Perhaps you misunderstand me; by "current max speed is fine", I mean including the current formula for dex. At 104 dex, this speed is fine, a higher dex would of course be a bit faster, I have no issue with that; I'm saying we don't need to change current formula.
This is, of course, correct. However, I think the best solution to that would be to cause the consequences of that packet loss/lag to fall only on the player experiencing it, as some other games do, not everyone having to deal with that character. It's stops intentional de-syncing in it's tracks, since it "punishes" not rewards it. There is no perfect solution, we agree on that, but everyone else shouldn't suffer from it, whether it be intentional or just unfortunate.
We already have people running around taking on literally everyone in sight single-handedly. I'd say the gap already exists. And trying to turn a single server solution into a twitch game will be a repeat of MO1 desync hell. And I meant tactics, not strategy; they are completely different things.
no, that's tactics. Strategy is the general in the war room looking over the entire theater of war, and in this game that's called politics.
I do. I mean everything from feints to baits, ambushes, and traps, etc. And they totally happen here.
Agree and disagree on this one:
1.) If slower weapons have almost no use, then why is a big-ass 2-handed weapon the single (by far) most used weapon in the game currently?
2.) I agree that heavier weapons should have chip damage as a balance to their lower speed. A dagger parrying a 2-handed anything for zero damage needs to change. I'm not sure hitboxes are as big a problem as you say though; a lot of the time lag looks just like bad hitboxes.
I don't care what anyone says, you and Patwins make a really cute couple. =P
Making the game where a few twitch players can steamroll over entire groups is not going to benefit this game in the long term anymore than it did MO1. And "everybody" didn't complain about it being slow, and iirc the slowdowns were an attempt to fix de-sync and all the bads that came with it, both intentional and not.
Speed was definitely king. And the king is dead. You really need to stop talking like everyone that disagrees with you is some noob that never played MO1 or something, and you have some greater understanding of "how shit works". It's a bit condescending, frankly.
I agree. As I said in another post, I can literally tell the time by how the combat is, b/c it changes so much when the Euro's log on (I'm NA West Coast). Henrik is wrong, but it's his passion project and he'll do whatever he wants with it. Which means latency can only made so low, which means speed can only be allowed so high, before shit goes wrong.
The limitations on tech incur limitations on speed, before desyncing gets rampant. And that would clearly *not* improve gameplay.
Chuckle, how do I say this politely? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. You seem to be relating two unrelated things:
1.) Yes, speed amplifies the problem. Talking about lag/desync tech issues.
2.) "gameplay > single server" You sound like you are reiterating the multiple server idea.
Not sure what you're trying to say, tbh.
No offense, but I don't think you understand what ping normalization is. It's not some magic bullet I assure you, it's a controlled error allowance compensation that can only go so far.
Some fair points, some I disagree with. This was, in my opinion, a much better thought out response than to mostly what I get usually.
1. Yeah, I could see the logic in this; we've still yet to experience any kind of different attributes so until this happens there isn't much we can do or say on it with 100% certainty.
2. I'd be totally for the game just disallowing people with bad connections, both packet loss and high ping (too high) to play.
3. Duels, in my eyes on MO2, mean little to nothing to me just like MO1 does. Duels should feel okay, but group fighting is where the combat should shine 90% of the time. This is also high lighted further between players that vary in the regions they live.
4. Call it what you like. I've seen people post on here saying that want the game to be slow so they can use formations for example. When in-fact it's honestly just two waves of people clashing into each other until one gets washed over. Sure, you can pull back to regroup, dive to push deep into there group, line fight which simply means holding the line and not retreating or pushing - but 'tactics' in this game are super limited. I just see people wanting it slower so combat becomes more strategical when it really wont.
5. I can agree with this.
6. A. Because swords are a well rounded weapon no matter the handle / blade you use along with materials. There damage is usually good across the board regardless of weight, materials, and design. Their animations are good, players can justify the use of all four attack directions using them, the range is appropriate, and they are typically faster then most weapons even if sometimes heavier than a lighter weapon of different style.
B. Yes, weapons that are one handed should have a threshold of damage blocked that can be exceeded by heavier, longer weapons. But they also have access to shields, and I'd assume in the future dual wielding which either should negate this (In my opinion). So long as their skills reflect.
Hard pass. I don't like people who whine about losing to a system they use to the same degree against others only to call you a 'boring fighter' when they themselves are such. No offense, just honesty.
7. This is super debatable. As it lacks context. A few twitch players against... who, where, what, why, gear, roles, etc. I'm going to have to disagree and say a few twitch (mechanically good) players should be able to take on groups, should the context support it. Someone asked this before and said "What if 3 people were fighting 12 people in an open field? Should the 3 win?" Probably not. In this scenario - they are stacked 1:4, the most they could do is kite somewhere for help, or an advantageous location that benefits their roles. Is it 3 heavy foot fighters? Yeah, they're probably not getting away unless all 12 players are also heavy foot fighters, are significantly worse, and play it bad / make mistakes. Now lets translate the situation of 3 hybrids playing against a group of 12, mixture of fighters and mages. We'll say 3 mages, and 9 foot fighters. But this time the location is in GK, or a dense, building-heavy town. Yes, the 3 players could certainly outplay the 12 - given they have the knowledge, skill, and tools at their disposal (Gear, reagents, etc.) Smart players will move and play to their advantages if numbers are not in their favor. Equally skilled, outfitted, and in their preferred environments? Sure, the 12 wins. But the 3 should always have the ability to outplay - that is why I like skill based systems, that promote quick thinking and decision making.
8. Played the game for 8 years, so it can be agitating having it over looked since people don't know my background - and I don't know there's.. For some I do, and it's why I take what they say with a grain of salt. Also, 9 / 10, text does a poor job of conveying intended emotion. I try to put out information and opinions from my own experiences, my guilds experiences, and my friends experiences in hope that with you all we can help guide SV better into forming a game that is fun from a gameplay perspective, but doesn't absolutely gut things such as skill based systems. No, I'm not saying speed is a skill based system - but it plays a part in it all. So apologies if it comes off that way.
9. Yeah there isn't much reason to debate this. EU players just have a better gameplay experience hands down, and that fucking sucks.
10. Gameplay is taking a hit because of the single server, that is just an objective fact. Henrik has made it clear he has no intentions of using regional servers as he believes him and SV have 'solved' the issue, even though plenty of us would disagree - though he made a note to say there are still issues they are working on, and sure; I'll see it to believe it. But I have very high doubts. So of course, your argument can hold truer than mine simply because the game is being forced to be played on a single server. I still think even still there needs to be solutions to the slowness of combat, it wasn't this slow before and I thought it was relatively fine - just not the turn caps.
11. I'm saying I'd rather have two servers, where people have better ping overall - or just move the server to NA since the NA playerbase is bigger and it would benefit more people, rather than put it somewhere where it skews gameplay for more people. Because I want them to focus on making good gameplay, not creating solutions for problems they've made with server locations. EU makes off handed remarks how they wouldn't mind, and it wouldn't make much of a difference; but I'd like to see them put those 'shoes' on for a couple of months and see how long they keep them on till they want a new pair.
12. I don't think SV knows what ping normalization is.
