Search results for query: *

can't see your images Art. 

Absolutely

Darian said:

And you call that bloom? THIS is bloom!

Click to expand...

What game is that from?

oh, good  I will go find them now

Well I'm lvl 21 now and I haven't seen any eastern raiders..

Have they been removed   

Why? They were my favorite thing in BoW Ex..

Can I edit a file to get them back in my game?

You aren't out of action for 22 days, you just have to be really careful for 22 days.

F50 said:

[quote author=linehand]
When sieges are handled by auto-calc there is already a major defensive advantage given to the defenders. I think it gives defenders a 5x advantage. That is why the AI will usually only siege if it has 5 times the number of troops that the garrison has.

Clearly the problem here is not that the defenders lack an advantage, the problem is that the AI knows exactly what that advantage is and it will only siege if it exceeds the advantage. Thus in AI vs AI sieges the attackers almost always win.

So auto-calc sieges should give the defenders a random range of 4x - 7x advantage. The attackers should also randomly assume how much they should compensate. So sometimes they will attack when they have 4x the garrison and sometimes they will only attack when they have 7x garrison. This way we will see the attackers sometimes win and sometimes lose in the auto-calc sieges.

Click to expand...

There is no need to be random. The AI wins most sieges because it only attacks when it is sure of victory, unlike in open battle. Furthermore, a random battle advantage doesn't make sense at all. The *advantage* should be able to be determined by both commanders, the *result* should have small-ish random element.



Damien is making some valid points, but instead of focusing on the reason he ridicules you instead. It is possible that you deserve it, though.

Also having the factions perfectly balanced would make the game more boring in my opinion. But that is pretty much beside the point because when considering all the other issues, it just isn't very feasible.

Click to expand...

This is a straw man (making more balanced vs making perfectly balanced), and a naturalistic fallacy (because we can't achieve it we shouldn't try to make any progress in that direction). I have also never seen a game where making it unbalanced would make it more fun (?!) and consider that to be absurd. In most games balance=fun (battlefront II could've been fun had only it been balanced). At least a modicum of balance should be preserved in this game. The two most obvious balance flaws are the Rhodocks and the auto-resolve battle button (like a looter could kill a hired blade when the looters are outnumbered 2 to 1, hah!) and it is not fun when you are knocked out when your party runs into looters.
[/quote]

You make some very good points F50, although I can think of some unbalanced games that were more fun because of it.

Ever play Aliens Vs. Predator (the original, AVP 2 kind of sucked in comparison IMHO). In AVP 1 predators could turn invisible, heal themselves, immune to fall damage, had insta kill auto-aiming weapons.. Just insanely unbalanced. I always played a marine in multiplayer and I got pretty damned good at taking out predators. They would often get really pissed off after getting repeatedly owned by a marine because they thought they had so much of an advantage I couldn't possibly win. I developed tactics that were highly effective against them. I loved that game because it was so imbalanced. It made it so much more satisfying to kick a predators ass. Also it was never easy, there was no easy tactic, the tactics I used were extreme and required constant action and never letting your guard down even for a moment, and never giving the predator a moments respite lest he just heal himself. It really captured the feel of the predator movies where the hero has to go through hell just to defeat a single predator.

I think rhodoks could be made a little tougher but at the same time I like playing as Rhodoks because of the added challenge, and the added satisfaction when winning. In a game like M&B I don't think balance is so essential. You can play as Swadian for an easier game, you can play as pure infantry Nords for a more challenging game, You can play in many different ways and having some degree of imbalance can actually add to a game. It would be like playing a roleplaying game where all the enemies are the same difficulty. I dislike how in many current CRPGs the enemies scale with your character. So in oblivion when you get really good at sneaking you still can't really sneak much better because everyone else in the world has also gotten good at sneaking. In many older CRPGs you had more of a sense of accomplishment when you got to where you could just devastate the elite assassins who you spent the first half of the game running away from.

I like in M&B how I am not concerned about facing 50 Rhodoks, but I will approach 50 Veagirs or Swadians with more caution, and yet a player can still play as pure Rhodok and succeed, but have the greater satisfaction of having faced worse odds and still overcome them. Just like in AVP some marine players would ***** and moan about how unfair predators were, not me.. I loved the feeling of stomping predators against all odds.

Of course this is all just my own personal opinion, and like I said, it is all pretty much beside the point anyway.

Edited for grammar

What is your point Damien? You don't seem to actually have any. You continually change what you are saying and contradict yourself because you seem bent on debating me rather than debating the actual subject at hand. You just don't make any sense at all and I would be surprised if anyone actually knew what you are even getting at specifically, other than trying to prove me wrong. Pesja actually did just prove me wrong by focusing on the actual subject of the debate but what you just said has no bearing on anything. Just give it up already. Besides I never said anything about balance for the player, your just being silly.

pesja said:

Flame me if im wrong, but if two factions is at war and Lord A wins a battle VS Lord B then Lord A will stand left with the ammount of troops that survied the battle, while Lord B will spawn at his Castle/Town and start to recruit new troops. While Lord A still wanders around with the small amount of troops he has left, ready to be eaten by anyone anytime?

Click to expand...

Why would I flame you for being wrong? I am not DamienZharkoff 

Actually I think you are right. So maybe that means that the Yogi was also right about the troops level (tier) effecting the auto calc as well. Perhaps what you described is actually the system which compensates for the winners troops becoming stronger and stronger, they also have less and less troops so it balances out. My own testing still points to this not actually being the case though as in my own testing higher tier troops seem to have no noticeable effect on the auto-calc. Like I said before though, I could be wrong about that, or their effect may be so minimal that it is unnoticeable when combined with random element of auto-calc. If they really do effect the auto-calc then there may be a variable somewhere to adjust the factor by which the troops' level effects the outcome, and it may just be set very low.

I actually think the lords should try to add new troops to their armies between battles when their armies start to get too small. They should be working to garrison their holdings better and then pulling troops from their garrisons when their armies get too small. But that is getting into whole different issues.

My original point still stand though in that I don't think the auto-calc really needs to be changed much as it seems to work just fine as far as the AI armies go and their interactions with each other and changing it introduces a whole bunch of issues that would need to be sorted out. Trying to make the auto-calc account for armour, weapons, skills, and such would be really difficult to implement and would introduce major balance issues for the AI in regrades to faction vs faction activity on the world map. As for the player, it is not a big deal, the auto-calc mainly serves to handle AI vs AI and only serves as a fall back for the player, plus the player can easily have all the best high-tier troops making up their army so they could just use auto-calc and win every battle unless they were greatly outnumbered, which would make the game boring. The auto-calc can be used to fight insanely easy battles like 50 vs 8 if the players just doesn't feel like bothering but for more evenly matched battles the auto-calc should be avoided at any cost, thus the player must try to remain conscious in order to effectively lead their troops to victory.

In any case the auto-calc is not broken, and you know what they say.. If it ain't broke don't fix it.. especially when there are many other aspects of the game which are far more in need of improvement.

Regarding sieges though, the auto-calc IS broken, because when it is just AI vs AI the attackers will almost always win which does not really make sense. So at the risk of repeating myself, I will repeat myself (as I think this is the most pertinent thing I've said in this thread).

[quote author=linehand]
When sieges are handled by auto-calc there is already a major defensive advantage given to the defenders. I think it gives defenders a 5x advantage. That is why the AI will usually only siege if it has 5 times the number of troops that the garrison has.

Clearly the problem here is not that the defenders lack an advantage, the problem is that the AI knows exactly what that advantage is and it will only siege if it exceeds the advantage. Thus in AI vs AI sieges the attackers almost always win.

So auto-calc sieges should give the defenders a random range of 4x - 7x advantage. The attackers should also randomly assume how much they should compensate. So sometimes they will attack when they have 4x the garrison and sometimes they will only attack when they have 7x garrison. This way we will see the attackers sometimes win and sometimes lose in the auto-calc sieges.
[/quote]

Well, I have no clue what I am doing but I did see in the Sounds.txt file these lines

woman_hit_1.ogg 112
woman_hit_2.ogg 112
woman_hit_3.ogg 112
woman_fall_1.ogg 160

But in the Sounds directory there are no such sounds

Could the Engine be getting confused by trying to pull some sounds from the mods files while pulling others from original data files? I realize that this kind of thing probably shouldn't happen but when I have worked on other softwares sometimes problems crop up that don't really make sense. Maybe just including the woman sounds in the mods sound directory could fix the issue?

Looks awesome! But I have hit a major problem 

Make a female character. Go somewhere that you can swing your weapon (a town or something). Swing your weapon a few times until you hear some of the attack sounds that characters make when they attack sometimes. It is horrible. She says "ARRRgghghEEEIEIEEhhghGGAAAUIOGhaiiiiaaaaaaaghhhgh!!" or something similarly exaggerated and long every other time she swings a weapon.

This is really bad. It sounds awful..

I looked through the sound files but didn't see any female sound files. Is the female character using the mountain bandit sounds? How can I change this back to the regular female sounds? Please help, I can't bear to play the game like this 

I really think the Nord faction should just have its name changed to something fictional like all the other factions.

Lord Sami said:

Okay people, let's try not to get too hostile. We're all mature, intelligent people who can have a civilized conversation without turning it into a flame war. (Not pointing any fingers)



Now to the point.
IMHO linehands (and some other people's) suggestions about joining other factions or hiring troops from them just because your own faction can't cope by itself is totally wrong. Many people here have a faction that they would never abandon, wheter it be because of their superior units, cool equipment, a style of combat that pleases them, or simply because they've spent the last few years playing with no other faction than them. The best possible battle performance is not necessarely what these people want, but if that faction appears to be so poorly matched against almost all other factions, they shouldn't need to tolerate it, nor be forced to change sides.

This is still a game in development, and as such it hasn't yet reached the level of balance that most people would want to see. People have noticed that Nords are still getting hopelesly owned by other factions, and so we seek a solution by suggesting a minor change in the way people can order their Nord troops. Some skill/atribute boosts and perhaps even AI enhancement is in order, but that alone clearly won't solve the problem.

Click to expand...

But I am not suggesting you should play a different faction or use outside troops because the Nords can't cope.  THEY CAN COPE.
And if they can't cope then giving them a dedicated archer line is not the sole solution to making them more formidable. Don't use a different faction because Nords can't cope, they can.. Use a different faction because you want to have the features of that other faction. If you want a dedicated archer line then you should be playing Vaegir, not Nords. Not because Nords are weak and can't cope, etc, etc.. But because they don't have a dedicated archer line. If you want to play with dedicated archers but can't bring yourself to play as Vaegirs or use outside troops then you have some wierd personal issues.

If the Nords really can't cope then that can be addressed without giving them dedicated archers.

DarkAnd said:

Guess what, this is bul****, you never answer what I or the others speak, just keep repeating yourself, because your point is cleary bul****, and you just can't open the eyes to the fact that your only point is, "play another faction, vaegirs have axes too, and rodhoks don't have cavalry" So this way we have to play other faction just because you say that we can't play the faction that fits our stile of fitghing better and still use very good battlefield tatics.

Please leave.

Click to expand...

I have answered most every argument that the proponents of dedicated archers have made in this thread. I have also made a lot more than one point. If you look through the whole thread you will see that I have completely revised my stance on this subject many times over based to a great extent on arguments which have been presented by others in this thread. I was originally against the idea. Then looking at some of the arguments for dedicated archers I was swayed to being in favor of the dedicated archers but with certain limitations. In the end though after thinking more deeply into the subject and looking at it from many different perspectives as well as doing some play testing focused on this issue I have come full circle and am against the dedicated archers. So you either have a very short memory or simply have not been following this thread from the beginning.

Here are the issues that are raised repeatedly by the proponents
Nords are too weak/can't cope:
Ok make them stronger then.

Nords get too dispersed because of their existing range capable infantry:
This only aplies to AI armies, as a player can easily take control of their troops and rather than charging from across the map, they can hold position and advance 30 - 50 paces at a time, thus not allowing their troops to get to dispersed. As for the AI armies, this just requires some very minor tweaking of the AI.

Nord players want to be able to control their archers separately from their infantry to open up additional play styles and/or tactics:
Well when taken separately from the issues above (as it should be taken separately since those issues can easily be addressed directly) then it boils down to this just not being a feature of the Nord faction. Other factions have this feature and any player is free to use those factions should they want to play with this feature. This feature is not essential to the factions performance or viability if taken separately from the above issues.

Historical accuracy:
A debate which could rage on forever and never reach a conclusion that is truly historically accurate or that would satisfy all parties. This is why the other factions are all fictional and more than anything just raises a very strong argument for simply changing the name of the faction to something fictional like all the other factions.

Here are some of the problems with giving Nords dedicated archers

It would cause the factions to become a little more similar, thus losing a little of their uniqueness:
two factions with dedicated bow using archer lines, and no longer any faction with infantry that caries bows. Two dual line factions and no longer a faction which has only a single line.

It would cause the nord infantry to lose a good portion of its numbers thus weakening the infantry of Nord armies:
So in the case of a player who can easily keep their force together by using the command system the Nord infantry would be less effective since half of them would now be archers. In the case of the AI armies, unless more than half of them were archers then they would still end up being dispersed.

It would cause the Nord infantry to lose some of their signature versatility:
The nord infantry are quite special being the only infantry in the game that carries bows, I like them a lot and would hate to lose them.

It is a very indirect work around to most of the issues presented by the proponents:
By addressing issues indirectly you raise all sorts of side effects to you solution. An indirect work around is something that should only ever be used when addressing an issue directly is not possible. This is true in any field, whether game design, car repair, medicine, or anything else. It is always better to address an issue directly, unless doing so would be prohibitively difficult, expensive, or impossible. All but one issue which the proponents raise can in fact be easily addressed directly, thus no need for a work around that raises all sorts of other issues.

The only issue which giving Nords dedicated archers directly addresses is the issue of Nord players simply wanting dedicated archers just because they want them. The problem with that issue though is that it is exactly the same issue as Khergit players wanting dedicated foot infantry, or Rhodoks wanting dedicated cavalry. It differs only slightly in that Nords do have some archers already but that doesn't really make a good argument because it is a great feature of the Nords that they have strong infantry who also carry bows (see versatile infantry above). I for one would miss those bow using infantry if they were removed. Again this just boils down to you not being happy with how Nords play. I like them though, others like them, and there really is no good reason why you can't play a faction which has exactly what you want in a faction.

Ultimately this thread would never have gone anywhere if it was riding only on this issue of Nords simply wanting to have dedicated archers. If all the other side issues that this change could kind of half address in a round about manner weren't raised then the whole argument would not have gone on very long.

In closing..
Yeah I just make one point, the same one point over and over. Or maybe you just fail to see all the other implications that this change would have on game play and are limiting your perspective to a purely subjective one in the same way you limit your gaming experience by only playing as Nord. I never said you have to play as other factions but if you are going to limit yourself to only playing as Nords then you will have to live with the limitations of that faction. Nothing wrong with that either, I am sure you can still conquer all of caladria with a pure Nord army even with their limitations and more power to you for doing so. My pure Nord character and his pure Nord party is doing quite well even without dedicated archers.

I would actually be more receptive to the idea if it did not involve taking bows away from the Nord infantry as I would hate to lose that. However I would still be opposed to the idea because it would take away the unique aspect of the Vaegirs, doesn't matter if they aren't as good with their bows, it would still steal the Vaegirs uniqueness. That is what the Vaegirs are all about, if you want dedicated archers with bows you play as Vaegir or you recruit some Vaegirs. But lets get one thing straight, you don't HAVE to use outside forces or play as another faction in order to succeed in the game, only if you WANT to have dedicated archers (which are not essential to a competitive Nord army).

Because dedicated Nord players want to use some different tactics in battle but because they are "dedicated" Nord players they won't allow themselves to play with any other factions so they must demand that the Nords be given new troop types to play with. 

umm.. the AI gets tweaked with almost every version. No reason not to expect some improvement there.

I am playing a pure Rhodok force this past week just because they suck and it is kind of cool to challenge myself with the fun of trying to succeed with an inferior force.

But yeah, you want to control your archers like that then play as any other faction but Nords.. Nords are the only faction that you can't do that.

I think Nords should be made tougher (because that would be nice), and have their name changed to the "Kingdom of Limikotos" then all the Nord players would not be so dedicated to their wierd loyalty to a faction they don't even like in spite of the fact that they actually want to order archers around (which they could do with other factions).

I like the Nords as they are. I look forward to playing a pure Nord force over the next couple weeks (just started a couple days ago). I have always like being able to get some bowmen among my infantry by recruiting some Nords. This nifty aspect of the Nord infantry is great and I would not want to have my Nord infantry lose their bows.

Some of us like Nords as they are and even enjoy playing as pure Nords sometimes, but if you can ONLY play as Nords then obviously you are going to want Nords to have a dedicated archer line at some point so you can try out some different tactics. Then later when you get bored again and want to try out some more tactics that involve three troop types to order separately but you can't bring yourself to play another faction, you are going to be demanding that they get cavalry too, after all it just isn't fair that the other factions get cavalry but Nords don't.. If you want to limit yourself to only playing a pure Nord force, then you will just have to live with a much more limited experience of M&B. Though it really is kind of silly. And I bet if they were called Limikotos you would not feel so strongly about only playing as the infantry only Limikotos.

I begin to think it was a big mistake for the Dev team to introduce a faction which had the name of a real group from history, bound to create some die hard faction players that get all wierd over little issues like this.

In any case the solution to the AI issues and or them being weak is not to simply give them a dedicated archer line, that is a whacky solution to unrelated issues. Addressing the actual issues would make more sense and not be prohibitively difficult either.

The issue of not being able to command to separate troop types is a weird issue because you can do that in 3 factions. So you are just playing the wrong faction for the play style which you really want to use. Because you are hung up over the name of the faction.

Edited for grammar

Well the king puts a very high priority on their original capital city. And they generally will work extra hard to get any cities that were taken from them back.

If you are rebels with no claimant then you may want to avoid taking more than one factions lands and try to focus on taking things that were originally that faction's (meaning don't take the castle that they took from a different faction, as that other faction will still be interested in getting what was originally theirs back from you). This is much more of an issue during the non-claimant rebellion as it is not uncommon to be "at war" with most of the factions then, so by focusing on the holdings that both were originally one faction's and are currently that same factions you can sort of minimize the issue of having huge war parties of different factions attacking multiple locations of yours simultaneously.

I love the mod. And have few complaints. I will outline the biggest problem I have faced in the mod so far. For me this one minor issue has become a major show stopper.

My faction has been at war with only the Nords for 2 years (in game). I really want this one castle which belongs to the Vaegirs. I made the Vaegirs hate me -100 by attacking their armies and their caravans at every opportunity but there is no way to start a war with them which means no way to take that castle. Just as an experiment I gave myself plenty of denars and garrisoned all my troops/had all companions wait for me at the inn. Then I waited at my castle for 2 years and still my faction is at war with only the Nords. In 2 years the only change that occurred regarding war/peace status between factions was that the Vaegirs declared war on the Khergits (in two years, only this one change).

So in order of importance:

A. The chances of war declarations and peace treaties should be much MUCH greater.

B. Players relations with other factions should have some influence on whether war or peace happens with those factions and the players faction, perhaps the players relations could have more influence if the player has more renown.

C. It would not hurt if the player could instigate war and peace between his/her faction and other factions directly by speaking to another factions king. Like by demanding they relinquish control of some castle or city, or offering them some castle/city in exchange for peace.

Ideally we can have both A, B and C but at the very least A is really needed, and B would be very helpful as well. C would be great but may require more work to implement than A and B.

Fei Dao said:

The bastard sword is only fast when used two handedly. When used with a shield or on horseback, it's one of the slowest weapons around.

Click to expand...

Well, I seldom use a shield so you may be right. But on horseback it was not slow at all for me. Could it have to do with skills? I have not used a bastard sword in quite some time but I recall that it was one of the easiest weapons for me to just own with, partly why I stopped using it. Lately I have been using a lot of the worst weapons in the game just for fun

But playing another faction is not SUFFERING. It is what you seem to want.

I like the Nords as they are (though I wouldn't mind them being tougher).. if you don't like them then why play them? WHY?

Give me a good reason why you feel you MUST play as Nords..

Naw, complex troop tree does not automatically equal vulnerable. If they are too weak then just make them stronger.

You are also confusing the issue. I never said that making Nords stronger would be bad, I think it would be great if they were much stronger. They should be extremely tough IMHO. I have even said in almost all of my posts that I wouldn't mind them being made way better. I just think you could make them much stronger without having to give them a dedicated archer line.

But if you just want to be able to control your archers separately from your infantry... well you already can. Just play as Vaegirs.

Oh you don't want to play as Vaegirs? Why not? because they have cavalry too? Don't use the cavalry then.. Any other reason? Oh just because they are not Nords? But that is a really weird limitation you have put on yourself then.. And it really makes a very strong case for just changing the name of the Nord faction to "Limarks". If they were called "Limarks" then all the Nord players would have the freedom to play whichever faction most appealed to their own play style rather than being limited to playing Nords even though they would rather be playing as Vaegirs or Rhodoks.

Nexus said:

Archonsod said:

Learn to play better. I've never had to use the wall tactic no matter which faction I'm playing, or even if I'm going solo. I can't see how any fight would last an hour either, Horse archers get a maximum of two standard sized quivers, they'll run out of arrows well within an hour.

Click to expand...

I said that the whole battle lasts for an hour or more. Not one encounter.

In one encounter they can run out of arrows, and in the next one new guys come, with new arrows...

And when you have 700 of them...thats A LOT of arrows...


Look...I CAN fight Khergits...they're weak...

The problem is TIME...
In large battles, like 5-6-700 of them, I just dont have any more TIME and NERVES to CHASE AFTER THEM (so I could have one or two swings at one of them) or to just SIT AND WAIT (so I could have one or two swings at one of them)...

With any other faction, its no problem...theres always action...a melee somewhere...
Its always swingin' time...

But with Khergits...I just find myself alone in the battlefield, standing in one place, waiting for green messages in botom left corner of the screen, and wonderin' what's the point...
Fighting them becomes routine WORK, and not FUN...



Maybe having an option to tie up Sanjar Khan to a horse, and drag him through every encounter in the battle, whould make it worth fighting...

Click to expand...

Seriously just try the tactics I outlined here http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,39877.msg1028273.html#msg1028273
It calls for NO sitting around and waiting for you (the player). Nor does it call for chasing them all over the map. It also does not call for using the map border exploit.

Just give it a try a few times. Remember you should focus mostly on riding clockwise while they go counter-clockwise, and/or whittling them down during their advance to your troops position. Don't just sit there waiting, but don't chase them all over the map either.

There really are tactics that don't involve waiting around or using exploits but that will still make fighting Khergits go just as fast as fighting against any other faction. In fact, because they reach my forces faster, fighting Kergits probably takes less time than fighting any other factions, for me anyway. And yes, I am talking about the battles against 700 too. Those huge battles take some time no matter who you are fighting, but with the right tactics fighting Khergits does not take any longer than any other faction.

Here it is again:
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,39877.msg1028273.html#msg1028273
At least give it a try