搜索结果: *

Bruck8 说:

It annoys you because the game sale WILL NOT FAIL in the way you want it (to fail not based on its quality but by your feminist deluded power of boycotting!)

By buying many copies of the game and encourage all my friends and colleges to buy it, I have make my stand to counter the like of you and make a signal to the developers: Do what you think right concerning the period's history and the sale lost or won will be judged SOLELY by its quality and not by any hypocritical sexist bull****.

点击展开...

Hmm? I think you misunderstood my post

Don't infer what isn't implied! I don't really care if the game fails or not. I was just saying that personally, if there is no option to play as a woman, I won't buy the game.

Bruck8 说:

Don't worry dear. Tons of other will buy this game just to annoy those entitled little princesses like you (some even buy a whole bunch to give away, just like me!)
Fair game!

点击展开...

Its your money

And why would other people buying the game annoy me?

Can't play as a woman = I won't buy the game.

Sorry for the confusion, was just commenting on your bracket

Wait, so Morii and M are in BD now? 

cave sexte 说:

Noosers, or some other dev, can you comment on why those units aren't available for the player to recruit once the appropriate city is owned? I have a single unit of marleons cavalry that feels very lonely and would like some company. After all, wasn't part of the point of the mod to add color and depth to the game? I'd imagine there's a balance or gameplay intent reason?

点击展开...

I think the reason is that it does add depth and colour to have non-player-attainable units. Five units that you can't recruit are balanced by you having access to many knighthood order troops, which the npc lords can't recruit.

Those special units add a nice bit of flavour to particular lords. Some of them also add a lot to a Faction's tactical capabilities.

The Kierguard Knights are a nice dedicated heavy infantry for a faction that can't usually match the Huscarl or the Blademaster, or even the Legionnaire (considering javs).

Fierdsvain get Valdis Huscarls, which are mounted huscarls. They are the only heavy cav that the Fierdsvain have, and add a powerful element to their armies, that can dismount and fight on foot very well for flexibility.

The Empire also get a heavy cav, which they lack (apart from Shadow Legion Centurians). Guardian Empire Knights are good lancers with great throwing abilities and very heavy horses.

Sarleon get the Marleons Heavy Cavalry, which are more of a medium cavalry despite the name. But their lances and morning stars mean they perform very well against infantry.

The only weak link is the D'Shar. They get an archer unit that in no way makes up for their poor/almost non-existent foot archer capacity. This unit is not really something that you'd want to be able to recruit anyway. Though it does look cool, so that gives it a small bonus.

These are the only unique culture troops. Other lords have other units as special bodyguards, but they are either faction units you can recruit, or non-faction units you can get in taverns, or knighthood order troops. And Inar Hairybreeks (Fierdsvain) gets Red Brotherhood Guildsmen, which you can't recruit except by capture or released prisoners, but they aren't that good anyway. Empire horsemen or maiden cavalry do their job much better.

In terms of the lords who get those troops, you'll never be able to recruit the guy with the Valdis Huscarls, because he's the Fierdsvain king. The guy with the special D'Shar archers is honourable, so get him to 100 relations and it won't decrease. I'm not sure of the exact personality of the other three, but I think the Ravenstern and the Empire ones are both the type that will hate you if you let them go after a battle. Aelfwine, the Sarleon guy, likes being released, but whines hugely anytime you give someone else a fief. But his cavalry are useful enough to put up with his whining.

JackBaldy 说:

I get the feeling that you don't know what reminiscent means.

点击展开...

Ok, on that note, I'm going to stop discussing this with you, it's obviously not going anywhere

But thanks for your fascinating replies nonetheless!

JackBaldy 说:

Hamelech 说:

Reading the rest of my post might help you see how I came to the conclusion.

点击展开...

I did, and I didn't particularly agree with it. Honestly, this whole argument is reminiscent of raging players calling other players no lifes when they get destroyed in a video game. Ironically enough, the raging player has spent more time playing said video game. Ain't that something?

点击展开...

Its got nothing to do with having no life. Of course I play a lot of this game, I love it (both native for the duelling and cRPG for everything else). I'm not trying to say that people who play a lot have no life - I don't particularly care how they choose to spend their time.

I got destroyed a lot in WB when I started playing. I only started getting good when I started practising (playing a lot). Since I haven't spent much time playing recently, when I play again, I'll probably be terrible due to lack of practice.
But I don't think I would be good after I play again because of some innate ability or talent at pressing buttons. Its just learning the mechanics, and then practising them until they're done instinctively, not consciously (though of course you have to pay attention in case of a surprise by your opponent).

I'm also not saying that practise somehow invalidates another player's ability to beat me in a duel. If anything, it makes me respect the time and patience they've put in.
In my experience it tends to be the people who believe that there is some kind of talent involved that end up raging: 'he shouldn't have beaten me, I'm more talented, he just practised more/got better gear, and I wasn't even concentrating etc etc'.

JackBaldy 说:

Why? Why will the other person do better? Because of time spent? You're blatantly ignoring several variables when coming to your conclusion. There's a reason why you see time and time again new players wiping the floor with old veterans in any given game. Some people just don't have it.

点击展开...

Reading the rest of my post might help you see how I came to the conclusion.

Catholic 说:

So you're saying that a person who played 10 hours will be better than a person who's played 0 hours, every single time, as long as they have same ping? And a person with 100 hours will ALWAYS be better than a player with 50 hours played? That's just outright wrong. There isn't even an opinion to it. I see novice players beating people who have played much longer than them all the time. I lose all the time to a player that's played two hundred less hours than me. You're just grasping at straws at this point.

点击展开...

I think the point is that if somebody has spent 100 hours practising duelling, and another has spent 50 hours, and both have spent as much time continuously playing (i.e. one hasn't had longer breaks between sessions, and both have played recently), and both have been actively practising (as opposed to not really caring about getting better and just messing around), then yes, the person who has done this for 100 hours will be better (barring other factors such as illness on the day of the fight).

This isn't boxing or football, it's a game where you use two mouse buttons and at most five keyboard buttons. The ingame mechanical variables aren't particularly complex.
A slightly faster reaction time irl doesn't make any noticeable difference in the game because the gap (for example) between when one player swings and when they hit you (the time it takes to recognise and block) is so large that only someone with exceptionally sub-normal reaction times would have difficulty with blocking once they had trained blocks into their muscle memory.

MadocComadrin 说:

Perhaps, but not everyone wants that degree of customization. Personally for Warband, I like aesthetic stuff, but when it comes to skills and abilities, I want to be a soldier, not a demigod that everyone knows at sight.

Likewise, when I first played MP, I got destroyed, but it wasn't for any specific lack of skill (not that I didn't have a lot of room for improvement), but it was my mentality. I wasn't aggressive enough.

点击展开...

Well, the stats difference isn't such a big difference. Especially now with the soft level cap. Skill (practice at combat mechanics) makes far more of a difference than levels do.
What the 'demigods' of cRPG are known for isn't their amazing gear or levels. Its how well they play. A cavalry player who everyone knows on sight has become so well known because they play cavalry very, very well. They know all the tricks and tactics that would make them a fantastic cavalry player at almost any level or with almost any gear. Obviously the stats help, but a high level player with good gear but no 'skill' does not become recognised by players.

And I don't know what you mean about the mentality thing. I can see that it maybe plays a part, but for me what it took to not be destroyed every time I logged on was learning how to block consistently, which attack to use, learning how to kick-slash (not so much anymore), learning to chamber and counter chamber reliably, learning footwork, and learning how my regular opponents played - seeing patterns in their style.
That's just with duels, but I'd imagine there are a whole load more skills you would have to learn for battles and other modes, which I didn't play much.

It isn't that a higher level makes your character unique. Its how you level it. And also the equipment you wear. In no other mod can you recognise players from across the battlefield.

Having so much customisation I think builds a much stronger community. You know who you're fighting against just with a glance, and you know who's on your team just by looking around. Frequent players become recognisable. And because you recognise them, it builds closer bonds with teammates (you see the guy next to you and know his play style and strengths and weaknesses, and you adjust your play to fit with his), and you also see enemies who you know need to be targeted for the sake of your team.

This is the sort of extra depth that cRPG has.

And your last point - this is often a turn off for people. But how did you start playing WB? Did you log on to a server and immediately were as skilled as the people playing there when you started? Personally, the first time I logged in I got destroyed, and continued to get destroyed for a long time. But then I learnt how to play better.

The same thing happens in cRPG, you just have to realise that it isn't just because the enemies have better gear and stats (though that is a factor, but its one that can be solved by maybe 5 hours gameplay), its also because cRPG demands a whole different skill set. The skills from native transfer, and are very helpful (ask the many 'native' players who started playing cRPG), but there are whole new ones you have to learn for cRPG. There are different weapons, different stats, and much, much larger teams. The type of tactics you use also have to adjust because cRPG isn't limited to classes and by gear, or at least not as much as native.

The problem here is that native does lack depth. cRPG brings so much more content to warband.

Everyone I know who refuses to play cRPG is made up of two groups. One consists of a very, very small amount of people who genuinely dislike the mod because they don't want to play an rpg, or they dislike a particular feature.

The other group consists of people who have a prior attitude that cRPG is bad. Most of them haven't played it, and those that have came with the attitude that cRPG is bad compared to native and weren't going to change their mind anyway. 

The only enjoyable aspect of native is duelling, and even then you can't duel all the time. The other modes have nothing to them - they get boring after about an hour. This is a personal opinion of course. Its also the reason that I stopped playing native and started playing cRPG (except for duelling). cRPG offers so much more than native.

Also, there is strategus, which is what I imagined when I heard about the next M&B being multiplayer - single player mode but in multiplayer.

If native is dying, then just play cRPG instead. Its more or less the same, but cRPG has hundreds more items. If you really don't like the levelling aspect, just get to level 20 or so and you're easily able to play competitively with anyone else, no matter what their level. After that you can treat it like native, just with more items.

(if) native is dying, its because its limited.

Archonsod 说:

The ability to have kids predates life. Various molecular structures are self replicating, it's little more than a chemical reaction. Life just adds complexity to it.

点击展开...

Ah, ok. So an environment creates the possibility of a self replicating structure, and then that somehow becomes more and more complex due to environmental reasons (?), until it is at the point where it evolves an ability to have offspring in a more complex way than just self replication, and that leads to a desire to have offspring, which is inevitable because something that complex without the desire wouldn't have children, and wouldn't exist.

I'm not sure I entirely understand it still, but it makes more sense.

One more question: why do things tend towards becoming more complex? Is it just that the environment causes things to become more and more complex until they are at the point we have now?

Merentha 说:

Wasn't talking to you, kid.  I just haven't posted on the forums for quite some time and was mostly saying hi to a lot of the older folks around here. 

点击展开...

Ok, my mistake.

Calodine 说:

We're born with a sex drive. We continue because it's pleasurable. We're engineered to WANT to have sex.

If undersea blob 1 has two kids - One with some mutation in it's brain to want to ****, and one without - Which do you think will have the most offspring?

点击展开...

The one with the mutation. But the undersea blob parent must also have this mutation, or it wouldn't have had two kids, surely? So its still the case that the desire to have kids and the ability to have kids are circular.

Ah ok, thanks for the replies.

It makes more sense now - there are very slight colour changes, but environmental pressures lead to the predominance of white.


Apologies for being insufferable. But thanks for indulging my ignorance and answering the question anyway!
I didn't think the answer was true because I was incorrectly imagining a bright orange Polar Bear born from a brown bear. If somebody is being insufferable, don't suffer them by replying.


I have do another question about evolution though:

The general idea is that the mutation is random (but presumably limited by the possible combinations of genetic code that the ancestor creature has already), but the environmental circumstances are not, as Blackfish said. (I'm just restating it so I'm clear about what I'm saying).

Why do animals procreate? I mean, why do two parent animals want to make other animals? This is always explained to me as a desire for species survival, but why is that desire there?

How did it come about that a creature would want to create more of itself? It seems as if this is true, that animals generally want to make more animals (otherwise they wouldn't do it). Why do animals adapt to their environments? I read somewhere that aphids switch between methods of reproduction - asexual if the environment is friendly, and sexual if the environment is hostile (because the first relies on only genetic mutation for adaptation, and the second produces a more mixed genetic offspring that has more chance of adapting).
So why do aphids do this? What makes them change the way they reproduce in order that their species has a higher chance of surviving? Why does the individual aphid care? Probably the answer is that it doesn't make a choice, it is 'programmed' to react that way.

But then the question remains, why is there a programmed desire to reproduce? How does an organism with the ability to reproduce also actually reproduce? It seems like such a circular statement - an animal can reproduce, so it does. An animal reproduces because it can.

Surely one of the two things has to come first? Either an ability to reproduce, or a desire to reproduce? And I don't see how one of those leads to another. 

Again, its probably ignorance that creates this question.


Ah, new reply thing: I didn't know the fur was colourless, thanks for pointing that out.

EDIT:

Hi! Interesting thread

I was wondering if anybody could help me understand the following:

Evolution is generally considered to not involve any sort of intelligent purpose - beyond a drive to survive as a species, and as an individual (where it aids species survival). I mean this by contrast with those who say that life forms, and their existence, is driven by some sort of intelligent design and plan. Obviously there are some things that don't fit that general description, or at least it isn't immediately obvious that they do.

The thing I don't get involves Polar Bears.

Snow is white. Polar Bears are also white (or at least nearly white). This is supposed to be a physical trait that aids their survival - the near whiteness makes it difficult for other animals to see them, so they can sneak up on their prey and kill and eat it, thus they get energy and can stay alive, which means they can reproduce e.t.c.

Polar Bears haven't always existed, according to evolutionary theory. Neither has snow (on Earth at least), according to whoever studies that - geographers? - and tells us about the formation of the Earth from molten rock and all that.
However, snow existed before Polar Bears did.

So, according to evolutionary theory, we can tell a story about how Polar Bears evolved from another bear-like creature, that moved into snowy regions, and over a long period of time some creatures born with whiter coats were better able to survive because of their ability to ambush prey, and so bred more successfully. Eventually we have the Polar Bear, a creature that has a physical trait that aids it's survival in that particular environment.

The bit that I'm having trouble understanding is this:

How did the Polar Bear become white? Why did it become white? The way I understand evolutionary theory, it would be random mutations and the greater chance of survival for those with white(r) fur. So were there also mutations that resulted in Polar Bear ancestors with red, or purple, or green fur? And these ones died out because they weren't as successful at hunting?

That sounds rather impossible. If it is true that the Polar Bear evolutionary line includes some (extinct) creatures with red, purple, or green fur, then it would make sense to me. But I don't think that that is true.

Is evolution (and I know its wrong to speak of it as sentient, but its the only way to make my confusion clear) aware that snow is white? The Polar Bear ancestor gradually evolved into a white animal, and snow (it's environment) is white. The only way I can see evolution as random (not truly random since there is the goal of species survival) here is either:

1) There has also existed Polar Bear-like creatures with every colour of fur possible (because the random mutations of genetics cannot be aware of what colour snow is).

2) There is intelligence, or design, in evolution. The environment is white, therefore the bear becomes white. Evolution somehow makes a judgement about the environment (can discern between colours), and adapts accordingly. Snow is not orange, but presumably evolution doesn't know that.

Could someone please explain this to me? I'm guessing I'm maybe misunderstanding evolutionary theory, or not getting it properly, but this to me just doesn't make sense.

Thanks in advance!

Which bow did you use?

Don't know if they're already reported, or even definitely bugs, but:

1) If you make a ruby bow (with the gems plus hidden mine thing) and have it in your inventory, then Wolfbode appears, after the battle it steals the bow! The bow was in my inventory, not equipped, and Wolfbode had spawned before once and I lost the bow I got from that already, if that helps. Also, the second time I wasn't close enough to get the god-bow. Is this intended - any ruby bow is lost after Wolfbode is defeated, even ones you make yourself?

2) Minor thing - if you get a village to Opulant (299) prosperity, it displays contradictory text when you enter the village - 'The poverty of X is unbearable', followed by text about how prosperous and wealthy it looks.

3) This is probably a WB thing, and unlikely to happen, so more sort of advice for people: If you want to get married (as a male character), there are problems if you are already king. I waited until I was king, recruited the Lady's father into my service. I made the mistake of giving him a castle while the marriage quest was underway - this confuses him, he thinks he is organising it in your court city/castle (where he was going to do it before he got the castle, I don't know if he actually will/can organise it in your court, since I didn't test that), but instead travels to his new fief and stays there (he won't leave, as if he is preparing for the feast, but he's in the wrong fief so he can't actually hold it). And there is another tricky thing to being king and getting married - you can't do it if your army is on campaign (has a marshal declared). However, the Lady's father won't organise the wedding feast if there is no marshal either. You have to make him the marshal, while you are not at war (so he doesn't do anything stupid), he will then disband the campaign very quickly, and after that head to his castle and prepare the feast. It took me nearly two game years to figure this out.

4) Again, minor and unlikely to happen, and more me being wilfully stupid more than anything else. Do not go to a Town when you have eliminated every other faction on the map, and ask the squire/elder guy the 'what is x's policy with regards to another kingdom' dialogue option. This results in an empty dialogue box that is impossible to exit except by closing WB. I think it represents the Town Squire's astonishment at your stupidity.

5) Ignoring the heartbeat (right term?) quests you get for fiefs doesn't have any negative consequences, despite it saying that its possible - you can just say that you'll return and never actually visit. Are the negative consequences only if you tell the messenger that you cba to return? It feels a bit exploitative - maybe they should have a time limit to punish lazy and lying lords.

6) Again, pretty minor, and again I'd imagine a WB problem (just mentioning it because it annoys me): When you hold a feast, fiefs have a limit on how many lords can actually physically attend due to where the lords are supposed to stand. Which means if you have a few lords in your kingdom that you need to get + rep with, but more lords than can fit in the hall, you have to hope they get to the feast first (or I guess ask them to follow you to the fief, then declare the feast so they get guaranteed places), so that you can actually interact with them and get the bonus after the feast is done. If you don't interact with them, you don't get any rep bonus for the feast with them.
It'd be nice if either more lords could be crammed into a fief (plus it'd look really funny), or maybe more feasibly if you could get the bonus just for them attending, not as a result of having to actually speak to them.

They're all fairly minor and maybe not worth fixing (except 1. because you lose 2 qualis gems in effect, and maybe 4. because you have to ctrl+alt+del or something else to escape the empty box, though I guess its unlikely to happen to many people), but I just thought I'd report them in case no one else has yet.