搜索结果: *

High chief Kieran 说:

@ CryptidByte you are giving the order to charge again before they all reached the place they need to regroup at, you might also want to tell them to face the enemy before you give the charge order or half of them will charge in and the others will still be busy turning around to face the enemy (and by doing so blocking others who are trying to charge in, breaking up the charge even more).
again, i an not saying melee cav is strong but with propper micromanagement you can make them work better.

点击展开...

I'm aware. But look at the video. Do you really think no one from the enemy army, there, should've died under that kind of impact? In Warband, horses do a lot of blunt damage on charges, so even if the lance missed (they seem to use the same terrible AI in terms of lances), the horse impact itself was devastating. In Bannerlord, however, I barely seem to do much damage on impact.

Shaf 说:

I started my first game as a Khuzait on realistic. Now since I haven't ever had an army without horse archers it feels like they are key to winning. I can beat an army 50% to twice as big as me if they are all infantry. The strategy is simple. I charge with the horse archers and they do a really good job at kiting infantry. They run around and break their cluster up and pick off a few. After the enemy is in a scattered mess I send in the calvary, since their weakness is hitting a pike wall and excel at picking off stragglers. Then I just charge in what ever left over troops I have trusting the enemy is probably close to fleeing anyway.

Big key is horse archers are kind of weak to getting lanced down. The majority of all armies I've fought aren't cav heavy. If they have like 10 cavs I just try to get them to focus me and kill them. If it is heavy cavs. I just do a charge with everything but keep my infantry in a small cluster.

I strongly believe there is nothing stronger for defeating people on the world map than calvary.

点击展开...

If you include archers as part of cavalry, then the post doesn't count. As I said, anything ranged is broken, en masse. If you don't believe me, try an army of Vlandian crossbowmen, or better yet, Battanian's noble line. You'll wipe the enemy like it's a joke. Ranged is broken, ranged on horses will also be broken.

I'd like nearly pure melee cavalry armies to prove my point. I'm having a hard time winning with melee cavalry, despite needing to upgrade them with horses, and then very expensive warhorses. They also don't lance very well at all.

Example Video. Observe the very first few seconds, where the cavalry roars in en mass in perhaps one of the most beautiful wedge formations I've seen. Notice how only 2 people die on the charge, both horse-men, despite managing to easily push through (IE, not stopped by the spears). Lances are completely useless, it feels.


The only difference for me, is that once my troops are stuck inside a blob, they're dead. These guys somehow did just fine, so I'm unsure if it's the faction, or the spearmen troops they're facing are just bad, or if what's up. But my Vlandian knights usually end up dead at this point. When you get such a beautiful charge off, I want to see death and destruction. If my cavalry aren't going to be like the Swadian Knights of old, and instead be shock cavalry. Then they need to perform well on the first engagement.

Have you been to other areas of the game? It depends on the location, it seems. For example, the Sturgians have the absolute. Utter. Complete. WORST tournament type. And that is spear and shield combos.

Do you have any idea how long it takes to kill someone with a spear, on the ground, while you're both in heavy armor?

Kryptox 说:

Ive got a party with 200 cavalry units ( ca. 130 horse archers and 70 heavy cav) and its just so op. On the field cav is totally broken in my opinion because it cant be stopped effectively. They just run over infantry and archers if it was nothing. I am playing on "easy" and my army also slaughtered the double size of enemies for ease with around 50 losses. Although i think cav is way too op its pretty fun looking at hundres of arrows flying into the enemy.
But i have to agree: In tournaments the Cav AI is dumb af like in Warband. Its a bit sad but in open field its pretty well done.

点击展开...

Horse Archers have always been good, because ranged units have been overpowered since forever. Vlandian cavalry doesn't have horse archers. Full units of skirmishers and noble archers in Battania, whole armies of crossbowmen with some melee cav to distract enemy troops, really... anything ranged is utterly broken en mass. My problem seems to be that an army composed majorily of melee cav seems to be terrible, in the open field.

I'm looking more for Rohan, less Ghengis Khan.

Can anyone of you that seems to be able to get Vlandian cavalry to work, post some vids or something? I'm not understanding. No matter what they do, they seem to get completely and utterly wrecked. I've seen them killed by three recruits. Armor seems to barely do anything for them, and they die so. SO easily. And even at 69 medicine, I've got a 0.7 casualty survival chance (which feels kinda like a slap in the face for it to be so abysmally bad in terms of ratio). So when a knight dies, it really hurts.

Osium 说:

Mouse over my user name, and note the join date. I've had this very argument, on these very forums, probably when you were still in diapers

点击展开...

Don't bother responding to people like that. They're rude, and trying to get a rise out of you. A troll statement, accompanied by clown pictures - extremely rude.

On what way? Look, I can argue with you mono, about humor. I think I did it well, given I literally copied someone else's words, and wrote it using their prompt. Thus, I was limited in how I could phrase something.

Being ideologically opposed to EA, IS NOT AGAINST Steam's guidelines. Had a game like. I dunno. Shadow of War released into early access with micro transactions in a singleplayer game then I would be. Completely. ****ting on it. Because I am ideologically opposed to loot boxes, especially in a singleplayer experience. This is not against Steam's laws.

Nothing I said is ban worthy. Nothing. I don't care if I'm perceived to be against Bannerlord. What I said does not constitute a ban, except under some very, very questionable reading. By a moderator that should not be in charge, or was having a bad day, or wasn't paying attention, or was whatever.

Edit: Now that I vented, I agree that I'll wait it out. But I don't know how bans work, and whether or not this stays with my Steam history forever. If that's the case, I might contact support after I'm no longer banned, since I don't want this on my record. Or whatever you want to call it. It really does bother me.

Honestly, I have no opinion. It'd be nice, but... eh? These discussions are usually fruitless, and crop up at the weirdest areas, like Rimworld, Kenshi, even Starsector. If it's a good singleplayer game, someone always is like, "Why no coop?"

Alright. Enough. I need someone to read it, and explain WHERE I am soliciting negative reviews. Even if it's taken outside of the context of the reply, using someone else's argument format, used ironically. Even taken as a stand alone:
I state that the fact games aren't review bombed in EA, leads to more companies using it as a platform for bug-testing and bug-ridden releases.
I speculate that if Taleworlds continues to do this, it'll lead to future titles that are of similar quality on release.
I claim the reason it has so much positivity and players is due to Warband, and that if you want more Early Access titles instead of fully released games, don't complain.

Now. Again. What here is ban-worthy, and how is this not appropriate criticism?

R4MPZY 说:

From what i could gather in the post you linked, you seem to be against EA games in general " studios stop caring about releasing a fully fleshed out product before asking for people's money"

Later on you post about Warband being the reason for Bannerlords succes, despite M&B originating from...an EA aswell..

Did you just invalidate your own post ?

点击展开...

No, I didn't. Did you read his? I just wrote everything he said, in opposite more or less. With his quoted, on purpose, so my statement wouldn't be taken out of context, which for some reason, everyone seems to insist this was a stand-alone post, in a stand-alone thread, that I made. Which I did not. Among many posts.

My point is. HAD I said that EA is bad for consumers. Do I REALLY need to be banned for that? Excuse me? But that wasn't my point. More importantly, if someone can be banned for telling people to negatively review a product under such a loose definition, then anyone that does the opposite, asking to positively review a game, should also be banned.

Occyfel 说:

I agree with Michael, looking at bannerlord, I think they should improve ai when using spears, and maybe add pike bracing.

点击展开...

Only if the pike is destroyed in the process, potentially with the man dying too. Pikes, again, were long lances. They did not exist at the loose time period this game is set within. If pike bracing is added, then I'd like full. Plated armored knights, and no shock cavalry. You don't have to complete the charge to murder people from horse back.

Also, most cavalry was always outnumbered. However in Bannerlord, you can evenly number your cavalry. I want them to be as effective as a knight should be, not some weird rock-paper-scissors contest. I like how Total War handles this the most. High tier cavalry will still wreck high tier spearmen... though take really unfortunate losses. Also, the spear units always have way more units. Cavalry should be hard to get, not nerfed for balance.

manonskis 说:

I'm not going to read through the whole thread, but I have much of the same thoughts as the OP. It has become clear to me that TW does NOT have a dedicated QA team or process. As things were implemented and added to single player, they were simply not rigorously tested before continuing with more features. They must not have good testing practices, and fail to do regression testing in any meaningful way. In TW's defense, they are a small company, and this is their biggest project so far. In addition (as has been stated by a developer), they are in Turkey - they don't have access to very experienced project managers and they admit much of the past 8 years has been spent on learning how to develop a game of this scope.

The game is still fun, and I am sure it will get better over time. I hope people also remember that native Warband wasn't exactly a highly polished game to begin with (lmao). Nonetheless, TW has demonstrated their ability to make a fun game and expand on it. Bannerlord clearly has a good framework, and after working out the current kinks, I am sure they will begin to add features and make it better.

点击展开...

This. Most of us want to see Taleworlds succeed. But it doesn't help trying to insult consumers for complaining about things. Let's hope we can all enjoy the game they envisioned soon.

I'll add my two cents. Pikes were invented WAY later into the game, and showed up in the Late Medieval era. Cavalry started to have a seriously hard time keeping up in the Early Modern age. Given this game takes place before Warband, horses should be more effective based on historical examples, not less. The fact you need a real horse to upgrade troops in that direction, and a warhorse for a larger upgrade helps. Perhaps increasing food costs for horses in inventory would help too. There's several ways to tackle this, without trying to insist on an outdated and dull Rock-Paper-Scissors mechanic that takes away from the majesty and power of these animals.

The only thing that helps with loading, is an SSD. Consider getting one, if you don't have one yet. Helped with Skyrim immensely.

Save the image, repost to a site that's not 4chan. (My recommendation is Imgur)

I think you failed to notice the topic title that Doc started. This is why context is important. He called it review bombing, which it's not, given it holds a 83% positive rating, deserved in my opinion. This is why it's important to know the context something was said within. He wanted people to stop complaining about the game, on the context it was in EA. I, personally, disagree with this opinion. Had Fallout 76 been released into Steam's EA, I would've complained about it. While other games, I did not.

Again. I bought Rimworld, Kenshi, and Project Zomboid while they were in early access. And 7 Days to Die. Plenty of which I left positive reviews for. There is no ideological viewpoint against EA, unless someone really, really wants to read into it as such, while not paying attention to anything else I wrote.

I even went on, in a later post, to agree with Doc's premise on the way someone complains.

It doesn't make it worse. You just quoted me, but in reality, you quoted Doc. None of those views are mine. They were the exact opposite, Yin to Yang of someone's elses body. Read both to compare and contrast.

Either A) We are both wrong, one an ideological promotion of EA, the other an ideological strike against EA. Or B) Two people arguing about whether or not complaining about a game, in EA, is warranted. B was by vote.

But if A, then I cannot see how I am at fault, even if the context is removed, unless he too was banned. It comes across "So long as I am promoting negative reviews, I'll be banned. But if I'm promoting positive reviews..."

Tomweya 说:

It's artificial because your Review has nothing to do with the game or the game company.

The people complaining are being told to hush because there's a MASSIVE disclaimer on the store page explaining that the game is unfinished and not ready, including a "we suggest you wait if this isn't acceptable to you" section. That being said those same people are absolutely fair to go review the game and say it's a buggy incomplete mess, those early access reviews will be flagged as such and won't have a huge impact long term.

It'd be like saying "We should review bomb this game because their website uses 14pt font", it's arbitrary and punishes a developer for doing nothing wrong.

点击展开...

What are you talking about? My statement, out of context, might indeed imply such a thing. Especially had I been the creator of the thread. But given the context the exact same thing could be said about the initial thread and poster. More over, my statement could and should be viewed as humor, as it was intended. Doc's points seemed unfair.

This wasn't a call to action. Again. Context.

Fair point. But what was artificial about it? Perhaps a talk with said moderator is in order. I can stay banned. I'll live through this, I'm sure. Though I half-hope Doc gets in trouble too - but that's me just being cruel.

But by that logic, of course, creating a thread dedicated to telling people to stop complaining seems far more artificial, than me using the person's exact format to make a literally reversed argument against them.

Here's the full mock up. It doesn't, of course, show my post history, and the areas I was defending the game, but it's cited as the reason I was banned.
Essentially, Mister Doc starts a fairly inflammatory thread, kinda battling it against multiple people. I decided, unwisely it seems, to try and point out the insanity of his statements by copying his outline, but reversing the words, more or less. I'm open to criticism on whether this was truly inappropriate - to me, it seems like a humorous way to point out the flaw of his logic, and given the context, obviously wasn't a "call for negative reviews".