i personally dont like when i die and have to wait whole round to end to spawn again i find that as time wasting.
having to wait is alright a few times, but after a while it gets annoying.
Then don't die early, useless swabs. Be aware, don't play the game if you don't feel like it, be useful for your team, don't just spawn-run straightforward & die. Siege (in its currents state) is for useless brainfarts who like it easy mode: pop in, spam your mouse and if you die you can just go on within a few seconds. How great & awesome.
I used to play only battle, back when there were ladders and less ranged. It was fun when you still could go flanking around and try different routes (or make them!).
Now there's so much ranged that the only option to stay alive is to stay in one group, run serpentine from start to end to avoid getting shot.. and flanking is impossible unless you have 10 ath and shield. Battle lost all the creative stuff it used to have and what made it fun... so my vote goes for siege which I've been playing last year now.
Umad waradin?
Ahahahah this guy actualy went to my post history and took the time to downvote all my posts after i downvoted him here.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Hardly, I would surly not waste my time downvoting all your pots, it would take me days to do that.
You are just pathetic for posting this lie and downvoting my aka totally normal post just cuse you have some hate apon me.
Don't like me ? just pass by bro ..
(click to show/hide)
The very goal of Battle mode is utterly stupid, therefore the only eligible candidate is siege.
Although when there are very few players left battle is probably better.
Fight for your bare life against bloodrhirsty foes is stupid? I beg to differ Sir :curls moustache:
The goal of battle is not your own survival, it is to kill the last survivor of the enemy team before your team loses its own last survivor.
I prefer battle but due to constant increase of ranged, not playing it regularly for nearly 2 years now. If at any time the count of ranged players would feelable drop on eu 1 again, then i would be there also a constant player. As from what i saw in the past years concerning that topic, nothing was happening or the positiv feedback loop of ranged palyers was even increased, i see there no big chances taht every happening ... which makes me a sad panda :cry:If I'm not mistaken you always play as a shielder with huscarl shield and high shield skill? How then shooters are a problem for you? Recently I started playing with shield(a small one) and the comfort of being covered from misiles is so huge... I just can't get your opinion, kinngrimm, would you like only pure melee fights?
I prefer battle but due to constant increase of ranged, not playing it regularly for nearly 2 years now. If at any time the count of ranged players would feelable drop on eu 1 again, then i would be there also a constant player. As from what i saw in the past years concerning that topic, nothing was happening or the positiv feedback loop of ranged palyers was even increased, i see there no big chances taht every happening ... which makes me a sad panda :cry:
Never happened. Ladders coincided with the largest amount of ranged ever present in the game. No melee wasted time carrying ladders in case some xbow or archer happened to be camping 3 mins into the round. The only people that got a use out of them were ranged, camping otherwise unreachable spots. Suggesting that they were some kind of tactical buff for melee vs ranged is nonsensical.
Siege = Goal to have fun
Battle = Goal to stay hidden from range, an hope your team survive the range fest.
I dont mind range, but when they start to take over 60% of each team, that just sucks out the fun in battle :lol:
If I'm not mistaken you always play as a shielder with huscarl shield and high shield skill?you are mistaken,
How then shooters are a problem for you? Recently I started playing with shield(a small one) and the comfort of being covered from misiles is so hugeIf you can't see it, perhaps you need 5k+ hours as shielder, to see the averrage and deduct the trends.
... I just can't get your opinion, kinngrimm, would you like only pure melee fights?No i don't want pure melee fights, what i stated in another thread also, i imagine a maximum quota/% for weapons per team. like
@ kinngrimmthe trend exists since about 2 1/2 years, at least thats when i got aware of and i never saw it stop. There was not a particular event or patch or anything wich pointed toward it, just more and more ranged players i counted. Not only archers , but also xbow and throwers i include. Kafein and others called it a positiv feedback loop, where the more ranged there is , do create even more of the same kind, as it is the only real counter.
well, most time I saw you with your infamous steelpick and some shield :P
Anyway as a long time no-shielder I know the irritation and stress caused by shooters and shield really makes playing easier when you don't need to hide, 'dance' and dodge missiles like crazy all the time. So I'm still a bit surprised that it's you and not some no-shielder that points so hard at the trend. I'm not so sure was there really pro-shooter trend lately, but after recent patch it might be true(theoretically for sure, wpf boost says that).
However I'm against class limits in this mod, it just doesn't fit the idea of "play what you want, because in this mod you can".
Why has Battle degenerated into a hardcore metagaming trollish nightmare? (for infantry)
bla, bla, blabity bla
And/Or maybe because of useless unaware soloing-hero scrubs & swabs like you, who refuse to do anything useful for their team in the battlefield and care only about their own "fun", no matter how twisted, selfish & (possibly) against the common sense rule it might be. You know - those guys who spend time hugging each other instead of killing themselves, solo "flankers" who rarely or never actually flank someone, etc. :twisted:
idk but I think I do better than you.. :D
I do fine on the flanks btw.. At least I have the decency not to degenerate into a filthy, nasty xbower like you. Using dirty throwing against ranged and cav is just fine. They deserve it.
BTW - Gnjus u r useless for team - just egoistic K/D ratio whore (I saw this many times on EU1) so stfu :wink:
I actualy find you to quite a nice player in my team, taking out key targets and having a good focus when doing so. Harpag always rushes head first and dies in melee before you even fired your first bolt.
Yes ofc, egoistic K:D ratio whore who never actually had a ratio better than 2:1 on any of his chars, simply because (unlike some Heroes) instead of pumping my score on shieldless peasants I try to help my team win by going for heavy horses who don't count as kills, or key enemy marksmen no matter how far they are and no matter how many bolts I need to waste to get them. Bright logic as ever, my dear friend Harpag. Do you homework better before brainfarting next time. 8-)
Why balance the game around Infantry? Rather simple... cuz those fighting mechanics is what makes the game special.Not really.
Archery/Xbow is the same mechanic as in every shooter really, point and release.
Horses are hardly innovative, more or less the same as most racing games if you think about it.
The only thing that makes M&B different compared to other games is the melee combat. Simple really...
Why balance the game around Infantry? Rather simple... cuz those fighting mechanics is what makes the game special.
Archery/Xbow is the same mechanic as in every shooter really, point and release.
Horses are hardly innovative, more or less the same as most racing games if you think about it.
The only thing that makes M&B different compared to other games is the melee combat. Simple really...
Special in a way only a mother can love, yes. :D
How about HA? They are quite special :wink:
After reading this, Most of forum community prefer battle, which is ok, but , they seem to spit so hard on siege and it seems like everyone who says that they play on eu 1 are literally saying they are hardcore pros , Someone said you dont have to use brain in eu 2, well i personally know quite a good guys on eu 2 , probably better than 90% of eu 1 players , but lets not fight people , we should spread love <3
You can produce as many WoT as you like:Well ... yes. I can see your point. Hand to hand combat obviously is the most interesting of all 4 or 3 main playstyles. Yet I beg to differ about priorities, this doesn't make the other playstyles less of value in my eyes.
The fact stands that the melee combat is to most demanding part in this game and the most special one.
Range is aim - shoot - adjust - aim - shoot... like every single FPS out there. Every shooter has different weapons which handle differently. No difference to archery.
I play a lot of HA lately and yes, it is like a racing car. You accelerate, you break, you turn left, you turn right. Nothing different to other racing games. Lancer cav is probably a class you could even play with a gamepad!
So... 4 directional combat is the outstanding game mechanic of M&B. That's the reason why it should be considered a priority.
-- Cav is by nature OP compared to Inf, and is only fully utilized by a very minority of players. They could be safely nerfed, leaving only people with brains to do well with them. 1 grain of teamwork makes them vastly more powerful i.ex. (Like, I saw Tommy and 1 more do a nice sandwich against 5 enemies yesterday.. Bumped half of them, killed 2 outright and survived.)
About a specific cav nerf, I think adjusting the maneuverability of horses would do a lot. This would make sure they travel in more predictable paths, can't turn on a dime, and will generally force them to teamwork more, aka bump trains, sandwiching, timing their charge etc.
Always the same bullshit, Thomek. I've counted how many cavs there are around primetime on EU_1 when I was there. And it seems you think 2 cav players per team is too much. They haven't been nerfed to oblivion enough with all the horse nerfs apparently. Decrease maneuver even one point and horses will simply stop turning, I guess that'll make them unable to do anything but sneak attacks. Who I am kidding, cav players dumb enough not to respec stopped doing any kind of open attack long ago anyway.2 cav per team? How long is it ago that you visited EU1? :lol:
Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive.Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive.Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive.Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive.Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive.Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive. Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive.
Neither game mode is really good, but I voted for battle since it is closer to a round based conquest mode, which is what the game would have needed while it was alive.
Always the same bullshit, Thomek.(click to show/hide)
Joker, the game is alive. Wake up.Thomek thanks for proving you don't understand shit about how cavalry works.
Who can afford an open attack nowadays anyway? You want to charge head on to a prepared player? That would be really good for gameplay you know. Would very quickly clean out all targets until there were only cav and xbowers left in this mod.
Kafein, in a cav charging a melee player, who takes the biggest risk?
Can the cav player not just block if the melee player surprises him?
Who decides when to attack?
Who can run away?
Who can just wait around or ride to the next target?
Who has a 120+ armored animal that needs to be slaughtered before he can touch the rider?
Who can bumpslash, bumpcouch, bumplance the melee player?
Who can rapetrain the melee?
Who can just bump him and wait for the xbower in the bushes 100m away to snipe him while the inf is down?
Who doesn't have to worry about equipment weight?
etc etc..
Give me a break, you are the one full of BS about cav. You have so many tools and options, and if its hard to play cav, it's because you are not using them, or because the infantry player is more than 1 step better than you.
With all these advantages, cav is a class that can EASILY survive a nerf, and making them less like go-carts would not be the least unnatural.
Kafein, in a cav charging a melee player, who takes the biggest risk?Charging any infantry head on is very dangerous business as lancer cavalry and you really gotta be sure of yourself that you can pull it off. The speedbonus with which you plan to drive your lance through someones skull is the same speed bonus that is going to be applied to your or your horse if you fail. The difference is that your base damage is a 31p MW lance which gets a 27.25% damage penalty from being used on horseback. Which means you have a 22.5p attack, whereas the guy you are stabbing could have a 28p Great Sword, a 36p Awlpike or a number of weapons that will significantly outdamage you.
Fixed.
Lancer is stronger than 1h cavalry. :?even than Royanss?
even than Royanss?Player skill is not very relevant to class balance