Recent content by CarefulDeath

I think it could definitely be interesting for Siege. I don't think it'd be that great for Skirmish and TDM. In Skirmish, the flexibility in spawning I would see would be to simply overwhelm the opposing team in an attrition war rather than actual combat as there is a mad rush to flood any potential contested flag that you would spawn near. I think TDM would benefit more on the opposing teams having fixed spawns on opposite ends of the map and rotating if one team pushes into said opposing team's spawn. Could have 4 such spawn area broken down to 2 per side to rotate around the map changing up the flow of the map and angles of chokepoints and other such things.

I don't think a badge or resetting stats is really going to do much to deter those intending to be toxic. Usually when someone sets out to ruin other people's experiences its to get attention and the joy comes in gaining the infamy and act of ruining other people's fun. They don't give a damn about stats, they can just lie and wearing the badge will be scratching that "gimmie attention look how bad I be" goal that they want.

Imo, there should be a gradual system that goes forward of ever increasing punishments until you get to a permanent ban. A matchmaking penalty in the form of taking x amount of time to match or muting of chat for x amount of time is a start and it should go from there.

Well, I look forward to trying out the 1.5 patch, the changes sound like things are headed in the right direction, but figured I'd throw my opinion into the ring as a previous warband and current bannerlord player who is casual but has also played a great deal of MP.

From what I can tell, OP's main argument is that warband's combat looked goofy, which is true, some things looked ridiculous. Also that you needed to utilize some concentration and reaction time, which any challenging game will have you do. Also that Bannerlord's combat is great and should be striving ever more towards realism.

I think I'm going to have to disagree with the sentiments here that Bannerlord's combat is all that great. As an experienced casual MP player I can see the numerous problems with combat in it's current form. There is absolutely a block delay that is frustrating to deal with, there is more feint spam than there is in Warband because a lot of the other tools you could utilize in Warband's combat you are just not able to do, chamber or even punish the opponent when you know it's going to be a feint. Combat feels like you're fighting submersed in the ocean, it feels clunky and sluggish.

While duels in Warband certainly looked ridiculous most of the time (Certainly wasn't my cup of tea in MP), combat in other gamemodes does not look like that at all in Warband and your inexperience in Warband MP belies the statement you made of it looking completely silly with the feint spam.

Neither Warband or Bannerlord are realistic depictions of what a realistic melee fight looks like and I'm starting to wonder if you actually are aware of what a realistic Melee fight looks like. I would suggest watching some HEMA videos and such, to the untrained eye it looks janky, sword movements are quick but precise as opponents jostle around and try to figure out eachother's guards and how to get around them. But I don't think as far as a game goes we should be striving for realism, I doubt I'd be invested in playing a game that would take years of time to become even functionally proficient in. At least in Warband and Bannerlord you can get better at the game in a fraction of the time.

As for being stressed, I'm not sure why you feel so stressed or you're just conflating the term stress with concentration. Every game that has an adversarial nature requires concentration. If you want to run about on autopilot, that is perfectly acceptable but I think perhaps games like Bannerlord or Warband aren't the ones to be playing, something like autoclickers or turnbased games where you don't need to think much or have ample time to think on how you want to proceed.

Personally, I'd love it if stances were to a bound to a key and altered the way in which your weapon is used rather than how it is implemented currently to just swing and such a bit faster.

For instance like you would with a Bastard sword or 2h Axe, but for pretty much all weapons. Like with a spear you choke up the grip so you can use it better in close quarters and such. I realize that adding things like that at this stage is not really feasible and it's a shame as it would have made combat more in depth I think.

While the fixed spawn selection idea is interesting and works for games like battlefront and battlefield, I think it's flaws become even more apparent if you were to try and do it in Bannerlord. For one, the system works on very large maps, which is why it works so well in those other games, the size of the maps in those games compared to TDM maps of Bannerlord is a stark difference. Taking that into account, when applying the idea to Bannerlord, the flaws of that system become apparent.

Because the maps are smaller, while you can spawn at roughly different areas of the map, it really isn't too hard if the opposing team is overwhelmingly kicking the other team into oblivion and can cover all spawn locations of the other team with Cav and archers fairly easily. So while it might take longer to spawn camp than a single fixed spawn area for both teams, it can still happen and likely would happen regularly.

I think rotating spawns solve the issue of spawn camping as a problem and somewhat propose what you're going after, if a team sits in an opposing team's spawn in a relatively short timespan, some spawn camping may occur but then will switch over to another area, much like if a team captures a point in Battlefield/Battlefront.

Also if, as some others have suggested in this thread, you add in a spawn area that is protected and an enemy team can't get into, then the opposing team will simply camp the routes exiting the spawns turning it into a meat grinder.

Rotating team spawns change that dynamic by preventing spawn camping as a problem and turning it more into just another objective, and eliminates getting too used to map routes to close off chokepoints in the map and turning it into a perpetual meat grinder by mixing up angles teams can use to move and attack through the map.

Really I think the goal for spawns should be controlled flexibility rather than static placement. Either way, both options would be better than the absolute chaos that spawns are now for sure.

Due to some issues in getting people to play the match, ST6 has agreed to forfeit. Sucks the match couldn't be played, but it is what it is. So GK 6 - 0 ST6

imo, the stance system as it is now should be taken out. It could be much more interesting and implemented in a better way. For one, the stance system could actually be a stance system, for instance bound to X and doing things for various weapons like you can with Bastard swords going from 1h to 2h grips and such. For spears to choke up on them for better applications in tight quarters, or maybe to brace pikes and such for better Cav defense. Things like that would maybe add a little depth to combat and make things a bit more interesting.

To be fair, I'm against a detailed roadmap being laid out for us. Too many times do I see big triple A titles lay out roadmaps that either mean nothing and is just to placate the crowd and shut them up, or the things the roadmap projects never come to fruition because the publisher killed the development. Or as a psychological trick for the company to save face and make it look like they're working hard to correct something that should have been in the game from the beginning. To give a few examples: Anthem, Fallout 76, Mass Effect: Andromeda, etc, the list goes on.

That does not mean that I don't think they should share anything, they should at least give us information of what they are currently trying to accomplish. So at the very least, we as players know what to expect from a Patch instead of waiting and wishing upon a star. It also wouldn't hurt to then release information after an issue is worked on as to what they plan to focus on next. Not necessarily a roadmap but essentially just information at least, would be helpful.

I'll echo the OP's statement. It's fine to get mad about the direction and state of the game, but that anger should not be directed at individuals within the company who are communicating with the players. It should be directed at Taleworlds as an entity, IE, upper management. If ignored by them, then the community should take it upon themselves to do what needs to be done, declaring upper management's "Vision" for the game as trash and the community taking the game in a preferred direction should be when mod tools are released, should be the ultimate statement that should get to them. If that were to happen, perhaps those who are communicating with us now might get some clout and such.

I suppose we'll see what happens as development goes along which road things will take.

I think getting Siege from crashing would do wonders to have some fun again in MP. If the mode was stable and didn't crash all the time it would be great.

Also TDM spawns do need some serious work as well, it could be fun but the spawns ruin any semblance of team fighting and it just becomes Deathmatch with allies randomly around you or not and often spawning into a group of 10+ more of the enemy team to get ganked is not particularly fun. The spawns could still rotate and switch around the map, but instead of individual spawns, the team as a whole would spawn in the new location. Switching spawns should also depend on a few circumstances such as number of the enemy team in the current team spawn area so spawn camping becomes less of an issue.

You likely would still have some hiccups with random spawns but overall it would be much better than it currently is.

As mentioned numerous times in this thread, certain factions it can be hard to tell who is who in mirror matchups. Vlandia is a good example to make it more visually distinct but in some instances for factions that don't have much coloration to their armor, like Sturgian Varyags or Empire Legionnaires, the only distinct feature to tell them apart is the shield. It might be worth giving those factions a slight different look as OP suggests, something as simple as different helms, maybe different armorstyles purely for visual cue perposes.

Well there are no total conversion mods for Bannerlord yet, I believe modders are waiting on proposed modding tools from Taleworlds to be released before they really start working on them. But to answer your question, there will be. https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...-classic-warband-nw-mod-to-bannerlord.413403/ You can check that out.

Ah, It's nice to see some other people familiar with the Jedi Knight series (Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy specifically) and how similar their lightsaber combat is to Warband/Bannerlord.

I thought the same thing about the stance system myself, regulating it to a button to press rather than movement. By default in the game you mentioned, there were three lightsaber stances to cycle through mapped by default by pushing the middle mouse button or pushing the mouse wheel. It made changing stances more flexible mid combat and less predictable since you don't need to simply look where the enemy is moving in.

You put a little more thought into what stances could mean to the game far more than I did and I think it's a good idea to add more versatility to weapons and adapt to changing circumstances surrounding melee combat such as teammates around you, more enclosed spaces, etc.

Ideally you could make minor differences to swing speeds and damage output, and also give more flavor to stances like they had for the games from which this idea draws inspiration from. IE, switching to a shorter reach stance might give you a bit better swing speed, but a little lighter on the damage, but also a little faster to block, etc. But your Idea as is would be plenty good enough I think.

If Devs did this, I'd probably find the game a whole lot more fun and interesting.

TheBard said:

The issue here also lies with the underlying math. What people fail to see is thast opting for more spawns vs. more heavy units is a general calculations with spawns might be the winning one in the long term if the skill is on par you can expect the fight to go on for a bit, then more spawns is obv good to not get eliminated early. This thing is a general dynamic in skirmish, esp with so much loot lying accessible on the ground.

in the end in comes down to taste.

Click to expand...

In part, that is true, though evenly skilled if the round goes down to one flag and the opposing team takes it, then the team that was pushed off it faces an uphill battle so to speak in turning the situation around. Especially in matches where there is no stacks and the team isn't super coordinated, will lead to a situation of those extra lives being wasted trickling in to feed the meat grinder. Whereas a heavier unit might have the staying power to stick around for other teammates to trickle in and help out. In general, it does come to taste, but I would say the extra lives don't particularly offer too many benefits with the exception of some factions. For instance I'd say the Aserai Skirmisher is superior to the Tribal Warrior. It gets a better shield, better weaponry, and Javs. There are also certainly drawbacks for Heavy infantry units as well.

Regardless, I don't see anything wrong with prioritizing extra lives over the better armor, I just think there could be as the OP suggest a medium option to add more to personal taste and perhaps make infantry a little bit more varied and interesting.

Yeah, I agree that Infantry is missing a middle ground option for the most part. In Warband, when choosing a loadout I would pick some form of medium armor and good offensive weapons. What I notice of most classes in Skirmish is that one handed weapons with the exception of Vlandian swords and Battanian swords tend to be smaller and swing speeds are generally slower. Currently the only reason to take light infantry is to sacrifice armor for cheaper units so you can have more lives and move around faster. However, if you are burning through lives quicker you mix that supposed benefit by spending more time to travel into the fight between lives as well. Whereas with heavier and tankier infantry, which some factions don't even have, you can stay in the fight and survive longer to potentially turn things around. Given the way things play out, unless in very specific and situational circumstances there really is no reason to use light infantry in Skirmish.

While Heavy infantry is currently typically the best option for an infantry player to choose both because they are well armored and get decent weaponry, their movement speed is a serious problem in that they are simply out maneuvered by both Cav and Infantry for the most part. Throwing weapons help with that, but if you eventually nerf those and don't fix the other issues with infantry they will be functionally useless for anything other than being a tanky hp pool to sit on a flag. They can't chase units down, their combat effectiveness is rather poor as well.

Giving faction a medium between those two extremes would do wonders to improve infantry play. Having effective weapons and while not having very heavy armor, a decent amount to remain a brawler. Some factions could use an entire infantry makeover, Khuzait and Aserai especially. The other factions would just need minor tweaks to their overall structure. I think the easiest way to accomplish that would be to give perks to the 2-hander classes so you can either go full on light armored 2 hander maximized for offense, and with perks have so if the player so chooses they could be the medium armored infantry with a little lighter but still decent shields and 1 handed weapons to cover more of the middle ground.