Possible root cause(s) of rage in cRPG and Warband. (long)

[Materia]

Congrats on reading this far, if you didn't AND post tl:dr I am putting you on my list.

 

[Joker86]

I take it you're someone with no skill. Also you're going off the point, I like realism in a game, whereas it seems you don't.

I do. But not for the sake of gameplay or balance.

Yeah, obviously. I never said skill is solely defined on a persons ability to manual block.

Manual blocking was only a representative choice which stands for everything that is related to mere controls and reflexes. I think the knowledge of which way to run, when to defend and when to attack, and some kind of "discipline", like not seperating in the middle of the fight to kill a single stray cat somewhere off the map, never mind how easy the target looks, those things should be equally important. (Don't know if you agree on that, too)

It's unrealistic as in real life it would be "who's got the better reflexes" that would win the 1v1 majority of the time, if you disagree then clearly detail to me the characteristic that would bring victory in a 1v1 if it is not the reflexes of a player. There is more then just having fast reflexes (like tactics) but you mentioning that this should not be a factor to obtaining victory is stupid.

A battle is not 1vs1, that's my point. A cRPG battle is not just an accumulation of several, simultaneous duels. That's what I call the macro game, and what you seem to ignore completely. In my eyes bad skills and good tactics should win over good skills and bad tactics, otherwise tactics wouldn't have an impact at all. Btw. tactics is learned much easier than skill, so there should be no big problem.

Holding certain points of the map for a set amount of time to win instead of killing the enemy as you would do in real life, does not make it more "fun to watch" as you'll just be watching each team camp the points on the map to claim victory rather than engaging the enemy for victory, how's that an improvement in realism? After all this game is based on medieval combat, what you're suggesting would minimize the direct combat in the game. Yes you need strategy to win a battle but introducing a new game type to hold and capture points for a certain amount of time and replace the battle game type as the default is not needed.

Well, not if you have less flags then the enemy and try to take some more. People would form "assault squads" and try to coordinate where to attack, and the enemy would try to move reinforcements to the attacked flag and so on, which is definitely more interesting than the current two blobs moving towards each other and then seeing who's more lucky in melee.

[Logen]

It's unrealistic as in real life it would be "who's got the better reflexes" that would win the 1v1 majority of the time

No, not really. Having good reflexes always helps, but no.

[Gisbert_of_Thuringia]

I take it you're someone with no skill. Also you're going off the point, I like realism in a game, whereas it seems you don't.

You missed the point my friend. Joker spoke about more teamplay when you came around saying it is unrewarding for those with skill.
So it isn't a reward that your team wins cause the players with skill work in a team instead of alone?
I think you are just one of the poor bastards who always try to be somewhere ontop of the scoreboard, no matter your team wins or loses.
Really sorry for you.

Btw, I'm skilled and I've been ontop of scoreboards often enough and I can still be there, but I would also love to see some more teamplay instead of all these guys running around alone trying to get everyone into a duel

[SixThumbs]

I actually have the team's best interest at heart when I decide to run off alone behind the enemy line. Most of the time it doesn't work out so well for my character but it usually results in thinning out the enemy numbers and causing a good amount of "aggro" so the rest of the team isn't met with as much resistance.

[CrazyCracka420]

Face it, here is a class of character with the ability to never get within range of the enemy while inflicting damage

They are within ranged.  Crossbows and Archers are a class that you can play in warband (spoiler: arrows and bolts can hit horses).  Not to mention horse archers and horse crossbows can counter horse archers...

Horse archers (or xbows) are THE BEST anti-cav in my opinion, they can essentially cut off areas of the map from cav (unless they want to risk getting their horsey shot to shit).  Ground archers do a better job of this, but only if they have some decent concentration (a few archers), the only issue is that they aren't mobile as if they were on a horse.

Can't say I really disagree with much else, but don't see the point of the thread either

[Joker86]

It is not like educating children (you deserve to be called a pompous windbag for that, though the label kindergarten mode is often justified) - people either play with their heads up their ass or start to pay attention.

The mechanics are the same, I don't say they are children. (Innocent children don't deserve to be compared to average cRPG players  ). People tend to create habits, so it is important to influence it at the point when you can do it the best: at the very beginning!

I am an old S.T.A.L.K.E.R.-fanboy, and you know there are a lot of mods out for the game. One mod, the AMK Soljanka (improved German version of AMK mod) had the description of being very hard, unfair and realistic. That's why I was constantly sneaking around all the time, even before I met my first enemy. The mere description of the mod already made me play it the most resonable way: carefully! There are other mods out there, with other descriptions, and I play them more like action shooters. Without those descriptions, that influenced my expectations and my behaviour, I would have played the mods the wrong way perhaps. I would play the AMK mod like an ordinary shooter, complaining how difficult it is and how I have to quicksave and load all the time, and never even experiencing the difference they implemented concerning the stealth system.

Same thing with cRPG. If you don't tell the players how things that are not directly related to attacking enemy players still can influence your performance, many players won't even realize the full range and depth of the game.

Trying to add artifical methods of promoting team play is akin to pandering to the stupidest players ever, and not required, as I see plenty of good team play as it is.

I do not. Most of the time I play pikeman, although I initially planned to go poleaxe. But the domination of cavalry on the servers forces me to use the pike most of the time. What I do is trying to protect my team from cavalry. And I fail miserably.

I just recommend you to create a STF-pikeman and dedicate yourself to protecting your team from cavalry. You gameplay will consist of watching teammates in some distance running straight forward and getting lanced from behind or even from the front, without a single enemy nearby who could have counted as distraction. Dying such a death is pure stupidity for me, and the amount of such deaths I see each round is WAY too much that I could say there is enough good teamplay. And this is only one of several examples.

You don't really want multiplayer, you want bots to follow your commands.

Who says I want to give the commands? Usually I am really happy if someone tries to offer some lead, and I always write into chat that I will follow the command, in the hope of motivating others to do so as well. I think everyone following a bad plan is still much better than everyone following his own plan.

You are indeed part of the problem, worse thing is, you do not see it. 'More of a strategy game' is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole - it's the wrong tool for the job and the materials at hand. So maybe you'd fit right in with people determined to make the game shittier from an action viewpoint (even as merely an unfortunate biproduct of some mad quest to make things more strategic - but who cares right), which is what warband is - an action game.

The big phallacy some are under the influence of, is 'twitch is inferior' and a desire to equate slow play with cerebral play, possibly stemming from a defeat. Can't beat it first try? Heck nerf it!

Could you elaborate this part a bit? I see only assertions, no explanations or reasonings.

[Kafein]

Could you elaborate this part a bit? I see only assertions, no explanations or reasonings.

Zisa is displaying his love for twitch gameplay and tries to convince someone that everybody else has pretty much the same tastes.

[Riddaren]

Nighttime
Fog
Hilly maps
heavy detailed maps

[Adamar]

We need more random plains, to promote teamplay.

[Kafein]

Nighttime
Fog
Hilly maps
heavy detailed maps

This.

[MR_FISTA]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


But in all seriousness I do agree with most of the comments.

[Zisa]

Possible solutions part 2:

Gold has never and will never be a useful factor in 'balance'. Upkeep really is there to slow new players - kind of a good thing though if they learn a bit before donning the heavy arse armor.

Balancing around strategus - umm, no. Keep the core game at the forefront and make strategus adapt - strategus is RISK, Warband is action. Doing it the backassward way is hurtful to us action junkies.

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.

[Kafein]

Possible solutions part 2:

Gold has never and will never be a useful factor in 'balance'. Upkeep really is there to slow new players - kind of a good thing though if they learn a bit before donning the heavy arse armor.

Balancing around strategus - umm, no. Keep the core game at the forefront and make strategus adapt - strategus is RISK, Warband is action. Doing it the backassward way is hurtful to us action junkies.

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.

A regular chess game is much faster than a tennis or footall match, you know...

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Now, it's not because the game asks you to make fast decisions that it is more interesting to play. You should stop trying to impose your views on that. I think players like the current speed of the game, some want it faster, some want it slower.

[Zisa]

A regular chess game is much faster than a tennis or footall match, you know...

<snip>

Now, it's not because the game asks you to make fast decisions that it is more interesting to play. You should stop trying to impose your views on that. I think players like the current speed of the game, some want it faster, some want it slower.

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.