Author Topic: Possible root cause(s) of rage in cRPG and Warband. (long)  (Read 5389 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Joker86

  • Mad & Bad
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1226
  • Infamy: 324
  • cRPG Player
  • Why so serious?
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Companions
  • Game nicks: Joker86_TP
Re: Possible root cause(s) of rage in cRPG and Warband. (long)
« Reply #45 on: March 26, 2012, 12:31:49 am »
+1
Elaboration for Joker...
The game is a series of decisions. For some reason, after a wrong decision some players may feel the need to post about a nerf or complain that the game is too fast, hence why we are here. It is downright amusing when the slow of thinking decide the game is too fast because they are unable or unwilling to improve, and usually there is some derision about 'twitch' gaming, the implication that emailing advanced notice of an attack would somehow make the game 'smarter'.

Other people (i.e. people who want to play rather then change the game) say 'shit I died' to themselves, then something like 'hmm, what did I do wrong, how can I prevent that in the future' and continue playing.

It's like saying chess is better then tennis, or football (american not that sissy eu stuff), equating a slowness of action with a greatness of thought.


If you really want to say what I think I understood, then you completely missed the point.

I understood you want to say: "People who die in melee don't blame their missing skills for it, they blame either the other classes for being unbalanced and whine about it on the forum, or they blame the game of being too twtich-based, not allowing them to "think" properly about the next action they want to perform, for example which block or attack to make next.

In my posts above I said too many players are focused too much on their personal micro-game, not taking notice of the big macro-game. This is completely unrelated to any particular class balancing like melee speed for infantry. Instead I get to hear that I would be part of the problem.

Again: I don't think that "skills" in their initial meaning of reflexes and muscle memory should decide solely who will win a fight. I think using the brain should also have some impact. BUT: I don't think that using the brain is to equate with slowing down melee, to have more time to "think" about what you do, blocking or attacking and what direction and similar. It is about which way to go on the map, about sticking to the right people and so on. THIS is what I am complaining about, that kills the balance, because that "fail" and "lemming" behaviour doesn't allow the people on the servers to experience the class balance under equal conditions. It's like making a car race ( = battle) to see which car ( = class) is better, but in one car you put an experienced race driver ( = a player who plays his class most effectively), in the second car you put a random taxi driver ( = a player who doesn't get everything out of his class).

And usually it turns out that it's the infantry players who don't use 100% of the potential of their class, because of the simple reason that their class requires more teamplay than other other classes. Ranged and cavalry don't rely so much on others, and it's just in the nature of their classes that you do most things right by default. Infantry is somewhat different, it needs coordination, planning, discipline and the different sub-classes like shielders, two handers and pikemen need to complement each other, to maximize their effectivity.

That's the basic problem of cRPG in my humble opinion. The most common and basic class relies most on teamwork. But because teamwork is treated more like an oprhan in cRPG, you have those massive problems of balancing archers and cavalry according to infantry. It has nothing to do with melee speed.

In fact I would leave it as it is. Less twitched based gameplay means that personal skill matters less, and thus not only teamwork would become more vital, you would also prevent certain, very skilled players of dominating the servers. Already now you got players with really awesome skills and according k/d-ratios, if you would lower the ability of average players to block their hits (like increasing melee speed would mean) you would effectively cut the community into two classes, the killers and the victims. I like the idea that even the best fighter has to rely on cover from his teammates to not simply get raped by a few enemy low tier infantrymen. THis doesn't make it less of an action game, your fighting skills still will influence your success most.
Joker makes a very good point.
î saved for eternety (without context  :mrgreen:)

Offline Kafein

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 2203
  • Infamy: 808
  • cRPG Player Sir White Rook A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: Possible root cause(s) of rage in cRPG and Warband. (long)
« Reply #46 on: March 26, 2012, 03:19:39 pm »
0
Thanks for your opinion.

A regular chess game is also turn based, there is no "decide now" involved in a continually changing environment. A faster pace is better suited to a melee combat based game. This continual erosion of the speed of the game - I suppose you would like to watch underwater boxing as well?

It is too slow, agree with me or not.

Defensive play has become more of the norm. Lets see if I can say this right...
Two enemies meet in the field.
One is agressive the other more defensive, a counter puncher, if you will.
Who has the advantage, and is this advantage 'too much' or unrealistic?
It's a game, but the current speed of melee discourages taking chances. Or should I say, unfairly rewards conservative play.

It comes back to justificatioins for certain mechanics...
Crush Through was originally intended to give turtles (usually shielders) something to worry about. Unfortunately, it is a somewhat viable alternative now to uselessly trying to feint or get through the blocks of some non shielding blocker. It was always tricky to get around a good blocker but it can be an exercise of actual minutes now. I get CT'd lately I don't think 'cheap move' I think 'well it was bound to happen because they made swings so slow' and assume the CT-er wanted a change from the turn based paradigm.
I dunno, do any decent blockers feel it is in anyway difficult to turtle with manual blocking?

Perhaps that it is working as intended, forcing better team play as it were by discouraging heroes - screw you players who want to play a heroic melee combat game. It is slow enough now that you have time to regret a poor choice before you die and suffer the inane hell of death chat - I've even seen people having a pointless argument in regular chat while fighting - are they that unchallenged by the game or it's speed? Also, the slower pace magnifies mistakes in a way - opponents have a larger window of opportunity to capitalize on it, without actually 'doing' anything on their part - again, perhaps as intended.

Hmm wonder if weapon stun is still in here, might have to try and find out, I always hated that too. I'll also have to pick up a polearm once in a while and see if 1 wpf is still enough for a melee weapon.

I'll never stop trying to impose my view on this game, one day something good might happen.

I'm not against speeding up the game, but there are certain things that should be looked at before. Removing hiltslashing entirely (it is still possible with polearms). Preventing spam to be anywhere close to effective (1h left swing mainly). Balancing humans and horses in terms of agility and maneuver (for example addind a fixed 10 weight to everybody). After all of this is done (and maybe some other things I forgot), speed up the game as a whole. It will be different and more twitch based, yet without suffering from the aforementioned issues.

Let us not throw away the balance by making what is fast, even faster. Balance things and speed up everything instead.