Messages

391

Suggestions Corner / Re: Pikes (longspears)

« on: July 21, 2011, 06:49:49 pm »

Not even close. Just watch the animation and ingore the players movement. If you think it's still too fast then you need new meds

How do you chamber with something that doesn't have side swings? 

overheads and thrusts can chamber I'm like 90% sure.

I know I've chambered allied overheads in shieldwalls before, less sure about thrusts.

By chamber I mean blocking an enemy attack with a mirrored attack if that is the correct definition for the term.

392

Game Balance Discussion / Re: A broken feature of 1h shorter than approx 85 length

« on: July 21, 2011, 06:48:28 pm »

Definitely needs to be fixed. I'd like to see more daggers in use lol

393

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Churburg Price Discrepancy

« on: July 21, 2011, 06:44:11 pm »

They should be the same price or have different armor values. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not everyone will think the chainmail version is better looking. It should have maybe 1 or 2 more leg armor points and an additional body armor point.

394

Game Balance Discussion / Re: New upkeep system intended that way?

« on: July 21, 2011, 06:40:23 pm »

Play the class before talking bullshit.

+1

I have an inner sigh of relief whenever I come across an enemy crossbowman instead of an archer (both as a melee and ranged char). The reloading speed is the difference between me easily escaping/engaging and needing to dodge around arrows.

395

Game Balance Discussion / Re: The Two Hander Problem and Crushthrough

« on: July 21, 2011, 06:20:26 pm »

I am not a fan of random factors that take away player skill.

I don't either; ideally, there would be enough variables in the crushthrough formula for it to not be inevitable or totally predictable (no random chance)

396

Game Balance Discussion / Re: The upkeep problem: My perspective as far as new players are concerned.

« on: July 21, 2011, 06:12:17 pm »

I'd like to see a wipe the next time a big patch rolls around, but yeah...rage

397

Suggestions Corner / Re: Pikes (longspears)

« on: July 21, 2011, 06:02:50 pm »

The problem is that the models are not solid objects and that switching from one attack or block to the other is way too fast.

Maybe pikes should not be able to block. Not ideal, but more realistic than the current animations and speed. They are support weapons, and should use allies as coverage. Chambering would still be possible of course.

398

General Discussion / Re: The Rise of Silly Names

« on: July 20, 2011, 04:41:43 pm »

OPENTHEGATECLOSETHEGATE

399

Game Balance Discussion / Re: The Two Hander Problem and Crushthrough

« on: July 20, 2011, 04:17:51 pm »

All weapons should have a chance of crushthrough based on their weight*misc wpn factors + wielder's strength vs defending weight*misc wpn factors + strength. The chance should remain rare against evenly matched opponents, but a great bardiche vs a shortsword should crushthrough. Knockdown should be done similarly.

400

Suggestions Corner / Re: Shield skill should be Strength based

« on: July 19, 2011, 06:42:24 pm »

The thing about unlocking with strength is quite silly though if you are going for realism.
You don't need to press weights to be able to carry a sidesword, not even for a poleaxe. The only thing that is realistically unlocked is bows.

I agree. Ideally, the formulas would go

strength - weight(*misc wpn factor) = weapon attack/block speed spd
weapon spd*weight(*misc wpn factor) = incoming dmg

Below a certain very low attack/swing spd threshold, the weapon would not be wieldable, but generally you could wield any weapon, just not well.

This would significantly change the stat system though, so I didn't mention it.

401

Beginner's Help and Guides / Re: Helms, Gauntlets and Greaves

« on: July 19, 2011, 06:22:25 pm »

Rarely, body armor adds head armor as well as body and leg armor (gothic plate with bevor).

402

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Upkeep system flawed

« on: July 19, 2011, 06:17:14 pm »

Hey, I have an idea, why not counter plate as it was countered in historically (to retain realistic armor protection, but keep it balanced)?

FIREARMS.

403

Suggestions Corner / Re: Shield skill should be Strength based

« on: July 19, 2011, 05:54:55 pm »

You said it, it's like weaponmaster, because every shield is unlocked by your mastery on how to use it, you're right when you say that you need strength to hold a shield, but you need mastery to use it in the good way.

Sure, but you can compare that argument for the reasoning behind melee weapons. Weapon mastery accounts for the character's subtle technique that the player cannot translate directly into the game via the mouse and keyboard. It is slightly redundant, but effectively narrows the scope of any single character's play style.

Melee weapons are unlocked by strength; the reasoning is that you can at least wield a weapon if you are strong enough, but without the subtle technique of those trained in its use.

This should apply to all worn/wieldable items, but I would be content if it at least applied to all melee items INCLUDING shields, which are really more like melee weapons than anything else.

404

Suggestions Corner / Re: Shield skill should be Strength based

« on: July 18, 2011, 06:36:15 pm »

So should this game have any rhyme or reason at all, or are we just going to end up with a nonsensical hodgepodge to compensate for whatever the unbalance of the day is?

Shields are the only item in the game (besides horses) that are unlocked by an agility based skill. Conceptually, this is ridiculous, even though it is a cheap fix for preventing an unbalanced build.

Armor: Strength unlocks
Melee weapons: Powerstrike (str) buffs, Strength unlocks
Bows: Powerdraw (str) buffs and unlocks
Throwing: Powerthrow (str) buffs and unlocks
Crossbows: Strength unlocks
Shields: Shield (agi) buffs and unlocks

Now, there are two ways to consider the Shield skill relative to the other skills. We can view it like a "Power___" skill or as a sort of bastardized Weaponmaster solely for shields. If it is considered as a Power___ skill, then it should be strength based. Further, the Difficulty of shields may be determined either by strength (like melee weapons) or the shield skill (like ranged weapons). If it is considered a sort of Weaponmaster, then the skill SHOULD be agility based (like weaponmaster), but unlocking shields should be strength based.

I don't think the underlying issues of this game will ever be addressed, if they are simply compensated for by nonsensical and arbitrary skill requirements.

Fine, currently shields cannot be strength based due to balance issues. However, shields were a weapon (the effective wielding of which determined by strength) that historically had its benefits, drawbacks, and eventual disuse, which gives me reason to believe that if shields cannot be implemented correctly without resorting to nonsensical skill requirements, that something is innately wrong with attributes and skills. I'd like to see this issue fixed at some point.

405

Suggestions Corner / Re: Shield skill should be Strength based

« on: July 15, 2011, 06:53:17 pm »

Yeah you are right, I should have done that from the beginning. Unfortunately, the other changes I'd want are pervasive and affect so many aspects of the game that i doubt I'll get any agreement on them.

The issue with shields being strength based is that it makes a high strength shielder build very powerful, okay. Making shields agility based forces shielders to divert points away from strength to prevent that happening. It's a shabby fix that doesn't make sense consistency-wise, but is effective for the current situation.

To rework this, each additional strength would have to give a smaller stat boost than the last, or the progression could remain linear with a decreased slope. This should probably be implemented anyways if strength really is OP.

Another fix, which I'd like to see with or without the shield change, would be if turning speed was agility based (I believe it is not). This would make it easier to get behind slow shielders and would make agility more worthwhile. Backpeddling should be slower too, making agility chars that much better.

In some ideal game, I'd imagine that mouse movement side to side would have a slight lag to turn the char, so your chars arms and head would move before their bodies would turn. You'd have to push the mouse a bit more persistently to turn the char.


*edit: I want to state again that in no way am I pushing this because of personal build preferences. One of my alts is a dedicated shielder, but so what? I actually prefer polearms anyways and am generally an agility whore because I like to zoom across the battlefield like a nut.

I'm a fanatical devotee of realism and consistency and would throw my favorite builds to the flames with scary maniacal glee if I thought it was better for the game.