Gamescom - Combat?? - Full Thoughts.

[Scarf Ace]

Have you ever played a WB match? I mean 8x8 scrim or smthng?

Yes. Native, Napoleonic and Vikingr. But that doesn't matter anyway. This is about fun, not major balance changes.

Something that is not balanced cannot be fun
Your change will disturb balance in favor of archers and cav, as other said.
So your change is not fun.
Also it is not an improvement over Warband's system in any way
Also it is clunky

The End
Fin
Koniec

You didn't actually prove that it's less balanced than the current system though. In fact what I meant with "This is about fun, not major balance changes." is that in theory it should make much of a balance difference. Regarding archers and cav, I think it'll make almost no difference. You'll have to respond differently but I don't think it would be that big of a deal. Also, the damage and accuracy of ranged weapons is not fixed. Many mods tamper with it, and other games have wholly different implementations of them in terms of controls and aiming. Warband's system isn't a gold standard by any means.
None of us have actually played with the system as it's purely hypothetical. Neither of us can prove much in terms of balance or clunkiness. Hell, clunkiness is more a matter of implementation than concept. The same is with balance.

I will only contest the third, since the others are subjective.

I did prove it by consensus

That's argumentum ad populum. More people on one side doesn't prove anything.

The beauty of warband's system is in its simple yet hard to master combat, things like your shield suggestion are overcomplicated realism that would lead to unbalanced gameplay.

It would take some learning, but not much more than other mechanics. Chamber blocking for example is really unintuitive and only seen at high levels. Hell, regarding shields, I introduced a few people to WB and quite a few thought it's unintuitive how shields become immaterial the moment you stop blocking.
You might not quite be aware how tricky it is to get some of the basic stuff down such as feinting and spacing.

So, u suggest the next for infs
1) buy a large shield and be spammed to death
2) but a small shield and be immediately shot down by an archer
So infs will be probably useless. All hail the archers!

I already responded to this one. I'll just respond differently this time.
1) Large shields should be used when they were historically used, which is in formation. You compensate for limited mobility by sticking together.
Yes, in your world of 8v8 there aren't enough people to form up properly. But M&B is well known for its pretty big scale. One big limiting factor to formations in WB MP is the way shields are implemented as well as the lack of communication. Changing the way shields work would incentivise forming up when in large groups.
2) Running around on your own in the open with a small shield should be suicide obviously. Just like doing the same thing in WB with a 2h.
Archers altogether are a whole other can of worms anyway. To say that their implementation in Native MP is flawless is really pushing it.

3 against 1.

Try and debunk all 3 (And possibly more)
Also you cannot debunk something by saying that a formation is necessary since that applies a set of standard way to fight, something you said you don't want.

I didn't say I didn't want to apply a standard way to fight. You shouldn't use a large shield in loose combat. Just how in WB you probably shouldn't run around under fire with a 2h.

By the way, you still haven't contested my claim that you can attack while blocking. If you can't contest that, then your system doesn't make any sense in the M&B series

uh

That's the entire point of the idea. In fact that's like half the reason why people used shields. The point is to decouple attacking and defending and counterbalancing it with more difficult defending, all while adding more variety to the gameplay. It can be done. Similar simultaneous attacking and defending has been done in other games (albeit not medieval combat ones)

And yes Warband is the golden standard since it is it's native mode and Bannerlord is based around the mechanics of Native not mods. I would love to see Vikingr mechanics in another game, but not Bannerlord

Warband Native might be the baseline for Bannerlord in that respect, but 8v8 competitive is not the gold standard of playing Warband. Every scenario heavily affects the way you have to fight in WB. 8v8 is just one of them.

 

[Dasvi2018]

By the way, you still haven't contested my claim that you can attack while blocking. If you can't contest that, then your system doesn't make any sense in the M&B series

uh

That's the entire point of the idea. In fact that's like half the reason why people used shields. The point is to decouple attacking and defending and counterbalancing it with more difficult defending, all while adding more variety to the gameplay. It can be done. Similar simultaneous attacking and defending has been done in other games (albeit not medieval combat ones)

Then I won't accept your idea since it breaks the fundamentals of M&B, attack/block/attack/block

It simply is too alien to the franchise to introduce a mechanic that breaks that fundemental. In fact, the whole point of the combat system is that it only has an attack and a block button, and you are suppposed to mix them up.

I would like that system in a game that focuses more on massive scale battles with formations and a mix of realism. But not M&B

I will not argue anymore, this is what I believe. Call me conversative, but if you are to tackle with the basic mechanics of the game, better have a solid suggestion that most players would accept as "better" to the classic system

 

[Vissy]

Also it should be pointed out that 8v8 with military style gear is an unlikely scenario both historically and in the context of most M&B combat. The metagame shouldn't be balanced around it. The metagame, balance and tactics involved change massively when you have more players, and this being Warband that can mean player counts in the hundreds without any modding involved.

Metagame in Warband exists solely for the purposes of the competitive scene, so that is a moot point from the get-go. Even if this was untrue, though, the facts about weapon reach, the mechanics of infantry fighting, the general principles of cavalry - they wouldn't go anywhere. And they don't go anywhere even in big 100v100 battles. When you add in more players, the only things that will decrease are the effectiveness of crossfires and the importance of individual skill. Armor on the other hand becomes much more important and teamwork even more so.

The metagame is 'balanced' around 8v8 because that is the most popular form of multiplayer in which metagame is actually useful. This has nothing to do with 8v8 being considered the gold standard of playing Warband - though it probably is the pinnacle of Warband when it comes to complexity, teamwork and individual skill. Perhaps you should also explain in more detail what you mean when you claim that the Warband metagame is balanced around 8v8 setups.

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

The beauty of warband's system is in its simple yet hard to master combat, things like your shield suggestion are overcomplicated realism that would lead to unbalanced gameplay.

It would take some learning, but not much more than other mechanics. Chamber blocking for example is really unintuitive and only seen at high levels. Hell, regarding shields, I introduced a few people to WB and quite a few thought it's unintuitive how shields become immaterial the moment you stop blocking.
You might not quite be aware how tricky it is to get some of the basic stuff down such as feinting and spacing.

You don't seem to get my point, there's not going to be any learning for the issues I'm raising. With your proposed shield mechanics, an infantry with a shield will be unable to block for prolonged periods vs 2 or more opponents. Currently they can back off and survive for as long as the shield remains intact, although there are some methods to get around it. If the shield was more easily bypassed opponents simply have to attack in different directions and the defender can't stop it. Your suggestion is for bigger shields to make it harder to turn...so one person can just go around the defender. Either way, in a game that already gives heavy advantage to numbers, this would make it even more-so, whilst also buffing archers and cav. Whatever way you look at it it's a nerf to sword and shield fighters in large-scale fights, and that affects every part of the game (negatively, in my opinion).

 

[Scarf Ace]

You don't seem to get my point, there's not going to be any learning for the issues I'm raising. With your proposed shield mechanics, an infantry with a shield will be unable to block for prolonged periods vs 2 or more opponents. Currently they can back off and survive for as long as the shield remains intact, although there are some methods to get around it. If the shield was more easily bypassed opponents simply have to attack in different directions and the defender can't stop it. Your suggestion is for bigger shields to make it harder to turn...so one person can just go around the defender.

I'm not sure if that's necessarily a good thing.
In lots of melee fights where one guy faces off multiple opponents IRL and in games (I've even experienced it in WB) I've seen the loner get out on top using aggression instead. Because you can attack and block at the same time, you would have to rely less on tanking with the shield and more on "sniping" for hits. Remember, the assailants would be more vulnerable too. The moment someone has his guard a bit too far down you can hit him. For brawlish situations I think small and medium sized shields would do good. The really huge ones would be too overspecialized.

Either way, in a game that already gives heavy advantage to numbers, this would make it even more-so, whilst also buffing archers and cav. Whatever way you look at it it's a nerf to sword and shield fighters in large-scale fights, and that affects every part of the game (negatively, in my opinion).

I'm actually quite the archer hater, believe it or not. Archery is lethal cowardice!
I'll have to repeat that one big gameplay change in one area can't happen in a vacuum. Other aspects would need to be counterbalanced for it, especially the archers. IMO archers are too mobile when shooting. I also don't think the shieldguy is rendered defenseless. You can still do some avoidance with footwork, and with the extra control over your shield, blocking shots you anticipate might not be entirely impossible even with smaller shields.
As for cavalry, I don't have quite the same worries. It might even be a cav nerf. If you catch a horseman coming you can block the lance and hit him at the same time. You are however more open to getting hit in the side.

I would like that system in a game that focuses more on massive scale battles with formations and a mix of realism. But not M&B

To many people massive scales, formations and a mix of realism is exactly what they see in the M&B series.
In terms of realism, formation viability (even in its very limited state) and scale, M&B surpasses all games that are remotely similar.

I will not argue anymore, this is what I believe. Call me conversative, but if you are to tackle with the basic mechanics of the game, better have a solid suggestion that most players would accept as "better" to the classic system

I can accept that. At the end of the day nobody can really know how well my idea would work unless it would be tried. Maybe TW even prototyped something like it and discarded it - who knows. Game devs often try out lots of stuff.

The metagame is 'balanced' around 8v8 because that is the most popular form of multiplayer in which metagame is actually useful. This has nothing to do with 8v8 being considered the gold standard of playing Warband - though it probably is the pinnacle of Warband when it comes to complexity, teamwork and individual skill. Perhaps you should also explain in more detail what you mean when you claim that the Warband metagame is balanced around 8v8 setups.

I didn't claim that warband is balanced around 8v8, I meant that an M&B game's balance shouldn't be based on that specific way of playing it.

 

[Vissy]

Why complain about something that isn't the case then?

 

[Scarf Ace]

Why complain about something that isn't the case then?

I didn't, I just said that using balance in 8v8 as an argument is fallacious because the game isn't specifically balanced for it.

 

[Vissy]

Balance in 8v8 applies to other fields of playing Warband as well. Pubbing? Check. Siege? Check. Large-scale battles? Check.

It's your job to prove that the current way of doing things is not as good as your way of doing things. If you can't do that, then all of your criticism collapses unto itself.

 

[Scarf Ace]

Balance in 8v8 applies to other fields of playing Warband as well. Pubbing? Check. Siege? Check. Large-scale battles? Check.

It's your job to prove that the current way of doing things is not as good as your way of doing things. If you can't do that, then all of your criticism collapses unto itself.

You prove that 8v8 balance really does apply that directly to other gamemodes. More players definitely has an impact on gameplay, especially if shields were to be changed so much.
I think I stated very clearly how my suggestion would make shields could make the gameplay more fun and engaging without hurting balance.

 

[DanAngleland]

You don't seem to get my point, there's not going to be any learning for the issues I'm raising. With your proposed shield mechanics, an infantry with a shield will be unable to block for prolonged periods vs 2 or more opponents. Currently they can back off and survive for as long as the shield remains intact, although there are some methods to get around it. If the shield was more easily bypassed opponents simply have to attack in different directions and the defender can't stop it. Your suggestion is for bigger shields to make it harder to turn...so one person can just go around the defender. Either way, in a game that already gives heavy advantage to numbers, this would make it even more-so, whilst also buffing archers and cav. Whatever way you look at it it's a nerf to sword and shield fighters in large-scale fights, and that affects every part of the game (negatively, in my opinion).

An infantryman with a shield would be able to block for prolonged periods vs 2 or more opponents, he would just have to reposition his shield manually if attacks were coming from angles that would otherwise get around the shield. More importantly, he wouldn't just be blocking, because with Scarf Ace's system the lone man can attack while still partially covered by his shield! That would oblige at least one of the attackers to interrupt their own assault or risk death.

 

[Sjaeles]

Keep your horrible singleplayer-esque suggestions out of multiplayer, thanks.

 

[Vissy]

Balance in 8v8 applies to other fields of playing Warband as well. Pubbing? Check. Siege? Check. Large-scale battles? Check.

It's your job to prove that the current way of doing things is not as good as your way of doing things. If you can't do that, then all of your criticism collapses unto itself.

You prove that 8v8 balance really does apply that directly to other gamemodes. More players definitely has an impact on gameplay, especially if shields were to be changed so much.
I think I stated very clearly how my suggestion would make shields could make the gameplay more fun and engaging without hurting balance.

There's really nothing for me to prove. By balancing the game from a competitive point of view, you essentially enter sticklermode except on roids. This leads to good balance.

In any case, all of your suggestions are speculation. Nobody knows what exactly their effect could be. I personally am doubtful that they would add more fun to the game.

 

[Madkat]

I like that they made swing speed and thrust speed separate. Opens up for more interesting ways to balance weapons like spears that could have greater thrust speed but slower swing speed.

Do attacks now hit multiple targets? In some of those 2h sword attacks shown it looks like he's hitting several things in one blow. This should be great for fending of multiple opponents. Especially in 2vs1 multiplayer where they sometimes try to take advantage of the fact that you can't hit both of them. Or that you can't take advantage of it yourself

Some thoughts. I hope they give us better range of movement. There's not a real good way to avoid an attack in mount and blade like there ought to be. Besides blocking. You basically have pretty limited footwork options, especially when fighting one versus one. The acceleration in going from standing still to moving is so slow that it's difficult to do things like dodge attacks or being just out of range of an attack. I always thought that should have been a bigger priority.

 

[LeRoux]

Some thoughts. I hope they give us better range of movement. There's not a real good way to avoid an attack in mount and blade like there ought to be. Besides blocking. You basically have pretty limited footwork options, especially when fighting one versus one. The acceleration in going from standing still to moving is so slow that it's difficult to do things like dodge attacks or being just out of range of an attack. I always thought that should have been a bigger priority.

I can't disagree more on this. I agree more footwork options would be cool.

But you can dodge attack and whatnot if you have good footwork in Warband. I'm sorry, but that's just a fact.
Stepping in and out of range, dodging overheads and stabs, jumping over kicks. Warband already has a couple of solid options.

 

[Fietta]

Some thoughts. I hope they give us better range of movement. There's not a real good way to avoid an attack in mount and blade like there ought to be. Besides blocking. You basically have pretty limited footwork options, especially when fighting one versus one. The acceleration in going from standing still to moving is so slow that it's difficult to do things like dodge attacks or being just out of range of an attack. I always thought that should have been a bigger priority.

I can't disagree more on this. I agree more footwork options would be cool.

But you can dodge attack and whatnot if you have good footwork in Warband. I'm sorry, but that's just a fact.
Stepping in and out of range, dodging overheads and stabs, jumping over kicks. Warband already has a couple of solid options.

Indeed, I like the fact that war and depends on YOUR OWN skill, inserting mechanics where you can 'dodge' an attack makes everything less challenging, I like finding new ways to combat and move from certain attacks. Instead of inserting more mechanics, insert more player skill 

 

[Silvernj]

When adding something you always gotta think how it can be abused. Some dodge buttons would make multiplayer ridiculous.

 

[Madkat]

Some thoughts. I hope they give us better range of movement. There's not a real good way to avoid an attack in mount and blade like there ought to be. Besides blocking. You basically have pretty limited footwork options, especially when fighting one versus one. The acceleration in going from standing still to moving is so slow that it's difficult to do things like dodge attacks or being just out of range of an attack. I always thought that should have been a bigger priority.

I can't disagree more on this. I agree more footwork options would be cool.

But you can dodge attack and whatnot if you have good footwork in Warband. I'm sorry, but that's just a fact.
Stepping in and out of range, dodging overheads and stabs, jumping over kicks. Warband already has a couple of solid options.

Well I found footwork is more of an element in Mount and Blade combat when fighting more then one opponent while in single combat it's not big enough of an element. The timing of stepping in and out of range is too narrow to really be viable. You move slow and it's easy for you opponent to follow you when you're back peddling slower then he's moving forward. It's rarely something you even consider doing. And when you do manage to just step outside of range of an attack, the pay off isn't there.

You can do all those things but they aren't balanced in a way that makes for the most rich gameplay I think. Combat is mostly attacking, feinting, blocking, chambering yes? It would be neat if some new element was added to that cycle.

Some thoughts. I hope they give us better range of movement. There's not a real good way to avoid an attack in mount and blade like there ought to be. Besides blocking. You basically have pretty limited footwork options, especially when fighting one versus one. The acceleration in going from standing still to moving is so slow that it's difficult to do things like dodge attacks or being just out of range of an attack. I always thought that should have been a bigger priority.

I can't disagree more on this. I agree more footwork options would be cool.

But you can dodge attack and whatnot if you have good footwork in Warband. I'm sorry, but that's just a fact.
Stepping in and out of range, dodging overheads and stabs, jumping over kicks. Warband already has a couple of solid options.

Indeed, I like the fact that war and depends on YOUR OWN skill, inserting mechanics where you can 'dodge' an attack makes everything less challenging, I like finding new ways to combat and move from certain attacks. Instead of inserting more mechanics, insert more player skill 

Why do you think more movement options wouldn't raise the bar and add more skill?

 

[Schiester]

I'm sick of garbage animations and the same old swipe left swing left swipe right swing right. I hope they don't copy and paste from warband but unfortunately that's what it looks like. I want different fighting styles. Of course fanboys are fine with unrealistic rehashed garbage which sickens me. I just don't understand how people want the same old combat system we have seen in literally every other mount and blade game. I want some evolution. Some progress to show from 2008-2015. Something new. Like seriously the series hadn't changed from 2008-2011 which is fine to me. I mean c'mon though, its 2015. Time to step up Taleworlds.

 

[LeRoux]

Spoiler

Well I found footwork is more of an element in Mount and Blade combat when fighting more then one opponent while in single combat it's not big enough of an element. The timing of stepping in and out of range is too narrow to really be viable. You move slow and it's easy for you opponent to follow you when you're back peddling slower then he's moving forward. It's rarely something you even consider doing. And when you do manage to just step outside of range of an attack, the pay off isn't there.

You can do all those things but they aren't balanced in a way that makes for the most rich gameplay I think. Combat is mostly attacking, feinting, blocking, chambering yes? It would be neat if some new element was added to that cycle.

Several parts to this.

Well I found footwork is more of an element in Mount and Blade combat when fighting more then one opponent while in single combat it's not big enough of an element

In a way you are right, because you need excellent footwork in Xv1 situations to stand a change, however this doesn't mean that it doesn't play a significant roll in 1v1.

The timing of stepping in and out of range is too narrow to really be viable.

I think you're wrong on this aspect, range play is very important, both Xv1 and 1v1. But that could be just my opinion.

And when you do manage to just step outside of range of an attack, the pay off isn't there.

I agree there aren't alot of opportunities to do it. Which is why it's such a skillful move to do. If you do it right, it nettos you a free hit on your opponent.

You can do all those things but they aren't balanced in a way that makes for the most rich gameplay I think.

I agree with you on this, they aren't balanced. Players figured these moves/patterns/whatnot out themselves, which is for me one of the reasons the Warband combat is so amazing;
But yes I agree with you, if TW found a way to balance those moves into richer gameplay, I'd be all for it.
My point was merely that footwork does play a big role in (atleast competitive) Warband.

 

[Partizan_Rusi]

I'm sick of garbage animations and the same old swipe left swing left swipe right swing right. I hope they don't copy and paste from warband but unfortunately that's what it looks like. I want different fighting styles. Of course fanboys are fine with unrealistic rehashed garbage which sickens me. I just don't understand how people want the same old combat system we have seen in literally every other mount and blade game. I want some evolution. Some progress to show from 2008-2015. Something new. Like seriously the series hadn't changed from 2008-2011 which is fine to me. I mean c'mon though, its 2015. Time to step up Taleworlds.

Couldn't say better, my thoughts exactly.