[parsehtml][IMG]https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_73_taleworldswebsite.jpg[/IMG]
Over the course of the past few months, one of the most commented features that we have shown in this dev blog is the use of siege engines when someone is trying to take a castle by storm -- but we didn't really go into much detail about how they work. In this week's entry of our blog, we talk with Bahar Sevket, one of our gameplay programmers, who is currently working on new mechanics for that particular area of the game and can give us some interesting insights on how siege engines will be integrated into Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord.
[/parsehtml]Read more at: https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/93
Dev Blog 17/01/19
- Thread starter Callum
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
You mean like this blog, where the author says they made a huge mess of things, one of their newer programmers volunteered to clean up the mess that they made, and they fired him because it was taking too long? Spare me Factorio's brand of devblogs. One of them started with 2 or 3 paragraphs of the author's gaming habits. Argue all you want about how much content should or shouldn't be in every TaleWorlds blog, but you have to admit that Callum at least keeps them focused on the game.Attila7 said:
The idea of adding in Settlement issues seems like an interesting enough idea to me, and I'm a little bit unsure of the changes to the sieges. I mainly want to know if we still have the option to individually choose what engines are built and if we have to choose a tactic. I'm also curious about what type of quests have been added.
Carry on.
Carry on.
There's no Hindspost on it, so it must be one of the best blogs to date.
DtheHun
Sergeant Knight
Sorry, I just can't go by this one.
Previously, a player who besieged a castle had to select what they wanted to build from a number of engines, one by one. Recently, however, we introduced a new tactics feature. Now, the player will select one of the siege tactics available and will get a preloaded waiting list for siege engines that are useful to the selected tactic.
Selecting one by one >[freedom, combinations]> preloaded waiting list
That's a restriction packed as a comfort feature.
The tactic can be changed at any point during the waiting time
Will I lose the already built engines (or can I still deploy them for battle), which are not listed for the new tactic selected during preparation? Recycling is a nice habit, but I don't think that I would destroy a functional mangonel to build new ladders during siege preparation next to a forest.
If the answer is yes, than this story is not from the polishing development state, but from the realization of unability to make work or balance previously heralded features what we are here for.
Please, convince me that I'm wrong!
Previously, a player who besieged a castle had to select what they wanted to build from a number of engines, one by one. Recently, however, we introduced a new tactics feature. Now, the player will select one of the siege tactics available and will get a preloaded waiting list for siege engines that are useful to the selected tactic.
Selecting one by one >[freedom, combinations]> preloaded waiting list
That's a restriction packed as a comfort feature.
The tactic can be changed at any point during the waiting time
Will I lose the already built engines (or can I still deploy them for battle), which are not listed for the new tactic selected during preparation? Recycling is a nice habit, but I don't think that I would destroy a functional mangonel to build new ladders during siege preparation next to a forest.
If the answer is yes, than this story is not from the polishing development state, but from the realization of unability to make work or balance previously heralded features what we are here for.
Please, convince me that I'm wrong!
As Roccoflipside has commented in another post, do you think that this type of "settlement issues" will be focused towards an similar approach to the one we can see in VC and ACOK regarding random events?
Regarding the new "siege tactics" with what has been said, I am even more confused...
Regarding the new "siege tactics" with what has been said, I am even more confused...
Regarding the construction of siege engines, nowhere does it say that a preloaded list precludes modifying that list. And even if it does, the various tactical choices will probably guarantee that all sensible build orders are covered, there aren't that many different siege engines after all.
I don't get what people are whining about. This blog revealed two new mechanics that sound very interesting and fun to me.
I heartily hope that the settlement issues are caused not completely randomly, but are affected by the events of the world. Things like tax increase, economic trouble and foreign occupation are what often cause problems in real world communities. It would also make it easier to predict issues arising and potentially possible to disrupt the internal stability of your enemies.
I heartily hope that the settlement issues are caused not completely randomly, but are affected by the events of the world. Things like tax increase, economic trouble and foreign occupation are what often cause problems in real world communities. It would also make it easier to predict issues arising and potentially possible to disrupt the internal stability of your enemies.
Innocent Flower said:
If Calradian actual 100.00% historically accurate siege engines break your immersion, then you could either wait for someone to mod real medieval siege engine models or do it by yourself.
I bet if you wait long enough, there will be plenty of real medieval mods with historical factions&clans and real locations to explore, without the infamous immersion breaking Calradic content.
DtheHun
Sergeant Knight
Oxtocoatl said:
Whining... Because of the changes foreshadowing that the features I was heartly hoped for take a back seat.
The player will be able to start the bombardment as soon as any machine is finished and will be able to start damaging the defences of the town/castle even before starting the siege mission (battle).
I want to set, be part of, and see these events in real time as it was shown in the siege gameplay video. As it said:
"You don’t control your troops as you would typically do in a strategy game with a god-like view. Instead, you are alongside your soldiers on the battlefield."
and not just clearing the ruins after a pre-battle browser straegy like war of numbers, and the promise of some chicken herding settlement issues won't make me forget why I'm originally here for.
Terco_Viejo said:The absence of clarification is what makes the hype grow,krafttomten said:
because everybody generates their own expectations.
Yes, you are describing letting the observers fill in the blank spaces in a picture as an easy method of making the picture appear pretty to all who views it, however, this creates a false image of reality that ultimately leads to disappointment when truth is finally revealed. Now, this problem doesn't always arise just because they communicate in a vague way, like where they clearly hide certain content to trigger curiosity. But in this DevBlog, where they insinuate interesting game mechanics which later turns out to be false, the problems arise because in practice, they have been lying to people. So, are they are lying or failing to communicate their ideas?
Let's assume they communicate with their fans - us - for an actual reason, then why would they be interested in people being hyped about false impressions? Because other companies are? Sure, this can be used as a marketing strategy, through a combination of lies and "cheap" offers to trick the customers into making irrational decisions. But TaleWorlds are not trying to sell us the game yet. We cannot even pre-order Bannerlord. So what if they are not interested in tricking us at all, but are instead interested in our help. Maybe they want our opinions on their ideas to better understand what type of game the fans want. If that is the case, they need to give us proper information about the game in order for us to give rational feedback.
The importance of good communication cannot be underestimated; many people's opinions are based on emotions which naturally leads to irrational decisions - and if the devs aren't communicating truthfully it makes it much harder for us to give them rational feedback. This will of course lead to a relative increase in irrational feedback, because the rational comments gets stuck in silly discussions of what the devs actually mean. But the emotional comments keeps on glorifying - or raging against - their own expectations of the game - not the actual game. Obviously, this type of feedback can not be used to improve the game.
So, conclusion, they should clarify how this new game feature works if they want useful feedback.
DtheHun
Sergeant Knight
NPC99 said:
Because of the cheap Teleshop communication about a revolutionary solution for a not existing problem.
Previously, a player who besieged a castle had to select what they wanted to build from a number of engines, one by one.
- Oh, my dear. Can you imagine how tiresome could be to select from five or so siege engines (ladder contained) and set their number and position?
Recently, however, we introduced a new tactics feature.
- It's unbelievable!!! How?
Now, the player will select one of the siege tactics available and will get a preloaded waiting list for siege engines that are useful to the selected tactic.
- That's great, I want it now!
Really?
DtheHun said:
No no, they are on about the pre-battle bombardment stage where engines fire upon the settlement in the world map.
In the actual battle, you will still be able to control engines and fire them at the settlement or watch your troops bomabard the place.
EDIT- Actually, could taleworlds clarify whether the engines in the world map will be the same siege engines in the battle phase?
Terco_Viejo said:The absence of clarification is what makes the hype grow,
because everybody generates their own expectations.
The illness of TW forum has been diagnosed.
DtheHun
Sergeant Knight
AmateurHetman said:
OK, I give it up. Looks like it's only my own personal social problem. When I want to bombard map icons, I look around my floppy disks from the era of Civilization I.
+ "pre-battle bombardment stage" that's the fanciest name of Auto-Calc I have ever read. Now it's mandatory, and people loves it. Gratz. I'm looking forward to see the death reports of my hardly trained huscarls on a worldmap textbox.
I think it's probably to help the AI decide how to react to an assault.
The blog also implies that the defender gets preset 'tactics' options as well. This way, the AI can choose an appropriate defensive tactic to counter the assault tactic.
Also: it'd be completely bizarre if changing tactics meant your previously-built siege engines got suddenly vanished.
The blog also implies that the defender gets preset 'tactics' options as well. This way, the AI can choose an appropriate defensive tactic to counter the assault tactic.
Also: it'd be completely bizarre if changing tactics meant your previously-built siege engines got suddenly vanished.
krafttomten said:Terco_Viejo said:The absence of clarification is what makes the hype grow,krafttomten said:
because everybody generates their own expectations.
Yes, you are describing letting the observers fill in the blank spaces in a picture as an easy method of making the picture appear pretty to all who views it, however, this creates a false image of reality that ultimately leads to disappointment when truth is finally revealed. Now, this problem doesn't always arise just because they communicate in a vague way, like where they clearly hide certain content to trigger curiosity. But in this DevBlog, where they insinuate interesting game mechanics which later turns out to be false, the problems arise because in practice, they have been lying to people. So, are they are lying or failing to communicate their ideas?
Let's assume they communicate with their fans - us - for an actual reason, then why would they be interested in people being hyped about false impressions? Because other companies are? Sure, this can be used as a marketing strategy, through a combination of lies and "cheap" offers to trick the customers into making irrational decisions. But TaleWorlds are not trying to sell us the game yet. We cannot even pre-order Bannerlord. So what if they are not interested in tricking us at all, but are instead interested in our help. Maybe they want our opinions on their ideas to better understand what type of game the fans want. If that is the case, they need to give us proper information about the game in order for us to give rational feedback.
The importance of good communication cannot be underestimated; many people's opinions are based on emotions which naturally leads to irrational decisions - and if the devs aren't communicating truthfully it makes it much harder for us to give them rational feedback. This will of course lead to a relative increase in irrational feedback, because the rational comments gets stuck in silly discussions of what the devs actually mean. But the emotional comments keeps on glorifying - or raging against - their own expectations of the game - not the actual game. Obviously, this type of feedback can not be used to improve the game.
So, conclusion, they should clarify how this new game feature works if they want useful feedback.
Let's see, this is something that I have discussed a lot with my companions in the forum "Caballeros de Calradia" (official forum mount&blade Spanish-speaking community). There has been an evident communication problem, which has improved?...yes, a problem that could be more improved? of course.
Taleworlds is absolutely free to do whatever it wants with its products, therefore add (offspring), undo (castle building), enhace (global map) any feature is acceptable as it is embedded in a WIP process. In this WIP process we are involved after a long period of radio silence in " Development Diaries ", DEVELOPMENT...along with an interview with devs. A magnificent maneuver to smooth roughness with the community in a desire for informational renewal and transparency.
It is true that there are devblogs that clearly inform about a mechanic or feature such as, for example, the Modding blog, the new system of armies and influence, physics of weapons, inverse kinematics, recruitment system, all the factions, etc. These are topics that are clearly established in the game and therefore we are made aware of them.
We have blogs of meh...we all know which ones.
Then we have surprising blogs like Ruwa, what a good welcome right? They only told us about it when they had the whole operating system running at 100%. If you're not sure if you can implement something, leave it in the shade... don't insinuate anything in the devblogs so that the fans don't make wrong conjectures...and don't even think about saying that we're working on it but we can't comment on it right now. We like to be surprised but not treated like fools.
It's like the modding blog, it seems to me one of the most complete to date, with an excellent informative quality content. That you can deepen the subject, of course ... but the fan already has a global idea of it. On the other hand, if I had to choose a Q&A blog I had no doubt i take the Cem Çimenbiçer one. Informative quality.
Regarding the last blog, pay attention to the pictures (they are beautiful) but they provide us with more information than others have done before? Without despising the content of the interviewee...two relevant information about the game: 1, siege tactics that more than clarifying the fan, confuses him. And 2, settlement issues, if they are talking about it is because they have 100% working the feature or are simply working on it having in mind what the WIP implies? It has generated hype because 1, they have announced a new feature and 2, they have not explained enough for the fan to form a global impression of what really is this feature. And that's when the fan fills the gaps of the "virtual idea" with the "what is and what could be".
Anyway, I know that this process is being a marathon development and personally I do not worry about waiting (I want to play as soon as possible ... that is obvious), but wait for something which is worth waiting for. That's why I personally prefer that after a blog publication in which a confusing topic arises a responsible pronounces in the forums so that the snowball doesn't get bigger.
It's like the ambushes, for example. They've told us about it so...is actually implemented, right? If not, state your stance and say that there will be no ambushes as they did with the naval battles. Either leave the door open.
Transparency=Trust
Constructive Criticism
#Withoutlanguagebarriers
#Ilovegifs
Bonky!
Recruit
Campaign-map bombardment has been a confirmed feature for a long time now. It was originally brought into question over causing breaches in the enemies walls. This was considered too lengthy of a proccess to occur in an actual battle.
As for preset tactics. I do hope we still have the ability to select individual engines. Furthermore, I hope we can save our selections into a new tactic with the proper skill investments (e.g. 1 or more in tactics).
As for preset tactics. I do hope we still have the ability to select individual engines. Furthermore, I hope we can save our selections into a new tactic with the proper skill investments (e.g. 1 or more in tactics).
DtheHun said:
You, sir, have good points there.
Auto calculation to attack walls is a bad gameplay mechanic even for 2010 standards.
Additionally, the "too lengthy" excuse is a bad one. There are many, many ways to make it happen without taking so long. The first idea that comes to my mind: implement two types of ammunition to load on catapults: heavy and light. The heavy ones take longer to reload and are limited, while the light ones are faster and unlimited, maybe equipped with splash damage (skill based?). As you probably guessed, heavy ammo is able to take down wall segments easily, while the lighter ones would damage merlons and be more effective against troops. So in the first couple of salvos, you would aim for gaps in the walls, and then, after you made the gap happen, you would switch to light ammo and start killing the enemy per se.
Let's face the reality, TW is too lazy to make totally destructible walls, and gave a bad excuse for not doing it.
