搜索结果: *

Andalusian_Guard 说:

Thats the same quote all the gender confused gamers use...

点击展开...

It was the explanation given by Core Design for why Lara Croft was created and has become a meme.

ComingWinter 说:

That's retarded. Do you know how many people have a copy of Mount and Blade lying around? They might as well as just give it away for free. Be happy that this is coming out and be quiet.

点击展开...

Problem is though, if it's really just much the same game with a few extra's, it will be hard to justify paying for it.  I mean, there was a notable difference between say Half-Life 1 and 2; serious differences in technoilogy and sophistication.  In many ways, WB is just completing M&B rather then being an actual sequel.

I have not seen much detail on changes to singleplayer, and will wait for those.  But if they're not really quite siginificant, I'd probably just leave it and know I am missing little.

Kalnia 说:

Steppe horses: bred for endurance and hardiness, werent as physically big or muscular as European breeds but had far greater stamina.

点击展开...

Mongols during the invasions thought western horses were fat.  One said to a diplomat he was escorting "We use our horses for riding, what do you use them for?"

Amman de Stazia 说:

I would say that they 'paused' the natural process of state formation at a time in history when massive slaughter and the military enforcement of political agenda were entirely acceptable.
The process was 'un-paused' at a time in history when killing for politcal ends was seen as a grevious wrong, and military action was something to be delayed or prevented, regardless of the reasons for it.

点击展开...

Except the irony here is that this perception of a "grievous wrong" was clearly that in the west, and no in the locations in which they occured.  So it's just another form of colonialism, imposing Western standards onto non-western states, and insisting that any violation of the colonial structure is itself a a moral outrage.

It might well have been of long term benifit, for the meddlers of the 'international community' to simply wash their hands of their former colonies and allow Darwinism to take its course on a geo-political scale.  Of course, who would wish to be confronted with the genocide and destruction this would lead to?  Not the voting, CNN-watching public, that's for sure...

点击展开...

Well that'scompletely counterfactual.  The war of Indian partitian would not have occured if India had not been constructed as a singular state in the first place.  Nor would the Tutsi's and Hutu's necessarily been in conflict if there had been an authentic Hutu state and a Tutsi state.  But no colonial power had any interest in the cultural and ethnic particularism of African populations, and the borders were drwnb in referebce to other colonial powerrs, not in accorrdance with the "natural" divisionbs of the native populace.

The thing is, although colonisation ended with random lines for borders, there is no better argument for the lines that the various warring factions would want drawn instead:  Basically, the lines drawn by the Europeans upset everyone.

点击展开...

Yes exactly; they DID upset everyone.  The borders between France and Germany, while often disputed, do acknowledge that there are such things as France and Germany, and that they are two distinct cultures.  Colonialilsim forced distinct cultures into entirely unnatural formations that could not, and did not, last.  Europe sorted itself out into borders that werre for the mosty part accepted by those withing them, while the borders created in colonies took no account at all of local feeling.  That was a recipe for disaster, and disaster then ensued.

The only thing that might have prevented the post-colonial wars would have been a rebellion against European rule, forcing the natives into co-operation for their freedom - However this result in French Indochina led to the khmer rouge, the Vietnam war and the current situation in Burma - so maybe there is no good way to emerge from colonial oppression?

点击展开...

But I think thats just another kind of nonsense.  While there may be such as a thing as the Organisation for African Unity, nominally anti-colonial revolts are at least as much characterised by particularism as anti-colonialism.  Some thinkers have tried to broaden the idea, but the reality has usually been a specificially nationalist rebellion that does not partake of a grand anti-European narrative.  Whether they rebel against colnial control, a different religous sect, or domination of the state apparatus by a different tribe is pretty much a historical accident.  Buty, the colonial powers do have a responsibility for estabilishing thrse bizarre structures in the first place.

On the other hand, the two countries which spring to mind as having never been colonised by the Europeans are China and Japan.  It is difficult to argue that those two examples would prove that it is bad to have been colonised.

点击展开...

Thats not a comparison of like with like, but I would suggest they both bear out the point you try to dismiss.  They were both powers in their own right with their own identities, and neither went through a civil war as a result of partition by Western colonialism.

I would say they look like spear heads if only because it's difficult to imagine a belt-sheath that covers the projections while also holdng it securely.  But a dagger blade and a spear head are not miles appart; one design/mould could easily serve both functions.

Also the first and second pcstures are quite different - no protrusions on the second, and much longer with a longer tang.  The only similarity they have, really, is the bottom bulge.

No, the reason "we" make fun of them has nothing to do with their achievements or otherwise, and has everything to do with a bunch of highly ideological neocon propagandist bull****.  Through most of the last thousand years the French have had a peerless military reputation, to the point that they regarded the bayonet and close combat as their particular domain.    This is all just neocon revisionism and a bunch of pandering to an American prejudice that would reject anything "Old Europe" has to teach, the folly of which has been so recent demonstrated.  The final irony lies in the fact that this nonsense originates from a state that was beaten into humiliating retreats in, for example, Vietnam and Somalia, and whose military "prowess" rests almost entirely on being able to bomb from the skies unimpeded.

I've occasionally, but very seldom, heard people play music or get abusive in CS, never in BF2, and Allegiance, via Teamspeak, is very tight and disciplined.  I doubt it will be a problem, especially if limited to local area.  You can;t work on the assumptin that everyone is an idiot, nothing would ever get done that way.

Amman de Stazia 说:

That was my point, to some extent: No more to blame for that, than for Muslims and Hindus fighting each other over a bit of fertile land, or for Protestants fighting Catholics, or for Tutsis fighting the other lot in Rwanda...

点击展开...

But there is a difference where colonial powers - not just the British by a long shot - create artificial entities that themselves create tension.  This was one of the points made upthread; many African states have borders  arbitrarily drawn, with no account for the ethnic groupings that exist on the ground.  And seeing as there is no deep history of integration or wish to form a unified state, it's not too surprising that sometimes this breaks down into factional and ethnic conflict.  Indeed even the most recent war of note, the invasion of Iraq, could be argued to be in part a result of the way the Ottoman empire was dismembered, with bits of Iraq made into new statelets for the convenience of the victors (Kuwait) or splitting ethnic groups across borders (Kurds in Turkey and Iraq).  In effect, colonialism aborted the natiral process of state formation that would otherwise have gone on, and that has indeed been a contributing factor to later hostilities.

So it sounds, then, as if the scale of proficiencies is purely measured against inflicted damage, and then paying a point to buy proficiency actually adds a certain amount of "damage inflicted" to your record.  That would explain all the observed phenomenon.  If true, then there is no cost saving to be had by changing when you buy the proficiency - there is only one measure.

Captain Pyjama Shark 说:

Out of curiosity, how did this whole French military stigma begin?  I see no reason for it.

点击展开...

It's from Americans pissed off about the French refusing to support the invasion of Iraq and alleging it was due to cowardice.  See also "freedom fries".

Voice chats for MP.  They work very well in Allegiance and BF2.  Just basic stuff, like follow me, stick together, fall back, that sort of thing - ideally in faction-specific voices and accents.  And also, of course, taunts and war-cries.  It would help in-game coordination somewhat, and also lend more atmosphere.

Skandinav 说:

Please excuse me for asking if I am at fault, but I have a hunch that the level of your opinion surpasses your level of experience - would this be true ?

点击展开...

You're forgiven.  "Maybe".  I've been on the MP servers for only a few days, but I've been playing SP since 0.75. 

Sure many old players prefer 2handers, nobody is denying that, mainly because they are confident in their blocking skills and why not then use a big, and hard-hitting, weapon; but that has squat to do with general game-balance, please do be mindful not to confuse these things.

点击展开...

Right, and thus my point stands.  Problem perceived or otherwise, the prevalence of 2H's is not because the new players are taking them up.  Now, I DO think there are balance issues, and that can be discussed separately, but I struggle to see the case for 1H's as things stand.  Another point I neglected to mention about 2H's is that they double as anti-cav weapons too.  With all the positives for 2H's, why choose anything else?  I almost never use 2H's in SP, but I'm sure learning to use them now.  After all, what is the counter to a 2H?  Primarily, bows.  In equally skilled hands, they beat any 1H you care to name, and cav can only confidently attack from behind.  I think a bit more variety might be fun.

I'm not convinced.  I don't think newbs are taking the two-handers; precisely becuase they lack block confidence, the shield is far more comforting.  The 2H spammers I see look like old hands to me.  Also, it's just plain weird that 2H's work faster than 1H weaps; you'd think you were trading speed for damage, but in fact the 2H's have both advantages.  Plus the stun effect and the animation delay of losing a shield.  Plus, they can instantly convert to blocking as well as anyone.  I don't think there's a real choice between them at the moment; you are better off going 2H if you're confident you can pull it off, and most of the 1H use I see are by dismounted cav and missile troops.

Sahran 说:

It was agonizingly slow to thrust - I'd wager you could swing the spear twice in the span of one thrust.

点击展开...

Yeah I agree. And I find it surprising, the spear is held in a semi-ready state as it is; the whole point of thrusting attacks is that they are quick.  And it's not as if the spear does a whole heap of damage when it connects either.  It should be jab-jab-jab not a huge lunge.  It's possible the problem here is that you do need to do the lunge against horses.  Maybe make an overhead ready posture that jabs instead of lunging?

COGlory 说:

Warband isn't an FPS.  Un-fortunately, these same type of dicks that play games like CS:S, and MW2 are going to invade.  The simple answer, is, more admins.  Just appoint more admins.  To

点击展开...

Although in practical terms it's very similar.  CS has a large number of players with a bad attitude mainly because it has a very large number of players.  And the solutions are the same - interventionist Admins and developing a local server culture.  Plus, many would agree that pickup games are pretty random by comparisaon with clan matches.  In a very real sebse, having griefers and noobs is indicative of popularity and success.

Let's also remember this: the only people on the open Beta right now are those who already purchased M&B, and have a rather better idea of how the game plays and is meant to be played than may be the case when WB goes gold.  You just know there are going to be people who play nothing but the tutorial and leap straight into multiplayer, right?

Something that mnight help is adding an admin chat in a different colour from the all-chat and team chat.  Admin presence does wonders for keeping games on the straight and level, but the admin needs to be visible as such.  Some CS servers have special models with ADMIN written on the back to make the point; perhaps something similar could be developed for MB.

Wonderful thanks

HA's are strong in MP, just as in SP, but I think relatively fewer people play them then will choose lancers, as has been mentioned already.  I've also seen the Khergits get crushed by multiple factions in Team DM, which is about as tacticless as it is possible to get.  Khergits vs. Rhodoks or Nords on a flat cav-friendly map is their best option, but then I think you just have to suck it up; the map and teams are randomised and not entirely balanced all the time.  So it goes; it's only as few minutes really, and the advantage could easily be yours next time.  I don't think Khergits on a cav-friendly map are any more imbalanced than Swadians or Sarranids.  In fact, now that shields have passive blockingh and come up in couch, they are somewhat weaker than they used to be.

Melee weapons need a lot of space.  Ranged weapons take a significant amount of time to arrive, and have significant deviation.  It's not surprising the TK count is higher than that in many games.

I don't think it's unreasonable, and I don't think it's a problem.  The TK proportion is nowhere near 30%, it probably just feels like it; it's probably nearer 5% - which is still actually a lot.  It is definitely part of the learning curve, and MP plays significantly differently in this respect than old SP.  But you see it already, fights with dispersed combatants, and people learn.  It is in fact one of the reasons people are running around all over the place instead of being in tight formations.  Frankly I'm amazed there are not more, many more.

Servers have an option to set the FF damage, right?  If it becomes an issue it would be easy enough to have that at 50% as a convention, even a default.  Some other games are a bit "generous" in the same way.

tylertfb 说:

For you people who are in favor of this, exactly how many cavalry players do you think are stupid enough to charge into a braced spear? How many kills do you think you'd get this way. My guess: 0

点击展开...

That would be fine.  That would keep them off while the crossbows/archers plink at them from behind the spear line.  For some people, getting kills themselves is secondary to winning.