Kozenger的最近内容

Ok, so no one is interested that changing keybinds makes the game unplayable. Good to know. I'll just uninstall and not worry about it again.

Kozenger 说:

Getting an issue where my troops won't follow my commands. I change the keybinds for troops and order selection. My orders are 1-6 and my troop selections are F1-F6. Makes no sense to press 1 then F1 and F3 when I can press F1 and 1 3. More keys closer to my hand. Not sure why it's causing an issue in this mod but I'll press F1 for infantry and 1 3 to charge or 2 4 to close ranks and I just get ignored. But I constantly hear the archers infantry cavalry call out when trying to issue the actual orders.

点击展开...

Any thoughts on this issue at all ? It kinda makes the game unplayable. I changed those keybinds when I first started playing Warband and this is the first mod where I've ran into this issue.

Getting an issue where my troops won't follow my commands. I change the keybinds for troops and order selection. My orders are 1-6 and my troop selections are F1-F6. Makes no sense to press 1 then F1 and F3 when I can press F1 and 1 3. More keys closer to my hand. Not sure why it's causing an issue in this mod but I'll press F1 for infantry and 1 3 to charge or 2 4 to close ranks and I just get ignored. But I constantly hear the archers infantry cavalry call out when trying to issue the actual orders.

Such entitlement from the customers in here, shesh. We get a free large update that the developers were not planning to do from the start and the thread is filled with discontent about a couple days from a gog patch. I for one would like to thank the developers for giving me free stuff and I look forward to playing Reforged Edition.

Tovias 说:

I am digging it but can't the fur headsets be more thight? It looks like some are floating and stuff.
You guys always shine with textures, fancy fur.

点击展开...

An explanation to why they are "floating" and what problems would be caused if they weren't is already in the thread.

Germanic Celt 说:

While the steam reviews may be valuable information, it is still not good for the game itself to be shown as having so many outdated reviews, which could influence the customer's decision to buy the game in its present state.

点击展开...

It is completely bad for the games sales. I imagine many people don't even bother to read the reviews and will just look at the 'mixed' reviews and move on to look at another game. Which is exactly why they mentioned earlier about people revisiting their reviews and updating them. I understand they're in a tough spot with those reviews and it sucks. The game is fun and there's a large free update that looks very promising. You can help by writing a new review, revisiting an old review, or continue spreading the word the game is in a much better state.

Dokka 说:

When I was going to buy VC (after the patches) I read the reviews and for a moment I thought in spending my money in something better, but luckily I'm an informed customer like Bob, and after a little research I found out that the game isn't bad as the reviewers say (I still had my doubts), then I bought it and for my surprise I found few to no problems (had only one once where the guy in the tutorial wouldn't board the ship)

点击展开...

Well there you go. That's how it's suppose to be done. Good on you for making an informed decision and I hope you continue to enjoy the game.

Germanic Celt 说:

Kozenger 说:

Germanic Celt 说:

kraggrim 说:

Kozenger 说:

I'll give you an example. Company A is releasing a new game. Bob is very excited as it seems like a game he would enjoy. Being the informed consumer Bob is he checks the companies previous games to get an assessment of the quality of work the company has does in the past. Bob finds many many reviews saying that game x, y, and z all had very terrible problems on release. He also sees that the company fixes up the game as they go along and the games end up being very good. Those early reviews are a very valuable piece of information. Bob can now choose if he wants to buy the game on day 1 and risk being part of a potentially bad release in faith that the company will quickly right any wrongs or wait a few days or weeks to see how it all plays out. Hiding all the bad launch reviews is a disservice to the consumer. Plain and simple.

点击展开...

Well, informed consumer Bob can still look up the negative reviews regarding VC's release. It's not like they would be stricken from the record in this scenario. Unless I'm misunderstanding and steam would no longer carry the older version.

点击展开...

Doing some basic research on VC still shows many complaints on Reddit, Steam forums etc. about that game's launch. Removing those reviews is actually a disservice to no-one.

点击展开...

Attempting to sidestep legitimate criticism by intentionally censoring or re-releasing a single DLC to "wipe the reviews clean", does a disservice to no one ? Please...

点击展开...

Legitimate outdated criticism. Most people aren't likely to read the dates if they're just quickly looking at a game. If most of the reviews coming up claim the game is in a bad state, then the people reading it are likely to believe that to be true, unless they read the dates. It's not a disservice to potential buyers, because if they wanted to look at the game's release patterns of failure/success they could simply google it instead of looking at the reviews, plus they won't read a lie stating that the game is broken. Thankfully, the top review says "Come back everyone, it works now", however the amount of positive reviews is still 48%, making it 'mixed', which gives a lot of random readers the idea that the game itself might even be bad when in fact it isn't.

点击展开...

Yea, it's a review of an earlier version. Still legitimate and useful information. The review date is the FIRST LINE below the thumbs up or down. It's in a different color and very clear. People who bother to read the reviews are going to see the date. Since we're talking about consumers who wish to be informed. You're saying people can just google the game or the company to get more information. That's totally true. It's something people who wish to make an informed purchase should do. Just because you can get the information from other sources does not mean Steam should remove all reviews before date X or reset the reviews entirely. The person who reviews the game in its original state has no obligation to revisit their review and those reviews, though outdated, are not incorrect. That was the state of the game when it was written. The 'mixed' reviews are the consequences having a bad release. If you wish to make a new review, encourage people to write new ones, or even try to get older reviews update then by all means go ahead. Removing legitimate criticism is not the way.

Germanic Celt 说:

kraggrim 说:

Kozenger 说:

I'll give you an example. Company A is releasing a new game. Bob is very excited as it seems like a game he would enjoy. Being the informed consumer Bob is he checks the companies previous games to get an assessment of the quality of work the company has does in the past. Bob finds many many reviews saying that game x, y, and z all had very terrible problems on release. He also sees that the company fixes up the game as they go along and the games end up being very good. Those early reviews are a very valuable piece of information. Bob can now choose if he wants to buy the game on day 1 and risk being part of a potentially bad release in faith that the company will quickly right any wrongs or wait a few days or weeks to see how it all plays out. Hiding all the bad launch reviews is a disservice to the consumer. Plain and simple.

点击展开...

Well, informed consumer Bob can still look up the negative reviews regarding VC's release. It's not like they would be stricken from the record in this scenario. Unless I'm misunderstanding and steam would no longer carry the older version.

点击展开...

Doing some basic research on VC still shows many complaints on Reddit, Steam forums etc. about that game's launch. Removing those reviews is actually a disservice to no-one.

点击展开...

Attempting to sidestep legitimate criticism by intentionally censoring or re-releasing a single DLC to "wipe the reviews clean", does a disservice to no one ? Please...

Dokka 说:

Kozenger 说:

Releasing a game of the year isn't intended to side step bad reviews. Its intent is to place all DLC into a nice neat package so it's one quick and easy purchase. It's a convenience and they don't give it out for free. What you're proposing is a re-release of a single DLC with the intent to deceive people. The DLC had a very bad release and people deserve to know that.

点击展开...

Those bad reviews are deceiving people too, just imagine a random Bob browsing the steam store, then he finds Viking Conquest, a DLC of a game  he never played or knew, then he checks the reviews, and what does he see? People talking about texture problems, crashes and bugs and that you should avoid this game like the plague, and what would he do? He for sure would ignore VC and search another game, then tell me, is this fair? Should this nearly bug-free version of Viking Conquest be judged by what it was before?

点击展开...

Yes it is fair. If your random Bob is bothering to read them at all then I assume he's trying to be an informed consumer. You forget there are good reviews there as well. Many stating that the current condition of the game is not the same as release.

I'll give you an example. Company A is releasing a new game. Bob is very excited as it seems like a game he would enjoy. Being the informed consumer Bob is he checks the companies previous games to get an assessment of the quality of work the company has does in the past. Bob finds many many reviews saying that game x, y, and z all had very terrible problems on release. He also sees that the company fixes up the game as they go along and the games end up being very good. Those early reviews are a very valuable piece of information. Bob can now choose if he wants to buy the game on day 1 and risk being part of a potentially bad release in faith that the company will quickly right any wrongs or wait a few days or weeks to see how it all plays out. Hiding all the bad launch reviews is a disservice to the consumer. Plain and simple.

kalarhan 说:

lol just use the old trick:

- release the new version as a new game
- give owners of the old version a free copy

they do that all the time on Steam with Director's Cut or GOTY editions.

点击展开...

Releasing a game of the year isn't intended to side step bad reviews. Its intent is to place all DLC into a nice neat package so it's one quick and easy purchase. It's a convenience and they don't give it out for free. What you're proposing is a re-release of a single DLC with the intent to deceive people. The DLC had a very bad release and people deserve to know that.

ThorsHammer 说:

You spend 2 hours doing your make-up and hair ?

点击展开...

I spend exactly zero minutes doing my make-up and hair.

The women are f__k ugly. Good. So are the men. As both they should be. People in this period of time didn't have the luxury of spending two hours in front of a mirror every day getting their hair and make up right. Because not starving to death was more important. There was very little scientific advancement because almost no one had free time. Everyone was too busy working the farms every waking moment to stay alive. While symmetrical facial features were probably in demand back then as they are today there were more important things to consider.

I will agree on the variety points though. Most of the women look way too similar.

In light of learning that prosperity directly relates to max troops at a castle/town I decided to switch my usual mount and blade tactic of take and hold into burn it all to the ground. Spent about a month of in game time just raiding villages until the castles troop count started to drop. Then ravaged the castles and cities. Although I didn't gain any ground personally my trail of destruction allowed my faction a reprieve to regroup and push forward on multiple fronts.

The marshal owns Mame Ceaster. I know for a fact he pulled the first batch out while I was still waiting to be awarded the fief. I had an odd number of Sailors, Svear Warriors, and Veterans garrisoned and checked his men after I saw them go missing and he had the exact same numbers that were missing.

I suppose low prosperity limiting the amount of garrison I'm able to place in the town makes sense but I wish there was something to let me know. Eidynburh was flip flopping between factions for quite some time. Northumbria seemed to enjoy being at war with half the factions. We were even fighting Danmark for a while which made zero sense considering the events of the campaign up until the point I'm at. So it's likely the prosperity was in the toilet.