Originally posted by Clerigo

Originally posted by Loke666

The real problem there is not the size of the blade but the lady wielding it. I seen Wallace sword (or at least the sword that the museum in Stirling say he wielded), it was longer than me. Wallace was 210cm and could wield something a normal size person can't.

A sword weight a lot less than most people thing (a normal sword 1,5-2kg, a 2h 2,5-3,5) but for you to use a blade effective you need one of the right size.

Ok, the blade is too wide anyways so it still doesn't look like a real sword but more as a wallhanger. But few MMO devs ever hold a real sword in their hand.

It is said that the sword of D. Afonso Henriques, 1st king of Portugal, weighted aprox. 15 kg...i dont even want to think about the armor...and the poor horses omg...

That might be true but I doubt he actually used it then. You just can´t use anything over 5kg at all in battle and even that is extremely heavy.

Originally posted by ducesettutam

I believe your thinking of the Battle of Vienna in 1683. King Jan Sobieski III of Poland led a cavalry charge of about 20,000 men including his personal contingent of 3,000 Winged Hussars, breaking through Ottoman lines into their encampments and shattering the seige of Vienna. Remember though that the Ottoman cannon were positioned to seige the city and not engage enemy relief forces. Had those cannon been in play it could have been a quite different result.

Nah, I was thinking about Wiechel 1656 when the Hussars were storming the Swedish army and everyone except 8 guys get gunned down. Seems like my memory were off by 25 years yesterday, I was tired...

Originally posted by Vrakor

I dont claim to be an expert on medieval history but what i understand was that the effect of longbow against a late medieval  cavalrymen is largely a myth.

The English bodkin arrow while being able to penetrate the earlier armor designs was ineffective against a late medieval plate armor designs and that being the standard at the time that longbowmen had to buy their own arrowheads they were usually made of cheap iron instead of steel, thus further diminishing its effectivness.

The Fall of heavy cavalrymen is therefore largely being credited for the arrival of Gunpowder weapons in masse enabling a simple peasant to take out a knight with expensive armor, have to remember that good armor designs were the high tech of its time and beyond the reach of common man.

Henry V had army consisting largely of longbowmen because he had a lack of funding, they were cheap units that made his force look bigger than it actually was in strenght.

http://www.123dapp.com/123C-3D-Model/Horsemans-Pick-Warhammer/596517 ... and this seems to be the preferred weapon of a Hundred Years War era footman, effective design against a horseman imo.

not really directed for anyone ive quoted just my input ... cheers

It wasn't really that simple either. Knights were actually used pretty long after guns appeared on the battlefield, and noone used them longer or more effective than the polish. I can't remember the exact year right now when they got beaten for the final turn (1680 something I think) but the Hussars lasted a long time.

Tests showed that a heavy crossbow and a musket from around 1600 were rather similar in penetration. But the musket were actually even easier to use and slightly faster to load.

Canons on the other hand did kill tons of knights early on.

A longbow do indeed have problem penetrating a late period maximilian armor but even a musket have that problem. But eventually did the technology of rifles together with new battlefield tactics phase out the knights. I personally think a lot of the reasons were that knights were expensive, you get plenty of musketmen for the same price as a single knights armor, weapons and warhorse. In 1 Vs 1 a musketman would be really hardly pressed against a knight but when we are talking 25 to 1 things get really different.

History is interesting. :)

Originally posted by gestalt11

Agincourt is famous because of the engilish (well some might say welsh) longbow and how they devastated the heavily armored french cavalry.

BUT:

a) the french calavry was mired in the mud and thus easy targets for multiple volleys.

b) crossbows were also able to punch through armor, but a skilled longbowman could fire many more shots.  Thus the conjunction of mud and the fast rate of fire had a withering effect that was not generally seen.

c) the usefullness of the longbow is a little hard to tell as agincourt was in 1415 and guns were right around the corner and a good longbowmen took years and years of practice to achieve.

d) the effect of agincourt was huge because of WHO died as much for HOW they died.

In many cases the longbowmen were not nearly as important as one may think, because you can field far more crossbowmen if you have the crossbows because its much easier to train crossbowmen.  In addition the rate of fire was not always such a huge thing becasue generally heavy calavry took the brunt of the first volley on shields and then relied on speed to inflict huge damage and cause large amoutns of disarry. 

And of course many tactics during these times were highly hidebound  many nobles simply could not believe cowardly peasants could hold or do much.  There are a number of cases of various less hidebound commanders(often renaisance mercenaries) making very good use of "peasant" weapon mixed units.  Blends of longbow/crossbow and various polearms (pikes/halberds etc) in combination to serious hurt heavy cavalry.  Often using polearm and greatsword infantry to slow down and obstruct areas and then having bowmen wither them down.

The reason heavy calavry was considered so dominant and peasants were often held in such (undeserved) scorn was because the heavy cavalry charge caused so much disarrary and chaos among non-cavalry.

In agincourt the english brought a ton of archers.  And most of those archers were real veterans.  And the mud had a large effect.  So did the terrain ( a woodland on their flank) and good preparation of a line of stakes.  The initial charge was a mess and the professional and well entrenched longbowmen did not even flinch.  Normal a cavalry does many charges but due to the ground that first charge being so chaotic the next charges became very mired and even less intimidating.

Its often overlooked that half the "invulernability" of heavy cavalry was based on assumption of the psychology and not because of the armor in total.  You shoot a horse and the rider is in trouble.  Knight's horses were never armored to the extent knights were sometimes only having head armor, but usually only certain areas.

Half the armor itself was the momentum and speed of the charges themselves.

yeah,that started a 150 yeardiscussion about which was the best weapon. 

And the answer is that it really depends, it takes 20 years to train a good longbowshot and just days for a x-bow one.

On the other hand do a longbow have longer range and a great shot can have up to 5 arrows in the air at the same time (or so have I been told, I suck at bows).

You do know your stuff. :) An addition to your story is that most on the Brittish side had dysentery and were doing number 2 while they thought.... Not really one of the greatest battles in history even thought it greatly impacted England and Frances relationship for a long time.

Originally posted by OBK1

ME being Mass Effect? Liked the first one not that impressed by the second one. To be honest mostly playing Vanguard at the moment, but need something different now and then.

It was just one example, Skyrim or whatever works fine as well.

Dungeonhacks like Diablo are about killing stuff, and maybe getting some loot.

Originally posted by Wolfynsong

Originally posted by Loke666

The claymores were the largest swords that actually were used a lot. The reason they are so long is not really to penetrate armor but because they are made for foot soldiers fighting mounted enemies. While a pike and a spear are slightly more effective there the claymore also works well against infantery making the wielder rather useful in most situations. That is also why the claymores were made earlier than the landsknecht zweihanders which in deed were made as you say.

Hum, I've never heard that before, but it makes a lot of sense that the length would be useful against calvary.

The museumguide at Bannockburn told it to me... It also allowed you to use less people since you had a lot longer space between each swordsman.

Originally posted by Nevulus

Originally posted by Loke666

The real problem there is not the size of the blade but the lady wielding it. I seen Wallace sword (or at least the sword that the museum in Stirling say he wielded), it was longer than me. Wallace was 210cm and could wield something a normal size person can't.

A sword weight a lot less than most people thing (a normal sword 1,5-2kg, a 2h 2,5-3,5) but for you to use a blade effective you need one of the right size.

Ok, the blade is too wide anyways so it still doesn't look like a real sword but more as a wallhanger. But few MMO devs ever hold a real sword in their hand.

You are correct. I don't mind it though, it doesn't break immersion for me, in the end it's just a game. What I do not like is having certain skills tied to only certain weapons. Small price to pay for an awesome game though.

Sidenote: Loke do you still play an PnP games?

Yeah, I have to agree with you. As long as there is plenty of types to choose from I don't care if you guys use oversized weapons. 

Sure do. :) Mostly Pathfinder nowadays.

Originally posted by OBK1

Let me ask you this then, when you don't get to choose skills etc. in D3, doesn't that take away from your involvement of your character? Seems very little rpg not being able to choose what skills/spells you want to specialize in, or doesn't that matter to those of you who like D3?

Trying to establish what makes it tick, so to speak :)

RPG never really were the focus of the Diablo games. I remember playing D1 and Baldurs gate at the same period in the late 90s, D1 to get some dungeonhacking done and BG for thr RP.

If you want a RPG you might consider something like ME instead.

Originally posted by Sovrath

I think Avarix is close to the mark.

Coupled with the cost and risk it is very clear why developers are loath to jump into something that is "new and different".

Yeah, but it seems rather risky to just use the same old concept over and over.

While Wow did fine none of the games that try to be just like Wow have ever gotten close to it.

Wow in itself wasn't exactly a fresh concept but it was one most mainstream gamers never heard of since the games before it had a smaller playerbase mainly with people who played P&P RPGs or MUDs earlier.

Now almost all gamers recognize the concept and can jump straight into most MMOs without much problems or having to figure much out.

Legacy MMOs will generally either fail or do so-so. If you want to make the next big game you will need to make a bet.

As I see it is Activision and EA the big problems, they treat all genres as EA sport do to their games, add a few new things and repack old crap.

For some reason do many people here believe that the solution is to remake even older games, but I think that would be just as boring as remaking a reskinned Wow.

A MMO takes 5 years to make so you better have some fresh ideas when you make it or you might hit the window like a bird. *splat*

Originally posted by Nevulus

retarded big swords, typical now-a-days.

The real problem there is not the size of the blade but the lady wielding it. I seen Wallace sword (or at least the sword that the museum in Stirling say he wielded), it was longer than me. Wallace was 210cm and could wield something a normal size person can't.

A sword weight a lot less than most people thing (a normal sword 1,5-2kg, a 2h 2,5-3,5) but for you to use a blade effective you need one of the right size.

Ok, the blade is too wide anyways so it still doesn't look like a real sword but more as a wallhanger. But few MMO devs ever hold a real sword in their hand.

Originally posted by Kalfer

Yes I came across a few. But.. They actually are quite long, and I can tell you that there are real life Zweihanders, Dai-Katanas and Claymore swords that were that big.

You have to remember that back in the good ole' middle ages their armor was so thick that it often turned into wack-a-mole. going into a complete frenzy while being a battle suit. They added range increased your chances of staying alive. This is also why the spear was always one of the most prefered weapons of warriors across all cultures. It's long reach meant it was safer in a lot of situations.

The game has some very big sword. Not many Cloud-FF7 big swords, but fairly big. 

There are some generic long swords that look detailed but plain. I love that simple look. I came across one that went down to my human characters butt, so that's not that much bigger than a regular one handed sword. And you must remember that you can transmutate any gear in the game.

so once you find a normal sized sword you like, you can keep it, and then when you find your perfect stats sword, you can switch the stats back to the little sword that you like:)

The thing is that most of the really large swords were ornamental, something you hang on your wall to impress the neighbour.

The claymores were the largest swords that actually were used a lot. The reason they are so long is not really to penetrate armor but because they are made for foot soldiers fighting mounted enemies. While a pike and a spear are slightly more effective there the claymore also works well against infantery making the wielder rather useful in most situations. That is also why the claymores were made earlier than the landsknecht zweihanders which in deed were made as you say.

Yeah, Loke like swords. :)

There are some realistic zweihanders in the game even if a lot of them look a bit too "final fantasy" for my liking.

Don't have any shots though, but here is a concept art:

Looks realistic to me, my IRL claymore is larger than that.

Originally posted by Psychow

The game will not come down in price until the first expansion is near release.

The person suggesting it should be free is not the sharpest kid on the block...

Most games go down in price when the sales are slowing down enough, and so will D3.

But it will probably be somewhere between 6-12 months from now, and exactly how much it will drop initially is hard to say yet, might just be 10 bucks, might be 30. It really depends on if the game keeps on selling or just had one large sale the first week.

As for it being free I don´t see that happening, but it might be that D4 becomes free if Blizzard earn enough on D3s AH. If a large enough percentage of the earnings comes from the AH making the game free would actually be a good idea.

But the whole thing is rather untriedin a game like Diablo so Blizzard needs plenty of time to consider that. F2P MMOs are one thing but D3ain't a MMO and treating it as such could be a huge misstake.

They do need to optimize the game mainly. That is a lot of work, and it is also possible that some zones aren't finnished yet.

My guess is that next BWE will be 1-2 weeks from now, followed by one a month later. After that the game probably go gold and release another 4-6 weeks after that with first a free weekend for everyonefolloed by the official launch.

So august is my guess.

Originally posted by Arawulf
All this gloom and doom not about the game but the barriers playing it. This actually speaks well for the games future since the bugs will eventually iron out. if the game was terrible nobody would care if they can't log in for an hour or two.

I don't think I ever heard anyone say "the game is terrible but at least now it is down so i can't play it".

Not that many people doubt that Blizz can't make a fun Diablo, but saying that the bugs will eventually iron out sounds a lot like SOE or Cryptic, not like Blizzard. The Blizzard I know used to release a game when it is done, and that means with a minimal amount of bugs.

I really wish that Blizz would have stayed away from Activision, it is not like they actually needed the money.

Originally posted by jungleninja

The game, days after launch is still offline, lag when online, loss of characters, gold, stats, items and Blizzard is just joking with the customers in the EU. Saying its all our own fault, etc. They really lost it there!

People I call on you all to return your games and get a refund and buy it over 3 months at half price. Why do we have to pay full price and get half a game and then when the game is really finished the game is dropped in price to half the price and those people pay half the price for the full game! Its just not fair!

I don't think anyone complained if it wasn't for the fact that you can't play in solo offline mode.

That is the real problem, otherwise is the launch rather what you expect. Normally you would just have shrugged and played some solotimeinstead.

Worst decision possible, but far from worst launch otherwise,

Originally posted by Vorthanion

I find that amusing as it seemed people were too busy circle strafing and dodging to get in two words while out in the fields doing DE's and hearts.  Rarely did people even respond to me in /local which has a range of what, 50 feet.  Getting people to actually form a team was also a major chore and the two I was in, barely two words were spoken.

Not really that strange, people were struggling to learn the game. In games like Rift and TOR people already knew a large part of how to behave in combat, here you kinda had to figure it out from scratch.

Once they have figured that out I think it will be more social interactions like chatting and forming groups.

Originally posted by Volkon

That boy has issues. Dang. If he had no idea what he was buying, why'd he buy it?

Suspicion - he didn't actually buy the game, just fears for his precious WoW.

Nah, there will always be some people prefering the first game or movie in a series, that is perfectly healthy.

I prefer Diablo 1 to 2, I prefer the Star wars movies to the pre-quels, I prefer Garbage earlier CDs and so on.

Of course I don't make video rants on youtube about it, but I don't think he have any dark motives around it. People don't hate Jar Jar to promote Star trek...

Originally posted by OldManFunk

What's wrong with kids today? Why is it always someone else's fault when they make bad decisions?

Uhm, guess whos fault that is?

Parents blame moveis, games, music or whatever if their kids don't turn out the way they want them to. Monkey see, monkey do.

Originally posted by eddieg50

Originally posted by bcbully

If I buy now, before there is a release date, how many beta weekeds will I get?  1 BWE a month?  That just doesn't seem right when they advertise "order now and play beta weekends." Unless they don't plan on not releasing for a long time. Well I guess 2 makes it leagal.  The standard 4-5 would be nice, but that would mean release is 4-5 months away :( Idk.

To be honest it kind of feels like a hardcore money grab because production cost ran over or something. 

   I agree , I think it is silly to buy a game and only be able to play one weekend a month LOL who knows when the game will be ready for release 3 to 6 months? I will take my 50 and buy D3

Just buying the game for the beta events make little sense, yes.

But if you are going to buy it anyways and have 60 bucks over you might as well buy it now as later.... That is what I thought when I buyed it at least. If participating in the beta actually would have cost me any extra money I would have waited but I would have bought it anyways. To me did the 3 days headstart matter more than the BWE.

If you are not 100% sure you want the game, or if you are low on cash now waiting is your best choice. 

And I think the game is great BTW but I agree that you might as well wait.