0.2.9.0

[Templar_Ratigan]

You can't say that when you're attacking a straw man. Try again.

To be fair it was more of a question. I wasn't presuming his argument or building that up to be it. I was merely putting that there for him to think about. If you want I can stick a question mark next to it so it is more clear.

The important word in that sentence is the word IF.

just buff stones and he will be happy

Im not sure I would. This is more than just stones.

[ednos]

Let's review:

What if I wanted to play as a peasant with a stick? Originally I could have, it was hard but doable as is to be expected.

How was it ever different? In what era of cRPG was a peasant with a stick not like that? Your nostalgia glasses are clouding your view of cRPG.

But the statistics of the weapons, the speed at which the game plays, the level your character can reach. These are all things that have been altered over the time of the game.

If you can deny that then im sorry, you are beyond reason or rationality.

To summarize, you made a claim about the viability of a peasant-stick build, which he rejected. You then, in response, suggested that he was beyond reason or rationality because he denied that the game has changed. He didn't deny that, though. No one did. In fact, I challenge you to find a single person on this forum that has even considered taking that position.

Of course, none of this would be an issue if you hadn't opened with this gem:

Your build is not relative. As usual my point has been missed by someone having a knee-jerk reaction to something that person obviously felt threatened by.

That's an attack, and unfounded at that. No one missed your point, but they certainly disagreed with you, and not everyone who holds an opinion different than yours does so because they miss your point. Sometimes they actually have different opinions build from the same data.

[Teeth]

Your build is not relative.

What does that even mean?

You asked when wasnt it like that....it wasnt like that in the older patches. If I had a mind to I could level up to level 45 with perseverance, practise with my build intensely, become used to the style of combat and melee, then adapt my style of play accordingly.

Your entire point is that because you could level unto very high levels you could do more creative builds? Which is the only difference to old cRPG and current cRPG if it comes to playing a peasant with a stick. Statistics of the weapon have never been touched.

Now it would be pointless, unless you enjoy getting block crushed and bum spammed by bigger, faster, longer weapons that were always better than a stick anyhow, but which are now no-brainers when it comes to choice. Not to mention you cannot in fact reach a high enough level to give such an obscure build a chance in the first place.

So just because you could be a lvl 45 stick using peasant it would be viable? Newsflash, against other lvl 45's with 'normal builds' the above would still go. The only reason why a lvl 45 peasant stick was better then then it is now, is because the game was completely unbalanced and there were players like me. I started playing later and I did do a normal build, but could never catch up with the enormous level gap. I was playing as a level 22 against players with level 48.

Ofcourse your 27/27 stick wielding peasant with 300 wpf was viable against the level 20 guys that were never going to be on par with the old guys.

Welcome to a balanced and fair game where your performance is not dependent on how long you've been playing. Welcome to a game that does not enable you to fuck around with retarded builds cause you are high level while leaving the the newer players at a forever disadvantage even with a minmax build.

[Thomek]

I think I get what he's trying to say.

cRPG is less creative than it used to be, when people would discover playstyles and OP builds all the time. (i.ex keshians 40+ running Archer)
I think it's only natural, as we are much more equal now. Both in skill and level, and the factors that decide what is OP are much smaller.

This requires much better balance of weapons, so more weapons are equally "Good". (But still very different!)

Only then will we see variety of playstyles again.. Although I'm of the opinion that cRPG could be more extreme. Allowing higher levels would be one way to make that happen. But that again, requires ever more perfect balancing of weapons.

So while OLD cRPG, with 1 slot weapons and 40+ levels allowed much more variety and creativity,
Contemporary cRPG is kinda nerfed into a grey mass.

He has a point.. (Must think about this. Would be interesting if balance would hold if you raised lvl cap i.ex.. more points to spend: more variety)

(click to show/hide)

Imagine raising it to lvl 38, taking as much xp to get to as 34 today..People would go for more extreme builds, with greater weaknesses and greater strengths.

[Kafein]

Welcome to a balanced and fair game where your performance is not dependent on how long you've been playing. Welcome to a game that does not enable you to fuck around with retarded builds cause you are high level while leaving the the newer players at a forever disadvantage even with a minmax build.

I'd like to point out you are wrong there. Having a ponctual advantage at a moment in time doesn't mean you are going to keep it.


Also, old cRPG was only "unfair" from the (oh so original) FPS perspective of killing as many people as possible, or taking objectives. Some people assume this is the perspective of all games that look like the-usual-FPS. But it is not. In old cRPG you could play just to fuck around with a weird build and equipment setup or survive the battle as a poor peasant or any other goal you could think of, in new cRPG there's only one way to play : to win. Of course having level and equipment differences makes that usual competitive game unbalanced. It does however not make a game where you have fun independently of how unfunny the game is for your opponent unbalanced. And that was the point of cRPG, and the reason lvl 10 peasants could indeed play in the same servers as lvl 43 monsters without GTXting.

[Latrinenkobold]

Congrats devs you even made chinese players rage because of this patch!

[Brrrak]

What if I loom my wooden stick?

[Teeth]

I'd like to point out you are wrong there. Having a ponctual advantage at a moment in time doesn't mean you are going to keep it.

Not sure what ponctual means, google doesn't find it, but I am pretty sure that the level 46's that were playing would always have had a level advantage on me when thinking of a realistic time span.. I think your a math guy and whatever this means theoretically, it does not apply to old cRPG.

Also, old cRPG was only "unfair" from the (oh so original) FPS perspective of killing as many people as possible, or taking objectives. Some people assume this is the perspective of all games that look like the-usual-FPS. But it is not. In old cRPG you could play just to fuck around with a weird build and equipment setup or survive the battle as a poor peasant or any other goal you could think of, in new cRPG there's only one way to play : to win. Of course having level and equipment differences makes that usual competitive game unbalanced. It does however not make a game where you have fun independently of how unfunny the game is for your opponent unbalanced. And that was the point of cRPG, and the reason lvl 10 peasants could indeed play in the same servers as lvl 43 monsters without GTXting.

Don't get me wrong, I had loads of fun back then. Still, having a big part of the playerbase simply playing to survive without ever being able to catch up in ability to the old players has its flaws. It is a game where surviving gives you playtime. If you are in the field with players that wear plate, move faster and can spam you without you being able to attack back, your playtime gets reduced without you being able to do anything about it.

I am quite sure most level 10 peasants stuck out their time while having in mind that they will one day be one of those high level guys.

[Latvian]

Damn, the one thing I wanted from that asian armor pack was the shields and they dont have themmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. 

[pepejul]

The only Chinese weapon I was waiting for was : Chinese War Sword :

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


vidéo : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PQiaurIiDM

But there is not in patch ((((

[Teeth]

Stop showing me videos of a sweaty, fat american dude with a walrus stache playing with swords.

[Kafein]

Not sure what ponctual means, google doesn't find it, but I am pretty sure that the level 46's that were playing would always have had a level advantage on me when thinking of a realistic time span.. I think your a math guy and whatever this means theoretically, it does not apply to old cRPG.

Oops, sorry, that was a french word. I meant a single moment in time. If someone plays more than you, he will eventually catch up no matter how big was his handicap.

Don't get me wrong, I had loads of fun back then. Still, having a big part of the playerbase simply playing to survive without ever being able to catch up in ability to the old players has its flaws. It is a game where surviving gives you playtime. If you are in the field with players that wear plate, move faster and can spam you without you being able to attack back, your playtime gets reduced without you being able to do anything about it.

I am quite sure most level 10 peasants stuck out their time while having in mind that they will one day be one of those high level guys.

This is probably true, and I feel sorry for them, but it isn't that far from what a game without level differences would be. Better characters are better, be it by player skill or stats. In the end it doesn't actually matter, except that in a game without levels you can't argue whoever owned you had better stats etc. and over time it can become irritating. Especially if you feel you don't make any progress. With levels, this doesn't happen.

[Lichen]

Thanks for the patch guys! Awesome! Thank you thank you. 

[ednos]

in new cRPG there's only one way to play : to win.

This is sort of the basic concept of zero-sum games. I play to win, but, personally, I can have fun without winning (which is good, because I'm terrible at cRPG).

In the end it doesn't actually matter, except that in a game without levels you can't argue whoever owned you had better stats etc. and over time it can become irritating. Especially if you feel you don't make any progress. With levels, this doesn't happen.

So in your ideal game, you are rewarded proportionally by the time you invest in the game much more than you are rewarded for improving your skill (through that same investment of time)? I don't want to say that's wrong, because there are plenty of other games like that--mostly dungeon crawlers and RPGs--but that's not the conventional approach to a fighting game. Generally, people play games in direct competition against other players because of their desire to defeat their opponents. In addition, humans tend to respect the player who improves his skill faster than another player with the same time investment, so I don't think you'll find many people sympathizing with your desire to perform better in the game without actually having developed the requisite skill.

[Templar_Ratigan]

Welcome to a balanced and fair game where your performance is not dependent on how long you've been playing. Welcome to a game that does not enable you to fuck around with retarded builds cause you are high level while leaving the the newer players at a forever disadvantage even with a minmax build.

Not what I was getting at. In fact I only had two characters with heirlooms and none of them were high level. If anything I was one of those peasants most of the time. But I pushed on anyhow.

I remember the days of hiding from the likes of Kesh quite well. I suppose our experiences just differ. However what has actually changed in this module with regards to:

Welcome to a balanced and fair game where your performance is not dependent on how long you've been playing.

?

Now it takes even longer to get to a higher level, would those same peasants suffer even more? Especially with the rise of heirloom culture and the marketplace. There are plenty of people at +31-2....how has this actually changed any of the problems with level discrepancies?

Of course, none of this would be an issue if you hadn't opened with this gem:
That's an attack, and unfounded at that. No one missed your point, but they certainly disagreed with you, and not everyone who holds an opinion different than yours does so because they miss your point. Sometimes they actually have different opinions build from the same data.

Of course people have different opinions, unfortunately those opinions do have an influence on this module and some of them have proven to be most damaging. Which is why we all come here and butt heads over our opinions.

As for missing my point...I can only ask what you garnered my point actually was and im not setting this up so I can merely change what that point was if you are right with what I perceive.