What has cRPG come to?

[CrazyCracka420]

Mount and Musket does it, and they make it look easy.  And I hate that game.  But it's an example.

All it takes is a tiny bit of communication/information when people join up.  How hard would it be for a welcome message when you join the server to say "Infantry, join battalion 1 (press P once).  Ranged join battalion 2 (Press P twice), Cavalry, join battalion 3 (Press P 3 times)"  "To move the flag for each battalion, press and hold F1 and release on your target, to hold the banner, release at your feet".

I see tactics and loose formations all the time in the battle server (NA1), one team usually has a decent amount of ground troops working together, the other team has less.  The team with the better mob tactics usually wins.  The team that has the most "outliers" usually loses.  It seems like a lot of the players in game don't realize the more people on your team working together, the easier it is to win.  The more people who are all doing their own thing, the harder it is to win.  I fail to see why the game should be nerfed and buffed when people aren't even attempting to use teamwork or tactics.

Just imagine the same tactics and teamwork most people use in this game, taking place on a middle aged battle field.  How horribly bad would they get routed...how hilarious and rag tag would that be...

All I'm saying, is I don't think the game should be balanced around people playing incorrectly.  It should be balanced around proper teamwork and tactics.  If people want to expose their weaknesses to the enemy as if they were taking off their armor, that's their choice, but they don't get to decide the way the game is customized.  Deal?

[Leshma]

This thread is one huge pile of incorrect informations.

Half of you don't even play battle regularly.

At this stage of cRPG development process, playing strength oriented, well armored knight with a greatsword is by far the easiest thing is the mod.

I've followed few new guys who decided to play 2H kuyak hero, first day they were horrible. Second day they already started blocking few attacks, third day they learned a bit of footwork and were actually "good".

Manual blocking was never more accessible to the masses in cRPG than it is now.

On the other hand ranged classes are something people are used to because there is ton of FPS games out there but cRPG has been changed so much that playing ranged in cRPG is nowhere near playing with a rifle like in CoD. In CoD there is no bullet drop, there is no wpf, it's much easier to play than being ranged in cRPG.

Many people will agree that I'm decent 2H, I'm also decent with polearms and one handed weapons. I can block, have decent footwork and can many people in direct duel.

But, I'm bad cav, bad archer, bad shielder, bad xbowmen and I find any of those classes harder to become decent at.

If you ask me, playing with greatsword and long but damaging polearm is by far easiest thing for newcommers atm. That's why I see many of them playing exactly those classes.

On the other hand, there is in fact a lot of ranged and cavalry. I guess those are people who grown out of melee fights, probably weren't able to master those classes but were decent at them. So they choose something different.

Also, to be succesful at ranged, you have sacrifice pretty much most of your melee capabilities and that's why ranged kite. If they had more chance against highly optimized, armoured builds they might fight them. Right now even I don't like to fight total noobs with just 5 PS and one hander. That's because even new guys have shit ton of armor and glancing is happening all the time, also many random stuff along with that.

[To Kill A Dead Horse]

Everybody go pure-thrower = problem solved.

On a serious note, throwing can counter anything if you bring the right weapons and have the skill to use them.

[Miwiw]

Oh, a good post by Leshma. You forgot one group of players Leshma. Some people play certain classes for fun reasons.

[Bryggan]

So this post is a re-hash of this post:  this

Well, that's sucky, I thought I had an original idea but it turned out it was yours (Joker's) pretty much.  Though that chart was damned confusing, and took me a while to sort of get it.  Still, I like it as it could steer the uber-build builders away from cav and range and still let the cav and range lovers continue playing their beloved classes without being nerfed.  It would also get people to use alts more, and who knows, they might get to like their new class once they get good at it.

As for everything else, I hate nerfs and buffs being used to punish people for playing a class.

As for the teamwork, it would be nice if there was some sort of ranking dealie.  When you get on and one guy yells 'go left' and another 'go right' and another 'form shieldwall' and another 'I'm defending the stairs', its kind of hard to know which one to listen to.  Perhaps if you want to be a commander you could get voted on the forums and get a special tag, or it could be based on your win/loss rate (definitely not KD).  That way we know who's a credible leader.

Needless to say, not everyone will obey, and they shouldn't have to.  But I'm sure once the mass starts cooperating, more and more people will get into it.

[Joker86]

So this post is a re-hash of this post:  this

Well, that's sucky, I thought I had an original idea but it turned out it was yours (Joker's) pretty much.  Though that chart was damned confusing, and took me a while to sort of get it.  Still, I like it as it could steer the uber-build builders away from cav and range and still let the cav and range lovers continue playing their beloved classes without being nerfed.  It would also get people to use alts more, and who knows, they might get to like their new class once they get good at it.

As for everything else, I hate nerfs and buffs being used to punish people for playing a class.

As for the teamwork, it would be nice if there was some sort of ranking dealie.  When you get on and one guy yells 'go left' and another 'go right' and another 'form shieldwall' and another 'I'm defending the stairs', its kind of hard to know which one to listen to.  Perhaps if you want to be a commander you could get voted on the forums and get a special tag, or it could be based on your win/loss rate (definitely not KD).  That way we know who's a credible leader.

Needless to say, not everyone will obey, and they shouldn't have to.  But I'm sure once the mass starts cooperating, more and more people will get into it.

Thanks for your support!

Actually, the more I think abot it, BOTH XP and gold could be influenced by this.

Sorry that the chart was so confusing, but the system needed to be worked out very well, or I would have had to answer two pages of smartass comments about mistakes and wrong calculations of my system. But basing it on the WPP spent, it should grant a rather accurate calculation.

Oh, and btw:

We had the commander discussions already a few times in the forum, and I suggest that commanders are elected in the forum by vote, and the admins then grant them "commander rights", which works similar like admin rights: when you connect to the server, you have them.

  

Edit: and the ideas above are your ideas as well. You didn't know I already had them, and we also didn't start to think about them at the same time (which gave me a good time advantage). So no need to scale your ideas down. 

[Grumbs]

Leshma you being good or bad at something has no real bearing on the difficulty of the tasks involved. We all have our strengths and weaknesses and I'm pretty sure if you spent like 2 years playing either cav or archer you would be 10x better at them than now, and I suspect do better (at least with cav) than you do as 2 hander.

Thing with ranged/cav is that you are often testing your own skill rather than testing the skill of your enemies like you do with the more PVP style classes. Its one sided skill a lot of of the time and you have much more control over when you put yourself at risk. You can fail as archer/cav many times over and yet the one time you succeed you do some damage/get a kill. Not so with 2 hand/polearm. You are constantly having to take some punishment for your mistakes..fail a block or mistime an attack and you get instant repercussions. Miss as archer and you simply shoot again and eventually you can even go into melee mode when all else fails and get randy knockdowns or block as well as a pure melee build.

[Leshma]

One thing is certain, when score system finally replace multi, number of arbalests will go down drastically. There will be a lot more melee builds and more cav as well.

[Crazyi]

A shielder you aren't on vent with will strafe back in forth when you try to follow them. I attempt to do it every chance I get and for some reason beyond me they love to strafe back and forth, and I always end up getting shot worse than attempting to run in myself. If they do form a shield wall(rare) I can move behind it but typically a shield wall forms and stands in one place. Second, you can't stand behind a shielder when in melee combat, as I always get staggered by enemies and allies attempting to shoot into melee. Third and most important, a shield doesn't counter an archer, it prevents him from doing damage while moving around. Its not like I magically kill archers when I wear a shield, and it makes it harder to chase them down for because of added weight. If I am 2h/pole then it really slows me down when I put it on my back. Like my second point, the real problem is once I am in combat getting staggered by enemies and allies, which a shield won't help much unless I am looking directly at them and never attempt to swing.

I'm not saying archers are so OP. What I did say is that there are too many archers per team, that I liked it when longbows allowed for piercing damage unlike the arrow itself does now, and I feel lancers should not be able to parry from horseback. When there were only a few archers per team it wasn't that annoying, but not every single round I am hit atleast 2x by archers in and out of melee every round.

[Falka]

One thing is certain, when score system finally replace multi, number of arbalests will go down drastically. There will be a lot more melee builds and more cav as well.

Archers get tons of points actually, even with only few kills they often are in the top though I saw Cheapshot with roughly 20 kills in the lower part of the ladder, almost on the bottom.

Manual blocking was never more accessible to the masses in cRPG than it is now.

I don't get it, blocking used to be harder or what? Currently almost everyone make feints, kicks, delayed attacks so I'd say for newcomers though leveling never was so easy, playing never was so hard.

I've followed few new guys who decided to play 2H kuyak hero, first day they were horrible. Second day they already started blocking few attacks, third day they learned a bit of footwork and were actually "good".

Eh? Two years ago "blocking few attacks" mabye was enough to be "good", but now? Not really. That's why I suck so hard, ppl are too good 

[Taser]

ancient Morrowind

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


I do like your suggestions sometimes though Joker. You try to think outside the box of nerfs. Don't agree with all your suggestions (in general) but definitely like that you're trying.

On a related note I definitely like the dedicated infantry idea although that would really make infantry far stronger. One could have a much stronger build with only 2 attributes needed. I'd be ok with inf being much stronger though as I'm a shielder. Obvious bias is obvious. But it wouldn't be fair for inf to be dedicated and get a huge advantage over cav/ranged by decreased attribute demands so either it can't be done since it is a bit extreme or cav/ranged get their own dedicated training line.

[Lichen]

One thing is certain, when score system finally replace multi,........

That sounds awesome.

[Babelfish]

It is impossible to do both, deal a lot of dmg and survive at the same time. That's simply not fair.

Someone probably already called you on this fucknut, this is what our complain with archers boils down to. They deal insane damage without putting themself in any danger, what so ever.

[Leshma]

I wasn't talking about archers. They can earn points just fine, people who shoot rarely (those who use arbalest) need to hit at least 5 targets per round to score 20 points. That's not easy as it sounds.

To earn 20 points as 2H, all I have to do is to dehorse one heavy cav and later kill the rider or to do the same but to two light cav. I can do that in few seconds.

Btw. feints don't work for more than a year, holds aren't working as they used to for quite some time, at the moment it's best to use combination of holds, occasional feints and outreaching (wait for enemy to step in, backpedal a bit then surge forward releasing attack).

[Falka]

Btw. feints don't work for more than a year, holds aren't working as they used to for quite some time, at the moment it's best to use combination of holds, occasional feints and outreaching (wait for enemy to step in, backpedal a bit then surge forward releasing attack).

If I hadn't played a battle from time to time, I would believe you that killing ppl is so hard as you decribe.

Also,

I wasn't talking about archers.

but you said "There will be a lot more melee builds and more cav as well" and I haven't seen too many guys with arbalests or throwers on the battlefield. Anyway, nvm.