Search results for query: *

These are what I know so far, maybe it helps you?

The pastebin example (https://pastebin.com/x8NU4FLN) for SubModule.xml doesn't work. If used as-is, the launcher will just crash with no warning or error message. However the on-page example (for the basic-csharp-mod page) works.

I tracked this issue down to the cause, which is that the version string seems to have a strict format. The pastebin example doesn't work because it had the version string as "1.0". I've tried various values and found the following:

- "1.0" doesn't work
- "v1.0" doesn't work
- "0.0.1" doesn't work
- "v0.0.1" works

The format looks like it requires some letter followed by a major-minor-patch versioning scheme.

Hope it helps someone.

Started Skyrim yesterday. I play mainly 3rd person in these elder scrolls games because the creepy dungeons are too much for me in first person, and I like to be able to see my awesome character on screen.

For months, I didn't play any medieval rpg aside from M&B. So at the beginning of skyrim, I was so absolutely horrible at fighting that during the very first battle of me and that companion against two guys, All I did was stepping into stupid places wailing around my weapon not hitting a single thing. I was like "Wha? I don't remember being this bad at video games!" Then I realized what was happening. My M&B reflexes kept on kicking in.

Against some enemy bandits, I had to remind myself "You cannot feint in this game, and circular footwork doesn't work!"

When riding my horse and encountering a wolf, I get the strangest urge to give it a good slice as I ride past.

...

Also, at the beginning I was considering naming my character Lydia after my first Warband MP nick... then decided against it. I think that was a good choice.

My horse is freakin amazing. A little bit north of Whiterun I approached a fort when all of a sudden a bunch of bandit archers appeared and started raining down arrows at me. I dismounted and drew my bow and started trying to shoot them back. Then my horse disappeared when I wasn't looking. The next thing I know, the horse reappeared on top of the fort and ploughed down those guys one by one, and I was like O_O.

This is what I do:

Get a pen. use the non-pointy end (it should be round) to continuously brush the keyboard back and forth between Alt and D (as you hold down ctrl). Each brush will hit the X button, and it's a much easier stroke than tapping X nonstop.

What bothers me more with cheating is that, if you have 100 troops to upgrade all at once, you gotta click the upgrade button 100 times. There should be an "upgrade all" button to make lives easier for us cheating bastards

I saw a youtube video of Mount&Blade, and the mounted combat looked pretty awesome, so I downloaded the game off of Taleworlds website and gave it a try. I always loved medieval stuff, and the idea of fighting on horses, so the game's premise seemed interesting.

And I remember starting out with my character, Lydia, on a horse, with a sword and a crossbow, against a bunch of looters. It took a while to get the hang of horseback fighting, but the first time I made a kill, it felt so awesome. And gradually I got better and better at it, and the feeling of chopping people's heads off as I ride past them was probably one of the coolest feelings I got from any videogame, ever. So I quickly bought the game.

Since I'm both lazy and impatient, I always cheat in single player games and this game was no exception. Soon I had an army and was conquering lands. While defending my realm, my army clashed against Haringoth's army. Upon the battlefield, Lydia on a white courser rode at the very helm of my army, and as the two armies clashed, Lydia's horse leaped into the enemy masses and speared Haringoth in one fell strike. Having just done that, I was like "holy crap!" and it became my favorite game. This was further confirmed when later in all-cav battles against Khergits it was just so incredibly fun spearing and cutting enemy riders left and right. It really made you feel like you're in some epic medieval movie.

Then Warband came out, and along with it, multiplayer. Being a feared warrior in single player where I get to slay bots is one thing, doing the same in multiplayer against real humans was totally better. Especially at the beginning when few people knew how to play the game, it was easy to wreck havok as a khergit lancer with a hafted blade. This was also the very first game where I actively participated in online multiplayer, so I was pleasantly surprised that I was actually pretty good at it. And then it was simply meeting one awesome player after another who helped me get better, and discovering the awesomeness of melee combat, all the while trying hard to not get too addicted to this. There was a period of time where I'd uninstall the game to make sure I don't play until 3AM again... just to install it again a day or two later, and the cycle repeats.

I don't think archers are OP, but I do dislike archers, although it's just personal preference.

I dislike archers because quite frankly, their presence make the game more challenging without making the game more fun. As an infantry, I enjoy fighting other infantry, even those who are a thousand times better than me, if only because the action is engaging and overwhelming. With all the attacks, blocks, feints, holds, and fancy footwork, the whole play experience is an active one that is constantly fun. Versus cavalry, they have to charge me, and even if I'm caught with only a short sword and no shield, fighting a cavalry involving awareness of when they charge you, dodging, blocking, and finding good opportunities to attack. Again, the play experience is an active one that is constantly fun.

And then, you get an archer who starts shooting at you from halfway across the map. What do you do? You know that from this distance, most of his shots are going to miss, but if he concentrates on you, eventually he'll adjust his aim enough to hit you, so you can't completely ignore him. So you start zigzagging and running in weird patterns, but now you're doing a lot of work when he's just casually staying there, and the advantage is STILL his. You're then faced with a dilemma. Do you go and hunt this archer down or try to fight other people while hoping he won't shoot you in the back? If you choose the latter, every now and then he DOES shoot you in the back, and you regret your decision. Whereas, if you go hunt him down, you have to endure the long boredom of walking slowly (with your shield up) as you close in on him. At this point some annoying archers might turn around and run, and you'll curse the fact that he runs faster than you (or at least the same speed). If you can force the archer into melee, it's more of a fair fight, and I wouldn't mind if the archer is some amazing melee person who totally owns me at my own specialty as an infantry, but the very fact that I had to do so much work just to start the fight, the very fact that he has the advantage for such a long time before I can even attack... that gets frustrating.

It's even worse when an archer is shooting at you from halfway across the map, and you look and realize he's on top of some giant mountain or some house's roof. Now to get to him you'll either have to slowly climb up that mountain or find the tricky paths that lead you on top of that roof. By this point, you might as well just give up, stay out of sight of that archer or make the shield a permanent part of your game from now on.

And as a cavalry versus an archer, it's more of an even match... unless he's camping at some high spot your horse can't get to.

That said, if I do things well, archers are just as easy or hard to take down as any other class, and everything does seem balanced. Plus, it's a medieval warfare game and it just doesn't feel right without arrows flying everywhere. I also likes to play as a ninja archer every now and then, moving around discreetly and shooting people in the back, so I'd be a hypocrite if I complained too much too vocally. Archers just punish laziness a bit more than other classes do, that's all.

Favorite for me would be TDM. I'm not a competitive player and I don't like being 100% perfect in my play. Instead, I'd much rather just participate in slaughterfests where amid the chaos tons of epic things can happen. I also don't like having to wait to respawn and get back into the action, and TDM is better than DM in this because in TDM you can easily get into true 1 vs many situations which are incredibly fun, even if I die more often than win.

Second favorite would be CTF, and it's really sad that CTF gets so underplayed. It's basically TDM with an objective, so you get all the action and epicness of TDM while trying to do something else than just boosting killcount. On top of that, you can ninja around on CTF maps and take the flag when the other team is least expecting it, and that's a lot of fun. If I played CTF more I'd probably make this my first choice, but since it gets played so rarely, it's my second choice.

Third favorite from your list would be siege, which is TDM with an objective but with excruciatingly slow spawns (on both sides, since attackers still need to walk across the map again every time they spawn) and alot more camping archers.

I don't like battle much. I can see why lots of skilled and competitive players would like it since doing well in battle takes the most skill out of all the game modes, but having to wait a whole minute before playing again because you got slightly careless and headshotted by an archer behind you? That's not fun for me.

Duel is also nice, but it's not on the list

I think that infantry has some pretty definite advantages against cavalry 1v1, to the point where its almost foolish for anybody on a horse to charge an infantryman head on, no matter what weapon the man on foot has.
Of course, cavalry tend to accumulate more kills anyway, since they zoom around the map and prey on people with tunnel vision, but infantry is definitely more fun than spending five minutes backstabbing people and being shot at alternatively.

Click to expand...

Assuming that the both players are competent, I'm pretty sure cav has the advantage as long as the infantry doesn't have something anti-cav. After all, couches break shields and is unblockable with a weapon, and lance thrusts will win most encounters if the inf opts to attack. Even in a stalemate situation, the cav is much more free while the inf needs to keep attention.

Once I rode my horse to the opposite side of a hill with archers on it and slowly walked it up the hill. It took a while, but since I didn't make a sound, they didn't know I existed, and it was fun surprising them at the back.

But usually in a situation like that, if you're by yourself, then it's almost certain death unless they're all bad players, so the wise thing to do is to retreat. If you have other cavalry players with you, then use them as cover/distraction. Remember that the archers/glaive guy won't focus on you if someone else is a closer threat. So rely on that for safety and only dive in when there's a good opportunity for a hit or kill.

If a friendly cavalry gets dehorsed, try to make him survive the fall by bumping the glaive guy or distracting the archers. If you get unhorsed yourself, get up and chop'em up with your surprisingly awesome melee skills. If you don't have surprisingly awesome melee skills, work on them.

Oh and picking a heavy armored horse can usually make you last pretty long against archers. Coursers and hunters gets taken down by a few hits, but those armored horses can literally become armored porcupines without dying.

I don't know the details, but the system works such that if you kill, you get money, and if you die, you lose money, and generally to get a lot of money you need to kill more than you die.

First question: No there is no ranking system for multiplayer outside of individual game rounds. In fact, there isn't even account registration. Anyone can be anybody, but you'll find that most players will stick by one or two aliases. Within each game round, there's a kill ranking for all players in the game round, and this gets reset every round.

Second question: If you are playing a team-based game, then your allies will have round symbols above their heads, and your enemies will not have them. Attack the people who don't have round symbols above their heads.

Glad to hear you like Warband MP, it's a really awesome game.

A note on the "2-in-a-row-thing":

A lot of players will give the advice of blocking 2 in a row to prevent from getting stunned. This is not entirely accurate but somewhat reliable in practice. The reason is that there is no game mechanics that says you cannot be stunned twice (as far as I know). However, the way stun works makes it so that in practice, usually you can only force a stun once unless your opponent is especially slow and defensive.

You can force a stun by first swing your weapon, then hold it for a second, then release your swing. This is assuming you have a heavy weapon.

In practice, as two opponents approach each other, usually the very first blow comes from a heavy weapon due to them often being longer (the shorter weapon forced to block). This blow will usually create a stun because the user has plenty of time to "charge up" the weapon (hold in chambered position) as he advance towards his opponent. The opponent will block this blow and get stunned. To take advantage of the stun, the heavy weapon user needs to execute a second blow as fast as possible. Thus, the second blow from the heavy weapon will not be charged/held. Instead, it will only be a swing-release fast attack. This second fast attack will not cause stun, so after you have blocked this second attack, you will be free to retaliate.

Since the most basic use of weapon stun against your opponent is simply to stun your opponent, then follow up with a fast attack (where your opponent will not block, having not noticed the stun), most players will tell you to block twice, then attack.

However, in a fight there can be many possibilities and many situations. A player might, for instance, stun you, and then follow up with a held attack to stun you twice, and finally use a fast attack. Or, a player might, for instance, simply walk up to you without swinging the weapon and then start the fight with a quick fast attack. In the first case, you need to block 3 times before retaliating. In the second case, you only need to block once. To be safe in all situations, it is important to be able to judge when an attack will cause stun so you can react appropriately.

This is my understanding since I first learned about weapon stun, and in-game observations seem to agree. If any of this is wrong, someone please correct me.

Several things:

First, read the infantry guide, archer guide, and dueling guide in this forum (pinned topics on the very top), watch Reapy's tutorial video and TDM commentary video (both can be found in Reapy's infantry guide). When playing M&B multiplayer, there will be plenty of times where you will think "WTF" and not understand why something happened the way it did (usually why you died when you thought you should've won), the explanation is usually somewhere in these guides.

IMO the fastest way to get better at multiplayer and to have a hell lot of fun is to go into huge TDM matches and go crazy. Don't take deaths too personally, and instead just try out random things while having fun. You never have to wait for any action, since after you die it's only 3 or 4 seconds until you respawn. Even when you're not doing well, there are plenty of epic random craziness to keep you entertained.

Once you get a bit better at melee, you might want to try duel, where you can find opponents of all skill levels to simply hone your melee skills in a 1v1 setting. To practice technical melee skills this is probably the best setting. Practicing technical archer and cavalry skills, stick to TDM.

Also, it will help to quickly find something you're good at. For me it was cavalry, and for a lot of other people it was archer. Infantry and melee fighting has the longest learning curve. As you die repeatedly to better players while training your melee skills, it'll help to know that you're still valuable in other ways when time calls for it.

Also, try to keep your ping below 100 (below 50 is most preferable), otherwise you'll run into ping-related problems, which are not fun.

Mad Dawg said:

FDEL said:

2) You attack right after you block his attack with no hesitation (don't fall for a feint)

Click to expand...

Number 2 is flawed as it is not accounting for the stun factor of larger axes and bardiche.  You'll need to allow them to attack twice before you can attack once.

Click to expand...

Ah yes. I overlooked that possibility.

If your shield is not a particularly a good one and your opponent has a heavy weapon, watch for stun. For your opponent to stun you, he or she needs to "charge" the weapon for a bit (swing, hold for a bit, then release). So if your opponent raises his axe, runs over to you, then swing it down on you. One block isn't enough, as it'll stun. But if he simply raise and swing very quickly, then one block should be enough.

my problem seems to be every player with a 2 hander swings faster than me, maybe its just my reaction time.

Click to expand...

What's your ping?

Make sure that when you fight a 2H, the following conditions are met:

1) You keep him in front of you at all times
2) You attack right after you block his attack with no hesitation (don't fall for a feint)
3) You attack to the side that he is closer to
4) You turn into your attack
5) When you attack, you're close enough such that he is within the range of your attack

If you make sure all these conditions are met, then he cannot spam, because every time he spams you will hit him. He will either have to outlast you in blocking, or you will kill him.

Spear and shield is good for support but bad for 1 on 1. It's good for support because of its long reach, but bad for 1 on 1 because blocking it is too easy (only need down block), so for hits you need to rely on clever feints/holds and distance control, both of which are easy to fight against if you pay attention to it, so in the end you'll only defeat careless or new players.

I think the best way for a new player to learn the game (especially controls and fighting mechanics) is to go all out in crazy TDM matches, because you can make all sorts of mistakes and try out all sorts of things without any time penalties. If you die, 4 seconds later and you'll be back in the action. Training is fastest this way.

I'm pretty sure OP is talking about multiplayer.

I think there are two obvious solutions, both equally important:

1) Buy better shields so they last longer against giant axes
2) Learn to manual block so even after the shield breaks you can still put up a fight

You can apply 1) now, and 2) comes with experience and practice. Against 2H users, good players can put up a good fight with a 1H even without a shield. In any case, you should have a shield because in siege plenty of archers are around, and not having a shield is asking to be turned into a pincushion.

apz2488 said:

Yeah I don't expect to be as good right away, and I realize this game has a steep learning curve, I just seem having problem landing any blows with my lance. (I tend to use a regular or heavy lance because great lances are too slow, I never hit anything.

If I don't catch infantry off guard, its almost impossible to hit them with it.. even if they don't have a shield. I guess these guys are just good, But I whiff a lot in single player too.. so I you guys are right, I need to play more.

When fighting infantry.. is it better to do counterclockwise circles and thrust to my left..  or clockwise and thrust to my right? Im assuming I have more reach to the right?

thanks again

Click to expand...

If you are a lance cav and you're up against infantry, you'll want to mostly do ride-bys instead of close quarters fighting. You lance outranges most weapons infantrymen have access to, so whether you'll hit them is usually entirely depending on how well you control your movement and how accurate you thrust your lance. If you execute perfectly, unless the infantry has a pike or bamboo spear or something anti-cav, all he can do is block.

Every lance has a lag time between you releasing the mouse and your character actually thrusting it to its maximum length. You'll want to time it so that by the time you are passing by the infantry, your lance is at the maximum reach of its thrust. If you think in these terms, the great lance's slowness shouldn't be a problem, it just means you need to predict your thrust more in advance. You release it early, then direct it into the enemy as you go forward.

At the same time, you'll want to minimize the likelihood of your horse or you getting hit (either due to you missing your target or simply due to his weapon being long). This is why you want to be as far away from your target (while still within range of your lance) as possible when passing by the infantry. This is the reason why most decent cav players pull their horse to the side just as they ride by and thrust.

As you engage the infantry in the ride-by, you need to make good judgment on whether you'll win the encounter. If your aim is good and he doesn't have anti-cav weapons, you'll win. If your aim is off due to bad angle or riding by too close, you'll lose. If your aim is good but he has a pike and also ready to attack you, you'll probably lose. If your aim is good, he has a pike, but isn't in the attack position yet, then it's a close call... etc... make this judgment! If you don't feel confident enough to win the round, you can always pull away at the last minute. Your horse is fast, so usually you get to choose what happens and the infantry is forced to react. A good cav player makes good judgment on whether a round can be won or whether he should pull away and try again.

It is extremely difficult to play lance cavalry well with a bad ping, more so than playing infantry or archer well as far as I know.

When fighting against another lance cavalry, one rule I've found to be very reliable is simply that, you'll win the round if you release your lance earlier than your opponent does, and you'll lose the round if you release your lance later than your opponent does, so what you do is you release the lance, if it turns out that you did it first, go ahead and strike. If you did it just after your opponent did, then raise your shield and defend. This is assuming that both of you are using the same lance, otherwise, the longer lance has the advantage and the shorter lance need to rely more on maneuvering and surprise. This also work against pikemen (provided that your lance is similar in length to his pike), although the fact that you're a larger target means they have an inherent advantage. But usually, you have a chance if you released your lance before he released his pike. Otherwise, you're pretty much dead meat in a direct encounter.

Couched lance give you a sure kill if you can land it, but it's risky and landing a hit can be difficult. Personally I don't think it's worth it, so I never do it, but because of this I don't have much couched experience, and players who use couched lance a lot may say otherwise and provide another POV.

As a cavalry player, movement is your best defense. You're usually safe as long as your horse is moving, but if your horse stops, you're open to all sorts of threat. This is why it is very crucial to be able to maneuver around rough terrain and battlefields and not run into any obstacles or unseen threats. Awareness is very important. Since you're moving so fast, you better know what you're running into.

With a fast and agile horse (e.g. Sarranid), you can usually intelligently zigzag your way and dodge most arrowfire as you approach a lone enemy archer. Up close, you can use your horse to bump him repeatedly until he draws his sword, in which case your lance has the advantage. Against multiple archers who are all aware of you, especially when they're all on a hill, is usually suicide.

Lastly, unless it's a duel, there's nothing wrong with backstabbing people, especially in team games. You backstabbing them means they lack awareness, which is their problem.

Hey Ares! Remember this noob you once trained? Good to see you're back playing warband

On topic: a lot of discussions here are heavily based around melee one-on-one fighting, but there's a lot more to multiplayer than that. I think it is very important for a newbie to just find something they're good at to fall back on when getting frustrated learning everything else. The learning curve for the game is not friendly, after all.

The first thing I did when getting the game was playing cavalry because I've always liked the idea of fighting on a horse. I turned out to be better at it than most people starting out, so it became my backup when learning melee. By backup I mean that, whenever my team is losing and I feel like I'm not contributing much, I can go cav and noticeably raise the team's chance for a comeback. Also, when I'm having a bad day and just want the thrill of winning for a while instead of getting better, I can play cav and it usually guarantees me some good kills, especially cav vs cav (backstabbing infantry is easy but feels less rewarding, whereas going against pikemen gets a bit too difficult).

Because of that, the game never made me feel like a noob even though the road of getting better at melee meant a lot of losing and self examination. Now it doesn't matter much for me since I'm equally proficient at both cav and melee, and getting better and better at archer. Meanwhile, I've seen a lot of newbies who seem like they're having a bad time because they keep on getting owned by people who are more experienced, and yet they keeps on getting owned in the exact same way, then swearing and rage quitting or make cheat accusations. I think one amazing thing about warband multiplayer is that there are so many situations that you can excel at since everything can fight everything else in different ways. For example, some people are really good at throwing javelins to the point that you wouldn't believe they're working with a factor of randomness, and I still haven't figured out how they do it.

I also hope TDM games become dependable again. There used to be a lot of TDM games when everyone was a noob, but these days the only servers that you can always count on are battle, siege, and duel, since those are what experienced players tend to gravitate towards, and for a long while we didn't have many new players. However, there is too much wait time in battle, and too many good players in duel, both of which I feel is bad for a real noob to learn in. Siege is like a slower version of TDM with lots of obstacles that play a huge factor in whether you'll do well or not, and there's also a lot of wait time, since defenders take 20 seconds to respawn, and attackers need to walk across the field to the castle every time they respawn. TDM games are almost perfect to learn the basics in. Respawn times are fast so death isn't as big of a penalty, you can die again and again and again and still be in the heat of battle, constantly honing your senses and control. On top of that, it's chaotic, which will really teach you awareness of your environment, and there are chances for all situations, such as fighting in a larger group, fighting in a smaller group, one versus one, one versus many, one versus melee + archer, dealing with swarming cavalry etc... For a more objective-based game, TDM can be easily turned into CTF, which IMO is really undervalued.

I think the heavy cavalry's "heaviness" is fine as it is. Even though it might take 6-7 arrows to bring it down, lighter horses take much less (2-3 arrows at most for saddle and coursers). On top of that, heavy cavalry is better protected against non-piercing attacks like sword slashes (took me 8 good swings with a great sword to kill a stray armored horse the other day). I feel that the important thing isn't to make them as historically accurate as possible, but to maintain the effect that having an armored horse means you have a sense of safety while others see you as more dangerous, to a noticeable degree compared to lighter horses. This I believe has already been achieved.