Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
Tis just happened to me.
Start match already is session. Spawn on one side of huge field with tons of guys fighting. See archer on complete other side of field/map. Randomly point bow into air and fire. THUNK. HEADSHOT. INSTANT KILL. LONGSHOT 107 yards.
I am the luckiest god damn bowman. I hope they buff longbows. Right now they are pretty inferior to crossbows. With the right setup and perks a crossbow can one shot anyone and reload in four seconds.
Historically what made longbows better was that in the time a crossbow could fire once, a Longbowman could fire four or five times and more accurately as well.
Start match already is session. Spawn on one side of huge field with tons of guys fighting. See archer on complete other side of field/map. Randomly point bow into air and fire. THUNK. HEADSHOT. INSTANT KILL. LONGSHOT 107 yards.
I am the luckiest god damn bowman. I hope they buff longbows. Right now they are pretty inferior to crossbows. With the right setup and perks a crossbow can one shot anyone and reload in four seconds.
Historically what made longbows better was that in the time a crossbow could fire once, a Longbowman could fire four or five times and more accurately as well.
I thought I'd heard somewhere that it was better range, or that it was more accurate at range because it was easier to use plunging fire on a distant target.
I know they were ridiculously good at translating potential energy into kinetic energy, provided you had the arm and back strength to draw one back -- I saw someone do some math once which indicated that getting hit with an arrow from a long bow at range was rather like being shot with a round of .22 caliber rimfire from a bolt action rifle at 500 feet.
There is experimental data floating around that suggests a longbow firing an arrow with a bodkin (armor piercing) head could only penetrate a solid piece of plate armor on a flat trajectory at less than 50 yards or so. I'll try to find some links to the experiments that have been done. Many of the casualties caused by longbows among armored knights were probably not from the arrow punching through solid armor, but rather puncturing joints, visors, or chain mail sections etc.
Also I wish there was a perk that allowed two main weapons. I was just reading that at Agincourt many of the English Longbowmen were equipped with pole handled warhammers as a backup to their bows since they could use their massive upper body strength to just crush knights' heads.
Generally archers were armed with lighter weapons that they could carry at the same time as a bow. Axes and maces mostly (although since most didn't have shields these weapons would probably be longer than a weapon meant to be used with a shield). More well equipped archers (generally the personal retinues of various nobles) were often equipped with swords and bucklers.
They were supported by dismounted men-at-arms and knights. On foot, at this time, knights had generally abandoned the shield and used two-handed weapons as their first choice. The pollax in particular, even though the two-handed sword was becoming more popular (as improved smithing technology made it simpler to construct long blades).
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
Start match already is session. Spawn on one side of huge field with tons of guys fighting. See archer on complete other side of field/map. Randomly point bow into air and fire. THUNK. HEADSHOT. INSTANT KILL. LONGSHOT 107 yards.
I am the luckiest god damn bowman. I hope they buff longbows. Right now they are pretty inferior to crossbows. With the right setup and perks a crossbow can one shot anyone and reload in four seconds.
Historically what made longbows better was that in the time a crossbow could fire once, a Longbowman could fire four or five times and more accurately as well.
The thing with bows was that I did pretty terribly until I realized that my habits from M&B might've been doing more harm than good.
Namely, that I didn't have to draw the arrow all the way back in order to fire accurately, and still did damage unless they were in heavy armor..
Start match already is session. Spawn on one side of huge field with tons of guys fighting. See archer on complete other side of field/map. Randomly point bow into air and fire. THUNK. HEADSHOT. INSTANT KILL. LONGSHOT 107 yards.
I am the luckiest god damn bowman. I hope they buff longbows. Right now they are pretty inferior to crossbows. With the right setup and perks a crossbow can one shot anyone and reload in four seconds.
Historically what made longbows better was that in the time a crossbow could fire once, a Longbowman could fire four or five times and more accurately as well.
The thing with bows was that I did pretty terribly until I realized that my habits from M&B might've been doing more harm than good.
Namely, that I didn't have to draw the arrow all the way back in order to fire accurately, and still did damage unless they were in heavy armor..
I don't have a ton of time to try the beta for a game like this, but what little I've seen gives me the impression that all of the differences are subtle but very important. Like physical momentum of the player character has such a huge effect on swing damage that I tend to do quick slashes instead of power swings and focus more on "footwork," but the gameplay I've seen makes me think that the time invested in preparing a power swing here is more important.
Im not sure how the damage model works, but I seem to get a consistently high dmg from the archers sword. The footman is next, then the footknight.
Not sure why, but I get like 60~ dmg with the Hanger(?)more and the others are normally in the middle ground ranging from 5-30 dmg.
I like the long bow since you can do quick follow up shots to finish off guys, they tend to do well short and long range(I'll be it hard to aim) then the crossbow.
The crossbow is horrible at close range because of the reloading so you can't get off quick shots to soften up charging enemies where with the longbow you can get a couple shots off before they are on you.
I'd like to try all the swords out, hopefully today's patch lets up get a bit more into the custom classes.
canuckont on
I saw a kid get handed a JB poster by who I presume was his parents outside my store today....he tore it in half infront of his horrified parents.....There's hope for our youth yet!
0
Options
Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
Start match already is session. Spawn on one side of huge field with tons of guys fighting. See archer on complete other side of field/map. Randomly point bow into air and fire. THUNK. HEADSHOT. INSTANT KILL. LONGSHOT 107 yards.
I am the luckiest god damn bowman. I hope they buff longbows. Right now they are pretty inferior to crossbows. With the right setup and perks a crossbow can one shot anyone and reload in four seconds.
Historically what made longbows better was that in the time a crossbow could fire once, a Longbowman could fire four or five times and more accurately as well.
The thing with bows was that I did pretty terribly until I realized that my habits from M&B might've been doing more harm than good.
Namely, that I didn't have to draw the arrow all the way back in order to fire accurately, and still did damage unless they were in heavy armor..
I don't have a ton of time to try the beta for a game like this, but what little I've seen gives me the impression that all of the differences are subtle but very important. Like physical momentum of the player character has such a huge effect on swing damage that I tend to do quick slashes instead of power swings and focus more on "footwork," but the gameplay I've seen makes me think that the time invested in preparing a power swing here is more important.
I actually tired experimenting with that when I got rushed. Most people tend to go for a power attack. I found that if I blocked an attack I could easily get in a quick jab then get back to blocking before their next attack came in. This is obviously on spammers who do nothing but repeatedly attack but it seems to work well on normal people as well. I actually bled some guys to deth this way by hitting them a few times then stay alive long enough to watch them keel over.
Wow you should NOT be able to have full plate mail and a cross bow.
Agreed, it should be restricted to Med/Light.
On another note, maces are hard to use but really fun once you start knocking people upside their head with it.
I saw a kid get handed a JB poster by who I presume was his parents outside my store today....he tore it in half infront of his horrified parents.....There's hope for our youth yet!
0
Options
Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
Wow you should NOT be able to have full plate mail and a cross bow.
Agreed, it should be restricted to Med/Light.
On another note, maces are hard to use but really fun once you start knocking people upside their head with it.
Spears are not op now, but lances are crazy, which is okay cause they break after a few hits. I refuse to use any armor but light on my archer. Got a cool hood that does nothing to protect my head but makes me look awesome. Personally I think crossbows should be medium or light, and longbows be only light since you need more freedom of your upper body muscles, but make the light armor movement buff a bit better to compensate, or let Longbowmen power attacks with secondary weapons hit harder.
Also war bows are pretty nice with bodkin arrows and shooting a dude's horse out from under him as he charges the stabbing him to death with your knife as he tries to pull himself up is pretty fun.
Also either weapons all do more damage now, or everyone got super bad at fighting because I've actually been very successful at wading into a melee with my light armor archer equipped with only the default sword and murdering many people once I'm out of arrows. (arrows seem to regen slower now.)
Wow you should NOT be able to have full plate mail and a cross bow.
Agreed, it should be restricted to Med/Light.
On another note, maces are hard to use but really fun once you start knocking people upside their head with it.
Spears are not op now, but lances are crazy, which is okay cause they break after a few hits. I refuse to use any armor but light on my archer. Got a cool hood that does nothing to protect my head but makes me look awesome. Personally I think crossbows should be medium or light, and longbows be only light since you need more freedom of your upper body muscles, but make the light armor movement buff a bit better to compensate, or let Longbowmen power attacks with secondary weapons hit harder.
Note to developers: Game needs Robin Hood mod for timspork. I would play it with him.
Seems like the Scottish two hander is the go to weapon, it almost always seems to hit (on me at least) and is really swing friendly. I'd like to see it toned down abit from getting my butt handed to me all the time.
Rolling with heavy armour with a hood makes me feel pretty cool.... They do need a robin hood mod for this lol
I saw a kid get handed a JB poster by who I presume was his parents outside my store today....he tore it in half infront of his horrified parents.....There's hope for our youth yet!
0
Options
Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
Yeah the Scottish sword is pretty awesome. Just wading I to a melee and cutting multiple people. Still prefer the bow. Still getting use to the Warbow over the Longbow. It's more powerful so I don't need to aim as high to arc it.
I put some more time into this after the patch. Was hoping for more from the single player, but it doesn't look like much will be forthcoming. Right now I'm not even able to LEARN how to improve much in the multi. I've got down the idea of swinging using the mouse movement, but I still miss everything, and it gets frustrating running across half the map to struggle with the controls (edit: and be killed horribly).
So if the mechanics are wonky and hard to learn, and I can't practice on my own, and there's no single player free roam, my interest in this has cratered to the point of removing it from the hard drive and active games folder on steam.
I really really want to be wrong. I got frustrated and kept coming back, because the concept seems great and I loved Mount and Blade. But it seems they're going for a poorly executed medieval Call of Duty or something, instead of Mount and Blade.
Massena on
0
Options
FreiA French Prometheus UnboundDeadwoodRegistered Userregular
I put some more time into this after the patch. Was hoping for more from the single player, but it doesn't look like much will be forthcoming. Right now I'm not even able to LEARN how to improve much in the multi. I've got down the idea of swinging using the mouse movement, but I still miss everything, and it gets frustrating running across half the map to struggle with the controls (edit: and be killed horribly).
So if the mechanics are wonky and hard to learn, and I can't practice on my own, and there's no single player free roam, my interest in this has cratered to the point of removing it from the hard drive and active games folder on steam.
I really really want to be wrong. I got frustrated and kept coming back, because the concept seems great and I loved Mount and Blade. But it seems they're going for a poorly executed medieval Call of Duty or something, instead of Mount and Blade.
You ordered a cheese pizza and are upset it isn't an ice cream sundae.
Nowhere did this game claim to be Mount and Blade or claim any single player features - it has always been about rank based competitive multiplayer, whether you like that thing or not.
If you don't like it, why are you playing? Why did you think it would be for you? Why did you go into it knowing it wouldn't be what you wanted (or, rather, why would you go into it not researching to see what kind of game it was, but then being upset it wasn't the game you wanted?)
Also, the controls for blocking and swinging are set up the same as Mount and Blade. If you used "swing by movement keys" in Mount and Blade, you can use that option in Roses, too.
Seriously, I love Mount and Blade, it is my most played game of all time, but War of the Roses is not Mount and Blade and never made claim to it. You have only yourself to blame for the comparison and disappointment (and for sucking at it).
I put some more time into this after the patch. Was hoping for more from the single player, but it doesn't look like much will be forthcoming. Right now I'm not even able to LEARN how to improve much in the multi. I've got down the idea of swinging using the mouse movement, but I still miss everything, and it gets frustrating running across half the map to struggle with the controls (edit: and be killed horribly).
So if the mechanics are wonky and hard to learn, and I can't practice on my own, and there's no single player free roam, my interest in this has cratered to the point of removing it from the hard drive and active games folder on steam.
I really really want to be wrong. I got frustrated and kept coming back, because the concept seems great and I loved Mount and Blade. But it seems they're going for a poorly executed medieval Call of Duty or something, instead of Mount and Blade.
You ordered a cheese pizza and are upset it isn't an ice cream sundae.
Nowhere did this game claim to be Mount and Blade or claim any single player features - it has always been about rank based competitive multiplayer, whether you like that thing or not.
If you don't like it, why are you playing? Why did you think it would be for you? Why did you go into it knowing it wouldn't be what you wanted (or, rather, why would you go into it not researching to see what kind of game it was, but then being upset it wasn't the game you wanted?)
Also, the controls for blocking and swinging are set up the same as Mount and Blade. If you used "swing by movement keys" in Mount and Blade, you can use that option in Roses, too.
Seriously, I love Mount and Blade, it is my most played game of all time, but War of the Roses is not Mount and Blade and never made claim to it. You have only yourself to blame for the comparison and disappointment (and for sucking at it).
Yeah. That was pretty stupid of me, thinking it would be like Mount and Blade. I mean, it wasn't compared to that in the intro post, or in any of the preview material. I really don't know where I got that idea. I feel silly.
Well to be fair the intro post was written by someone with almost zero intelligence. (And who had also never played the game.)
0
Options
FreiA French Prometheus UnboundDeadwoodRegistered Userregular
edited September 2012
Yeah I guess you should feel silly for equating editorial pieces to straight facts about the game? they are similar in that mount and blade multiplayer and this have medieval guys fighting one another with similar control schemes, but that's all.
I'm not speaking for the quality of War of the Roses at all, just to your expectations. And the fact that your only rebuttal is "I read an article, and also in mount and blade medieval guys fight each other, same as in war of the roses!" kind of brings me around to the fact that you expected much different than what you got and are now upset that the game was not built for you, when they were transparent about what it was about.
In short:
You complain about single player, to which they've said it is a multiplayer focus, and there will not be single player.
You say the mechanics are wonky and hard to learn but say you love Mount and Blade, but they use the same control scheme and extremely, extremely similar mechanics.
You say the game was misrepresented, because you read some poorly written articles and took it as gospel.
One of those isn't an editorial piece, it's a straight up interview with a developer who says that Mount & Blade set the gold standard and that their goal is to follow up on that and make an even better medieval combat game. And in that same interview they DID say there was going to be single player. And neither of those articles are poorly written.
FreiA French Prometheus UnboundDeadwoodRegistered Userregular
edited September 2012
Single player was scrapped/sidelined, which is a piece of info that was easy to find out. They also said that Mount and Blade set the gold standard, but that doesn't mean they were making a carbon copy - though it is so similar that I find it very funny that someone who loved Mount and Blade so much is having such a hard time with the control scheme in this one.
It doesn't take a philosophy degree to see that doing basic research beyond puff piece articles is wise, and that when a game isn't what your expectations are after you didn't properly research, that it isn't the game's fault.
It doesn't take any kind of degree (I don't know why Philosophy was relevant tbh) to understand that you are sacking Massena pretty hard for some fairly innocent comments.
I also don't know how anyone could disagree with the idea that this game is far, far, away from one-month-till-release-finished. Blaming a player for a game being finnicky and unfinished is just as silly as expecting it to be EXACTLY like Mount & Blade, but that was never what Massena expressed.
Also, ending any portion of an argument with "We're done here" is really lame.
0
Options
FreiA French Prometheus UnboundDeadwoodRegistered Userregular
Yeah, that was really tongue in cheek but it's hard to express when you're being that way and not, say, severe through text. Also, like i said, I wasn't speaking to the quality of the game. It needs quite a bit more time in the oven.
I don't know what you'd expect a medieval combat game where the developers reference Mount & Blade in an interview to be like, if not like Mount & Blade (and I do have a degree in philosophy...) but if you want to link us to some of this extensive research that you've done beyond the "puff piece articles" at Rock Paper Shotgun then I guess we can all be enlightened as to how to research games in the future and we can all keep from making this mistake again so you won't have to be condescending to us.
You're always uppity and condescending. Replace the Deadwood avatar with a high-and-mighty jerk standing on a podium or something. This is a fucking video game, it's not something to treat another video gamer like shit over. Get some god damn perspective.
And aside from that, you're a complete hypocrite. You criticize me, saying I'm a fool for thinking sarcasm translates to text in Guild Wars, yet you backpedal here saying sarcasm is what you meant by "we're done here". Right. At least own up to your own hateful impulses.
Heisenberg on
0
Options
testsubject23King of No SleepZzzzzzzRegistered Userregular
Gentlemen, please! There's only one civilized way to settle this: Crossbows at 20 paces!
Ok so they basically tried to take M&B multiplayer and add BF elements like squads and unlocks. They even have M&B designer working on the game. Yet somehow it only has a fraction of M&B depth and quality. It's a decent romp and I'm having some fun, but more than anything it makes me want to launch M&B again; if only it had this many eager players!
My first match (I being a long-time M&B player and having played this in the beta) I placed 2nd, despite only being there for 1/2 the match and unlocked all 4 base classes. The crowd's generally gotten more competent since that point, so I haven't done quite as well in a single match (3rd's my best place since), but I'm having a bunch of fun with it.
I've gone for a customized Crossbow class as my main. Plate Cuirass, Salet helm with standard visor, neck guard and mail coif. Pull lever on crossbow with barbed arrows, and a perk that increases the notch size for active reloads.
For sidearms I've gone for the longsword/shield combo. The shield is great because it protects your back while using the crossbow. I've quickly learned that swords are most effective when use in a thrusting motion, instead of the chopping motion most people use. The chop is easily blocked by armour or an equiped shield, even if the shield isn't raised. The thrust tends to hit every time unless they've actively raised their shield to block. The guys who don't bother equipping shields never survive a melee encounter with me. Sneaky buggers may be able to get the drop on me from behind, but once I swap weapons and turn, they get cut to shreds.
The only people I really need to worry about are hammer wielders. They tend to smash my shield to bits. Once it's gone, I can't block for shit.
It's a lot better since the beta. Thuogh there's still the occasional bug. Last night I spawned on my squad leader and instantly fell through the ground into the wild grey yonder.
Posts
Start match already is session. Spawn on one side of huge field with tons of guys fighting. See archer on complete other side of field/map. Randomly point bow into air and fire. THUNK. HEADSHOT. INSTANT KILL. LONGSHOT 107 yards.
I am the luckiest god damn bowman. I hope they buff longbows. Right now they are pretty inferior to crossbows. With the right setup and perks a crossbow can one shot anyone and reload in four seconds.
Historically what made longbows better was that in the time a crossbow could fire once, a Longbowman could fire four or five times and more accurately as well.
I thought I'd heard somewhere that it was better range, or that it was more accurate at range because it was easier to use plunging fire on a distant target.
I know they were ridiculously good at translating potential energy into kinetic energy, provided you had the arm and back strength to draw one back -- I saw someone do some math once which indicated that getting hit with an arrow from a long bow at range was rather like being shot with a round of .22 caliber rimfire from a bolt action rifle at 500 feet.
Generally archers were armed with lighter weapons that they could carry at the same time as a bow. Axes and maces mostly (although since most didn't have shields these weapons would probably be longer than a weapon meant to be used with a shield). More well equipped archers (generally the personal retinues of various nobles) were often equipped with swords and bucklers.
They were supported by dismounted men-at-arms and knights. On foot, at this time, knights had generally abandoned the shield and used two-handed weapons as their first choice. The pollax in particular, even though the two-handed sword was becoming more popular (as improved smithing technology made it simpler to construct long blades).
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Namely, that I didn't have to draw the arrow all the way back in order to fire accurately, and still did damage unless they were in heavy armor..
I don't have a ton of time to try the beta for a game like this, but what little I've seen gives me the impression that all of the differences are subtle but very important. Like physical momentum of the player character has such a huge effect on swing damage that I tend to do quick slashes instead of power swings and focus more on "footwork," but the gameplay I've seen makes me think that the time invested in preparing a power swing here is more important.
Not sure why, but I get like 60~ dmg with the Hanger(?)more and the others are normally in the middle ground ranging from 5-30 dmg.
I like the long bow since you can do quick follow up shots to finish off guys, they tend to do well short and long range(I'll be it hard to aim) then the crossbow.
The crossbow is horrible at close range because of the reloading so you can't get off quick shots to soften up charging enemies where with the longbow you can get a couple shots off before they are on you.
I'd like to try all the swords out, hopefully today's patch lets up get a bit more into the custom classes.
I actually tired experimenting with that when I got rushed. Most people tend to go for a power attack. I found that if I blocked an attack I could easily get in a quick jab then get back to blocking before their next attack came in. This is obviously on spammers who do nothing but repeatedly attack but it seems to work well on normal people as well. I actually bled some guys to deth this way by hitting them a few times then stay alive long enough to watch them keel over.
Agreed, it should be restricted to Med/Light.
On another note, maces are hard to use but really fun once you start knocking people upside their head with it.
Spears are not op now, but lances are crazy, which is okay cause they break after a few hits. I refuse to use any armor but light on my archer. Got a cool hood that does nothing to protect my head but makes me look awesome. Personally I think crossbows should be medium or light, and longbows be only light since you need more freedom of your upper body muscles, but make the light armor movement buff a bit better to compensate, or let Longbowmen power attacks with secondary weapons hit harder.
Also war bows are pretty nice with bodkin arrows and shooting a dude's horse out from under him as he charges the stabbing him to death with your knife as he tries to pull himself up is pretty fun.
Also either weapons all do more damage now, or everyone got super bad at fighting because I've actually been very successful at wading into a melee with my light armor archer equipped with only the default sword and murdering many people once I'm out of arrows. (arrows seem to regen slower now.)
Note to developers: Game needs Robin Hood mod for timspork. I would play it with him.
Rolling with heavy armour with a hood makes me feel pretty cool.... They do need a robin hood mod for this lol
So if the mechanics are wonky and hard to learn, and I can't practice on my own, and there's no single player free roam, my interest in this has cratered to the point of removing it from the hard drive and active games folder on steam.
I really really want to be wrong. I got frustrated and kept coming back, because the concept seems great and I loved Mount and Blade. But it seems they're going for a poorly executed medieval Call of Duty or something, instead of Mount and Blade.
You ordered a cheese pizza and are upset it isn't an ice cream sundae.
Nowhere did this game claim to be Mount and Blade or claim any single player features - it has always been about rank based competitive multiplayer, whether you like that thing or not.
If you don't like it, why are you playing? Why did you think it would be for you? Why did you go into it knowing it wouldn't be what you wanted (or, rather, why would you go into it not researching to see what kind of game it was, but then being upset it wasn't the game you wanted?)
Also, the controls for blocking and swinging are set up the same as Mount and Blade. If you used "swing by movement keys" in Mount and Blade, you can use that option in Roses, too.
Seriously, I love Mount and Blade, it is my most played game of all time, but War of the Roses is not Mount and Blade and never made claim to it. You have only yourself to blame for the comparison and disappointment (and for sucking at it).
Yeah. That was pretty stupid of me, thinking it would be like Mount and Blade. I mean, it wasn't compared to that in the intro post, or in any of the preview material. I really don't know where I got that idea. I feel silly.
I'm not speaking for the quality of War of the Roses at all, just to your expectations. And the fact that your only rebuttal is "I read an article, and also in mount and blade medieval guys fight each other, same as in war of the roses!" kind of brings me around to the fact that you expected much different than what you got and are now upset that the game was not built for you, when they were transparent about what it was about.
In short:
You complain about single player, to which they've said it is a multiplayer focus, and there will not be single player.
You say the mechanics are wonky and hard to learn but say you love Mount and Blade, but they use the same control scheme and extremely, extremely similar mechanics.
You say the game was misrepresented, because you read some poorly written articles and took it as gospel.
and you say it isn't your fault.
so, we're done here.
And you say @Massena is at fault.
So, we're done here.
It doesn't take a philosophy degree to see that doing basic research beyond puff piece articles is wise, and that when a game isn't what your expectations are after you didn't properly research, that it isn't the game's fault.
I also don't know how anyone could disagree with the idea that this game is far, far, away from one-month-till-release-finished. Blaming a player for a game being finnicky and unfinished is just as silly as expecting it to be EXACTLY like Mount & Blade, but that was never what Massena expressed.
Also, ending any portion of an argument with "We're done here" is really lame.
You're always uppity and condescending. Replace the Deadwood avatar with a high-and-mighty jerk standing on a podium or something. This is a fucking video game, it's not something to treat another video gamer like shit over. Get some god damn perspective.
And aside from that, you're a complete hypocrite. You criticize me, saying I'm a fool for thinking sarcasm translates to text in Guild Wars, yet you backpedal here saying sarcasm is what you meant by "we're done here". Right. At least own up to your own hateful impulses.
Steam: Chaos Introvert | Twitch.tv: Chaos_Introvert | R*SC: Chaos_Introvert | PSN: testsubject23
Not necessarily expecting it from wotr, but hopefully we see something like that soon.
My first match (I being a long-time M&B player and having played this in the beta) I placed 2nd, despite only being there for 1/2 the match and unlocked all 4 base classes. The crowd's generally gotten more competent since that point, so I haven't done quite as well in a single match (3rd's my best place since), but I'm having a bunch of fun with it.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
For sidearms I've gone for the longsword/shield combo. The shield is great because it protects your back while using the crossbow. I've quickly learned that swords are most effective when use in a thrusting motion, instead of the chopping motion most people use. The chop is easily blocked by armour or an equiped shield, even if the shield isn't raised. The thrust tends to hit every time unless they've actively raised their shield to block. The guys who don't bother equipping shields never survive a melee encounter with me. Sneaky buggers may be able to get the drop on me from behind, but once I swap weapons and turn, they get cut to shreds.
The only people I really need to worry about are hammer wielders. They tend to smash my shield to bits. Once it's gone, I can't block for shit.
I don't even think its been a month since beta ended. And beta had plenty of problems... I'll be curious to see how much has changed