搜索结果: *

Rangah 说:

Actually, I recall hitting someone today twice for 5 damage without stunning them them, so it would seem it's actually 6 and above damage that interrupts.

点击展开...

Yeah, I had same experience. The number was from one of the patchnote, I think the code might be something like: interrupt if Damage > 5.

the interrupt damage threshold is 5, lower than this, damage won't interrupt animation. It was 10 before. I would prefer to set it higher actually. Be careful what you ask, if any damage can interrupt animation, it is just opening for potential abuse, like someone looking away from you at a particular angle and using the initial part of his swing to forever lock you in blocking. Or keep running away with the ending part of his swing to stop you chasing him. To an extend, It's already happening with all the long twohander whirlwind warriors.

I'm curious, do you know when does the in combat modifier kick in? Blocking and attacking? Or simply enemy nearby?

shatti 说:

didn't work against human players, i tried it
the player will always catch the time to block

点击展开...

You might be doing it wrong, you need to hold attack => kick => release attack.Try it, it works.

Caps 说:

So you want to create a unit that is better in melee, than the designated melee unit. In addition it got good ranged abilities aswell as extra perk? If you want them to be good in melee (heavy archers) you need to reduce their ammunition significantly. 40 arrows is just an insane amount; which actually sums up to 80 arrows in a round, do you want to try to kill a whole army?



None of the maps is particular clever designed, the space must be really confined for the bannerlord cav to be bad. Maybe it worked out to balance cav over maps in warband, but it doesnt anymore in bannerlord. Most maps in bannerlord actually favor cavalry aswell, on one map its impossible to play archer; there are simple no safezones from couches so its full cav+flag pullers. Full infantry isnt even playable because cav can cap flags far quicker. I dont know how you would want to balance archers over maps in regards to archer vs infantry?



Just test running ingame, if you play a melee unit with a heavy shield then good luck catching up to an archer.

点击展开...

Well, obviously we agree that a "super unit" shouldn't exist. When we talk about units balancing we also need to put whole faction balance into context. In this sense, I'm not against making a archer better in melee than their own faction melee unit, IF the whole faction is balanced in that way. Like, veteran being better than tribal warrior in melee is totally fine with me, because the whole faction is designed to have weaker and cheaper specialist infantry with a good all-rounder heavy archer. It's not like the veteran is somehow better than other faction's heavy infantries in melee. Though I agree many parameters could be tweaked a bit, like arrow counts and movement speed. My point is there's nothing inherently wrong with archer running faster than infantry. In fact, most light infantries do run faster than archers, it's the heavy ones that run slower than archer, which I think is totally fine. They are not suppose to chase archers anyway.

However, in order for all of the above to work we need map designs to consider these. I do agree with you that most skirmish maps are poorly designed in this regard. All of them have complicated terrain and objects features in between flags, while the object areas themselves are really open. This is just the total opposite of what I would do. The classic dust 2 map from Counter Strike is a good example here: all the long corridors that suites long range weapons are on the way to the objectives not on the objectives themselves. Sniper is excellent during skirmishing phase and provide support, but ultimately one side needs "assault units" to push through and fight for the bomb points. I haven't played CS for ages but when I was still watching the games like 10 years ago, in a tense late game 1 v 1, players would often drop sniper rifle for a assault rifle.
The same logic applies here, the ideal map should allow the archers/skirmisher to sufficiently impact the outcome of the match during the approach phase by "skirmishing", but the flag area should be designed in a way to force melee. Right now, there's no "skirmish phase", the main fight IS the skirmish shoot out. It's not like we don't have those kind of areas on the map, it's just they are nowhere near the flag. We have plenty covers for the shooters but nothing for the units who are getting shot, which is just bizarre at best. The maps we have right now force melee units to chase archers into building complexes, it should be the other way around: the archer should be compelled by the objective timer to push into the building complex. For example, the A flag on the desert map, if you move the flag to the edge of the platform (the side without a ramp) rather than let it sit in the middle, the area become instantly more melee friendly. Right now an archer sit at one edge of the platform can cover BOTH the flag and the approach to it, which is just unacceptable.
Of course I'm just talking about range vs melee here. The balance between horse and foot need another post to rant.

Caps 说:

so if you spam feints you just walk faster or how would it work? Infantry just needs to run faster than archers, which they ****ed up i hope they fix it again, once they fix their UI.

点击展开...

With all due respect, I don't think let infantry runs faster than archer or make them weaker is the solution. Every FPS game have had the "sniper problem", and we should solve that by clever map design. In the context of this game, I don't really mind in general how powerful archer and horses are compare to infantry, as long as the contests over objectives are designed to enforce close quarter melee that favors infantry. As for the infinite kiting problem, there is already a mechanism in place that lowers movement speed when switching weapons and when holding a bow, isn't it?

Gab 说:

Try adjusting the vertical movement scale sensitivity in the settings, iirc sliding it to the left will make it more sensitive to horizontal directions, and the opposite to the right.

点击展开...

YES! I set it to 1.5 and it helped a lot! Thx

Caps 说:

thats what i meant with calibration, for honor allows it in the options to adjust it manually. I have no knowledge about that, for me it feels similar to warband.

It would be nice to have something similar (FH only got 3 attack direction)

点击展开...

Yeah exactly, this would be super useful. I tried yesterday to learn how to attack with keyboard and it is super awkward for me. I will go tinker my mouse a bit to see if it helps.

Caps 说:

1. they have the same stats
2. its harder to turn which makes them harder to hit, idk if they changed something in the calibration
3. theres a block delay, which the community tries to fight off. Basicly you need to block earlier, so that it actually blocks.

点击展开...

Thanks for the reply! By the second question I mean many times when I try to do a thrust, my attack turns into a swing. Nowadays, all my side swings are failed overhead . Do you know if changing sensitivity or the vertical movement scale setting could help a bit?

It happened before the 1.3. I think it is part of the design, as when blocking left, your right shoulder is exposed, a well positioned attack can pass the block. AI is much better at doing this than human players in multiplayer because no lag and it is AI.

ShotgunJed 说:

No, there is always mods for something like this, if you want to give the AI a bit of a helping hand. Developers should stay true to their vision of not giving the AI any unfair advantage, and should play on the same ruleset as the player.

点击展开...

What for though? This just hampers the flow of the game and puts AI at a disadvantages position without actually making the player's experience any better. Who even notice the AI lords recruiting around when playing?

try verify local file on steam. I have the same issue after every update, this solves the problem for me.

jack786 说:

and let's not even mention you can't aim for less armored body parts to do critical hits. One DEF stat applies to all body parts including naked head

点击展开...

I'm pretty sure it is not the case. The armor rating in multiplayer class info is just a overall rating of protection.

I was talking about the video where you fought the character named Lantanor. Sorry about my confusing wording, when I wrote " dealt X damage in total" I meant total damage before absorption.

I don't think that was 'early' to cause 1 damage, keep in mind that this issue remains in multiplayer, and in MP people move in a really unpredictable way, a swing where you apply camera angle to 'cut' quicker, that clearly hits with the cutting part of the sword, should not count as 'early' as the animation is already past that -start up- part, it should count as a low -20 or 25- low damage. Specially players under preassure tend to just hug you and shield up, resulting in very low damage outputs the way this was designed, and there's not really much we can do about that at the moment, it's just plain wrong.

点击展开...

You did hit him very early. If you play the video at x0.25 speed and pause at the frame of the hit you can see that the blade tip hadn't passed your ear yet. The game's rule is clear that the player deal maximum damage when hit opponent at the middle of the swing. Between the max and min damage, it is a gradual change. There's no clear "start up" part that after which you should do full damage.

I think you would agree with me that it is not a bug or anything in the program that caused the low damage number. It happened exactly as designed. Thus I tried to caution your use of the word inconsistency, as the word could imply there's something wrong in the application of the rule set of the game. Probably I'm reading too much into the word, or doing it wrongly.

Now should the game be designed like this? This is a subjective matter. Bannerlord is certainly pursuing a different balance design compare to Warband. The problem is that we are still using the experience we gained in Warband as benchmark to gauge how should the combat feel like in Bannerlord.
For example, swinging camera while swinging the sword to hit opponent early was the golden tip for new players during warband time, we took it as granted and incorporated it into our muscle memories. As I see it, the scenario demonstrated in the video clearly indicate we need to play the game differently and I think in this specific fight it is a good change. It makes the choice between hit early or hit hard a meaning one. Maybe instead of trying to hit early, we should try to hit for max damage so our attack can do more damage against really well armored opponent to more reliably stagger the opponent. Maybe instead of cutting, which heavy armor should do well against, we should do more thrusting to do more piercing damage and to gain more speed bonus. The same choices existed in Warband, it was the other part of the design of that game made the choices less meaningful. Now, better armor makes this part of the design more coherence, which is a good thing.
I also had same frustration in tournament against cataphracts/legionaries when I first started playing. Then I realized that the problem is myself, I was playing bannerlord as if I was playing warband. I think for the warband veterans like us, we should try harder to adapt the new system first and foremost. Then we could really gauge the effectiveness of the new system and prompt the developers to do more meaningful adjustments.

I feel the "inconsistent damage" you showcased in the third video is actually the game working as intended.
The first hit was the lowest damage one because you hit him at a very early part of your swing. I don't know your character's level and one handed skill level, but based on armor stats in single player, the AI is wearing one of the best armor sets in the game and his arm armor certainly passed 25, thus you did 1 damage.
The second hit was on the head, since there's a bonus versus head and you hit him at a much better part of your swing, you did 64 damage total; and again since he is wearing one of the best helmet, 45 absorption is not unreasonable.
Third hit was also on the head but you again hit him on a much earlier part of the swing than your second hit, despite with slightly higher speed, you did 50 damage total, almost same amount of armor absorption.
The fourth hit was on the shoulder, you did 41 damage without headshot bonus, and it was also far from a ideal hit because you can see you hit him near center of your blade (I can't recall exactly but the sword in the empire tournaments is a pretty long one, I might be wrong here), and if you notice the location of the crosshair when you hit him, the hit occurred at a later part of the swing, again, not ideal. As the absorption amount, as we could safely assume the shoulder armor is much better than the head armor, (you can check the pieces on the market in single-player) 39 is not unreasonable given the previous example.
I will not go further as it is the same logic, the same rule. Another factor is that you have a much taller character, your left swing will be more likely to hit opponent's shoulder plate, which is the most armored area; besides if you don't look down a little bit when doing a overhead swing, it will also hit a bit later than ideal.
Besides all these, you are hitting the most well armored character in the game's current setting with a one handed sword, which does CUT damage in swinging. The armor would be less effective literally in EVERY OTHER scenarios.

Now, should armor block this much damage? Perhaps, perhaps not. Should we be able to reliably quickly kill a character armored to the teeth with short swords cutting? Should the dev lower the damage threshold for animation interruption? Answers to many of these questions are subjective. Should we be able to choose our weapon in tournament, so I could bring a mace to that fight? I certainly hope so. But, to say that the damage dealt is "inconsistent", which implies a mistake on the games part is not true.