Messages

46

Servers / Re: 84e Regiment Public Siege Server [84e_NW_Siege]

« on: March 12, 2013, 05:24:57 pm »

I'm giving up.

Take care of her, 84e.

[edit]
Might have been a bit rough, but seeing ones reaction.. it was quite suited

47

Servers / Re: 15th Humans vs Bots Server

« on: March 12, 2013, 05:21:27 pm »

I'm putting my voice into this far too much :p

But I would suggest enabling maybe only commanders, if you are looking to keep it balanced.
Especially coordinated cavalry charges are just devastating (and fun as h--).

Thus far it's the best on the Normandy look-a-like map.

I'm just feeling bad for hunting commanders over and over again :p

48

Servers / Re: 84e Regiment Public Siege Server [84e_NW_Siege]

« on: March 12, 2013, 05:15:02 pm »

Not that good a score to be honest :p
I am just really glad to have a mute option in the game, after encountering Emma joining, immediately cursing and long sentences in continuous caps.

I really wonder why someone would make the effort of doing that, but please be more subtle when talking online and restraint yourself a little.
Not trying to be offensive, but just take this advice from me.

Sorry i get very angry when i take `commander` and wait 30 seconds to spawn, to find out some jerk of a sapper has blown the bridge, and the only way out is over a wall and through a slow river - meaning i am 99 per cent likely to be shot off my horse and killed by enemy... and then another 30 second wait and same thing again...  you would get unhappy too

No, I would not, because I have experienced this plenty a times and I agree with blowing the bridge.
Especially as commander, it shouldn't be a problem.

So again.. It would be best to take it easy. Even when your team agrees with you (which they dont), you should react more politely.
Just be friendly online and you will see most of your problems dissappear.

49

Servers / Re: 84e Regiment Public Siege Server [84e_NW_Siege]

« on: March 11, 2013, 08:18:36 pm »

Not that good a score to be honest :p
I am just really glad to have a mute option in the game, after encountering Emma joining, immediately cursing and long sentences in continuous caps.

I really wonder why someone would make the effort of doing that, but please be more subtle when talking online and restraint yourself a little.
Not trying to be offensive, but just take this advice from me.

50

Servers / Re: 15th Humans vs Bots Server

« on: March 11, 2013, 07:56:08 pm »

I'm going to supplement my "no" on the poll a bit.

I love playing as cavalry and actually on several maps being pretty useful.
But I can see how cavalry impact the bots' AI and for this reason I have voted against cavalry.

It is very possible to get sniped of your mount pretty soon, but it actually seldomly happens. When you get close enough entire regiments, it's possible to draw the attention of almost every bot around.
They still miss most of the time and if you're an experienced mounted combatteer, you can easily get 5-10 kills within moments.
Single experienced cavalrymen can easily distract entire platoons, inflict serious damage and hunt especially for commanders.

Fun as h-beep-, but it makes some games very unbalanced.

Plus, having suicidal attacking cavalry commanders also brings unwanted situations.
It's just silly to see individuals dodging all defenders for a single arty/engineer kill and get killed themselves almost immediately.

So I like it, but with "siege" in mind, I would seriously advice against cavalry.

Thanks for the input! I have to agree to your points myself as this is the very reason i didn`t enable cavalry to begin with! The thing is we need to test it and get as many people`s opinions on the matter to see what the majority want. I know for a fact that many maps are totally unsuitable for cavalry and will end up having them disabled. There are other maps where defenders have a far harder time due to the limited nature of their defences and where a few cavalry on their side could help a lot.

I have mostly (only) played as defender, but a single time as attacker made me view it all differently.
Especially on the map suitable for cavalry, the cavalry can really dismount assault. Just a single cavarly man charging/wounding some, will attract a complete group (if they were close to each other / in formation).
The only way I could actually get grouped bots together on the wall / inner boundraries, was by herding them each single foot. Just outside the walls and most bots would target cavalry, drawing them away from the flag.
This was on the snow covered map, with a village on both the right/left side; the left being elevated.

On the other hand, cavalry on the attackers' side (not the bots) is extremely useful, unless they are going kill hunting. (ie. charging defending sappers/artillery over and over again).
Quickly going to spots to move your bots to and retreating to cover, was the only 'sure' method of herding your bots inside. Being easy targets for cavalry, which they only target with a charge command and will most often go the wrong way.

It wouldn't be as bad if the bots knew how to react to cavalry, but they only really target them when getting ran over. A superior method of defending cavalry is to kill 2-3 bots in a single run and run all the way to the other side and repeat. Not the best cavalry myself, but doing this I was easily getting in the top 3-5 without losing all lives (which is hard as charging cavalry). The only way you die, is to get sniped or targeted by a commander, as the bots will not melee you spontaneously.

But my conclusion is a bit ironic. The maps, which are not really suitable for cavalry, are best with cavalry, as the bots wont get distracted too easily.

P.S.
Was just thinking about it.. and it's kinda strange to feel safe as cavalry charging into a defending line, which I often did. (as bayonets seem to be meant to go versus mounts)

51

Servers / Re: 15th Humans vs Bots Server

« on: March 07, 2013, 12:23:46 pm »

I'm going to supplement my "no" on the poll a bit.

I love playing as cavalry and actually on several maps being pretty useful.
But I can see how cavalry impact the bots' AI and for this reason I have voted against cavalry.

It is very possible to get sniped of your mount pretty soon, but it actually seldomly happens. When you get close enough entire regiments, it's possible to draw the attention of almost every bot around.
They still miss most of the time and if you're an experienced mounted combatteer, you can easily get 5-10 kills within moments.
Single experienced cavalrymen can easily distract entire platoons, inflict serious damage and hunt especially for commanders.

Fun as h-beep-, but it makes some games very unbalanced.

Plus, having suicidal attacking cavalry commanders also brings unwanted situations.
It's just silly to see individuals dodging all defenders for a single arty/engineer kill and get killed themselves almost immediately.

So I like it, but with "siege" in mind, I would seriously advice against cavalry.

52

General Discussion / Re: Will someone please explain this magic?

« on: March 06, 2013, 05:34:54 pm »

Maybe the ping requests are done thru other ports and he simply blocked that port?

53

Servers / Re: 84e Regiment Public Siege Server [84e_NW_Siege]

« on: March 01, 2013, 04:46:47 pm »

I think there aren't any official rules about plank placement, as long it's not considered to be 'useless'.
For the rest, it's a matter of taste.

I often use 1 or 2 planks to block off pathways, as it's incredibly fast to do in comparison with sand bags and other things.
When given time and opportunity, I prefer to build nice looking barricades. In game situations I seldomly find the right moment for this tho (with the exception of flag fortifications).
A lot of players choose to destroy friendly barricades, when they can't figure out the right jump, and for this reason I also pick planks once in a while (harder to get rid off).

I consider placing multiple planks ( > 2 ) at 1 spot to be pretty ugly, but mostly acceptable.

Just yesterday I was enjoying myself continually placing planks over the wooden, destroyable, bridge. One of the situations where planks are actually the best choice

54

Servers / Re: 84e Regiment Public Siege Server [84e_NW_Siege]

« on: February 28, 2013, 05:23:45 pm »

Hello,


I've posted a long while back, but have been a bit inactive due to work and whatnot's.
Just wanted to place a short apology and the notice that you'll find me more often online again.

I always try to keep people in line in the same team, which often actually works out lately. (as in: "You, stop trolling that!" and they actually stop).

Still loving the 84e siege server and only switching it up with either a crowded battle server once a while and the bot server for target practicing. (good cannon practice).

Life long and prosper!


P.S.

The newest map is quite okay. Not sure wether it's the best in siege gameplay, but I like the different style of approach.

55

Servers / Re: 84e Regiment Public Siege Server [84e_NW_Siege]

« on: November 23, 2012, 01:15:02 pm »

Hiya,

I'm a regular visitor of the 84th server and am more or less volunteering if there are any administration / map making things I could help with.

I had a map of the Alamo, which was finished pretty far (and followed the map rules of the 84th), but I've lost the most recent version to an update. (ofcourse remembering to back it up -after- I ran the backup)
Busy with a map, where height differences should play a big part. (elevated fortress inside a hilly city environment)

If anyone here is interested in a siege map of the Alamo, I can finish that one before going on with the 2nd map.
(I think the layout of the Alamo can make interesting offense/defense strategies)

I wasn't active for a little while because of personal reasons, but would like to do my part now

P.S. probably only Gragnok can recognize me after stabbing me in the face over and over again :p