Messages

406

Suggestions Corner / Re: Shield skill should be Strength based

« on: July 15, 2011, 05:06:43 pm »

Wow, the stupidity level of ArchonAlarion is through the fucking roof, might want to go check for any brain cancer unless you're just naturally fucking retarded and autistic as fuck.

Anything else you want to add to the discussion, Patty? Maybe some ideas or thoughts?

Yeah guys, I get that for the current balance situation this change would allow an overpowered build. I get it. I got it before I posted this thread.

The thing is, I don't care because I'm looking at the issue as if I was starting the game from scratch. Remember that this game is supposed to be in Beta. The benefits from shield skill could be reduced, or something similar.

The major issue I had with shields here is not really the skill itself being based on agility or strength, but the difficulty of shields being based on the shield skill, which is based on agility. I'm fine with the skill being based on agility I guess, but would prefer shields to be done like melee weapons in terms of difficulty being based on strength.

Like I said, all you guys ever care about in this god awful board is the current balance situation and you throw ad hominems around like confetti. I have no personal stake in shields, I just thought it would make the game more consistent, but thanks for all the insults and attacks on my intelligence.

If shields were based on strength from the beginning none of you would have complained, you'd have just gone along with it.

i guess I'll just repost this thread in a few months when agility builds are OP, so maybe I'll get some support. Balance is always changing everytime you add or change a feature. If you think balance cannot recover from this change in shields, fine, please explain why. I am open to counter-arguments, but now I'm pretty pissed and butthurt that everyone is hating on me for what i thought was a worthwhile suggestion.

407

Beginner's Help and Guides / Re: onehanded/polearm cavalry

« on: July 15, 2011, 04:47:38 pm »

What style of cav/pole/1h are you playing?

For a lancer (1h, shield, lance), you'll probably want something like 100 one handed wpf and 147 polearm wpf.

I'd say higher wpf for lance because it would be your primary weapon and lances are already hurting with the 40 degree turn radius. Also, when you choose to lose the horse for some fights and wish to use a polearm primarily, you'll want at least 140 wpf.

408

Suggestions Corner / Re: Shield skill should be Strength based

« on: July 15, 2011, 04:02:47 pm »

Nothing strange about the suggestion, coming from a guy with a char named: NASTY_TURTLE......... 

Yeah one of my FIVE chars is a shielder, screw you.

it's the only way to keep shielders at reasonable hitpoints.

i say no for your selfish idea.

Projection. I don't think the same way you do.

I needed a good laugh this morning and this suggestion was it.

Don't be a condescending piece of shit.

While you're at it, why don't we just remove agi entirely? I mean, if I have really strong legs, I could probably run faster too. Or if I had really strong arms, I could probably swing my weapon faster. Your idea fails on so many levels.

Yeah actually, I've considered this already. Agility is basically redundant.

Also as everyone above has stated, it would make strength builds - who are currently too good - even better.

All of you are stuck in little mental boxes "How will it affect balance RIGHT NOW RIGHT NOW???!@?!?!"

409

Suggestions Corner / Re: Shield skill should be Strength based

« on: July 15, 2011, 06:23:01 am »

Shield skill represents the skill of the user at handling their shield to intercept projectiles and parry attacks to minimize damage. That is why it is agility based; it requires fast reflexes and technical skill, not just a strong arm. This is the way it has been defined since the original M&B by Armagan and the game developers. In light of this, it makes sense for it to be agility based.

The stronger you are, the faster and more firmly you can move a shield.

Being a lithe elf princess doesn't make you better at wielding a shield.

ALSO AND FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY, why can a 33/3 char lift and wield a great maul, but can't fucking figure out a huscarl shield? Why can he wield a danish greatsword, but can't figure out a plain round shield? I can use your reasoning for any weapon/item that is already strength based.

If shield skill was purely for boosting spd and coverage, I might go along with armagan's bs, but because it also unlocks the use of shields, I cannot see the logic.

410

Suggestions Corner / Re: Shield skill should be Strength based

« on: July 15, 2011, 05:04:50 am »

Really man?

I almost cannot believe that anyone could argue against this.


If the stat benefits from the new way of doing shields would be unfair, then just tone down the coverage/spd benefits.

411

Suggestions Corner / Shield skill should be Strength based

« on: July 15, 2011, 04:59:34 am »

Why is shield skill dependent on Agility?

Powerstrike - strength

Powerdraw (difficulty for bows) - strength

Powerthrow (difficulty for throwing) - strength

Shield (difficulty for shields) - ... Agilty


wtf.

You need to be strong enough to wield this axe, or that bow, or that javelin.

Sorry you are not agile enough to wield a huscarl shield.

Nope, stupid.

It is silly for realism, it is silly for balance, it is silly every way you cut it, pierce it, or blunt it.

412

Beginner's Help and Guides / Re: Tips for Money saving/making loadout.

« on: July 13, 2011, 07:54:34 pm »

From what I've read, you have basically the same 18/18 full six build as my main.

Battlefork is awesome. Like the awlpike, but better. Might as well take a difficulty 2 or 3 shield too.

Long Hafted spiked mace is pretty good still. Not as crazy as it used to be, but the knockdown is useful.

Iron staffs are fast and the knockdown is cheap.

Pikes and such are cheapish and effective, good for support if you are toning your loadout down.

Personally I get the most fun out of the Battlefork.

413

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Humble opinion of BlueKnight

« on: July 13, 2011, 07:29:26 pm »

Realism arguements in balance discussion...tastes like pointless. This being a video game and all, one which requires BALANCE, not realism. Of course, I think that realism and historical accuracy aren't without worth. They help the game be immersive and give my history major self a boner.

There is no reason why a weapon should function in any specific way, except for realism. Balance can be achieved in an infinite number of ways, all arbitrary, except for the realistic way.

Also, there are ways to make some contexts of the game realistic, and others fair/balanced to ensure entertainment. The actual combat physics should be as realistic as possible, all "imbalance" compensated for by gold costs and such. Reality is already balanced; every build has its weaknesses/costs.

Realism worsens some games and enhances others. Mount and Blade was created with realistic (moreso than other games) medieval combat in mind; in general the game will benefit from a trajectory of increasing realism. Crpg has not deviated far from the core experience of m&b and has even increased realism in many areas.

Forcing all playstyles or weapon forms to be "balanced" is like going into CoD and demanding that there be an unarmed class that can take super-monk skills and power fists to compensate for the imbalance. You have to distort reality to forcefit D20 conceptions of medieval combat, which will itself create new imbalances across the game that you now have compensate for too. The problem with these new imbalances (created by your force fitting) is that we have no historical/concrete experience of them (no experience of how tin foil plate armor should work, no experience of rocket powered throwing weapons should work, etc.), so fixing these imbalances will be ham handed. Reality provides a consistent standard to shape the game by.

414

Suggestions Corner / Re: No action taken while jumping - possible?

« on: July 13, 2011, 05:11:04 pm »

I actually tried leaping and swinging a weapon irl and it's very difficult. My friends tried it too. It's like your arm freezes in midair and your lower body sorta spasms briefly. I think its because hip movement gives swings much of their power, and the lack of solid ground reduces the force of the swing. The jumping itself is disorienting and distracting too.

I agree that jumping and taking actions (such as swinging) should be significantly changed.

415

Suggestions Corner / Re: Tin Cans and Upkeep Costs

« on: July 13, 2011, 05:06:10 pm »

I don't agree. Sometimes I am really annoyed after I get killed with 3-4 hits by 1h despite my 68 body armour. On the other hand in gambeson I survive 2-3 hits from 1h. I don't understand it. Also the weight of the armour is very important and it influences on your combat possibilities. Sometimes I kill more guys in light clothes than in my Lordly Transitional Armour and I survive similar number of hits.

Usually I will make more kills in light to medium armor, unless my ping is good, in which case I can play heavy armor well.

Heavy armor slows your attacks down and your movement. If you aren't attacking, you aren't killing. When I don my black armor, I will get swamped by haters with little chance of getting away or attacking back, and if my ping is above 100, I'm useless. The players seawied mentioned are top players and I'm assuming they have wpf out the ass; I can easily mention lightly armored pro players.

416

Suggestions Corner / Re: Tin Cans and Upkeep Costs

« on: July 13, 2011, 05:40:27 am »

lol.... I can't even type a reply sarcastic enough for this post...

It isn't that great; the usefulness of armor is build-dependent and ping dependent (sad, but true).

The more skilled you are at directional mouse combat and dodging projectiles, the less armor you have to wear. Same philosophy applies to ironflesh.

I'd like to hear your sarcasm though.

417

Suggestions Corner / Re: Thoughts on something I would love in Mount and Blade games and cRPG...

« on: July 12, 2011, 10:27:02 pm »

Mount & Blade + Stamina = Asthma & Blade

You wouldn't say that if it was already in the game.

418

Suggestions Corner / Re: Tin Cans and Upkeep Costs

« on: July 12, 2011, 08:58:18 pm »

More importantly, armor isn't really that great, so the high costs are not warranted.

419

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Destrier OP after patch

« on: July 11, 2011, 05:32:14 pm »

Maneuver is lame, screw it.

I just slam WASD through the keyboard.

420

Suggestions Corner / Re: Weight of an arrows and quiver

« on: July 11, 2011, 05:25:08 pm »

Balance, game mechanics?

As many other things, this is not related to RL.

There are almost infinite arbitrary ways to reach balance. If your only criteria is "balance" then the game becomes a faceless mish-mash of compromises and compensations.

All item weights should be realistic and consistent.