Messages

526

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

« on: May 25, 2011, 01:43:26 am »

Lol archonAlarion you clearly dont wanna lose your lol hybrid weapon we get it now  your arguments are a joke

I have never used a crossbow in Crpg. I always play specialist builds (thus far, at least).

In other words, stfu.

but we dont care because we want range spam fest to end so we will keep on trying to make the normal xbow 2 slots until they give in..

So it is inconceivable that a man could carry a crossbow, bolts, and a morningstar?

I think I personally could manage a crossbow, bolts, morningstar, and a smallish shield, but that would be 6 slots. Making crossbows 2 slots means that they are really 3 slots because of ammo. THAT IS STUPID.

So anyone with a crossbow can either take 2 ammo, a shield, or a 1 slot weapon (whoopee over 0 slot wpns)?

Bye rhodoks. Remember those days of crossbow, shield and sword?  NOPE, BALANCE; PRAISE BE TO BALANCE!

Rock, Paper, and Holy Scissors AMEN!

527

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Armors Bonuses and weaknesses?

« on: May 24, 2011, 10:25:07 pm »

heavy cutting weapons like axes, heavy swords (2h'ers, kophesh, falcion...where more weight is at the end of the weapon) should do HACK damage, which is 50% slash, 50% bludgeon.  The mere weight of the weapon coming down does bludgeon damage.

Northern cultures like nords and germans like heavy weapons, whereas eastern cultures started curving their swords to make them lighter and slash better.

Watch the movie '13th Warrior'

Shields armor can be weak against "Hack" dmg instead of having "bonus against shields" weapons

528

Game Balance Discussion / Re: cRPG and economy, a petition to end the communistic injustice

« on: May 24, 2011, 10:08:27 pm »

Nice post Baldi, I was waiting for someone to bring this up (too lazy to fight off the commie trolls myself  ).

Perhaps one day, items will be solely created in strategus and sold to players by players. Then some interesting things will happen to the mod.

*edit: I like the losing team gets reduced gain idea, and the renown idea. Maybe gold gain should be winning team based and XP based on the old proximity system. I haven't thought about this in great detail, though.

529

Suggestions Corner / Re: Adding "wind" for projectiles.

« on: May 24, 2011, 09:58:34 pm »

The crosshair should be removed and wind added.

530

Suggestions Corner / Re: Nerf Light Lance

« on: May 24, 2011, 09:56:28 pm »

yeah light lance sucks against other cav.

I always shoot it out and realize i had already been killed by the heavy lance five minutes earlier 

531

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

« on: May 24, 2011, 09:50:07 pm »

Gold should never be used as the main balancing factor for items. Were this the case you could essentially add a machine gun to the game that you have to buy for 1,000,000 gold and a stack of bullets costing 100,000. It wouldn't change the fact that while in use, during the battle the item would be blatantly overpowered.

"Skills should never be used as the main balancing factor for items. Were this the case you could essentially add a machine gun to the game that you have to have a 100 skill points to use and a stack of bullets would require 50 skill points. It wouldn't change the fact that while in use, during the battle the item would be blatantly overpowered."

Gold cost is not the only way to limit the use of more effective items. Generally, harder hitting melee weapons will be heavy (If they are based on reality), so a low lvl char is not only slower swinging them, but also softer hitting; it may be more effective for them to take a 1h+shield, spear, throwing, or crossbow. Incentives to regenerate chars can be used to continually refresh the supply of lower level chars.

Much of the problem is the artificial division of weapons into "classes", which is partially the fault of the skill system and partially the fault of faddish conceptions about "medievaly" multiplayer games. If I'm a built, dexterous knight, why can't I draw a goddamn nomad bow? Really? What the hell is "power draw" anyway? I can wield a halberd, but I'm gonna struggle with bow that a peasant can use? Isn't power draw based on strength? Why is shield agility? What is the difference between a big 2h axe and a smallish poleaxe? A whole different proficiency category?

So much bullshit that boxes chars into class "paths," which forces the weapon styles to be equally effective for the bbbbbbbaaaaaaaallllllllllllllaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnncccccccccccccccceeeeeeeeeeeee.

There are no classes. Free yourself from the oppressive class system!!@!@!@

If you are strong you can wield a bow, hurl a spear, strike with an axe, and lift a shield. If you are a weak peasant, take a crossbow!

532

General Discussion / Re: What has cRPG taught you?

« on: May 24, 2011, 05:03:44 am »

That I should be more aware of mods when trying out a game. Crpg has far surpassed native imo.

533

Suggestions Corner / Re: New armored horses

« on: May 24, 2011, 04:52:43 am »

Don't dispose of the old horses, just make more!

534

Suggestions Corner / Re: (Skill) Add Engineering Skill

« on: May 24, 2011, 04:41:11 am »

Exactly, you dont need to know how the crossbow mechanics work, you just need to aim and pull the trigger.

Yes, that's correct.

In the time you take to explain the physics of a bow, you can explain the mechanisms of a crossbow. What's the difference, five extra minutes of "engineering" education for a crossbowman?

Would you like to include some new mortar board head gear for these wizards of engineering?

535

Suggestions Corner / Re: Web GUI / New Heirloom Models

« on: May 24, 2011, 04:34:27 am »

Such a cool idea.

Now I have a reason to heirloom armor.

536

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

« on: May 24, 2011, 04:30:36 am »

You're assuming that this game is following a 100 % realistic standard when designing it's items.

I'm not assuming that, but I would like it to be the case. I'd prefer to see highly realistic combat on the map (the actual fighting), but outside of combat (leveling, item costs, generations, etc.) the game can be designed to compensate for unfairness. Gold/XP gain, upkeep, skills can limit players from always choosing an "objectively" better build. Even then, reality isn't as unfair as you might believe  ; almost everything can and was countered, even mounted knights. Whether the game engine itself can handle such a thing is another matter. I'm simply being optimistic.

They are somewhat based off of realism, but at the same time, it's far from an exact trade. I find it hard to believe that items such as the barmace or even the long maul could be swung around with such ease as they are in the game.

Definitely. Heavy hafted weapons would be quite cumbersome and slow (relatively), but they have enough weight to crush or break through plate. Greatswords can be swung extremely fast, but really shouldn't be able to cut through plate (although the pierce isn't too bad currently, excepting the lolstab). Greatswords are good dueling weapons, or for use against lightly armored opponents, but they really should not be effective as they are now. These weapons simply could not cut through plate like they do now. On the other hand, other 2h weapons are too fast relative to swords. In my ideal game, Greatswords would be mostly relegated to the duel server, or occasionally drawn dramatically by a noble knight on his last stand (Obviously I'm exaggerating slightly, not every 2h sword is the same). Imo their unrealistic advantages actually diminish their coolness.

There are whole styles of play, build niches, and tactics that are going unused because of unrealistic weapon stats.

Crossbows, fortunately still have their most of their niche.

537

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

« on: May 23, 2011, 10:52:12 pm »

You missed the point, completely. I don't see how this is so hard to see. Even if the weapon was made disposable and could only be used in one round before it was destroyed, as I stated before, it would still be the most overpowered item on the field.

I think I know why this is so hard for you to understand, you're trying to simplify "balance" way too much. Throwing rocks are indeed balanced when we look at the larger picture, not when we look only at your example. Your example would have us believe that to be balanced, one must be able to pick any item at random and be just as likely to kill any other person in a 1v1 situation. This is not how the game was balanced, nor is it, to my understanding, ever going to be. High tier weapons are balanced with other high tier weapons, weapon types are balanced with other weapon types.

To think that 200 cut damage for a melee weapon isn't excessive is a bit...

YOU MISSED THE POINT ENTIRELY.

A 200c flamberge will never exist BECAUSE to be believably "200c" it would have to be modeled as a light saber or some shit and THAT DOESN'T FIT with the game aesthetically!

Physically/historically a weapon can only be so powerful. THEREFORE, no super-crazy-death weapons would ever be a problem.

On your second point: Just because some fighting style can be made distinct from another fighting style doesn't mean it has to be "balanced" with all the rest. Maybe throwing weapons just suck dick, and you have to be poor peasant or a chucking badass to use them, huh? Gold cost and leveling limit the use of stronger fighting styles.

538

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

« on: May 22, 2011, 10:40:20 pm »

I like how you state aesthetics so you can try to escape from speaking to my actual point. It was simply an analogy that can just as easily be restated with a medieval weapon. For example: They could implement another sword much like the Flamberge, except with 200c and costs 500K gold. This item would never be balanced by the upkeep costs. The fact would always remain that at 200c you would still 1shot everyone, regardless of anything they could do. It would be rare, sure, but it would most certainly be the most overpowered item on the battlefield.

You are still wrong. Theoretically, if gold cost reflected the average effectiveness of the uber-flamberge, then it WOULD be balanced. You could use it for maybe a couple battles and then it would break; good luck with the upkeep.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, the uber-flamberge stats should fit its aesthetic representation in the game. Thus, the 200c uber-flamberge would need to be modeled like a light-saber/chainsword/weeaboo thing to reflect the 200c stat. That does not fit aesthetically with the game.

Historical weapons are researched -> modeled -> assigned appropriate stats -> given gold cost to reflect there effectiveness.

539

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Horses have no natural predators

« on: May 22, 2011, 10:30:56 pm »

just high 

If cavalry were equal to infantry, then why do horses cost gold?

540

Suggestions Corner / Re: (Skill) Add Engineering Skill

« on: May 22, 2011, 10:24:48 pm »

I firmly believe that crossbows should not have skill requirements. Engineering should complement crossbowmen naturally rather than be imposed on them.