Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Axis & Allies 1942 Online is now available in Early Access! Buy it on Steam. The FAQ is available.
New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

i found two longswords of action +4

1235»

Comments

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,217
    RAM021 said:

    What we can say is that a nerf to a base 2APR would be utterly ineffective.

    I mean, you're wrong, I'm not sure what else to say. Non-stacking Weapons Of Action means anyone could get the benefit of equipping one, and if you find another you would use it with another character.

    *Which is precisely how the original game was designed.*

    So, my solution would make the game work just as the original did. Whereas right now it works differently. Can you really not see that?

    bob_veng
  • RAM021RAM021 Member Posts: 393

    RAM021 said:

    What we can say is that a nerf to a base 2APR would be utterly ineffective.

    I mean, you're wrong, I'm not sure what else to say. Non-stacking Weapons Of Action means anyone could get the benefit of equipping one, and if you find another you would use it with another character.

    *Which is precisely how the original game was designed.*

    So, my solution would make the game work just as the original did. Whereas right now it works differently. Can you really not see that?
    The only ones wrong here are you & billy - but even billy seems to be coming to his senses...

    Right now, anyone that can equip one can benefit from it. There are more WoA than there are characters.

    No, OIWD was designed without actual dual-wielding; not that WoA would not stack: there is a difference. Also, do not forget that just like with the original BG, the original IWD devs stated that they would have liked to have proper TWF, but that it was prevented by an engine limitation. An Engine limitation that has since been removed.

    We get that for whatever deranged reason you seem to think TWFing WoA is somehow this crazy overpowered game destroying crime, but the fact of the matter is that even if your 'fix' changed WoA to work EXACTLY like they used to (it does not; merely makes them similar), it would NOT fix the problem you actually have.

    Yes, your 'solution' is perhaps closer to how the original WoA actually played, but the game would still not work just as the original did. As has been shown, nerfing WoA would only impact non-Warriors while NOT affecting TWFing Warriors at all. You clearly fail to understand the rather straight forward definition of 'solution'.

    Disagreeing with you is not "really not seeing that" - it is seeing that you long ago missed the forest for the trees: a solution that solves nothing and creates more problems is as ridiculous as this thread.

  • AmardarialAmardarial Member Posts: 270
    Still amazed this thread exists let alone is still active, IWD was never balanced, so why care that its less balanced now? It's a pointless thread, regardless of what you may think, if you care cool, won't change anything.

    RAM021
  • OlvynChuruOlvynChuru Member Posts: 2,299
    I don't really see why they need to nerf a weapon which you get so late in the game. I'm glad that if someone wants to make a character who dual wields overpowered long swords of action they can; it's not like they can cheese through the entire game like that.

    RAM021
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,259
    edited November 2014

    RAM021 said:

    What we can say is that a nerf to a base 2APR would be utterly ineffective.

    I mean, you're wrong, I'm not sure what else to say. Non-stacking Weapons Of Action means anyone could get the benefit of equipping one, and if you find another you would use it with another character.

    *Which is precisely how the original game was designed.*

    So, my solution would make the game work just as the original did. Whereas right now it works differently. Can you really not see that?
    yeah, now a bard can have 5 apr where previously it was unimaginable.
    a blade under tenser's for example completely obliterates now.

    you can now outfit a broad array of characters in the party to have max or near-max apr where previously only a ranger could have it, and perhaps one additional warrior with grandmastery. (edit: or the unlikely case of having two rangers)

    I don't really see why they need to nerf a weapon which you get so late in the game. I'm glad that if someone wants to make a character who dual wields overpowered long swords of action they can; it's not like they can cheese through the entire game like that.

    that's a fair point that has been raised in this thread but i have been refuting it with the argument that new players who don't even know that HoW was an expansion (that was habitually played after the base campaign with relatively high-level characters) will simply go to lonelywood at level 9 seeing it as just a sidequest.
    even old players often arranged their progress this way as it is a perfectly rational and legitimate thing to do

    severed hand > how (pre final part) > totl > how (final part) > *the rest of the game* (more than 50% of the whole game!)

  • OlvynChuruOlvynChuru Member Posts: 2,299
    bob_veng said:


    severed hand > how (pre final part) > totl > how (final part) > *the rest of the game* (more than 50% of the whole game!)

    Oh, I see. I generally don't start playing HoW in the middle of the main game, so I didn't realize that you could go back to the main game after beating HoW. Then again, if you are good enough to beat both TotLM and HoW with a party that only just got past the Severed Hand, I don't see why you'd have trouble with the rest of the main game, regardless of whether or not you dual wield overpowered long swords.

    RAM021
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,259
    @OlvynChuru
    ^that's totally true and frankly it's a problem

    earlier, totl was a serious challenge when done this way and upon returning to the main iwd quest the game still remained at least moderately challenging (someone even told me that if you killed icasaracht previously, belhifet battle becomes tougher, but i don't remember how it originally was in order to confirm this)

    now it's not so, neither the expansion content nor the main quest are sufficiently difficult on core, at least for me.

    i am talking mainly from my perspective here, not trying to generalize too broadly, but some conclusions about the new game balance can be made i think.

  • RAM021RAM021 Member Posts: 393
    bob_veng said:

    i am talking mainly from my perspective here, not trying to generalize too broadly

    And yet you are determined to nerf the game for everybody... that is pretty much the broadest generalization possible!

    kensai
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,259
    my friend, i'm free to express my opinion, it's a free forum, a free country, a free world. i'm "not determined to nerf the game for everybody" as i'm not in a position to do anything to the game, it's firmly in the devs' hands.

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,217
    edited November 2014
    RAM021 said:

    Yes, your 'solution' is perhaps closer to how the original WoA actually played,

    Thank you for finally agreeing. That's all I've ever claimed.
    RAM021 said:

    but the game would still not work just as the original did. As has been shown, nerfing WoA would only impact non-Warriors while NOT affecting TWFing Warriors at all.

    No - non-warriors would only be "nerfed" to the extent they already were in the original game. So again, it would make things closer to how they were in the original game. That's all I ever said. (In fact non-warriors would *still* have it much better in this game, because in addition to the WoA they could equip (just like original), and the Ring of Action (just like the original) they could add another APR by DWing (impossible in the original). So no one is nerfed.

    Now, I personally think that would make the game better; you may disagree and that's perfectly reasonable. But you don't need to feel threatened by it and start getting nasty. Get ahold of yourself, man.

    Post edited by subtledoctor on
    bob_veng
  • AmardarialAmardarial Member Posts: 270
    bob_veng said:

    my friend, i'm free to express my opinion, it's a free forum, a free country, a free world. i'm "not determined to nerf the game for everybody" as i'm not in a position to do anything to the game, it's firmly in the devs' hands.

    and we are free to ignore you and generally call you a idiot, now if only people would do more of the first part..

    RAM021billygreat
  • NimranNimran Member Posts: 4,842
    edited November 2014
    I didn't think you could call anyone an idiot here without being banned, or at least given a warning.

    semiticgod
  • RAM021RAM021 Member Posts: 393

    RAM021 said:

    Yes, your 'solution' is perhaps closer to how the original WoA actually played,

    Thank you for finally agreeing. That's all I've ever claimed.
    Your comprehension is as bad as your memory; misquoting us in an attempt to make yourself look better is as deceptive as your lie that you have not claimed anything else.
    Nimran said:

    I didn't think you could call anyone an idiot here without being banned, or at least given a warning.

    Fortunately there is no need for us to call them that; they prove it every time they post.

  • AmardarialAmardarial Member Posts: 270
    Nimran said:

    I didn't think you could call anyone an idiot here without being banned, or at least given a warning.

    I didn't, I said with freedom of speech we could.
    RAM021 said:

    RAM021 said:

    Yes, your 'solution' is perhaps closer to how the original WoA actually played,

    Thank you for finally agreeing. That's all I've ever claimed.
    Your comprehension is as bad as your memory; misquoting us in an attempt to make yourself look better is as deceptive as your lie that you have not claimed anything else.
    Nimran said:

    I didn't think you could call anyone an idiot here without being banned, or at least given a warning.

    Fortunately there is no need for us to call them that; they prove it every time they post.
    Agreed

    RAM021
  • SedSed Member Posts: 788
    edited November 2014
    My reaction when I noticed this topic was still alive..


    RAM021Mathsorcererbob_veng
  • Dr.ShevekDr.Shevek Member Posts: 1
    ANY apr weapons with more than +2 enchantment are OP.

  • RAM021RAM021 Member Posts: 393
    Bob is that your new account?

  • AaezilAaezil Member Posts: 166
    If you think 2x lsoa is the most broken thing you can do in iwd :'( (its not)

    RAM021
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,259
Sign In or Register to comment.