[parsehtml]<p><img class="frame" src="http://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_21_taleworldswebsite_575.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="290" /></p>
<p>We are back with our series of interviews with TaleWorlds’ team. Today we want to introduce you to a very important role in every development team. Every time a game designer thinks of a cool feature or an animator creates a beautiful movement, there’s someone who has to find a way to make it happen and implement everything in the actual game. You are right, we are talking about the programmers, those code magicians that turn designers’ wishes into reality – and then fix all the issues that usually follow every change: a video game is a very complex system, and changing even the smallest thing can create unexpected problems!</p></br> [/parsehtml]Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/40
Dev Blog 21/12/17
- 主题发起人 Callum
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
lolbash
Master Knight
KhergitLancer80 说:
+1
Im happy people are speaking up. Im getting sick of people telling me on the forums that there are only 2 ways warband can go, which is either maximum realistic simulator, or fantasy magic and dungeons and dragons. Why cant we have a balance between the 2?
Such a way is being carved, and warband is the seeing stone to it
KhergitLancer80 说:
Just my two cents:
"Realism" can be as boring or fun as the devs make it. A good mechanic is good independent of its realism.
In regards to switching weapons, I would support limitations if only to encourage proper preparation.
For example: If lances were dropped instead of stored every time I switched to my sidearm I would need to take that into consideration whenever I would want to get stuck in. It adds a level of tactical thought to pull off well. Same with greatswords and polearms. It would add considerably to the difficulty which I think would be more fun. It also has the bonus of being realistic.
If we apply it to your example, a player should decide if he wants a greatsword OR a shortsword and shield. Not both at the same time. You pick your pros and cons ahead of time and stick with them (or loot something during the fight).
This is subjective of course so others will just see it as "annoying" and spoiling their fun because now they "have" to pick up their lance/halberd/etc later.
Varrak 说:
Noticed that as well...I really hope this will be moddable, should be a no-brainer.
Holy bloody manhunter! I just slogged through 10 bloody pages of man-childs complaining about what is and what's not realism, and how Bannerlord is SOOOO unrealistic. Bloody hell. I'll go by parts:
About the Dev Blog:
T'was an entertaining read. Cem managed to be specific about some aspects and that really pumped me up. I have to say that reading
Welp, enjoy your holidays, guise, you need it, and you deserve it as much as we do.
Now... about the thread:
On realism:
Realism is nice and all, but we don't usually play games to be able to mimic reality. Creating the illusion of reality in a game or a movie or whatever, can do way more harm than good. I hate to use generalizations, but they have truths inherent to them, and more arcadey aspects allow for more freedom in-game. Let's talk about the scabbards on the back:
Yes, they are impractical, they are unrealistic, they are an open sore on 'realistic eyes', but for the most part, they look cool, pretty much like dual-wielding (i'm not defending, condoning nor actively bashing either, just citing them, do not whine). Yes, it's cheesy, it's usually pretty dumb, but it's passable as a feature to distinguish generic from specific. Whut?
In fiction, when a character uses the sword on the back or dual wields, they are being presented as more experienced, 'veteran' fighters, not just another cannon fodder. So what? They serve a practical purpose. [Yes, in M&B we distinguish characters based on more than just where the weapon is sheathed or wielded, but as players, even newbies, we have to learn that, and we spend literally hours doing so, immersing ourselves in the world, whereas movies have larger audiences, for far shorter periods of time, practicality > accuracy]
In M&B and other games, using longswords and heavy weapons on the back provides a practical purpose as well: it allows the player/character to carry more than just one weapon onto the battle. Carrying two heavies on the back, one medium on the left hip, a short one on the right, and a really short weapon on the front allows you to be prepared for any situation. Carrying a bow, two quivers and a twohanded sword is not realistic as well. If it ever were, the person doing so would have squires to carry the stuff for them. Which is how most of the aristocracy went to battle, with their squires donning their armour, carrying their weapons etc. (i'm being generic, don't whine).
Just my two cents:
"Realism" can be as boring or fun as the devs make it. A good mechanic is good independent of its realism.
In regards to switching weapons, I would support limitations if only to encourage proper preparation.
For example: If lances were dropped instead of stored every time I switched to my sidearm I would need to take that into consideration whenever I would want to get stuck in. It adds a level of tactical thought to pull off well. Same with greatswords and polearms. It would add considerably to the difficulty which I think would be more fun. It also has the bonus of being realistic.
If we apply it to your example, a player should decide if he wants a greatsword OR a shortsword and shield. Not both at the same time. You pick your pros and cons ahead of time and stick with them (or loot something during the fight).
This is subjective of course so others will just see it as "annoying" and spoiling their fun because now they "have" to pick up their lance/halberd/etc later.
[/quote]
I understand this and somewhat agree to it, but in M&B it would be entirely impractical to drop your long/heavy weapons just to switch to the bow to kill off one horseman. Most players would probably avoid even carrying such weapons around and would invest into lighter stuff, like carrying 3 packs of throwables and a shortsword. Yes, it would put emphasis on preparation, but that's not usually the point of this game, so it would detract for most, and the majority wins. It would make a complete change in the way battles are fought, and it would take away the freedom the player has, such as just using 4 packs of javelins, and when it's empty, take a sword from the ground. Yet taking stuff from the ground SOUNDS believable and nice, but there's one huge problem with that:there's no animation,[fix:] the animation may not look natural in all occasions, so it could look too game-y, or too simplistic in some instances and would detract from the experience (just like playing my animations mod). And, most importantly, if the devs have not coded the AI to grab stuff on the ground, only the player would be able to do so (exploits or just plain dumb enemies detract from the awe we should feel when being outmanned, outnumbered, et al.), and for the devs to implement it at this stage, would probably require major rewritings in the AI battle codes. As they said somewhere, they made their choices beforehand and they knew this sort of thing was a "flaw", but it would allow more freedom for the player (hence the 'fantasy aspect).
Even with the animation, Bannerlord would still feel pretty much like any other game on that aspect: grabbing things means pressing a buttonand that thing teleporting to your hand/inventory and you awkwardly bending over a downhill or uphill place and seeing your hand go through the ground, it would require waaaay too many adjustments to LOOK natural.[end of fix] On paper it sounds okay, but during the game it feels lazy, unbelievable. It doesn't look natural to press E on a sword on the ground to get it back, you don't see the character lowering themselves to grab it, and it looks just awkward, so instinctively many will avoid it. So the practicality of PRESS E detracts from the believable aspect, just because it doesn't look natural, so the practicality of carrying the weapon on the back wins again. This is not my opinion, this is an assertion made on previous knowledge and experience in design, and apparently this seems to be a fact based on the way Bannerlord is taking shape. (All of this just to avoid saying 'thats a fact')
Now, if you go towards the selective realism of "realistic headbutting" and what nots just in combat... yeah, again, it's not actually realistic to just add some real moves and remove others. If the game was to become a realistic gory battle, it would have to account for the weight of characters, and whenever they touch shields, they would have to attach to each other, and both clashing characters would become slower, more tired, less able to run and move and attack, it would have to allow for knocking others down and jumping on top of them... Else it becomes too arcadey, too displaced from the reality of the game.
In this sort of game we do want some sort of illusion, but not reality.
The way the game plays now is really fine, it's what has allowed the two-people-designed project from Yavuz to develop into the endless wait we have for Bannerlord. It is as it is, if it changes too much, it stops being M&B and becomes something else. You make it more simplistic, you change it into Dynasty/Samurai warriors, you make it more complex, it becomes Kingdom Come or whatever. The way the combat goes is part of the M&B identity, something they stated in one of the blogs, maybe the last one, or in an interview, I can't remember. They didn't want to change it too much, else it'd be a different game.
The animations look really natural for me, I have to say, and I dabble in kendo, so i'm a retarded person. It's really good the way it is, and I'm sure it took a lot to reach the way it is now. It shows.
But, I have to agree with Yaga that the commands animation is a bit strange. After the first time I saw it, I tried imitating it on my daily life, and more than once it felt a bit awkward. Circling the arm overhead is tiresome, doesn't feel natural. But it does call the attention of others (yeah, it does), so I'm undecided about changing or leaving it as it is. Maybe it'd feel a bit out of place if it was just the arm raised, especially when you're in the thick of battle, but maybe not.
Both are really fine for me, just a minor nuisance if I want to go to one of the corners of the map, but still... I wouldn't worry too much about that.
Well, that's a lot of ****s for someone who usually doesn't give a ****. I honestly forgot what else I was going to comment on, and at this point I'm afraid to even try to remember.
About the Dev Blog:
T'was an entertaining read. Cem managed to be specific about some aspects and that really pumped me up. I have to say that reading
kinda gave me the idea that there's still a lot to add AI-wise. Not bad per se, just it makes my mind push the release close to next christmas so... Good, it keeps my hype down. It's good to know that you intend to add unique tactics, that is one of the essential things that give factions their uniqueness, so it'll be fun. I have to admit that I simply love two armies clashing head-on, but that's hollywood on me, and it is all fun and games, but gets boring after a while, so different tactics is something to be aware of, and learn how to adapt. The problem with this is that it requires even more balancing (it's easy to make a steam-roller tactic for one faction that wins everyone on an open field). It's really good to know those things.
I'm not sure it is entirely stiff, the low resolution may eat up some details, the other gif looked more rigged, where the scabbard seemed to balance a bit. But it looks like it could have a bit more of a wiggle. It may be a technical issue for them to implement it into the near-distance lod. But even if it's just on the player, it's good, but it would be perfect to see it on nearby characters as well. Wiggle them weapons on the boddy! I want to see shaky swords and axes as I run or horse around!fedeita 说:
the animation seems smooth and fluid but the stiff side weapon make it look less believable, wouldn't be better to rig the scabbards?
Welp, enjoy your holidays, guise, you need it, and you deserve it as much as we do.
Now... about the thread:
On realism:
This.Varrak 说:> Devs put weapons on characters back in Witcher 3
"Wooow so cooool"
> Devs put weapons on characters back in Bannerlord
"Boooo, not realisticcc
Come on now, Callum already told that they don't copy/paste history.
Realism is nice and all, but we don't usually play games to be able to mimic reality. Creating the illusion of reality in a game or a movie or whatever, can do way more harm than good. I hate to use generalizations, but they have truths inherent to them, and more arcadey aspects allow for more freedom in-game. Let's talk about the scabbards on the back:
Yes, they are impractical, they are unrealistic, they are an open sore on 'realistic eyes', but for the most part, they look cool, pretty much like dual-wielding (i'm not defending, condoning nor actively bashing either, just citing them, do not whine). Yes, it's cheesy, it's usually pretty dumb, but it's passable as a feature to distinguish generic from specific. Whut?
In fiction, when a character uses the sword on the back or dual wields, they are being presented as more experienced, 'veteran' fighters, not just another cannon fodder. So what? They serve a practical purpose. [Yes, in M&B we distinguish characters based on more than just where the weapon is sheathed or wielded, but as players, even newbies, we have to learn that, and we spend literally hours doing so, immersing ourselves in the world, whereas movies have larger audiences, for far shorter periods of time, practicality > accuracy]
In M&B and other games, using longswords and heavy weapons on the back provides a practical purpose as well: it allows the player/character to carry more than just one weapon onto the battle. Carrying two heavies on the back, one medium on the left hip, a short one on the right, and a really short weapon on the front allows you to be prepared for any situation. Carrying a bow, two quivers and a twohanded sword is not realistic as well. If it ever were, the person doing so would have squires to carry the stuff for them. Which is how most of the aristocracy went to battle, with their squires donning their armour, carrying their weapons etc. (i'm being generic, don't whine).
[/spoiler]KarlXII 说:
Just my two cents:
"Realism" can be as boring or fun as the devs make it. A good mechanic is good independent of its realism.
In regards to switching weapons, I would support limitations if only to encourage proper preparation.
For example: If lances were dropped instead of stored every time I switched to my sidearm I would need to take that into consideration whenever I would want to get stuck in. It adds a level of tactical thought to pull off well. Same with greatswords and polearms. It would add considerably to the difficulty which I think would be more fun. It also has the bonus of being realistic.
If we apply it to your example, a player should decide if he wants a greatsword OR a shortsword and shield. Not both at the same time. You pick your pros and cons ahead of time and stick with them (or loot something during the fight).
This is subjective of course so others will just see it as "annoying" and spoiling their fun because now they "have" to pick up their lance/halberd/etc later.
[/quote]
I understand this and somewhat agree to it, but in M&B it would be entirely impractical to drop your long/heavy weapons just to switch to the bow to kill off one horseman. Most players would probably avoid even carrying such weapons around and would invest into lighter stuff, like carrying 3 packs of throwables and a shortsword. Yes, it would put emphasis on preparation, but that's not usually the point of this game, so it would detract for most, and the majority wins. It would make a complete change in the way battles are fought, and it would take away the freedom the player has, such as just using 4 packs of javelins, and when it's empty, take a sword from the ground. Yet taking stuff from the ground SOUNDS believable and nice, but there's one huge problem with that:
Even with the animation, Bannerlord would still feel pretty much like any other game on that aspect: grabbing things means pressing a button
Being more "realistic", if we go the douchebag way, would also require us to piss, **** and eat. It all sounds cool and all to be damaged by cold and hunger, but have you played those survival games? They're fun, for a while, but the devs have to spend so much time making a 'realism' that feels real, but is not. That is precisely the balance between fun and realism. A game like The Forest manages to spend almost 2 years refining the survival aspect so it's fun, and it is, but it took 2 years just on that. Other games are not as fun, and they are made solely for that, with virtually no story, no depth... just a bear grills simulator. Have you tried the realism mods for Skyrim? A purely fantasy rpg, that becomes tedious because of those features, not counting the technical problems that come with that. Of course, I compared two different games, with different goals in mind. And pretty much like Skyrim, Bannerlord is not meant to add those survival and realistic aspects into its mechanics. It's not designed for that.Ki-Ok Khan 说:
Now, if you go towards the selective realism of "realistic headbutting" and what nots just in combat... yeah, again, it's not actually realistic to just add some real moves and remove others. If the game was to become a realistic gory battle, it would have to account for the weight of characters, and whenever they touch shields, they would have to attach to each other, and both clashing characters would become slower, more tired, less able to run and move and attack, it would have to allow for knocking others down and jumping on top of them... Else it becomes too arcadey, too displaced from the reality of the game.
In this sort of game we do want some sort of illusion, but not reality.
THIS. I, being a man interested in the nuances of language, have to whole-heartedly agree with this. We have to stop using "realistic features", and start using "believable features" so people stop led into flame wars (like 10 pages in an almost unrelated thread, or spending 3 hours to write a single reply). It's a pain that we have to always use the same arguments "hurr durr it's a double-edged-halberd-sword-axe on the back thats STUIPD!" "derp de derp ITS NAHT A SIMULATIONISTIC REALISM REALIST SIMULATOR! DURR HURR BECUZ FANTAZY!"lolbash 说:
cherac 说:Its the hollywood style of gameplay we want and its exactly what taleworlds is delivering , once it doesn't break immersion and points don't pop up on the screen after every hit, its real enough . Please Devs don't change this feature , I really want some cinematic battles and I bet even those complaining do
The way the game plays now is really fine, it's what has allowed the two-people-designed project from Yavuz to develop into the endless wait we have for Bannerlord. It is as it is, if it changes too much, it stops being M&B and becomes something else. You make it more simplistic, you change it into Dynasty/Samurai warriors, you make it more complex, it becomes Kingdom Come or whatever. The way the combat goes is part of the M&B identity, something they stated in one of the blogs, maybe the last one, or in an interview, I can't remember. They didn't want to change it too much, else it'd be a different game.
The animations look really natural for me, I have to say, and I dabble in kendo, so i'm a retarded person. It's really good the way it is, and I'm sure it took a lot to reach the way it is now. It shows.
But, I have to agree with Yaga that the commands animation is a bit strange. After the first time I saw it, I tried imitating it on my daily life, and more than once it felt a bit awkward. Circling the arm overhead is tiresome, doesn't feel natural. But it does call the attention of others (yeah, it does), so I'm undecided about changing or leaving it as it is. Maybe it'd feel a bit out of place if it was just the arm raised, especially when you're in the thick of battle, but maybe not.
I am leaning towards 2 possibilities: multiple starts, and the empire being the largest culture, thus one of the first we see everywhere; or a single start somewhere near the empire.Owen Wulfson 说:
Both are really fine for me, just a minor nuisance if I want to go to one of the corners of the map, but still... I wouldn't worry too much about that.
Well, that's a lot of ****s for someone who usually doesn't give a ****. I honestly forgot what else I was going to comment on, and at this point I'm afraid to even try to remember.
I don't want to discuss any of your points, I already voiced my opinion, but about picking stuff up, it was one of things shown in the sergeant gameplay:monoolho 说:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMeqj8WG0a8&feature=youtu.be&t=275
Do not look here 说:
I can’t imagine those animations being a priority, so they’ll probably keep adding them as we move towards release.
The Bowman 说:
You are simply and straight wrong. And missed my whole point.
Let me ellaborate:
Calling a design decision incorrect just because you don't like the level of realism implemented is WRONG.
Let me further ellaborate:
It is up to the developer decide what is correct and realist inside the world they are creating.
So that's my whole point, you may disagree with TW's level of realism, but no one should be self entitled to the point of telling them what is correct or incorrect regarding level of realism. I'll repeat, TW puts the standard, not you and me. And if they opt to listen the ultra-realism bandwagon someday, I'll be okay with it, because it's their game not mine.
KhergitLancer80, thanks for the support and understanding.KhergitLancer80 说:
lolbash +1lolbash 说:
FBohler, but judging by your comment, the impression is as if you are the main developer of the game. You tell us what we can offer, and what we should not offer.FBohler 说:
FBohler 说:
All I can say is you're being very picky with the meaning of my points, while I'm trying my best to promote a balanced, chilly and reasonable approach in any discussion regarding development. I guess there is no reason to argue on this anymore.
Yaga 说:
I will repeat myself once more: you may disagree with the developer's design choices regarding realism, but you shouldn't say you're "correcting" them or "pointing mistakes". That's just your opinion on how much the game should look real, but the game might be as unrealistic as TW decides it to be, and this is not a mistake, it doesn't need to be corrected.
Do not look here 说:
I had honestly forgotten that. And now that I saw it, the flashbacks came that I was stupidly amazed by that. I will have to rectify my OP now.
Still as
has said, that's being optimistic, the most likely course of action is that it will stay as it is, and it may not fit every occasion, so in some instances it may look awkward, and the biggest problem is that AI will not do it as well, only the player would do it, else they would have to recode a huge part of the AI and it is too late at development for that to happen. Nevertheless, it's nice to know that they cared enough to put that there.AmateurHetman 说:
We have to remember that it has been a year and a half since that siege video.
Between then and now, issues with gravity may have been fixed.
Between then and now, issues with gravity may have been fixed.
With Yaga you have to be sure it's him and not the auto-translater that creates this tone. Sadly I don't speak russian so I wouldn't be able to tell.FBohler 说:
I personally believe that letting the ai pick up weapons and other things like stones or just random heavy objects for throwing should be implemented. especially when it comes to shields, ranged troops and weak/unarmed troops it is vital in a prolonged battle to have your troops be able to restock after a skirmish.monoolho 说:
It would also give an interesting choice between looting weapons which leaves your troops very vulnerable for a short time and keeping formation which would disadvantage their fighting capability long-time.
SenorZorros 说:
I completely agree, the problem is that the game is already designed the way it is, and implementing such a change would take ages. As TW has mentioned countless times, they often had to go back and redo a lot of stuff, and making such an implementation would require the same effort once more. I would keep a feeble and dim light of hope for it in the future, if they ever find it useful and interesting within their programming, that they could implement it in an update or expansion pack. But for release? I highly doubt it. It's not that I don't want it, I really do, but they can't go around making fundamental changes to their design, which could escalate to more 3 years of development, and we all know how well that goes...
For Yaga and people still complaining about the weapon on the back thing:
I previously said that it is more practical in game design to allow that. For TW to change it to wear the scabbard on the hips would allow TONS of more clipping, which just doesn't look as nice.
However, taking into consideration that it already clips a lot at the moment, maybe... Maybe it's not that bad a choice. It would allow for better cloaks and scarfs to balance on the shoulders and neck without clipping too much with the weapons on the back. One option is to leave the back for axes, spears and bows (as they already are most of the time), but tweak them to be diagonally placed, not straight up on the back like // or ||, but wider than the X angle, so it clips less with cloaks et al.
I don't usually mind the sword on back, it gives the "traveler with a lot of stuff hanging" feel, but when there's cloaks involved... I'd rather not have the weapons on the back. Still, I completely see the design perspective to allow for many weapons with less clipping. Especially with long weapons.
lolbash
Master Knight
monoolho 说:
I also mentioned eariler in the thread that the reasom they might be doing this is also for multiplayer reasons. Its so you can easily see if the person is carrying a one handed weapon, a 2 handed, or both.
Yaga you replied to me saying that you can also have 2 handed weapons with side sheath, but those swords you are talking about were bastard swords. They can both be 2 handed and one handed if you are using shield. But they have terrible speed as one handed weapon and are not as good as the 2 handed weapons.
SenorZorros, it is a pity that you do not speak Russian. But I sincerely try to understand what they write to me. Truth is not always obtained. Sometimes an auto-translator tells very strange, and sometimes even funny thingsSenorZorros 说:
lolbash, yes, it is.lolbash 说:
But I gave an example of the fact that these swords are hanging on the belt and look good there
The animations are looking good and I'm sure they will be great by time of release. The modifiable skeletons is a good forward-thinking addition so you or others could provide expansions or mods for things like camels, elephants or any sort of fantasy creature to ride. I hope for Saxon and Viking colonies in the Americas circa 1050AD where they ride Buffalo mounts Also looking forward to a paid beta in 2018, please do allow me to give you money in 2018 
Also looking forward to a paid beta in 2018, please do allow me to give you money in 2018 
Just wait till A Clash of Kings 2 gets it's dragons and white walkers
On the matter of animation. It looks ok. apart from the characters left foot- notice the size of his boot (what does he wear- 47? also when he swings overhead he should lift his heel a bit- in this gif he basically breaks his ankle- but that's just the work in progess- and much zoomed out shot of 3rd person view that's used for 99% of the gameplay.
As for the matter of weapons on the back- I can't be objective here- as I grew up on Grzegorz Rosinski's Thorgal image- and keeping in mind it's probably not historicaly accurate and not comfortable or even phisically posible to draw- It's just cool looking
In much criticised show "The Vikings" they made this character bischop Heathmund carry his sword on his back. In the last episode during the battle of York- You can see him taking the belt with scabbard of his back and then drawing a sword- just lik Mr. John Snow in the gif few pages back. How's that for historical/anatomical ignorance ?
One thing that is surely great is the devs seem to aim that all weapons will be visible on the character. It sure gives a "serious ready for buisness" look to the models. Maybe such appearence should even give some bonuses to player's renown or reputation (imagine a fully loaded for battle mercenary negotiating terms of deal with some cringing villager or merchant
On the mechanical poin of view- larger polearms, pitchforks, long spears or pikes may look strange on the backs- however I still prefer them on the back than being "drawn from nowhere"- but maybe in those case- carrying them in hand would seem most natural- but will surely raise a questions of storing/toggling thru the weaponry.
To satisfy all- maybe it would be possible to set the destination of 2h weapon scabbard (back or belt) somewhere in the menu or even to give more variety- in character's menu- for every character (if that would not prolong the release date of course
also when he swings overhead he should lift his heel a bit- in this gif he basically breaks his ankle- but that's just the work in progess- and much zoomed out shot of 3rd person view that's used for 99% of the gameplay.
As for the matter of weapons on the back- I can't be objective here- as I grew up on Grzegorz Rosinski's Thorgal image- and keeping in mind it's probably not historicaly accurate and not comfortable or even phisically posible to draw- It's just cool looking
In much criticised show "The Vikings" they made this character bischop Heathmund carry his sword on his back. In the last episode during the battle of York- You can see him taking the belt with scabbard of his back and then drawing a sword- just lik Mr. John Snow in the gif few pages back. How's that for historical/anatomical ignorance ?
One thing that is surely great is the devs seem to aim that all weapons will be visible on the character. It sure gives a "serious ready for buisness" look to the models. Maybe such appearence should even give some bonuses to player's renown or reputation (imagine a fully loaded for battle mercenary negotiating terms of deal with some cringing villager or merchant
On the mechanical poin of view- larger polearms, pitchforks, long spears or pikes may look strange on the backs- however I still prefer them on the back than being "drawn from nowhere"- but maybe in those case- carrying them in hand would seem most natural- but will surely raise a questions of storing/toggling thru the weaponry.
To satisfy all- maybe it would be possible to set the destination of 2h weapon scabbard (back or belt) somewhere in the menu or even to give more variety- in character's menu- for every character (if that would not prolong the release date of course
