搜索结果: *
- 用户：Bladerider
- 按日期排序
-
But seriously, let's put Slings back in this game.
To be honest, I would rather not have slings at all than with that animation.I' m supporting it, but I wonder... why is it so difficult for them to create a proper animation?
These videos show a technic more accurate to real warfare use of the sling:
Also the stones should be bigger, more like tennis ball sized since there are sources (not medieval but clasical) that states their weight being one mina (600g).
The lenght should be more too. Not less than six spans (1'41m) according to Sylloge Tacticorum.
Other ammunition types like bladed glandes could be interesting but I think that only stones were in use during the middle ages.- Bladerider
- 帖子 #21
- 论坛: The Fields of Valour - Multiplayer
-
What do you guys think of the new features being removed?
"if we have 1 king and 20 lords for each faction as it is in Warband"R4MPZY 说:
The 20 lords for each faction is in Warband. I used it to estimate a possible number of lords in Bannerlord.- Bladerider
- 帖子 #49
- 论坛: The Citadel - General Discussion
-
Weapons and combat balance
Orion 说:1: Unless you treat throwing like your one job that you get paid immense amounts of money for (e.g. you're a major league baseball pitcher) then your accuracy is not going to be that high. Then again, the way accuracy seems to work in Warband is that it's actually a theoretical max which--if you have high enough proficiency--you can achieve. Realistically, unless you greatly exceed the minimum requirements for a ranged weapon then you won't ever achieve that 99 accuracy. This is demonstrated in Warband through controlled tests like I performed with archers, where their differences in proficiencies/power draw are readily apparent. If accuracy functions in a similar way in Bannerlord, then I wouldn't be opposed to throwing weapons having higher maximum accuracy potential. I would not want them to be significantly more accurate in multiplayer than they are in Warband, though, which could be achieved by tweaking throwing skill on MP classes.
2: When I get a chance I'll update this line with an image to show my idea of long & medium range.
3:
That's neat, but crossbows were given better melee capability because they have a long reload time which they are immobile for (ergo, they're more likely to get caught in melee because they are less mobile while firing & reloading). This notion is also borne out by giving them direct access to shields. aWhat you consider to be the same is irrelevant, because the distinction was clearly made already. This distinction was also purposefully made, as originally Vaegir & Sarranid archers were more capable in melee with higher power strike & athletics, as well as better weapon options (notably, Vaegirs had scimitars). Nords got higher power strike because they have the worst bow selection, exclusively cutting melee weapons (though they're among the best), and for thematic reasons. Some archers were deliberately nerfed harder than others, with Vaegirs seeing the biggest hit through more expensive armor, loss of quality melee weapons, and loss of athletics & power strike. This is because Vaegirs have the best bow options, ergo the strongest ranged damage potential among bow users. Crossbows only saw a loss of athletics, IIRC. The distinction, then, was made very clear: bow users are supposed to be weaker in melee because they have more potential at range. Nords, being the weakest bow users at range, get melee capability in line with crossbow users. Crossbow users are still worse than infantry & cav in melee, but are not given trash stats (their gear sucks though, but I feel this was an oversight more than anything).
b To say that the test is conducted in such a way to deliberately make archers look weak is disingenuous, as both classes are tested in their best possible armor. Armor was used for the sake of consistency in testing. Otherwise, infantry would cause too much significant overkill damage which would unduly influence the accuracy of the comparison being made. The point is not that archers must take 15+ swings to kill an infantryman, the point is that an infantryman can take from one half to one fifth as many swings to achieve the same effect. What matters is not the exact numbers, but the ratio of them. Infantry can easily score one-shot kills with melee headshots & appropriate movement against all but the best helmets, but archers & crossbowmen need the planets to align to get a one-shot melee kill against any helmet. Infantry with high raw damage weapons can kill with a single body hit against an unarmored target as well, with a little movement. Archers can never achieve that on foot. Sure, this is arguably a good thing, but the problem is that the magnitude of the difference is too severe. What an infantryman can do in one swing an archer will often require four or more swings to do (remember that blunt weapons have low raw damage & their armor penetrating advantage is wasted against light- or un-armored targets). Furthermore, it is important to consider how little the damage type mechanic affects infantry relative to archers. For archers, the benefit is magnified because without it they deal mostly glancing blows. For infantry, it took 7 swings to kill with a mace and 7 swings to kill with two types of swords. I'll explain this in a later point.
c I did, and pretty much all native players do. If we're not rooting this discussion in native then we're both wasting our time. The most common starting gold is 1000 in Native, but you actually don't directly lose money when you die. Your money only goes down after you respawn, as you are buying gear to respawn with. Money is won from kills (which award a flat rate + a percentage of your opponent's gear cost) and for winning the round (flat rate). One player on the winning team that scores a couple of kills against opponents who used most of their starting money can have top-tier weapons and mid-tier armor in the second round on Native (depending on faction, 'cause Rhodoks still don't have mid-tier armor options
). If this same player scores a couple of kills and wins the second round, then they may be in all but the absolute best armor going into the third round. The cost difference between the best and second-best armor for most factions is severe, and while the stat difference also looks large we must take into consideration that armor increases offer diminishing returns after a certain point, dependent on your opponent's melee potential.
Referring back 2 paragraphs, where infantry required the same number of swings to kill with blunt weapons as with some cutting weapons, this is attributable to the way damage is calculated. For the infantryman, we can see that the greater raw damage value on the swords is enough to make up for the lack of armor penetrating capability because of their power strike & proficiency, and while the mace has lower raw damage it ignores enough armor to be just as viable damage-wise as the cutting weapons. For archers we could expect the same trend to hold true, except their low power-strike reduces their melee potential to the point where many of their swings are totally ineffective glancing blows. The interesting thing to note here is that--because it ignores a hefty percentage of armor--the number of glances with the mace was much lower, meaning it landed damaging strikes more consistently. It is easy to see why infantry seldom glance while archers glance quite often, even with the same weapons. Infantry get a significantly larger boost to pre-reduction damage through their power strike and proficiency. Barring a negative speed bonus, it is unlikely for the infantryman to deal so little damage that they cannot overcome the modified armor value, ergo they consistently deal damage with each blow. For archers, their power strike bonus is smaller or zero, so their raw damage before speed bonus is closer to the raw damage listed on the weapon. With a cutting weapon, this means that armor with an armor value just a little (~10 points) above the raw damage of the weapon has a good chance to mitigate all incoming damage from an archer's melee attack. The only way to overcome this is with good speed bonuses, luck, or a blunt weapon, because armor value is also randomized between 50% and 100% of the armor's displayed value for each hit. Maces can reduce that significantly, but cutting weapons won't. It's worth pointing out that only Vaegir archers and Rhodok crossbowmen get access to blunt weapons, and they also get the only piercing weapons (though the Vaegir piercing weapon is only 19p with 70 reach, arguably the worst weapon in the game).
dNow, when we take into consideration the more readily available armor upgrades for infantry and the worse weapon availability to most archers & crossbowmen, as well as the worse melee stats for ranged classes, it becomes apparent that they do not remain competitive in melee against infantry beyond the first or second round of a map, especially if they lose. Snowballing is another problem in Warband which Bannerlord has already taken steps to address through mostly fixed class loadouts, but the downside to this is that a player can select a heavy infantry class without earning it through skillful play and--in circumstances like Warband's--be more-or-less impervious to archers in melee.
4:
I can't prove it any more than you can, as I don't have access to Bannerlord. A more reasonable demand you could make of me in this regard is to offer examples from the information we do have, and to provide a well-reasoned explanation of them. I've already done this by calculating the approximate damage difference between bows and melee weapons (about 30-50% less damage per arrow compared to melee swings), using examples of visible damage numbers which appear to be unmodified to estimate the damage that would be dealt against the archer in question, and by using the calculated minimum health of heavy infantry (9 as a point to estimate the health total of the archer in question (~90). With this information, I would estimate that the archer in question would take 3 or 4 arrows to kill. Beyond that, I can only assume that damage of javelins relative to arrows is in line with Warband's, so it would likely take 2 javelins to kill the archer.
5: The link you provided only proves my point further. Here's the example in question, with relevant part bolded:
Which takes me to number 6.OurGloriousLeader 说:
6:
aI can't speak for everyone, and it's not something that was formally agreed upon anywhere. This is an unrealistic standard to hold me to, and tacitly acknowledged as such by the very existence of statistical sampling. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to query or test an entire population if that population is not small.
As for which is more important, I feel some qualifying statements should be made before I give you my opinion on that. First, more important for what purpose? Second, to what degree? If the purpose is for making balancing decisions, then yes, absolutely, the competitive community's opinions are not only more important, they are most important. This is because very few people outside of the competitive community will feel as affected by minor, seemingly trivial differences in stats, or have as much experience playing the game in a structured environment where balance is paramount to ensuring the validity & meaning of outcomes. Nobody has as much reason to care about balance as competitive players do, because their enjoyment of the game is affected by it to a much greater degree than someone who spends the majority of their time playing casual MP, SP, or mods. That being said, the degree of importance attributed to a competitive player vs. a casual player's opinion should not be so drastically different that the casual player's opinion is effectively discounted. We are, after all, playing the same game. It is also not necessary for someone to have played competitively before they could have any ideas which are beneficial to the game.
Therefore, it is my opinion that the opinions of competitive players with regards to balance should be weighted more than those of others, but ideas from all parties should be considered so that good ideas do not go unnoticed. That's why I'm here, discussing this with you, even though I think you're not a competitive player.
Now that's an idea. Especially if multiplayer modes scale up to the point where there are two or three hundred characters running around in a battle (mostly bots, I would assume), it would be a considerable quality of life improvement to give players more throwing weapons in such a mode than they would get in a 6vs6 competitive match, b and the effect on balance is greatly diminished considering the scale of the battle. I feel this could also easily be done with the perk system that Bannerlord will have, as perk options could be made to depend on the game mode. The "well supplied" perk could offer 2 extra javelins to a player in a 6vs6 mode, but in captains mode could boost the ammo of the player by 100% and their units by 50%, or something along those lines.
cI'd say it's not that they get them for free, but that anyone who picks up just one and survives the round will get a full stack at the start of the next round. This lets one cav player throw their free javelins into the ground for infantry to pick up, turning one stack of free javelins into potentially six in the second round (cav respawns with a free full stack, and up to five infantry could grab a single javelin each in the prior round). Even if the horseman had to pay the standard price of ~300 for them, he still has the potential to generate five free stacks in the following round. Persistence of gear drops is stupid in general, and throws a very large, very damaging wrench into the balancing problem.
1
The "Then I want javelins with 99 accuracy so it is not a dice roll...." was sarcastic, I am not asking for perfect or almost perfect accuracy for javelins. But what you say to justify low accuracy for javelins can be said to justify the lower aim for bows too. In fact you are appealing to realism and if we consider realism that could lead to massive bow nerf.
3
a
It is relevant to clarify the meaning of my previous comment.
b
I agree that the ratio is important. But by using the heaviest armor you are not only avoiding the chance of overkill for infantry, you are obtaining only the worst ratio for archers. Because the ratio is very dependent on the armor used. Using a rare armor set up to make a general statement is not the best option.
c
(Not default settings =/= Not native)
The point is that, unless you use a huge initial gold, heavy armor is not common.
I guess your example is about 8 vs 8 competitive. It would be good to know how common is your example to happen. I have seen some result screenshots of the BCM and certainly in some of them there are players that had the chance to use heavy armor, but that was in uneven games where a team was much better than the other or in teams where the top ranking players got much better results than the rest of the team. In more balanced games no one got the chance to use heavy armor.
Even with it being possible, you are relying too much on the winning round flat rate of gold.
If I am not wrong, in your example it is: 1000 initial + 2 * 200 from kills in first round + 1000 winning first round + 2 * 200 from kills in second round + 1000 winning second round = 3800 gold
2000 out of 3800 is from winning rounds.
In other game modes like siege this winning round gold is meaningless because you can die and respawn several times during each round.
d
If they were equal or very close in melee skills to infantry then they would be extremely overpowered. They would not only kill from the safety of distance, they would have high chances to kill the infantry that managed to get close to engage in melee.
I would agree with increasing the melee skills of archers as long as their ranged damage is accordingly decreased. Also, in my opinion, damage dealt should be proportional to the risk taken. In the videos of Bannerlord infantry engaging in melee can deal a lot of damage but they are exposed to be hit by the enemy too. That doesn't happen with ranged units when they use their bows/crossbows. Moreover I linked a video in my previous comment where you can see that archers deal huge amounts of damage against heavy armored infantry in melee combat.
https://youtu.be/ldYi2ITaFDg?t=790
And here infantry against heavy infantry to compare (notice that the player being killed in this video don't have an armor as heavy as the other one because this is battanian axemen instead of imperial legionnaire, same health but 35 armor instead of 40)
https://youtu.be/JaMZlbRE3d8?t=5m4s
4
I asked Callum about the modifiers but he said that he can't give the exact numbers. He just confirmed that they use damage reduction to players in that kind of demos because a lot of people that play them don't have experience playing M&B.
I can't prove that the modifiers I said are the correct ones, but considering that previous M&B games have only damage reduction as difficulty settings it makes more sense than having 2X damage from player to AI.
I already provided the heavy infantry health at the end of this comment:
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,378245.msg9023316.html#msg9023316
If you consider that the damage of javelins relative to arrows is in line with Warband's, then it would be two arrows. Unless you are using the weakest bow, and even then I think it wouldn't take more than three arrows, being the third overkill if needed at all.
5
That is only if you decide to ignore the rest of the comment.
OurGloriousLeader 说:
The difference between the blue and bolded is exactly the reason I said that different balance should be done in each multiplayer mode.
6
a
The first question is meant to ask if it was something that involved a big enough group of competitive players or you are talking about a consensus made among a small group of friends.
About which opinion is more important. I would say that certainly the competitive players' opinions are the most important to discuss about balance in competitive mode. But the other modes require different balance because the different number of players and other different circumstances can turn what is balanced in competitive into something very imbalanced.
I confirm that I am not a competitive player by the way.
b
As I said in the previous point, it is not that the effect on balance is greatly diminished considering the scale of the battle; the scale of battle, as any other different circumstance, just changes what is balanced.
c
With that trick they can potentially turn the free stack into an unlimited number because an infantryman that picked up a javelin can throw it into the ground too for other infantry. That way all the players in the team could respawn with javelins if they don't die. But that doesn't change the fact that this is not a problem with javelins being overpowered themselves. To solve it, it is only needed to remove throwing weapons from the persistence of gear drops. Or remove the persistence completely.
- Bladerider
- 帖子 #114
- 论坛: The Citadel - General Discussion
-
What do you guys think of the new features being removed?
R4MPZY 说:
Certainly it would be weird to manage your village from a castle you don't own so probably you are right.
But if that is the case I am worried about the number of fiefs.
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,378752.msg9022179.html#msg9022179
There you can see that at the moment we will have 65 castles, 265 villages and 52 cities. (Asuming that numbers are correct, I only checked the number of cities)
In Warband we have 48 castles, 22 towns and 111 villages. And as possible owners we have 120 lords and 6 kings. So 126 owners for 181 fiefs.
In Bannerlord if we have 1 king and 20 lords for each faction as it is in Warband we would have 168 possible owners for 117 fiefs.
Considering that numbers I am not sure about villages being unable to be owned separately.- Bladerider
- 帖子 #35
- 论坛: The Citadel - General Discussion
-
What do you guys think of the new features being removed?
If you mean this sentence: "The solution was changing the status of villages so that they would no longer be considered independent fiefs but were always attached to a castle or town. "R4MPZY 说:
Read the latest blog post, they said it there.Bladerider 说:
Where is it said that you can't own a village without owning the associated castle once they have removed that feature?R4MPZY 说:
Not sure what you mean with this exactly? Since now a Castle and its village right next to it count as 1 fief, so whenever you get a castle you get the village right next to it aswell, so why would you want to build that village into a castle aswell? Whats the use of having 2 castles right next to eachotherLord Engineer 说:
The feature removed has never been about turning a village into a castle but about building a castle next to it in one of the four slots that could be used to farms and other things.
It is the same as Warband. If you conquer a castle or town you conquer the attached villages. But you could own a village in Warband without owning the castle that village was attached to.- Bladerider
- 帖子 #27
- 论坛: The Citadel - General Discussion
-
What do you guys think of the new features being removed?
Where is it said that you can't own a village without owning the associated castle once they have removed that feature?R4MPZY 说:
Not sure what you mean with this exactly? Since now a Castle and its village right next to it count as 1 fief, so whenever you get a castle you get the village right next to it aswell, so why would you want to build that village into a castle aswell? Whats the use of having 2 castles right next to eachotherLord Engineer 说:
The feature removed has never been about turning a village into a castle but about building a castle next to it in one of the four slots that could be used to farms and other things.
- Bladerider
- 帖子 #24
- 论坛: The Citadel - General Discussion
-
Weapons and combat balance
Orion 说:
1
That comment is basically the same you did in the first page of this thread and I already answered that.
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,378245.msg9008116.html#msg9008116
"Then I want javelins with 99 accuracy so it is not a dice roll.... The accuracy works just as a way to limit range effectiveness. Javelins have low accuracy so you don't have a high chance to hit someone that is too far away from your suposed short-mid range. The same can be applied over bows, being much more accurate than javelins of course."
The worst aim I have seen for bows in Bannerlord footage is 92 and for javelins it is 80.
2
It would be really helpful if you show in an image what do you consider long range.
3
I considered both bowmen and crossbowmen as archers. With that consideration, out of 6 factions 3 have archers with 2 power strike and the other three 0. Using only 2 of the archers with 0 is using the weakest.
In the main post of this thread crossbows are mentioned with bows as being too powerful.
About the damage mechanics you are right, I mixed it with this:
https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/56
"Damage Types
Before we move on, it would probably be helpful for us to explain the different types of damage you can inflict in Bannerlord. We use three different types of damage for melee weapons: blunt, pierce and cut. A single weapon can perform a different type of damage depending on which attack you use. So, if we take swords as an example, a thrust attack would cause piercing damage, whereas as slash would perform cutting damage.
The different types of damage are affected by the type of armour they come into contact with. Cutting damage is more effective against lighter armour, piercing damage is more effective against heavy armour, and blunt damage falls somewhere in between the two, giving a more consistent result across the board. "
You justify the use of cutting weapons because they are the "most commonly used". Then, why is the test only with heavy armor when the most common armor is lighter?
It is just using a rare case to make archers look weak. The test lacks the possible relative movement between opponents that can buff the damage. And archers are not prevented to attack the head in melee which would increase the damage too.
Unless you play multiplayer with different options than the used where I play, heavy armor is really rare. Where I play the initial "money" goes from 1500 through 1600 to 1800, being 1800 the most common. To increase that for the next spawn it is needed to kill enemies and death is punished losing "money". This way to be able to afford heavy armor a player needs to kill a good amount of enemies with each "life". This in a server with max 200 players, maybe average of 120, means that only a few of them will have this kind of armor. Because obviously for someone to make a good K/D ratio, to be able to buy heavy armor, other people will have to die a lot.
I could go deeper in this explanation and that would help to defend my point about this (Second quote):
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,378245.msg9013266.html#msg9013266
Anyway in Bannerlord it looks like archers will be perfectly capable against heavy armored foes in melee. (Damage modifiers must be considered)
https://youtu.be/ldYi2ITaFDg?t=790
4
To make that statement you should prove that your idea of what the damage modifiers are is the correct one. In my previous comment I explain how I understand it and its implications.
5
I am saying it, and it looks like I am not alone (about single player and noncompetitive multiplayer):
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,378245.msg9010471.html#msg9010471
6
Were all the members of the competitive involved in that consensus? Where was that consensus made? Which percentage of the community is into competitive? Is the competitive community more important than the rest of M&B community?
Considering the OurGloriousLeader's comment I linked, I think that maybe different balance should be done not only for single and multiplayer but for the different multiplayer modes too.
About nords passing javelins, I think it is more a problem about nord horsemen having them for free than anything else.
I answer myself about the number of javelins being increased. At least in the captain mode it has been increased.
https://youtu.be/ldYi2ITaFDg?t=492
Notice that well supplied perk is used so further analysis should be done.
Edit to give the relevant time in the videos because using the youtube command it doesn't work.- Bladerider
- 帖子 #110
- 论坛: The Citadel - General Discussion
-
Weapons and combat balance
Orion 说:
I agree with the statement, given that we understand it's also unduly influenced by the state of the AI in the videos we are analyzing.Bladerider 说:
That is debatable. You yourself have advocated for archers filling a supporting role rather than a damage-dealing role. If that were the case, then archers would have a disproportionately low amount of kills. Whether this is balanced or not is dependent on your balance goals. If we want to consider each class as having identical roles, then their kills should be proportionate. If we accept that their roles may be different, then their proportion of kills is no longer a meaningful measure of their balance.
See the above. Balance between things that are not measured by the same metrics cannot be objective, and so they must be evaluated subjectively. Some things just aren't going to be as competitive as their alternatives. Who used the hunting bow in Warband when the short bow was so accessible and did more damage?
That second archer is terrible and misses most of his shots.
Also, we don't have any displayed damage numbers in either of those videos so we don't know how much disparity there is between ranged and melee damage. The third video you posted previously has visible damage numbers, and we can see that the player's melee damage is consistently 60+ and even goes above 120, while most of the player's bow shots deal between 30 and 40 damage. It's worth noting that we don't know the player character's stats & attributes, but the AI's damage seems similar. During the charge at 2:37 the player is shot at close range by an archer and takes 12 damage. He's shot twice more after that for 8 damage each time. He then is struck by a sword for 18 damage, shot in the leg for 6, and he dismounts shortly after to engage on foot. He is subsequently hit in melee a few times, for 12, 1 (a glance), and 11 damage. Finally, he eats an axe for 17 damage. Even including the glancing melee blow, the average damage dealt to the player by arrows is significantly less than that dealt by melee attacks (8.5 for arrows vs. 11.8 including the glance, or 14.5 without it). With this (admittedly limited) data, I would say that arrows seem to deal about 30-50% less damage than melee attacks.
Definitely going to disagree with that one, assuming accuracy works the same as it does in Warband. I would appeal to another authority on this one, specifically the best competitive Warband archer in North America (Lagstro), who has discussed this particular topic at length already. I can probably dig up the thread if you want to read it.
So? Should javelins be instant-kill weapons in a video game, especially if their quantity per stack is increased? That sounds ridiculous to me, as they would become very unbalanced in multiplayer. They're already quite powerful.
What does a veles do when they run out of javelins? Do they not become a regular infantryman then? At their core I would say they are still melee infantry, as they have all the characteristics of melee infantry. They have javelins for skirmishing, but the skirmish is over before the bulk of the fighting begins. They're also footmen with melee weapons & shields, and that's what they inevitably become when their javelins are gone. By comparison, an archer who runs out of arrows can't fill the shoes of an infantryman because he has lower melee skills and likely no shield. I'm not sure how serious you're being when you say you want javelins to be fatal in most--if not all--cases and you want to be able to carry so many of them that they become a viable primary armament. What made them a primary weapon for velites wasn't the quantity they carried ('cause it wasn't much, you can't conveniently carry a dozen or more javelins) but rather that the velites typically became reserve infantry after skirmishing was done, pulling back behind their formation to support them in melee if needed. The bulk of their fighting was done with javelins because they essentially quit the field once they threw them.
Let me dwell a little more on actual damage numbers. We can see in the video I'm providing below, at approximately 11:20 the player leading the infantry separates from his group and the archer who is recording focuses exclusively on them, and they are at close range. Assuming the infantry player has taken no damage before this point in the video (which is assuming a lot), we can see that he takes 4 non-fatal shots from the archer player and 1 non-fatal shot from an AI archer. We don't know how much the AI archer did, but the archer player dealt 71 damage on top of the AI's shot without killing the infantry player. We can also infer from how much damage players deal to AI and how much damage AI deals to players throughout the video that the players seem to be dealing double damage to AI while taking only half damage from AI. Therefore, we can estimate that the AI archer's arrow did approximately 9 damage (the average for the player archer's arrows is 17.8 damage per shot against other players, which rounds to 1. The killing blow is 18 damage, and while we don't know how much of that was overkill I would say it's safe to assume based on these numbers that the infantry player has minimum 98 health. With a health pool of at least 98 and an average damage per arrow of 18, the infantry player could reasonably expect to survive 5 body shots from an archer at close range. I don't see how this is unreasonable, or how anyone could think the archer is dealing too much damage. If anything, the archer is too weak.
That is debatable in a objective way. I already admited that I was wrong in that definition of balance because I forgot the troop cost as jamoecw pointed out, and other factors can be considered. But there isn't any subjective consideration in that.
My personal preference can be done in singleplayer in diferent ways, for example:
-Straight up making archers imbalanced being them weaker at killing. Being this imbalance objective.
-Considering factors like the costs to make them balanced by being much cheaper. So the balance is objective, but only about troops. The bows/crossbows wouldn't be as deadly as other weapons when used by the player so that would be a balance issue.
In both cases they would still be desirable in the army for the reasons I mentioned in previous comments. But, even though in the second it would be partially balanced, it is not balanced.
In multiplayer with my personal preference archers would be like medic and musician classes in Napoleonic Wars. These classes are desirable in the team but they are clearly weaker than the other classes at killing. And since that game is mostly about killing that classes are objectively imbalanced, being underpowered.
Anyway, I have never suggested here anything related to my personal preference.
That second archer is terrible and misses most of his shots. Also, we don't have any displayed damage numbers in either of those videos so we don't know how much disparity there is between ranged and melee damage. The third video you posted previously has visible damage numbers, and we can see that the player's melee damage is consistently 60+ and even goes above 120, while most of the player's bow shots deal between 30 and 40 damage. It's worth noting that we don't know the player character's stats & attributes, but the AI's damage seems similar. During the charge at 2:37 the player is shot at close range by an archer and takes 12 damage. He's shot twice more after that for 8 damage each time. He then is struck by a sword for 18 damage, shot in the leg for 6, and he dismounts shortly after to engage on foot. He is subsequently hit in melee a few times, for 12, 1 (a glance), and 11 damage. Finally, he eats an axe for 17 damage. Even including the glancing melee blow, the average damage dealt to the player by arrows is significantly less than that dealt by melee attacks (8.5 for arrows vs. 11.8 including the glance, or 14.5 without it). With this (admittedly limited) data, I would say that arrows seem to deal about 30-50% less damage than melee attacks.
Probably neither Eithne or Eren are the best examples because they are the main playable character in their respective videos. So I will skip this and focus on the video you added in your edit later. I will just point out that one of the 8 damage is done by a sword and not an arrow.
A link would be apreciated for sure.
How many arrows would be needed to kill that same archer? If the javelins needed are the same or more than the arrows, then we have a balance issue. Javelins are too few compared to arrows and the slot required for the bow is already balanced by having lower accuracy and range with the javelins.
Has the quantity been increased? In some of Gamescon 2018 videos we can see javelins with only 3 ammo. Maybe in other cases is more beacuse they are a weaker type like darts or they are using two slots.
Since velites, in order to use javelins as primary weapon, would need points invested in throwing skill, as archers need in power draw, they wouldn't have too different melee skills.
If javelins neither kill enemies or destroy shields, they are completely useless as primary weapon.
I want javelins to be fatal depending on the number carried. If the number carried is only 3, then it wouldn't be too much to kill or almost kill heavy armored enemies. I think that I never suggested an increase of the ammo. I just pointed out the low ammo as a reason for them to make considerably more damage than arrows/bolts.
Let me dwell a little more on actual damage numbers. We can see in the video I'm providing below, at approximately 11:20 the player leading the infantry separates from his group and the archer who is recording focuses exclusively on them, and they are at close range. Assuming the infantry player has taken no damage before this point in the video (which is assuming a lot), we can see that he takes 4 non-fatal shots from the archer player and 1 non-fatal shot from an AI archer. We don't know how much the AI archer did, but the archer player dealt 71 damage on top of the AI's shot without killing the infantry player. We can also infer from how much damage players deal to AI and how much damage AI deals to players throughout the video that the players seem to be dealing double damage to AI while taking only half damage from AI. Therefore, we can estimate that the AI archer's arrow did approximately 9 damage (the average for the player archer's arrows is 17.8 damage per shot against other players, which rounds to 1. The killing blow is 18 damage, and while we don't know how much of that was overkill I would say it's safe to assume based on these numbers that the infantry player has minimum 98 health. With a health pool of at least 98 and an average damage per arrow of 18, the infantry player could reasonably expect to survive 5 body shots from an archer at close range. I don't see how this is unreasonable, or how anyone could think the archer is dealing too much damage. If anything, the archer is too weak.
Considering who deals damage and who receives damage, I think that in this video and the other captain mode videos all troops deal 100% damage. The difference is the reduction in the receiving side. AI receives 100% damage from players and AI; but players receive 25% from AI and 50% from other players.
With that reduction factors we can estimate, using the 17.8 average that you provided, that the average damage per shot would be 35 rounding down.
In this video https://youtu.be/JaUBg7Ynmwk?t=415 we can see that the health of the legionaire is 120.
With that we can estimate that 120/35=3.43 => 4 shots kill the legionaire in the worst of cases (worst from archer perspective) because here https://youtu.be/tv6I-CzZJLU?t=655 we can see, earlier in the video you linked, that at longer distance the damage can be similar or even higher (depending on which part of the enemy body the shot lands I guess).
In that same video https://youtu.be/tv6I-CzZJLU?t=596 we can see the player dealing 48 and 66 damage to heavy cavalry. Here https://youtu.be/JaUBg7Ynmwk?t=7 we can see that their health is 110. So 110/((48+66)/2)=1.93 => 2 shots would be enough to kill the heavy cavalry.
With that numbers I think that it is too easy for archers to kill the heavy infantry and the heavy cavalry.
Since you mentioned Lagstro, I searched posts in which he debates about archery:
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,371821.msg8872205.html#msg8872205
This is the same you added in the edit so I have nothing else to say about it.
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,368377.msg8829860.html#msg8829860
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,368377.msg8829988.html#msg8829988
These two comments are a huge bias. He tests only the archers that are the weakest at melee and he exploits the cutting, piercing and blunt damage mechanic to obtain the results he wants. (He doesn't use piercing weapons available for archers)
I won't add more right now but I found more comments that look like bias and half truths to me.
- Bladerider
- 帖子 #108
- 论坛: The Citadel - General Discussion
-
Weapons and combat balance
jamoecw 说:
Since as you have said you already stated your agreement and Orion mentioned here: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,378245.msg9017968.html#msg9017968
about the first and second videos being about sieges, my comment was in fact more oriented towards him.
I personally would prefer if archers were more a support unit instead of killers. They can be very useful without being the ones who kill. For example in the open field they can force a group of spearmen to either face them to block their arrows being exposed to the charge of a group of horsemen in their rear or face the horsemen while being wounded by arrows that would eventually kill a big amount of them. For that, huge damage per shot is not required. Of course in the sieges they would be more effective, but not to the point of making much more percentage of kills than the percentage they are in their army.
Certainly, the balance I was considering was only about percentage of kills done compared to percentage of the unit in the army.
When I said that something being balanced or not is not debatable I meant it in the way that, accepting a definition of balance, the thing whose balance is being checked either fits or not.
But I was terribly wrong with the definition, as you have pointed out the cost of the units should be considered in order to assign the effectiveness at killing of each unit and other factors can be considered too. So even though my statement wasn't about the definition not being debatable, it was very audacious and arrogant.
Anyway, if we apply those changes to estimate the balance, I think that archers would be considered more imbalanced.
Overall, I agree with you in the broad strokes.
Edit: Just noticed that I added a question about the definition being debatable in my last comment, so certainly that was wrong and arrogant.- Bladerider
- 帖子 #103
- 论坛: The Citadel - General Discussion
-
Weapons and combat balance
Once that you have seen the three videos and it has been proven that you were wrong about the first two being sieges, do you still disagree with that statement?
Is it debatable that if we consider that the average army composition is X% archers, Y% infantry and Z% horsemen then the perfect balance would be archers doing X%, infantry Y% and horsemen Z% of the kills done by their army on average?
If archers do a higher number of kills in a siege, then it has to be balanced by them making a lower number of kills in the openfield and that is not the case in those videos. It would be nearly imposible to balance that huge amount of kills done in the siege video anyway.
I think that whether something is balanced or not is not something debatable, for me it is like 2x2=4. It is or it is not, there is no place for personal preferences.
On the other hand, what has to be done to achieve the balance is something that I agree it has to be debated. Moreover, there are probably different options to obtain balance and the debate can lead to the best for everyone.
Is the AI a huge problem? Sure, in fact I am very worried about the general behavior of the AI in many different situations.
Here some examples of bad AI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv2qb66PbUg
At 2:08 the infatrymen don't raise their shield to block arows so you have a point there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUkL42p3MssI agree that the AI probably has a leading role in the results but considering other examples (later in this comment) I think the damage input of archers is too high too.
At 0:50 the enemy cavalry decides that the best moment to change the weapon they are using is when they are about to clash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaUBg7Ynmwk
At 4:20 cavalry charges spearmen unpunished.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iObwq1WaxQ8
At 6:08 the AI blocks the way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_3el4IAevg
At 8:40 they don't keep the lines and form a messy group instead.
About archers doing too much damage I can give examples too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv2qb66PbUg
At 1:06 you can see how Eithne one shot some enemies with the bow and at most it only takes two arrows. By the death animations we can know that most of them are not headshots. So that goes for my point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iObwq1WaxQ8
At 1:04 you can see a well armored soldier dying on the catapult by two arrows from more or less long distance.
About archers having too much accuracy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_3el4IAevg
Taleworls seems to agree with me that 99 is too much if you look at 5:01 that the longbow has 94 accuracy. A bit appeal to authority fallacy, I know.
About javelins doing too low damage:
https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_31_taleworldswebsite_04.gif
You can see that the archer on the left is alive and fine with a javelin in the chest.
About javelins having a primary weapon role:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_3el4IAevg
When I created the topic I checked the blogs and thought that I imagined the presence of velites because I didn't find them there. But then rewatchig some videos I found here at 4:47 that velites (javelin user troops) are in fact a thing, so, again, Taleworlds seem to agree that javelins shouldn't be condemned to be a secondary weapon. (Yes, a bit of fallacy again)
Considering that I am going to pay for the game and I have been waiting for long years, I expect the game to be balanced from day one without the need of mods. But I get your point.- Bladerider
- 帖子 #100
- 论坛: The Citadel - General Discussion
-
Weapons and combat balance
Orion 说:
In the third video certainly we could do the separation between footarchers and horse archers.
That would be:
In Monchug party:
Footarchers are 32/157*100%=20.38% and they did 69/157*100%=43.95% of the kills
Horsearchers are 13/157*100%=8.28% and they did 28/157*100%=17.83% of the kills
The enemy doesn't have horse archers so that is it.
With this results I don't see a huge diffferece between them. In fact I think their results are pretty close.
Even if you didn't see the third video, at least @jamoecw said that the other two are sieges, and I can't see any castle here in the second video:
About your first statement in the previous comment, attacker archers killed 79 defenders and defenders had 38 archers and only 23 of them died so the defender's infantry died to archers too without having the need to be exposed.
The second statement of that comment wasn't replied by calling it pointless, that was about the different ranks of archers. The reply to that was from the third paragraph to the one that follows the quote.- Bladerider
- 帖子 #97
- 论坛: The Citadel - General Discussion
-
Weapons that do multiple kinds of damage.
Rainbow Dash 说:
If the suggestion in this topic is done considering my comment about being it weaker than the use of a specialized side weapon then maybe it would end up being pointless. In that I could agree with you.
But I totally disagree with making useless or eliminating the cutting, piercing and blunt damage mechanic. This mechanic gives depth to the combat and diversity to the weapons. If you eliminate it then the differences between weapons would be mostly cosmetic. It doesnt hurt the game balance at all. You just need to be skilled enough to choose the correct weapon in the 4 slot you carry.- Bladerider
- 帖子 #20
- 论坛: The Citadel - General Discussion
-
Weapons and combat balance
Orion 说:
Considering this is the information you need to support your position, I don't see how you can deny its relevance. You also can't claim the evidence of those videos isn't debatable, as that is the evidence you are trying to use to validate your assertion. It must be scrutinized & debated, or else anyone could come along with something contrived and say it's irrefutable proof to the contrary. The biggest flaw in the evidence you've provided is--as jamoecw stated--that the two videos you initially posted are of siege gameplay, while you specifically state that archers are too strong in open field battles. The validity of your evidence is thus highly questionable, as you have picked two videos of situations where archers are at a distinct advantage to other classes, and assumed that their efficacy remains relatively the same in all other scenarios.
The third video which you sneaked in today is evidence I can't even take seriously. You're claiming that because horse archers in an open field battle have a disproportionate number of kills, then all archers should be nerfed? Horse archers are a special case, and easily the most overpowered unit in the game. This isn't because archery is too strong, or because horses are too strong, but because an archer on a horse can engage at any distance which his skill permits and can evade almost all threats (the notable exception is other ranged units, which also explains the disproportionate number of ranged kills against them in the video). Stop cherry-picking.
[/quote]
I only edited to add what is in the two spoilers and to correct a couple of words as I said in the final sentence that is obiously edited too. The three videos have been there since the beginning. The first is a siege from gamescon 2016 and the other two are battles in the open field from 2017 gamescon. You are a disgusting liar or you should do what your signature states. The second video is in a link because I were not allowed to put more than two videos in the youtube way and it is the first I saw to change to the link way.
As a moderator, you should be able to see the edit done anyway.
- Bladerider
- 帖子 #95
- 论坛: The Citadel - General Discussion
-
Weapons that do multiple kinds of damage.
I like the idea as long as the alternative stance of the weapon is not as good as using a side weapon with that kind of damage as its primary. Following your example, the axe spiked side shouldn't be as good as changing to use a military pick.
Rainbow Dash 说:
If the different kind of damage doesn't make it worth to change to a side weapon depending on the enemy then, what is the point of having this system at all?
Each task should have its best tool. For example, if you face an enemy using a heavy shield it should be a good option to sheath your sword to use the axe you have as side weapon in order to get rid of the shield quickly.
- Bladerider
- 帖子 #17
- 论坛: The Citadel - General Discussion
-
Weapons and combat balance
Orion 说:
In a siege the defenders are protected by the merlons and they are in a higher position so they shouldn't be that exposed to be killed by attacker archers.
We are comparing the balance between archers and the other classes not the balance between different archer classes so the aditional calculations you suggest are totally pointless.
Archers have more opportunities to hit the enemy, that doesn't mean that those hits have to end up as kills.
What you suggest in the last paragraph is the perfect recipe for an unbalanced gameplay.
That is exactly the reason that makes it needed that the archers deal lower amount of damage. Since archers have a much higher number of opportunities to hit the enemy, a balanced gameplay requires that the damage done by each hit is lower. This way the chances of killing enemies become balanced.
Considering the calculations done it is not debatable the fact that in those battles there is a huge unbalance between archers and the other classes.
If we consider that the average army composition is X% archers, Y% infantry and Z% horsemen. For archers being just "support" their average proportion of kills done should be notably lower that X%. The perfect balance would be archers doing X%, infantry Y% and horsemen Z%.
If archers do a higher number of kills in a siege, then it has to be balanced by them making a lower number of kills in the openfield. That is not the case in the two openfield battles used in my previous comment.- Bladerider
- 帖子 #91
- 论坛: The Citadel - General Discussion
-
Kill assist in MP
I would be more interested in some kind of points rewarding the cooperation towars achieving the team objective. For example when it is a siege map in wich the attacker team has to capture the flag. Those who cooperate standing on the flag to take it should get some kind of recognition. Sometimes players with mediocre stats have helped to the victory much more that even the top ranking player in the team. Breaking doors or opening gates should give points too.- Bladerider
- 帖子 #12
- 论坛: The Citadel - General Discussion
-
Weapons and combat balance
As OurGlor¡usLeader has pointed out that is a Venn diagram. Since I dind't place any element to any group there isn't any generalization. For each person you could place the elements in a different position.wormydowg 说:Bladerider 说:wormydowg 说:Bladerider 说:Rainbow Dash 说:
Fun and realism are compatible:
I want the game to be balanced, that is exactly the reason of my suggestions.
The same way pikes can be considered direct counter to cavalry, archers can be considered direct counter to pikemen and other units that dont use a shield.
The statement about archers being underpowered and that they are more of a support unit is just false since they can kill with a headshot and by two hits in the body to most of enemies. That is not "support".
Who exactly are the competitive community? Where was that agreement made? Why is your opinion comparable to a whole section of the community? Why is the competitive community more important than the rest of M&B community? Which percentage of the community is into competitive?
Just to clarify more:
I want the green area, or yellow close to the green. I am worried about the orange and specially the red one.
And you should take into consideration that the game has to be fun to be played with any class. Archers are not the only players with the right to have fun.
That isn't even mathematically correct. Realism is a constant, it's a defined reference. Fun is a function.... You determine how much fun someone is having by taking in their preferences as parameters. Realism would be a single point, and fun would be an area. Which would vary between different people.
Fantasy is completely made up, it had to have been fun for someone....
Fantasy and realism are comparable because as constants they do share elements. For instance, a lot of sci-fi try and parallel their writing to actual science, or medieval fantasy might try and reference history. I'm told game of thrones actually references a lot of historical events.
People who want realism over gameplay are generally more well read...they have set up this atmospherical environment in their head that they have built upon through other forms of media, and they are looking to games to recreate that atmosphere. Realism and historical accuracy is the only binding element that holds all those who wish to step back in time through the use of video games. Without historical accuracy and realism, then there is no grand effort to recreate the past, and present it in beautiful ways at different angles.
Those who just want a fun game are truely limiting the universe that computers can immerse you in. Games should be used as a tool for learning, who said history can't be fun? It sure is when you get to experience it.
It is not meant to be extremely rigurous.
I think realism is well represented as it is, reality would be a point maybe. The fun is already as an area.
The fantasy part has already a part in the fun area (the orange one). It can be implied that in that area different people would choose different sections acording to their personal preferences.
I wouldn't consider sci-fi as fantasy exactly for what you have said. Magic, cleaving through plate armor with a sword and that kind of things are fantasy because that is clearly imposible in the real world. Most sci-fi productions has some kind of scientific justification to try to make it plausible.
You can use fantasy and realistic elements in the same production but that doesn't mean that fantasy and realism share elements. And that production would be fantasy.
I don't want the game to be unrealistic but I don't want it to be a boring (personal preference) simulator either. If you give too much importance to realism you can lead the game to be in the only blue area of the graph for a huge amount of the community.
Ehh this would be a way more accurate "Model" to use, but it is not correct as i just grabbed a bell curve off the internet. Good luck getting the actual data to support this. An actual study would be difficult because what would constitute as realism? is CS GO fantasy or realistic? anyway i actually predict that if you did a global study, you'd find people enjoy fantasy more than realism. The leading games are league of legends, dota 2, and fort nite.
But luckily this game isn't trying to compete for most popular game, this game has a niche, and its semi realism.
but yeah, what game constitute as realistic? is rim world fantasy? Arma 3? CS GO? Minecraft?
Also look at how many games aim to be realistic? the reason of why people prefer fantasy games over realistic games could mean that there just isn't enough realistic games out there, because they are very hard to make. Yet grand theft auto 5 become massively popular in your ability to shoot realistic looking people, and kingdom come also become widely popular with their combat and realistic role play mechanics. Two games where realism has made the game.
Anyway statistics is beautiful, because you will never find a 100% accurate graph. There will always be biases. With a little bit of thought, you can destroy any graph that generalizes a population. Sometimes graphs can be correct, but for the wrong reasons.
So don't base your core point on them. they should be used to reinforce logic.
Certainly fun isn't a good choice if we want to place the elements to make it general. I used fun bacause It was an answer to the Fun>Realism. We can change Fun into BalancedGameplay to make it more objective.
What would constitute as realism? It is like, is Pluto a planet? We just need to consider a definition and then there is no personal preference. Something match the definition or not.
Anyway, my comment was just an unnecessary long way to say that the statement Fun>Realism is wrong.
OurGloriousLeader 说:lol at these infographics
You are right, we went Off-Topic.
Bjorn The Raider 说:
In that situation I would call it credibility instead of realism.
You are right with you first statement.Orion 说:The "That's what's in contention here." part.
With the second I admit that I haven't backed my comments with any kind of video or another kind of proof. But saying that it is missinformation or straight-up lies.....
I can't accept that so I will give you backup to my point.
At 0:10 you can see the defender army proportions: 91 infantry, 38 archers and 53 horsemen.
At 6:20 you can see the battle results.
Let's do the math:
Archers in defender team:
Archers are 38/(91+38+53)*100%=20.88% of the defender army.
Archers did (69+65+32)/291*100%=57.04% of the kills if we consider Eithne as infantry, but if we don't consider Eithne, since she killed with bow and murderhole rocks too, then it is (69+65+32)/(291-49)*100%=68.60%
That means that archers being 20.88% of the defender army killed at least 57.04% of the enemy if we take the numbers in your favor.
Archers in attacker team:
Archers are (30+10+23+20)/(228+67+14)*100%=26.86% of the attacker army if we consider skirmishers as archers, if they happen to be javelin users then (30+10+23)/(228+67+14)*100%=20.39%
Archers did (28+10+17+24)/139*100%=56.83% of the kills if we consider skirmishers as archers, if they happen to be javelin users then (28+10+17)/139*100%=39.57%
So 26.86% killed 56.83% or 20.39% killed 39.57%
In both sides archers kill a percentage much higher than the percentage they are in their army. It can be considered that the archers defending have the advantage of being in the walls, but for the archers attacking, the walls should be more a punishment than a help and they have the best results of their side anyway.
You may think that this video is old and that it is reasonable to have this results because it is a siege battle, so lets see a newer battle in the field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUkL42p3Mss
At 00:23 you can see the army composition.
At 6:24 you can see the battle results.
Ally army
Archers are 33/(169+33+25+19)*100%=13.41% of the army.
Since we can't see all the information in order to avoid assumptions lets consider just Aldric and Chason.
Aldric
Archers are 14/90*100%=15.56% of Aldric's party
Archers did (18+14+14)/83*100%=55.42% of the kills done by Aldric's party
Archers did 55.42% of the kills being only 15.56% of the party.
Chason
Archers are 28/90*100%=31.11% of Chason's party
Archers did 24/89*100%=26.97% of the kills done by Chason's party.
Archers did 26.97% of the kills being 31.11%
We can continue with the other Gamescon 2017 video:
As done before lets focus on the parties that are completely visible to avoid assumptions.
Monchug
Archers are 45/162*100%=27.78%
Archers did 97/157*100%=61.78% of the kills
Addas+Adram
Archers are (25+22)/(54+115)*100%=27.81%
Archers did (23+30)/(41+92)*100%=39.85% of the kills
Only in one army the archers didn't make a ridiculous amount of kills in percentage compared to the percentage they were in that army. And in that case, even though it was a lower percentage of kills than the pencentage they were in the army, it was pretty close.
With this results I think I have a point to be worried about the balance that Bannerlord will have around archery. And I think it can't be said that the archers are just "support" since in the worst case for them they are almost equally effective killing.
Rainbow Dash 说:Honved 说:
Oh...
You are talking about singleplayer.
First, everyone here is talking about multiplayer. Singleplayer has next to no relevance when talking about balance in multiplayer.
In addition, there are many factors that helped you kill enemies in Singleplayer easily.
-You fought Siege battles. Sieges heavily favor the defendera, in real life was built to allow the defenders to easily kill the opposing force with lots of holes to allow for Archers to do damage easily and is reflected in Warband. It is not a surprise that you can easily kill hundreds as a defender.
-You are the player. It is no secret that the AI in Warband is terrible, and the player is always smarter than the AI. The AI has a fatal flaw that Archers in Warband exploited, which was that when they get close enough, they open themselves for an attack, allowing Players to easily shoot even shielded opponents.
You have stats that are better than almost everyone in Calradia and bow skills that rival Vaegir Marksmen. Of course you are going to kill hundreds of enemies. Why are you using this as reasoning to nerf bows?
If I gave myself a sword that does 3000 damage should all 1 handed swords be nerfed because I killed 200 people?
It is meant to be about all, singleplayer and multiplayer. I wrote here: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,378245.msg9008209.html#msg9008209 about being multiplayer but it was only about archery and I missed to type "specially" so that would have let you think that all of this is about multiplayer only. My bad, sorry.
In fact it was specially about multiplayer because I was considering Warband experience where in sigleplayer in the open field archers aren't that good because of **** AI and in the siege it is usually blamed more the stupid AI blocking the way to each other in the ladder (having only one ladder) so they are exposed too long to the arrows, but I still think that they deal too much damage. But that "specially" fades considering my comment to Orion. There you can see that, using only infomation from Bannerlord, archers are not just "support".
Edited to clarify and to correct some words.To clarify, the point is that considering specially multiplayer we can discuss about the weapon itself instead of losing the focus with other related factors. For example pikes are okay by themselves but in single player you can see pikemen being totally useless because they do overhead attacks instead of thrusting attacks but that isn't a problem with the weapon, it is a problem of AI.- Bladerider
- 帖子 #78
- 论坛: The Citadel - General Discussion
-
will spears and pikes be fixed please?
I think that the proble is that in Warband swing attacks are limited in a way you can't exploit the game into doing 360º attacks but with thrusting and overhead attacks you can spin while releasing the attack as much as you want. This can be exploited into avoiding the minimun range that the long spears need to be able to deal damage.
Don't you see in the video how the pikeman spin always, while releasing the attack, from a side to the enemy?- Bladerider
- 帖子 #5
- 论坛: The Citadel - General Discussion
-
Weapons and combat balance
wormydowg 说:Bladerider 说:Rainbow Dash 说:
Fun and realism are compatible:
I want the game to be balanced, that is exactly the reason of my suggestions.
The same way pikes can be considered direct counter to cavalry, archers can be considered direct counter to pikemen and other units that dont use a shield.
The statement about archers being underpowered and that they are more of a support unit is just false since they can kill with a headshot and by two hits in the body to most of enemies. That is not "support".
Who exactly are the competitive community? Where was that agreement made? Why is your opinion comparable to a whole section of the community? Why is the competitive community more important than the rest of M&B community? Which percentage of the community is into competitive?
Just to clarify more:
I want the green area, or yellow close to the green. I am worried about the orange and specially the red one.
And you should take into consideration that the game has to be fun to be played with any class. Archers are not the only players with the right to have fun.
That isn't even mathematically correct. Realism is a constant, it's a defined reference. Fun is a function.... You determine how much fun someone is having by taking in their preferences as parameters. Realism would be a single point, and fun would be an area. Which would vary between different people.
Fantasy is completely made up, it had to have been fun for someone....
Fantasy and realism are comparable because as constants they do share elements. For instance, a lot of sci-fi try and parallel their writing to actual science, or medieval fantasy might try and reference history. I'm told game of thrones actually references a lot of historical events.
People who want realism over gameplay are generally more well read...they have set up this atmospherical environment in their head that they have built upon through other forms of media, and they are looking to games to recreate that atmosphere. Realism and historical accuracy is the only binding element that holds all those who wish to step back in time through the use of video games. Without historical accuracy and realism, then there is no grand effort to recreate the past, and present it in beautiful ways at different angles.
Those who just want a fun game are truely limiting the universe that computers can immerse you in. Games should be used as a tool for learning, who said history can't be fun? It sure is when you get to experience it.
It is not meant to be extremely rigurous.
I think realism is well represented as it is, reality would be a point maybe. The fun is already as an area.
The fantasy part has already a part in the fun area (the orange one). It can be implied that in that area different people would choose different sections acording to their personal preferences.
I wouldn't consider sci-fi as fantasy exactly for what you have said. Magic, cleaving through plate armor with a sword and that kind of things are fantasy because that is clearly imposible in the real world. Most sci-fi productions has some kind of scientific justification to try to make it plausible.
You can use fantasy and realistic elements in the same production but that doesn't mean that fantasy and realism share elements. And that production would be fantasy.
I don't want the game to be unrealistic but I don't want it to be a boring (personal preference) simulator either. If you give too much importance to realism you can lead the game to be in the only blue area of the graph for a huge amount of the community.- Bladerider
- 帖子 #59
- 论坛: The Citadel - General Discussion
-
Destroying doors in murder holes with axes
Rainbow Dash 说:
I said axes but it can be all the weapons with bonus against shields and aply the same bonus against the doors as jamieroyle has suggested. All factions have weapons with this bonus in Warband and it will probably be the same in Bannerlord.
Anyway it wouldn't be a balance problem between factions because it is balanced in other circumstances. For example vlandians will have the best heavy cavalry that would give them an advantage over sturgians in open field battles since sturgians lack good heavy cavalry if they have any at all.
jamieroyle 说:
Good point.
Bjorn The Raider 说:
If you mean having factions that are better in the field while others are stronger in sieges I agree. In fact, if all of them are equaly good at all tasks then it would be a bit like clone wars, without real differences in playstyle between factions.- Bladerider
- 帖子 #13
- 论坛: The Citadel - General Discussion