Strategus, the poll

[Christo]

Agreed.

Anyone can talk smart, though. Let's hope we see real improvement, very soon.

Keep it up guys.

[Teeth]

Remove ladders, fix maps and I won't cry about archers. Roofcamping is just lame.

[KaMiKaZe_JoE]

Leshma, I question your "low risk" labeling of cavalry, because all I do is play cavalry, and drink (of course). The "average" cavalry player--the one riding a horse of mere flesh, rather than an unaffordable iron skinned behemoth--faces many many risks when playing. Archers drop your horse in three or four hits (unless you're riding a champion something, in which case its five hits). Any competent polearm user can magically bring you to a dead stop, often literally, by waggling his or her weapon in the general vicinity of your horse's face. Competent 2h users can avoid your lance thrusts without too much difficulty, and then, jumping to Mario-esque highs, stab you in the face. Throwers rape your horse without trying. Horse archers and Horse xbowmen troll your horse to death.

I see where your label of "low-risk" comes from, though. What makes cavalry different than those mortals who walk on their feet is the cavalry player's control of when and where he or she will actually face those risks. Awareness on the virtual battlefield allows a cavalry player to easily avoid most of the above risky things--just ride away from them. But if a cavalry player wants to bridge the gap between "average" and "good", and actually contribute to his or her team, he or she will have to put him or her self in risky situations. He or she will have to ride into range of archers, throwers, and xbowmen; will have to risk getting the attention of an HA or HXbow; will have to get within arms reach of polearms and 2handers alike. Yes, cavalry players can and frequently do spend the entire match riding in circles far away from the actual fight, killing enemy afk's and stragglers and playing the "low-risk" role.

Fuck those guys. Cool cavs laugh in the face of pretend-death, lancing enemy V.I.P's from right under their team's nose.

tl;dr: I'm so fucking bored, and such a procrastinator, that instead of doing something productive this morning I sat here and sipped coffee while responding to Leshma's post, the point of which really was not cavalry at all.

[Xant]

Anyone can talk smart, though.

Really? Would you care to elaborate on this theory?

[LordBerenger]

Really? Would you care to elaborate on this theory?

9x9 = 81

[Christo]

Berenger just did it mate.

(In his own way though, but he did.)

[Xant]

Berenger just did it mate.

(In his own way though, but he did.)

If the premise is that saying 9x9 = 81 is a smart thing to say, then yes, I suppose you've proved your point!

[Christo]

If the premise is that saying 9x9 = 81 is a smart thing to say, then yes, I suppose you've proved your point!

Well, my point is that anyone can use some words to look smart, however, if you ask about the meaning of their words, they'll either;

a; Rage at you for not knowing it and not believing his intelligence, masking their own stupidity ofc
b; Will just go to the nearest corner crying
c; Or, they'll tell you the exact meaning. Note that most people who know those words, don't overuse them because that makes them look like egomaniacs.

Point proven, I guess?

(click to show/hide)

How the heck is this related to cRPG?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t348e24vDyA

[Xant]

Well, my point is that anyone can use some words to look smart, however, if you ask about the meaning of their words, they'll either;

a; Rage at you for not knowing it and not believing his intelligence, masking their own stupidity ofc
b; Will just go to the nearest corner crying
c; Or, they'll tell you the exact meaning. Note that most people who know those words, don't overuse them because that makes them look like egomaniacs.

Point proven, I guess?

How does that relate to Paul's post? Using difficult words isn't smart, it's the message that matters. Did Paul use some kind of strange words to make his post look super intelligent and that have some hidden meaning that needs to be asked about? It's a common thing though, mistaking people using those eloquent words as smart.

[Christo]

Nah, got nothin' on Paul.

[The_Bloody_Nine]

9x9 = 81

7x6=42 would look even smarter, though.

[Christo]

2x2=5!

[Oberyn]

I agree with Kamikaze Joe, NERF CAV.

[Kafein]

Leshma, I question your "low risk" labeling of cavalry, because all I do is play cavalry, and drink (of course). The "average" cavalry player--the one riding a horse of mere flesh, rather than an unaffordable iron skinned behemoth--faces many many risks when playing. Archers drop your horse in three or four hits (unless you're riding a champion something, in which case its five hits). Any competent polearm user can magically bring you to a dead stop, often literally, by waggling his or her weapon in the general vicinity of your horse's face. Competent 2h users can avoid your lance thrusts without too much difficulty, and then, jumping to Mario-esque highs, stab you in the face. Throwers rape your horse without trying. Horse archers and Horse xbowmen troll your horse to death.

I see where your label of "low-risk" comes from, though. What makes cavalry different than those mortals who walk on their feet is the cavalry player's control of when and where he or she will actually face those risks. Awareness on the virtual battlefield allows a cavalry player to easily avoid most of the above risky things--just ride away from them. But if a cavalry player wants to bridge the gap between "average" and "good", and actually contribute to his or her team, he or she will have to put him or her self in risky situations. He or she will have to ride into range of archers, throwers, and xbowmen; will have to risk getting the attention of an HA or HXbow; will have to get within arms reach of polearms and 2handers alike. Yes, cavalry players can and frequently do spend the entire match riding in circles far away from the actual fight, killing enemy afk's and stragglers and playing the "low-risk" role.

Fuck those guys. Cool cavs laugh in the face of pretend-death, lancing enemy V.I.P's from right under their team's nose.

tl;dr: I'm so fucking bored, and such a procrastinator, that instead of doing something productive this morning I sat here and sipped coffee while responding to Leshma's post, the point of which really was not cavalry at all.

My thoughts exactly.

[Slamz]

How about you guys cut that crap and start balancing the game based on logic? You know, things like risk/reward. Archery and ranged in general are low risk roles

rofl

What's lower risk?

a) 7 pounds of armor.  No room for a good melee weapon.  Bow that requires numerous hits to kill an armored target and is near useless against shields.  Limited ammo.
b) 70+ body armor.  Long weapon good at killing infantry and cavalry alike.

You've got it backwards.  Low risk is playing a melee with heirloomed plate.  Archers die easy.  Even throwing daggers will kill them because their armor is always so low.  If they don't have a building to stand on, they will invariably get mowed down by cavalry.  A lot of high scoring melees tried switching to archery and then switched back to melee after getting wtfpwned.

Archery creates an illusion of being powerful because one of the last people alive is usually an archer, probably because he stranded himself on a roof somewhere.  He gets one kill while everyone is watching and it's all "ooo, archery is so op" and yet he's probably not even halfway up the kill chart.  Meanwhile the last guy on the other team mulched his way through a dozen enemies that round alone, wearing 30 pounds of heirloomed armor.  Standard melee: kill a dude, kill another dude, kill two more dudes, kill another dude, down a horse, kill the rider, get shot by an arrow, declare archery is op.



If you really want to hurt archers, nerf the "Mace" -- it's a 1-slot two-hander with knockdown and terrific damage for being a one-slotter.  The irony is the highest scoring archers get a number of their kills by being able to finish people off with melee.