Messages

466

Game Balance Discussion / Re: PLEASE can we have some kind of dodging?

« on: June 14, 2011, 02:33:41 pm »

All weapons should have a chance of crushthrough based on their weight, speed/physics effects, the wielder's str, the blocking weapon's weight, and the foe's str. Most of the time, weapons would not crushthtrough, and blocking would go as normally, but a great bardiche against a short sword would not go well for the swordman. Also, thrusting a lance/spear from horseback would often go through an opposing downblock due to the speed/force behind the thrust.

A complementary idea would be if simply clicking attack/block was less powerful/resistant than holding the button longer. This, way the players would have more control over the prevention of crushthrough, or its execution.

The great maul should perhaps be limited to overhead swings, although that is a bit extreme

467

Suggestions Corner / Re: Cavalry - too little slots

« on: June 12, 2011, 01:26:37 am »

How are these cavalry builds innately unfair and/or unrealistic (I say "innately" because gold cost/skill system is alterable, so the current "balance" situation is not necessarily permanent)?

Lance (unsheathable 1 slot), shield, 1H, 1 stack of throwing weapons

Lance (as above), shield, great sword

Lance (...), shield, 2 stacks f throwing weapons

Lance (...), shield, crossbow, 1 stack of ammo

Lance (...), shield, sheathable polearm (2 slots)

Lance (...), bow, 2 stacks of ammo

Lance (...), crossbow, 2 stacks of ammo

I don't see what is wrong with these builds at all. They all have strengths and shortcomings. When you hybrid ranged and melee, you waste specialist potential and the more stuff you take the more you have to pay in repairs.

468

Suggestions Corner / Re: Cavalry - too little slots

« on: June 11, 2011, 07:23:11 am »

Unsheathable weapons should be 1 slot. Maybe board shields and and huscarl shields should be 2 slot. I think it is realistic and fair for a cav player to have a smallish shield, lance, and 2H. The lance and shield is the cav build, the 2H is the unhorsed weapon; makes sense.

469

Game Balance Discussion / Re: INERTIA Tweak for Heavier Weapons

« on: June 07, 2011, 08:00:16 pm »

I'd like to see this implemented for all weapons.

470

Game Balance Discussion / Re: All X-Bows Should be Two Slots

« on: June 07, 2011, 07:55:19 pm »

. Cost is a terrible balancing mechanism. We should never allow people to just buy kills. The playing field is quite uneven when it comes to gold, and an increase in cost would only dissuade the poor.

Is it cost itself that is  ineffective or the current gold gain/repair/cost system?

People are already "buying" kills by spending their time leveling up.

471

Game Balance Discussion / Re: All X-Bows Should be Two Slots

« on: June 07, 2011, 04:05:53 am »

I don't like the idea of items having any other requirement than strength.

If I'm able to wield a great maul, I can definitely pick up a crossbow and shoot it without trouble. If I the player am unskilled at using crossbows, this should be the determinant of how well I fare.

Attributes represent aspects of the character that the player cannot directly control through mouse and keyboard movements (such as a char's physical strength).

Skills are for unlocking/improving certain aspects of the game that are supposed to be complicated, professional activities IRL but which the game has made simple (riding a horse = press f and go).

I do not believe crossbow usage (compared to all other tools/activities in the game) has been simplified enough to warrant a skill barrier. In fact it would be far easier to shoot a crossbow than to effectively swing a poleaxe.

The strength attribute already represents an entry barrier. Crossbows should have a low XP/Strength barrier, but a high Gold barrier, adjusted to an efficient cost. This could mean that crossbows become more expensive, I haven't looked into it too too far.

472

Game Balance Discussion / Re: All X-Bows Should be Two Slots

« on: June 06, 2011, 07:41:10 pm »

Reality has nothing to do with game balance.

It can. Why have crossbows at all? Why do  they need a long reload time? Why make them separate from bows at all?

If you have no criteria for determining how a weapon should function, then you can argue for it to function any way imaginable. "Balance" is not criteria. You can eliminate all weapons but daggers and shields and have a "balanced" game.

You cannot use "balance" as an argument for how a weapon should function, because alterations in other areas of the game can "unbalance" the weapon once again, thus making the whole point of your original alteration meaningless.

Realism is a (more or less) set in stone, objective standard to measure changes against. We know from accumulated knowledge that real life has its own balance, and where it is not "fair", limitations can be imposed to ensure all players have a chance to be entertained/empowered. I believe these "balancing" changes should be out of combat limitations, not a distortion of item function itself. Gold cost is a portion of this out of combat balancing action.

The xbow has its place, but not as a no skill requirement ranged weapon to make melee on equal footing with other dedicated ranged weapon users.

That is the entire point of this weapon. It is not a 'crossbow" if it does not function like one.

Gold cost is not an effective balancing tool for a general class of weapons, only for differentiating between lower and upper tier version of that weapon.

Why? The Gold cost, weight cost, and slot cost is already enough for me to refuse a crossbow for my melee chars.

On top of this is the hidden cost of wasting my melee chars potential by dinking around with a crossbow instead of using my melee weapons I'm paying for.

ALSO, if the difficulty of bows and throwing were based on Strength, then more hybrids would use them if their strength was high enough for the choice to be effective. Crossbows do not require much strength to be used, but are slow to reload and expensive.

At a certain strength, it would become more effective to use a cheaper bow than a crossbow. Longbowmen were better than crossbowmen, but required almost lifetime strength training. Ideally, crossbows are good for wealthy chars who lack strength (something like a 4th generation peasant).

473

Suggestions Corner / Re: class restrictions(HA nerf?)

« on: June 03, 2011, 02:56:55 pm »

Lame idea. Classes shouldn't be forced, they should come about naturally through realistic item stats and correct gold costs.

Part of the reason HA's are effective is horse maneuver and the radius you can turn while shooting from horseback. Both need to be decreased to realistic levels. Not sure if the shooting radius is alterable.

Also, the reticle is too easily shrunk for them I'm assuming.

474

Suggestions Corner / Re: Make riding give same percentage boost to horses as athletcis does to infantry

« on: June 03, 2011, 02:46:58 pm »

It shouldn't add speed at all, I mean, why should a horse run faster with a more skilled rider? Maybe accelerate faster, but not higher top speed. Maneouverability increase is alright, though, although maybe too excessive ATM.

I agree with this.

475

Game Balance Discussion / Re: All X-Bows Should be Two Slots

« on: June 02, 2011, 09:06:30 pm »

Class restrictions are so freaking lame.

This is a mod of mount and blade, not WoW.

You are entirely missing the POINT of crossbows and thus you want to distort their function.

It's like someone arguing that throwing needs to have the longest range out of all the ranged weapons to "balance them out". You continually ask for blatant distortion of weapon function.

Directional combat will not save this mod alone. Some would have it be a relatively shitty DnD rip off with one neat quirk: directional combat, whoopee!

A 12 year old could load and shoot a crossbow. They don't take much skill OR strength to use. Crossbows should be expensive. If done right, then people will be wary of taking too much armor or too much melee weaponry with crossbows, because they won't be able to maintain the build anyway.

All that being said, they really aren't that great man. Get a shield, be aware, strafe, and don't go to sieges...?

476

Suggestions Corner / Re: Increase Ladder Health

« on: June 02, 2011, 08:51:00 pm »

I think ladders should be highly resistant to pierce damage, and yes, have more health.

Also, some siege maps should be added in that are not already damaged (and without siege towers and ladders already present). Personally I'd be all for besieging a fresh castle.

477

Suggestions Corner / Re: Possible change to armor handling: increase damage reduce, decrease soak effect.

« on: June 02, 2011, 08:45:48 pm »

I wish armor glanced more and Health was decreased.

Your armor should protect you from damage, but if a shot does go through, you should pay for it heavily.

The gold expense of armor can be modified accordingly.

478

Suggestions Corner / Re: Make the crossbow take up 2 slots before its too late

« on: June 02, 2011, 08:17:50 am »

Realism does not mean historical accuratism. A sword slash cannot get through plate armor, but it is possible for a guy in samurai armor to fight a guy in European knight armor.

The Beta will never go live, sorry. It will always be a mod of a neat, but unpopular game.

For me, and others realism is fun. There is no criteria other than realism.

Why not make crossbows a melee weapon? Why not? "Balance" can mean literally ANYTHING.

First you make the weapons function realistically, and THEN you make their access limited for fairness reasons. This means gold cost in the crpg context. Increase/decrease as necessary or alter the out of combat char item use system.

479

Announcements / Re: Official Item Survey Result Data & More (OISRDM)

« on: June 02, 2011, 08:12:02 am »

how about don't reward anyone and get back to work on making the game more enjoyable?

I voted buff armor and nerf 2H, but I oft play 2H and rarely use armor because you really don't need it to play effectively (unfortunately).

This poll is a joke and only serves to create new arguments and distractions.

480

Suggestions Corner / Re: Make the crossbow take up 2 slots before its too late

« on: June 02, 2011, 07:51:35 am »

realism realism realism realism realism realism ALL DAY LONG!

It is possible to carry a 2H, crossbow, and bolts. It is possible to carry a sword, shield, crossbow, and bolts.

IF IT IS POSSIBLE IN REALITY, THEN YOU NEED TO TAKE YOUR COMPLAINT TO THE UNIVERSE.

Hey, guess what... crossbows were great BECAUSE they could be used as a sidearm. Ever heard of italian mercenary companies?

If you think they are "unfair" then ask for an increase in gold price, but don't change the nature of the frekin weapon, otherwise why have them act a certain way in the first place?