Search results for query: *

I set my Gunners in to two separate groups, and use a leapfrog rolling retreat where the second groups gives constant covering fire for the closer rank.  It decimates any army that isn't fielding a large amount of cavalry.  When facing cavalry I just make a point to start the engagement from the top of a hill and proceed with my rolling retreats from there.  Sorry churchboys, but your heavy armor won't save you if you never catch me.  Same with you silly pikemen.  Also I like to set the two forces up so that one flanks the shield users, speeds things up and all I need are first level recruits to take out top tier units of theirs.

I believe I was playing as a respawned bot at the time so that probbably explains that then. 

Also when playing online, picking up a nomad bow from a dead enemy as a soldier from the Halamar Union caused the game to crash... well more accurately picking up the bow, and a quiver of arrows and trying to shoot an arrow caused the game to crash. 

Diavolo said:

Is it possible to "host" a server when sleeping or being at school etc by just staying in game being afk? That way it could be possible that there was a TEARC "server" for people to play on. Its not requred that one has the steam anti cheat thing right? (I dont have the steam version)

Click to expand...

I don't have the steam version either, but since we're both on, would you like to shoot up a server and I'll join you on it, I'm on a laptop so I'm not sure if I would be the best host. 

Ok... someone needs to put up a dedicated server for this module...  I played just a little bit with the multiplayer and it was the most fun I've had in warband multiplayer ever.  Unfortunatly I only have the one computer or I'd keep the server up myself. So so so much fun though. 

If you actually make this happen I'll be so happy.  I've been wanting one of these since I came across mount and blade. 

Nords don't use spears to stop charging horsemen, we use heavy throwing axes!

Oh I'd also say that as a fencer, fencing techniques are next to useless if you are using any kind of weapon or armor not designed for that style of fighting.  Broadsword and shield will have a different shoulder set, footwork, etc... than epee; not to mention wearing heavy armor.

Like I said the only change visually I would appreciate would be a change in the one handed no shield lunge and a change in shoulder positioning when wielding a 1 hander and no shield. 

Other than the lunge animation most are ok.  The swings are all a bit too wide (fellow fencer) and the footwork of the model is horrible,but aside from these the new animations are as good as one could expect from this style of game.

If I could change one thing I would have the model turn with their sword arm forward when wielding a 1 handed weapon and no shield, also a change in posture when doing so to reflect that style of fighting, it doesn't make much sense to have one's unarmed hand advanced so much. 

Then again I don't much mind since this isn't a true fighting sim, it's a game. 

The multiplayer servers are updated but the patch isn't uploaded to the download site yet.

The most feasible way to initially do this would be to set up  a system where someone could take over one of the companions for the time of the battle.  Essentially you would play your character and I would mind control Firentus for the course of the battle. 

I may just decide to join up with the lot of you.

I'm adequate at melee sufficient at ranged, and pretty darn good at being at the right place at the right time (i.e. positioning). 

I have a moderatly busy schedual but I can shift things around.

Anyway if you are interested send me a Pm. 

All I'm hearing is, "Derp derp, I picked rock, how dare you pick paper!"

They are in the game for a reason, the game is also about tactics and positioning.  Its like if the cavalry were to begin complaining about infantry equipping pikes.  If you use a two handed weapon you are vulnerable to archers, if you work with a one hander and shield a two  hander tends to have an advantage.   

I don't know if anyone else has this issue but I preorderd with D2D today and installed 0.850 and everything was going well.

Then I patched to 0.860 to try the multiplayer which also worked fine.

However the problem is that singleplayer is now inaccessible to me the way it was when one was only eligible for the multiplayer beta. 
Has this been addressed?

Thank you for your time.

Yoshi Murasaki said:

olo said:

heres the dealio, olo does not think they are overpowered, BUT (and this is important) they are too fast, olo agrees with that.

2handers should all be between 85-91 speed.

the glaive should be slower still at like 82.

Click to expand...

No. You can swing glaive faster than you could swing a bardiche or that heavy axe for instance. Just because a weapon is longer doesn't mean it's swinging slower. Otherwise you could swing knife 5 times while swinging once with a sword.

Click to expand...

While I do agree that you can swing a glaive faster than an axe, however the damage between the two would also be different.  The glaive has an entirely different leverage system.  More importantly I do wonder how the hit detection works in warband (regarding what part of the weapon hits the opponent).  Hitting someone with the base of the wooden pole isn't going to do much damage in comparison to the blade.  My real complaint of the glaive is the mesh not matching. 

HTAPAWASO said:

Ellendar said:

socks said:

I searched and, much to my surprise, I didn't find a topic about this. If there is one, please link it and ignore this thread.

Otherwise;

2hs

• can kill horses with a single blow
• can kill people with a single blow
• can break shields with a single blow
• are very fast
• are extremely easy to use [i.e., noob friendly; me, a week-old noob who plays about an hour a day, got five kills in 2-3 minutes with a two hand just an hour or two ago, having used 2hs very little previously]
• are more effective against cavalry than spears are
• when used in conjunction with a shield can be used very effectively against archers; by holding the shield out until in range of the 2h, and then switching to the 2h, they can be very hard to hit with arrows.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

The way I've always wanted it designed (though I doubt this will happen) is for each person to have a stamina bar that fills a bit more with each swing of a weapon or block of a shield.  The heavier the weapon the more stamina it uses.  As time goes by without attacking the stamina bar would go back down (fairly quickly at that).

The more full the stamina bar gets the more time it takes to ready  your next swing.

(--                              )  normal attack speed
(----------                    ) .25 second increase between swings
(---------------------------) .75 increase between swings

Or something like that, then again this is a lot more work for the programmers, and the spammers will hate it.  On the other hand it would increase intelligent playing, be more realistic, and finally get rid of one of my pet peeves (the people who begins swinging their weapon at spawn and keep swinging it all the way to the actual fighting.

Click to expand...

I quite like that, so long as it does go down very quickly so as not to break combat, but not so quickly that you can just SPAM SPAM SPAM with a big axe.

Click to expand...

Personally I envision a system like this that includes a "sprint" option that quickly drains the stamina bar as well.  Pretty much any dynamic action taken would drain the stamina bar to varying degrees.  Jumping would be included in this big time to prevent annoying bunny-hopping.  Also it would make it a bit more realistic in the fact that fighting with a light one handed weapon will tire a person out slower than using a huge weapon, but the huge weapon will get the job done a lot faster if it lands. 

Then again this feels more like designing a new game more than changing mount and blade.

olo said:

heres the dealio, olo does not think they are overpowered, BUT (and this is important) they are too fast, olo agrees with that.

2handers should all be between 85-91 speed.

the glaive should be slower still at like 82.

Click to expand...

Also the glaive reach needs to match the weapon mesh...

socks said:

I searched and, much to my surprise, I didn't find a topic about this. If there is one, please link it and ignore this thread.

Otherwise;

2hs

• can kill horses with a single blow
• can kill people with a single blow
• can break shields with a single blow
• are very fast
• are extremely easy to use [i.e., noob friendly; me, a week-old noob who plays about an hour a day, got five kills in 2-3 minutes with a two hand just an hour or two ago, having used 2hs very little previously]
• are more effective against cavalry than spears are
• when used in conjunction with a shield can be used very effectively against archers; by holding the shield out until in range of the 2h, and then switching to the 2h, they can be very hard to hit with arrows.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

The way I've always wanted it designed (though I doubt this will happen) is for each person to have a stamina bar that fills a bit more with each swing of a weapon or block of a shield.  The heavier the weapon the more stamina it uses.  As time goes by without attacking the stamina bar would go back down (fairly quickly at that).

The more full the stamina bar gets the more time it takes to ready  your next swing.

(--                              )  normal attack speed
(----------                    ) .25 second increase between swings
(---------------------------) .75 increase between swings

Or something like that, then again this is a lot more work for the programmers, and the spammers will hate it.  On the other hand it would increase intelligent playing, be more realistic, and finally get rid of one of my pet peeves (the people who begins swinging their weapon at spawn and keep swinging it all the way to the actual fighting.

Spanky89 said:

Urist said:

The reason why lance thrusts aren't as effective in full gallop anymore isn't the 7% reduce.
The effect of the  speed bonus for an attack has been lowered.

Click to expand...

lancing used to be overpowered in medevil times... cav was always the strongest part of a army... i dont think destroying lancing is the best solution... better to make lancing cost twice the money!!!

that way we get less lancers.... but still those manage to save up for a lance are showing the true powers of cavlery vs infantry.

Click to expand...

Actually cavalry was meant to be used on the flanks, sending the cavalry in head first in to the middle of a tightly packed infantry formation was either a brave/stupid move, or an act of desperation.  Usually the idea was for the infantry divisions on both sides to fight, and while they are both busy killing each other the cavalry would flank the enemy and cut them down.  Unlike in the game horses can trip and get caught on things, and if you think the horses die easily in game, real life was even more so.  The main reason why knights did so well was the fact that peasants were scared S&*$less at the sight of them.  A blue blooded nobleman was just beneath godlike, and night unkillable psychologically to a peasant recruit (that and the fact that unlike modern military most peasant recruits weren't really "trained" per se, this side is pointy... ok, now stand together and you'll get it...)  Mostly it was the psychological effect of huge guy in a tin can that you know you can't really hurt well.  Battles weren't massacres all that often (baring religious conflicts) usually one side would gain an advantage and the other side would surrender. 

Though mostly I'm just mumbling I think. 

El-Diablito said:

Ellendar said:

El-Diablito said:

Bringing rl into game design is a daft idea.

But if this is just the 7% reduction and nothing else than thats not really an issue tbh, I still lance just fine though it's a lot harder than before (7% matters a lot).

Click to expand...

I  said that the game is not a true simulator, but one of mount and blade's signatures is that it is fairly realistic compared to most games.  Mount and blade was based around having a weighty combat system that felt more realistic than say a flippy jumpy Jedi knockoff game.  Also the logic behind the huge couched damage vs. the lesser poking damage is when couched you can get the full momentum of the horse and rider behind your attack.  When poking one would have to "give in" with one's arm on impact of end up with a broken wrist, or the weapon torn from you hand. 

Once again I'm not saying we need a true simulator, but if mount and blade looses too much of its pseudo-realistic sim style it will lose what sets it apart from every other fighting game.

Click to expand...

You're silly, go away.

Click to expand...

Why is that a silly argument, if we wanted to play a multiplayer legend of zelda there are plenty options for that, mount and blade fills a niche for a different style of combat simulators.