about was the ridiculousness of those imagined "warrior societies" were everyone had killed lots of others to prove themselves! This is ridiculous for all the reasons shown in that video. Go watch it, it's really good.
At the end of a battle, the loosing team has 0 survivors, not minus 50.And no, Slamz wasn't just "exaggerating" or something. Because then he would have recognised what Kafein said and come up with a proper reply instead of quoting some historical battle and the numbers from it, which are completely irrelevant.
The point is that archer is a very popular class, so unless you make them shit, a large percentage of the population will be archer, for reasons I just can't understand. One archer is not overpowered, but when 40% of the server is archer it becomes a problem.Fuck it. Double post to separate my discussions!
Which isn't the case currently, and I have rarely seen one team win because they had more archers. Archers are quite underpowered I dare to say in sheer damage dealing. The thing is, they are just fucking annoying. But as soon as the roofcamping gets fixed, I for one am fine with archers. As long as I can reach them without having to move in a straight line towards them, or even worse, jump over a ledge, I'm fine with them.
Archery has to be underpowered, otherwise their numbers will grow to a gamebreaking amount. Leave archery to the devoted and skilled.
Although this thread isn't supposed to be about archery I would like to bring up another point.
I think the hybrid nerf/slot system was a bad thing in the case of archers. Every archer I encounter now runs away, you close in on an archer with great effort, he starts running. Give them a slot more so they can have a proper melee weapon or make them slow. This running away is tiresome and dull. I rather have a good fight than a minute long chase.
Worst thing is, that as soon as you give up the chase, he will turn around and start shooting you in the arse.
Let me guess, you got a shielder main?Yes I do. And while it's reasonable that I'm not as good in melee as the no-shield 2handers and polearms, it's ridiculous how powerless I can be against archers. The shield slowing the movement speed so much, attacks and projectiles going "around" the shield, extremely limited control over where the shield is pointing and lately, people being able to warp through shields and shieldwalls. You remember that video Diggles (I think it was Digglez) made? Showing how people could just run through him while he was holding his shield up?
Although this makes no realistic sense, what about having a bow in your hand slows you down considerably, so that archers when they run have to switch to melee, they also won't be able to runturnshoot.+1
If we would just get proper teamplay and battle mechanics archery wouldn't be that hard to balance. One big archer square that volley fires on the enemy lines, as their position gets compromised they switch to their sword and fight as well as they can. Like they did back in the day.
I strongly suggest implementing deployable stakes. I understood that making them hurt horses is really bad for performance, that is not necesarry at all. Just make them stop horses and slow down infantry when moving through. As this is a good place for ranged stopped horses will get arrowraped. That could lead to some more tactical placement of archers and maybe make open field maps more enjoyable.
Tradesimulator 3.5 still not finished?Don't see what could ever be fun about that rfactor game.
Crpg archers are fine btw. . .
Strategus on the other hand....
Good reasons were given by the dev´s why archery has no right to be the same way in strat.
So whats the drama about again? Archery is being worked on! (at the same usual speed as everything else in crpg... :-) )
Did I mention that most ppl complaining here just overplayed the whole mod?
Play something different and u ll quickly know if u really still like the game / mod...or try to compensate boredom with forum e-drama.
Did I also mention that rfactor F1 1979 and 1991 are great mods?
What is wrong with Slamz' text, Zapper?
I have recently checked the k/d of end level players who decided to skip retiring (level 31+). Of the main classes those archers have to worst k/d apart from throwers. So unless they manage only to hurt and never to kill their targets, which would kinda contradict the "OMG, archers 2 shot me in plate" statement, they aren't that effective.
Most likely roof laddering will be resolved and Strategus will get a solution too. To be honest I only see self-energising hysteria and no real problem, while the anti-range ringleader are also the most special forum members.
Still don't understand who let Tzar in 22nd. Ok, we got Rokema but there ought to be a lower bound somewhere.
The mace is a good weapon. Fact.
In addition: even IF you have a "worse" melee weapon, you also gain the mind blowing advantage of fighting a guy that is already damaged.
Let's do the counting. That's six (6!) guys, in any normal fight, and that EVERY SINGLE MELEE FIGHTER DOES THAT IN THE SAME FIGHT!
You say you're a shielder. What's your athletics? What's your power throw? Do you hold up your shield full time when chasing archers or do you watch them and only raise your shield when they are pointing at you and about to shoot? Let's examine why you, in particular, are so bad at fighting archers.I never said I'm bad at fighting archers, usually they are what I go for and I catch them. The annoying thing is that it takes so little for them to get away from me. There is no way for me to bring a shield and catch up to an archer unless he's stupid. For me to catch an archer I have to do almost everything right, while he can do a lot of mistakes and still manage to get away. Only holding the shield up when they are shooting is basic stuff, but it's still not enough to catch up with them.
You are playing up the archer's advantages while ignoring all of the tradeoffs made to get it.You really haven't kept up with my thoughts on archers have you? Because this is the main problem with archery in cRPG. There's no reason for them to take any PS/IF or melee wpf. Taking everything is archery is so much more effective than taking some basic melee capability. THIS is something I want to change right now, but nobody gives a damn about. Why the HELL should a full PD/WM, everything in archery be more effective than an actual Archer? What we have in cRPG isn't archers. It's people with bows who don't do ANYTHING but shoot arrows. And why not? Getting 5-15 more archery wpf is so much more better for them than taking 50 melee wpf. Getting 1 more WM or PD or ATHL is so much more important than getting 3-5 PS. This is retarded and has to change. Archery wpf and PD needs to stop give you such huge bonuses after some time.
Archers can't carry a 2-slot melee weapon -- not if they want enough ammo to do any good.
Archers can't carry a shield -- again with the ammo problem.
Archers are forced to wear light armor -- if they want their archery skills to actually count.
Archers tend to have less IF and/or PS due to extra points in PD.
Your argument assumes archers are completely identical to the best melee attackers in the game, plus they get a bow. It doesn't work like that. Yes, you reach the archer and you are halfway dead. But you have heavy armor and a high damage weapon versus the archer in light armor, often with no head armor, and a substandard weapon and with less PS and less IF than you.
Oh I see where you're going with that -- that was just an example of a high ranking melee, not an average melee. The guys getting 6 kills in a round and then dying to an archer who got 1 kill are still coming to the forums to complain about archery. Regardless, kill stats support my side of the story. There are more melees going on melee kill streaks than there are archers going on archery killstreaks. This is not my opinion. It's in all the data.Row row row your boat, lier. Just gonna quote you to prove that this is something you came up with AFTER you were shown how stupid your comment was.
Standard melee: kill a dude, kill another dude, kill two more dudes, kill another dude, down a horse, kill the rider, get shot by an arrow, declare archery is op.Bolded the important part. If "that was just an example of a high ranking melee, not an average melee" then why did you say that this is what a "Standard melee" does in a round? Consistency helps. Stop trying to explain what you really meant when it's obvious you're just making an excuse after someone called your bullshit.
So make it 2 slot. Problem solved. If you weren't raging so hard you'd realize I brought up the Mace precisely because it's a good way to nerf archers without actually impacting archery itself. Should archers be able to run around with a 30 blunt, 98 speed, 1-slot sidearm? You tell me.
I never said I'm bad at fighting archers, usually they are what I go for and I catch them.
Problem solved!Whoopdee fucking doo, mr. smartypants! So much for being serious.
Usually they are what you go for and you catch them.
I'm glad we sorted this out. Archery is not a problem. Usually you go for them and you catch them.
Next up:
Archer poll -- are shielders too fast? Is it fair that Zapper usually goes for you and catches you? 8-)
Ignoring all the crying about archers and general balance that appears to be quite irrelevant to the topic of this thread, Zapper does, IMO have the basis of a good idea in one of his earlier posts.My crazy ideas gives good offsrpings :D Put this in the Suggestions board, will ya :D
If the amount of troops was highly limited per person, and there was some means by which people could "join battle" like in SP M&B whilst retaining control of the remaining forces after the battle there would be a lot more for your average strategus player to do.
Say for example a basic player could carry Y men, you could then level up some "strategus skills", crafting, leadership, first aid blahblah whatever that could potentially increase this limit. Maybe there could also be an increase in the amount of troops you can carry at level 5 and level 10 within a faction (this risk vs benefit is obvious). Further increases could be permitted with the ownership of fiefs.
---
If each person had to then be present on the map in the correct location and move onto the initiator of the battle and enter it much like entering a village or attacking someone, within a specific amount of time, things could get interesting. Factions would require their players to actually be active and involved, it would not just be about mass production and there would be a very important space for independant armies and mercenary armies to support the larger factions as every active player would be a great asset.
---
It would be even better if the roster for a battle could be split in ratio to the number of contributed troops so each warlord managed his own roster and brought his own equipment for his own troops. Of course if this is next to impossible to code then putting all tickets and equipment into a shared pool could do the job.