God, put down the doritos and release the fucking art pack or something
- Sep 8, 2017
- 83
- 133
- Nov 13, 2016
- 184
- 253
they lost the drive on this game, even the art packs are taking an eternity now.
It's not a good sign, they barely give updates anymore, feels like the game might get canned.
- Sep 8, 2017
- 83
- 133
Not sure if that is the case with Nomo, but awhile ago Sierra did said that the only thing she felt doing at the time was next TLS update and writing (which ment novel, not game dialogue)... whether that changed now that she completed her novel or not is another question. In fact, I'm not sure if novel is complete, but she did gave something to her $10 Patreons last week.
- Sep 8, 2017
- 83
- 133
I see. Well I can understand why they might be burnt out, but if they are I think they should say that they're burnt out and want to take a break.
Good communication is key
I agree with you and Sierra actually have a rather good communication with her Patreons (on her own Patreon)... we get weekly updates and pretty much know what she's currently working on. Why the situation is like this here I have no idea.
You're welcome. There'd be more where that came from if I could scrape together the energy to nitpick about a bunch of things in The Sextinati's reply... :v
- Jul 18, 2017
- 1,473
- 1,266
- Sep 1, 2017
- 822
- 1,742
Please, if you wish to mention someone, or possibly 'backchat' another user, please use a @, followed by their name. like @ RNDM, which when used should be like @RNDM
Now, whilst we are here, I am not sure if you are attempting some form of 'back-talk', but the phrase "scrape together the energy to nitpick about a bunch of things in The Sextinati's reply" leaves me to think that it is a possibility. In which, I feel that either mentioning me, or otherwise making a PM or et cetera, would be a polite thing to do when you are mentioning somebody.
If people are going to talk 'behind' my back, afterall, I would prefer to know about it.
Of course this might not be true and you are not trying to backchat me, and If so I should apologize... but this is the internet after all, hence I have a somewhat Cynical view of things.
Now, whilst we are here, you might as well tell me what is wrong about my reply. You don't even necessarily need to site sources or take the time to write anything in depth if you don't want to. I am here, a human, and I seek to learn as much as possible about the world before I fatefully die.
And, as such, I would be happy to see what points you have to raise, and to hear what you have to say, so that I might either consider that either you are wrong, or that you are right, and thus that I am wrong, that I might learn. I certainly could be wrong on a few places, but majorly, I feel that what you have said, mainly referring to your first post, is wrong.
I feel that, what you have said is not only wrong, but could lead others to forming the wrong opinion about history. And, if you love history just as much as I love history, perhaps you would listen again, and hear my words not as an affront to you, but as words from a lover of history. And, as I love history, so to shall I defend it, and so my know my main contention of what you have said, and perhaps realize my 'Point' of view, is from a love of history. You are free to hate me or ignore me afterwards.
See bolded, the word helmet, preceded by several other words. These words are my biggest problem with your whole statement. It could entirely be a problem of semantics...
But to me, It were as though you are stating that soldiers will willingly, willingly decline to wear a helmet... all soldiers. That all soldiers will willingly decline armour.
Are you thus, making the assumption that because certain groups went about naked such as the Gaesatae, that everybody else would fight naked and without helmets?
Do you mean to state that Orlando Bloom in Kingdom of Heaven, or Arn from Arn - The Night Templar, are both accurate representations... both of whom, because they willingly throw away their helmets, as shown in the movies, are following along with some historic precedence? They, afterall, are discarding their helmets and rushing into direct combat!
Do you see where I am coming from?
The historical precedence, whether you like it or not, is that People are very likely going to wear armour, whenever and where-ever they can, so long as they can afford it, and if the context/situation/scenario allows it. Helmets especially. This is in following with the Historical prescedence of Real-life history.
Can you recite the number of times where people willingly refrained from owning armour?
You will note, that there are only a few exceptions. You should note that I have already listed one, as regards the 1500-1600's, where lesser and lesser armour is worn, due to both the emergence of field cannons and the widespread adoption of firearms. You, likewise, have stated the Hellenic Greek period following the Pellopensian war. Two instances so far.
From my point of view, it is not so much 'Historical precedence', so much as the opposite. It was a historical oddity, but not the precedence.
This, I feel, is followed very well by Medieval sources, particularly Assizes regarding weapon ownership and military service. Practically all High-Late medieval documents pertaining to that subject are very strict in regards to Armour and weapon ownership. Fines were issued to people not owning armour or weapons. Not owning a Helmet or particular garment of armour was not merely something paltry issue, It was punishable by fines. Refute me on this!
The way you have made the statement, is that it seems you are stating that "Everybody declines parts of their armour just so they can show off"... which then leads me to the point "Why wear armour, then?"
This is my problem. You can tell me to fuck off, or go suck a bag of dicks. At least see my point.
Refute that as you will, you are correct regarding several of your points, such as concerning the Greek's following the Pelopensian war, but you are not entirely correct regarding the Equites, if you are referring to the Equites of the Late Republic, for which there are numerous depictions that have been found supporting the belief that they were wearing armour at this point, the primary pictorial evidence being the Bas relief from Domitius Ahenobarbus, but also various finds of currency showing armoured equites dating to the Late Republic, and Polybius's works, followed by the fact that there are many academics who hold a similar opinion as I do regarding the subject in question.
But until you can find a large variety of written documents or sources, it would be virtually impossible to dislodge me from my opinion.
This opinion of course, likely goes by the name of "I'll keep my armour on until I'm in my grave." Because, after all, I would rather wear armour over no armour at all, which if I were to take your words at their literal literary meaning, implies that I am against 'The Historical Prescendence'.
Am I supposed to wear nothing, are you to expect me to survive in a military engagement with merely my cock for a sword? Armour is useless, after all, lets discard it entirely, It's a historical precedence!
I'm an Armourous man, and I am rarely content with anything less than several whole suits of armour, of course I shall be contrarian to what you have stated when your whole comment is pretty much phrased to sound this way!
Now, what else have I raised that you refute. The existence of Rawhide Spolas? The existence of Xenophon's writings as regarding cavalry? That I have agreed with you as concerning civilian hoplites being relatively unarmoured? That Sphacteria was real? That Slingers don't exist? That I don't have much knowledge regarding Achaemenid troops and am thus the worst human being in existence? That I surely can't be affirmative that some of what you have said is correct... because I am obviously not human? Could some things of which you have stated be wrong, or is that simply not possible?
If you think my writing takes any less energy than it takes you to do so, you would find that you would be sorely incorrect. Yet, here I am. If it takes too much energy, you may quote those questions above and give a yes or no answer to them like some form of Questionnaire.
Even if we do find ourselves at a crossroads, and you do not wish to respond,
At the very least...
Please refrain from making statements like this, especially without mentioning me. If you love history as much as I love history, then surely you would like to have a civilized debate, and not resort to what I feel could be interpreted as 'Back-talking'. That, in my opinion, is neither representative of a good debate, nor does it reflect very well on yourself.
After all, I have not made a backwards comment regarding you, even though I am very much opposed to what you have written regarding your previous post, and it is both unfair that you have potentially back-talked me, whilst I in likewise manner have not done the same with you, nor would I ever do so in the future (I should hope) towards you.
I've no problem with people talking shit about me nor making snide remarks or et cetera... so long as there is one condition in mind. That I am informed about it (Via quote or et cetera), and can thus raise my own voice with which to bark and bite in my defence, and If need be, to bite back with similar banter, which should hopefully not be too insulting, but to get my point across.
I would rather not be in some form of Kangaroo court held by people without my knowledge.
****
Edit: Some sources regarding Medieval assizes and medieval rules regarding armour.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
- Jul 18, 2017
- 1,473
- 1,266
For a second there I had to pinch myself to make sure I wasn't still in college in some history class I accidentally fell asleep in. Regardless, @TheSexinati you are very correct about the helmets thing. As far back as I am aware most people realized the basic principle of "Too much damage to your head and you die, so you should protect it in battle." As far as I'm aware there is very little evidence of people NOT using helmets in battle, besides romanticized paintings and stories meant to exaggerate one side. There's much more in the way of evidence towards people using helmets in battle than against. And generally those who didn't use helmets ended up dead during the battle, big surprise there. Though, in the sake of honesty, my specific historical knowledge lies in the 19th century military history, not so much in the Renaissance, Medieval, Antiquity or earlier eras.
- Sep 1, 2017
- 822
- 1,742
Well, if you think you were in a college class, I should take that as a sign of praise, and not only for myself.
I've only ever attended High-school, and Never really had aspirations for higher tertiary knowledge (Virtually all my teachers sucked, not because they were shit, they were bat-shit boring and un-interested in teaching so I never really paid attention in school), so If I am suddenly sounding like a College or University student, that is pretty cool.
In the same vein, I do not have not much knowledge regarding the 19th century, even though it is pretty much the only history we have in Western Australia besides Native Aboriginal history.
Hell, the only old stuff we have are prisons!
- Jul 18, 2017
- 1,473
- 1,266
Trust me, it doesn't take much to sound like you're in a college class. Basically the same thing as any other class, just with some slightly higher difficulty, sometimes. It's really not that much different from regular schooling besides lectures, being able to actually skip them, having pretty flexible schedules, and research essays.
And as for that second part I'm just now realizing I should've gotten coffee instead of tea. I meant 20th Century, not 19th. Although I do know a bit about the 19th century, but most of it is Naval knowledge, not so much Army, despite my interest in it. But besides changes in weapons technology, for army's, I'm not sure there was much change in any sort of body armor from previous centuries, as it was agreed upon by that point that armor was pointless against musket and rifle ammunition, seeing as they could penetrate through most plate armor, and anything thicker would be a pointless waste as the soldiers would just be too heavy to reliably move around the battlefields.
- May 7, 2017
- 200
- 296
- Jul 18, 2017
- 1,473
- 1,266
Ah now that's a good question! For this one, we have to go back to the old Roman Senate...
- Apr 26, 2017
- 13,711
- 20,876
- Oct 23, 2017
- 568
- 2,359
I really doubt they'd just drop it. Though the drop in support seems to be in correlation with the disappointment of the last two updates, especially the last one in particular. Maybe some people love them, but from what I've seen a good chunk don't really care too much for the Catgirls or Kia/Ylva stuff. A lot of people including myself play this for Sabia, and while there is nothing wrong with other characters getting some scenes it's when those scenes take away time from the main attraction of the game (Sabia and her quest for revenge) people lose interest. If they get back on track I'm sure they'll see an rise in income again.