Difficulty isnt everything
- Thread starter Donkerman
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
vonskyme said:The only time I ever get annoyed by people who use lower difficulties is when they come on the forums and go 'The game is too easy!' or 'This tactic is the best - just run naked up the ladder before your troops get there and you can slaughter all three hundred defenders by yourself!'.
Use whatever difficulty you enjoy the most, but when you're on easy, don't come bragging about your exploits (funny scenarios are welcome, however, regardless the difficulty).
100% agree.
I've tried some strategies posted in here which "Work wonders" and had my troops get slaughtered because of them. Later I find out that the person was play at like 38% difficulty and I just slap myself for listening to them when my game is at 112%.
I think that when one gives advice and strategy, its important to list your difficulty. Easy and 100+ difficulty are completely different games. I'm glad if you enjoy the game at 20% difficulty, but please keep this in mind when posting here.
I agree with you there, inox_ionizer. Everyone can play mameluke/swadian knight heavy cavalry rush. however, not everyone can win with an infantry/archers only army, and that is the fun in trying to do it. I remember how awesome it was first time I won a 10+ reknown battle on hardest difficulty with only infantry and archers. Then tactics really counts!
However, it can be fun to run around with 60 swadian knights on easiest setting too. Thats what I did the first year I played this game
However, it can be fun to run around with 60 swadian knights on easiest setting too. Thats what I did the first year I played this game
Dharcness
Sergeant
I used to play with 111% difficulty but the game become extremely boring, all I can do was to stand back and direct the battle from behind. Going to front line and fight is suicidal at this diffculty.
Then I switch to 20% difficulty and the game become exciting again, I can charge to the front line with my troops and fight side by side with them. How great is that? I become a warrior general so to speak. Hoozah!
Then I switch to 20% difficulty and the game become exciting again, I can charge to the front line with my troops and fight side by side with them. How great is that? I become a warrior general so to speak. Hoozah!
dhowlett
Squire
I find the game much more fun playing with full damagew and infantry and archer armies to be honest. Even my companions arn't mounted. Sure I die sometimes but I use tweakmb to ensure that the battle continues so really it's not so suisidal now. Though I have to have auto blocking, im not very good at manuel blocking even 1 on 1 vs the ai. It just gets too close and I can't do it at all.
I still charge in with all the infantry and i use a bastard sword with no shield and some throwing weapons. Provided you don't run head first into the enermy its all quite manageable to take on 2-4 a time.
I still charge in with all the infantry and i use a bastard sword with no shield and some throwing weapons. Provided you don't run head first into the enermy its all quite manageable to take on 2-4 a time.
Noapte
GaZ.v2 said:I play on the easiest setting with no armor, no horse and a quarter staff
That is awesome. I had a good chuckle picturing that.
no matter what settings you use for damage, the game is ridiculously hard on managing the world map when there's only one faction left and you control 85% of the world. the khergits, gaining more than half of all the factionless lords, just took Hrus Castle (opposite side of the world) and established a second front against me--i dont have time to run across the map x_x
maybe this is because of campaign difficulty
maybe this is because of campaign difficulty
Cro
Recruit
Who cares how other people play it? I don't. If you want to challenge other people play multiplayer. Otherwise, if there's someone somewhere playing on minimum difficulty with bad AI and easy damage with minimum battle size... so what?
I tend to mod and tweak everything so much that I'm barely playing the same game as anyone else. That's the beauty of an easily moddable single player-- you can play exactly how you want. That's a big strength compared to a MMORPG, where you have to put up with whatever BS the devs or the forums come up with.
Multiplayer is just pwnage, and long may it remain so.
I tend to mod and tweak everything so much that I'm barely playing the same game as anyone else. That's the beauty of an easily moddable single player-- you can play exactly how you want. That's a big strength compared to a MMORPG, where you have to put up with whatever BS the devs or the forums come up with.
Multiplayer is just pwnage, and long may it remain so.
bigtoebubby said:no matter what settings you use for damage, the game is ridiculously hard on managing the world map when there's only one faction left and you control 85% of the world. the khergits, gaining more than half of all the factionless lords, just took Hrus Castle (opposite side of the world) and established a second front against me--i dont have time to run across the map x_x
maybe this is because of campaign difficulty
no, dont think its because of that, think its because the game is not balanced for playing when one player holds most of the world.
woofty
Sergeant
Boduar said:
I wear fullplate and great helm with as many upgrades to Lordy gear as possible. Still happens to me.
Edit Note: Due to the above I no longer lead any attack on a siege. Until the troops gain the battlement I stay on the ground and shoot archers/squirmishers with a siege crossbow.
Abriael
Sergeant
People that play the elitist role just because they play hardest settings against an AI, that will ALWAYS be more stupid than an human being, no matter how sophisticated, normally tend to suck in multiplayer.
They get too used to playing using all the the weaknesses of the AI, and when they face live players that don't have such weaknesses, find themselves dead in no time.
Just saying...
It's an AI, which mean it's stupid. Winning against an AI is like beating a kid. No matter if the kid is stupid or smart (for a kid), if you're an adult you'll beat him.
The only true difficulty changer in the game is the ability to quit with or without saving. But of course that only makes the game unnecessarily frustrating.
They get too used to playing using all the the weaknesses of the AI, and when they face live players that don't have such weaknesses, find themselves dead in no time.
Just saying...
It's an AI, which mean it's stupid. Winning against an AI is like beating a kid. No matter if the kid is stupid or smart (for a kid), if you're an adult you'll beat him.
The only true difficulty changer in the game is the ability to quit with or without saving. But of course that only makes the game unnecessarily frustrating.
Abriael said:
I don't agree with this at all.
To me, this is just rationalizing playing at super low difficulty. The people who play at high difficulty do so because they want a challenge and not play in easy-mode.
Also, playing in the arena and tourneys is great practice for multiplayer. In easy mode, you can take 400 hits and be ok. If you have damage cranked way up and autoblock off, then you can't afford to take a hit or two. This is a great way to get better in manual blocking. While single player ability doesn't entirely translate to multiplayer skill, some of the best manual blockers I know got to be that good by practicing in single player.
At your kid analogy. The difference is between beating a kid who has an clear advantage over you (army sizes, land, armor, etc) and beating a kid in a wheelchair who breathes through a straw. When you fight on normal damage settings, your kids (AIs) are on equal grounds with those kids. When damage is set to 1/2 or 1/4th, your kids might as well be superman.
If you enjoy that, more power to you. But ironically enough, your post right here is suffering from the elitist attitude you accuse others of harboring.
Difficulty rating is meaningless in a game with no winning or losing conditions.
