cRPG
cRPG => General Discussion => Topic started by: a_bear_irl on April 04, 2012, 08:30:51 pm
-
autobalance is awful, fix it please it's not fun being forced to choose between piling on a banner or getting destroyed every round of every map
-
Are you now just noticing that it's awful?
-
Its fine, whiners gonna whine.
-
+1
Too easy for people to just use a banner of a clan that they see a lot and stack a team...
-
autobalance is awful, fix it please it's not fun being forced to choose between piling on a banner or getting destroyed every round of every map
Then join a clan and stop crying about it
-
i dont think balance is bad cause of clan stacking anymore, i havent seen a clan roll in a server in a long time.
the main problem i have is one team getting all the ranged/cav and then destroying the other team cause of that advantage which happens more often that i would like.
a class based balanced system would be nice imo (maybe based on your crpg skills? ie 3points in riding classes you as cav and you get balanced as such)
-
i dont think balance is bad cause of clan stacking anymore, i havent seen a clan roll in a server in a long time.
the main problem i have is one team getting all the ranged/cav and then destroying the other team cause of that advantage which happens more often that i would like.
a class based balanced system would be nice imo (maybe based on your crpg skills? ie 3points in riding classes you as cav and you get balanced as such)
This all the way. Getting really tired of seeing 11 cav on one team, and the other have 2, or the same with range.
-
i dont think balance is bad cause of clan stacking anymore, i havent seen a clan roll in a server in a long time.
the main problem i have is one team getting all the ranged/cav and then destroying the other team cause of that advantage which happens more often that i would like.
a class based balanced system would be nice imo (maybe based on your crpg skills? ie 3points in riding classes you as cav and you get balanced as such)
100% agree. I like being balanced by banner, but not at the expense of both teams having relatively the same amount of classes. And one suggestion change, don't go based only on the skills, lots of people have riding but don't ride a horse. I think it should be based more on what you have equipped in your loadout (if it's possible to easily obtain that information server side and throw it into an algorithm).
Another great suggestion (that has been suggested at least a dozen times before) that will be ignored. :*(
-
dunno about na, but un on eu we have a cav clan called gk, they all get balanced together and they all cav....so all cav is on the same team
-
dunno about na, but un on eu we have a cav clan called gk, they all get balanced together and they all cav....so all cav is on the same team
I think it should try to balance by banner, but the most important thing to balance should be that classes are relatively even on both teams (same amount of ranged, same amount of polearms, same amount of 2h, same amount of melee cavalry, same amount of ranged cavalry), etc. If not that specific, than at minimum balanced by 3 generic classes, infantry, ranged, cavalry.
-
dunno about na, but un on eu we have a cav clan called gk, they all get balanced together and they all cav....so all cav is on the same team
There's also only one cav clan in EU (making this class unbalance worse), and it's not like GK has all the pro cav either. Kerrigan, Chagan and sometimes musashi are really good, but you still have oberyn, tommy, leed, torben, royanss... in other clans. Also, the GK team is destroyed whenever the enemy has a proper reaction (not spreading out, and grabbing the pikes) or when the map isn't cav friendly.
I don't think the GK have a so great W/L ratio, it's only the perceived effect of cav spam that makes the enemy melee unhappy. Also, they happen to work as a team, usually unlike the enemy. When the byzantium clan rocks the server, the exact same thing happens, and it's both because of player skill and a superior organisation.
-
in NA we have the cavaliers. But that is like 7 people on at the same time at max, usually just 2 or 3 on at a time if any.
We Have GG which is really just smoothrich and badplayer and tydeus on cav
although we have those times when 10 really good cav (from different clans) will all choose the same banner to be balanced together, and roll everybody that doesn't stick together. It's horrifying to pub play. The rounds last a minute or so and maps change fast. However, that happens maybe once a week for like 30 minutes at max on NA. Rare, really.
BACK ON TOPIC:
I honestly like the current balance system, it isn't as bad as most people put it out to be, it usually results in pretty close games. The problem is that it isn't always even AND NEVER WILL BE. Generally, what people suggest to fix it would either result in even worse balance (class-based instead of skill based system, etc, etc).
What people don't understand is that cRPG is so incredibly volatile as a a battle system. If One good player does good one map, but misses a block/gets hit by an arrow and dies the next map right away -- the entire team's fighting potential is permanently changed for that round. It causes a cascade effect of who he WOULD have killed suddenly being alive and able to kill OTHER people. multiply that by 20 people vs 20 people (for a representation of a smaller scale battle) and you can see how balance systems are going to be incredibly fucked up all the time.
The thing is, when one team gets rolled horribly twice in a row, if they stick together and play safe they almost ALWAYS roll the other team in reverse -- even when people say it is "clan stacked" "banner stacked" etc.
I don't know. Making it a class based balance system (infantry/ranged/cavalry) would make the distribution of classes more even, more bland. If you make it balance based on classes it has to balance based LESS on individual effect to the team. Ie; 2 good cav + 2 good infantry + 3 decent archers vs 2 decent infantry + 2 bad cav + 3 decent archers. We know how that will end up. If it had distributed them based on impact into the game (what it currently does after the INITIAL first round' banner balance) it would result in a more balanced game... what we currently have (and by god what we currently have isn't good)
The problem is you guys are looking for an algorithm that can't exist to really fix this more than what we already have. if one team is unbalanced, it will put more people on one side to even it -- move an influential player to the other side to make it even. What we have is sadly, really the best option. cRPG is volatile.
tl;dr Nobody has suggested anything better than what we currently have, and I don't know if anyone ever will. Banner balance was implemented and resounded happily by everybody for a long time for a simple reason: We like to be able to play with our friends. When it gets turned off for any amount of time, people start to complain WAY MORE about not being with friends than they do about the slight balancing of the FIRST ROUND...
-
When the byzantium clan rocks the server, the exact same thing happens, and it's both because of player skill and a superior organisation.
I call bullshit, everyone knows byzantinum don't use anything but the basic tactic/teamwork to blob up, and they don't even always do that, problem is byz getting a shitload of medium-insane players, while other team just gets two shitloads of randoms... and whenever you actually feel what I've decided must be named "byz-rape" is when half the enemy team is byz, and the other half is average-slightly above average players whoring on the byz banner.
Yes, I got nothing to say on the topic and am just posting this quick offtopic observation...
-
I love how everyone always think we win because of teamplay and tactics.
-
its not really the clans i mind, its the people using their banner to win matches when they aren't in that clan...that happened a TON with DL a little while back .
they would come in and use some teamwork to win siege, great! but then others seeing them winning would just go "oh, use their banner, PROFIT!
even though they were not in DL....
thats the annoying part
-
i know complete balance is impossible to achieve in this game really, id just like a somewhat even amount of cav/ranged on each team because depending on the map having a large amount of either of them is an insane advantage.
-
you dont want complete balance or there would never be *5
-
others have said, but the real prob is cav is overpowered.
auto-balance works for banners just fine, but it can't balance OP cav and people take advantage by stacking onto a single cav banner (GK on EU, BRD on NA).
Cav needs to be nerfed hard, it's just retarded atm and wrecking game. Superfast horse all over only backstabbing and horsebumping is not fun, nor is trying to swivel 360 constantly to watch for them. Not even getting to HX people who delay round ends even tho they outnumbered 10 to 1.
There's no downside to cav, the expense doesnt matter since loom points are 650k and rising, that will fund many gens of expensive gear, you get huge speed and utility bonus, and when your horse is killed under you, you fight on without a scratch like nothing happened.
My solution is (if possible in engine) horsedeath should cause large damage to rider in the fall, preferably based on speed + horse size.
-
It's not possible to have an autobalance after first round and another after 3rd round or some other round?
I rather prefer having a "class tag" on our characters depending on what skills we learn and autobalance would filter from there but that is something that was suggested long long long ago but as you can see it wasn't implemented.
-
man you are an idiot, boo hoo cavalry is OP because i'm retarded and bad at the game and can't kill them. please shut up about things you have no idea about thanks.
i am one of the only cavalry players who want cav nerfed in some ways, but in many many ways it is very easy to kill cav. when i'm dismounted 95% of cav are free kills since they are so bad. learn to play the game before talking about balance.
-
I love how everyone always think we win because of teamplay and tactics.
Well you can call it the way you like it, but I consider sticking with your bro's in a tightly packed polearm salad something different from what the pubs usually do (the well-known "charge in every possible direction" tactic)
others have said, but the real prob is cav is overpowered.
auto-balance works for banners just fine, but it can't balance OP cav and people take advantage by stacking onto a single cav banner (GK on EU, BRD on NA).
Cav needs to be nerfed hard, it's just retarded atm and wrecking game. Superfast horse all over only backstabbing and horsebumping is not fun, nor is trying to swivel 360 constantly to watch for them. Not even getting to HX people who delay round ends even tho they outnumbered 10 to 1.
There's no downside to cav, the expense doesnt matter since loom points are 650k and rising, that will fund many gens of expensive gear, you get huge speed and utility bonus, and when your horse is killed under you, you fight on without a scratch like nothing happened.
My solution is (if possible in engine) horsedeath should cause large damage to rider in the fall, preferably based on speed + horse size.
Lol troll moar... Cav is the weakest of all classes in 1v1 combat, deal with it. We end up being sneaky backstabbers because it's the only thing we have left, and it's the only thing some players will never learn to defend against.
-
My solution is (if possible in engine) horsedeath should cause large damage to rider in the fall, preferably based on speed + horse size.
Been saying this since day 1.
Either reduce horse bump damage to 0. Or make it so riders take damage on falls.
-
I'd rather have that than the insane amount of time it takes to go up it is now (The duration was extended. With a fast weapon your able to hit twice a downed cav before he's able to wake up.).
-
I love how everyone always think we win because of teamplay and tactics.
"Move foward and RAPE them all!" IS a valable tactic ;)
-
Step 1:
Clean out all maps that are not perfectly even.
Check out if there are "natural fortifications" (turning battles into "soft" sieges), if the distances to choke points are equal (the team spawning closer to the central bridge will lose in the majority of all cases), and if both teams spawn on the same height level (so one team doesn't need to fight uphill).
Step 2:
Remove banner balance
Step 3:
Implement faction balance.
It's basically like the faction system of strategus. It works over the character page, not ingame by banner. You can either create your own faction, or join an existing one by dropdown menu and "apply" button.
Being the leader of a faction you get a rudimentary faction managment menu, like a member list and buttons next to them, like "promote" to make them either officer (can accept applications, too) or the new leader (can change all settings like faction name and stuff) or demote, for obvious reasons. Also a "kick" button is probably needed. You also get a list of applications with "accept" or "decline". All actions taken are saved in a small log which can be read by every member, so you see who gets promoted, demoted or kicked by whome, to prevent people of messing around with it and "being funny".
Auto balance now asks for your faction, instead of your banner. No more banner whoring.
Step 4:
Implement (hidden) player classes.
According to his skills and equipment, players get classified (right word? Or did I say they were made secret?) on the character page.
1. Check riding skill. Higher as 2? Rider. If not: Footman.
2. If rider: check horse archer skill. If higher than 0: horse archer. If not: cavalry.
3. If horse archer: check highest ranged WPF. Depending on this result classified as HA, HX or HT.
4. If cavalry: check highest melee WPF. Depending on this result classified as lancer, 1hd cav or 2hd cav.
5. If footman: check if Power Draw or Power Throw > 3. If so, classify as archer or thrower.
6. If no archer or thrower, check WPF in crossbow. If >74, then classify as crossbowman.
7. If no ranged fighter, check shield skill. If > 3, then classify as shieldman.
8. If shieldman, check whether highest WPF is polearm. If so, classify as hoplite.
9. If shieldman but no hoplite, classify as 1hd + shield.
10. If no shieldman, check highest WPF. If highest WPF 2hd, classify as 2hd infantry.
11. If 2hd infantry, check for crushthrough weapon. If so, classify as crushthrough infantry.
12. If no shieldman and no 2hd infantry, only polearm is left. If polearm infantry, check for pike weapon. If so, classify as pikeman.
13. If polearm infantry but no pikeman, classify as 2hd poleinfantry.
14. If no class can be applied, classify as peasant/weird hybrid.
This way the game knows exactly which class you are, recalling the prepared data as soon as you enter the server. It is rechecked on the server every time you change your weapons.
Step 5:
Track player skill.
Take his k/d into concern as well as his w/l ratio. Add the w/l ration on the character page, btw., it's a value I'd only be too pleased to see on the character page. Add this to his level, generation and the value of the items he equipped, and you've got a rough value about the player's personal experience.
Step 6:
Make fair teams.
First distribute the faction squads evenly among the teams (Biggest suqad to team A. 2nd and 3rd biggest squads to team B, 4th and 5th to team A again, and so on). Then look at the factionless pool, and distribute the classes accordingly. If you can't make up an overweight of one class with the same class on the other team, then fill up with their "counter class". The choice which class player gets into which team is solved by the player values.
Step 7:
Implement a command system.
So players can actually have a bigger impact on how well their team does. A command system would allow teams to adapt to superior enemies and turn the tables. Without command system you need a few horrible steamrolls to get people to listen and follow certain tactics.
Step 8:
Change multiplier system.
With a good working balance player would be stuck on x1 or x2 most of the time, not being able to wear any but the cheapest equipment. Either change the multiplier system, for example a loss gives only -1 on multiplier, instead of resetting it, and/or lowering upkeep cost accordingly, making a x5 even more of a reward.
-
decent ideas man ,
i want total random teams EACH ROUND , so that we can only blame bad luck and not a retarded system
-
I love how everyone always think we win because of teamplay and tactics.
I said the opposite... YOU'RE WRONG TEETH!!!
-
man you are an idiot, boo hoo cavalry is OP because i'm retarded and bad at the game and can't kill them. please shut up about things you have no idea about thanks.
i am one of the only cavalry players who want cav nerfed in some ways, but in many many ways it is very easy to kill cav. when i'm dismounted 95% of cav are free kills since they are so bad. learn to play the game before talking about balance.
yeah cav is easy to kill if the cav is a moron who runs straight at someone who is watching him and has a weapon ready. which is why cavs with half a brain get their kills by running down people who are distracted (by other cavs or in combat). Cavs are basically lamers who get their kills by 1) backstabbing and 2) stunning people with horsebump. Neither of these practices adds much to the quality of the gameplay, especially in their current widespread state.
There's no downside to starting the round on a horse, besides cost, which is being obliterated by loompoint prices. If you added something like damage from your horse dieing under you, it would add some balance to the equation.
-
Step 1:
Clean out all maps that are not perfectly even.
Check out if there are "natural fortifications" (turning battles into "soft" sieges), if the distances to choke points are equal (the team spawning closer to the central bridge will lose in the majority of all cases), and if both teams spawn on the same height level (so one team doesn't need to fight uphill).
Step 2:
Remove banner balance
Step 3:
Implement faction balance.
It's basically like the faction system of strategus. It works over the character page, not ingame by banner. You can either create your own faction, or join an existing one by dropdown menu and "apply" button.
Being the leader of a faction you get a rudimentary faction managment menu, like a member list and buttons next to them, like "promote" to make them either officer (can accept applications, too) or the new leader (can change all settings like faction name and stuff) or demote, for obvious reasons. Also a "kick" button is probably needed. You also get a list of applications with "accept" or "decline". All actions taken are saved in a small log which can be read by every member, so you see who gets promoted, demoted or kicked by whome, to prevent people of messing around with it and "being funny".
Auto balance now asks for your faction, instead of your banner. No more banner whoring.
Step 4:
Implement (hidden) player classes.
According to his skills and equipment, players get classified (right word? Or did I say they were made secret?) on the character page.
1. Check riding skill. Higher as 2? Rider. If not: Footman.
2. If rider: check horse archer skill. If higher than 0: horse archer. If not: cavalry.
3. If horse archer: check highest ranged WPF. Depending on this result classified as HA, HX or HT.
4. If cavalry: check highest melee WPF. Depending on this result classified as lancer, 1hd cav or 2hd cav.
5. If footman: check if Power Draw or Power Throw > 3. If so, classify as archer or thrower.
6. If no archer or thrower, check WPF in crossbow. If >74, then classify as crossbowman.
7. If no ranged fighter, check shield skill. If > 3, then classify as shieldman.
8. If shieldman, check whether highest WPF is polearm. If so, classify as hoplite.
9. If shieldman but no hoplite, classify as 1hd + shield.
10. If no shieldman, check highest WPF. If highest WPF 2hd, classify as 2hd infantry.
11. If 2hd infantry, check for crushthrough weapon. If so, classify as crushthrough infantry.
12. If no shieldman and no 2hd infantry, only polearm is left. If polearm infantry, check for pike weapon. If so, classify as pikeman.
13. If polearm infantry but no pikeman, classify as 2hd poleinfantry.
14. If no class can be applied, classify as peasant/weird hybrid.
This way the game knows exactly which class you are, recalling the prepared data as soon as you enter the server. It is rechecked on the server every time you change your weapons.
Step 5:
Track player skill.
Take his k/d into concern as well as his w/l ratio. Add the w/l ration on the character page, btw., it's a value I'd only be too pleased to see on the character page. Add this to his level, generation and the value of the items he equipped, and you've got a rough value about the player's personal experience.
Step 6:
Make fair teams.
First distribute the faction squads evenly among the teams (Biggest suqad to team A. 2nd and 3rd biggest squads to team B, 4th and 5th to team A again, and so on). Then look at the factionless pool, and distribute the classes accordingly. If you can't make up an overweight of one class with the same class on the other team, then fill up with their "counter class". The choice which class player gets into which team is solved by the player values.
Great ideas but actually implementing them would take a lot of work. It would basically be completely redesigning the entire autobalance system.
-
Its not always the autobalance's fault. You cant blame it when your team is repeating the same tactic over and over when it clearly isnt working. Autobalance does a decent job, but you cant rely on it making your team win.
And for bannerbalance i think its a good thing that teamwork gets this, because teamwork in a game like this should be rewarded.
Thirdly, if cav gets stacked on one team you just have to adapt, stick with pikemen and camp ruins. Then charge out when archers have pinned down enough horsies.
-
Its not always the autobalance's fault. You cant blame it when your team is repeating the same tactic over and over when it clearly isnt working. Autobalance does a decent job, but you cant rely on it making your team win.
And for bannerbalance i think its a good thing that teamwork gets this, because teamwork in a game like this should be rewarded.
Thirdly, if cav gets stacked on one team you just have to adapt, stick with pikemen and camp ruins. Then charge out when archers have pinned down enough horsies.
Quite obvious for people with brain.
Charging didn't work three times? I won't work the fourth time, too, most likely.
Enemy got more cav? Play defensively to maintain overview over your surroundings, and hold a place which is difficult terrain for cav. Wait until most or all of their cav is down, then charge.
Being a random cRPG player and aware of such elementary mechanics? Impossible! :rolleyes:
-
Sadly randomers don't follow plans so you have to stick with them hoping on some miracles most of the times.
-
Said this before, but the community will absolutely rage against any actual balance fixes as long as the multiplier system is in effect. No one wants to flip flop between x1 and x2 constantly, they'd rather take the chance that they'll be on the steamroll team at least for a while.
Until this game isn't based on winning multiple rounds in a row balance is going to be a fix that causes the devs a lot of grief. There was an incredibly short period where autobalance was fixed, that was reverted incredibly quickly based on player complaints.
Hence the unbalanced system we see today.
People who actually want an interesting match instead of a stomp are few and far between, you'd be shocked at how few of us there actually are.
-
Sadly randomers don't follow plans so you have to stick with them hoping on some miracles most of the times.
I added a 7th point to my big post: a command system. Indeed it's a tool needed to make teams more even, because it makes it easier for people to adapt, and to make people who don't care about such things listen anyway. Sure, it won't make all teams always move like a single organism in 100% of all cases, but hell, I take everything that helps, and be it only a little bit! :|
Said this before, but the community will absolutely rage against any actual balance fixes as long as the multiplier system is in effect. No one wants to flip flop between x1 and x2 constantly, they'd rather take the chance that they'll be on the steamroll team at least for a while.
Until this game isn't based on winning multiple rounds in a row balance is going to be a fix that causes the devs a lot of grief. There was an incredibly short period where autobalance was fixed, that was reverted incredibly quickly based on player complaints.
Hence the unbalanced system we see today.
People who actually want an interesting match instead of a stomp are few and far between, you'd be shocked at how few of us there actually are.
Crap. Need to add an 8th point. :rolleyes:
-
Said this before, but the community will absolutely rage against any actual balance fixes as long as the multiplier system is in effect. No one wants to flip flop between x1 and x2 constantly, they'd rather take the chance that they'll be on the steamroll team at least for a while.
Until this game isn't based on winning multiple rounds in a row balance is going to be a fix that causes the devs a lot of grief. There was an incredibly short period where autobalance was fixed, that was reverted incredibly quickly based on player complaints.
Hence the unbalanced system we see today.
People who actually want an interesting match instead of a stomp are few and far between, you'd be shocked at how few of us there actually are.
This.
-
Said this before, but the community will absolutely rage against any actual balance fixes as long as the multiplier system is in effect. No one wants to flip flop between x1 and x2 constantly, they'd rather take the chance that they'll be on the steamroll team at least for a while.
Until this game isn't based on winning multiple rounds in a row balance is going to be a fix that causes the devs a lot of grief. There was an incredibly short period where autobalance was fixed, that was reverted incredibly quickly based on player complaints.
Hence the unbalanced system we see today.
People who actually want an interesting match instead of a stomp are few and far between, you'd be shocked at how few of us there actually are.
I like to be on the losing team, you get those awesome 1v6 fights that way.
the perfect fight devolves into a final 1v1 with everyone watching criticizing every block. I have always loved those.
-
the perfect fight devolves into a final 1v1 with everyone watching criticizing every block. I have always loved those.
Truth, I remember that this game got my heart going when I first started playing... not so much anymore.
..except for those times where you and someone else are the last 2 alive and fight it out while 100 other people look on. A pretty awesome feeling to pull it off, especially against the odds if outnumbered.
-
Problem with the autobalance is that it is putting all ranged/cav on one team.
-
Problem with the autobalance is that it is putting all ranged/cav on one team.
sometimes the reason this is happening is because of clans and banner balance. say its 30v30 and 15 of one players team are chaos that all get balanced, well chaos has like no cav so thats like 15 infantry takin gup the team, therefore obviously more cav get balanced to the other side, its just banner balance , its stupid
-
suggestion
why you connect to the server you can only see:
spectator and roll dice
roll dice 1,3,5 - team A ; 2,4,6 - team B ... you can roll dice only once per map
(I would just like to say i have no problem with the current ballance system, since I win some lose some ... its a game and for the most part is enjoyable and fun)
-
I have indeed been in some games where most of the cav is stacked with us GK's but it does not happen as often as people here think it does. And even when it does happen, the opponent tends to have more infantry then our team and still have a big chance to win. Also, GK's do not get a constant x5(by far), even on cav maps.
And to the infantry that go like "aww I got bumped by a cav and then backstabbed to death they are so overpowered I must go cry in a corner"; I played my share of infantry, it's overrated. Cav is easy to kill/repell if you pay attention. I'm sorry for you that this game is not a cakewalk.
Oh and another thing. Why do all the two handers get stacked so often huh?! Damn those OP two handers, they keep backstabbing and hilt slashing me, I gotta find a corner to cry in.
-
There's no downside to cav
Hello, I'm bad cav.
As a cav hybrid, if you've ever seen me playing you'll notice me mostly on foot because the downside to cav is that once you're dehorsed you're dead and the only real efficient way of killing your enemy is hitting them whilst they're distracted. If I'm lucky to survive to the end of the round on horse and it becomes 1v3 or 1v4 I dismount, why? because killing anyone aware of you on a horse is near impossible unless they make a mistake. Only class I can safely attack maybe 60% of the time is a 1h+shield, most smarty pants just cut the horse from under you before you can connect.
Anyway I suggest you try a cav STF. Majority of the time I do better on foot than on my horse because on foot there is no one I cannot engage and at least have a chance, with cav anyone aware of your presence can end you should you decide to charge. The terrain also plays a much more crucial role when you're on a horse.
anyway as I said I'm bad cav and my build is not a pure cav I'm just a dabbler but this is what I've gathered from my experiences playing and watching others. ( I have done pure cav builds, but I'm mainly a dabbler of the horse back ways in Crpg )
-
I wish that non-clan players had more of a choice. As of now, I feel irrelevant to the battle. Even when I do well, I'm still just a "pubbie." Clan players will only rarely help pubbies with tactics, and if you happen to get in they're way they have no problem team-wounding you, because it isn't like you can do anything about it.
Banner balance is really cool in concept. It has this emotional component where you have to give up your individuality and submit to a clan's aesthetics. That's cool. However, it would also be cool to have a "mercenary" option where you could pay gold to get on a certain team. Players would basically be auctioning themselves to get on a team. They wouldn't auction higher than the profit from the multis in theory. Maybe that specific idea is silly, but something like it would make the game better for pubbies.
-
Anyway I suggest you try a cav STF. Majority of the time I do better on foot than on my horse because on foot there is no one I cannot engage and at least have a chance, with cav anyone aware of your presence can end you should you decide to charge. The terrain also plays a much more crucial role when you're on a horse.
anyway as I said I'm bad cav and my build is not a pure cav I'm just a dabbler but this is what I've gathered from my experiences playing and watching others. ( I have done pure cav builds, but I'm mainly a dabbler of the horse back ways in Crpg )
I've done cav before. 1h too and done well (I have decent timing on bump-slash). It's just boring, you circle around waiting for forces to engage then swoop in on people who don't see you coming, and back off unless it's a shielder with a short 1h. You can also look for teammates in combat and trot over their opponent from behind with your destrier setting up a knockdown kill, mad skillz there.
I stopped putting points into riding cuz I'd rather be on the frontline, fighting alongside clanmates and working on close our range unit cohesion (actually challenging stuff). Riding around on a horse motorcycle and backstabbing people is just dishonourable/lame, relatively unskilled & ultimately boring. When the field is full of people attempting this, the overall gameplay quality is significantly lowered, people are here for medieval combat, not to play some kind of backstabbing defence simulation.
-
IMO It would be good enough if ranged (archers, throwers and maybe crossbowmen) and cavalry were balanced even among the teams.
I know this isn't hard to do in PHP/MYSQL. Question is if it's possible to customize the M&B player balancing function accordingly. Is it possible?
$ranged = TRUE/FALSE; // level > 12 AND ~wpf > 99
$cavalry = TRUE/FALSE; // level > 12 AND ~riding >= 3
-
I admit it, i have sinned.
I got a bit exasperated bored after being trumpled to death, or seeing useless teammates getting couched in the first 20sec, not being able to look out while moving in one direction.
As a dedicated polearm (longspear support user), i admit having changed my flag to the GK yesterday evening. And it was quite fun seeing the mighty cav in action, while watching from the good side. Also... it's one less pikeman for them, so better chance for the cavalry to be effective. Everybody is happy.
For all this "balance issue", i really blame teamplay (and "play" in general) :
-Archers with TATAR arrows shooting at highly armored infantry, rather than at horses.
-Pikemen, deciding to go fight in melee, rather than staying behind, protecting the few archers for the first 30sec at least.
-Berserkers, knowing only how to charge, and die while charging.
But i'll still play, cause it's definitely a lot of fun when "randomers" win.^^
-
Cav is easy to kill/repel if you pay attention.
Any decent cav will avoid the most dangerous enemies and go for the ones they know are not paying attention. Only archers are the ones capable of taking down good cav on their premises. Pikes just can't guard everything and the cav will one-hit everyone who's outside the range of pikes. It's just people being dumb and splitting out, nothing else.
-
Been saying this since day 1.
Either reduce horse bump damage to 0. Or make it so riders take damage on falls.
And then allow me to jump off when it's trotting slowly (or at any speed but you take damage if over a certain speed). Also make it so that when my horse corpse crashing into you it knocks you unconcious or snaps your ankle in two.
There is so much missing for the game to be "realistic" you can't talk about only one aspect and not bring up everything else.
-
And then allow me to jump off when it's trotting slowly (or at any speed but you take damage if over a certain speed). Also make it so that when my horse corpse crashing into you it knocks you unconcious or snaps your ankle in two.
There is so much missing for the game to be "realistic" you can't talk about only one aspect and not bring up everything else.
No one should be arguing it needs to be changed for the sake of "realism" (altho obviously the more realistic the better), all arguements should be made on balance lines. Cav clearly needs a new balance mechanism, cuz the old balance of high cost to horses no longer applies due to inflation.
Personally I think an elegant balance mechanism would be damage on horse death. fleshing it out with other things like flying horse corpse damage, wall hit damage, moving dismounts, etc. would be fine too, but the main issue is there needs to be more risk/downside to riding around.
-
Joker for President of Development!!!!!!!!
yeah cav is easy to kill if the cav is a moron who runs straight at someone who is watching him and has a weapon ready. which is why cavs with half a brain get their kills by running down people who are distracted (by other cavs or in combat). Cavs are basically lamers who get their kills by 1) backstabbing and 2) stunning people with horsebump. Neither of these practices adds much to the quality of the gameplay, especially in their current widespread state.
There's no downside to starting the round on a horse, besides cost, which is being obliterated by loompoint prices. If you added something like damage from your horse dieing under you, it would add some balance to the equation.
Lamers? So there shouldn't be in cavalry in a game called "Mount & Blade"? Cmon guy...I realize you really don't like cavalry (as a lot of people don't) but you're a moron if you can't see the value in having them on your team. You can counter them with teamwork and tactics. End of story.
Every class has strengths and weaknesses, if your team can't learn the proper tactics for countering another's strength, then that's your fault, not the games. Cavalry have been nerfed a lot from native with the lance angle and slow riding speed. Any half decent player can kill me on a straight on lance thrust charge (even with me "juking" on a champ courser and changing my speeds). All the good players do is jump out of the way at the last second, outside of my lance angle and they can still swing and kill me or my horse (even with 1h swords).
Learn tactics, I'm tired of reading your rage posts about cavalry and hearing it from others in game. Nothing is that overpowered that a tactic can't counter it. End of story.
I don't get why there needs to be more risk/downside to being cavalry? Because you don't know what tactics can counter it? I've seen teams organize shield walls with pikes in tight formations and the cavalry literally had 0 chance of countering that tactic.
This is to everyone, and in general: Stop bitching, stop asking for nerfs. Learn some tactics, and try to organize your team to counter what is killing you. Everything in the game has a counter. Nothing is overpowered.
-
That is a lot of BS blah blah blah organize tactics!! They have weaknesses too!!
The facts remain:
-strengths >>> weaknesses
-Cost balance mechanism was meant to keep cav in check, it is getting weak in face of increasing inflation, how cares how expensive a warhorse maintanence is when you can sell a loom point for 650k?
-Given the above, Cav #s keep increasing.
-Becoming a major problem on battle, especially when people stack onto a popular cav banner like GK or BRD.
Pikemen are a passive defence against cav, pikemen have limited range, and cav avoid pikemen who are watching them. Also not many people are interested in playing a pikeman just so they can spend the entire round with their back turned to the real fight, to keep watch for backstabbing cavalry, who now won't attack around them cuz they see the guy watching! You seriously expect pikemen to do this? It's a videogame we play for fun, not to simulate being on sentry duty.
Now it's nice that you, a guy who spends all his time ontop of his champ courser, lancing people in back, is saying there is no problem, but I respectfully believe a lot of people would disagree.
-
Since the thread shifted to be about cav balancing instead of autobalance, I add to it.
It seems true, that cav players increase atm. I have no statistics, but I believe some months ago there usually were not more then 3-5 cavs in total on the map with about one or two of them beeing skilled. Now there often are 4-8 cavs on the map with varying skilldegree.
I hope this cavallry boom wastes some money in c-rpg and counters inflation - (armored) horses still are money wasters.
But there really needs to be an alternative for gamers who dont want to play in cav dominated battles. So please join the melee only server - or open up another server with melee + ranged.
And now back to team-balance...
-
At any given time there is less than 1/4 of the battle server on cavalry, most of the time there's around 1/4 to 1/5th cavalry on the server, sometimes when it's "really bad" you get 1/3 cavalry on the server. When you're putting together a balanced army I'd wager you want at least 1/4 to 1/5th of your army to be cavalry. But when you're in a public server you want it to be less, because it's annoying you?
Guess I'm pulling this out again:
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,27409.0.html
TwoHander 9,277,779 24.50%
Polearm 7,929,018 20.93%
OneHander 5,576,296 14.72%
Polearm (mounted) 4,772,240 12.60%
Bow 3,644,565 9.62%
Crossbow 1,932,102 5.10%
Thrown 1,554,781 4.10%
Crossbow (mounted) 989,434 2.61%
OneHander (mounted) 902,528 2.38%
TwoHander (mounted) 704,806 1.86%
Bow (mounted) 514,014 1.36%
Thrown (mounted) 78,197 0.21%
That was February's stats on NA1 battle server. 12% of damaged from mounted polearm. Stop complaining. Better yet, Developers, stop listening to the bitching and complaining.
Cavalry doesn't dominate battles, they are able to move people around, and they can pick off the lone stragglers. The ones who dominate the server are the large groups of infantry running in a pack (the key though is that they need some spears in the mix). They control the battlefield, not cavalry. If people had better formations cavalry would be even more marginalized.
-
CrazyCracka is right.
The problem of most infantry players is, that they are not aware of the fact that their class is different from others, because it requires real teamplay to unfold its complete potential.
You can have 1hd+shield cav, lancer cav or horse archer cav.
You can have archers, crossbowmen and throwers.
You can have 1hd+shield inf, 2hd inf and spear/pike inf.
Now to ask you: how much can the three cav classes influence each others, if they try to play together as good as they can? Almost not all all, best they can do is distract enemies from cav mates.
How much can the three ranged classes influence each other? A little more, due to the simple fact that putting ranged fighters together increases their effectivity exponentially. But there is little difference in which class it is, archer or crossbowman or whatever.
But how much can the three infantry classes influence each other? The answer is easy: heavily! If they play together they nullify all possible counters, but represent a counter themselves to almost everything except of horse archers perhaps.
Face it: being a good infantryman means being a good soldier. It requires discipline. Stay with your teammates, don't hunt down single enemies and break up formation doing so, take care that you always got some of the other classes around you, charge aggressively when a charge is required, stay clam if you need to defend yourself. If all infantry players would do so, the other classes would get completely raped. An infantry block with shieldmen at the front, pikemen at the flanks and the back and two handers everywhere between them would steamroll everything. Cavalry can't approach due to the ring of pikes around the infantry and archers couldn't shoot due to the shields in the front.
And this doesn't mean walking in perfect formations like in Medieval II: Total War. A loose blob is already enough, if the different classes keep positions roughly. And it's not like this behaviour would require a lot of brainpower or so, after doing it for a week you get used to it and don't even notice how you keep formation by default.
Cavalry can do shit against enemies who are aware. If 100% of the server would be aware of enemy cav, how many kills could they score? The only target which can be attacked while aware are 1hd+shield, and all they need to do is to stick to a spearman. Can this be changed by any stat regarding horses or lances or whatever? No.
Cav seems OP because infantry (many archers included) sucks. That's all.
-
I honestly think as "lame" and "fascist" as it would be, they should do an hour force practice on all the official battle servers once a week.
Make the people line up into formations and learn how to work as a team.
I know this would never work, but from the 3 or so times I played mount and musket it really helped. Not to mention clan practices, or trying to stay disciplined in strategus battles helps a lot. If anyone played sports as a kid (like basketball, soccer, hockey, football, etc). You practice formations, and plays, and where people go at certain times. This is just common sense that if you practice a little you're going to get better at it.
That being said, it's just common sense: Infantry in ACTUAL formations (at least loose formations, not necessarily 100% perfect) dominate the battle field.
Watch this (don't gotta watch all 10 mins, although I'd recommend, but just the first 2 mins) and tell me cavalry is overpowered: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4qbQCJ9QKs
Try using shields and spears effectively and cavalry can literally do nothing except pick off the idiots too stupid to be working with their teammates.
*EDIT* I'm not being unrealistic and thinking that infantry formations in game (even with super organization) could ever be as good as in real life or in the movies, but they certainly can be more effective than everyone running from spawn across an open field and waiting to get picked off from cavalry.
Also saying that cav is overpowered because teams are too stupid to use their natural counters to their advantage is ridiculous. It comes down to tactics and the willingness of the team to work together. Because those two rarely happen then people want to suggest we dumb down the classes? Cmon now...
-
cav players like op cav itt
-
Seriously, even with onehander you can avoid or even kill cavalry if it's a single (or sometimes two) horsemen. You just need to stop being terrible or go play in melee servers if you can't.
-
I kill plenty of cav, I carry 2 stacks of +3 heavy throwing axes, it's just annoying to have to be on a 360 degree swivel all the time watching for backstabbing cav lamers when I am trying to fight and it's also annoying to constantly see whatever team has a cav superiority basically guaranteed to win. But according to the cav playing tools here, cav makes the game more fun for everyone, and is not overpowered at all!
-
I really do not mind autobalance.
As long as I have the most kills on my team or have close to an equal amount to the best on my team. I then know I am doing my job and the rest of my team isn't.
Anyone can go easy route and join a big clan like Chaos or just throw on their banner.
-
At any given time there is less than 1/4 of the battle server on cavalry, most of the time there's around 1/4 to 1/5th cavalry on the server, sometimes when it's "really bad" you get 1/3 cavalry on the server. When you're putting together a balanced army I'd wager you want at least 1/4 to 1/5th of your army to be cavalry. But when you're in a public server you want it to be less, because it's annoying you?
[...]
Cavalry doesn't dominate battles, they are able to move people around, and they can pick off the lone stragglers. The ones who dominate the server are the large groups of infantry running in a pack (the key though is that they need some spears in the mix). They control the battlefield, not cavalry. If people had better formations cavalry would be even more marginalized.
Right. My point was that there seems to be a slight cav increase. I really dont mind if this tendency doesnt continue with new cav players sprooting like mushrooms (including myself). With more and more people gaining enough gold to sustain medium to heavy cav it IS possible that the curve continues to climb...
However I still am not raging against cav (although it may seem so) becouse of the fact that medium and heavy cav emptys the pockets quite fast if you dont keep a high multiplier constantly.
I also agree that an organiced team and aware infantry can counter cav. But honestly, when does the average battle teams are really organiced, when not all clanmembers are on ts and concentrated on game and not chit chat. Some rare times there is somone acting as team general giving good tactical advice and using battaillion flags, and even rarer people are listening - and only then there is a chance for cavallry counter play.
This game for me still is about being fun and not about being hyper serious about wartactics and awerness all the time.
For balancing I would think it to be fair when cavallry was splitted up in equal measures on the teams. How to do this is another story. There have been ideas like allocating players with riding 3+ to cav, or to let the server remember equiped horses and allocate such as cav in next round and divide them up skill based.
I'd like to see such a cav balancing becouse onesided cavallry surplus on one team is overpowerd imho.
But still i agree that cavallry as such is good as it is. Its just bad when one team has double amount of cav.
This would mean that the team without cav has to excel in strategie, awareness and skill to have equal chances. And this imho is not fair.
Also I am aware that no one will give a cake about this cav-balancing so I will also go cav if I see to many cavallrists on the other team and there will be even more cav on the map :P
-
one back: http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,29418.msg433331.html#msg433331 (http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,29418.msg433331.html#msg433331)