Author Topic: [Feedback] What's right/wrong with 0.232  (Read 29069 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HuskerRall

  • Peasant
  • *
  • Renown: 7
  • Infamy: 4
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: [Feedback] What's right/wrong with 0.232
« Reply #120 on: July 12, 2011, 09:24:46 pm »
0
+ Game Performance
+ Faces, stock back YAY
+ Upkeep Price Perfect
+ Throwing Damage and Presition is fair, we have slot system so deal with it
+ Arrow Damage is Fair
+ Website Looks and Functionality coolest ever

- Arrow Speed is low
- Lances, Mounted nerf

Little Discalimer

I did resent the introduction of slot system since I am more of an Hibryd weapon player, but this mod just got better and better, thanks chadz and Devs

Offline San

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Renown: 1456
  • Infamy: 143
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • 1/Sympathy = Divide By Zero
    • View Profile
    • My youtube Brawl videos
  • Faction: Chaos
  • Game nicks: San_of_Chaos
  • IRC nick: San
Re: [Feedback] What's right/wrong with 0.232
« Reply #121 on: July 12, 2011, 09:39:20 pm »
0
+ Cavalry more reasonable (however, make it so full speed is 40 degrees or so, and the slower you go, the more you can rotate.)
+ More armor soak, less bouncing
+ 1h seems to be in a nice position
+ Throwing is nice where it is right now. Throwers can do well but there hasn't been any domination at all.
+ More variety on the battlefield.
+Nothing felt like it was overly nerfed too much.



-Upkeep is still too high. Marketplace ruins disfavoring tincans anyways.
-Archery nerfed too hard. Need a good middle ground with the shot speed and arrow damage
-Xbow still too strong
-Polearms need to be nerfed (lower stun, fix bec)
-Need more for agi builds (coming from a strength build player). Such as more infantry mobility, messing around with speed bonus damage, etc.

Offline Camaris

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 223
  • Infamy: 56
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: HRE
  • Game nicks: Neresto_HRE
  • IRC nick: Neresto_HRE
Re: [Feedback] What's right/wrong with 0.232
« Reply #122 on: July 12, 2011, 10:07:42 pm »
0
+ daylight
+ dtv
- upkeep
- still no ctf

Offline Shablagoo

  • Peasant
  • *
  • Renown: 7
  • Infamy: 1
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: [Feedback] What's right/wrong with 0.232
« Reply #123 on: July 12, 2011, 10:45:32 pm »
0
-Shield breaking polearms still don't have "unbalanced" attribute
-Archery nerf
-Crossbow reload nerf
-Cavalry a bit weak in relation to cost
-DTV less dynamic
-New fog

+Throwing viable
+Skip the fun
+2h nerf
+Less night
+Website stuff

On the topic of the website, I'd like to see some help given to new players regarding character and equipment things that might not seem so obvious at first.  The "difficulty" stat is ambiguous.  The way throwing works in combination with wpf, power throw, and armor is another thing that should be explained to them somewhere on crpg.net.  It should be made clear that changing your main will require a brand new character if it isn't already (Since I have a main I can't check).  Upkeep should also be explained so they don't spend their last penny on that fancy new sword only to find out they can't maintain it  It seems like a lot of new players run into the same issues that could easily be fixed if this kind of information didn't need to be searched out. 

Offline Lamix

  • Peasant
  • *
  • Renown: 4
  • Infamy: 2
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: [Feedback] What's right/wrong with 0.232
« Reply #124 on: July 12, 2011, 11:19:03 pm »
0
- Lancers nerfed too hard
- Upkeep cost too high
- Archer effective range hit too hard

+ Skip the fun for everyone
+ Website update
+ More daylight

Offline Tydeus

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1422
  • Infamy: 351
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Item re-unbalance guy
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Tydeus
  • IRC nick: Tydeus
Re: [Feedback] What's right/wrong with 0.232
« Reply #125 on: July 12, 2011, 11:20:35 pm »
0
+Archery nerf(Could be a bit much)
+Lancer nerf(Could also be a bit much)
+Enjoying the soak changes
+Performance changes
+STF for everyone
+DTV
+Upkeep increased
+Old faces
+Admin options
+Throwing is viable
-Throwing is viable
-2h speed nerf
-Polearms going mostly untouched
chadz> i wouldnt mind seeing some penis on my character

Offline Rhaegar

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 350
  • Infamy: 17
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Nordmen
  • Game nicks: Nord_Rhaegar
Re: [Feedback] What's right/wrong with 0.232
« Reply #126 on: July 12, 2011, 11:38:36 pm »
0
+good balance
+ Website security
-ugly faces
-Repairs too expensive

Offline cmp

  • M:BG Developer
  • Supreme Overlord
  • *******
  • Renown: 2052
  • Infamy: 569
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • IRC nick: cmp
Re: [Feedback] What's right/wrong with 0.232
« Reply #127 on: July 12, 2011, 11:41:16 pm »
+1
- no bec damage and speed buff

Offline Keshian

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1176
  • Infamy: 992
  • cRPG Player
  • Diggity diggity
    • View Profile
  • Faction: FCC (Bridgeburner, Unicorn, Cavalieres, Narwhal)
  • Game nicks: Red-haired bitch from hell
  • IRC nick: Bitch, pleasssse.
Re: [Feedback] What's right/wrong with 0.232
« Reply #128 on: July 12, 2011, 11:48:23 pm »
+1
+cav, especially lancers and horse archers very well balanced
+armor provides balanced protection (except against becs and picks)
+strategus is out
+upkeep more balanced decreasing use of 1 wpf xbows and tincanning

-throwers 1-2 shotting everyone, more accurate than archers, and making up 20-30% of the server population
-banner balance doesn't seem to be working as well
- unplayable frame rate spiking during first 1.5 minutes of every round since the patch
- archers' arrows do half as much damage because of the shoot speed nerf and armor changes
-archers' arrows too easy to dodge and thus a little too easy to kill as non-shielded meleer
-becs and picks still the most powerful weapons in the game with too high a combination of speed + damage + armor penetration

addendum
-1 200+ length weapons are still balanced, not balanced in game, but balanced as a weapon meaning easy feints with a very very long weapon
« Last Edit: July 13, 2011, 12:24:14 am by Keshian »
http://keshoxford.com/  - Where middle-eastern meets red-hot and spicy!

"[Strat 5]... war game my ass, tis more like a popularity contest"  Plumbo

Offline Jeahro

  • Peasant
  • *
  • Renown: 1
  • Infamy: 0
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: [Feedback] What's right/wrong with 0.232
« Reply #129 on: July 12, 2011, 11:55:14 pm »
+1
- upkeep to high
+ throwing

Offline Zanthos

  • Peasant
  • *
  • Renown: 7
  • Infamy: 3
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: White Company
  • Game nicks: Zanthos_WCo
  • IRC nick: Zanthos
Re: [Feedback] What's right/wrong with 0.232
« Reply #130 on: July 13, 2011, 12:17:43 am »
+2
+Website
+Upkeep seems ok, want to do more testing, seems like I lose money with any decent weapon and a 50+ body armor chest piece
+Throwing attempted to be reincorporated in the mod
+Performance increase
+Infantry speed increase (not sure if it's directly athletics or AGI or what - but I like it)

-NA data not used for balancing
-Throwing high damage - hits incredibly hard - Non shielders nightmare and then some
-Bec de Corbin was not balanced
-Steel Pick was not balanced
-2h speed change
-Xbow damage

Offline Cepeshi

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 467
  • Infamy: 200
  • cRPG Player
  • Relax, it is just a life...
    • View Profile
    • Wanna work with me? Ping for more info!
  • Faction: Deserters
  • Game nicks: Fapulena, Useless
  • IRC nick: Cepeshi
Re: [Feedback] What's right/wrong with 0.232
« Reply #131 on: July 13, 2011, 12:18:27 am »
+1
+ NA data not used for balacing :D

gahaha, sorry, just had to :P

Offline Penitent

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1389
  • Infamy: 220
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Penitent_Turtler
Re: [Feedback] What's right/wrong with 0.232
« Reply #132 on: July 13, 2011, 12:19:35 am »
0
+new items (bows, throwing hammers)
+new item names (no more duplicates!)
+throwing is better

-upkeep too high!
-lance strikes are TOO restricted in range.  Try using it, you'll see!

Offline palefire

  • Beggar
  • Renown: 0
  • Infamy: 0
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: [Feedback] What's right/wrong with 0.232
« Reply #133 on: July 13, 2011, 12:47:40 am »
0
- upkeep increase is painful

I have no other problems with the other changes, but upkeep is ouchie.

Offline Digglez

  • Duke
  • *******
  • Renown: 573
  • Infamy: 596
  • cRPG Player
  • YOU INCOMPETENT TOH'PAH!
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Northmen
  • Game nicks: GotLander, Hamarr, Digglesan, Black_D34th
Re: [Feedback] What's right/wrong with 0.232
« Reply #134 on: July 13, 2011, 12:52:22 am »
+1
+account security
+FPS increase
+more daylight, cool fog at night
+armor soak/resist values (less glancing with low PS, less 1 shots by 2h)
+lance arcs
+horse rebalancing stats
+all throwing items 1 slot


-too much throwing ammo
-throwing dmg too low
-armored horse prices
-bec still OP
-siege door bug: flimsy doors/gates first round
-siege delayed win bug
-losing multi for leecher accusation
-chadz text mysteries