Messages

16

Closed Requests / Re: Banned from EU official [Seige+Battle] Server

« on: September 13, 2011, 10:23:41 pm »

alright

"The third round, you ran onto the bridge again, I waited to see if you would react when you were one of the last three alive on the team, you did not, so I banned you for two days, **which was rather light considering the number of times I gave you chances to do something** and with people telling me that you were doing nothing."

If you think the duration is too short then just extend the length of the ban  [In response to the Double-Starred Quote ]

17

Closed Requests / Banned from EU official [Seige+Battle] Server

« on: September 13, 2011, 09:10:57 pm »

Ingame Username: Useless_Knube

I tried joining the EU official battle server, on the first attempt I received a 'User disconnected' message, after connecting the second time, I was kicked and the message log said I was banned. I tried the same thing on the euro-seige server and got roughly the same thing. [disconnected twice and then banned] I joined the NA server but did not have this problem. [thankfully]

Now I'm not sure if being disconnected twice was the cause [or the effect] of being banned or whether the two are completely unrelated. Because I don't know precisely why I was banned I'm going to post all possible theories and try and give as much information as possible. [Even if it turns out to be inconsequential]

First, I don't remember being kicked from the server prior to leaving it myself [intentionally] And I do not remember anything being said to me immediately prior to leaving. I usually switch between EU and NA server when the latter becomes more populated than the former. [EU ping averages 120, NA averages 38, so the size of the server is the main determinant for me].

I was kicked by an admin once from a server, but I cannot remember if it was on the NA or EU server. The offense was for creating a poll to kick myself, but I was able to rejoin the server promptly after being kicked, so even if that kick occured on the EU server, it probably wasn't the reason for the ban.

I've been kicked a few times, especially from the EU server, whenever the server population was very high. But I had figured that these kicks were some automated feature  designed to reserve slots for admins or preferred players. [I was kicked from a server before I had created my first character] But none of these kicks were bans. [according to the gamelog]

The other possibility is the accusation of leeching. On one of the maps [I had just switched from a ninja-character to a crossbow character] I had made a bad habit of missing enemies and either nearly hitting allies or accidentally hitting them, so the next round I stayed on a bridge towards the back of the map and waited till most of the team was dead before doing anything.

I left euroserver to play on NA server some time during the afternoon, because I wasn't kicked or banned at any particular time I can't remember when my EU server gaming changed to NA server gaming.

18

General Discussion / Re: Why do we even need upkeep anymore?

« on: September 10, 2011, 07:54:43 pm »

So basically you want one more reason why Players should take strength, and ... not give another reason to take AGI as a balance?

Now that you mention it, my post could possibly come off as that. Maybe it is simply my personal bias that I view agility as being more important for higher level players than maxing out strength. Players without an adequate agility run slower, attack slower, and also lack the ability to use bows and thrown weapons with any degree of accuracy.

But the idea of making strength more important relative to agility didn't really cross my mind when I wrote this. My thinking was, to create an opportunity cost 'curve' that sufficiently penalizes the use of the heaviest armor by virtue of having to sacrifice movement and attack speed [and horse riding abilities]. Most players would not consider using the heaviest armor worth this penalty.

 

19

General Discussion / Re: Why do we even need upkeep anymore?

« on: September 10, 2011, 06:13:43 pm »

Why not just establish a system where a player's strength attribute limits the maximum weight that all of his equipment combined can sustain. Such that, for example, a player with a strength level of 18 might theoretically be able to wear any piece armor he wanted, but he could by no means wear every piece of armor he wanted.

For a player to run around in fully plated armor carrying a large weapon or a sword and shield, that might require a strength of 30 [or more, this would need to be balanced and calibrated by the devs, but i find 30 to be a nice round number], which even at level 35 only gives them an agility of level 10 [for simplicity i'm ignoring skill-attribute conversion], which limits any agility-based skill to 3 at a maximum. Notice immediately that a player wanting to go full-armor could not simultaneously ride on a fully-armored horse.

If such a player wanted to specialize in polearm combat, he would be capped at 138. Whereas a player at level 35 who stopped at strength level 20 would have an agility of 20, and might have to limit himself to medium or medium-heavy armor, but would also have cavalry options that the previous player did not, likewise his wpf would give him a combat speed bonus.

Most players who had reached a maximum level would not choose to max-out on armor simply because of how difficult hitting other players would be with their slow movement speeds [high weight with low agility] and their slow attack speeds [low WM]

Players who want to use a heavy-armor and heavy-horse [warhorse, cataphract, or plated charger] combo will probably not be able to do it unless they find a particular armor combination, they might have to forgo a helmet or use a very light helmet, they might also/alternatively use lighter leg armor. Either of these would make them vulnerable to perceptive players who would see that their tin-can has a weakness and would exploit it.

An interesting alternative to this is to have a system whereby players with heavier armor [in weight terms] without the necessary strength would [due to being less able to support the weight of their armor] be 1. more likely to be knocked down by certain weapons 2. take longer to get up after being knocked down

If the devs coded this properly, most people very likely would not gravitate towards the heaviest armor, horses, and weapons, due to the opportunity costs being too great. All of which could be done without the accountancy of the upkeep system.

So what would the role of Heirlooms be in such a system? I envision heirlooms being equipment that imposes less of a weight penalty on the player [for the heaviest of armors] and-or being MORE EFFECTIVE for the same weight as a regular piece of equivalent equipment [for the less-heavy eqipment]. [and thus serving the same function] In other words, if a lordly set of medium-heavy armor has roughly the same defense capabilities as a regular set of standard heavy armor, and a lordly set of heavy-armor [i'm thinking plate armor] might have slightly more defense, but more importantly, lower weight.

One possible role for upkeep in such a system would be the penalty players have to pay over a period of time if they want their heirloom equipment to have those bonuses. [such upkeep would probably be greater than it is presently, since most players would not be using a full set of heirloom equipment]

If they do not maintain upkeep on the heirlooms, said heirlooms will not 'break' but will revert back to an inert state where their stats are equal to those of their regular counterparts. [an unfixed heirloom sword might be called a 'chipped masterwork sword' in order to differentiate it from a regular sword] This is similar to the principle of many RPGs where players must pay someone or something money in order to have their special weapons 'enchanted'

20

General Discussion / Re: Why do we even need upkeep anymore?

« on: September 10, 2011, 12:23:01 am »

At an average of X2 modifier it has been found that you can support about 47K of crap, as opposed to pre-major patch that was 50K.

So for every multiplier, it is supposedly 23.5K

Hm... Where did i go wrong?

21

General Discussion / Re: Why do we even need upkeep anymore?

« on: September 09, 2011, 11:55:24 pm »

If you do the math.... the average multiplier for a player is going to be somewhere around 1.9375, which amounts to an average of 97 gold per minute. This can vary between players, but assuming that on average a player does not radically effect the probability of winning or losing, 1.9375x is the average multiplier. This doesn't include the valor bonus.

[You can figure this out by realizing that multiplied over many games, 1x occurs 1/2 of the time, 2x occurs 1/4 of the time, 3x occurs 1/8th of the time, and 4x and 5x both occur 1/16th of the time. Take those multipliers and divide them out, you get 1.9375, or 31/16]

If we do some fuzzy math and assume that every piece of equipment a player owns has the same probability of needing to be repaired, you can figure out the most expensive [in terms of gold] equipment a player could own [theoretically] by multiplying 97 gold per minute by [[100/4]x[100/7]] which is simply the inverse of the percentage likelyhood that at any minute something needs to be repaired, and the percentage of the cost.

That equals 34,643 gold.

Like i said... this is all fuzzy math, and remember that averages can at best only tell us about the outcomes for groups, not individuals.

22

Suggestions Corner / Two [and a half] Plausible ways to Nerf Cav without nerfing Cav

« on: September 05, 2011, 07:01:25 pm »

I agree with the sentiments that Cavalry is overpowered, I also agree with the sentiments that this is largely an inevitability. As long as one team chooses to fight in loose formation with their infantry composed primarily of archers, xbows, and swordsmen, a smart player with a half decent horse and half decent equipment can kill far more players than he would normally if he were fighting on foot.

However I can think of two, or maybe three ways in which cavalry can be weakened LARGELY without changing the balance scheme for the rest of the
Crazy, inorite?

1. Archers Stakes

We already have "Siege shields" which can prevent frontal cavalry charges and provide some defense against arrowfire, but these things are less of a threat to cavalry and more of a nuisance. But what about archers Stakes? of the kind that were featured in Empire/Medieval II total war.

What I imagine is a throwable item that either deploys a small row or small arc of wooden stakes out from the direction the player is facing, or [and this would be more complicated] the throwable item has between 4-8 ammunition and will deploy 1 stake for every one thrown.

Also, the stakes could pose a real threat to cavalry by inflicting damage on horses if they charge into the stakes at the pointed end, proportional to the speed at which the horses are running. However this addition is not wholly necessary, as most cav players are USUALLY as good as dead if they are ever caught in a position where their horse stops completely. [which is what happens if they choose to run directly into a wall of anything.

Because the stakes are pointed at an incline, they would only prevent movement in 1 direction. So unless the team of infantry uses heavy teamwork to deploy a ring of stakes, cavalry can still perform a flanking or rear charge and run through the stakes from behind.

Whether or not a full speed horse should be permitted to jump over the stakes is an interesting question. I personally would be opposed to it since it defeats the point of having stakes entirely but if horses are not able to attack whilst jumping, it's probably more dangerous for the horseman than the guy behind the stakes.

2. Couched Pikes [or braced pikes]

Lancers are given the choice of simply pointing their lance in the direction they want it to deal damage, and using the speed and momentum of the horse to impale whatever gets in the way of their lance. Why shouldn't pikemen be able to do the same?

My idea is to have as an option for the long spear and the pike [the pike-pike, not the Ahlspiess], via the X button, lower their pike a few degrees above horizontal. The pikeman is now in a 'braced' formation, and cannot move his body [although he can rotate] Whilst in this position, any horse or horseman that runs into him will suffer the equivalent of couched lance damage, varying in proportion to the horses speed.

For the sake of balance, the couched lance damage is only dealt to the horse/horseman if they come into contact with the tip of the spear, not the shaft. [otherwise a player could go into this formation, spin around, and trip every horse that comes within 3 meters of him.

Two other nuances. First, unlike regular couched lance attacks, the 'couched pike' does not have a time limit for length of use. I.e. the pikeman can remain in a couched pike position for as long as he wants to. However if the pikeman does make contact with a horse/horseman the pike automatically exits the couched position and has to engage in a cooldown period.

This makes pikes even more formidable against cavalry but renders them no less vulnerable to infantry and skirmishers.

3.) Deployable Pavise [i.e. Board Shields]

to my knowledge the pavise or 'board shield' was used in the same general way that siege shields are used presently, providing the user with cover against arrow fire. My idea is that certain [not all] board shields have the ability via the X button to become a thrown weapon, turning it into a smaller and weaker version of the siege shield.