Gamescom - Combat?? - Full Thoughts.

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Status
Not open for further replies.

DanAngleland

Grandmaster Knight
M&BWBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
RoBo_CoP said:
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.

Well longer polearms like glaives have the advantage of range over even great swords, so they have some use, but for two handed axes......shouldn't we look for improvements that give them realistic advantages rather than protect factors that are apparently insufficient to make them viable? Such as making their swings shorter range and quicker, rather than swinging axes as far as they can go from the body, so that they don't have the same potential to miss? Or maybe make archery less deadly, at least against armour? The more I read about the performance of armour, even padded garments, the more I am convinced that arrows are too effective in M&B. Mail armour should stop most shots and those that beat it would usually be stopped by the padding underneath. Of course there needs either to be very precise hitboxes that allow all uncovered (by mail) areas to still receive significant damage or, as with the current system, abstract armour values that reflect the areas such as lower arms, legs and faces that are unprotected on a helmet and hauberk wearing soldier, so that mailed warriors aren't completely invulnerable. Still, as it stands, a decent bow and arrows can drain more than half the health of a mailed warrior in Warband via a chest shot, which seems wrong to me. It may be that such a nerf to archery would worry some players who want to see their contribution to the killing of well armoured foes measured; perhaps damage points could be kept tally of or else every kill they contribute to even minutely could get a quarter of a kill point.

In the same vein, mail should be a lot better than it already is against cutting damage so that swords aren't so effective- being chopped/sliced at with a sword won't do serious damage if you are in mail with a padded garment underneath, no matter how big the sword is, so this should be reflected in game. Then axes could be given a blunt damage value in addition to their cutting damage, so that they would have a clear advantage over swords against metal armoured parts of the body.


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?

As I said it isn't the only glaring issue, and yes the face to face poking and whiffing ruins it more for me, but I think Bannerlord has improved AI range judgement. The brief looter fight clip suggests this to me, as does what the devs said about the AI trying to surround the player. I don't think face hugging AI will be such an issue in Bannerlord. Still, the issue will occur occasionally as it does with real players; someone will move in an unexpected way, the polearm swing is too far and the haft hits, so it is worth addressing.

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.


Fair enough, but I don't think this would be a problem. The team is quite large nowadays, and I don't think making the actual change would take that much doing. What might stop them doing it is them disagreeing that it is actually unrealistic or a gameplay problem in the first place, or if they think it will necessitate changes to the way long axes and bladed polearms are swung that they don't think can be resolved easily/quickly/satisfactorily.
Since this thread is supposed to be about more than this issue, what do people think of the ideas in my first two paragraphs about making arrows and cutting weapons much less effective against mail (and giving axes some blunt damage in addition to cutting)?
 

Partizan_Rusi

Squire
Best answers
0
RoBo_CoP said:
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.
What a pile of nonsense, again. I told you exactly how polearms and poleaxes can be more useful when balanced properly. Just example : by moving your mouse Up and pressing LMB you can instagib enemy when your hit landed  on the back of his head behind his shield, because with proper axehead hitbox its more than* real. Ofc they need to fix shield force-field first.

If you fail to see how instakilling weapon can be useful in a fight with armored opponents then I see no point in futher discussion.
 

DanAngleland

Grandmaster Knight
M&BWBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
Partizan_Rusi said:
Just example : by moving your mouse Up and pressing LMB you can instagib enemy when your hit landed  on the back of his head behind his shield, because with proper axehead hitbox its more that real. Ofc they need to fix shield force-field first.
I think that's a good idea, it would give a realistic way for axes to combat shield users. I'm really hoping force fields are a thing of the past.
 

Dasvi2018

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
Partizan_Rusi said:
Ofc they need to fix shield force-field first.
Okay, I have to step in here

While of course it is not realistic, shield forcefield is NECESSARY for M&B mechanics. Let me explain.

Shield forcefield exists to simulate spots that, with small movements, a shield can cover. It exists not to make an inf's job easier but to provide good security when blocking. Without it, several slices and cuts would require extra shield movement that would leave the inf exposes in other areas and needless micromanagement. In fact there is only one weapon that circumvents forcefield (And blocking in general), the hammer, and it is absolutely annoying to get hit WHILE you are blocking. That is why TW doesn't want more block-avoiding mechanics such as overhead instagibs, shield bash etc except when it's either a move with short range (kick) or specialized weapons with short reach and speed (Hammer)

Please accept that in no way we need to drop ease for realism. Also please stop insulting anyone who thinks your evidence is not sufficient and states solid points, you need to learn that you have to see the arguments from the opposing perspective as well!

Awaiting for an answer. Bring the Salt!  :shifty:
 

vonbalt

Squire
WBNWVCM&B
Best answers
0
Dasvi2018 said:
Partizan_Rusi said:
Ofc they need to fix shield force-field first.
Okay, I have to step in here

While of course it is not realistic, shield forcefield is NECESSARY for M&B mechanics. Let me explain.

Shield forcefield exists to simulate spots that, with small movements, a shield can cover. It exists not to make an inf's job easier but to provide good security when blocking. Without it, several slices and cuts would require extra shield movement that would leave the inf exposes in other areas and needless micromanagement. In fact there is only one weapon that circumvents forcefield (And blocking in general), the hammer, and it is absolutely annoying to get hit WHILE you are blocking. That is why TW doesn't want more block-avoiding mechanics such as overhead instagibs, shield bash etc except when it's either a move with short range (kick) or specialized weapons with short reach and speed (Hammer)

Please accept that in no way we need to drop ease for realism. Also please stop insulting anyone who thinks your evidence is not sufficient and states solid points, you need to learn that you have to see the arguments from the opposing perspective as well!

Awaiting for an answer. Bring the Salt!  :shifty:
well in my opinion the shield "forcefield" is only necessary (for the AI) if they don't improve the AI to track attack movements a little better than in warband, for the player character it's just unnecesary since the shield moves with your camera and you can easily just move the mouse up, down, left or right a little and block that attack/arrow/javelin coming at you, this would create a better diversity among shields, want a shield to block really quick? sacrifice protection since it will be smaller, want an amazing shield for shieldwall/testudo formations? sacrifice speed for a larger area of protection and etc etc.
 

Dasvi2018

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
vonbalt said:
Dasvi2018 said:
Partizan_Rusi said:
Ofc they need to fix shield force-field first.
Okay, I have to step in here

While of course it is not realistic, shield forcefield is NECESSARY for M&B mechanics. Let me explain.

Shield forcefield exists to simulate spots that, with small movements, a shield can cover. It exists not to make an inf's job easier but to provide good security when blocking. Without it, several slices and cuts would require extra shield movement that would leave the inf exposes in other areas and needless micromanagement. In fact there is only one weapon that circumvents forcefield (And blocking in general), the hammer, and it is absolutely annoying to get hit WHILE you are blocking. That is why TW doesn't want more block-avoiding mechanics such as overhead instagibs, shield bash etc except when it's either a move with short range (kick) or specialized weapons with short reach and speed (Hammer)

Please accept that in no way we need to drop ease for realism. Also please stop insulting anyone who thinks your evidence is not sufficient and states solid points, you need to learn that you have to see the arguments from the opposing perspective as well!

Awaiting for an answer. Bring the Salt!  :shifty:
well in my opinion the shield "forcefield" is only necessary (for the AI) if they don't improve the AI to track attack movements a little better than in warband, for the player character it's just unnecesary since the shield moves with your camera and you can easily just move the mouse up, down, left or right a little and block that attack/arrow/javelin coming at you.
I think you are missing the point here. I am not speaking about single attacks, yes you can turn the shield there. What if though you are in a groupfight? multiple attacks from multiple angles. Since shield movement is halted after a strike that will leave you vulnerable. Archers are already insane as they are, that would make them more insane.

Also, if TW removes shield force-field WHILE making sure that there is no situation where a shield block that would normally block something doesn't, then I would welcome it.
 

DanAngleland

Grandmaster Knight
M&BWBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
'What if you are in a group fight'- then fight better as a group to keep each other's back covered or accept that having a shield doesn't grant you immunity from being hit. Right now you can block a melee attack from the side, sometimes almost from directly behind, and not get hit because the sword catches the forcefield. It's ridiculous, and just because it is how things are in Warband does not make it sacred or a good idea. We already have pretty good range of movement with the shield, short of covering the feet there isn't a spot that is unprotected at the front. To cover from the sides or rear, turn around!
 

Dasvi2018

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
DanAngleland said:
'What if you are in a group fight'- then fight better as a group to keep each other's back covered or accept that having a shield doesn't grant you immunity from being hit. Right now you can block a melee attack from the side, sometimes almost from directly behind, and not get hit because the sword catches the forcefield. It's ridiculous, and just because it is how things are in Warband does not make it sacred or a good idea. We already have pretty good range of movement with the shield, short of covering the feet there isn't a spot that is unprotected at the front. To cover from the sides or rear, turn around!
What if the shield gets hit, gets dropped from the shield hit animation and an arrow just manages to pass above?
That is what I mean by adequate protection.
 

vonbalt

Squire
WBNWVCM&B
Best answers
0
Dasvi2018 said:
DanAngleland said:
'What if you are in a group fight'- then fight better as a group to keep each other's back covered or accept that having a shield doesn't grant you immunity from being hit. Right now you can block a melee attack from the side, sometimes almost from directly behind, and not get hit because the sword catches the forcefield. It's ridiculous, and just because it is how things are in Warband does not make it sacred or a good idea. We already have pretty good range of movement with the shield, short of covering the feet there isn't a spot that is unprotected at the front. To cover from the sides or rear, turn around!
What if the shield gets hit, gets dropped from the shield hit animation and an arrow just manages to pass above?
That is what I mean by adequate protection.
then the person behind the shield got bad luck, simple as that, in RL people were hit by arrows even using a shield all the time in the exposed spots, sometimes an arrow/bolt even pierced the shield and damaged the arm of the user behind it or the slit on the helmet just to name an even extreme exemple (which we don't have in warband), or javelins that were throw to force the enemy to drop his shield since it would get in his way with a javelin piercing it, a shield shouldn't be an auto-IWIN button against archers/crossbowmen until it breaks or the ranged troops suffer a nerf then

there are some mods in warband that try to fix the forceshield issue and in my opinion shield play is much more fair and less frustating to ranged users (full meele with shield user here, no biased opinion)
 

Dasvi2018

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
vonbalt said:
Dasvi2018 said:
DanAngleland said:
'What if you are in a group fight'- then fight better as a group to keep each other's back covered or accept that having a shield doesn't grant you immunity from being hit. Right now you can block a melee attack from the side, sometimes almost from directly behind, and not get hit because the sword catches the forcefield. It's ridiculous, and just because it is how things are in Warband does not make it sacred or a good idea. We already have pretty good range of movement with the shield, short of covering the feet there isn't a spot that is unprotected at the front. To cover from the sides or rear, turn around!
What if the shield gets hit, gets dropped from the shield hit animation and an arrow just manages to pass above?
That is what I mean by adequate protection.
then the person behind the shield got bad luck
See? That is the behavior I don't want.  Inconsistent, therefore annoying. It may seem little but it actually aggravates many players
 

vonbalt

Squire
WBNWVCM&B
Best answers
0
Dasvi2018 said:
vonbalt said:
Dasvi2018 said:
DanAngleland said:
'What if you are in a group fight'- then fight better as a group to keep each other's back covered or accept that having a shield doesn't grant you immunity from being hit. Right now you can block a melee attack from the side, sometimes almost from directly behind, and not get hit because the sword catches the forcefield. It's ridiculous, and just because it is how things are in Warband does not make it sacred or a good idea. We already have pretty good range of movement with the shield, short of covering the feet there isn't a spot that is unprotected at the front. To cover from the sides or rear, turn around!
What if the shield gets hit, gets dropped from the shield hit animation and an arrow just manages to pass above?
That is what I mean by adequate protection.
then the person behind the shield got bad luck
See? That is the behavior I don't want.  Inconsistent, therefore annoying. It may seem little but it actually aggravates many players
but its just unrealistic to have a shield protect it's user like a force barrier, a real shield should boost your protection, not make you imune to any harm until it breaks, also you have to consider the other side, force shields are annoying AS HELL to ranged users, i'm a full meele knight in M&B always but i can just imagine the frustation of someone who made a shot at me when they clearly saw that the arrow would hit an exposed part but then the shield "magicaly" blocks it
 

Dasvi2018

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
vonbalt said:
Dasvi2018 said:
vonbalt said:
Dasvi2018 said:
DanAngleland said:
'What if you are in a group fight'- then fight better as a group to keep each other's back covered or accept that having a shield doesn't grant you immunity from being hit. Right now you can block a melee attack from the side, sometimes almost from directly behind, and not get hit because the sword catches the forcefield. It's ridiculous, and just because it is how things are in Warband does not make it sacred or a good idea. We already have pretty good range of movement with the shield, short of covering the feet there isn't a spot that is unprotected at the front. To cover from the sides or rear, turn around!
What if the shield gets hit, gets dropped from the shield hit animation and an arrow just manages to pass above?
That is what I mean by adequate protection.
then the person behind the shield got bad luck
See? That is the behavior I don't want.  Inconsistent, therefore annoying. It may seem little but it actually aggravates many players
but its just unrealistic to have a shield protect it's user like a force barrier, a real shield should boost your protection, not make you imune to any harm until it breaks, also as a plus force shields are annoying AS HELL to ranged users, i'm a full meele knight in M&B always but i can just imagine the frustation of someone who made a shot at me when they cleared saw that the arrow would hit an exposed part but then the shield "magicaly" blocks it
Think about it from the other end. When you block you don't think "I am immune to any harm" but rather "I should be safe from that strike/arrows coming". Seeing one pierce that thought makes you wonder why you bring shields in the first place. It's one of those cutbacks from reality to enforce the game's rules of when you are blocking you are safe. Any exception to that is annoying. This is how M&B mechanics operate at their core.

Also it's doesn't "magically" block it, since most shots besides those aiming at feet that are caught in the forcefield would miss anyway.
 

The Meddling Monk

Master Knight
WBNWVCM&BWF&S
Best answers
0
DanAngleland said:
Since this thread is supposed to be about more than this issue, what do people think of the ideas in my first two paragraphs about making arrows and cutting weapons much less effective against mail (and giving axes some blunt damage in addition to cutting)?
I think I mentioned something about the arrows on another thread a while ago.  I would like to see that, as well as the power of the bow and bolts/arrows coming into play.
(Like getting knocked down if you are wearing light armour and are hit by a heavy xbow.)
 

Partizan_Rusi

Squire
Best answers
0
Removing force-field from shield is an upgrade to combat. I think its related to bad shield hitbox too. However when shield hanging on the back it must absorb most damage coming into this hitbox, small shield - small hitbox.
If some bad players need to hide behind the shield in melee then give them heavy and slow tower shields :]

Shemaforash said:
The reason the force-field exists (said from a developer iirc) is to compensate for the movement a real person would make with the shield and with current technology it wasn't possible to do that.
But now they have brand new "revolutionary" Bannerlord.
 

Shemaforash

Marquis
WB
Best answers
0
The reason the force-field exists (said from a developer iirc) is to compensate for the movement a real person would make with the shield and with current technology it wasn't possible to do that.

I'd like to see them pull it off but it would probably change the combat as we know as current combat is controlled by mouse and the shield would have to be controlled differently, probably. It'd also probably mean a big nerf to infantry.
 

Desideratus

Count
WBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
Partizan_Rusi said:
But now they have brand new "revolutionary" Bannerlord.
No amount of fancy mechanics will fix that fact that keyboard and mouse inputs have their limitations. You can not have the mouse providing two inputs smoothly at once; The mouse will either look and move the shield where the player looks, or direct the shield without the player looking in that direction. Not both.
 

DanAngleland

Grandmaster Knight
M&BWBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
You could always have a toggle key to switch between the two modes. But why do you really need to be able to face one way and have the shield face another? There is nothing to stop you crab walking to your destination while protecting your front from missiles.
 

Desideratus

Count
WBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
Could you imagine how awkward it would be to hit the Q key (Or whatever one you bind it to) when you want to move your shield a bit to the left to block something? I would imagine hitting that thing over and over when you want to block a strike would be as tedious as menu navigating in Dwarf Fortress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.