LK的最近内容

Archonsod 说:

LK 说:

Natural selection works extremely slowly

点击展开...

It goes as quickly as a species reproduces. Bacterium can adapt in mere hours.

点击展开...

Congratulations on picking the organism with by far the highest reproductive rate and genetic variability on the planet as your example. It takes many, many years for most other types of organisms to undergo any kind of significant change.

Archonsod 说:

The ones who aren't - bullies - break the rules, and thus we have sort of a prisoner's dilemma situation in which those who are undeserving of survival (unfit) harm the chances of those who are otherwise fit.

点击展开...

A quick look at our genome shows the most successful means of procreation for our species historically has been rape. Generally, well-adjusted people aren't rapists.

点击展开...

Right, and this is entirely relevant because we live in 500 B.C. and rape today is a more effective tactic than family-raising to ensure your genetic material is preserved in the long term.

Archonsod 说:

At that point, it becomes a symptom of a socially maladjusted psyche.

点击展开...

And generally, far more successful at social advancement too.

点击展开...

Really? We are talking about bullies, right? The kid with enough personal problems even in childhood to make him/her want to harass someone else to the point of suicide?

Archonsod 说:

Actually, in the long run, it does. Why do you think humans have an intrinsic capacity for cooperation and sympathy?

点击展开...

We don't. Like every other species, we only co-operate in our own interest.

点击展开...

Almost, but you're missing the point. Like I said, we developed our tendency for cooperation because it usually works out in our own favor. When we help out a friend, we don't calculate every single time precisely how it'll benefit us in the future: we do it because something in us makes us want to help out, and makes us uncomfortable when we refuse help to a friend. This sociable tendency is intrinsic to us today because way back in the day natural selection favored those who had what we now call cooperation and empathy (and natural selection still favors it today), and when bullies exhibit a pathological lack of empathy through excessive harassment it indicates that there is something defective about their emotional equipment.

Archonsod 说:

Again, the fact that maladjusted individuals are harming the well-adjusted ones means that our system has somehow circumvented natural selection, to the detriment of our whole species.

点击展开...

Suicide is not what I'd consider a marking attribute of the well adjusted

点击展开...

Way to take my remark completely out of context. By well-adjusted, I'm clearly referring to how these kids would otherwise turn out if not for their negative experiences with bullies. It's not at all hard to see that an otherwise unproblematic child could be driven to suicide by constant harassment, particularly considering how emotionally vulnerable children tend to be. Such a child would otherwise have likely grown up to be a much fitter member of society than the screwed up kid who bullied him/her. The end result is that an unfit member of our species ends up being selected for survival over a fitter member, all due to our flawed method of dealing with children.

macethump 说:

This all came from, and was originally related to, the political situation in the US.  Here we have a whole bunch of academic intellectuals who have head knowledge and are cridited with brilliance by their academic peers.  They have very little, if any, real-world experience.  Our chief executive has never been the chief executive of anything before.  As commander-in-chief, he has no military experience.  His experience extends to academia and community activism, both firmly rooted in the far left (in this country).  He has appointed people like himself to office, and nominated such to the Supreme Court (especially the most recent appointee).  They believe their brilliance will overcome any obstacle, and thinking about something is equal to actual experience with it.  These are the kind people that brough you centrally-planned economies.

Brilliant people tend to think any problem can be solved with enough thought.  Experienced people tend to think that there are situations no amount of thinking will yield a workable solution - too many uncontrolled variables.  No plan survives contact with the enemy (reality).  I agree that really brilliant people would realize this.  But then they would fall back on what works (experience) rather than what their brilliance or idealism tells them should work.

I'd prefer the sadder-but-wiser experienced person over the brilliant-but-inexperienced person every time.  I'd really prefer the brilliant-and-experienced person, but those don't seem to end up in government here.  And those that do are usually corrupted by the system, or are predisposed to corruption.

Tiberius Decimus Maximus 说:

Oh hey, it's Macethump! Haven't seen him for forever.

点击展开...

I'm back, for a while (real life interference).  Or at least until I tire of baiting liberals.

It is strange that "truth" is invoked here, since it seems many "brilliant" people believe there is no absolute truth.

The "brilliance vs. experience" dichotomy is not one I necessarily subscribe to, but it has been forced upon us in the US by our current political situation.  In some cases, the brilliant are forward-looking idealists, not all a bad thing.  In some cases, the experienced have become cynical and jaded and hopeless.  Some of the brilliant become arrogant and unaffected by reality, insisting on their way because they know better than you.  Some of the experienced want change, but measured change to minimize variables and get the maximum experience value out of each change.  Both need a willingness to accept failure and learn from it.

"The only thing we ever learn from is failure. Success only confirms our superstitions."
- Kenneth Boulding

点击展开...

So basically you just hate Obama. It's ok, you're entitled to your opinions, just, you didn't need to try and disguise it in a bull**** thread about a bull**** topic.

romeo_longsword 说:

With First Aid at 6 from one of my heros, I actually gain HP up to full if I perform well from each skimish.

点击展开...

lolwut

Archonsod 说:

The point of natural selection is to weed out the genes of those who are less fit for survival.

点击展开...

Natural selection has no "point", in fact it doesn't actually exist, it's just a shorthand term for the concept that things which aren't adapted to survive in an environment tend not to breed. If in fact natural selection did work to remove genes unfit for survival, we'd never have had a natural extinction. Since we've had a few billion thus far you can pretty much take it as a given that the genes which are remarkably unsuited for survival get selected for an awful lot of the time too.

点击展开...

Natural selection works extremely slowly compared to timescales over which major changes in setting (environment, etc.) happen, which is why things like extinction happen; changes sometimes happen faster than a given species can adapt.

Archonsod 说:

Bullies are ultimately self-destructive, and they are certainly directly destructive to those who otherwise would have been fitter in today's society.

点击展开...

Yup, and thanks to magic pixies your DNA understands social psychology inherently, and eliminates any genetically coded behaviours which might therefore get in the way

点击展开...

Wait, what did you think I was trying to say? I was arguing against your suggestion that bullies are somehow more worthy to be naturally selected. Given that natural selection favors those genes that are better capable of passing themselves on, and given that in today's society those tend to be the genes of well-adjusted people (well-adjusted people function better in society, and thus are better able to produce young, and better able to care for their young), it is only sensible that bullies aren't, in fact, as worthy. Perhaps the only reason it doesn't work out that way is the unnatural way in which society forces children together in cramped quarters (not literally, but in close proximity) for extended periods of time, while all the time demanding that they be civil to each other. The ones who are likely to be well-adjusted later on honor this, since they are likely to have learned from their parents to follow rules, be nice, cooperate, etc. The ones who aren't - bullies - break the rules, and thus we have sort of a prisoner's dilemma situation in which those who are undeserving of survival (unfit) harm the chances of those who are otherwise fit.

If, like you wanted, we wanted to let natural selection work, we have to modify the way we deal with children, since children currently have a big problem with bullies, and clearly bullies should not be achieving the kind of presence that we're seeing them have - that is, their profoundly negative effect on future productive members of society.

Archonsod 说:

This is not to mention the common sense argument that bullies are less likely to function in favor of their own survival in adult society as successfully as those who are better adjusted socially.

点击展开...

You won't find any world leader who wasn't to some degree or another a bully, you might want to think about why that is so.

点击展开...

Key phrase: "to some degree or another." Jockeying for dominance is unavoidable among adults and among children. I'm - we're - all talking about the cases in which it becomes pathological i.e. bullying. At that point, it becomes a symptom of a socially maladjusted psyche.

Archonsod 说:

Thus a given individual's "fitness" should be weighted more heavily on how much he/she can contribute to society, rather than on how much he/she can take away from society.

点击展开...

Again, your DNA doesn't give a **** about the wellbeing of you or society, it just wants to pass itself on to the next generation as quickly and efficiently as possible. Anything else is merely a side effect, and you only need to look at the other species we share this planet with to see that it'll happily kill it's current organism if it means it gets laid quicker.

点击展开...

Actually, in the long run, it does. Why do you think humans have an intrinsic capacity for cooperation and sympathy? Why is it that all men haven't evolved to be serial rapists, if, as you say, the only thing that matters is to produce the next generation as quickly and efficiently as possible? It's because your DNA also wants to pass itself on to the next generation after that, and the next, and the next. Self-destruction for the sake of procreation works for things like insects because their life cycles are so short and they reach maturity so quickly that the act of procreation trumps pretty much everything else. In our case, we need to make sure our offspring survive at least until puberty, and for that we have to make decisions like not having sex if it means getting decapitated afterwards, a decision that happens not to be the optimal one for, say, a praying mantis. Thus in today's society fitness translates into being able to reliably provide for and nurture one's young (and in such a way as to endow that young with its own capacity to provide for and nurture for its own young, in the future). A socially maladjusted individual is in all likelihood not as capable of such a thing as a well-adjusted one. Again, the fact that maladjusted individuals are harming the well-adjusted ones means that our system has somehow circumvented natural selection, to the detriment of our whole species.

1) Get a horse, lance, shield, and a 1h weapon.

2) Keep your shield up at all times when not attacking. Keep weaving in & out of traffic. Try to keep your speed up, it helps a lot with lance damage.

3) Learn to time & position your lance strikes correctly against infantry and cavalry.

4) Against shielded infantry, charge them so you just graze their right side slightly with your horse, and simultaneously strike with your 1h. When you graze them with your horse you will break their block, leaving them open to be struck. You can't really use lances in this case, since you'll have to get pretty close to the infantry, and that distance is too short for the lance to do any damage.

5) If you don't have to, try not to fight shielded infantry, since you can't fight them with lances. The long reach of the lance affords you a lot of safety. By all means, if the infantry unit has its back to you then lance him in the back.

6) If you have a lot of foot soldiers and are fighting against a lot of cavalry, it's generally a good idea to F2+F4 multiple times, which makes them stand closer. You want to bunch up against cavalry so that when they charge you they get bogged down and killed. Nord Huscarls are extremely effective this way.

7) Training is good. Make all your companions get at least 4 points into Training asap.

8} Ranged: Rhodok Sharpshooters and/or Vaegir Marksmen. Infantry: Nord Huscarls. Cavalry: Swadian Knights and/or Sarranid Mamlukes. Mix and match these as you see fit. You usually want at least as many cavalry & infantry as you have ranged.

Fearghus The Killer 说:

LK 说:

fixed

male companions cannot marry other ladies, and neither can any other vassal in the game. male companions cannot marry female companions.

the only option they have for marriage is the player character. and that's not what's being asked

so no

点击展开...

What was asked by OP: "Can my companions, after they became lords marry the maidns of the relams or the female companions such as Ymira?"

Your answer was only partly correct (concerning Ymira), and now you have expanded it to exclude one of my points you seemed to agree with a sentence or two before. Male companions, once they become vassals, have all the privileges of any other vassal, including marriage. That's what I've gleaned from these boards.

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,116916.msg2819108.html#msg2819108

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,117118.msg2832584.html#msg2832584

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,113139.msg2731517.html#msg2731517

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,125719.msg3058792.html#msg3058792

are a few threads which touch on the whole subject. (I'll post more as I find them) There are others. Lots of opinion, but the consensus seems to be contrary to what you are stating. Blah blah blah.

点击展开...

Vassals never marry other NPCs. If they start single in your game, they'll always be single in your game.

Titan Uranus 说:

LK 说:

Archonsod 说:

It's one of the few remaining ways for natural selection to take effect, and should therefore be encouraged.

点击展开...

You have a sorely mistaken conception of what natural selection is. The same goes for your conception of why natural selection is still important.

点击展开...

1. Yes, it is natural selection, I'm not really sure why you would think otherwise unless you have no concept of it. I suppose you could argue that it is unnatural selection, but that's ******** stupid.
2. And this is far more important: He was joking you bloody moron.
3. That was the third post, this is the ninth page.

点击展开...

Hi Mr. Archonsod's forum attack dog.

To #2: then it was a stupid joke.

#1. The point of natural selection is to weed out the genes of those who are less fit for survival. Bullies are ultimately self-destructive, and they are certainly directly destructive to those who otherwise would have been fitter in today's society. They are self-destructive because they damage the psychological fabric of greater society in more ways than we can imagine: all of the unnecessary emotional baggage, all of the hate, all of the fear that burdens our world would be greatly lessened in the absence of bullying. Today our well-being depends on the well-being of greater society more than ever, and bullies, by being a detriment to the society that they compromise, ultimately are a detriment to themselves. This is not to mention the common sense argument that bullies are less likely to function in favor of their own survival in adult society as successfully as those who are better adjusted socially.

Whereas previously humanity's well-being depended on each individual's well-being, it's more the case today that each individual's well-being depends on all of humanity's well-being. Thus a given individual's "fitness" should be weighted more heavily on how much he/she can contribute to society, rather than on how much he/she can take away from society. Bullies clearly lose out. It is only by society's unnatural method of dealing with its children that such a violation of natural selection can take place. If you want I will post more on this last point but for now I've got to go to work.

you can try to butter up her mom and get her to talk to the dad on your behalf

Fearghus The Killer 说:

Artour Dain 说:

After my last battle Ymira told me that she likes Alayin and then Alayen said something smilier. That maid me think: Can my companions, after they became lords marry the maidns of the relams or the female companions such as Ymira?

点击展开...

LK 说:

no

点击展开...

right

blah blah blah, correct answer to the wrong question

点击展开...

fixed

male companions cannot marry other ladies, and neither can any other vassal in the game. male companions cannot marry female companions.

the only option they have for marriage is the player character. and that's not what's being asked

so no

no

Archonsod 说:

It's one of the few remaining ways for natural selection to take effect, and should therefore be encouraged.

点击展开...

You have a sorely mistaken conception of what natural selection is. The same goes for your conception of why natural selection is still important.

cardician 说:

LK 说:

The max level is about ~60, and it's been reported here http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,107537.msg2633429.html#msg2633429
that you need ~160 million exp to reach said level.

Now you get 244 exp for killing a top tier troop (more for knocking lords unconscious, but for the large part we can ignore them since they are so comparatively rare). This means you need to kill more than 640000 top tier troops in battle. Assuming that every single troop you kill happens to be a top tier troop, and assuming that you kill about 50 troops per battle (which is a very generous estimate), you need to get into (& presumably win) about 12800 battles. Assuming that you get into one of these battles every 5 minutes and that each battle takes 5 minutes (quite a conservative estimate), you would need to spend more than 128000 minutes, or ~2130+ hours. If you literally didn't sleep, eat, or **** and played 24 hours a day, you would make that in about 90 days.

So yes, you can make the max level without cheating... but you really can't.

点击展开...

Thanks for doing the math, that is awesome. Only 2130 hours at minimum, lol.

But c'mon, like I said, if you were truly patient enough it could certainly be done. You don't have to play 24 hours a day. In fact, using your estimate, if you were to play for 4 hours a day it would only take you about a year and a half to reach that level. See, that's not so bad Just takes serious dedication.

点击展开...

In most battles you don't kill 50 though, you kill close to half that on average, if you're good. And most kills aren't of top-tier troops, you get a mix of low & mid-tier troops in there so you end up getting half that experience on average. So basically my estimate is likely to be about 4x smaller than what a realistic play-through is going to be like.

4 hours a day, every day, for 6 years. Good luck!

P.S. That's not to mention the next level. 60 is actually not the max level, it's 62. You need yet another ~160 million exp just to get from 60 to 61. And then another 320 million just to get from 61 to 62. I know, because I did some testing with import/export cheat.

P.P.S. My primary intention is not to discourage you from trying to legitimately reach the maximum level, but rather to illustrate how extremely deep of a commitment it actually requires.

Ahh, the kill spam i.e. the sudden deluge of aquamarine-colored text obscuring my screen... candy for my eyes.

I actually had exactly this same thing happen to me once. I deleted my character and quit M&B for a week out of pure rage.

I guess if I had a do-over, I would've done what sirinian said: I would've just disbanded close to my whole army, especially the foot soldiers, and ditched most of my loot (and I think only items in the "goods" category, like foods, count as actually slowing you down) and ran for it. Things like these happen due to crappy campaign AI, and while there's nothing we can do about that directly we can try and mitigate the consequences. Yeah, it sucks to have to rebuild an army, but 1) we have garrisoned troops to cushion the blow and 2) it's a lot better than complete ruination.

Frankly, looking back on it, I think part of what makes M&B still attractive to me is the danger factor - even when I'm sailing smooth I can still get my **** wrecked completely in a matter of moments, and if you'll pardon the cliche, that's what keeps it fun.