stiler

Member
  • Content count

    226
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Actually the mod that was fired was over almost all AMA's, she was the community manager and organized most of the AMA's (especially the big celebs) and ran a lot of things. She was let go with no real reason that anyone knows and on top of that it left a lot of the upcoming AMA's blowing int he wind. A lot of the subreddits went dark in protest against her being fired.
  2. I hope the developers understand the (importance) when it comes to the UI and What they allow people to change/use and what they don't. There are a lot of mmo's out there that allow UI mods that can hook into the game and grab information that normally isn't available for un-modded UI users, things like cast timers, your enemies mana/stamina levels, etc. With a game that's PVP focused I REALLY hope they do not allow this sort of "mod" for the UI , I Do not want people to see my own cast timers and other things that they (logically) should not be able to see. Part of the fun of fighting in PVP is making up your mind about what/when to use abilities and having to make split-second decisions on what you should do. When you have UI's that present this information (and some that will literally tell you exactly what the best ability/rotation is to do at that time) it completely takes that away. I am all for allowing people to change their default UI, resize windows, move things around to their hearts content, change the opaqueness and virtually anything they wnat to make it look how they want, but I hope you can not pull information and other things that will give you a "leg up" over people that wish to use minimal UI and other things.
  3. The thing is, you make them optional and it forces people to use them, at least the competitive/pvp crowd, but without them they will be at a disadvantage vs those that do. In this day and age there's no need for "Telegraphs." We can have animation cues and other "hints" that can play into what ability/move the person is about to do and over time as you play the game and leanr things this becomes knowledge. To me that is FAR more enjoyable as a gameplay experience then "watch the ground, not the game or characters." Telegraphs are a distraction from the game and force people to keep their eyes focused ont eh ground rather then on the enemies (Which is what they should be doing).
  4. What I learned from playing Mount and Blade with free-aim archery. Zig-zag, don't run in a straight line. Also if we can actually block with our shields that'd be nice, hold up your shield and hear the thuds of arrows dinging off it.
  5. I wholeheartedly agree with you here, terrain should play a much more vital role. Roads should provide the fastest way to go form point A to point B (especially when it comes to mounts, wagons, trade, etc). Also things like Snow, water, etc should affect your movement speed. Then finally Elevation. Not only should it affect movement speed but it should also affect line of sight and the total range for range-based abilities, archers, mages, siege weapons, etc should have an advantage if they are on higher elevation vs the enemy at lower elevation. There''s a reason the high ground has been such an important part of warfare thoughout the ages. When you lay siege to a castle that's built utop a hillside with walls encircling it and you have archers/mages/siege weapons firing at you from the walls it should not feel the same (in terms of movement, difficulty, etc) as fighting on a flat field like area.
  6. So that sounds like you can mix/match armor and where the attack actually lands (IE if it hits your head) then the stats of your helment is the one the damage is checked against rather then some "whole armor/resistance" value? If so that's good, will certainly lead to more strategy in terms of how people outfit and people finding weak points of an enemy depending on what they are wearing and where to hit them.
  7. I personally think that Feints (IE ability to start an attack with the intention of faking it) should be in the game, but it has to have a cost Feinting an attack should cost stamina and it should NOT be something you can "spam." Feints have a purpose just like in real life, making your enemy think you're about to attack or do something (while you know you aren't) and opening them up to defend vs that attack when you plan to use a different one.
  8. Some great answers and some not so great (imo). I am really bummed that they are doing teh same old "projectiles" disappearing after "X" distance. Nothing is more infurating in GW2 as an archer then standing on a wall with a huuuuge groupe of people laying siege to your castle while you're on top of the walls (which naturally would give archers a longer range then the people on the ground) and not being able to hit most people because the arrows have some tiny distance and they then magically "Disappear." Why not allow arrows to well, do what arrows do? Drop, arrows go "x" distance and over-time the arrow drops until it hits whatever it hits (the ground most likely). I mean, using a bow with a long distance like that, 150+ yards, you're going to be aiming up into the air so the actual chance of hitting something is low. That is why they used many archers at once, firing volleys of arrows into a group. I think it could be balanced out. I mean anyone here play Mount and Blade? I want to see you hit a target at distance (While they are moving) with an arrow, it's NOT easy at all and I think if we have "Free aim" that it's more then fair to allow archers to actually feel like "archers" and have actual range to them and not feel like they are all using short-range bows. I also wish elevation actually affected range, not only of archers but mages, siege weapons, etc. That was one of the key reasons why the "high" ground is so important (even in modern times). A higher ground gives you the upper hand and you should be able to use it.
  9. A few observations, I know this is a game and some things will most likely be different from real life for sake of "balance" but I think using real life brings even more possibilities as far as breaking the "mold" and not have things be as strict or simple for players. The main thing I think would REALLY work with the system you guys are going for is to take into account not only a "base" armor vs "weapon type" but rather take into account 1. The armor used, it's strengths and weaknesses, and then add two more layers to this, the specific weapon used and the type of attack used. Not all weapons are created equal, A sword is not simply a "sword" there were swords made for slashing, thrusting, half swording, etc. Also the "type" of attack could greatly determine its effectiveness against the type of armor. I will explain some things better going by armor type: A. Chain: It's listed as weak against piercing, strong vs bludgeon, and neutral vs slashing. 1. Slashing: Chains greatest strength was actually vs slashing. You couldn't really "slash" into it and that was its best defensive role. 2. Crushing: probably it's weakest protection. Chain is not "rigid" and the force from a blow from say, a mace, an axe (Which was more of a cleaving weapon but still) would go through it, directly into the padding underneath and it could do damage. 3. Piercing - This is a complicated one and why I think it would be better to take into account the weapon and type of attack. A sword made for slashing? Would not really be that effective at thrusting vs chain. A sword made for thrusting, like an Estoc for example, with a long tapered tip would be excellent against chain. Arrows? This is exactly why they made the famous "bodkin" arrows, because the broadhead arrows weren't that effective at sliding through the openings of the chain, so they created an arrow with a longer and slender tip that could get through it better. B: Plate - Listed as strong vs slashing, weak vs crushing, neutral vs piercing. 1. Slashing: Strong vs slashing, this one makes perfect sense, was one of the plates greatest strengths. 2. Crushing: This is another one that I'd probably have at neutral. It was plates easiest counter, maces, axes, but plate wasn't "terrible" at resisting damage from a blow, especially compared to chain. The types of macest hey developed for this were made for it, and larger "polearms" and such. 3. Piercing: Listed as neutral: This was one of plates BEST areas of protection vs any other armor. Arrows? Plate laughs at you, swords? not getting through this armor. You want to pierce plate? You're going to need a warhammer/pick, which contrary to popular video games at not huge looking weapons with gigantic round-heads on them, but rather look more like a hammer, with a small head and a pick on one side, with a longer handle. The force that you could generate with a good swing could get the pick into the armor (but even then it's mostly going to dent armor and maybe give them a concussion/bludgeon damage, because they were paddng underneath). For swords, this is exactly why they used "half-swording," where they'd grab the blade with one hand and use the sword more like a "spear" with the intention of getting the tip of the sword into a weak point where they could slide teh tip into an uprotected or weak area, this was usually the groin, armpits, or the visor slit of the helment. C: Leather: Listed as strong against piercing, weak vs crushing and neutral vs slashing. 1. Slashing: Leather armor (Which was usually boiled leather, which makes the armor hard) was quite good at protecting from slashing (There's a reason that many metal workers wear leather aprons). 2. Crushing: A Blow could go right through it, even with padding on under it I wouldn't want to get hit by a mace or something. 3. Piercing: This is where I'd have it be "neutral" it was ok at stopping some things but a good sharp tip could go through it. Overall I think it's a nice step in the right direction. I (personally, I don't speak for anyone but myself here) would like to see the game system take into account the specific weapon and the type of attack used. So that all weapons of one "type" aren't all the "same" damage (IE a Falchion sword isn't going to be nearly as good at thrusting as an Estoc type sword but it would be better at slashing) and whether different attacks can affect the effectiveness (IE A sword "thrust" vs chain = better damage then a sword "slash"). I understand it's a game, and a fantasy one at that and not a "simulator," just my thoughts on it all.
  10. I think you might be confused. Bucklers, unlike other shields were not strapped to your arm at all. They were simply held in your fist and this was an advantage in melee combat because if need be you could "let go" of it if it got caught or stuck somehow, unlike shields which were usually strapped to your arm and you could be pulled or knocked off balance by. The "dome" part you are talking about is the "boss" part of the buckler that I was referring to. This is the part that could have a spike on it. These are shown in many historical combat manuals, museums, etc. Having spikes was a means to make them more offensive, for stabbing at someone or for doing damage to their weapons. Also defense wise hitting a sword edge against another is a VERY bad thing (unlike what they show in the movies with edge vs edge parrying), this will cause knicks to a blade edge with hits and can even cause major failure of the blade that leads to fracturing or breaks over time. Here is a great read over bucklers and their many uses: http://www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBuckler.htm#.VVDgypOIkas
  11. Exactly, just overall more depth is what I'd like to see when it comes to shields and blocking. Also bucklers could have advantages (IE speed that you can move them) and offensive capabilities larger shields don't get, being able to jab someone with it, have a spike on the boss of hte buckler, or serrated edges to the boss to "cut" with (there are historical examples of both of these on bucklers), or even a "latch" that could be used to grab someone's weapon for disarming. Bucklers always get the short end of the stick in video games, and there's a reason they were used longer then larger shields, even one being found in the Jamestown settlement.
  12. I don't get why games don't use more active blocking mechanics with the mouse. IE - Hold right mouse button, your character brings up their shield and then you move your mouse around in the direction you want to move your shield. Like a simple direcitonal block, where you have middle block which is the "base" block you get when you press the right mouse button, then you have High/low block, left/right. So all in all you'd have basically 9 different areas to block, high left/middle/right, midrange left/middle/right and then low left/middle/right. This would allow them to develop blocking more realistically and also allow blocking to actually you know, BLOCK. More games need to stop doing the "Block = damage % still gets through" and actual "Block = block." (IE no damage). Would also make fighting vs archers more fun, seeing an arrow coming your way and actually having to "block" the area the arrow is coming. This would also make shields different, a bigger shield for example might be able to block more areas at once (IE tower shield could block "two areas" (IE if you are holding it in the base middle position it would block both the high middle and midrange middle) whereas a smaller shield, like a buckler, would only block one. However the tower shield would be "slower" to move so the faster attacks would be harder to block in time vs a buckler. To me this kin dof in-depth blocking is something I'd love to see a game tackle.
  13. Is there a description for the badges that denotes what exactly it's for? In my badges section I have both a Top hat with a "k" on it that says "supporter" and I also have a silver circle badge that is labeled contributor, what is that for?
  14. It'd be nice little easter eggs.
  15. Regarding a bounty system. Why not have a "bounty board" (IE a physical board in-game, located near a tavern or other foot-traffic heavy area for a a town) where players can go to pick up bounty "quests?" As far as people "Gaming" a bounty system (IE someone invited a guildie to collect the bounty on their head and then split it with them) there are ways around this. The most effective way around this is to assign bounty quests without direct-names (until you accept the bounty), to limit the bounty quest a player can collect (IE, limit of "x" number of bounties for "y" time frame, so a player can't just start bounties, see the players name, abandon it and then get more until they get to their "friend."). Then on top of this, don't tell the person they have a bounty on their head in the first place. Also only allow a person to "collect" on a bounty if they actually have the bounty quest and the bounty system would not allow a "friend" nor a guild member to take a quest against someone if they are on either the friend list or guild list with that person (it just simply would hide it in thei bounty board and not show that bounty quest). So basically, a player would be able to place a bounty on someone's head, then the game would start a bounty "quest" where it would place this into the bounty-board (for that region of the game world). Then a player who wants to find bounties could look through the bounty board, find a bounty and take it. Then it would then give them the details, IE player name, last known "location" and the bounty payout. After this it's up to the player to track them down. I think this kind of a system would work well, it would be hard to game (not saying impossible, you never know until it's tested properly) but it stops a lot of the easy "game" issues that other bounty systems have, where friends can collect bounties or guildies. As far as gameplay wise, there would bneed to be some ways to "track" the bouny down somehow of course.