Gamescom - Combat?? - Full Thoughts.

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Best answers
0
Partizan_Rusi: It's fine to discuss and criticise but I think I've had about enough of you insulting other users. Please keep discussion to the game if you can't be nice.
 

kuwhar

Recruit
Best answers
0
On that note, how about full controller funtionality for the PC? As in allowing me to navigate menus, move on the map etc. not just combat and slowwwwwwly dragging the mouse pointer with the sticks.

Right now i basically play with a keyboard, mouse, and a controller but having it all rolled into the controller would be a godsend.

And yes I know controllers on a PC game is taboo but i've played plenty of games with just mouse/key and i prefer a controller.
 

TMAN76

Recruit
Best answers
0
My biggest concern with any melee changes that they could change/add is that the game that we know would cease to be the "easier to learn, hard to master' esqe game. I don't want Bannerlord to have the most realistic attacks or parries in it, nor do I want stances or different kinds of blocks like deflection and hard blocks.

The biggest problem in my eyes with a game that takes into account those systems is that the game starts to lose its simplicity, which makes the game more frustrating to play. Take a game like counter strike: I don't think there's one advocate in the world that will say that it is a very realistic game in any means (what with jump scouting and all that nonsense), but it is a very competitive game which is enjoyed by a lot of players around the world. So, take for instance that the game counter strike over the years becomes increasingly more and more realistic, sort of how some are advocating for the melee changes in Bannerlord, and the game takes into effect more complex bullet ballistics like wind, stamina, iron sights, etc. All of these changes would create a game that is more realistic, yes, but is more dependent on "realism" and not dependent on player skill.

So lets go back to Bannerlord. The brilliance with games which are simple is that imo, they are less frustrating. In a game like Warband, I get frustrated with myself if I lose a melee fight because I know that I was the one who failed because I wasn't good enough, not that the game has some bizarre system which feels strange and awkward to use. For example, reflexes, which every human has and can display in a numerous amount of ways, and the most important thing is that in a game like Warband it feels comfortable to play. Sure, we have to teach ourselves the appropriate response to those reflexes, but those come rather easily because the game is simple. Stuff like a stance system which I would think would feel very stiff to play having to constantly changing stances and then block.  Things like weapon glancing, (although I do admit needs to be added to the game in some degree) I do not want simply because It would feel strange for many players and more reliant on those systems rather than a player skills that we can apply in game. In real life, it's very different seeing as you can actually feel the weapon in your hands and where it actually needs to go. However, this is a game, and although gadgets like VR have made some very good headway, I don't believe something like Virtual Touch will be coming any time soon, at least for us consumers.

So anyway, that's my take on all of this. I could keep going but I think I've said what I've wanted to say.

tl;dr
Basically, Warband is successful by being simple, by using mechanics that feel right, and not using mechanics which we can't feel at all.
 

Reapy

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Best answers
0
I agree with your points, but I think there is some room in warband to develop a few more mechanics without harming the ease of learning.  I think I posted it before again but if you look at smash brothers, it still has a bunch more inputs than warband, but is still considered highly accessible.

For stances, I think I would hate having to change stance mid play (like blade symphony), but I think it might be cool with the stance tied to the weapon. I think it is even realistic to expect that one wouldn't use an axe like a sword or spear and therefore have some slightly different looking attack animations.

Even if each type of weapon had a few different quirks to it in terms of how it reacts or say when you push the kick button with an axe it doesn't kick, but does something reasonably similar (yet different) than a kick, it would not increase complexity in a bad way.

So anybody could pick up an axe after having used a sword for a bit, understand how it controls, but feel a little awkward in its use until you get the hang of it, but aren't going to be struggling with the controls much.

I think that would still fit in without taking away from the simplicity. 
 

The Meddling Monk

Master Knight
WBNWVCM&BWF&S
Best answers
0
Reapy said:
Even if each type of weapon had a few different quirks to it in terms of how it reacts or say when you push the kick button with an axe it doesn't kick, but does something reasonably similar (yet different) than a kick, it would not increase complexity in a bad way.
It would be cool if you could do some sort of push with the shaft when you have a two-handed axe. 
 

Vissy

Baron
WBNW
Best answers
0
I like the different stances for different weapons.

I think weapon glancing can be judged by skilled players (when an attack is going to glance and when it won't), and reacted to very quickly, even I've done this many times.
 

Partizan_Rusi

Squire
Best answers
0
Captain Lust said:
Partizan_Rusi:
Still why TW is ignoring all valid questions regarding combat ? Do you as player agree that only head of the long pole weapon must deal full damage, while shaft making less impact ? We have waited more than enought for these few seconds of combat.
Is combat blog coming ?
 

Kragen

Grandmaster Knight
WB
Best answers
0
Partizan_Rusi said:
Captain Lust said:
Partizan_Rusi:
Still why TW is ignoring all valid questions regarding combat ? Do you as player agree that only head of the long pole weapon must deal full damage, while shaft making less impact ? We have waited more than enought for these few seconds of combat.
Is combat blog coming ?
No
 

Fietta

buıʇʇǝs uoıʇɔǝɹıp ʞɔɐʇʇɐ
Subforum Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Partizan_Rusi said:
Captain Lust said:
Partizan_Rusi:
Still why TW is ignoring all valid questions regarding combat ? Do you as player agree that only head of the long pole weapon must deal full damage, while shaft making less impact ? We have waited more than enough for these few seconds of combat.
Is combat blog coming ?
That would be cool, making the shaft basically blunt/deal a lot less damage. Although I like the fun arcade-like combat that M&B has :smile:. I'm looking more for fun combat and not realism, so are most people I believe :razz:
 

RoBo_CoP

Count
M&BWBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
Not to mention that pole-arms are a very niche weapon as is. Nerfing them would only due to make them nothing if not useless outside of the most casual of settings.
 

Fietta

buıʇʇǝs uoıʇɔǝɹıp ʞɔɐʇʇɐ
Subforum Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
RoBo_CoP said:
Not to mention that pole-arms are a very niche weapon as is. Nerfing them would only due to make them nothing if not useless outside of the most casual of settings.
Agreed, it'll also be extremely difficult to always hit people with the head of the axe, it can also be extremely annoying if you're trying to fight someone in a 1v1 and you have an axe and you'd have to hit them with the head. Polearms are bad as it is, as robo said, nerfing them would basically make them not useable.
 

DanAngleland

Grandmaster Knight
M&BWBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
In the case of axes and similar weapons, I think the animations are quite a bit different in Bannerlord and the horizontal swing is not so wide. That should make landing the head even easier with an axe. Also, a long axe shouldn't always be as effective at very close range as a sword- if you swing and your opponent moves closer to you than expected, and your shaft makes contact first, why should you be rewarded with full blade damage when you misjudged the swing? Axes already have an advantage against shields and a little more weight than a sword, which can help them get one hit kills even against heavily armoured foes.

Furthermore, the brief multiplayer clip (in the replay showcase) showed a thrusting animation with the head of the axe, where the axe is drawn back far enough so that the head is not far ahead of the player's body. In other words, it gives you an attack you can do with the axe at point blank range.
 

Partizan_Rusi

Squire
Best answers
0
RoBo_CoP said:
Not to mention that pole-arms are a very niche weapon as is. Nerfing them would only due to make them nothing if not useless outside of the most casual of settings.
Again, thats nonsense. Properly balanced polearms with good axehead hitbox and hitting like a truck could be overpowered in group battles instakilling armored enemy and shrekting shields up. Its all about numbers and using weapon properly.
So its still niche 2-handed weapon and you are intentionally going for serious damage discarding a shield.
No need to make up nerfs from "spherical vacuum". What really need nerf now its instakills with wooden shaft on Bardiches and long Bardiches, thats just ridiculous.


DanAngleland said:
In the case of axes and similar weapons, I think the animations are quite a bit different in Bannerlord and the horizontal swing is not so wide. That should make landing the head even easier with an axe. Also, a long axe shouldn't always be as effective at very close range as a sword- if you swing and your opponent moves closer to you than expected, and your shaft makes contact first, why should you be rewarded with full blade damage when you misjudged the swing?
When axe head slightly touches body its bad, but we can live with that.
Main issue is the full damage hits made by long shaft somewhere at the beginning of shaft when axehead nowhere near or even with your fist that holds the shaft. http://i.imgur.com/FpSFzST.jpg
 

Kragen

Grandmaster Knight
WB
Best answers
0
Partizan_Rusi said:
Main issue is the full damage hits made by long shaft somewhere at the beginning of shaft when axehead nowhere near or even with your fist that holds the shaft. http://i.imgur.com/FpSFzST.jpg
:facepalm: #softspot :meh:
 

RoBo_CoP

Count
M&BWBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
Partizan_Rusi said:
Again, thats nonsense. Properly balanced polearms with good axehead hitbox and hitting like a truck could be overpowered in group battles instakilling armored enemy and shrekting shields up. Its all about numbers and using weapon properly.
They hit like trucks now and no one uses them for the same reason hardly anyone uses anything without a shield; ranged weapons rule in a team setting. I've said then in an earlier post, the only place pole-arms find any success is in the most casual of settings, either in single-player or where archers couldn't hit the broad side of a castle. Anyone who's poured as many hours as I have into the game will attest to that.

Then you have to consider the choices of two handed weapons. Swords and hammers have much more utility over any two handed axe. Hammers are gimmicky, in that they can crush through shields making them a good ambush weapon. Swords, on the other hand, provide consistent damage and are much easier to handle. With the extra speed and feints it's much easier to kill, and unless the opponent is using a board shield, you can destroy a shield just as quickly. Especially since you can sneak in more hits with a sword, much faster than other weapons. Even against cavalry the stabbing motion makes it much easier to both deter and kill charging horses.

Both the two-handed sword and the axe: one shot horses, stun blocks, are mid range weapons, deal high damage, can not be used mounted, expose you to archer fire, have wide arching swings(more difficult to use in team fights), have less utility than spears :

You're kidding yourself if you think that making the pole-arms in the game the way you want will make them more useful. It only serves to appease your want for a more realistic game, at the expense of actual game play mechanics. As if it's the only issue that can be addressed, of the plethora of other problems the game has.
 

Small_Battle

Recruit
Best answers
0
Partizan_Rusi said:
When axe head slightly touches body its bad, but we can live with that.
Main issue is the full damage hits made by long shaft somewhere at the beginning of shaft when axehead nowhere near or even with your fist that holds the shaft. http://i.imgur.com/FpSFzST.jpg
I don't think that it's an issue.
 

DanAngleland

Grandmaster Knight
M&BWBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
RoBo_CoP said:
Partizan_Rusi said:
Again, thats nonsense. Properly balanced polearms with good axehead hitbox and hitting like a truck could be overpowered in group battles instakilling armored enemy and shrekting shields up. Its all about numbers and using weapon properly.
They hit like trucks now and no one uses them for the same reason hardly anyone uses anything without a shield; ranged weapons rule in a team setting. I've said then in an earlier post, the only place pole-arms find any success is in the most casual of settings, either in single-player or where archers couldn't hit the broad side of a castle. Anyone who's poured as many hours as I have into the game will attest to that.
Your argument is that nobody uses the two handed axe in hardcore play so don't solve the issue? Firstly, clan matches aren't the most important part of the game, there are always more casual players, and to most people glaringly unnatural actions break immersion and thus enjoyment- I get the feeling some clan players wouldn't mind if weapon models were replaced with furniture or vegetables as long as they could learn what each one did. Secondly, the issue is an annoyance for singleplayer too, it simply doesn't make sense and thus niggles at the player. Thirdly, not changing something that is obviously wrong- even if you were correct that nobody uses the weapons- is not a good argument for leaving it untouched.

I'm not saying it is a huge problem with the game (and Partizan has made a meal of it in this thread and past ones) but it is a small flaw and it would serve both single and multiplayer, especially the latter, to have it changed. It is simply an error to treat the shaft as if it is the same material as the blade. The game isn't a perfect thing with nothing that can't be altered or removed, and I certainly don't think changing this could cause a problem. What does it add to the gameplay? You even argue that they aren't used......
 

RoBo_CoP

Count
M&BWBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
RoBo_CoP said:
As if it's the only issue that can be addressed, of the plethora of other problems the game has.
When we hung up on these the hitbox for a pole-arm, we're missing many much more important issues. If other changes are made to the game that make two-handed weapons even slightly more viable, I'd like for pole-arms to be a good option over something else. Making the 'realistic' changes to them would keep them unused in that context, the primary thing I'm arguing against.

Secondly, the issue is an annoyance for singleplayer too
The AI is primary concern then. They completely lack ability to position themselves optimally, why would pole-arm hit-boxes be the thing that glares out at you? I assume the sight of two armies pressing and gently poking each other with spears n maces clubs only rustles my jimmies?

Thirdly, not changing something that is obviously wrong
If there is only so much a small dev team can work on, there are plenty of other things I'd prefer they work on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.