Undocumented Patchnotes e1.1.2

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
pro.fail said:
It's simple, there's obviously no interest for TW in MP.
Click to expand...
I think differently. They gave us the multiplayer only Beta, put some thought into the gamemodes and class system (even though that change didn't translate weil with the community) and the Siege maps feel way more atmospheric. So
I think they do care. But I also think it was a mistake to launch Multiplayer the way it is.
I still get a lot of fun out of it but there is also a lot of randomness.
I think there just aren't enough recourcess around for both singleplayer and multiplayer at the same time. I'd rather seen the multiplayer to stay in closed Beta longer and more focused cooperation between the testers and the devs.
The silence we got since the start of EA is dann shame and while it is nice to see, that we get changes to multiplayer, I hope it was just an accident that it was not in the patch notes.

GiipaGips said:
Why argue about the balancing of a system no one will play with once the mod tools are released?
Click to expand...
Yeah why do they even develop the game they should just give the modding tools.
Even with mods I think native multiplayer will always stay the overall most played mode because of it's easy acces.
 
Ikea Knight said:
I think differently. They gave us the multiplayer only Beta, put some thought into the gamemodes and class system (even though that change didn't translate weil with the community) and the Siege maps feel way more atmospheric. So
I think they do care. But I also think it was a mistake to launch Multiplayer the way it is.
I still get a lot of fun out of it but there is also a lot of randomness.
I think there just aren't enough recourcess around for both singleplayer and multiplayer at the same time. I'd rather seen the multiplayer to stay in closed Beta longer and more focused cooperation between the testers and the devs.
The silence we got since the start of EA is dann shame and while it is nice to see, that we get changes to multiplayer, I hope it was just an accident that it was not in the patch notes.
Click to expand...

They just had to add MP in EA man. Imagine the drama that would've happened.

Ikea Knight said:
Yeah why do they even develop the game they should just give the modding tools.
Even with mods I think native multiplayer will always stay the overall most played mode because of it's easy acces.
Click to expand...

"Overall most played" until they realize there are mods available. *cough* cRPG *cough* (and many others).
People who were playing Warband Native in the past decade were basically the small core who played for competition, and those who just got the game and if they didn't join this core, then they left for mods and DLCs instead.
 
pro.fail said:
They just had to add MP in EA man. Imagine the drama that would've happened
Click to expand...
Look at the drama we have right now, also not great.

pro.fail said:
Overall most played" until they realize there are mods available. *cough* cRPG *cough* (and many others).
Click to expand...

You are absolutly right. But I hope that we get a lot of new players with Bannerlord and their first impression on the multiplayer is important if we want them to stay.
And we are probably stuck with multiplayer as it is until we get modding tools.
 
AJAJP_Juan said:
Not really, people have already made mods both for SP and MP, the only thing holding them off right now is the lack of custom/private servers
Click to expand...
Which they don't want to release any time soon.
I know Gab had started a multiplayer mod when the game was still in Beta but it was shot down in EA. I really think that we will be stuck with the base game for a longer time.
Anyway, I think I am starting to go too far OT. Multiplayer -mods and servers are one thing undocumented patch notes an other.
 
Wow, this thread sure took a turn.
I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said, this is just the latest example of a notoriously bad communication skills from the company.

Caps said:
it was op otherwise they wouldnt have nerfed it?
Click to expand...

Kuro posted that it was OP in the discussions about that, but those discussions themselves became quite toxic when certain someones took it upon themselves to yet again defend the status quo.
 
Maroon said:
Wow, this thread sure took a turn.
I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said, this is just the latest example of a notoriously bad communication skills from the company.



Kuro posted that it was OP in the discussions about that, but those discussions themselves became quite toxic when certain someones took it upon themselves to yet again defend the status quo.
Click to expand...
T name?
 
its getting hillarious a bit. Seems like for some reason beta changes really did slip into main branch (wtf lol)

also, to the callum's patch notes i can add that:
1) Mp Battania Lance Blade length increased 45 -> 53.2
2) Mp Khuzait Pike Blade length decreased 57 -> 52.2

can't really find how the resulting parameters are calculated. How example, menavlion's length is 179 now. But in crafting pieces the handle is 180 + the blade is like 70.4.

i mean, here's the whole Menavlion item, for example

XML: 
  <CraftedItem multiplayer_item="true"
               id="mp_empire_menavlion"
               name="{=7LmUe8fQ}Menavlion"
               crafting_template="TwoHandedPolearm"
               value="999"
               is_merchandise="false"
               culture="Culture.neutral_culture">
    <Pieces>
      <Piece id="mp_empire_menavlion_blade"
             Type="Blade"
             scale_factor="90" />
      <Piece id="mp_spear_guard_3"
             Type="Guard"
             scale_factor="110" />
      <Piece id="mp_empire_menavlion_handle"
             Type="Handle"
             scale_factor="90" />
      <Piece id="mp_default_polearm_pommel"
             Type="Pommel" />
    </Pieces>
    <!-- Length: 18700 Weight: 2.35 -->
  </CraftedItem>

Seems like some sort of NOT VERY CLEAR formula exists in code, cus if you go to crafting_templates - TwoHandedPolearm you're going to find nothing of help
 
Last edited:
Silvernj said:
its getting hillarious a bit. Seems like for some reason beta changes really did slip into main branch (wtf lol)

also, to the callum's patch notes i can add that:
1) Mp Battania Lance Blade length increased 45 -> 53.2
2) Mp Khuzait Pike Blade length decreased 57 -> 52.2
Click to expand...

Yeah, thought there might've been a branching issue - it kinda makes sense since there's multiple development teams all working independently from home :smile:
 
Huh, that's very interesting and would explain a lot. Could that be so that beta-branch players can continue to play multiplayer with the rest of the players?
 
Silvernj said:
its getting hillarious a bit. Seems like for some reason beta changes really did slip into main branch (wtf lol)

also, to the callum's patch notes i can add that:
1) Mp Battania Lance Blade length increased 45 -> 53.2
2) Mp Khuzait Pike Blade length decreased 57 -> 52.2

can't really find how the resulting parameters are calculated. How example, menavlion's length is 179 now. But in crafting pieces the handle is 180 + the blade is like 70.4.

i mean, here's the whole Menavlion item, for example

XML: 
  <CraftedItem multiplayer_item="true"
               id="mp_empire_menavlion"
               name="{=7LmUe8fQ}Menavlion"
               crafting_template="TwoHandedPolearm"
               value="999"
               is_merchandise="false"
               culture="Culture.neutral_culture">
    <Pieces>
      <Piece id="mp_empire_menavlion_blade"
             Type="Blade"
             scale_factor="90" />
      <Piece id="mp_spear_guard_3"
             Type="Guard"
             scale_factor="110" />
      <Piece id="mp_empire_menavlion_handle"
             Type="Handle"
             scale_factor="90" />
      <Piece id="mp_default_polearm_pommel"
             Type="Pommel" />
    </Pieces>
    <!-- Length: 18700 Weight: 2.35 -->
  </CraftedItem>

Seems like some sort of NOT VERY CLEAR formula exists in code, cus if you go to crafting_templates - TwoHandedPolearm you're going to find nothing of help
Click to expand...
isnt the polearm refering to the skill/ weapon category (1h,2h, polearm) or like the crafting template in the smith for polearms

the handle is scaled its 90% size only, the handle and blade could overlap aswell.
 
Last edited:
Caps said:
isnt the polearm refering to the skill/ weapon category (1h,2h, polearm) or like the crafting template in the smith for polearms
Click to expand...
It IS actually referring to a crafting template.
XML: 
<CraftingTemplate id="TwoHandedPolearm"
    item_modifier_group="polearm"
    item_holsters="polearm_back:polearm_back_2:polearm_back_3:polearm_back_4"
    default_item_holster_position_offset="0,0,-0.30"
    use_weapon_as_holster_mesh="true">
    <PieceDatas>
      <PieceData piece_type="Handle" build_order="0"/>
      <PieceData piece_type="Guard" build_order="1"/>
      <PieceData piece_type="Blade" build_order="2"/>
      <PieceData piece_type="Pommel" build_order="-1"/>
    </PieceDatas>
    <WeaponUsageDatas>
      <WeaponUsageData id="OneHandedPolearm"/>
      <WeaponUsageData id="TwoHandedPolearm"/>
      <WeaponUsageData id="TwoHandedPolearm_Couchable"/>
      <WeaponUsageData id="Javelin"/>
    </WeaponUsageDatas>
    <StatsData>
      <StatData stat_type="Weight" max_value="7.0"/>
      <StatData stat_type="WeaponReach" max_value="300"/>
      <StatData stat_type="ThrustSpeed" max_value="200"/>
      <StatData stat_type="SwingSpeed" max_value="200"/>
      <StatData stat_type="ThrustDamage" max_value="500"/>
      <StatData stat_type="SwingDamage" max_value="500"/>
      <StatData stat_type="Handling" max_value="200"/>
Caps said:
the handle is scaled its 90% size only, the handle and blade could overlap aswell.
Click to expand...
ye, i thought about that. But this pommel has 0 length, spear guard has 12.5 length, menavlion handle has 180 length, menavlion blade has 70.4 length. So if you adjust these scales to the actual lengths it will be 12.5 * 1.1 + 180 * 0.9 + 70.4 * 1.1 > 179
 
Last edited:
Silvernj said:
It IS actually referring to a crafting template.
XML: 
<CraftingTemplate id="TwoHandedPolearm"
    item_modifier_group="polearm"
    item_holsters="polearm_back:polearm_back_2:polearm_back_3:polearm_back_4"
    default_item_holster_position_offset="0,0,-0.30"
    use_weapon_as_holster_mesh="true">
    <PieceDatas>
      <PieceData piece_type="Handle" build_order="0"/>
      <PieceData piece_type="Guard" build_order="1"/>
      <PieceData piece_type="Blade" build_order="2"/>
      <PieceData piece_type="Pommel" build_order="-1"/>
    </PieceDatas>
    <WeaponUsageDatas>
      <WeaponUsageData id="OneHandedPolearm"/>
      <WeaponUsageData id="TwoHandedPolearm"/>
      <WeaponUsageData id="TwoHandedPolearm_Couchable"/>
      <WeaponUsageData id="Javelin"/>
    </WeaponUsageDatas>
    <StatsData>
      <StatData stat_type="Weight" max_value="7.0"/>
      <StatData stat_type="WeaponReach" max_value="300"/>
      <StatData stat_type="ThrustSpeed" max_value="200"/>
      <StatData stat_type="SwingSpeed" max_value="200"/>
      <StatData stat_type="ThrustDamage" max_value="500"/>
      <StatData stat_type="SwingDamage" max_value="500"/>
      <StatData stat_type="Handling" max_value="200"/>

ye, i thought about that. But this pommel has 0 length, spear guard has 12.5 length, menavlion handle has 180 length, menavlion blade has 70.4 length. So if you adjust these scales to the actual lengths it will be 12.8 * 1.1 + 70.4 * 0.9 + 110 * 70.4 > 179
Click to expand...
meant more like handle ~160 + ( blade - blade till pivot point = ~20) = 179
This was the solution i thought of on wed this week. Didnt wanted to bother to calculate it exactly or replicate it in the smith for exact values.
 
Squirrelfart said:
Anybody noticing an increased block delay? Similar to the b0.8.1 positional blocking system? I've heard anecdotal evidence from other people and I used to dismiss them, but with this lack of communication, I can't be sure.
Click to expand...

You aren't the only one noticing this. The most recent patch has definitely re-implemented a manual block delay similar to the infamous b0.8.1 version. I read through the patch notes twice and didn't see it listed, but I have a heavy suspicion it is present in the game's current state.

Manual blocking felt slower and more unresponsive from the moment I started playing the most recent patch. A shame, because lately I felt we had achieved a good balance (or at least a good compromise) on what proper blocking response times should be.

History repeats itself.
 
Hans 77 said:
You aren't the only one noticing this. The most recent patch has definitely re-implemented a manual block delay similar to the infamous b0.8.1 version. I read through the patch notes twice and didn't see it listed, but I have a heavy suspicion it is present in the game's current state.

Manual blocking felt slower and more unresponsive from the moment I started playing the most recent patch. A shame, because lately I felt we had achieved a good balance (or at least a good compromise) on what proper blocking response times should be.

History repeats itself.
Click to expand...
It feels like todays patch made blocking more responsive or maybe I'm just freaking out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

badbuckle
  • Sticky
v1.2.4-v1.2.5 Balance Changes
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
6K
Oberyn
Oberyn
MP Please make Chamber Blocking Viable for Multiplayer
Replies
3
Views
129
Tale Words
Public Campaign - Napoleon's 100 Days
Replies
0
Views
91
Jurek
Back
Top Bottom