Messages

1

General Discussion / Re: [NA] Poll: Server

« on: January 29, 2012, 08:29:17 pm »

Did the ATS servers die out because they weren't being used so much or because Ecko just didn't want to continue paying with official servers available?

2

Strategus General Discussion / Re: Attack a castle already!

« on: January 03, 2012, 06:54:53 am »

Attack more castles! Apparently, they're in easy mode, as I thought.

3

Strategus Issues / Re: The defense of Ergellon castle

« on: January 03, 2012, 06:04:02 am »

Can dresses be worn by male characters in strategus? This would be an awesome exclamation point to another thread that's currently underway.

4

General Discussion / Re: New Teamwounding Report System

« on: January 02, 2012, 06:09:13 pm »

I'm not interested in reading through 9 pages of... whatever it may be. However, a suggestion that's been brought to question many times is the "Why not have the reports go to admins, and only when a person has been reported 5 times or so, instead of kicking players who may or may not be drunk while playing and accidentally teamwounding in the heat of combat?".

But yeah, why not? It simply helps Admins determine if someone is meaning to teamwound, and they can investigate it further. Even though I've not seen many people get kicked by this feature (at least those who haven't meant to teamwound), it's still a possibility and still extremely annoying. The chat is always filled with the text that tells us who reported who and what not. It's too much.

Why only when 5 reports happen? Admins should see it whenever a teamwound report happens. That way they can get a good idea of who's purposely teamwounding and who's reporting just to be an annoyance. But they can already do that. The bigger arguement would be to make it to where players themselves can't see the report messages flying around all over the place. But even then, I wouldn't want to do that because that would be like removing TK messages. With these reports visible to everybody, players can report other players to admins if need be. However, I would agree that there should be a way to turn these messages off if a player doesn't want to read them. They can be quite distracting/annoying for people.

Well the moment reporting a friendly bump works, cav will have to adjust a lot.
Like not riding through half your team to get the last kill and stuff.
Needs a 15-30sec delay to prevent round start reports though.

Ha, suck it, less skilled riders!

Also, am I the only person who know how to jump with a horse? It's not just something you use when you want to get over a fence. I can avoid both lances and a single line of friendlies with my awesome jumping skills.

5

General Discussion / Re: New Teamwounding Report System

« on: January 02, 2012, 09:17:14 am »

If I'm chasing cavalry and happen to bump a few team mates on the way, I consider it worth it. Cavalry will do more damage than my bump ever did. I rarely get the kill on those cav, I just shoot their horses then inf pick up the kills. If I didn't do that there is a large chance you would get lanced at some point anyway. So yeah...deal with it.

I can't speak for lancers, but that's what I do.

Running over teammates because you're chasing cav is exactly as shitty a reason as swinging through teammates because you're trying to get the kill. If there are friendly infantry in your way, then you SHOULD avoid them. And if you actually have to run through them in the first place to continue chasing some horse, then that horse is not an immediate threat to them. Infantry are just as useful at downing horsemen as HAs.

It's true that rarely is a teambump accidental, but it's also true that most teambumps are due to the idiocy of the rider. Yes, it's not that rare for infantry to be at fault, but far more often, it's the rider's fault.

6

General Discussion / Re: New Teamwounding Report System

« on: January 01, 2012, 05:31:24 pm »

They should implement a damage threshold, kicking and punching for the lols is a vital part of the crpg experience, also add punishment for horsebumps, those annoy me the most.

Kicking and punching for the lols is one of the things that should get reported. Unless you know the person you're kicking or punching is ok with it, then you deserve every report you get. As a horse archer, both me and my horse are lightly armored and need every ounce of health we have since our primary threat is ranged, and with ranged, the slightest slither of health often helps you get one more shot before falling.

Now kicking some idiot cause he's standing on the middle of a ladder when a dozen other people are behind him waiting to get up probly shouldn't be reported, but hey, I'm not a crappy player so I can afford to suffer one report.

Accidents happen...no point raging about it and hitting M.

Not at all. I would argue that horse bumping is far more likely than teamhitting. For instance when you get the horse lag, you can bump a series of 10 people in a row if it's near a group fighting. Now if every one of those people pressed M, you'd be pretty fucked, even though that lag is nothing at all to do with you. You also get completely clueless infantry who run right into the horses path, even though they are facing the horse and the cav is charging full speed in a straight line. Some people really just don't pay attention and then they moan about the bump.

I've seen intentional horse bumping occur far less than intentional team wounding. Most of the time it's purely accidental.

If you actually lag out and run through a crowd of people on a regular basis, then just pretend your connection lagged so hard it got you disconnected. But if you manage to team bump people while in full control on a regular basis, you should probly rethink your strategy. Aren't you a horse archer anyways? I rarely teambump as a horse archer. Almost only happens when I'm in 1st person taking a shot and not paying attention to where I'm going. Definitely doesn't add up to enough to reach 5 reports in a map.

7

Suggestions Corner / Re: Improve Retirement

« on: January 01, 2012, 04:46:29 am »

Seems like everybody forgot about the +4 heirloom system. When you get to level 33, you'll be able to heirloom a +3 item to +4 if you wish. Or just waste it heirlooming to less than +4. The system should be in place by April 1st. Ask about it then.

8

General Discussion / Re: New Teamwounding Report System

« on: January 01, 2012, 12:17:49 am »

I look forward to receiving complaints about people abusing this system and being unable to do anything about it.

I'm rather confident you can kick/ban people abusing this system just like you can kick/ban people abusing other systems.

Considering everybody can see the text, it will actually be easy to identify people abusing the system. Then admins can go watch them just like they watch TKers. The biggest difference between abusing this system and teamwounding is that it's a lot harder to abuse this system because you actually have to convince the other person to hit you. Consequently, intelligent players like me won't be kicked by griefers. Of course, players of lesser intelligence that don't learn after they've received a warning will still be valid prey.

9

Suggestions Corner / Re: Twist to cav gameplay, any dev want to comment?

« on: December 31, 2011, 10:59:03 pm »

So what some people want is an end to rearing for heavy cav, and in exchange they would be willing to accept slower speed for their horses. If that one post was correct about heavy cav at slow speeds not getting reared, wouldn't this all be solved if we just changed the speed on heavy cav to 15? Or better yet, just don't go at full speed so no extra work is involved. Can anybody actually verify that heavy armored horses don't rear at low speeds when hit with pointy sticks?

10

Strategus General Discussion / Re: Druzhina Hit list for Xmas, with prizes.

« on: December 31, 2011, 12:52:31 am »

He should use the term handegg to describe American football.

He said "football" not "handegg"

Tears is a dirty American. Dirty Americans don't use the term handegg

11

Strategus General Discussion / Re: Druzhina Hit list for Xmas, with prizes.

« on: December 30, 2011, 11:22:51 pm »

I headshot Nebun, I want a football =\

American or European?

12

Strategus General Discussion / Re: [Suggestion] fief attacking consistency punishment/bonus

« on: December 30, 2011, 09:46:53 pm »

For the punishment one people would just make a separate faction and put their soldiers in it. For the reward, you might see allies attacking at fief one of them own and just trading it back and forth every so many days.

Doesn't actually matter how many sub-factions you split into. Let's say some faction has 10 fiefs, so they need to attack another fief every 3 days. If they split up into two factions of 5 fiefs, the two factions would have to each attack a fief every 5 days. After 15 days, they would have had to do 5 fief attacks as a faction with 15 fiefs or 6 attacks as two factions with 5 fiefs each. Splitting up would actually have screwed them over in this case.

However, you do remind me of the problem that a second faction could be made that owns no fiefs and does all the grunt work. That would screw up the punishment system, but not the reward system. And if allies started passing the same fief back and forth, it would probly become obvious quite quickly. The same wrath that fell upon the Fallen for their exploiting may show its face again. Also, as far as the punishment system goes, if it affected the fiefs directly, then splitting into sub-factions wouldn't avoid it. Maybe cut the efficiency in recruiting and crafting.

Edit: Just realized you weren't talking about splitting the fiefs between factions. I type too fast for my own good. Sometimes my reasoning doesn't catch up

13

Strategus General Discussion / [Suggestion] fief attacking consistency punishment/bonus

« on: December 30, 2011, 09:04:52 pm »

I believe one of the goals in Strategus was to have people attacking on a regular basis. So to that end, I have a suggestion I think could very well solve the problem. Either a reward or punishment system for factions based on how often they attack another fief and how many fiefs they own.

Let's say a faction has ceil(25/numFiefs) days to attack or defend a fief (where numFiefs is the number of fiefs a faction owns) before some kind of punishment system kicks in. In this case, I was thinking something along the lines of a 0.5% troop decrease per hour for every member in the faction as less troops are needed in times of peace. Or maybe double upkeep as troops get pissed that they're away from family when there's not fighting. And it would just go back to normal next time the faction attacks a fief. For those factions that don't own any fiefs, 25/0 is infinity, so they don't have anything to worry about. However, I wouldn't leave it to a computer to translate it that way.

But since punishment systems usually result in anger more than anything else, how about a reward system instead? As long as a faction keeps up a rate of at least one attack every 25 days over number of fiefs owned, they get a bonus. Could be any number of things: increased recruitment rate, war time equipment crafting production bonus, less or no upkeep, etc.

What does everybody else think?

14

Strategus Issues / Re: I can't Move!!!

« on: December 30, 2011, 08:32:50 pm »

Oh, I thought you were right outside the city. With that path, it's possible the river is in your way. Try moving directly away from it for a while and see if you move at all. On a side note, you chose one hell of a path to travel if the point of origin was the desert

15

Strategus Issues / Re: I can't Move!!!

« on: December 30, 2011, 05:34:56 pm »

There's a very small possibility that the money you have on you isn't enough to pay the visiting fee and you got kicked out as soon as you got in. If you have less than 100 gold, couldn't hurt to try again. But I'm not sure what's causing the problem for you. Could you post a screenshot of yourself on the map?