Recent content by General_Sherman

craigz said:

Ease up! We have no idea what their dev timeline is like and blogs are probably entirely based on internal milestones

Click to expand...

Thats kind of the point. It'd be better for TW to remain silent than try to hype the game without a substantive update/announcement. I don't think the community needs to be strung along with a drip feed of hype. Warband is still one of the top played games on steam, virtually every active Warband player is a guaranteed sale for Bannerlord, and I'm sure loads more former/inactive players are a sure thing as well, not to mention new players who will be attracted when they see the hype the community produces organically (for free) once they have something to sink their teeth into. Heck, just in the last month I've seen 2 threads on the steam hub of brand new players inquiring about the game, which resulted in sales. We don't need people at TW buttering us up, we need them finishing the phenomenal job I'm sure they are doing making the actual game.

I was excited to see a new blog, but it looks like this is just a recap of the gameplay demo we've already seen. I'm eager to see this game released, and honestly at this point all I'm interested in hearing about is that the game has a fixed release date.

Hopefully you guys at TW aren't getting bogged down in feature bloat. The graphical update looks good, the changes to the setting are fresh and interesting, and the announced features sound like plenty of new additions. As long as Bannerlord is as welcoming to the efforts of modders as Warband, you won't have to worry about selling players on the amount content they will have available. Just polish and nail down what you've already got instead of trying to throw in every little request you see on forums.

The most important features to focus on improving versus Warband are sieges and faction management. If you do everything you did in Warband and take care of those two things the one Achilles heel of Warband's single player, the late-game, will be vastly improved.

Bsur said:

this is what happens due to the LACK of a ranking system:

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/389922548144865539/D5A3331ECE765BD11602EA6B337EC795D378279C/
http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/389922548144801713/986D8BF49E3022AF6EC0B06E8DE264E5AED7D6AF/
http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/389922548144802555/9EAE9FC4B900C98B0FC83050011F86E3BABC2B17/

all done without armor/shields/ranged weapons but with only a one handed sword. while other players struggle even tho they use javelins which ensure 100% kills and exploit spears that are broken enough to consider using them cheating, i dumpster the servers empty and its absolutely boring. this is literally every round, so i could post pages full but i wanna prove a point, not spam.

your official king

Click to expand...

Those screens actually tend to prove my point about time played being more important to a ranking system than overall skill. When you look at the high scores just below yours, they tend to have a similar number of deaths/losses. When you compare that to the number of deaths for scores at the bottom of the board, the difference isn't that great. This suggests that the high number of kills in your score relative to everyone else is a function of you 1. playing the game for a long time 2. killing opponents of low skill who do not stay in the game very long. So even though your kdr is 15 times higher than that of the next highest score in a given data set (i.e. scoreboard) you might not actually be 15 times more skilled than the next best player.

Honestly though, this whole exercise/thread looks like an opportunity for you to stroke your e-peen. I'm not sure why I'm even taking it seriously. The advantages of no armor/single sword in Deathmatch modes in warband are pretty well understood in the warband community. So counting that as a disadvantage is pretty disingenuous on your part. It may not be the absolute best setup, but it is far from a weak one.

Bsur said:

sherman you clown could you please not mention games like call of duty when talking about competitive? the games you named have absolutely no competitive nature making your entire post utterly pointless.

time played, to some extent obviously plays a role, but it should in a game with a high skill cap. dota and counter strike ranking systems do a perfect job.

and yea, your great "community organized" events and scrims or whatever you call them have no place in 2015 and beyond. ive participated in plenty of those and not only is it a giant effort to organize this stuff, also are most of the matches, especially early ones completely meaningless as they result in stomps. the last tournament i played was a viking conquest one, and a clan that only played against bots took part, got utterly ruined and basically wasted everyones time. ranks wouldve prevented them from even taking part.

i mean you roleplaying weebs will not suffer under an optional competitive system. you will still be able to do your own events or whatever in peace, except you wont be able to play pretend anymore and jerk each other off over your playtime/regiment ranks which represent nothing.

Click to expand...

What makes you think having a matchmaking system will give you different results from the community organized clan/regiment system? Did you consider that your unsatisfactory experience with competitive Viking Conquest might be the result of that game's small community and not the absence of a statistical matchmaking system?

You briefly allude to the leg-work it is necessary to do for the community to organize matches and scrims, why would you think Taleworlds would find this any less difficult? From where I stand its probably easier for the community to arrange  scrims, matches, and tournaments than it is for Taleworlds to build an entire matchmaking infrastructure from scratch, and then spend ongoing time and resources tweaking and perfecting that engine. Its the difference between crowd-sourcing and centralized planning/organization.

A game like DotA is a very stat driven game. Aside from who wins and loses/kills or dies, what statistical trail is there from a Warband match to be evaluated? What guarantee is there that a given set of opponents in Warband are equally/optimally equipped? Any matchmaking system would have to spend the same time you did in Viking Conquest sorting out who "belongs" there and who doesn't. Is there even enough grist in the mill for a game like warband for that to work?

These are all questions I have about your proposal when I read it, along with some answers I have where such answers are evident.

Ranked matchmaking systems only prove who plays the most. Devs for games like CoD and Madden etc. . . which have huge ranked populations, have admitted that the top of their lists are always populated by a very small core of players who play the game far more than the rest of the population, like 10 times as much. It makes sense, the more matches you play, the higher you climb in the leaderboards. The only way leaderboards avoid this is by having seasons, and regularly resetting everyone's stats.

Given that Bannerlord is being developed and published by a small company, I think its an un-economical use of resources to spend time making and administering a leaderboard. WE have clans, we have matches and scrims and tournaments. That is a far better system than a leaderboard, and is all community organized, representing minimal drain on Dev resources.

The way the shield is held is a result of the combination of two things;

1. The realistic modeling of the way the kite shields are gripped
2. the arrangement of the character model's body.

The pictures you show of the "correct" way of holding the shield do not show how the user is gripping the shield. That posture might be the result of non-historical/unrealistic methods of gripping the shield. If you examine how the kite shield was historically held/strapped to the arm, gripping it so that the point faces down does not appear to be a very restful posture. Then again, there may have been a way of doing so that was restful I am unaware of.

Therefore, I am not convinced that the sideways holding of the shield when in a resting posture is implausible or unrealistic.

I like this idea, it is related to something I have also suggested.

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,341645.0.html

I've had the same idea about horse armors myself. Basically you could just add equipment slots to horses. In addition to armor you might be able to equip weapons like an extra sword, that you lose if you dismount or your horse gets killed.

Ok, dual wielding was a thing. There are medieval fencing treatises that cover it, albeit briefly. And by "dual-wielding" I mean using a full sized 1 handed weapon in each hand, usually a pair of matched swords.

It was extremely rare though for 3 reasons:

1. It was very difficult to learn. You had to be nearly completely ambidextrous to make it worthwhile, otherwise you would end up only using one of the weapons effectively. And then it was a whole other system of techniques in addition to single-sword, sword and buckler, sword and dagger, sword and shield, etc . . .
2. It was inconvenient. Swords were popular because they were easy to carry, just strap the sword to a belt and you're good to go. Wearing two swords kind of nullified that though. The same would of course apply even more so with other weapon like axes, which are more cumbersome/inconvenient to carry. A back-up dagger or small shield/buckler was much easier to manage along with your sword than another sword.
3. It wasn't that much better than other options. The advantages to be gained from wielding two weapons at once aren't that great. First of all, it does NOT double your offensive output. Real life is not D&D and people don't take turns swinging at each other in a real fight. You can swing 1 sword with one hand just as fast as you can 1 sword in each hand. The advantage of two swords was that you could threaten two targets at once, and thus force an opponent to cover more of their body than they would otherwise have to. So in a street fight/duel situation against an opponent with just one sword, dual-wielding would confer an advantage, if you were very highly trained, and bothered to carry two swords around everywhere you went. In a battle, or against someone with a shield and sword, all of your advantages become liabilities. A shield id better at defending than a sword, and when you have to face more than one opponent, missile weapons, and pole-arms you want that superior defense.

I think a lot of people are too used to fantasy rpgs, and rts games to understand this, but; an archer does not necessarily have to be bad at melee combat just because he is an archer. The dynamic of infantry beats cav, cav beats archers, and archers beat inf is not really based on reality, but on the necessity of balancing games like rpgs and strategy games and such. To me, in warband, this is not necessary, because warband is modeling a different more focused level of historical combat than most other games.

Archers were not speedy little sniper/assassins that quailed at the thought of close quarters fighting. Even with their bows, its likely that most archers would not engage from farther than 50 yards or so, any further and most basic armors would stand a good chance of stopping their arrows (of course this varied by both time and place). Archers were soldiers, just like the knights, and pikemen, and men-at-arms, and billmen etc they fought along side.

kalarhan said:

General_Sherman said:

P.S. NVM the error messages are back. Anyone know of a free program that will allow me to unzip files?

Click to expand...

If you have Windows... it should be native (the OS already does it). Just right click it.

7zip is my favourite third-party tool.

General_Sherman said:

Well still getting the error messages even after extracting the patch to the 1257 folder 4 or 5 times. So I'm assuming the patch either; simply doesn't work or, doesn't address the error message I'm getting. Its something about unavailable shaders.

FYI I opted not to install the shaders via the installer for 1.10.

Click to expand...

You can just unzip the 1.10 installer and get the shadders from there. Think of the installer as a newbie-friendly way to do it instead of a manual operation (unzip to a folder you need to find).

TLDR: the downloaded installer is just a zip file with a cool helper UI to help put the files on the right place.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what any of this means. As far as I can tell my problem is not with the 1.10 version but with the 1.11 patch. At this point I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to revert back to 1.03 as I was running that fine with almost no problems. I only tried out 1.10 on the off chance that it fixed the bug with the khergit bow model at full draw. So far 1.10 seems to have created far more problems than it purports to have solved.

Well still getting the error messages even after extracting the patch to the 1257 folder 4 or 5 times. So I'm assuming the patch either; simply doesn't work or, doesn't address the error message I'm getting. Its something about unavailable shaders.

FYI I opted not to install the shaders via the installer for 1.10.

kalarhan said:

General_Sherman said:

What exactly do I need to do to install the 1.11 patch?

Click to expand...

Download patch. Unzip it over the mod folder (it will replace some files and add a couple new ones).

Click to expand...

I just dropped the files into the mod folder. Not sure I can unzip files I don't have the program for it. So far it seems to be working, I used to get red error messages every time i clicked on something outside of battle maps, but now it appears fixed. Thank you for the reply.

P.S. NVM the error messages are back. Anyone know of a free program that will allow me to unzip files?

What exactly do I need to do to install the 1.11 patch?

P.S. did they fix the glitch with the mongol bow model at full draw? Thats my primary concern.