Mordhau
 Ruby Rhoderick
Duke
  • Likes received 973
  • Date joined 9 Mar '17
  • Last seen 12 Oct

Private Message

Duke 341 973
  • 30 May '17
 Ruby Rhoderick

@Sir Zombie said:
Data tables?
More like, Data TBAles!

heh

Duke 341 973
  • 30 May '17
 Ruby Rhoderick

I really think these updates should come out the first of every month. June update this Thursday!?!

Duke 341 973
  • 26 May '17
 Ruby Rhoderick

@Neo said:
Looking at their IPs they were all from India and they confirmed their email addresses so I would assume they registered manually. Adding a captcha on registration wouldn't help in this case. I would need to look into some kind of spam content detection for new users instead. Hopefully they realize they were not successful and move on.

Block all of India.

Duke 341 973
Duke 341 973
  • 24 May '17
 Ruby Rhoderick

Looks like it's available on Steam again. 190 peak players currently. RIP

Duke 341 973
  • 23 May '17
 Ruby Rhoderick

This'll likely mark the end of Torn Banner. This botched launch and the low player count during the beta/alpha is clear indication that it won't sell well. If they really have been working on this for 3 years with a team of 20+ that's a lot of money I don't see them making back.

Duke 341 973
Duke 341 973
  • 23 May '17
 Ruby Rhoderick

@Sir Zombie said:
To what map exactly?

the map

Duke 341 973
  • 23 May '17
 Ruby Rhoderick

@BaronSterling said:

@crushed said:
This is wrong, you will be able to catch them. The disarm is different depending on the enemy swing angle, which makes it hard to catch the weapon every time but theoretically you could memorize it.

I really hope this is changed. As is, it would look absolutely ridiculous and break balancing by allowing players that memorize disarm angles to just completely ignore the penalty for being too defensive, making an entire balancing mechanic moot for select players.

While we don't really know how this mechanic will work until we have the chance to try it ourselves, I agree it does sound a bit wonky that we could "catch" our weapons immediately after being disarmed. I think there should be a timer (maybe 2 seconds) that prohibits players from picking up their disarmed weapons.

Instead of being able to catch your disarmed weapon, you should have to be quick to react to a disarm by switching to a secondary. By allowing a player to memorize disarm directions, you're cheapening the significance of landing a disarm. Not to mention, it's going to look absolutely ridiculous knocking the weapon from your opponent's hands only to have it teleport back.

Duke 341 973
  • 22 May '17
 Ruby Rhoderick

@Sammy said:

@Ruby Rhoderick said:

@Sammy said:

@Ruby Rhoderick said:
I do think there has to be a better way to show a player's health than blood covered armor like Chivalry did. Perhaps armor could show wear? Like heavy scratches / gouges and dents could appear on armored players as they take damage. It doesn't have to be localized damage; each piece of armor could have canned damage stages.

No, because the game already allows you to apply wear 'n' tear in the customisation options.

Yes but, I'm thinking heavy damage. What we've seen of the armor customization is light wear and tear such as dirtying up your armor a bit.

The problem is that health regeneration exists and having dents and slashes disappear is fucking dumb, with blood you can assume it dripped off, or the guy wiped it off.

I don't think it's any more strange than blood splattering outside of one's armor.

Duke 341 973
  • 22 May '17
 Ruby Rhoderick

@Sammy said:

@Ruby Rhoderick said:
I do think there has to be a better way to show a player's health than blood covered armor like Chivalry did. Perhaps armor could show wear? Like heavy scratches / gouges and dents could appear on armored players as they take damage. It doesn't have to be localized damage; each piece of armor could have canned damage stages.

No, because the game already allows you to apply wear 'n' tear in the customisation options.

Yes but, I'm thinking heavy damage. What we've seen of the armor customization is light wear and tear such as dirtying up your armor a bit.

Duke 341 973
  • 22 May '17
 Ruby Rhoderick

I do think there has to be a better way to show a player's health than blood covered armor like Chivalry did. Perhaps armor could show wear? Like heavy scratches / gouges and dents could appear on armored players as they take damage. It doesn't have to be localized damage; each piece of armor could have canned damage stages.

Duke 341 973
  • 17 May '17
 Ruby Rhoderick

What are your computer specs?

Duke 341 973
  • 16 May '17
 Ruby Rhoderick

Thank you, Marox.

Duke 341 973
  • 15 May '17
 Ruby Rhoderick

I think you'll be alright.

Duke 341 973
  • 15 May '17
 Ruby Rhoderick

@Kirbone said:
We all came to a reasonable conclusion before. This isn't only for Triternion to gather more money but also to please some of their followers requests. I seriously don't understand what the fuzz is about. This is like going back and forward with that one customer in the store I work in that kept saying why Macbook is a better gaming choice, or something.

We did come to quite the clear conclsuion before that stands out and is biased towards one direction during this entire thread, which is seen at page one and in multiple occasion forward in this thread, if you try to follow the line of argument. To be worry of your "exclusivity" isn't logical. There is NOTHING to worry about, if they put numbered limiters on it anyways. Just like Kickstarter helmets in Chivalry, they LITERALLY gave their kickstarter helmets away because it appeared like no one was using them anymore. Has anyone here even see anyone running around with that helmet, except for that one admin guy? This solution seemed fair enough for both parties before and I don't see why not now. More than 80 % are for this and some people that doesn't want to share a tiny little piece of the cake are stubbornly and selfishly against this for no logical reason at all, rather than being supportive and helpful towards the huge majority of this community that wants this and helped building the ground of this game. This solution seemed reasonable for almost everyone, without truly disappointing either side. So far, I see no logical reason for not wanting this. The community clearly shows its heart in the poll and the decision shouldn't be followed by the dominance of the small minority that are illogicly against this.

Like many suggested before. If you REALLY worry they could instead make a numbered restriction to the cosmetics instead of no restrictions at all, since that's what you seem to only care about, while keeping the current restrictions to King and Emperor or however the devs considers the best way of tackling this is.

Baron: 550 max

Count: 250 Max

Duke: 150 Max

We're not selfish for wanting to retain what was promised to us. It clearly states that the cosmetic rewards are exclusive to the Kickstarter campaign that has ended. You had a month to back at the tier you wanted, if you missed that opportunity, that's on you. Don't ruin this for everyone else who pledged at a higher tier for the opportunity to own an exclusive piece of Mordhau.

Besides, if we allow them to reopen these tiers for purchase, it is a slippery slope to what they could do next. I wouldn't be surprised if a year after release, they offer the Kickstarter cosmetics for purchase because we didn't hold them to their word here.

More than that, the argument that this would be for the greater good of Mordhau is absolute bullshit. If you think $300,000 (4x the amount they requested) wasn't enough, purchase Alpha keys from the web store and distribute them.

Duke 341 973
Duke 341 973
  • 14 May '17
 Ruby Rhoderick

We can't all be a meme aficionado, Gaymer.

Duke 341 973
  • 13 May '17
 Ruby Rhoderick

@Jax said:
Eh, idk now. I think the GE brought up a good point and I can see both sides of this. I changed my vote to "yes, with limitations".

Maybe:

  1. Allow players to upgrade to one tier higher only.
  2. Only allow players to upgrade one tier IF there's available slots.
  3. Set a conservative limit on previously unrestricted slots. So if Duke had no limit, and there's currently 75 dukes, set the limit to 100. There's 408 barons, set the limit to 500. There's roughly 100 counts, set the limit to 125.
  4. Do not increase the limits on restricted tiers - 24/30 king slots were taken, if allowed to upgrade, only 6 slots should ever be available.

This (hopefully) keeps exclusives, well, exclusive enough while allowing the backers to upgrade if they wish. The numbers I set above only allow for a 25% increase in each tier, which can only be done by the people in the tier below.

What do you all think?

I think the best solution is leave the Kickstarter tiers exclusive and set them in stone as we assumed they would be. However, if there has to be a compromise, then this is the route that should be taken.

Duke 341 973
  • 13 May '17
 Ruby Rhoderick

@Kirbone said:

@SeaFerret said:

  1. Guys stop being cunts, there's no need to bully people for expressing their opinions. I know there alot of youngsters on here but you have to understand that if you start taking shots at someone on a personal level, your talking points become invalid as it becomes clear that your stance is only based on pissing off your opponent. tbh it gets kinda old and clutters the discussion.
  2. I think this is not as much about the devs trying to milk every extra dollar and more about helping out those who weren't financially ready for the Kickstarter.
  3. I think this is clearly a bad move, just leave things the way they were. If people want alpha they can get it from the store. If they want Kickstarter exclusive they have to be part of the exclusive group that had their shit together during the Kickstarter. Honestly I don't care if there ends up being 300 dukes so I won't change my vote, but a lot of people do.
  4. When the Kickstarter was almost over I almost switched to baron because the number of dukes kept increasing and I felt it was getting to the point of "not exclusive enough to be worth $400 US"
  5. This method of voting is unfair, it leaves out the backers that aren't active forum members and includes all the people that shouldn't get a vote (non backers). The vote should only include those who's shares in the games are essentially being devalued (becoming less exclusive).
  6. If this is going to become the new model then original backers should also have the option to refund.
  7. To assume that anyone who is against this is against Mordhau is unfair. Yes they will get more money if this is passed (which is why I'm okay with it) but clearly the devs know this is a moral grey area or there wouldn't be a vote. Either way one party is getting hurt and one party is benefiting. I think the discussion should be more centered around how one sides losses can be minimised whether that side is the side that loses some exclusiveness or whether that side it the side that is stuck at a low tier for lack of finance during the Kickstarter.

"Honestly I don't care if there ends up being 300 dukes so I won't change my vote, but a lot of people do."
"When the Kickstarter was almost over I almost switched to baron because the number of dukes kept increasing and I felt it was getting to the point of "not exclusive enough to be worth $400 US" Okay?

Not worth it because it does almost not feel exclusive anymore? Chivalry had 32 people that got the kickstarter helmet and yet I have NEVER seen anyone (except a guy that got it because he became an admin) have it during my years at the game. You shouldn't even be slightly concerned in the long run. I honestly see nothing to worry about, nor that this is a bad idea. Also, the poll speaks for itself.

Sadly, this thread got out of hand.

Having a poll dictate the direction of this matter was a mistake. It's biased towards those who could not afford to or did not want to back at a higher tier during the Kickstarter. So no, the poll doesn't speak for itself.