galonthier900的最近内容
-
Morale low from non-existant Valahir troops.
I have a negative morale bonus from (apparently) having Valahir troops in my party, yet i have none, i checked my garrisons too. Any suggestions?- galonthier900
- 主题
- 回复: 1
- 论坛: Perisno [S]
-
I cannot find a healer anywhere.
I've tried looking in the main town, dorestad, and I can't find a healer anywhere, can anyone clarify if there is a healer in this town or am I just blind. Thanks.- galonthier900
- 主题
- 回复: 2
- 论坛: Viking Conquest
-
Australian Official Servers - Not Very Official
aloeveraguy 说:
This actually made me fairly sick when i read this, if he genuinely tries to use peer pressure to get his hands on a server, that is truly disgusting and a very very low tactic.- galonthier900
- 帖子 #64
- 论坛: Napoleonic Wars: Servers
-
Advanced Warband mechanics guide
I've honestly never seen anything other than a pike/ashwood succesfully overhead through enemies, from personal experience from me accidentally hitting allies, and them I with all of those other weapons listed, im going to have to look into this for sure- galonthier900
- 帖子 #14
- 论坛: The Guildhall - General Discussion
-
Australian Official Servers - Not Very Official
Brother_Con 说:
You're such a troll and a bad player.- galonthier900
- 帖子 #55
- 论坛: Napoleonic Wars: Servers
-
Australian Official Servers - Not Very Official
Angusdabull 说:
This is the shining example of someone who shouldn't post on a forum, Regardless of what the good they have done for the Australian community, the bad needs to be examined aswell, in the future, try not to blindly follow and accuse others of being immature when your post is exactly that.
In the matter of the actual argument going on, I'm fairly neutral except that i personally have had some minor issues with LCC. Instead of focusing on "Whose the better server LCC, AGS or ANH etc etc." Lets focus on resolving the issue and avoiding further ones.- galonthier900
- 帖子 #11
- 论坛: Napoleonic Wars: Servers
-
Community Skill Levels
Orion 说:
How do you even arrive at such a conclusion? In a duel, there is only ever one person that can hit you. You learn nothing about positioning against multiple opponents from dueling. Basic footwork from duels would translate, but if you move in a group fight like you move in a duel you're going to die against competent players.
Anyway, most advanced concepts don't translate directly from duel to battle. They are present in both, but have different applications.
Timing in dueling and timing in group fights are different in scope. In a duel, timing is important for disrupting rhythm of your opponent and mind-games. In a group fight, you shouldn't be focusing a single opponent to the point where this is a serious consideration. Timing in a group fight is more about switching targets and doubling-up on opponents with a teammate.
Feinting skills can translate, but feinting too much in a group fight leaves you open to attacks from other players and doesn't put significant pressure on someone with a shield. It doesn't matter which direction you're coming from if I've got a shield that blocks them all. Like you said, group fights will teach you when to turtle. I turtle against feinters, because my teammates will catch them off-guard.
Chambers in group fights are much riskier than in duels. You're taking a risk by attacking into an attack, which is mitigated by personal skill of course but which is a risk none the less. If your timing is off, you can get hit. In a duel, being hit once isn't always a death sentence. You'll recover fast enough to block a second attack. In a group fight, you may get hit a second time while you're being staggered from the first blow. It's a matter of risk assessment. If you think you can handle it that's fine, but you always run a greater risk in a group fight. You don't learn that change in risk from a duel. Kicks are the same way. They immobilize you, opening you up to attacks. That isn't to say you shouldn't use them in a group fight, because you can if you're aware of the positions of enemies. If nobody is in a place where they can flank you quickly then it's safer to try a kick.
That plays into positioning. You're right in that you want to place yourself in such a way that you can either block all incoming attacks with your shield or only be attacked by a single player at once. These are things you don't learn in a duel, because the focus of a duel is on one opponent. You're always looking at a single opponent, so you don't have to watch your back. In a group fight you have to be aware of the positions of your teammates and your opponents, and you have to know how to move to support your teammates while pressuring your opponents. That sometimes means moving in ways you wouldn't in a duel. You can always backpedal in a duel, but you can't always backpedal in a groupfight. A simple example for a simple concept.
Very basic fundamentals such as aim and manual blocking directly translate into everything. That's why they're fundamentals. Your anecdotal evidence about your personal experience in learning from dueling doesn't apply to all players. Some of us learned fundamentals in Battle, like me. Battle is where I learned to block and feint, and where I first applied distance control. I started developing advanced concepts in battle until the duel mode was released in the beta.
Also, it's Orion. Two O's, no A's.
My belief is that the skills dueling teaches you, as mentioned in my previous post, can heavily influence the progression of your battle skills. While you try to downplay that fact with risk factor and so forth, the tradeoff for that risk is usually higher, if you are in a 3v1 and you chamber kill an enemy you have a significantly stronger position than you once did. Either by having to absorb less hits while you wait for allies, or being more free with how you dispose of the other two. Manuel blocking being a fundemental is a correct statement.. but doing it well is a skill all together more advanced and way beyond a basic ability, in duels theres typically alot of feinting, and if you cant keep up with the speed of that feinting, you will be hit, the ability to rapidly manuel block helps you to manuel block several people, shields being broken in teamfights is a common occurance, especially when versing nords or sarranids. At the end of the day, neither of us will ever win this argument because they are both based on personal experiences and beliefs, in an ideal world we could get two people who are exactly the same, get them to try different methods of progression and see which one comes out on top, but that isnt going to happen. im also happy to let you have the last say just so this pointless tirade of whose right and whose wrong ends.- galonthier900
- 帖子 #99
- 论坛: The Guildhall - General Discussion
-
Community Skill Levels
Orion 说:
Skills in 1v1s do actually directly translate into group fighting, including (as you mentioned) Positioning, timing and my own addition of the ability to quickly dispose of enemies. In my experience in battle (including the occasions where the server is almost or completely full) The ability to 1v1 well gives you a significant advantage, because if you're smart about it you position yourself in a way that only one can hit you, that comes down to dueling positioning also. the skills battle has taught me, is knowing when to turtle, and knowing how and when to do spin slashes at enemies chasing/sitting behind your current target, how to hold against an enemy player to apply pressure (Aka supporting your teamates) The rest ive learnt from dueling. Timing, positioning, feinting, Manuel blocking, aiming at the right body parts, double swings, chambers and kicks all came from me dueling. In my personal experience, i began the game with battle, i was a typical noob player, couldnt block well, couldnt feint etc. I started to duel and i learnt all of the above skills and applied it to battle, along with learning new ones. So yes Orian, dueling skill does directly translate into battle skills albeit you cannot learn all the necessary skills to teamfights from duels.- galonthier900
- 帖子 #97
- 论坛: The Guildhall - General Discussion
-
Community Skill Levels
there is no possibility of evidence, unless you are willing to come to australia and play with us.
you require common sense to see my point, if you are on a lower population server, and are frequently exposed to a high skill level player, in order to win you cannot just jump him with 10 allies, you need to get better at 1v1, or atleast 2v1. Thats how you get better faster. Thats why low population servers will rise faster to a high skill cap because in order to win you rely more on yourself than your allies.- galonthier900
- 帖子 #95
- 论坛: The Guildhall - General Discussion
-
Community Skill Levels
But, there have been a lot of times when I've been on USA battle servers with a small population (like at weird times of the day) and I was easily the best one there, and the other players didn't improve by necessity to beat me. They simply lost. Quote from MR.X
I wasnt talking about them improving in the span of half an hour, i mean that if you play on aussie servers you are constantly exposed to low population servers, and 9/10 there will be at least 1 good person playing each time you want to play, so you need to improve faster than the rate of which most high population servers improve at to actually be competitive. Those people playing the low pop servers in the US might not improve as fast because a:Good players might not frequently visit that server b:They might usually play high pop servers. Australian servers are consistently low pop. our servers have occasionally hit 64 players but only after sales and that dies in a week, this is just my two cents, and my own experiences observing fellow Australians new to the game improve rapidly to play at a competitive level.- galonthier900
- 帖子 #92
- 论坛: The Guildhall - General Discussion
-
Community Skill Levels
i agree with the statement that pubs in australia are probably more skilled on average because the servers are smaller so you are exposed to skill levels more, if its 5v5 and the enemy team has an excellent player then you need to get better to win, instead of swarm that player. that being said ive seen some really good EU duelers that would probably kick my ass, but i think i could name 4 australians that would get to the top of any tournament worldwide- galonthier900
- 帖子 #81
- 论坛: The Guildhall - General Discussion
-
Give infantry classes higher shield skill
Splintert 说:
Yet an experieced archer can kill an experienced infantryman, did you not here me say medium-high skill level? i didnt say i knew people who could take down 3 crappy people. Even a mediocre archer that takes on a mediocre infantryman can almost or completely destroy the infantrymans shield before he gets to him which gets rid of a huge bonus of not having to manual block (Which is probably the reason newer players go for shields anyway.- galonthier900
- 帖子 #17
- 论坛: Persistent World [M]
-
Give infantry classes higher shield skill
Splintert 说:
In a world where everyone has exactly the same skill level then yes this is valid, however that is not how Warband is played, i know many many people who could easily take 2-3 average-high skill level soldiers as an archer. Warband is extremely dependant on player skill so above representations are, in my opinion invalid. For myself shields are an encumbrance when im playing a soldier, id rather manual block because i use kicks alot aswell (kicking with a shield is very, very bad idea) but in PWmod i feel forced, that's ok of course because that's part of the gameplay but the fact its enforced is when your shield breaks you become alot more vulnerable than you are in native. The logical solution then, is increasing the blocking skill OR making shields stronger (which isn't a good idea because then certain classes like xbowman have range AND a really good shield.- galonthier900
- 帖子 #15
- 论坛: Persistent World [M]
-
Give infantry classes higher shield skill
As an experienced melee'r and also archer (native) i agree with yedrellow, if your sieging a castle an archer can destroy your shield much, much to fast. As to whoever said, dont fight in the open.. lets take the default map for example. there are NO non-open areas except inside buildings and to get to them you either need to stand next to it or hope to god you arnt shot down trying to run to it, chances are the archers wont even go inside even then so your melee skills arnt put to use in a "closed area", personally i play an archer whenever i join a faction (or man at arms depends on what we're doing) because anyone who is a good manual blocker can take down a melee fighter just as easily, albeit abit slower because of powerstrike, i propose 2-4 more shield block on infantry/sergeant (they have a terribly low riding level so charging an archer is out of the question and running away without a horse is suicide 80% of the time) and perhaps for other melee classes like lord, man at arms, crossbowman (crossbowman should be excluded because he has his own form of range) increased by 1-2. as for athletics i feel sluggish compared to native when i use light armor. plus alot of melee weapons do blunt damage instead of cut (which for some reason never seems to impact armor much unless you have a 2h blunt weapon but even if you have an iron pole which is 26 swing blunt i had to hit a highly armored target, FOURTEEN TIMES, to kill him and that doesnt include thuds. Adressing "lol get a better shield" comments. not every faction can make well covering shields like a heavy board shield, heavy kite shield covers your body but disintegrates so fast its useless anyway, the nord city have the worst bows, the worst cav (and weapons for cav) and dont even have superior melee weapons, the shields arnt strong enough to withstand archer assaults that a non-cav needs and the melee weapons (that would normally be strong like a long nordic sword) instead, do blunt damage. Archers need to be more situationally strong, instead of strong everywhere for lack of thrown from melee and cav- galonthier900
- 帖子 #6
- 论坛: Persistent World [M]
-
Player Suggestions and Feature Discussion
HunterAlpha1 说:
Yes i did notice that but not many to say the least. I was given ergellon castle (something like that) on the outskirts of our territory and had to sit there killing large amounts of bandits incase they decide to raid my village, while it may be silly to have an extra patrol per castle, an extra patrol per town isnt because there is a larger amount of trade and villagers travelling to and from, along with 3 villages tied to it. I was given Dhirim and there was no spymaster because thats only when you strike out on your own. So perhaps coding into the game 1 patrol per town, 1 patrol per 2 castles. So if swadia owns 4 towns and 10 castles there would be 9 patrols going around.- galonthier900
- 帖子 #142
- 论坛: Native Expansion [S]