Recent content by Larmantine

  1. Horse archers is bad game design

    I hate horse archers too, but I hope to God that the devs don't listen to every whiny butthurt noob that posts crap like this. Next thing we're gonna hear is bAttAniaN fIan cHamPs Is bAd gAme DesiGn

  2. Troop aesthetics after the armor rework

    Well I suppose they were going for more historical accuracy. I also miss the googled helmet.


    8ce838b911046703181ca8a0374b2609.jpg


    Cataphracts.jpg

  3. Statement regarding Plans for Singleplayer and Engine II

    Kangamangus said:
    You realize that Bannerlord offers much more than Warband in terms of gameplay, graphics, and other improvements than just 'aging and death,' correct?

    This isn't Crusader Kings, no matter how many sweaty virgins want it to be.

    If you die, your game should be deleted. Not all players' games. Just the people that want to make everyone else lose their time and progress if they have a life outside of make-believe sword game.

    Ironically, it's taken more time and problem fixing to IMPLEMENT the aging and death mechanics. The game was working fine without them. It can be done. The problem you insist exists isn't real.
    Click to expand...

    Bannerlord is not Warband 2. It's not the kind of game where you just expect better and bigger things, its not linear. Its not half life 1 vs half life 2 (in no way I am attempting to say anything bad about those games, they are amazing). Those are linear games, this is a sandbox game, and they want to present a different sandbox experience in this game not the same, but better as it was in WB. Its a different game but a similar concept. The devs themselves have said this too. Look how many features that were present in Warband are not present in BL. And thats okay, IMO anyway, as once again, its a different game.

    I've never played crusader kings, so I cannot relate to what you are talking about.

    Well, I could start going on about how MB games aren't your casual games, and making it more accessible to a wider audience sacrifices gameplay. But I suppose you are right in some respect, regarding the progression aspect. I was talking about the birth and death of characters or lords more specifically not the player char.

    I think tits just the way TW changes their minds about their game all the time, if you look at the early blogs and videos you'd see that the features were way different and what we have now is a bit barebones. But that is besides the point now.

  4. Statement regarding Plans for Singleplayer and Engine II

    Akka said:
    Seems, again, that the problem is just tuning. The appropriate feedback should be :
    "skill points don't affect the AI enough, even at high level it's still pretty ineffective" and NOT "the previous system based on character level was better"

    Fundamental difference :grin:
    Click to expand...

    I concur. This is what I call a fruitful discussion. Feel free to post it on the suggestion boards, I might do it myself later with all these arguments in mind.

  5. Statement regarding Plans for Singleplayer and Engine II

    Akka said:
    Completely disagree with using character level. If you have a "one handed weapon" skill, then it's painfully obvious that combat ability while using a one handed weapon should be by USING THE SKILL WITH WHICH THE WEAPON IS USED and not the arbitrary number that can be raised through dealing with logistical problems, scouting a road or patching wounds.
    Click to expand...

    I am not saying that the system of char level is better than the one we have now. In theory OF COURSE the current system makes more sense, is more realistic, and should work very well. But it doesn't. This is probably the fifth time mentioning it, there is no discernible difference in combat proficiency of troops currently. While the previous system was flawed you could at least notice the difference. Not saying the devs should put that system back in.

    If you put strip away the equipment from a legionary and a recruit, put the same rags on them and give them a club and fight them individually, you couldn't tell who was who because you'd kill them in the same two hits. The only thing you MIGHT notice is that the legionary would attempt to swing at you a bit quicker than the recruit. That is all. That is all there is to this current system.

  6. Statement regarding Plans for Singleplayer and Engine II

    Duh_TaleWorlds said:
    The underlying point is that unskilled fighters are not desired to have a better or equivalent combat AI level than skilled fighters. It affects both the outcome of battles as well as the individual combat experience a player has against a particular type of troop. Equipment and skill effect tie into this as well and can offset the impact of combat AI level, but they do so in different ways and cannot replace it. The current approach provides us (and others) with a higher level of control to more strongly distinguish units like archers from infantry (and other unit types - f.e. skirmishers).

    I referred you (and others concerned with the combat performance of NPCs) to technical support because it may very well be that some units have inappropriate skills for the equipment they are using or the level/tier they are at. After all, the broader concern seems to be the performance of AI in combat, which isn't inherently at odds with the skill based approach, but depends on effective skill distribution and balancing.

    I referred you to suggestions, because this topic isn't dedicated to discussing the combat AI level calculation but general development priorities.
    Click to expand...

    I agree, I suppose I did not really mention that. That would be the one flaw in that system. But then again, on the typical battle or tournament mission, there wouldn't be a character of high level that isn't a soldier. It would be a rare anecdotal case.

    But once more I think the equipment does play a role. With this system, eventually the higher level well equipped/skilled troops will lose to poorly equipped/skilled troops. Does it seem odd that you might notice once in a while that some supposedly inept dude blocks too often? Sure. But it sure as hell is better that way than to fight zombies.

    Another positive side effect is that battles actually might last longer and formations and flanking etc. might play a bigger role instead of who lands the first hit because neither party bothered to block.


    Unless of course - the actual combat proficiency, can be ramped up more so that say a soldier of skill level of 275 would be pretty unstoppable etc respectively (because now, a soldier of 250 proficiency is acting like it had only 30). Then the system we have now would be actually working as intended, as now once again it doesn't matter if its skill level is 50 or 250.


    Of course, I apologize, I guess I let my emotions get the better of me. I don't think I'd suggest this system in particular though, as it does not solve everything, and has its own flaws. Its just in my opinion better than what we have now.

  7. Statement regarding Plans for Singleplayer and Engine II

    froggyluv said:
    Why on earth would you want a "High Level Trader with low Weapon Skills" to be a dangerous combatant merely because of his prowess as a trader?
    Click to expand...

    I've yet to see the fabled trader in a combat mission in bannerlord.

    Also guys - please keep it civil. Getting offended from a strangers statement on the internet is one of the silliest things you can do.

  8. Statement regarding Plans for Singleplayer and Engine II

    scarface52 said:
    I am not sure what is your point here. Here are the best melee skills for the troops you have mentioned:

    - Battanian Fian Champion: 220 two handed
    - Imperial Palatine Guard: 130 one handed
    - Imperial Legionary: 130 one handed
    - Imperial Militia Spearman: 90 one handed
    - Imperial Recruit: 20 one handed

    So how does these stats makes archers inferior in melee combat against lower tier infantry with this mechanic you were discussing in mind?

    I think you are still missing the point here. This mechanic makes it so these militias and unseasoned soldiers you are referring will have a harder time while going against these elite archers in melee combat.
    Click to expand...

    The dev stated essentially, at least as far as I interpreted it, that they believe, that if combat performance were based purely on char level instead of skill level, archers or merchants (show me one merchant char besides a caravan master) had an easy time defeating infantry troops in melee.

    Their attack speed and damage is still based on their respective melee skill level and the weapon they are using. My argument is that the devs point doesn't make any sense, because mid tier archers will still be slaughtered by a lower tier infantry in melee.


    UNLESS its an elite warrior like Fian Champion or others like you just mentioned. With the dev's logic - Palatine guard should be less skilled in melee than legionary (not taking equipment in mind) , but as you yourself just pointed out - they have identical melee skill

    Ergo, the combat proficiency based solely on the char level, did work much better, back in April or whenever it was, because back then it was exciting that you actually had to fight in tournaments or in battles, whereas now you just get assaulted by zombies strapped in armor, either peasants clothing or a jewelled lord helmet...

    Its just sad that the potential and programming of the AI is wasted just to make the game more casual and accessible.

  9. Statement regarding Plans for Singleplayer and Engine II

    Duh_TaleWorlds said:
    The trader is one accentuated example, another more generic one would be archers defeating infantry (or being on par with them) in melee. If you feel that a particular melee troop is underperforming, you may want to check their skills and if those do not align with their equipment or seem inappropriately low for their level head over to our tech support section for a report.

    Naturally, you are also welcome to open a suggestion thread to discuss the importance or irrelevance of skills for combat. (We do compile feedback and go over it.)
    Click to expand...

    In the case of bannerlord the archer argument doesn't add up as well. Sorry. First of all, most archers are equipped with lower grade melee equipment than their infantry counterparts with equal level. T3 archers will lose to T2 infantry still. (In melee if that wasn't clear)

    Second of all, the top tier archer units in bannerlord should have no problem defeating militias or unseasoned soldiers (in melee), think fian champions or palatine guards, their name even refers to their elite warrior status. Bow just happens to be their primary choice of weaponry. Doesn't mean that they won't be able to cut you in half if you come near. They're just prefer to shoot your face from afar. Just like a knight prefers to skewer your head on horseback, doesn't mean he won't be able to take you on on foot or with a crossbow.

    Lastly, I am a bit sad that the STFU customer service card was played to make me go post it on the suggestion board. This is merely feedback. But maybe I'm misinterpreting. Maybe I'll post it there then.

    Edit: context

  10. Statement regarding Plans for Singleplayer and Engine II

    Duh_TaleWorlds said:
    Combat AI level is determined by the skill level the character has for their equipped weapon. At the beginning of EA it was only based on the character level - which meant that a high-level trader would fare just as well as a veteran warrior. Tournaments are currently a variable experience, because they draw participants from the garrison as well as present parties (alongside heroes in the settlement). We are considering to introduce dedicated tournament troops to facilitate a more steady challenge.
    Click to expand...
    While that sounds nice in theory in practice you rarely meet a “high level trader" in combat. Also the difficulty based on skill level just doesn't add up. Shielded units do tend to block a bit more often than unshielded one's but doesn't matter if I I fight a looter with pitchfork or a top tier two handed weapon welder, they won't block ever (maybe one in 10 hits will be blocked), they just keep on trying to attack even though they are locked into stagger from every player made attack which obviously will land quicker.

    So the rare trader argument aside, and if the skill level bonus can't be adjusted further (as I said without a shield, troops rarely block regardless if the skill is 20 or 200) the combat was better when it was solely based on char level.

  11. Statement regarding Plans for Singleplayer and Engine II

    Revverie said:
    I think the problem here is that you cant really choose the difficulty you desire. Why the hell they take out the feature of making the AI hard entirely instead of just adding another layer to choose, like idk Legendary. I would really liked fighting against a bot that actually is able to beat the crap out of me. @Duh_TaleWorlds how does difficulty exactly works? I really don't understand what putting the highest difficulty changes, medium level soldiers should have a little bit more difficulty, in arenas medium level soldiers don't even block me, it's boring
    Click to expand...


    Well if people didn't cry about it in April, that the Ai bots are too tough maybe the difficulty levels would change something... Becuase back then tournament fights were scary once you had to fight a higher tier troop or a noble. Now they just wear a shield for aesthetics

  12. Nerfing bows by giving everyone shields was one of the worst changes ever made to this game / share your best battle strategies with me

    Agreed with the last guy. That's like playing a idk, a football sim, purchasing one good player and never expecting to lose a match. Sorry but the post is ridiculous, hopefully the devs won't take this post seriously. Idk what happened during development, during the 2016 gamescom gameplay showcase bannerlord seemed to be a different game entirely filled with features and content, (if you look at the video and compare it to the game we have now you'll see what I mean.) and now it's just a barebones field without features for mid or late game and small replayability value, where community "feedback" such as this crap is taken so seriously that probably next update, archers will be firing gatling guns

  13. Statement regarding Plans for Singleplayer and Engine II

    froggyluv said:
    Really, thanks its just not my type of game.

    So back to the original post which was talking more about Perma-Death etc than Autoblock. Adding back in Autoblock i dont really have a problem with as it was native in the earlier games and not added after the fact to offer up an easier solution



    Because what you are describing is imo one of the most evil destructive attitude to come out of PC gaming development since its inception: Accessible.

    That little word has destroyed more classic titles than anything else -even PC piracy. Why not you ask? Why do you enjoy the game of Chess? Because clever rules were implemented within a finite space with very distinguished pieces that make it unique. The game is hard, takes quite a bit of practice to get good at and ultimately rewarding once you are semi proficient. I want PC games the same way and this is the way they used to be designed. A tightly calibrated affair with a high learning curve (its why all my buddies played Atari) in which bugs at release was heavily frowned upon and so was not getting 50 page Instruction Manual (an actual book) with your purchase.

    In theory offering up unlimited Options to just "let players play the way they wanna play" might sound good and harmless -but its not. A game with a singular outlook (even sandbox) is going to be highly calibrated. A open world game in which you have to explore using common sense, hints from ingame npcs and even the star system (arma) is going to be richer than the game that just place GPS icons over the area you need to go. The latter robs the player of the joys of exploration but even more so -(in my experience as lifelong gamer) a lazier attempt at clever level design by the Developers as they too can use the "just turn on the GPS if you cant find it" -crutch as the lazy player. Dev's generally take the path of least resistance no matter how well intentioned they began with - if playerbase cries that the AI are too hard, rather than calibrating and bettering real AI subroutines they just up or lower the bullet sponge effect. I could go on and on, on the dangers of making games more accessible to the masses but i think you get my drift
    Click to expand...

    I raise my mug of tea to you sir. Exactly, the good old days when games were something unique and came with long manuals included. Even reading the manuals was fun.
    I agree exactly.
    Back in late spring, i found it so amazing that the Ai actually blocked and feinted in tournaments in battles, i never felt so excited, afraid and immersed in a MB game. Then some kids screamed that it's iMpoSsiBle to beat... And the devs nerfed it. It's relieving if not a bit sad, that mods can still revive this feeling.

  14. Statement regarding Plans for Singleplayer and Engine II

    Autoblock was a bad example I suppose, as its not that difficult to code, its just auto block. I'd be lying if I said if I have never used too in SP. But the gameplay expierence is enhanced tenfold IMO, when the death/birth or block mechanics are left as they are originally intended to be. Yes its potentially harder, but IMO in all MB SP games, you inevitabely feel like your char becomes super OP. Full Clad Knights are charging at you and you can handle them with ease. It feels that much more special when you reach this with death enabled and manual block, the journey will be more full of events, disasters, adventures, close encounters etc. Maybe I am not a casual gamer, but then again, MB games aren't casual games, and making them to be more appealing to casual gamers hurts its potential massively.

  15. Statement regarding Plans for Singleplayer and Engine II

    I don't want to be that guy, but I think making the game more customisable i.e. Giving the option to disable death and birth etc. Is a bad direction of game development. Splintering like this will make the developers waste more time on features and their potential bug fixes for some criebabies who expect this to be warband 2 not bannerlord. Just the same as it was with autoblock - flaming the devs and giving them ridiculously bad feedback just because they get killed easily. 1v1 you can defeat any npc even if you didn't have the option to block at all. Think of it like this, if you were swarmed by 5 or more people during a siege, or on a battlefield ofc you couldn't defeat them all even if you were obi wan kebobi. Death and manual block makes you appreciate your own in game char more. Wanna live - stay out of the heat of the battle or surrender or run away, like an actual person would. The game should have one kind of gameplay in mind even in a sandbox environment. Otherwise it becomes impossible to finish and playtest in terms of time and concordantly in resources.

    Edit: typo
See more
Back
Top Bottom