What are you playing now?

[Hassat Hunter]

I do use the mousewheel. Have to stand under the ladder for the roof to even be able to appear. And only if I max zoom out and point the camera a certain way it shows...

 

Of course to dissapear again if I use my mouse to actually try and select something.

 

Atleast with stairs on another map I could get up after 3 turns... crazy.

[Orogun01]

 

 

Finished Planescape Torment.

 

That final third/half is kind of awful. But the first part of it and the overall writing make up for it. Curst was probably the part I forgot the most of and for good reason.

 

Not sure what to play next.

Congratulations on finishing it, specially since you were playing it at late hours. Every time I tried doing conversations got longer and I would wake up with a note under me that said "you have slept for 8 hours"

 

Edit: since you seem to be in the mood for CRPGs how about going from the nameless one to the living one? (they really need to have more variety) go load up Arcanum.

 

Arcanum is far fresher in my memory than Planescape was. My original run of Planescape was in my Assassin/Rogue days, where my Arcanum run was fully in the midst of my Mage days. Since I still play Mages, I'd probably just end up playing it exactly the same way.

 

I'm thinking about doing Drakensang next.

 

Tweak the ini for faster running, it helps.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Finished Planescape Torment.

 

That final third/half is kind of awful. But the first part of it and the overall writing make up for it. Curst was probably the part I forgot the most of and for good reason.

 

Not sure what to play next.

Congratulations on finishing it, specially since you were playing it at late hours. Every time I tried doing conversations got longer and I would wake up with a note under me that said "you have slept for 8 hours"

 

Edit: since you seem to be in the mood for CRPGs how about going from the nameless one to the living one? (they really need to have more variety) go load up Arcanum.

 

Arcanum is far fresher in my memory than Planescape was. My original run of Planescape was in my Assassin/Rogue days, where my Arcanum run was fully in the midst of my Mage days. Since I still play Mages, I'd probably just end up playing it exactly the same way.

 

I'm thinking about doing Drakensang next.

 

 

I hope you aren't disappointed with Drakensang, I was

[Malcador]

Alpha Protocol, for some reason. Interesting to see the bugs I'm seeing on it on my 4th playthrough now for the first time - Thorton switches hands used for aiming but his gun doesn't, camera gets confused with relation to Thorton.

[Tale]

I hope you aren't disappointed with Drakensang, I was

I played bits of 2 and it felt like a lower budget Neverwinter Nights 2, I hope the first is more of the same.

[mkreku]

Still playing Assassin's Creed 3. This game is so strangely paced. "Here's five missions for you to earn the right to run. Now here's another five missions to learn how to turn left".

 

I'm having fun, but I wish the game would just unshackle me and let me play the way I want.

 

Oh, and I think this is the prettiest open world game I've ever played. Strange noone ever mentioned what a looker it is.

[Orogun01]

Still playing Assassin's Creed 3. This game is so strangely paced. "Here's five missions for you to earn the right to run. Now here's another five missions to learn how to turn left".

 

I'm having fun, but I wish the game would just unshackle me and let me play the way I want.

 

Oh, and I think this is the prettiest open world game I've ever played. Strange noone ever mentioned what a looker it is.

Then you are in for a treat, the game has 12 sequences 6 are tutorials. Half the game is what you described and the other half is just bad, still I managed to have fun during some of the portions. 

[entrerix]

AC3 was so promising, i loved the setting and the set up, but man oh man is it a poorly designed and constructed game

 

tons of stupid missions, lack of polish, lack of impact to most of your actions

 

it was the first AC game i felt really let down by (i skipped revelations which was supposed to be kind of bad too)

 

hopefully the new pirate game gets the series back on track

[Tale]

I doubt it's possible for the series to get on track so long as the development is a mill. AC 3 was supposed to be the game to bring it back on track.

 

Finished Gunpoint. Short but fantastic game.

[Majek]

Dragon's domga:Dark Arisen ... man this is eating up my time. Took a while for me to really start enjoying it, but now i can't play anything else. I even stopped caring about Dark Souls 2 for now.

[Lexx]

I stopped playing the first AC game after the second town. It was so repeating, I just couldn't take it any longer.

 

Then I played the last one with that native american dude on the cover, but instead I had to control some English guy and everything was so extremely linear that I - once again - just couldn't take it any longer and stopped playing this as well.

[mkreku]

I played for 6 hours straight yesterday, so Assassin's Creed 3 definitely does something right. I only played Assassin's Creed and Assassin's Creed 2 before this (I skipped those other games, even though I own one of them on Steam) so for me Assassin's Creed feels fresh. I'm not assassined out.

 

I reached sequence 6, and the game is now almost overwhelming me with the amount of things to do. I'm climbing churches, exploring the frontier, hunting wildlife, helping locals, gathering trophies, upgrading my home and ship, farming things, crafting things, trading things, running through forests on treetops, fighting soldiers, liberating forts, gathering treasure maps, solving riddles in the underground.

 

I'm basically doing everything, except assassinating.

 

I'm not sure I understand what the complaints are about lack of polish. It feels extremely slick to me, the render engine throws up some absolutely stunning vistas (I'm running everything on max except shadows.. on an old Radeon 5870!), the gameplay is smooth and satisfying (most of the time), the free-running is improved since Assassin's Creed 2. I've only had two major bugs so far (liberating a fort and the fort commander spawned under the map and a bear refused to come and eat my expertly positioned carcass), but nothing a reload didn't fix. Sure, the AI isn't always clever, but it's no worse than the current general level of AI in games (btw, I still think the original Far Cry had some of the best AI..).

 

My biggest complaints against this game (and the Assassin's Creed games in general) is the way they use the gameworld. They build these huge, interesting gameworlds.. but then they limit its uses to only act as a container of marked quests and as a travel timesink. Imagine if they had actually made exploring worthwhile, instead of just filling it up with collectables and questmarkers? If they had houses you could enter, npc's you could interact with, equipment you could find? It would definitely take it to another level.

 

I guess that's only for GTA (except GTA 4) and the Gothic games.

[Tagaziel]

Europa Universalis IV. I love it, except for the way the game resolves battle. Unless I don't understand the system at all, it's beyond retarded. Armies of comparable sizes and composition, same tech level, I have the advantage of a good battlefield, yet I get wtfpwned every-single-****ing-time no matter who I fight against. Oh, it's you Bohemia? Please, come and wipe out an army LARGER THAN YOUR OWN nearly TWO TIMES. At the same time, please make sure to rape my army and country together with Muscovy, despite the fact that you shouldn't be able to defeat an army twice your size with the terrain and home field advantage.

 

From what I gather, this is a typical situation with Paradox games this soon after release: the balance is so completely out of whack it's not even funny.

[NOK222]

Hey Keyrock, look what I made. 

 

 

I also made Risky.

[Keyrock]

Hey Keyrock, look what I made. 

 

 

I also made Risky.

Awesome!  What game is that, by the way?

[NOK222]

Sims 3.

 

 

(Don't have decent pirate clothes, the hat is a mod)

Edited October 15, 2013 by NKKKK

[Keyrock]

I imagine that on Risky Boots you had to improvise on the Skull Bustier.

[alanschu]

Europa Universalis IV. I love it, except for the way the game resolves battle. Unless I don't understand the system at all, it's beyond retarded. Armies of comparable sizes and composition, same tech level, I have the advantage of a good battlefield, yet I get wtfpwned every-single-****ing-time no matter who I fight against. Oh, it's you Bohemia? Please, come and wipe out an army LARGER THAN YOUR OWN nearly TWO TIMES. At the same time, please make sure to rape my army and country together with Muscovy, despite the fact that you shouldn't be able to defeat an army twice your size with the terrain and home field advantage.

 

From what I gather, this is a typical situation with Paradox games this soon after release: the balance is so completely out of whack it's not even funny.

 

What are your respective tech levels, and leaders (and who are you, precisely, as well).

[Tagaziel]

I have a solid economy and income, that's not the problem. The current situation is: Commonwealth, tech level 10, with a balanced ratio (4:2:1, I recall) against Muscovy, 10, same ratio. I can understand getting defeated occasionally by Bohemia, 11, but not when I've been trying to win a war for the past two days. All units are at the highest possible refinement level (I'm not trying to fight against Renaissance cavalry with medieval militias) and should, theoretically, be on equal footing. I have several Polish idea bonuses that apply to cavalry and units in general. I try to get balanced military leaders (last time I got wtfpwned was with a 2/2/3/- at the head of my largest army).

 

The problem lies in the fact that unless I take on miniature countries nobody likes, like the Teutonic Order, I get lolpwned, no matter the setup. Army of equal size and makeups? No. Army twice the enemy size and with a makeup focusing on strongest and most powerful units? No. Fight together with an army of a technologically superior ally and face the enemy in advantageous terrain? No.

 

It seems that for two days straight I've had bad dice rolls. Which is really, really annoying.

[BruceVC]

I have a solid economy and income, that's not the problem. The current situation is: Commonwealth, tech level 10, with a balanced ratio (4:2:1, I recall) against Muscovy, 10, same ratio. I can understand getting defeated occasionally by Bohemia, 11, but not when I've been trying to win a war for the past two days. All units are at the highest possible refinement level (I'm not trying to fight against Renaissance cavalry with medieval militias) and should, theoretically, be on equal footing. I have several Polish idea bonuses that apply to cavalry and units in general. I try to get balanced military leaders (last time I got wtfpwned was with a 2/2/3/- at the head of my largest army).

 

The problem lies in the fact that unless I take on miniature countries nobody likes, like the Teutonic Order, I get lolpwned, no matter the setup. Army of equal size and makeups? No. Army twice the enemy size and with a makeup focusing on strongest and most powerful units? No. Fight together with an army of a technologically superior ally and face the enemy in advantageous terrain? No.

 

It seems that for two days straight I've had bad dice rolls. Which is really, really annoying.

 

Sounds like a bug, it must be ......   

[alanschu]

This might help too:

 

http://eu4wiki.com/Land_warfare

 

 

I'd need to see a pic of the battle screen to give a more informed response, however.

[Tagaziel]

This might help too:

 

http://eu4wiki.com/Land_warfare

 

 

I'd need to see a pic of the battle screen to give a more informed response, however.

I've read through the wiki and I'll try applying it. However, I'm still rather annoyed by the combat system. I've fought in a variety of settings, I don't lag behind in terms of tech, yet I'm continuously getting whooped by countries despite having a roughly equal footing. Hell, it got to the point where fighting in the mountains as a defender with an equal size army still resulted in defeat.

 

I'll try to post a pic once my anger dies down and I recover the PC from the lake I threw it into.

 

Oh, now I see. Bohemia has a wtfpwning terminator leader with six-freaking-pips in fire and shock each. Thanks RNG, I love you too.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Tagaziel

[LadyCrimson]

Y'know how the Commando and his turret/s seem so awesome soloing in BL2's 1st/2nd difficulty? Not so much in the new Ultimate difficulty. The Siren was so much easier. She has much better crowd control and can still play crazy reckless, while my Commando is doing a lot of slow-paced hiding. That's at lvl 50-52 tho. I'd guess at lvl70+ or whatever, when the Commando can have two double-gun, extra-life slagging turrets, he'd feel a lot stronger again.

 

In Ultimate, right after you kill BoomBoom and you're supposed to get on the big tank gun to blow up some baddies...that doesn't work anymore. The baddies are too strong and the tank gun can barely hurt them, lol. You sit in it slowly firing and all it does is bounce them around from place to place...can't even take off their shields. So you have to get out of the gunseat and fight them on the ground. And they just keep coming and coming....crazy.

[alanschu]

Oh, now I see. Bohemia has a wtfpwning terminator leader with six-freaking-pips in fire and shock each. Thanks RNG, I love you too.

 

Leaders are INSSSSSSSSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANELY powerful.  Especially if you have a poor leader.

 

Doubly so if Bohemia is considered a "lucky" country as they'll almost always have good leaders then.  It doesn't look like they are though.

 

Note that you roll a 0-9.  If you have no leader (STOP THAT RIGHT NOW) and he has a 6, you're pretty much guaranteeing that you'll get stomped.  If you end up rolling a 0 and he rolls a 9, you'll probably lose several thousand men per day while he loses none.  Never mind if you have any penalties for attacking.  Now if you roll a 9 and he rolls a zero, well, it's still 9 vs 6 and he'll pretty much always be able to incur some good damage into you.

 

The quality of your leaders is affected by your land tradition, and in the early going Shock values will be the most important ones as most units won't have very much for Fire.

 

Another thing to note is that Artillery can shoot at 50% strength on the back line (while providing additional defense to the unit it is in front).  IMO the ideal army has a good chunk of infantry with 4 or so cavalry on the flanks of the front, with equal artillery in the back.  That can be expensive to maintain.  There's also the issue of combat width.  After a certain point, extra soldiers are purely in reserve and can't directly contribute to the fight.  I don't actually know how they reinforce the front DURING a battle unfortunately, but a very powerful (and well led) army in mountains can hold off significantly larger armies with relative ease.

Edited October 15, 2013 by alanschu

[JFSOCC]

HH's playthrough of xcom enemy unknown got me inspired to finish my own classic campaign. I have the gollop chamber installed, but I'm waiting till all of my soldiers reach colonel and have their gear maxed out, and I want 4 firestorms in every continent, so I've been holding off on completing the game.

 

Lost a Major today, veteran of 20 missions. It's been the only loss in a long time, I was being impatient and I rushed him to his death.

I am ashamed

 

But it was great fun playing it again.