May I then ask why you went through the horrific strain of posting this in the first place? I kindly ask you to either contribute in a manner helpful to the post or - if expressing disinterest and futility towards it - simply overlook it.MadVader said:TL;DR just post your wall of text suggestions and really get it out of your system like everyone else.
Firstly, collectively taking all reasons together one would come to the conclusion that it's not merely 'guessing' but also a comparison between what features would actually be incorporated and what expectations were. I am not trying to alter any behavior of development, but am rather analyzing weather nor not the output will actually be something worth investing in - personally. Furthermore, any lacking aspects would be alterable by mods/ patches thus giving my statistic a quite extensive longevity for choice.MadVader said:
testertesting said:As much as I agree with the fact that SP should still receive a lot of focus I would also mention that multiplayer could use a lot of enhancements. Also, none of the current games even come close to what WB offers, even in mutiplayer. [...] I have yet to see a single-player and multiplayer game of this genre where strategy (teamplay, formations, tactics) actually matter. However we will shorty start seeing rivalries with Meele: Battlegrounds and Kingdome Come, but as far as the leaked videos show concerning these games they'll be simple improvements of M&B, not offering much novelty. Here is where Bannerlord would come in having 5 years of experience in this field and essentially overshadowing all of the other medieval-genre combat games. Even if not the masterpiece we are expecting, I still have faith in Bannerlord to deliver at least a better experience than any other game out there.
testertesting said:Indeed, but considering the first game came out 5 years ago with multiple sequels you'd think someone would draw some experience concerning technicalities thus far. As you said, some have done it more or less. Even Skyrim has managed to implement horse riding quite realistically - and I personally can't stand Skyrim for its gameplay. [...] And even if all these more or less aesthetic things were not to be implemented, at least improve on the combat in the sense of what I talked about a post before: more options, more combinations, more dynamics which would make the game more enjoyable and add that pinch of complexity and possibility of choice and realism that I believe all of us are looking forward to.
@SenorZorros, could you please elaborate your calculation process? I don't understand what infant mortality rate has to do with the average age and what that number '35' actually stands for. Excuse my eventual confusion.SenorZorros said:well... I could try to make a guess... in this source of which I don't know if it's to be trusted it states an infant mortality of 50% to 30%. if we assume this is in the first year we could simply divide 35 years which is a guess for the average age.
Saying multiplayer doesn't need realism is equal to trying to disarm the need for realism at all. There are multiplayer-specific aspects concerning realism. A quick scan through my posts will show you that I probably am the person most keen on supporting the implementation of realism. When it comes to the debate between single- and multiplayer a quote should clarify my standing point:cherac said:Most Mount and blade players are not really concerned about multiplayer because they know the singleplayer is much fun, that's why there is all this fuss about realism, where I sit in my room and feel like I am in a real medieval world ,who needs realism in multiplayer? if you need multiplayer that badly go and try war of the roses and stuff.
And of course, singleplayer can only reach a certain level before it gets 'redundant' (not to say boring). Having real people who implement real strategies in real-time playing with and/or against one is definitely a spice-up for this genre - I would even say a necessity. The question I was trying to raise was not weather realism should be the absolute main point (it should, I talked about that ever since) or weather singleplayer should be the focusing point or not (it should), but how far one is willing to take the multiplayer experience - which is not to be set aside. Now that I think of it, MP is starting to seem like one of the more important aspects of Bannerlord. After all, people are what makes an experience worthy of experiencing. So, if you wish to contribute then please respond to the topic at hand.testertesting said:Well, considering the SP experience has all the important features [which I mentioned countless times: strategy, dynamics, tactics, freedom of choice] I would hardly see MP failing - on the contrary. As stated previously:
But let's not talk about focusing on either one of the modes, but rather what each mode should be expected to have (best-case scenario of course). A lot has been talked about generally [myself included] such as combat mechanics and real-time tactics, strategies which apply to both multiplayer and singeplayer. So everything that has been discussed regarding a perfection of the battlemap itself can be considered generally available for both multiplayer and singeplayer.testertesting said:So singleplayer should continue to be the focusing point in my opinion, because if the singeplayer experience is satisfying so will the multiplayer. In other words, singeplayer would engulf multiplayer - not vice-versa.
testertesting said:Also, none of the current games even come close to what WB offers, even in mutiplayer. Chivalry and War of Roses are simple hack&slash games, not much strategy nor teamplay come at hand, just player skill and awareness. I have yet to see a single-player and multiplayer game of this genre where strategy (teamplay, formations, tactics) actually matter. However we will shorty start seeing rivalries with Meele: Battlegrounds and Kingdome Come, but as far as the leaked videos show concerning these games they'll be simple improvements of M&B, not offering much novelty. Here is where Bannerlord would come in having 5 years of experience in this field and essentially overshadowing all of the other medieval-genre combat games. Even if not the masterpiece we are expecting, I still have faith in Bannerlord to deliver at least a better experience than any other game out there.
testertesting said:Firstly, the contact physics and behavior should definitely be revised: what we currently have is the player bumping into characters and these moving a little bit forwards or to the side as the player keeps walking in that direction. This also applies for when characters make contact with the player, the player would get pushed to the side a little. This could be replaced by a mild friendly-fire action [which wouldn't cause damage] such as if one character runs into another [friendly or foe] without engaging in an attacking or pushing action [pushing with the hands, or the shoulder such as ramming without a shield], then the passive character [that is the one being contacted by the other, not the one sprinting] would engage in an animation proportional with the direction the character was contacted from and the speed of this bump such as bowing a bit forward, or being pushed a little to the side similar to a person who have lost their balance for a bit. This would not startle the passive character, they would still be able to continue doing their thing such as running or swinging their weapon, the only difference would be that they would lose balance for a split second. Of course this would be combined with a variety of actions: from a simple walking bump to a full on sprint collision on another stationary character. The stationary character would rock forward making a few running-like steps in order to regain balance, while the runner would be startled for a while with an appropriate animation. To illustrate:
What would be further thinkable is a stable stance, such as if one character is crouching statically and someone else sprints into them [without ramming], they would have less impact - with prone, not much at all.here is a video of a robot losing balance and regaining it without its forward movement actually incapacitating it. https://youtu.be/cNZPRsrwumQ?t=34s. Of course, in-game this would be applied to a humanoid skeleton and on a much much smaller scale when it comes to man-man [especially friendly-friendly] contact.
It is important to take in account here the behavior of mass soldiers, such as when there's a lot of them crowding a small entrance or when there's a massive clash between two masses. One wouldn't simply run forwards pushing their teammates in order to get to the front line - although such a behavior would be realistic and should consist in the players themselves choosing in the engagement of discipline. In SP the bots would know how to act presumably.
Secondly, we would have a formation system. Currently if the player sets in formation with other players around them [multiplayer mostly, also singleplayer] for example a hedgehog formation or a phalanx, it is extremely hard to calculate the positions visually while keeping the weapon fixed and moving while keeping this formation. To actually make such formations do-able, hence they had a great impact historically and thus would be of importance, the game could implement a system that would project on the ground the positions which the players have to take in order to be in such a formation. For example say a spear unit [a phalanx] in a multiplayer game is led by a commander. This commander would order its troops to form up in a phalanx formation to engage charging enemies. Every soldier in that unit would set their formation system for 'phalanx' from a drop-down list [for example pressing a button and choosing what formation they want]. The game mechanism would calculate the number of troops in that specific group [the spear group, let's call it - groups would be predefined by players] and project on the ground - regarding the position of each player - a highlighted area which has to be taken up in order to make this phalanx. This from should be relative to the commander's position. The commander would then instruct the movement of the unit, while the highlighted area in the shape of the formation would follow the commander. The soldiers indivually would be free to move around, if for example they need to engage enemies to the sides. Of course such a formation would have to move slowly across the map in order to work well, which is quite realistic. Such formations would be different for units: a cavalry unit won't do much if they choose to project a hedgehog formation for example. Also some fine-tuning of weapon features would be needed here such as propping a very long spear against the ground and holding the sharp end upwards and moving it around like that while static of course. Such a spear would deliver its highest efficiency rate while static propped in the ground and moved in all directions as such.
Thirdly and lastly we could mention a tactical overview of the battlemap in real time, that only the general would have access to and command its commanders accordingly, but I think this would be quite unrealistic. However, this general could have a small company of elite units and ride around the battlefield and give orders around on such a tactical overview of the battlemap but only concerning friendlies, in other words he wouldn't see the location of enemies or of friendlies but he would be able to give commands such as charge, attack, defend, hide etc.etc.
This last point isn't as important but the first two, especially the second I find would make quite for the extreme experience.
Yes, let's hope you are right. Again this was one of the first points I mentioned upon joining, maybe you can give more insight of yours regarding the discussion below in order to progress it?KhergitLancer80 said:I think people shouldn't worry about multiple hits by one swing.Taleworls is aiming to make the most realistic combat system so I think it won't be like cheap games where you can swing your sword through somebody and that somebody still don't die but a -5 mark appears on him.I thing it will be like when the enemy can just reach your sword's range as you swing it, only the end of your sword will reach and wound or kill him and your sword will be able to continue but if he is closer to you than your range as you swing it mid of your sword will hit him and your sword will not be able to continue to hit another enemy.
By the way it would be very cool if you could chop.enemys of and maybe if you maxed the strength in singleplayer you can cut people to two or if you manage to hit enemys throat with your sword a lot of blood will be dropped and enemy will try to keep his cutted throat miserably for a few second before dying unless you don't hit him again.
testertesting said:15. Realistic injury and reaction
For example cutting a leg off, an arm etc. Also one single thrust could instantly kill. In this sense the 'health' bar is completely unrealistic hence if in an actual duel all it would take is one blow to die. As an addition one could think of something like struggle. For example if someone got their arm cut off they will probably be able to fight like 5 more seconds then just fall down and moan and twitch and move around while bleeding to death. Also crawling with last breath, death twitches etc. [also for horses and animals].
DanAngleland said:Realistic injury and reaction is another interesting one. What grabbed me was the mention of the health bar system being unrealistic. A more realistic system would allow for many minor wounds, such as arrows losing almost all of their momentum after breaking through mail, but still causing the recipient to recoil (as they already do in M&B and Warband). On the other hand a single hard thrust from close range, driven deep into the torso of an unarmoured soldier, would be instantly lethal or at least instantly incapacitate them.
Of course, all of this while taking in account the (very important) armor factor:Johan_Stormcloak said:I actually mentioned this a little while ago in the Bannerlord thread, and think that it would be a really cool feature. Maybe different hits in different areas would affect the player in certain things. Like if they are shot in the leg they would start to limp, or if hit in the arm, maybe they would deal less damage. It could also work for horses if they're shot in the leg, they might slow down or maybe fall forward.
testertesting said:The armor battering would be a nice implementation - if not as complex as I suggested at least it should exist locally. That means that the armor will break if say an incredibly muscular soldiers throws an axe at full power in the back of a plated knight - at least visually. It is also extremely annoying to see a sharp sword doing blunt damage: would a sharp sword hit the unarmored or lightly armored arm of an enemy (or any body part for that matter) it would cut it off (or do the appropriate cutting damage). How is this relevant to armor battering? Well firstly, a 'sharpness' level of a weapon would have to be implemented (thinkable) and secondly such cuts or blunt hits would have together with the swing momentum and strength (and ricochet action) a certain unique impact on armor: it is extremely unrealistic and annoying to watch as one character thrusts their longsword in the heavily plated (or one-piece) waist armor of its enemy and killing them. Plus even the sound which resembles flesh being cut makes for even more annoyance. The armor has to be a different entity altogether: at least seeing some sparks that cut the surface of the armor piece and hearing the according sound should be implemented. Thus a heavily-armored soldier would not suffer almost any direct damage: rather just being knocked over and then battered at (while on the ground) until the armor breaks and the soldier killed or if the characters could engage in an action such as taking the helmet off their opponent and killing them as such. Armor is a very important topic, much more than simply changing the skin of the soldiers and a few numbers related to the healthbar and stamina.
Not further than 3rd person, may I add. It adds an enormous amount of realism as far as I'm concerned, even if the current first-person viewpoint can be improved. How? Mainly due to the fact that a view impediment (such as the first person view, especially compared with 3rd person which offers unrealistic vantage points, like seeing behind a corner) plays a very important role in battlefield immersion: one is and cannot be aware 360o around oneself. The need to constantly look around, watch one's back etc. is something which I find of absolute essence within a combat simulator. It is a skill factor - a major, if not the most important one: spatial awareness.NightHawkreal said:First-person view is very far from realism. It's like a man wearing blinders.
However, the field of view should not be exaggerated but ought to give more awareness of the character itself. It is possible to see what direction one is hitting from using 1st person in M&B by looking downwards and seeing the wrist and arm positions.DanAngleland said:I don't think that would be a popular choice unless first person was improved with a greater field of view. First person has always been a favourite of mine but a lot of the time, especially in multiplayer, I need to use third person for melee to be fully aware of what my opponent is doing (and what swing I have readied; sometimes I make a mistake and don't realise it until I start the swing because the weapon is held off screen).
I raised this issue in one of my first posts. As reference, it might be of help continuing the discussion and your ideas upon it:cherac said:Imagine two people standing in front of me If I swing my sword and they are within range of the tip it would basically cut or slash whatever is in its way. So with the right momentum I should be able to cut more than two heads with one swing.It makes perfect sense.Even a javelin should pierce two people if the are close enough but that would be too much realism and gamers might complain.
testertesting said:4. Multiple hits
In M&B one can only hit one enemy at the time even if the animations [the blade] goes through multiple enemies. This has to be changed for example a huge axe swing would deffinetely be able to kill a few enemies (if off their guard) at once.
DanAngleland said:Regarding multiple hits, I don't think that is at all realistic I'm afraid. A weapon might skid off a shield or suit of armour and strike a second man, but anything more than a glancing blow will not have significant momentum after biting into the first body in most circumstances. Also; if, as is likely, you landed the blow with the end of the weapon (which is preferable both for the distance it keeps you from the enemy's weapon and because it imparts the greatest force against the target) the trajectory of the blade could only carry it into further men if they were huddled around you in a semi-circle.
Of course multiple hits is realistic to a certain extend. The actual debate should be as to what happens to a stuck weapon, such as a spear or axe or even sword? My solution would be a time-consuming animation that would require the character to try and get it out (also applicable for materials such as wood, trees, ground etc.), which would be stoppable at any moment by will - hence the vulnerability.testertesting said:Concerning the multiple hits, why would it be so unrealistic? Of course, I don't mean it in the sense of one swing killing or hitting 5 enemies around the character. I'm all for realism. So think of a situation where the character has a very long phalanx-spear fighting against a massive amount of low-class meele soldiers with no armor [peasant rebellion for instance]: the character could easily thrust their spear through one enemy which would proceed into impaling say 3 more if they're standing in a group or charging.
Bloc said:Meanwhile in Ubisoft ;
Yes, I completely agree. Too much visual computer input: flashy characters, colored player locations, third-person mode etc. - also to little control over character attacks and that scene where the main character simply kills around 4 enemies by himself while those are all bunched up around him is not only highly unrealistic but also extremely unpleasantly automatic. Gives the impression of a simple hack-and-slash game with a pinch of combat strategy trial - actually, that's what it is: a redo of assassin's creed style combat.DanAngleland said:I think it looks like a boring interactive movie, but this isn't the place to discuss other games, that is what the....Other Games board is for (in Off Topic).
And he calls himself a 'Grandmaster Knight'.Lumos said:... what banner selection UI?
If other elements are implemented [which I have talked about numerous times] such as charging (sprint-attacking, sprint-pushing, sprint-thrusting etc.), sliding, leaning (in the sense of dodging), crouching, jumping, climbing - and all combinations between them -, if superior tactics and a larger range of attacks are implemented, be it short swings, long swings, quick thrusts, long thrusts (and much more are thinkable), unrealistic issues such as back-paddling, static jumps and attack spamming would be resolved - not through specific bug patches which include unrealistic 'cool down' times or other aspects as such, but through the immersive realism and complexity which offers both duelers an immense range of options.jacobhinds said:If a player starts half swording anywhere else, the other player can just backpedal and make use of superior range before the half sworder can react. It's like what happens when 2h sword meets 1h sword on a deathmatch server.
hoe12moe said:I hope they keep it simple
The Mighty McLovin said:Would it even hurt if you got swinged by a sword wearing this armour? It must of took hours for someone to die.
Yes and no. Yes, because armor is an extremely important, vital part of medieval combat which really made the whole difference on the battlefield. A strong piece of armor can indeed make the wearer immune to mostly any hits. No, because armor duels are not a simple hack and slash event where the duelers simply hit each other until a piece of armor cracks. In fact, most hand-to-hand combats where both sides wear heavy armor end in a ground brawl where blunt force makes all the difference. A sword is not such a bad idea in this context, because it can bring a tremendous blow if impacted at full speed on the opponents body.redwood36 said:Of course not, that's why military techniques focused on either piercing the armor (the primary reason for half-swording), using hammers/maces, grappling, or aiming at openings in armor. A sword is a pretty poor weapon to use in that particular circumstance.
Exactly. This would go hand in hand with what I mentioned some time ago, concerning armor bashing:Johan_Stormcloak said:After a battle, you would need to bring your troops to get their armour repaired.
testertesting said:One thing I just thought of would be armor bashing: say a heavily armored knight dismounts their horse and fights against 2 lightly armored soldiers. Those 2 soldiers will be at danger because if they get hit merely once they'll be incapacitated or die and the knight is also at danger because of mobility impediment. So if the knight manages to kill one off quickly he should be able to take out the other one as well. But what if he doesn't manage to do that? What if there are more soldiers? The armor of the knight will make so that short swords (for example) won't have much impact on him. However, after continuous bashing the armor will degrade, it will have 'bumps' so-to-speak due to the blows plus the blows will incapacitate the knight for a very short amount of time each (blow to the head even if the head is in a helmet will cause some nausea). So the knight might not die instantly (unless someone throws a heavy axe swing at them) but rather slowly have its armor 'mashed up' until eventually it cracks revealing a weak spot or the bumps get so dense that they 'enter' the knight's body and makes him unable to fight or die [for example bashing continuously on the head will squish even the helmet]. Furthermore, if the knight survives this (say he gets bashed up badly and the enemies leave him on the battlefield instead of decapitating or bashing his head in) and shortly after there's a new fight and the leader didn't give enough money/ repairing time/ new equipment to his soldiers, the bashes and the deformed armor should be now visible in the battlefield - maybe even forcing our knight to not be able to wear that highly damaged piece of armor at all.
Thanks for the input. However, damage on the horse due to the player wearing armor is a little far-fetched, I must say. The idea of the horse getting tired more easily based on what equipment is used is of course viable. And yes, concerning the falling it's quite a complex feature and I also mentioned variables. The conclusion was that the ultimate effect of falling is incapacitation, which is the one to be adapted based said variables.Jacques Cartier said:I agree, ofc you got into alot more detail than me. Although this got me thinking of what they should do for horse bumping, in warband it's highly unrealistic, but it keeps it from being op. Maybe horse bumping could cause damage on the horse if the player is wearing armor, (imagine you running and bashing your knee against a metal ball) that's basically why it would hurt the horse. But it should also hurt the player, but it's hard to decide how much and how hard a player should fall. It should really be based on variables so people can't call BS.
DanAngleland said:Jacques Cartier said:I think that in a more realistic standard for the game, lances shouldn't be able to be used over and over. In real life calvary could only use their lance once, twice if they get lucky or something. Usually the lance gets stuck in the person and you have to drop the lance.
I've seen a few people on this forum speculate that this may be the case (or similar ideas about lances), but I don't think it would be a common occurence and I know of absolutely no evidence to support it in the slightest.
@Louis, that's a peculiar reaction, quite inappropriate considering the fact that @jacobhinds simply stated an opinion (hence the 'doesn't have to') - as far as I understand. I talked about this aspect some time ago, and fairly I would be disappointed if they restrict their whole gameplay to a single era, especially one that doesn't cover more 'modern' medieval tactics and elements such as armor, knights etc. It would seem like the development uses a contextual aspect as a reason for leaving technical, mechanical aspects out. I personally agree with @jacobhinds, hence my post in retrospective:Louis said:
testertesting said:Firstly, the game takes place in a fictional world: Calradia. Saying it's parallel - that is from a temporal viewpoint - to something from the real world is as questionable as the geographic location itself. Secondly, in the calradian year 1257 we encounter quite heavy pieces of armory, one of which - if my visual memory doesn't deceive me - is forged into a single piece for the torso. That would make it a very thick plate armor, it being also quite voluminous. Such an armor is historically speaking way before its time. I find leaving out heavy armor pieces just for historical coherency would implicitly require a realistic geographical adaptation as well. This is a medieval combat game not a representation for a single, predefined timespan, so why would one leave an important (and most entertaining) aspect out of it? Might as well restrict the whole game to a nude gladiator arena.
Of course it makes sense, you're talking about immersion through proportion, which is a completely viable point. Terrain should also play an important role, in the sense of speed, ability to cross certain terrain types for each unit and effectiveness. I talked about this some time ago:Drustagnos said:One thing I really hope is that in Bannerlord it is a lot BIGGER. More small villages, towns and more that fleshes out the map, really feeling like im travelling a huge distance and taking a large part of land. (If that makes sense)
In this context, a much more realistic battle time would be thinkable, and a corresponding animation on the campaign map regarding the size of the armies. As far as time goes, they don't last long. Sometimes battles are over before the player even gets there. There is also no option for reinforcements, except if a friendly lord just happens to be around and chooses to come in aid. Like mentioned above, a runner should be sent to call for reinforcements. Again, concerning this idea, there would be an appointed 'captain' or more of some sort who would take over armies and rush to the aid of their lord (or the hirer). These characters should be playable by the player themselves, switching through them at will. Of course, a quite complex order-obeying system would be required, but I do believe it to render quite promising results if implemented.testertesting said:An only-cavalry should be a viable option though, as far as realism is concerned: one could ambush quite well with only cavalry. Also, a bandit band or some other controversial conglomerate of troops could be made only out of cavalry hence they'd need to only deliver a swift shock to their victims (caravans, villages) and just rob them. Speaking of speed, an only-cavalry army will definitely have a dynamic advantage across the map, moving at much faster pace with greater mobility [but only in certain areas]. This could be used during a fight if say a lord is being attacked and asks for reinforcements through a runner: a fast, only-cavalry detachment would be sent to their help and maybe arrive in time - where a full infantry-based army would fail.