Search results for query: *

TheSpartan said:

Warband combat is inferior to Bannerlord's in Warband people look down and are f*king naked and destroy everyone

In Warband, spears are useless, one handed with shield is UNPLAYABLE!!! and that's coming from a one-handed+shield 1k+ hours main!!!

Click to expand...

Spears are supoptimal (not useless) in Warband SP, because you don't need them there. MP is a different story. As opposed to bots that don't use cavalry very effectively, humans do. Without a spear or ranged weapon it's really difficult to counter a human player that plays cav competently.

One handed spear with shield does not exist in a vacuum. You use this to assist team mates and to counter cav while under archer/xbow fire. If you're not under fire, you switch to 2H spear (and decent players typically block well enough for the lack of a shield to not be an issue).

People just play naked in Warband for lulz, if there are good archers on enemy team it's clearly suboptimal to risk additional one hit deaths. If they 'destroy everyone' it's because everyone else on the server is bad, in comparison.

This problem automatically solves itself if the bot AI becomes better (yeah, I realize that's asking much from TW). Like the video @Mabons posts above Rambo should have his swings blocked most of the time (and archers should make his horse a hedgehog), yet the bots act as if they're under the influence. Defending against a single inf or even cav is not that hard.

For the class system to be at least as fun as Warband's they need to fill it with a corresponding number of actually interesting classes. I wish them best of luck as it's arguably a lot more work than Warband's equipment selection.

The_Lonely_Owl said:

half of them resorted to cheating anyway

Click to expand...

You had some semi-valid points but the above is untrue. While cheats existed in Warband it's relatively uncommon compared to other games. It mostly comes down to A) The skill ceiling is high and the difference between a player who thinks he can play the game and a player that actually can at a competitive level is massive. B) Veteran players consequently don't need to cheat to feel good about themselves and aren't interested in honing skills with cheats, cheaters aren't interested in putting down the honest effort to actually become good at the game (which is far less straightforward than your typical cheat infested first person shooter where almost only pixel perfect aim is necessary). There were exceptions of course.

Not too worried about this given there will be mods, but:

How about mixing old and new? Let combat experience in aggregate still level up other skill categories based on player choice like in Warband. It fixes that it was impossible to roleplay e.g. a trader without levelling up through fighting. Doesn't address dumb/unfun grinding in skills but it would be less of an issue if it is optional.

omnibro said:

it could be very simply countered that if one faction would be getting too strong, many others declare war on him to balance it out

Click to expand...

The problem is it assumes the war declarations are competent, which with typical handcoded "AI" isn't necessarily the case. If it's done early enough it should work though.

masarius said:

They are ok/good. 1-2sec.

__

Everything maxed out except for AA, that only 2*.
Playing on WQHD.

Ryzen 3700x / 5700 xt Nitro

65-80fps in multiplayer. Only small maps so far.
Steady 90 fps in SP. Maybe a bit lower with big battles.

Click to expand...

Thanks, yeah seem better than 1 minute. I will have to change to SSD install ASAP.

How are load times for people with SSDs in SP? (currently out of space so installed this on a conventional extra HD, which I am starting to regret)

Maximum troll mode engaged.

Being able to give input while it still can change something is the whole point of buying EA. If you plan to be quiet you're better off waiting for release.

Great thread (bump)

Having the same issue.

I really don't get the obsession about changing what works [from certain game developers, not just TW]. I played Battle because the permadeath adds a level of excitement I don't get with the respawns of Deathmatch. Multiple lives will make each round a slog the way Deathmatch is, without sizable and distinguishable start, mid, and late phases of each round. Sigh.

Attacks do different damage depending on variety of factors. The more you play, the more you get an instinctive feel for the underlying mechanics. Especially the timing is important.

For a technical explanation, look for the infantry guides floating on the forum, e.g. https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,191455.0.html

Proper cav 1v1s take a long time. If it doesn't take long it's because one or both of the players are playing (very) suboptimally. Incidentally, it's a large part of why cav duels between good players aren't that interesting to watch.

The rules as written basically state "you're not allowed to play your best" which isn't very interesting either.

To be the fair, the balance in the early stages as an independent kingdom with no vassals is stupidly difficult. The AI marshal will inevitably come around to 10 versus 1 you in odds. The politics/diplomacy part of this game is something that definitely could be massively improved for Bannerlord...

The only way to succeed lies in preparation; cozy up with a faction and get assigned a lot of fiefs that you will keep when betraying them. This is in addition to the usual maximization of char stats, enterprises, relations, honour, RTR, etc. I personally never had the patience to do this in the unmodded game on highest difficulty.

So what I'm saying is: If you don't enjoy setting up an independent kingdom, it's perfectly normal and might be preferable to not bother. Or, you can follow the good advice posted in this thread by people who have done it, if you do decide it's worth your time and are willing to plan ahead. I've always ended up spending my time elsewhere in the game due to how frustrating this specific part can be.

Guy Fawkes said:

One thing needs to be added here, yes you can do some stuff with 90ms as infantry, but you won't be able to play agressive style with it.

Click to expand...

Also applies as cavalry; playing on up to 110-130 ping is fine as long as you can play it somewhat defensively. If you're forced to play aggressively, e.g. because team is on a losing streak and you're being pressured by multiple opponents, it becomes rather hopeless. With aggressively, I mean for instance taking head to head engagements as cavalry rather than avoiding them due to the risk, etc.

With couched lance you can sometimes achieve high KD ratios on absurdly high pings (but since that's not going to work vs. good players it's more of a curiosity).

1) They're not going to change the game now, you might have better luck posting Bannerlord suggestions.
2) Realism is not a good argument if it would make the game worse. It definitely would for infantry players, assuming a simple "make lollance unblockable" change without anything else.

^Word

Thread is pretty darn old though.

^ Hilarious post