Video Games: No Man's Pie

[Fez]

14 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Anyone know about a game called Life is Feudal? The BF keeps talking about it but I'm not sure. It sounds cool, but I'm no good ate those survival games.

As far as I know its just another one of those open-world, survival, crafting, backstabbing other players, sandbox games, like Ark or Rust. I don't think it has any particularly unique features, so if you've played any similar games, you should know exactly what you're getting into.

Personally, its a genre I have zero interest in, although sometimes the stories that come out of them are pretty funny (in a "I'm glad I never play games like this" sort of way); like the blood banks in Ark. Apparently player character blood is/was important for some reason, and so stronger players were going up to weaker ones and telling them "You have a choice. Either I kill you, take all your stuff, and make you restart all your progress, or you stay with me for X amount of time and let me regularly drain your blood." 

[The Drunkard]

On 9/1/2016 at 2:42 AM, Jasta11 said:

 

Oh, the Horde vs Alliance storyline has always been painfully forced and contrived ever since Cata. Even among Blizzard's usually mediocre writing, it stands out as particularily abysmal. Always some bone-headed leader doing something stupid, which then provokes retribution from the other side, which leads to someone doing something stupid, etc. Greymane deciding to attack the Horde out of nowhere is just the latest in an endless comedy of errors, to say nothing of all the pure stupidity surrounding the Broken Shore.

You just roll with it at some point since Blizzard got into their heads that they need to implement PvP storylines that, by definition, will go nowhere because no faction will ever triumph over the other in a permanent fashion because of gameplay mechanics. It's like reading a bastardized version of ASoIaF where you know nobody will ever die. There's no stakes, no tensions, just an endless streak of people being jerks to each other for no real reasons and with no real outcomes.

I could actually enjoy that if not for the constant berating by non-Horde/non-Alliance characters. The desire to have a perpetual war for PvP's sake while pushing the message that any conflict between the factions is bad is just so grating. 

[Rhom]

2 hours ago, The Drunkard said:

I could actually enjoy that if not for the constant berating by non-Horde/non-Alliance characters. The desire to have a perpetual war for PvP's sake while pushing the message that any conflict between the factions is bad is just so grating. 

Don't you think that's a fairly hypocritical stance to take on a board dedicated to ASOIAF?

 

[Fez]

I finally beat FFVIII, which I hadn't actually done back when it came out (got stuck in the final dungeon). Not sure it was worth it, in the end. I'm glad to cross it off the list, so I can now say that I beat all of IV through X (plus XIII), but the story made so little sense and the characters either had no personalities or bad ones. And I have no idea what was going on in the ending there. Its amazing how much more I like IX.

[KiDisaster]

I'm attempting to play Hearts of Iron 4 and, as with every other Paradox strategy game I've ever tried, feeling overwhelmed and incredibly confused. 

There are so many things to keep track of and I barely understand anything after playing the tutorial twice.

[Jace, Extat]

17 hours ago, KiDisaster said:

I'm attempting to play Hearts of Iron 4 and, as with every other Paradox strategy game I've ever tried, feeling overwhelmed and incredibly confused. 

There are so many things to keep track of and I barely understand anything after playing the tutorial twice.

These games are so disheartening. I tried to play Cruesader Kings II just yesterday and turned it off after 10 minutes of clicking at things and feeling stupid.

[Corvinus85]

2 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

These games are so disheartening. I tried to play Cruesader Kings II just yesterday and turned it off after 10 minutes of clicking at things and feeling stupid.

Same here. I have about a total of 7 hours of gameplay on CKII. All of it being multiple attempts to start a campaign, and giving up after about a half hour each time. I think if the army management, marching, and battles had been done better, I might have been able to soldier on and eventually learn all aspects of the game, but those features were a deal breaker for me.

I also attempted to play Stellaris, and after spending about 20 minutes creating a race, I gave up after less than 10 minutes of actual game time.

[Melphis Amekia]

To play those games, you either need to be really determined to learn them on your own, or watch on youtube where there are probably dozens of tutorial playthroughs of both of those games alongside actual playthroughs. The army management, marching and battles in CK2 are really simple, though.

1. Levies - Levies are feudal soldiers you can call up from the army screen. There are two types of levies to raise - from your demesne/domain(aka those holdings you actually own), which also cost you money, or from your vassals, which they pay. Unless they changed it, you cannot choose which levies you get, but you'll probably get a decent amount of variance to them, and all are useful.

2. Retainers - they are basically your standing army and pretty expensive. You can hire them for a set amount of money and they'll fill up to the amount of that regiment, usually 500 men IIRC. But when I said expensive, I MEAN expensive - you cannot really afford them at the start or even middle of the game unless you start as the biggest countries out there.

3. Battles - Battles are fairly simple - you have terrain, where usually just about all non-plain terrains give a defenders advantage, rising in severity(like hills providing less of a defenders advantage than mountains). You have 3 flanks - the main, the left and the right, and you can select generals out of yourself, heirs and vassals to lead those flanks. Usually it's best if those flanks are balancaed out, if you have a big enough army, or to have all of your army in one flank.

Do note that I haven't played the game deeply in some time although I still read the Dev Diaries mostly, so I am pretty sure I am correct about this.

If you do want to learn how to play these games, because they do offer a lot more depth IMO than Civilization or such games(notwithstanding that Civ is a really good game too), I believe quill18 and arumba have a number of playthroughs for CK2, EU4 and probably Stellaris.

[A True Kaniggit]

14 hours ago, Corvinus said:

 

I also attempted to play Stellaris, and after spending about 20 minutes creating a race, I gave up after less than 10 minutes of actual game time.

Just a heads up if you do decide to give Stellaris another go, you may want to wait until next month. The next patch is supposed to come out then, and it should improve a good bit of the gameplay. 

[The Drunkard]

So, I think ignoring the politics in Attila was a mistake. My 'power' within the kingdom is weak, my leader barely has any influence, and I keep getting warnings about my generals and governors hovering around 3 loyalty and being on the verge of betrayal. I've inadvertently become Suebian Stalin, purging all my experienced generals and replacing them with loyal noobs just to keep my armies safe. My son and heir is the only 5+ star general left, and my other son was assassinated while (I think) trying to ensure someone's loyalty. 

Also played a bit of the new Deus Ex. It's good, but it feels like the exact same game as Human Revolution. So if you liked that you'll like this, I suppose.

On 9/3/2016 at 1:35 AM, Rhom said:

Don't you think that's a fairly hypocritical stance to take on a board dedicated to ASOIAF?

 

Not really. It's different in that the game forces you to take part in all the fighting in order to advance, and then you'll inevitably have to sit through some cutscene/storyline about you being silly for not putting the meaningful conflicts first. ASOIAF doesn't seem to be at odds with itself like that.

[Rhom]

1 hour ago, The Drunkard said:

Not really. It's different in that the game forces you to take part in all the fighting in order to advance, and then you'll inevitably have to sit through some cutscene/storyline about you being silly for not putting the meaningful conflicts first. ASOIAF doesn't seem to be at odds with itself like that.

You and I may be reading different books then... because I'm pretty sure the central theme of the books I've read by George RR Martin is that most of the kingdom is engaging in meaningless PvP while a pretty major PvE event requiring cross faction unity is happening in the north.  

[The Drunkard]

12 minutes ago, Rhom said:

You and I may be reading different books then... because I'm pretty sure the central theme of the books I've read by George RR Martin is that most of the kingdom is engaging in meaningless PvP while a pretty major PvE event requiring cross faction unity is happening in the north.  

No, I agree with that, I think our wires must be crossed. I mean the book is consistent in what it's trying to be whereas the game will devote so much to the faction wars trying to get the players involved but then lecture them for it. If it was just a schlocky war game I'd enjoy it more.

[DunderMifflin]

What's the most grand and epic PvPing that WOW has to offer?

I read something that the biggest thing is like a 40 vs 40 event? Is that the biggest? How long does the event last?

[Fez]

43 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

What's the most grand and epic PvPing that WOW has to offer?

Starting zone of a new expansion on a PvP server with a balanced population.

Maybe less so this time because of how Legion is set up, and I actually don't know what its been like in the past several expansions, but Hellfire Peninsula was something to see the first couple weeks after TBC came out.

[Rhom]

45 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

What's the most grand and epic PvPing that WOW has to offer?

I read something that the biggest thing is like a 40 vs 40 event? Is that the biggest? How long does the event last?

A decade ago, Alterac Valley matches (40 v 40) could last a day or more... those were awful.

World PvP could get hairy at times and be even bigger than 40 long, long ago.

[Rhom]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

Starting zone of a new expansion on a PvP server with a balanced population.

Maybe less so this time because of how Legion is set up, and I actually don't know what its been like in the past several expansions, but Hellfire Peninsula was something to see the first couple weeks after TBC came out.

Truth.

That place was a madhouse.  Blizz sort of learned their lesson after that and generally gave multiple starting areas to ease the overcrowding.

[Argonath Diver]

I was a very active player at release and through Burning Crusade. I can also attest that Hellfire Peninsula was nuts. I had some really incredible nights see-sawing between frustration and triumph. Those Alterac Valley games, egad what a crappy experience. My relatively powerful guild would occasionally queue up about 20 of us, and dramatically crush the other side, which was at least satisfying. 

I enjoyed levelling in Hillsbrad, while trying to hide from roving alliance, back when that was sort of the agreed-upon world pvp area.

Never did care a lick about PvP, especially once Arena and ranking and all that came into play. I did have one really, really fun level 19 warrior fully geared for low level WSG matches. Never as strong as the maxed out rogues, but I was a force.

All this WoW talk now that Legion is out has me both intrigued and glad I've quit forever. I've never had as many rewarding experiences gaming as I did through vanilla WoW.

[Rhom]

12 minutes ago, Argonath Diver said:

I was a very active player at release and through Burning Crusade. I can also attest that Hellfire Peninsula was nuts. I had some really incredible nights see-sawing between frustration and triumph. Those Alterac Valley games, egad what a crappy experience. My relatively powerful guild would occasionally queue up about 20 of us, and dramatically crush the other side, which was at least satisfying. 

I enjoyed levelling in Hillsbrad, while trying to hide from roving alliance, back when that was sort of the agreed-upon world pvp area.

Never did care a lick about PvP, especially once Arena and ranking and all that came into play. I did have one really, really fun level 19 warrior fully geared for low level WSG matches. Never as strong as the maxed out rogues, but I was a force.

All this WoW talk now that Legion is out has me both intrigued and glad I've quit forever. I've never had as many rewarding experiences gaming as I did through vanilla WoW.

This as well.  So rewarding and so frustrating.  I definitely have nostalgia colored glasses that I look back on that time with, but it was great.  Bindings of the Windseeker dropped on back to back runs for me.  I thought I would have had months to get materials together, and then suddenly my timeframe rapidly advanced.  Still thought I had a few weeks.  Then one night in BWL we had six elementium ores drop and the raid leader announced "No one logs off until Rae gets his Thunderfury!"  People were buying me arcanite crystals and bars and then at 2 AM, about 30 of us were still online and went out to the desert to kill the big baddie and get my sword.  That kind of community was something I had never experienced.

Biggest rush I ever had was when I picked up Nefarion after a bad fear took out the main tank and wound up tanking him from about 60% down to our first ever kill.  For the last 20% our dwarf priests were dead and I had no Fear Ward and had to stance dance the whole thing knowing that if I messed up once it was going to be a wipe.  That was a rush.

I've always been terrible at PvP.  Do kind of wish I'd put more into it back in the day so I could have a better title to throw out there than "Seargent."   

 

[DunderMifflin]

Im really into elder scrolls online right now mainly for the pvp war.

It's the first fully 3D MMO I've ever been into. Im trying to see how it's pvp stacks up against other MMOs. 

For those unfamiliar, It's pvp area servers have hundreds of people in 3 factions on a map playing sort of a game of Risk. Taking over enemy castles while still trying to protect your own. Taking over castles can typically involve 100+ people defending and attacking each other. After 30 days whichever faction had best scores wins that campaign and it starts over. (There are also 7 day campaigns).

Is that a normal MMO pvp experience as far as the number of people involved?

[Tyrellius]

1 hour ago, Rhom said:

A decade ago, Alterac Valley matches (40 v 40) could last a day or more... those were awful.

World PvP could get hairy at times and be even bigger than 40 long, long ago.

Old Alterac Valley was the best PVP experience ever.  It felt like a continuous war, the objectives, the constant back and forth, the battles for Stonehearth.  I remember the first time I entered AV on my first toon, a level 58 hunter.  Actually travelling to the entrance of AV, somewhere north of the Hinterlands.  I played in that battle for about 2 hours, logged out in AV, went to work, came back and logged in- to still be in the same battle and continued fighting for another 3 or 4 hours.

In later variations of Alterac Valley, my guildie Paladin squad use to all spec ret after raiding and just defend Stonehearth for the entirety of the match

TBC launch was also quite fun.  The Horde basically camped the the Dark Portal for the entire evening running up to the midnight launch and crushed any alliance trying to pass through. Going /who Hellfire after midnight just showed Paladins that bubbled and ran through.  It was one tough night of leveling