flavior flavius的最近内容

hruza 说:

Proper syntax of what? That's a pseudo code, it's not supposed to be syntax of anything.

点击展开...

You don't use language-specific operators in pseudocode, moreover the "pseudocode" you attempted to use wasn't even internally consistent. You attempted to show that you have knowledge in an area where you have none and made a fool out of yourself.

hruza 说:

That's just your opinion.

点击展开...

An opinion backed up by video evidence. Unless you seriously believe archers should be able to fight an equal number of cavalry on flat terrain and win handily. Because there are plenty of videos of that happening in this thread.

hruza 说:

Things other people say or write are not becoming pointless just because you decide to misquote them.

点击展开...

I didn't misquote you. You are disingenuously trying to backpedal on what you said. Calling archers "almost harmless" makes the point you are arguing quite clear... just because I left out the "almost" in my rebuttal does not mean I am misrepresenting what you are saying. Especially when you said this a few posts earlier:

hruza 说:

It's painfully obvious how harmless archers are against the player. Degrading them further would only make things worst.

点击展开...

That is taken direct from you and not paraphrased or edited in any way. Notice there is no "almost".

hruza 说:

1.1 Trolling, Flaming, and Harassment
This is an open, friendly community, that is the central point for those seeking information or assistance for our games. We will not tolerate any forms of flaming, trolling, or harassment. This includes, but is not limited to, deliberately trying to provoke an argument (flame-baiting), personal insults, and verbal attacks.

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?help/forum-rules/

Should we ask mods if this statement is personal insult or not?:

点击展开...

Go ahead. Pretty sure your strawmanning, symantics based arguments, needless contrarianism, and claiming you didn't say things you did actually say fall into the definition of "trolling".

kweassa 说:

Pretty much sounds like you simply want an arrow-immune infantry that doesn't suffer any negative impact from the use of formation.

You simply want the infantry to flick shield up every time an arrow comes in, and then set it down when there are now arrows in the air, and thus, suffer no penalty from a defensive formation, move at regular speeds, fight at regular capacity, and yet still be impervious to arrow fire.

点击展开...

No, and that isn't what I'm advocating. I am just saying we shouldn't balance archers around the AI using shieldwall because it can't and probably never will, and if you have read my other posts in this thread you can see I have been disagreeing with people who think low tier archers should be useless against heavy infantry.

Archers are overperforming right now, but I'm not saying they should be nerfed into uselessness.

Way to jump into this thread and totally misrepresent the argument that I am trying to make...

Which is: That archers are so dominant right now because cavalry (the counter to archers) sucks at the moment (at least in relation to what they should be), and armor across the board doesn't do enough to mitigate damage (including in melee).

hruza 说:

So AI does know to shieldwall after all.

点击展开...

No, the game knows how to deploy the unit in shield wall at the start of the battle and leave them there... or are you too stupid to see the difference?

hruza 说:

F3-F2 ...vuala, shieldwall. Or do you think that AI on your soldiers is different then that of the enemies?

If getPlayerArmy()->haveRanged() == true then
self->getInfantry()->setShieldwall() = true
else
self->getInfantry()->setShieldwall() = false
endif;

点击展开...

Apart from your mangling of anything remotely resembling proper syntax... (lol using assignment operator for boolean operation, no semicolons at the end of statements, no scope control, and calling an object like a function and then using a pointer access operator).

Simply turning on shield wall if archers are present in the enemy army is not "using shield wall properly" it's mindless, and allows players to potentially exploit the mechanic... It also reduces the effectiveness of infantry in melee, and their speed. There are going to be times when the AI will need to not be in shield wall even if the enemy force has archers. A player is capable of toggling when needed, the AI can't.

hruza 说:

If my assumption is true, then devs turned shieldwall off for AI because they thought archers are undepowered. Which is exact opposite of what you think.

点击展开...

And now they are overpowered.

hruza 说:

flavior flavius 说:

Archers are most certainly NOT "harmless" against player armies.

点击展开...

I said almost harmless.

点击展开...

Pointless distinction. You are using semantics and strawmanning to troll, I don't know why you haven't gotten a ban yet.

hruza 说:

Which ...at the risk of sounding like a damn parrot: SHOWS THAT PROBLEM YOU THINK YOU HAVE IS IN AI AND NOT THE ARCHERS.
lol

点击展开...

The AI will likely never be able to use shield wall up to the standards of a human. More then that, it may even be an intentional design choice that the AI CAN'T. To balance archers around assuming it will happen at some point is idiotic.

hruza 说:

flavior flavius 说:

If I know anything about software development (and I assume I do because I went to university for it) I know that as a general rule developing AI systems is the most time consuming and complicated part of ANY project, sometimes even by ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. It is not as simple as changing a 0 to a 1 within the code, and all of a sudden the AI use shield wall intelligently.

点击展开...

Actually yes, it may as well be as simple as that or close enough, because AI already knows to shieldwall, therefore all that is needed is to trigger it. Which may as well be as simple as changing 0 to a 1. Or couple of them.

点击展开...

The AI does not know how to shieldwall. The only time a shieldwall is ever used by the AI in the game is behind the gate in the siege, and that is only because the troops start there when the map is generated and never move. The AI may not even have a system in place to recognize when a good time to use shieldwall would be, or how to react to archers on one side and flanking troops on another, or any other myriad of scenarios. All of that would have to be coded from scratch if they do not have the necessary systems in place. Frankly, your assumption that the developers could just change one line of code and the AI will suddenly start using shield wall intelligently in combat shows how little you know about software development and coding in general.

hruza 说:

Well, assuming you would manage to convince devs that there is a balance issue to begin with and archers are overpowered, then it would be solution. And much better then reducing damage or raising armor.

点击展开...

Which would be ignoring why the devs took it out in the first place, if they indeed did. Overperforming archers is better than useless archers.

hruza 说:

When I was talking about "player" I was talking about both, player and his armies. As he obviously commands them. And as I said, archers are almost harmless against player -and his armies.

点击展开...

Archers are most certainly NOT "harmless" against player armies. And... at the risk of sounding like a damn parrot: THIS DISCUSSION ISN'T ABOUT HOW WELL ARCHERS PERFORM AGAINST THE PLAYER, IT IS ABOUT HOW WELL ARCHERS PERFORM AGAINST THE AI, EVEN IN SCENARIOS WHERE THEY SHOULDN'T BE PERFORMING WELL.

I put the last part in bold because you seem to keep ignoring it.

hruza 说:

Do you realize that all code is just a set of formulas ...

点击展开...

lol

hruza 说:

It is as possible to improve AI as it is to degrade archers or upgrade armor.

点击展开...

No it isn't. Changing damage resistance granted by armor is as easy as changing the formula within the code. Changing archer shoot speed may perhaps be a little more complicated depending on how the animation system works, but is likewise relatively straightforward. Both changes may not be "one line code changes" but they are certainly less work than rewriting a portion of the combat AI.

If I know anything about software development (and I assume I do because I went to university for it) I know that as a general rule developing AI systems is the most time consuming and complicated part of ANY project, sometimes even by ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. It is not as simple as changing a 0 to a 1 within the code, and all of a sudden the AI use shield wall intelligently.

hruza 说:

Besides, I have a feeling that devs didn't made AI use shield wall -or otherwise hold their shield up like they did in Warband to make player archers viable to begin with.

点击展开...

You may very well be correct, in which case "just let the AI use shieldwall" is not the solution to the balance issue because it is intended NOT to be that way by the devs.

hruza 说:

It's painfully obvious how harmless archers are against the player. Degrading them further would only make things worst.

点击展开...

You are wrong. Archers (especially archers that can hold their own in melee) are the most dangerous units against the player outside of getting swarmed by infantry in melee. Furthermore, we aren't talking about how well archers do against the player. We are talking about how well archers perform as a part of player army composition against the AI armies, where they outperform every other type of army composition regardless of situation, opponent, or sometimes even tactics.

Tercero 说:

It is not constructive because you are not hearing what you want to hear.

点击展开...

I'm hearing "The solution to archers overperforming is the AI being better in general, and being able to use shieldwall specifically." That statement isn't constructive to this discussion because it renders this entire discussion moot. It is pointless to talk about combat balance at this juncture if such a major change will be implemented, and it is not clear if it ever will be.

An analogy: If a man asks how to become wealthy, "Win the lottery" is not a constructive response...

Is it possible that the AI might be improved? Sure, but certainly the opposite may be true and the AI might never be improved. Either way it isn't germane to the discussion about DEFINITIVELY ACHIEVABLE ways to improve the combat balance. Once again, we are discussing obviously achievable ways to balance the game we have RIGHT NOW, not the game we want to have, or MIGHT have at some point.

hruza 说:

Proportionally raising damage resistance of armor will disproportionately favor player armies, because they have disproportionately larger number of units with high armor ratings. The effect it will have and you ignore is that it will drastically decrease damage that AI armies can inflict on player units, reducing their casualties. But will have little effect on damage player armies do to AI units with next o no armor anyway. More alive/un-wounded player units will just slaughter AI units faster. Battles will be even more one sided then they already are.

点击展开...

The solution to that is to make AI armies level better so that they aren't bringing stacks of low tier troops to battle (totally doable through tweaks to the AI experience formula). A high tier army SHOULD wipe the floor with a low tier army. Combat should not be balanced around the need for a low tier army to compete with a high tier one in order to create artificial challenge for the player.

Tercero 说:

I dont think it is a great or reasonable assumption that a game in Early Access/testing/beta phase is not going to change. I think at this stage we should ask for mechanics to change or features to be introduced for better not just quick fix to fit our desired outcome (I think)

点击展开...

I have already explained that saying "well the AI should be better" is a cop-out that makes the discussion moot because such a thing is totally out of our hands. We are discussing concrete ways in order to fix the imbalances in the game the way it works currently, not in a theoretical future iteration of the game. These fixes will involve much less work then rewriting the combat AI. If you have anything constructive to add, please do. If you do not, please stop pushing a solution that will possibly never happen, and renders the discussion of combat balance pointless until it does.

hruza 说:

flavior flavius 说:

Also, "farmers aren't peasants" was pretty laughable too, especially when we are talking about the middle ages.

点击展开...

Especially when we talk about middle ages. Because there was huge difference between serf or slave bound to and working on a land that he did not own for a landlord and unable to leave and free farmer that owned or rented his own land and owed no service to anybody and was free to move or do what he wanted.

点击展开...

There you go strawmanning again. I am aware of the differences between a peasants/serf and a freeman. That is totally beside the point. A large amount of the farmers in the middle ages WERE peasants/serfs.

hruza 说:

Show me part where I said "Lowering DPS would make battles even more quick paced", will you or not?

点击展开...

Right here.

hruza 说:

Field battles consist of player armies full of t4-t6 units facing AI armies made mostly of t1-t2 units. Raising armor resistance would make those battles even more quick paced and one sided.

点击展开...

"Raising armor resistance" is functionally equivalent to lowering DPS across the board, because even t1-t2 units wear armor (crappy armor but still armor). If damage resistance is raised on a per armor point basis, the proportionality of damage resistance between low tier toops and high tier troops will be maintained. The only effect will be to slow combat down. It may have the effect of making heavily armored troops stronger then they are currently, but I think that is a good thing: There isn't enough of a performance difference between a t2 unit and a t5 one right now.

Apocal 说:

It shouldn't require a rewrite to at least get troops to use shieldwalls...

点击展开...

You don't know how the AI is coded, it very well could. I also seem to remember the devs talking about the AI being able to use shieldwall at one point but they purposely took it out because it made archers useless against shielded infantry... I do not have a direct quote though. It may very well be that the AI not being able to use shieldwall is an intentional design decision. If that is true, the solution to archers overperforming is never going to involve the AI using shieldwall. What then?

If Taleworlds does intend to give the AI the ability to use shieldwall then this entire discussion is moot because it will shake up balance so badly everything will need to be re-evaluated. However, we do not know when this will happen, or even IF it will happen. Thus, I proceed in this discussion making the assumption that it never will happen because to do otherwise renders the discussion moot. Is that not reasonable?

Bronze Beast in the Dark 说:

flavior flavius 说:

Don't need to be a chef to know when food tastes like sh*t.

点击展开...

But why are you still eating it?

点击展开...

Because I like the restaurant and want the food to be better.

Tork789 说:

You seem to be an expert on how to run a 90+ people gamedev company, offer them your consulting services.

点击展开...

Don't need to be a chef to know when food tastes like sh*t.

Tercero 说:

But I do believe you nail the issue which is that the AI is not capable of countering an all archer army because they dont know how to play against it effectively, so I still think the key is improving AI responses to certain unit spams

点击展开...

That is part of the problem. The other part of the problem is that cavalry are so hilariously bad. I've seen a cavalry charge of 25+ horsemen get zero kills on LOOTERS.

But, most likely, the AI is NOT going to change in any appreciable way at any point in the future. What do you do now? How do you balance the game without being able to rely on the crutch of simply saying "just fix the AI"?

The answer is playing with the weapons and armor numbers until you start getting desirable behavior in battles. IMO this means buffs to thrusting spears and armor in general, among other things. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see formation cavalry charges, cavalry not missing their hits, and infantry that use shield wall correctly. It would be a whole different game then! But, it's most likely a pipe dream because I highly doubt Taleworlds wants to rewrite large portions of their AI code at this stage in development.

hruza 说:

Deliberate misquoting someone is not just unethical, it's against rules of this forum.

点击展开...

As opposed to disingenuously strawmanning peoples' arguments like how you do it? I've read all your comments, especially your conversations with Sheepify and Alescor... you're a contrarian troll.

Seriously... Arguing that impoverished woods people aren't the functional equivalent of peasants simply because "hey, you don't know if they owned land or not" was pretty rich. Also, "farmers aren't peasants" was pretty laughable too, especially when we are talking about the middle ages.

Tercero 说:

I never found appealing the argument that if others have been doing it incorrectly, we should just keep doing it this way because it is the way it has always been. Having said that, I think the debate is more complex than that.

点击展开...

True. But the whole archers>spearmen>cavalry>archers isn't exactly "wrong". Sure, it is WAY overexaggerated compared to IRL, and perhaps even tiresome for some. But, the fact remains that different unit types need niches and uses within the game in order to have a place, otherwise players will just find the mathematically most efficient unit and spam them. The combat system in the game is far too simplistic to model the true-to-life uses for these actual units, and so reality must make a few concessions. This usually means units have strengths, but also "counters". Game design 101.

Arguments of realism aside, this is a GAME. Cavalry charging an equal number of archers on flat, open terrain should win the fight 99 times out of 100 (it isn't happening at the moment). Anyone who believes otherwise needs to just leave this thread, because their opinions are so far divorced from the collective mean that there is no common ground on which to have a discussion.

hruza 说:

Now if you put your archers and archers only against combined force of the enemy that matches your in size and their, your archer army will likely get mauled. And that's not even taking in to account that AI does not use shield wall on their infantry. Archer only army against competent player is
dead.

点击展开...

Archers will absolutely still win in this scenario. Where have you been this entire thread? People have posted VIDEOS of this happening, with no strategic trickery and on flat terrain no less. This is the entire basis of the argument that archers are overperforming.

hruza 说:

flavior flavius 说:

Um... This IS a computer game. I do not understand why you are so consistently opposed to the rock/paper/scissors concept of spearmen>cavalry>archers>spearmen. Is it (slightly) inaccurate? Yes. But, it is a concession for fun gameplay and an expected trope in the genre.

点击展开...

What's funny about it? And it's trope in the genre of strategic-tactical games ala Total War, not first person RPGs like Bannerlord.

点击展开...

It's a trope of almost all games featuring medieval era combat, strategic or otherwise. A good example that is very close to Mount and Blade (albeit with fantasy elements and a hack and slash combat model) would be Kingdom Under Fire: Crusaders. Your strange notion that only "strategic" medieval games play to this trope and that this somehow "separates" Mount and Blade from the genre (and the tropes that go along with it) is both ridiculous and perplexing. There is also the fact that Mount and Blade on some level IS a "strategic-tactical" game, with mechanics that include: mustering armies, army upkeep, and commanding forces in battle.

Rektasaurus 说:

Yeah so front face of head = no armor value if wearing helm without visor. It’s literally not that difficult to apply the “abstraction” you’re talking about to faces of a box... the game already has the hit detection and I’m pretty sure already does it god it’s just such a simple concept. You must be trolling me. Why on earth would I advocate that Bannerlord simulate each ring of chain mail?

点击展开...

You misunderstand him.

The way the game works now there is only 6-7 hitboxes on a soldier model (unsure if the neck is a separate hitbox). These are the arms, legs, torso, head, and maybe neck. When armor is worn, it applies its armor value to the entirety of the hitbox. Armor that only goes down to the elbow on the player model in actuality protects the entire arm, from shoulder to finger. Likewise, even if it does not look like a piece of armor covers a part of a body, it does... this is noticable on helmets because as far as I understand it, every single helmet in the game protects the whole head including the face, visors on certain helmets are just for show. There are no "unique" hitboxes for individual armor pieces, and no system currently in place to support this. This is to simplify collision calculations.

If I got this wrong someone please correct me.

In order to do what you want, Taleworlds would need to program unique soldier model hitboxes for every possible permutation of armor in the game, which is literally impossible. There MAY (depends on the game engine) be a way to alter a soldier model's hitboxes locationally on the fly based on worn equipment, but even if that were true it would require unique, custom designed hitbox systems (collection of hitboxes) for every single individual armor piece in the game, and that is still an insane amount of work not to mention computationally expensive while playing the game.

HalfMetalJacket 说:

Just like how cavalry can defeat spear blocks by hitting flanks, archers should be capable of fighting back against cavalry as well, if used smartly. Things like better terrain, frontline protection or just difference in quality should allow archers a chance to fight back.

点击展开...

Of course... putting archers on rocky, uneven terrain, or unreachable high ground should definitely change the dynamic. I am not advocating cavalry beat archers 100% of the time in every conceivable scenario just because of the fact that they are cavalry. But, no way in hell should archers be beating equal numbers of cavalry on flat terrain in a head to head fight. The fact that they are doing so in almost all cases (Apocal's tests withstanding) speaks to a fundamental imbalance in the combat system.

Sheepify 说:

We'll never reach an agreement, because I think we expect different things from the game.

点击展开...

Agreed. I wouldn't want to play bannerlord if low-tier archers were "effectively useless" vs heavy infantry. I mean, they are overperforming now but that would be too much of a nerf. Though, I'm glad we seem to agree on the fact that archers are indeed overperforming, rather then debating whether the problem even exists like some denialists in the thread.

Sheepify 说:

Gelimer 说:

However from a gameplay perspective ( for people playing on max difficulty ) i would like archers to remain strong because of how the game plays out, the player being almost always outnumbered

点击展开...

I strongly disagree that this should be a driving balancing consideration in any form. If anything, the player and AI should play by the same rules as much as possible - at least as far as my personal preferences are concerned.

点击展开...

Absolutely 100% agreed. Overpowered archers should not be a crutch just so that players can defeat AI forces of greater strength.

KingEroc1st 说:

are you saying that one of the best tactical counter to archers in both history and in game is irrelevant in the discussion of whether archers are over powered because the AI is not programmed to use it in an early release game yet? because it sure seems like that's what you are saying.

点击展开...

Yes. Straight up. You have to balance for the game you have, not the game you want. Unless the developers have stated otherwise, I do not see the battle AI changing at any point going forward in development. AI systems are, as a general rule, the most time-intensive and complicated part of software development, and messing with it at this point MAY be too much of a risk vs reward for Taleworlds. Archers need to be balanced around the fact that the AI cannot use shieldwall. If the AI somehow gain that ability later we can re-evaluate.

KingEroc1st 说:

Cavalry is not the hard counters to archers, at least not historically. since archers were used in ambushes, with high ground advantage or volleying behind infantry, they almost never face cavalry in direct combat. when they did, it was more of a tactical mistake/outplay rather than troop counter.

点击展开...

Absolute bull. You are wrong from an IRL perspective (Apocal already explained things adequately so I'm not going to harp on about it). You are also wrong from a videogame perspective. Cavalry has always been the traditional counter to archers in medieval strategy games, and I do not see why they shouldn't be considered so here.

hruza 说:

There is no such thing as a "counter unit" in real life. Archers were not counter to cavalry and cavalry was not counter to archers. That's a computer game stuff.

点击展开...

Um... This IS a computer game. I do not understand why you are so consistently opposed to the rock/paper/scissors concept of spearmen>cavalry>archers>spearmen. Is it (slightly) inaccurate? Yes. But, it is a concession for fun gameplay and an expected trope in the genre.