Why is there so much whining in cRPG?

[Snoozer]

i could not say i would not know if he can code or not so how can i argue?

so i admit defeat per say

[Vibe]

oh you

[Herald_Hardrata]

I've already corrected you on another topic (http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,16702.msg237889.html#msg237889). Please stop spreading out your false information about the "turkish Chichak". It doesn't become true the more time you repeat it.
The polish winged hussar capeline in "With Fire and Sword" is from 17.c. not the turkish Chichak.

You came in and shouted "no" about one stupid nit picky detail even though it made no difference regarding the original point of the thread, which I'm not sure you even grasped.

[Joker86]

If that is a desired effect or not is subject of a long discussion, I guess.

Well, this is why I opened this topic, so it's okay to discuss it 


I think one of the biggest issues in cRPG is the fact, that it contains some kind of rock-paper-scissors-system. I say some kind of, because the game was not designed around it but rather around historic medieval warfare. And medieval warfare (or warfare in general) is not designed as rock-paper-scissors, it's more like rock-paper-shotgun, and everyone tries to be the shotgun. This is why I don't like to talk about "counters" in cRPG, never mind if soft or hard, because counters imply some kind of
intention behind them, which is wrong in our case.

What do I mean?

We have several classes in cRPG:

1hd + shield
2hd (halberd, axe, sword, mace)
Polearms (spearlike weapons with stab as main attack)
Crossbowmen
Archers
1hd cavalry
lancers
horse archers
throwers

Now if you would compare the stregthes and weaknesses of all classes against the other ones, give them values on how likely it is to kill the other class (for example from -5 to +5), and add all those values, I bet you would have different results.

For example compare archers to spearmen. An archer basically has good chances against anyone without a shield. Only shields make archers really helpless. In the worst case chances are about even (against crossbowmen and so on)

But now take a spearman, most likely a pikeman with a two slot weapon that can't be sheathed. All he can do really effectively is threatening cavalry (a stopped horse isn't a dead cavalryman neccessarily) and supporting other melee fighters. He is really vulnerable to enemy fire (and we know cRPG is a range fest), and if he is on his own he also has little chances against melee classes, too. So basically only melee cavalry is left. (And now remember that the balancing team planned on removing the block from pikes - no comment needed about their competence...  )

So in short: archers have only one weakness (shields), spearmen have only one strength (cavalry).

Things like this, basic balancing issues, can cause a lot of anger and grief, resulting in whining. And I didn't even start about different maps favouring certain classes, and the percentages of map "types" in the rotation.

[okiN]

Actually, you just said "no" without providing any counter evidence that states that the Turkish version of the Capeline came from an earlier century and then wasted two paragraphs ranting about semantics. I responded to your "correction" and asked you for a credible source that tells us the turks were using their chichak helmets before the 17th. century - you never replied, instead choosing to start stalking me on other threads.

He already gave you that in his first reply.

Do you actually read the links you post?

It's a fair question.

Turkish chichak helmets (16th century), ancestral to the later capeline. The cheekpieces are missing on these specimens (Topkapi Museum Istanbul).

[Herald_Hardrata]

You're obviously new if you see the game "generally diminishing over time". The stuff we've accomplished with very little resources during the last year are pretty amazing. There are of course shortcomings for example in communicating stuff to the community, but these have had some attention directed at them too during the last few months. "There are no patch notes" is simply not true any more. There are notes and their quality has improved significantly (we actually pay attention to the notes nowadays).

I would like to see you give some proper concrete examples of this diminishing quality or ignoring the community. If your 17th century thing (invalidated elsewhere already) and our refusal to add some Byzantine items really are the biggest problems currently then it seems to me that situation is quite good.

Last patch broke some stuff (like all major version patches) which were then rapidly fixed in the hotfix. As discussed over 9000 times before, the community is also the testing crew. This obviously means some amount of bugs are discovered when thousands of people start poking at the new code, but seeing how most of the major bugs are usually fixed within hours of release makes you seem quite unreasonable to demand more.

Concrete feedback is always appreciated but expectations need to be adjusted to available resources. To me it seems like you're a new player who's used to commercial-grade games with actual paid development and management teams. Also, most commercial teams break stuff too at patch day and release fixes slower than we do despite their paid testing teams and quality assurance policies and whatnot.

(This was more or less directed at the whole community, your post just managed to taunt me into writing an actual reply)

- I started playing when this mod first came out and stopped because of the poor quality with your site, so I've seen the progress you've made in a year, and while yes there's something to be said for it, I feel it's not nearly where it could be, and it feels like the devs have lost their original enthusiasm for the mod. The whole you-don't-know-what-you're-talking-about-because-you're-new argument is such a lazy personal attack, are you seriously going to go that route?

- Glad at least I got a response out of someone, though it's pretty clear you didn't actually bother to go read any of the other threads completely before commenting.

- Last patch broke a lot of stuff. No patch notes that I, or anyone else I talked to the following couple days, had heard of. Where's the official patch notes page? Please provide the url, as I'm guessing a large proportion of the crpg community has no idea what changes until they actually go and play the game.

- If you had actually bothered to keep up with your own game's forums and read the entire thread regarding the chichak helmets, you will see I was the only one to actually provide a credible source on that thread, while the person who "corrected" me just said "no", provided failed to provide a credible source that contradicted my own source, and then started talking semantics and posted a picture as if no one already knew what the helmets looked like. He came in and ignored the original point of the thread, which was to point out the historical inconsistencies of the mod, and based on these inconsistencies, rejecting some armors and accepting others based on historical relevance was hypocritical.

http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,16702.0.html
(Please read the entire thread before responding instead of just the first page please.)

- Ignoring the player base. Refusing to add armor with no reasons given. Ujin's case is just one of many, if you want more, just try searching "roman" and do some reading and you'll see a lot of enthusiastic people who aren't trolling who are just ignored.

http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,16346.0.html

I won't be surprised if you don't respond to this, as I'm sure you're much more comfortable with one way conversations with  "new" players...

[Herald_Hardrata]

Misread the original post. Sorry about that.

[okiN]

Wow. Apparently you not only didn't read the full wikipedia article, you're also incapable of reading to the end of my post.

[Oberyn]

ITT butthurt cause items he wanted didn't get added. I think it's hilarious the way you're talking about cRPG dev's PR as if it's been on a downward spiral, when it pretty much started at the bottom and has sulked there ever since. Booohooo they don't listen to the playerbase. Yes, and they mostly never have, except selectively. That's because most of the playerbase is self-entitled selfish whiners. Just look at this anti-crpg dev crusade of yours as an example. It was set off by the addition of some armors, or more importantly the lack of addition of certain others. That's really the main crux of your whining. You didn't get the toy you wanted, so devs are all meanies who don't listen.

[Herald_Hardrata]

He already gave you that in his first reply.

It's a fair question.

- Dede completely missed the point of my thread, as it seems everyone else is to.

- This mod has no historical coherence to it. Rejecting Roman armor on the grounds that it doesn't fit the historical feel of the game is bullshit.

[Leesin]

Well, this is why I opened this topic, so it's okay to discuss it 


I think one of the biggest issues in cRPG is the fact, that it contains some kind of rock-paper-scissors-system. I say some kind of, because the game was not designed around it but rather around historic medieval warfare. And medieval warfare (or warfare in general) is not designed as rock-paper-scissors, it's more like rock-paper-shotgun, and everyone tries to be the shotgun. This is why I don't like to talk about "counters" in cRPG, never mind if soft or hard, because counters imply some kind of
intention behind them, which is wrong in our case.

What do I mean?

We have several classes in cRPG:

1hd + shield
2hd (halberd, axe, sword, mace)
Polearms (spearlike weapons with stab as main attack)
Crossbowmen
Archers
1hd cavalry
lancers
horse archers
throwers

Now if you would compare the stregthes and weaknesses of all classes against the other ones, give them values on how likely it is to kill the other class (for example from -5 to +5), and add all those values, I bet you would have different results.

For example compare archers to spearmen. An archer basically has good chances against anyone without a shield. Only shields make archers really helpless. In the worst case chances are about even (against crossbowmen and so on)

But now take a spearman, most likely a pikeman with a two slot weapon that can't be sheathed. All he can do really effectively is threatening cavalry (a stopped horse isn't a dead cavalryman neccessarily) and supporting other melee fighters. He is really vulnerable to enemy fire (and we know cRPG is a range fest), and if he is on his own he also has little chances against melee classes, too. So basically only melee cavalry is left. (And now remember that the balancing team planned on removing the block from pikes - no comment needed about their competence...  )

So in short: archers have only one weakness (shields), spearmen have only one strength (cavalry).

Things like this, basic balancing issues, can cause a lot of anger and grief, resulting in whining. And I didn't even start about different maps favouring certain classes, and the percentages of map "types" in the rotation.

All builds have their strengths and weaknesses, it's down to the players own skills to make the best of those, whilst on paper I would agree it seems archers have the least weaknesses, it must be remembered that it is all subjective to the situation at hand.

 It is only logical to assume any build with a ranged weapon is going to have an advantage over any build that does not have a ranged weapon, in a ranged situation, up to any distance where the melee guy is not in range to hit the archer.

That being said, I feel right now the balance of the actual builds themselves are pretty decent, ranged builds are always going to dominate a decent portion of the battlefield, because that's just how it is, the only way to ever obtain a 'true' balance is having no ranged builds at all and tbh, that would be boring.

[Herald_Hardrata]

Wow. Apparently you not only didn't read the full wikipedia article, you're also incapable of reading to the end of my post.

It's 5 in the morning here and I haven't slept yet. Yeah I'm fucking tired, I'm going back and editing what I said now.


Go ahead and discount everything else I've said though. Don't bother reading the rest of that thread.

[Joker86]

The Chichak and any similar helmet did NOT exist in the middle ages, they were an invention of the early renaissance. And if gunpowder weapons are not desired in this mod, then the question why helmets from the gunpowder era are, is valid.

All builds have their strengths and weaknesses, it's down to the players own skills to make the best of those, whilst on paper I would agree it seems archers have the least weaknesses, it must be remembered that it is all subjective to the situation at hand.

 It is only logical to assume any build with a ranged weapon is going to have an advantage over any build that does not have a ranged weapon, in a ranged situation, up to any distance where the melee guy is not in range to hit the archer.

That being said, I feel right now the balance of the actual builds themselves are pretty decent, ranged builds are always going to dominate a decent portion of the battlefield, because that's just how it is, the only way to ever obtain a 'true' balance is having no ranged builds at all and tbh, that would be boring.

I would love that. If you want to shoot then go and play Call of Duty, M&B is so special because of its melee system with the speed calculation. Playing Warband to shoot is like playing Serious Sam to sneak around or Splinter Cell to go rampage with the F2000. 

And yes, of course there are a lot of more factors than only those on the paper, but still my point is valid.

All builds have their strengths and weaknesses, it's down to the players own skills to make the best of those

Yes, but some have more strengthes and/or less weaknesses than others. This would mean, that two players of totally equal skill but with different classes would have different success. Which must not be.

And don't tell me a skilled pikeman or a thrower can have the same success like a skilled cavalryman, 2-hander or archer. 

[Ylca]

Stats are great because it's an instant way to tell who knows what they're talking about or not. When someone says "hey it's only +3 extra damage not that much" without acknowledging that PS/PD multiply that small change by a great deal one can easily tell they don't know what they're talking about and can be ignored.

e:

So in short: archers have only one weakness (shields), spearmen have only one strength (cavalry).

Q: What does a dedicated archer do against an equally skilled dedicated melee in melee combat?
A: Get rocked.

I love how you indicate shields are the only weakness archers have without acknowledging that archers are in deseperate need of melee support. How many arrows can you shoot while there is a guy with a spear directly behind you? One if you're lucky. This is the sort of thing i talk about, people make statements that have to do with perceived balance, yet the ignore all sorts of other factors.

Archers weakness is shielders but also, and quite obviously, anyone getting into melee range against them.

Ranged have an advantage at range. Melee  has an advantage in melee- go firgure. To hear some melee talk though you'd think they have no recourse against the horrible archers who are invincible in melee combat and never can be caught or harassed to the point where they can no longer shoot.

Sometimes i feel that i'm playing a different game than some of the people who post.

[Teeth]

Archers weakness is shielders

I see everyone throwing this one in, but archers are faster than shielders when they hold their shield up. They almost always just run away. Mostly in an outward direction where the cav dominates, and I don't feel like going into the cav alley with my puny 1h. I turn around and he starts shooting me.

I really don't feel like the counter of archers now that I'm a shielder. As a 2h I felt it was easier to kill them, cause they are more compelled to risk their lives for trying to get a few arrows in me. Dodging as a 2h is quite effective and only the best can shoot you down before you reach them. Sure as a shielder I can mess up their game, but killing them, not so much.