Search results for query: *

For the last 3 days, I set the maximum for rangers to 8. Let us know what you think.

m1tchell23 said:

can't you make it a percentage, just been playing with about 15 on each side, 10 archers... seems the same archer spam you guys are on about.

Click to expand...

To my knowledge, percentage is not possible with the current ENL admin tools.

Dear visitors on IG:BG,

since there have been discussions on "ranger spam" for ages, and the issue came up again recently, we decided to test whether restricting the ranger class would improve the game experience on our server.

The test will run for one week, until Wednesday 6/2/13
After that the settings will be set to default in any case
Rangers will be restricted to a maximum of 10 per team.

What we are aiming for is not a perfect balance of classes and this test doesn't portray any official standpoint towards the "archerspam" or "archers are OP" debates. But, since with very high numbers of players, many seem to chose the ranger class and huge groups of rangers seem to be very effective against uncoordinated teams and are not much fun to play against for most people, we want to cut the very extreme archer spam on a full server. The restrictions will therefore only be noticeable if there are more than 20 people on Battlegrounds.


After the test week, we want to evaluate the feedback and we will then decide, if restricted rangers become a permanent setting on the server.

We therefore would appreciate if you post your thoughts in this thread or in the respective thread on our forum.

Voted 10vs10.

Mordgrim said:

Hm, when Lust decides to start "testing" something, thats usually what he's already made up his mind about. So I guess we'll have khergits in the next cycle. Sigh.

Personally I think there is a heap of experience with khergits to not allow them, and this is why we have done so.

Click to expand...

Class restrictions were tested but not implemented, so there's still hope. Generally, I'm very skeptical about Khergits, but with the changes made in the latest patches, they could at least be tested a bit, in my opinion.

captain lust said:

Meister_Eder said:

And: What about the clans now? You said you don't care about clan types, since the ENL is about teams. But then again, in your argument the size of clans somehow seems to be linked to the healthyness and competitiveness of the community?

Spoiler

captain lust said:

But honestly I don't see acting in the interests of specific clan types as one of my objectives. If it's the case that a team has enough active players for 2 teams at 8vs8 then thoeretically, perhaps it would be more beneficial to the health of the community if those players formed 2 teams. The internals of clan management are something that I really try to separate myself from though. As I have consistently maintained, the ENL supports the (relatively) unambiguous idea of teams which are all defined in the same way (by their name, contacts and roster). Any relation to a particular clan that a team has is irrelevant to the ENL and how "clans" are managed doesn't come under my jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Well actually in the quote I only made reference to team size and the fact that if a team has enough active players to form 2 or more teams that play and compete regularly, that EDIT: having them do so can only be of benefit to the overall health of the community. That's my reasoning anyway.

Click to expand...

In this quoted part, yes. But in the part I quoted in the beginning of my post, you mentioned cASS, RNGD and AE as an indicator for a development that favors small teams. I don't know cASS, but RNGD and AE are clans and not just ENL teams, as far as I know. Small clans=small ENL-teams, apparently you take clans as an indicator to what ENL-teams should look like.

captain lust said:

Meister_Eder said:

Now that opens some new questions:

The central terms in your statement seem to be  'community-health' and 'competitiveness'. So I wonder:
- What constitutes a 'healthy' community, in your opinion (besides being competitive)?

Click to expand...

More players and more teams, matches (competition/casual/official) being played more frequently and more presence on public servers - the "more" the "healthier".

Click to expand...

So, when you say 'healthy', you mean 'big'? You want the Warband community to grow?

captain lust said:

Meister_Eder said:

- How do you define 'competitiveness' (not in general, but in Warband)?

Click to expand...

More strong teams and therefore more pressure on all strong teams to stay strong/get stronger. I know you didn't ask for a general definition but I don't see why Warband is any different. Again - the "more" the more "competitive".

Click to expand...

So, competitiveness means many competitors. What are 'strong' competitors, though? How do you define "strength of an ENL-team"?

captain lust said:

Meister_Eder said:

- What is the causal relation between competitiveness and player number?

Click to expand...

Do you mean player number as in match size? i.e. 10vs10, 8vs8 etc.?

If so, I think that's been covered. Although, to be honest, I'm not totally clear on what you're asking.

Click to expand...

Yes, in match size. I learned that bigger is better, but why now is a smaller player number in matches better? If everything is getting bigger, the player number could get bigger aswell, couldn't it? But this question is closely linked to your definition of competitiveness or rather the question what you define as a "strong ENL-team".

I followed this discussion for some time now, but I'm still a bit confused. From what I can tell, the last ENL was quite a success. Hence, quite a number of people is in favor of keeping the old rules, which have proven to work well. However, another group of people is convinced that a new ruleset is urgently needed. The argument in favor of the old rules is the success of the last ENL. The argument in favor of the new rules apparently is this:

What I see as the goal of the ruleset, the core of which is 8vs8 and 16 rounds, is to promote a situation for the scene whereby we have more clans that are looking to stay small but active and competitive. It's just something that I think is healthier for the scene and more likely to produce both more teams and stronger teams. It's a trend that's already taking place with the formations of AE, cASS, RNGD etc. and I don't want to offend anyone, nor do I mean to knock any of the achievements of clans that have been successful at 10vs10. I just think the proposed ruleset will encourage what I see as a healthier situation.

Click to expand...

captain lust said:

This isn't a bid to save the community, nor to slow down its decline. This is a bid to enhance competitive play through a few small tweaks to the ruleset.

Click to expand...

If I got that right:
- you don't want to save the community, but you want to keep/make it 'healthy'
- the healthyness of the community is the goal of your rule changes
- what you are aiming for is to increase the competitiveness.

So, trying to understand this, here's what I assume your position is: The community doesn't really have serious problems, it just might be a bit 'unhealthy'. You care a lot about health issues and the method to increase the community's healthyness is increasing it's competitiveness. The competitiveness is increased by decreasing the standard player number in matches.

Now that opens some new questions:

The central terms in your statement seem to be  'community-health' and 'competitiveness'. So I wonder:
- What constitutes a 'healthy' community, in your opinion (besides being competitive)?
- How do you define 'competitiveness' (not in general, but in Warband)?

Also, could you explain
- What is the causal relation between community-health and competitiveness?
- What is the causal relation between competitiveness and player number?

And: What about the clans now? You said you don't care about clan types, since the ENL is about teams. But then again, in your argument the size of clans somehow seems to be linked to the healthyness and competitiveness of the community?

Saxnot said:

Battle: IG_Battlegrounds
Siege: ZHG_Siege, IG_Siege
TDM: ZHG_TDM, Wolvepack_TDM
Duel: Nditions

Click to expand...

+1

captain lust said:

SootShade said:

So plazek him self said that they don't have players and like I understood there weren't never 8 players on the server. I apologize if I am wrong on this one.  So if we look at that rule IG should get offered the default win and then they would decide. Rematch would be more fair in my opinion but rules are rules in this league I believed.

Click to expand...

22nd can argue, quite rightly, that if IG had given an indication they wanted the match to go ahead as a 10v8, they would have joined the server. There is nothing in the rules about having to join the server and in that situation, I can understand why they didn't. Had IG been clear about what they wanted, in the circumstances and then 22nd refused to join the server... things would be different.

Click to expand...

The 22nd WOULD have joined the server IF IG had forced them to? Maybe IG WOULD have forced the 22nd to play the match IF there would be something in the rules about one team having to inform the other team about the rules and the consequences of breaking them, because otherwise the rule breaking of the other team will be considered completely irrelevant by the league administration. Maybe! If!

What the rules do say is that a team has to show up on the server:

If a team cannot show out with 10 players, for a match, the other team should continue with 10 anyway. If however, a team cannot make 8 players or more, the other team will be offered a default win, provided they have shown up with at least 10 players. If neither team has shown up with 10 players, the match should be rescheduled. Teams should allow 15 minutes, after the scheduled match time, for players to arrive, before any of these rulings are put into practice.

Click to expand...

Of course, it doesn't say exactly where a team has to show up or arrive, but where else than on the server would the presence of a team be relevant? Or would it be sufficient if a team just showed up at their Teamspeak at the match time? And when would they actually have to join the server? Do the rules actually say they'd have to join a server at all?

So, in conclusion:
The rules do not explicitely say a team has to join a server at a certain time (even though everything else wouldn't make any sense), so the 22nd didn't have to join the server.
The rules do not at all say that IG would have to inform the 22nd about the possible consequences of their rule breaking. But this is considered common sense by the league admin, so IG had to inform the 22nd.


It's this ... let's say 'creative' ... handling of the rules which made me support our decision to leave the league.

Zan said:

We are super

Click to expand...

How super exactly?

Forum Name: Meister_Eder
In-Game Name: IG_Duke_Eder
Preferred Faction: Saxons
Able to use TeamSpeak? (No mic required) TS and mic

Ich hätte tendentiell auch Interesse, weiss aber nicht wieviel Zeit ich in den nächsten Monaten haben werde. Ihr könntet mich aber als Kandidaten für die Reserve listen.

Turanien said:

IG_M said:

Why wouldn't we play the newest version of native in the native league? Are there any world-shattering balance changes?

Click to expand...

Rhodoks deleted. 

Click to expand...

Who cares about Rhodoks? Archer spam ftw!
But seriously, an official changelog would be more usefull than ever. 

Guz-Lvsitania said:

IG! Congratulations for your victory over the Iberian Alliance!

Thank you for our training match and sorry for the initial mess up with our numbers, some problems with connecting, seeing server and some people got here a litle bit late... But it was fun overall! 

Click to expand...

Dont worry, such things happen. And thanks for the training, it was quite a challenge. You guys are really skilled and your organisation is impressive.

From my experience, Khergits are by far superior on all open maps, while Rhodoks for example are totally equal to Nords on infantry maps.

What about allowing random maps as long as no clan takes Khergits?

Medieval reports are often not factual reports, trying to depict incidents exactly or as objective as possible. It's also doubtable that Gerald witnessed the incident himself.
But whether the arrow could penetrate leg, saddle and horse or not, what the author obviously wants to tell, is that he considered the longbow to be an extremely strong weapon.

Wurzelmann said:

MaHuD said:

Yes we all know how smart you are against archers when you are infantry mabons...

Click to expand...

They way mabons gets a clear headshot a millisecond after he put his shield down at 1:00 perfectly shows how archers work in multiplayer.

Click to expand...

There'd be something seriously wrong if a headshot on a shieldless guy, over a distance of maybe 10 metres, would not be possible.


I'm playing as ranger a lot, and I don't think rangers are overpowered.
But from a rangers perspective, the following things need to be nerfed seriously:
Nords with Huscarl shields, Rhodoks with Board shields, throwing axes, throwing spears, couched lancing, bumpslashing, armour in general

On a more serious note: It's nearly impossible to get shot behind a shield, as long as you don't get flanked by rangers. If you get flanked, you fail, or your team fails.
The latter is usually the case when rangers dominate on public servers.
What I often see, is that one ranger spamming team dominates totally, but as soon as some clan player join the loosing team and work together as infantry, it turns into a massacre for the ranger team.
The same goes for cavalry. On an open map, if one team spams cav  and the other isn't organized, the cav team will win.

I think the problem is not that the 2 handers would be overpowered. The problem is that sword and board are underpowered.
Just holding your shield up is pretty easy to manage, so there's not much skill involved. But shields are easy to destroy (even a huscarl shield does often not hold long enough to beat an able fighter with a 2h sword). And when your shield is destroyed, you have to be a good manual blocker or you're fu*d.
Stronger shields would make fights totally boring, so that can't be the solution. What's needed in my opinion, is the possibility to use shields actively, like a shield bash or a shield parry. For example if one would parry with the shield, the shield would suffer a lot less damage, but if the parry fails (i.e. when one parrys in the wrong direction), one would suffer a glancing blow.
Thereby a skillfull shield user could avoid his shield getting destroyed, while a newer or less skilled player could still simply hide behind his shield.
But I guess the devs don't like such "complicated" mechanics, otherwise it would be already implemented since the sword & board fighting in Warband couldn't be much further from reality as it is atm. (<- I know that's exaggerated, but every time a "nerf 2handers" topic comes up, the underachieved potential of Warbands sowrd & board fighting makes me sad )

Ozwan said:

Not sure which one did it but I took a break before kick was changed. When I came back it's unplayable for me.

All swings I make are like through glue, character is really unresponsive compared to before, lot of hits go unregistered, lot bounce off for no reason. The worst thing is that enemy usually seems to not have this problem and many swings hit me before I even see them. It's basically like I had 150+ ping while I have about 40.

Click to expand...

Same here. It was the first thing I realised when playing the new patch.
The opponent raises his axe for an overhead strike, I want to block, but I'm already dead, didn't even see the swing.

This thing with the arrows disappearing in the enemy, I had before, too. Once I watched 3 of my bolts disappearing in another crossbowman, and hit him with the 4th. 
But I don't think that problem became worse with the newest patch.

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,127654.0.html