1
Faction Halls / Re: Clan-Searching-Thread
« on: March 04, 2015, 01:54:43 pm »
Is that a serious suggestion? I'm not that interested in a Danish guild, since they are usually some of the most annoying people online 
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
Faction Halls / Re: Clan-Searching-Thread
« on: March 02, 2015, 01:46:36 pm »
[EU]
I'm a 27 year old Danish player looking for a clan who like using tactics, team work and improving each other's skill level.
I mostly play 2H unless when I'm bored and go archer (and immediately regret it)
I'm not very good yet, but I usually learn fast.
I'm a 27 year old Danish player looking for a clan who like using tactics, team work and improving each other's skill level.
I mostly play 2H unless when I'm bored and go archer (and immediately regret it)
I'm not very good yet, but I usually learn fast.
3
Suggestions Corner / Re: Optional Monthly Fee
« on: August 01, 2013, 07:30:20 pm »4
Suggestions Corner / Re: Optional Monthly Fee
« on: August 01, 2013, 07:12:41 pm »
@Elindor if you seriously want to know what games I was talking about, you can ask, otherwise i'll consider your post as an attempt to be one of da cool kidz.
@To everyone else, i'll admit this wasn't very thought out, but things don't always need to be, the baseline here is that what CRPG developers have made created in combination with the taleworlds game, is free product much better than anything i've actually ever paid for. At the end of the day, I just wish there was a M&B MMO, and I guess that's never going to happen. I love the encouraged social aspects of an MMO but they lack the dynamic and thrilling combat of M&B to keep me playing. If those two were ever mixed I could get a str crutch gf, get on wellfare, and never leave the house again.
Oh well, a man can dream.
@To everyone else, i'll admit this wasn't very thought out, but things don't always need to be, the baseline here is that what CRPG developers have made created in combination with the taleworlds game, is free product much better than anything i've actually ever paid for. At the end of the day, I just wish there was a M&B MMO, and I guess that's never going to happen. I love the encouraged social aspects of an MMO but they lack the dynamic and thrilling combat of M&B to keep me playing. If those two were ever mixed I could get a str crutch gf, get on wellfare, and never leave the house again.
Oh well, a man can dream.
5
Suggestions Corner / Re: Optional Monthly Fee
« on: August 01, 2013, 12:59:35 pm »You fail to make a point, how is an OPTIONAL MONTHLY FEE (EMPHASIS ON OPTIONAL) different from just a recurring donation?
Are you serious?
7
Suggestions Corner / Re: Optional Monthly Fee
« on: August 01, 2013, 12:53:26 pm »
That's entirely different Tot, this isn't about pay to play, this is about a monthly income for the devs to facilitate a better game. The donation system works in an entirely different way, and doesn't encourage recurring payment, if someone donates they'll most likely donate once, because they know that even if they donate more than once, most people will not, and as such nothing real will change.
I just want to emphasize, that this is has no correlation with a donation system at all. Donations are a way to thank someone for doing something. Monthly fee is a contract for a service; improving the mod. If you compare those two things then you've misunderstood my point.
I just want to emphasize, that this is has no correlation with a donation system at all. Donations are a way to thank someone for doing something. Monthly fee is a contract for a service; improving the mod. If you compare those two things then you've misunderstood my point.
8
Suggestions Corner / Optional Monthly Fee
« on: August 01, 2013, 12:44:34 pm »
This is currently my favourite game, I always used to play games that had melee skill based gaming, if I could had any wish fulfilled in terms of gaming, it would be to have a MMO based on the M&B combat system and the Conquest of Calradia, attacking, defending, sieges and so on. However, since that's probably not going to happen, let's work with what we already have.
CRPG is a great mod, no doubt about that, but it's obvious that developers aren't being paid enough to dedicate more time into it, much needed balancing, adding new armours, new gametypes and overall improvements. But I would like to see this mod get some more love. And once M&B: Bannerlord comes out, i'd also love to see a new CRPG mod.
So what about the idea of a COMPLETELY OPTIONAL monthly fee for those who want to support the devs?
This would allow the devs to give us more balancing, more new stuff, better and deeper mechanics in strat and in combat, faster reaction to the playerbases wishes, basically; more fun.
And why not? Many of us play this game at least 3-4 hours everyday.
I personally have paid for MMO's before that had way lower entertainment value than CRPG. Games such as WoW.
I would gladly throw 100$ every month just to get more love for my favorite mod, and i'm sure there are people out there who'd love to drop 10$, 30$ or 50$ as well. Everything counts.
This contributes to this enjoyable community, it would make a greater game and thus help the playerbase to grow bigger, and it would give the devs a motivation to make a new CRPG when M&B 2 comes out.
We pay so much money every year for games that turn out to be shit, why not pay some to one we know is good?
Of course it would be COMPLETELY OPTIONAL, and anyone who didn't want to pay, wouldn't have to, and they wouldn't miss out on anything, no premium features, or any of that nonsense.
How do people feel about this?
CRPG is a great mod, no doubt about that, but it's obvious that developers aren't being paid enough to dedicate more time into it, much needed balancing, adding new armours, new gametypes and overall improvements. But I would like to see this mod get some more love. And once M&B: Bannerlord comes out, i'd also love to see a new CRPG mod.
So what about the idea of a COMPLETELY OPTIONAL monthly fee for those who want to support the devs?
This would allow the devs to give us more balancing, more new stuff, better and deeper mechanics in strat and in combat, faster reaction to the playerbases wishes, basically; more fun.
And why not? Many of us play this game at least 3-4 hours everyday.
I personally have paid for MMO's before that had way lower entertainment value than CRPG. Games such as WoW.
I would gladly throw 100$ every month just to get more love for my favorite mod, and i'm sure there are people out there who'd love to drop 10$, 30$ or 50$ as well. Everything counts.
This contributes to this enjoyable community, it would make a greater game and thus help the playerbase to grow bigger, and it would give the devs a motivation to make a new CRPG when M&B 2 comes out.
We pay so much money every year for games that turn out to be shit, why not pay some to one we know is good?
Of course it would be COMPLETELY OPTIONAL, and anyone who didn't want to pay, wouldn't have to, and they wouldn't miss out on anything, no premium features, or any of that nonsense.
How do people feel about this?
9
General Discussion / Re: Do you play Strat for XP?
« on: August 01, 2013, 09:53:33 am »
If you're asking whether people play strat to get xp for their characters? Then no. It would be an insane amount of work to set up just for XP. You'd have to create a faction, attack someone else, forge alliances so that people would join your roster, and then constantly produce troops and attack other people who also had enough alliances to fill up a roster for good XP, who would then counterattack you for your aggressions.
10
General Discussion / Re: Adjust the new scoresystem slightly - Feedback
« on: July 26, 2013, 07:29:37 pm »
Now a year later we can conclude that half the players don't care about the score system, and the other half don't know how it works.
11
Closed Requests / Re: Ban Companion_LancastrianKnight
« on: July 24, 2013, 03:41:02 pm »
Yngvi is one of the worst, if not the worst player i've met in CRPG in terms of bitching, verbal abuse, teamwounding, and being generally annoying. The fact that he isn't permabanned yet amazes me, whatever anyone does to him at this point is deserved, karma, or whatever you want to call it.
12
Game Balance Discussion / Re: New two-handed thrusting swords: Estoc
« on: July 14, 2013, 10:24:11 am »
1+ for estoc
13
Game Balance Discussion / Re: How to make troop difference have the impact it should
« on: July 13, 2013, 12:03:11 pm »
@CrazyCracka: I'd prefer it to be all the way, but anything is better than the current state. Troop size should have an impact.
@Kafein: Tactics is what makes every battle different. Variety is the spice of life. A large army fights differently than a small army.
@Zlisch: That's how it works in real life as well, but obviously huge upkeeps and such should keep it from becoming that extreme.
But all in all, troop size advantage makes a huge difference, and it should make a huge difference. Currently if you have much more troops than the other side, you will mostly still win, but you will suffer way more losses than you should, and you will have way less tactical advantage and flexibility compared to what you should have against an enemy of significantly smaller size.
- Poll is up.
@Kafein: Tactics is what makes every battle different. Variety is the spice of life. A large army fights differently than a small army.
@Zlisch: That's how it works in real life as well, but obviously huge upkeeps and such should keep it from becoming that extreme.
But all in all, troop size advantage makes a huge difference, and it should make a huge difference. Currently if you have much more troops than the other side, you will mostly still win, but you will suffer way more losses than you should, and you will have way less tactical advantage and flexibility compared to what you should have against an enemy of significantly smaller size.
- Poll is up.
14
Game Balance Discussion / How to make troop difference have the impact it should
« on: July 08, 2013, 09:11:17 pm »
Look at the state of it
Currently in Strategus battles, an army of 2000 versus an army of 500 will still be presented by 51 players vs 51 players.
This creates a problem, because a smaller army is able to kill much more of a much greater army than they should be able to realistically, because they have the same amount of troops present on the field of battle as the greater army. This causes the greater army to endure losses it simply should not, unless it was really, really bad.
A larger army can afford to be more experimental. It can create groups meant for flanking, stealing the flag, diversion, you name it. Having the superior number of troops allow you to fight in a different way than you would if you had an equal amount, or if you were outnumbered.
A smaller army has to be more tactical, has to bottleneck the enemy, play smart, fight for every inch of ground. They also have the huge disadvantage of being outnumbered, this SHOULD give them a tactical disadvantage.
Currently in the 51 vs. 51 mode, if a smaller army of 250 is against an army of 500, if the smaller army had some extremely skilled duelist, they could win, or make a really big dent in the larger army of 500. While this is not necessarily all that bad, and while skill should of course play a role in CRPG, we have to remember that simply outnumbering an opponent is more importan than skill. If 10 pikemen surround Deserter_Mighty_Shaman, despite his skills, he will be killed relatively easy, probably without any casualties. The game should reflect this. In war tactics are more important than skills.
Give me the numbers
When I first wrote this post I was saying that the army with the higher percentage of troops should have the number of players that their troop superiority reflected e.g. If an army of 1000 was facing an army of 500, the army of thousand would own 75% of the total troops, and as such they should be allowed to recruit 75% of the players, which would amount to 76~ players. If the greater army had 90% of the troops they would be able to recruit 91~ of the 102 players.
At first I thought that was a good idea but I realized that it might not be very fun when you're outnumbered so badly that you are down to 10 players on your team. So being enlightened by the people in this thread, I thought about it and my conclusion was that the optimal number would be that up to 25 players was up for grabs for the army with the superior number of troops. How many of the 25 the bigger army would be able to recruit, would be determined by how much more troops their army has compared to the lesser army.
The closer two armies are in troops, the closer the amount of players they can recruit would be. Two armies of truly equal troop sizes would still be 51 vs. 51.
This would mean that a vastly superior army would have 76~ players while the inferior army would have ~26 players. This would create a battle where the troop size is reflected, and give the realistic and immersive advantages and disadvantages, whilst still allowing the smaller army to have a good base of 26 players, enabling it to still play tactically, and still have a chance to win if they were extremely good tactically and very skilled as well.
Why? Because it's fun
The most imporant point, and why I came to thinking about this in the first place, is that it would quite simply be much more fun this way. The commanders would have to adjust their tactics to how many troops they had, this would result in battles with much more variety than we see today.
The forces would certainly feel the immersive difference; a superior number of troops would make the army feel as if they were swarming over the enemy like locusts, while a smaller army would really feel like they had to play extremely skillfully and tactically, and fight for every inch of ground. It would immerse us much more in the battles, and we would truly feel the difference of facing a greater or lesser army.
It would also lend a whole lot more fun to sieges, who are currently very unfair to the attackers. Sieges are places where having a greater amount of troops present is a necessity, you need to attack several directions at once if you want to get in; tactics are quintessential to victory.
Overall I suggest this change because it would be realistic, it would be heaps of fun, and it would bring much greater variety in the battles we see everyday, and most importantly, it would allow tactics to have a much greater importance and depth, and allow commanders to truly shine like they did on the battlefields of old.
- Rewrote the original post as some people here changed my opinion and to make it easier on the eyes.
Currently in Strategus battles, an army of 2000 versus an army of 500 will still be presented by 51 players vs 51 players.
This creates a problem, because a smaller army is able to kill much more of a much greater army than they should be able to realistically, because they have the same amount of troops present on the field of battle as the greater army. This causes the greater army to endure losses it simply should not, unless it was really, really bad.
A larger army can afford to be more experimental. It can create groups meant for flanking, stealing the flag, diversion, you name it. Having the superior number of troops allow you to fight in a different way than you would if you had an equal amount, or if you were outnumbered.
A smaller army has to be more tactical, has to bottleneck the enemy, play smart, fight for every inch of ground. They also have the huge disadvantage of being outnumbered, this SHOULD give them a tactical disadvantage.
Currently in the 51 vs. 51 mode, if a smaller army of 250 is against an army of 500, if the smaller army had some extremely skilled duelist, they could win, or make a really big dent in the larger army of 500. While this is not necessarily all that bad, and while skill should of course play a role in CRPG, we have to remember that simply outnumbering an opponent is more importan than skill. If 10 pikemen surround Deserter_Mighty_Shaman, despite his skills, he will be killed relatively easy, probably without any casualties. The game should reflect this. In war tactics are more important than skills.
Give me the numbers
When I first wrote this post I was saying that the army with the higher percentage of troops should have the number of players that their troop superiority reflected e.g. If an army of 1000 was facing an army of 500, the army of thousand would own 75% of the total troops, and as such they should be allowed to recruit 75% of the players, which would amount to 76~ players. If the greater army had 90% of the troops they would be able to recruit 91~ of the 102 players.
At first I thought that was a good idea but I realized that it might not be very fun when you're outnumbered so badly that you are down to 10 players on your team. So being enlightened by the people in this thread, I thought about it and my conclusion was that the optimal number would be that up to 25 players was up for grabs for the army with the superior number of troops. How many of the 25 the bigger army would be able to recruit, would be determined by how much more troops their army has compared to the lesser army.
The closer two armies are in troops, the closer the amount of players they can recruit would be. Two armies of truly equal troop sizes would still be 51 vs. 51.
This would mean that a vastly superior army would have 76~ players while the inferior army would have ~26 players. This would create a battle where the troop size is reflected, and give the realistic and immersive advantages and disadvantages, whilst still allowing the smaller army to have a good base of 26 players, enabling it to still play tactically, and still have a chance to win if they were extremely good tactically and very skilled as well.
Why? Because it's fun
The most imporant point, and why I came to thinking about this in the first place, is that it would quite simply be much more fun this way. The commanders would have to adjust their tactics to how many troops they had, this would result in battles with much more variety than we see today.
The forces would certainly feel the immersive difference; a superior number of troops would make the army feel as if they were swarming over the enemy like locusts, while a smaller army would really feel like they had to play extremely skillfully and tactically, and fight for every inch of ground. It would immerse us much more in the battles, and we would truly feel the difference of facing a greater or lesser army.
It would also lend a whole lot more fun to sieges, who are currently very unfair to the attackers. Sieges are places where having a greater amount of troops present is a necessity, you need to attack several directions at once if you want to get in; tactics are quintessential to victory.
Overall I suggest this change because it would be realistic, it would be heaps of fun, and it would bring much greater variety in the battles we see everyday, and most importantly, it would allow tactics to have a much greater importance and depth, and allow commanders to truly shine like they did on the battlefields of old.
- Rewrote the original post as some people here changed my opinion and to make it easier on the eyes.
Pages: [1]