Search results for query: *

Besta said:

I always thought M&B multiplayer combat was stupid, it always looks like 2 people having an epileptic attack in front of one another, they just spam directions and then swing hoping to catch the other person who's also spamming directions of guard.

A more weighty, precise, slower combat (while still having the directional stuff of course), based on timing would be much better, but that's me, and I don't really care about MP at all anyway.

All I want is to get cool reactions and nice feedback when I swing a two handed battle axe at an npc's head.

Click to expand...

Why is fast combat immediately opposed to weightiness? Warband combat at a high level looked pretty retarded, but I think the pacing of it was brilliant. It's just that with so few game mechanics the only way to get a hit in is to pull some crazy spine bending ****.

To me a fluid combat system is more important than a weighty one, but I don't see why you can't have both. The worst combat system is one that is clunky, with tons of delays and lots of artificial limitations.

The perfect combat system is fluid, fast-paced, and lethal. Simple enough that you can learn everything really fast while retaining enough depth that there are many tools to dispatch your opponents in a timely manner. 

Main issue is hit detection is completely ****ed.

In games like skyrim, fallout, etc there have been very successful mods that make the AI more intelligent, aggressive, and strategic. Hopefully, something similar could be possible in bannerlord

madeking said:

Sundeki said:

madeking said:

Even if it isn't OP It does tell you that not enough instruction is given to new players on how to counter/deal with that class. Sort that pre release and you won't get as many people storming onto the forums complaining about such and such being OP once the game is released. Balancing the game based purely on people who already know what they're doing is a bad idea because that's not going to be the makeup of the real game.

I vaguely remember an interview on this subject with a dev for some game a while ago. He talked about it seemed obvious to the people who tried it internally how you were meant to pick up some item to deal with a boss yet when they tested it on players a huge number missed it and got frustrated which they hadn't foreseen.

Another example I've got for multiplayer is overwatch and reaper. In high ranked competitive gameplay it was continuously getting headshotted and taken out and just never picked while in low ranks it tended to dominate new players who couldn't deal with it. Every time they tried to balance it for high level it unbalanced low level where the majority of players are. Really it was just a poorly designed class.

Point is, just because veterans like me and you can deal with something easily doesnt mean there's no problem, you got to test these things.

Click to expand...

Well I agree that there should be some newer players. But how many newer players are needed to tell you that mechanic x isn't balanced for newer players (or whatever)? As a general rule, the ability to test game mechanics and weed out bugs is going to be greater from more experienced players on average.

As for the metagames surrounding different sections of the community; yeah I understand. But I don't really see how this could be prevented without operating parallel version builds. In Dota 2, in low ranking games, Sniper is generally considered OP, but is otherwise considered underpowered and almost never picked at higher level play. A buff or a nerf would completely break one region (to either always picked or never picked). I don't see how this can ever be prevented, anyway.

Click to expand...

I agree about experienced players being better at bug testing, but certainly not balancing.  As I was trying to point out, experience is actually as much of a disadavantage in testing because you can make assumptions and deductions based on that experience the majority of players wont,  and the experience of the majority of players is what they care about. It will create a balance that will only suit veterans who will be the minority of the player base. Obviously when gathering data the ideal is as many samples as possible. But in terms of percentage you really want to match the demographic for the product while ensuring you are collecting decent data on every subset.

Weve been talking old vs new, but you will also want to divide further than that into new players who like adventure game, new players who like action, new players who like rpg's etc and get a sample from each of these.  Then there further considerations like wanting both players with new and old hardware and other such comparisons. That's why these questions are on the form I imagine.

But you need multiple players for each of these subsets and the more you divide the smaller the number and the bigger the margin of error so you want to try to even out the numbers. (I do this type of thing as part of my job although in a completely different industry)

Which gets me back to my original point, if they are doing it this way than questions that fewer people will chose on the form might actually give you a higher success rate 

Of course they could just be wanting to reward hardcore members. Who knows.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree. Mechanically, a game is only as good as it is at its highest level of play. I doubt many here want to recreate some of the spastic animation head wringing common in many warband duels, but I also doubt anyone here wants the combat to just be a never ending back and forth because offense is terrible due to feint nerfs and animations being TOO easy to read in order to appease casuals. Noobs fighting against other noobs will have fun regardless of how hard and complex the game is. If the worry is that noobs will get slaughtered by pro players, I think the greater opposing worry is that noobs will simply stop playing because of a skill ceiling being way too low, or at least appearing that way due to the difference between an insane player and a new player simply being too small.

Insane players fighting other insane players has to be decisive in a reasonable amount of time, and superior players should be able to kill inferior players in a lower amount of time. At the same time, of course you want the mechanics to be able to assist newer players in killing efficiently if they are creative enough or capitalize on a certain opportunity.

You don't want noobs to just have 0 chance, but you also don't want noobs to be able to survive for like a zillion years due to some kind of crutch mechanic, or something lacking offensively in the game.

A defensive heavy and passive playstyle has to be punishable by aggression and superior offense. The game should promote and reward contesting for initiative and taking risks for the melee combat to be fun and enjoyable for everyone and not stale or boring.

----------------------------------------------------------

Feedback from noobs, for the most part, is worthless. They simply do not understand how the game works enough to point to flaws. Normally, they just complain about whatever they die to, and if you listen to noobs 100% of the time you will end up adjusting, reverting, and nerfing everything in the game and yoyoing between different patched states because all changes will be complain about. Veterans can have the exact same problems, but to a much less extreme degree. People who are actually good at the game usually understand how the game works enough to make suggestions that are actually useful and relevant. They understand how changing specific timing windows, or adjusting specific mechanics, or adjusting specific stats would drastically change the game in certain directions. A casual does not.

----------------------------------------------------------

The only thing casuals are good for is understanding the general sense of frustration of a game. For instance, in warband the most common complaint about multiplayer is that combat looks like this:



But a noob has no idea how the hell to fix it. A noob has no idea what should replace it and the skill that is lost. All they know is that they don't like it, and that is all their feedback is really useful for.

Tbh I really just want to play the game in any form. Multiplayer alone I'm sure will keep me occupied for endless hours.

monoolho said:

Having multiplayer mode is not a genre.

Being a meelee combat game with multiplayer is not a genre.

Else Super Smash Bros. Would be in direct competition with Mordhau and M&B. In Which case i would feel compelled to go to the suggestion forum and suggest Falcon Punches all around, instead of posting suggestion threads in game discussion forums.

What i am saying is Mordhau, M&B and SSB are in completely different genres,  and as i said, and you quoted it, translation of features from one genre to another do not always work well, if at all.

Click to expand...

They are both medieval

They both feature real time swings as opposed to hitscan and the weapons are real objects in the game with a tracer path with real reach. What you see is what you get.

They both contain multiplayer with the standard modes you would expect.

Same genre... The difference is that warband is ALSO a sandbox rpg. But they are both part of the "melee slasher" genre in the same way that call of duty, battlefield, and counterstrike belong to the "fps" genre.

Navgar said:

Thanks, you must not be. Pain is only in your perception of events.

Stoicism is amazing not only for dying but for Bannerlord as well.

Click to expand...

This is the most hardcore **** I've ever read.

You're a god, devs pls release game navgar or give him alpha access.

hmm ye after giving it another look it seems like the ai is just still really terrible. They aren't really readying their spears properly, half the line turns to look at the first horse that collides.....

My main thing is that the actually physical power of the horses just smaking through a line of not really braced men doesn't really annoy me. The spear ai just seems super incompetent.

idk why that gif gets any hate. You have ****ing war cataphracts coated with heavy af armor charging some lightly armor spears with **** equipment prob. The gif looks really cool to me and not visually weird.

A more expensive spear unit or a pike unit would be different I think.

MountAndMemeButterlord said:

I am all for realistic combat, I think it usually makes games more dynamic, tactical, and complicated. That being said, It is not what all players want to be done with the game and most would likely prefer the developers only focus on making it fun.

HEMA sounds awful, I think M&B has an amazing balance of arcade-y and intuitive/realistic feeling combat. Disease actually sounds amazing and would add a whole new layer to campaign strategy (punishing long and drawn out excursions in enemy territory).

As for your original list, it seems incredibly nitpicky. You want warfare to be realistic with mostly spears and proper archer tactics but you're also upset that the economy looks complicated? "Is this a game about economics or having fun pretending to be a lord?". Well a lot of people enjoy manipulating economics as a lord, in real life it was a part of owning/protecting land. This makes the game feel vastly more realistic, and will lead to unique and interesting situations. Maybe you are pushed to go to war with your neighbor who blocked trade routes to monopolize a market, or maybe you assault a bandit hideout that has lowered your cities prosperity (or worse starved them) by raiding passing caravans and stealing cattle, or maybe another lord desperately needs oil and your kingdom happens to have plenty... Flow mapping isn't just for the economy either, it's a way to make sure the AI isn't acting too predictable.

I agree with many of the complaints though, even mildly more realistic damage reactions would do wonders, complex physics and IK seem to have disappeared since 2016. This Gamescom will make or break my enthusiasm for the game, if it looks promising I will stay excited until release, if it looks disappointing I will try to forget the game exists until it releases and I will try it out regardless because it's Bannerlord.

Click to expand...

I can appreciate realism for sure. Shooters for example that try to emulate realistic ballistics, gore, ragdolls, etc. Stories with a more dark, gritty, raw feel to them with authentic attention to detail. But there is absolutely a balance to strike and different people have different balances. I enjoy the realism of having brutal npc opponents who are intelligent and work together like people would. It would certainly be a sight to see two horses collide at full speed and just absolutely flatline. The chaos and screaming and crying on the battlefield. But I'm not sure I would enjoy the realism of my blade getting stuck in someone's armor, leaving me stun locked with nothing I can do. I would not enjoy the realism of randomly tripping because I switched up movement in opposite directions. I would not enjoy the realism of most things that make the game feel more clunky to play and get in the way of freedom, fluidity, responsiveness, etc.

monoolho said:

[SOTR] Roy said:

The issue is taleworld’s refusal to innovate. Keep the same old system, don’t include anything that mordhau or other new games has to offer. I used to be against the mordhau system being implemented into warband, but after playing it extensively, it’s clear which one is boss. The mount and blade scene will die out in a few months if they don’t improve on what we saw in the beta.

Click to expand...

Why doesn't TaleWorlds innovate by copying already done and used combat mechanics every other game is trying to use now?
Firstly, that's not innovation. Also, innovation doesn't mean stuff will actually get better, more fluid, more fun or whatever. You are considering innovation as an evolutionary line - as if stuff gets actually better by means of innovation. Sometimes innovation means doing something in a completely different manner which is not practical (which could well sum up the current lines of thought in the social studies and some humanities, and many of the exact sciences which get funded by corrupt governments). We assume innovation means better stuff, but that is not always the case.

Secondly, copying another game's combat system because it became a fad between some niche gamers doesn't mean it is better. Also your opinion on this subject is entirely subjective. Because you and a couple hundred redditors think Mordhau is the best, the greatest or whatever in terms of combat, does not mean everyone thinks so.

This has been said quite many a time, but I will repeat it: they are different games, in different genres. Yes, the combat may seem fluid in Mordhau for whatever reason, but it doesn't mean the same combat system would translate well to a different environment like BL's. It is an entirely different genre, and we cannot rate BL solely on its combat mechanics. There is a whole array of complex things apart from the combat system which enhance it. BL is not just a multiplayer skirmish game, Mordhau is.

tl;dr: this is not Mordhau.

GreenLight7 said:

Warband fight is good

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not really different genres. Warband is as much a multiplayer game as it is a singleplayer sandbox.

I'm a comp mordhau player who was a comp chiv player who has also played warband extensively. I'm not insane at warband as I never got into its comp, I'll admit, but I get how it works.

I love melee combat in games and have 1000s of hours in them. Basically 1k hours per melee game you know.

Mordhau has a pretty great combat system, but it has some pretty big flaws.

Warband has a pretty great combat system, but it has some pretty big flaws.

------------------------------------------------------

The issue with warband is that at a certain point, both players simply have such great defense that the game kind of stalls. It's just an endurance test and there is no great equalizer simply because held block is much easier to master than timed blocks and leave less room for error and require less commitment.

However, the feel and flow of the combat is really really good. Attacks feel fast, weighty, responsive, and deadly. Defense is very engaging and it really just sort of feels like you are always doing something in warband. Constantly inputting, constantly tweaking your footwork, etc. It is skillful, some of the animation abuse is a bit of a turn off tho. Using animations to trick your opponent is always a valid tactic in these types of games, but the animation abuse in warband is way more pronounced and buggy looking than it is in either chiv or mordhau tho.

The issue with mordhau is that the gameplay is a bit too passive and stamina plays way too much a role. There are also some mechanics like chambers that basically negate defensive skill entirely and act as a "free auto read." The gameplay is also a bit slower. Less twitchy and reaction based in favor of maintaining poise and out mind gaming your opponent. However, at a high-level fights are more decisive. They don't last several minutes like they do in warband sometimes. Duels usually last a couple seconds most of the time before someone comes out on top and this is a big pro to me, as these games really require you to be able to quickly dispatch your opponents if you want to survive in the chaos of these massive fights. I also think swing manipulation is a really cool and awesome core gameplay mechanic and that is the main draw to mordhau for me. The freedom and control over your attacks is unparalleled.

---------------------------------------------------

I don't think bannerlord should try to copy mordhau at all. Very different beasts and I quite like the differences between the two games and appreciate both combat systems. However, something needs to be tweaked or added in bannerlord to allow fights to be more decisive more quickly at a higher level of play. Some people, usually duelists in particular, really like the idea of the epic duels lasting full minutes and all that. To me it's just very tiring and repetitive, and as a more team oriented person in general I think it's usually healthier and more fun for a game to be super fast paced, intense, aggressive, and deciding.

The more defensive, passive, and survivable people are in a melee game, the less interesting they are imo.

I think it's pretty undeniable that these settings attract an audience that is very Christian and conservative and idealizes things like the crusades and ethnic conflicts and such in a pretty racist way that other games don't really have.

As for general toxicity, that's really just gaming culture in general. Anonymity, competitive environment, somewhat solitary activity, mostly male, leans toward the younger side, etc.

For singleplayer seems like a preference thing that is very easy to mod in regardless.

For multiplayer it sounds like a trash idea that removes consistency and comeback potential.

hruza said:

NPC99 said:

Irrespective of historical accuracy, Bannerlord as a low fantasy game will go its own way. I just wish formed infantry with braced spears make a fight of it rather than being bowled over like dominos.

Click to expand...

That would unfortunately require better AI. Which so far as we can tell from the released info is not the case. That gif is case in point. Only hope is that they are making AI modable to some degree, although it remains to be seen what could actually be possible to do with it.

AmateurHetman said:

Last point from me.

The video below shows an example of a single (and small) horse going through a crowd. Imagine what a squadron of heavier cavalry would do.

Click to expand...

Imagine instead what that crowd could do to that horse had those been armed soldiers in a formation. And had they actually seen the horse and were not looking other direction.

We don't need to imagine what a single suffragette can do to the horse however:



There you have a result of horse colliding in full speed in to single unarmed 40 years old women. (No pun intended, she died later from injuries, what happened to a horse and the rider I don't know).

Click to expand...

There's lots of things to take into account here. First those horses are trained and bred solely for speed, not combat. Second the horse was not anticipating the conflict. Run blindly through a mall and smack into someone with your eyes closed. Now picture you are a football linebacker smacking into someone else. The body will respond completely differently.

hruza said:

DanAngleland said:

I would have thought the most common reason is due to the enemy having either better or more cavalry than your side.

Click to expand...

No.

DanAngleland said:

We know that heavily armoured cavalry horses were used at different points in history by various cultures, and very successfully, so I don't think your assertion holds water. If your assertion was correct, horse armours simply would never have existed.

Click to expand...

"Heavily armoured cavalry horses" were rarity at any point in history. Only the most wealthy people could afford armor for their horses. Rest were lucky if they got some cloth cover and forehead protection.

WalterWhite said:

I personally just feel that cavalry shouldn't be a hard counter to infantry.

Click to expand...

Mounted combat is the most misrepresented aspect of historical warfare in modern film and game culture. Unfortunately MB including. The most moronic aspect of this misinterpretation is cavalry running full speed in to footmen formation or each other using horse like a battering ram. The most favorable outcome of something like that would be lot of dead and maimed horses and their raiders. If one would be actually able to somehow force horse to do it, which for most part one can't, because horse is not machine, it have brain and self preservation reflex. Just look at horses refusing to jump and throwing their riders down in front of the jump barriers during competitions.

Horsemen of the past were using actual weapons for a reason, like spears and lances. Their horse was not a weapon, it was means of transport.

You can find videos of various accidents on internet to see what happens to horse, and it's raider if it collides with other horses or people head on on full speed. They're not in the fighting shape after, that's for sure. Often they're dead.

The most important thing about cavalry, the one that made it so superior is mobility. Cavalry can find and exploit weak spots of the infantry, like flanks and rear and can avoid attack because it's faster. That's what makes it dangerous. That's why standard "anti-cavalry" formation was square -formation that doesn't have flanks and rear. Standing cavalrymen is just big vulnerable target with restricted ability to defend himself and avoid hits.

Instead we have to deal with moronic pictures of horses ploughing through sea of soldiers in ridiculous unrealistic animations like this one:

Click to expand...

I was kinda lazy with my research but here's what I got.

https://youtu.be/_sKD8QmnxI8?t=39

https://youtu.be/N_rZmDKnams?t=13


(the other guy's vid is way better)

So obviously, horses can quite easily overpower people.

Those horses were not moving fast at all, were unarmored, and were probably not trained for hand to hand melee combat. If horses instincts could not be tamed they would not function well in medieval warfare period, but their use was quite famous and widespread.

I don't think it's very absurd at all to picture fully armored cataphracts with blinders mounted by veteran knights with lances in a diamond or pyramid formation absolutely smashing through a line of lightly armored infantry.

OurGloriousLeader said:

By awkward I mean slower and less control e.g. much, much slower swings, and far more parts of animations where you are unable to block or cancel your strike (particularly noticeable in group fights where you need to react to changing situations more). Warband allows much more freedom of action and in this way is more forgiving, but creates a faster pace which can be frustrating for players.

That said, stabspam in Mordhau is no less spam so I wouldn't say Mordhau has successfully fixed that either.

I wouldn't say Mordhau is not complex; certainly more complex than Warband's combat system. You have 6 different attack directions, 2 stabs, which creates 24 morph variants, feints, ripostes, much longer release windows which creates far more timing issues for defense, a huge array of weapons like I said. Compare to Warband's 4 attack directions, feints, and much more forgiving block timing, it's easily the more simple game (and I prefer the latter).

100% (or as close as) readability is vital to a competitive melee game, too many unclear or abusable animations and the game will feel random and unfair. Warband is far more readable but doesn't solely come down to endurance, but allows outplays. Certainly endurance comes into it, and I find that more compelling than an arbitrary stamina bar anyway.

Click to expand...

You can cancel at any point in windup, which is by far the biggest portion of any swing. If you could cancel in release you would not be able to read feints period. Spam in mordhau, much like spam in warband, is entirely the fault of the player who lets it happen and if you play properly spam doesn't exist period or can be immediately punished.

100% readability is terrible for a competitive melee game. Animations have nothing to do with readability in mordhau, the issue with readability comes to how you and your opponent are positioned relative to each other and the attack thrown. It's the tracers. It takes skill to put yourself in a position where your attack is very hard to read and it takes skill to avoid that position. It also takes skill to read the behavior of your opponent and figure out what he is doing independent of the tracers.

It is never random, if it were random then competitive fighting game players would lose to noobs who just got the game and decided to keyspam. Or they would lose an equal amount to players who just learned the game but have put nowhere near the hours or dedication. Same applies to mordhau. People who understand how the game works and what to do 200 hours in will still get melted by players 1k hours in.

They said 2019 but they never said in which dimension...

monoolho said:

Why shouldn't it? It's the most empirical example of subjugating an enemy: theres no gluing it back together, you are clearly superior, for one reason or another. You might not have been before, but you are now that the person is maimed. If i walk, i feel better than people with no legs, there's no shame in that. What could be shameful is showing off, like break dancing in front of a bunch of legless bastards.

Gore in vidya is just another satisfying visual feedback. You can't really feel the impact of a hammer on the head, but if you see all that blood and guts splattering around, your brain mimics the sensation. You can't feel when you hit a guy in the nuts, but when you hear that unnatural crack of cartillage/flesh, you feel it. blood + guts + sound = brutal satisfaction. Its ok to enjoy it, we are animals after all, and we need to get our rocks off as much as we need food and air. We can't be all rational and politically correct and expect normalcy from human interactions and entertainment.
Embrace your brutal side, youll be happier and a more balanced person for it.

Click to expand...

Also +1

And that gif is hilarious

orgrinrt said:

It's a little disconcerting to think that gore adds to the satisfaction of the gameplay, but I fall victim to that same feeling myself as well. Something about a heavy-feeling motion causing a chain of other movements (i.e separating limbs) upon impact, in a somewhat smooth succession, just feels satisfying. But it's a little weird when you stop and think that those are human limbs being cut off. The same ones we ourselves use for moving and whatnot.

Click to expand...

Why is it disconcerting. People can be and have had to be violent creatures to survive evolutionarily. Makes sense to me.