Hitting Multiple People

[ArnulfFloyd]

Thanks Rainbow Dash for understanding, for me Warband is a hard game to play but full of fun

 

[SenorZorros]

As I reminded Orion, shields don't block everything anymore, and you have to pick a direction just like attacking. Therefore, you can't block an attack from the left at the same time as an attack from the right, and definitely not with an enemy in front of you.

This is incorrect. The developers confirmed that shields can still block from all directions, they just take more damage if you block incorrectly.

If that's the case, then it's not quite as bad as I thought, but I still don't like it. However, I've just come to the conclusion that TW's seems to be making it easier to kill troops overall, which is probably an unintended side effect of increasing battle size. Unless you want to double the time it takes to have a battle, you can't double the amount of troops and not change how quickly they die. While I would be fine with longer battles as it would hopefully lead to more tactical fights, i.e. including more skirmishing and maneuvering, it could be the opposite for many people, and I guess that makes sense.

that's not actually true as the troops also have twice the damage-dealing potential

Longer battles and tactics seems interesting but not for a action RPG, are reasonable for a strategy game, I have played Medieval 2 and there have battles which lasts a hour because I set time to slowest but sieges take 30-40 minutes. I like battles in M&B

I actually disagree. While I'm not in favour of 1-hour battles at the moment everything goes too fast. it's two groups charging without tactics 90% of the time. There ought to be room for some more tactics. especially because if you want to be baddass you can always order to charge.

 

[Orion]

The amount of times my argument has been misrepresented, misinterpreted, and "refuted" with out-right falsehoods in this thread is appalling.

From the top, I guess:

Creating a new mechanic to work around a brainless AI doesn't seem like the best idea. There are plenty of ways they could prevent the tedious AI conga line bukkake which happens so much.

- Tell the AI to stand at weapon range rather than right on top of the opponent.
- Prevent the AI from making attacks until it's checked that an attack would actually hit.
- Have the AI stick to a formation position and only stray a few dozen metres from that even when "let loose".

If these things weren't hardcoded or extremely difficult to implement, this could have been fixed in warband. If the problem is with AI, change the AI. Trying to work around it while affecting other mechanics has the potential to unbalance a lot of the game.

Your first suggestion is actually in Warband already, to an extent. Enemy infantry will approach to kick range, then take a step back & hold that position to avoid being kicked. The problem is that they don't anticipate your future movement, so if you take a step forward right as they reach that threshold then they're too close to avoid being kicked. They also don't really respect the range of their own weapons, as it would seem soldiers with polearms and shortswords still hold at the same distance. Also, if you are moving backwards then they seem to get confused and will continue walking forward until they chest-bump you.

Anyway, I'm not making the argument that cleave was added to address this problem, I'm saying that because we have cleave we can address this problem with it.

@Orion

So only these magical two handed weapons is the solution for the problems you are saying after six years of development.

No, I never said that and certainly didn't mean to imply it at any time. As others have mentioned, AI improvements have already been confirmed which should address some of their mindless swarming tendencies. As for cleave's ability to punish poor footwork in MP, it's not the only solution (as cavalry and archers are both potentially more effective against clumping infantry) but it does give two-handed weapons a bit more of a chance in an uneven fight. Given that the MP meta has always sided against using two-handed axes and swords, I feel this is a change that may usher in new, viable team compositions in MP. It's certainly not the only way, though, but the purpose of this topic is to discuss cleave.

Let me present a COMMON scenario for you.  You and your troops are involved in the siege of a castle, and assail the walls.  You find yourself on the battlements behind a handful of your own or allied troops who are engaging the enemy.  You've got 20-40 of your other troops pushing you forward from behind, so you are pressed up against those guys in the front ranks.  At some point, those guys up front are going to lower their shields momentarily while they strike, and some of them WILL take hits.  This is not a matter of "strategy", it's what happens in a fight on the walls or in close confines.

With Cleaving in the game, you can't see through the wall of bodies, and more than half of them have shields in the way, but the guy who momentarily dropped his shield to attack gets hacked to death by a two-handed axe, and you happen to be pushed up close behind him instead of some other random meatbag.  You never even see the attack, never have a clear swing of your own at the enemy, and have no way of stopping it unless you hold your own shield up the entire time.  Game over.  Gee, wasn't that fun.

You're standing in a meat grinder and complaining about getting turned into ground meat. If you jumped in a lake, would you complain about being wet? The solution to the problem posed in this "common" scenario is simple: don't take dumb risks. Besides, if you can't hit your opponent and you can't move, why wouldn't you have your shield up? There's literally nothing else you can do to improve your situation in this scenario, so you should be doing that.

Cleave is most likely going to be practically restricted to two-handed weapons

Except that its not, its for one handed weapons as well and seems to work just as fine. Lets add in a rad whirlwind attack too! Maybe some type of ground smash AoE as well? This is fantasy MMO tier bull****. Its a lazy work around that most people seem to dislike as opposed to just fixing the AI.

This is ridiculous. First of all, I know that one-handed weapons are capable of cleaving, but it is highly probable that they will only be able to reliably cleave from horseback (because of the high speed bonus). It is unlikely that we will be able to reliably cleave with one-handed weapons as infantry; therefore, the most reliable way to cleave as infantry will be with two-handed weapons. Thus, cleaving as infantry is practically restricted to two-handed weapons (which is to say, it is impractical to use a one-handed weapon if your goal is to cleave as they will be difficult to cleave with). The rest of your post is just nonsensical baiting bull****, so spare me that.



Kudos to Rainbow Dash for rightly pointing out how directional shield blocking works. This is very important to remember, as omnidirectional shield coverage is still very much a thing in Bannerlord and is the reason why uneven infantry fights are still entirely winnable when you have a shield. If you have a two-handed weapon then all it takes is two attacks at roughly the same time from different directions to stop you in your tracks, or an archer that has your entire body to shoot at rather than just your head or feet. That's not to mention your inability to defend against couched lance attacks. The defensive advantages of a shield are immense, but the offensive advantages of two-handed weapons in Warband are just more damage and a little more reach. Cleave gives two-handed weapons more offensive capability but leaves all the weaknesses there, and that offensive capability is dependent on your opponents making mistakes. This really isn't a big deal for balancing, IMO.

 

[John the Roleplayer]

Having your shield raised constantly for fear of being hit through other combatants, is as unrealistic and unimmersive as the cleave effect itself. Holding a shield up is tiring. Nobody would actually be able to do so indefinitely, so it should be avoided when not directly necessary. That's why second and further ranks of a formation don't typically raise their shields.

As a reminder, when speaking of realism the argument is not, that a game should be a perfectly accurate depiction of history, but that the appearance of authenticity allows for enjoyable immersion and that

[...] a believable game helps the player make informed in-universe decisions without having to look up every single mechanic individually.
[...]

I believe much of the disagreement on the cleave effect comes from differing player preferences for either single- or multiplayer. Players preferring multiplayer regard it as part of a combat mechanic, where it can have legitimate uses and valid counters. Players preferring singleplayer consider it an event in a roleplaying story, where it breaks immersion as it does not fit within a believable universe.

 

[lolbash]

Having your shield raised constantly for fear of being hit through other combatants, is as unrealistic

Next episode from the hit tv show "people arguing to make Bannerlord realistic";

"Blocking an attack because you don't want to be hit by a weapon is unrealistic"

 

[Revverie]

Having your shield raised constantly for fear of being hit through other combatants, is as unrealistic

Next episode from the hit tv show "people arguing to make Bannerlord realistic";

"Blocking an attack because you don't want to be hit by a weapon is unrealistic"

Sometimes I fear agreeing with you

 

[ArnulfFloyd]

We read Bannerlord: A Modern Odyssey

 

[Bjorn The Broken]

Holding sheild up is tiring physically in real life. Holding sheild up because of this feature is mentally tiring in the game, at least for me.

"Blocking an attack because you don't want to be hit by a weapon is unrealistic since I am behind my soldier."

@Orion

So only these magical two handed weapons is the solution for the problems you are saying after six years of development.

No, I never said that and certainly didn't mean to imply it at any time. As others have mentioned, AI improvements have already been confirmed which should address some of their mindless swarming tendencies. As for cleave's ability to punish poor footwork in MP, it's not the only solution (as cavalry and archers are both potentially more effective against clumping infantry) but it does give two-handed weapons a bit more of a chance in an uneven fight. Given that the MP meta has always sided against using two-handed axes and swords, I feel this is a change that may usher in new, viable team compositions in MP. It's certainly not the only way, though, but the purpose of this topic is to discuss cleave.

Why take a two handed weapon while ranged units in the game? I think it will still be an uneven fight for two handed users when people get used to it since it is supposed to be an uneven fight. But you can say why are you complaining then? Beacuse I don't want to lose or take life by ANY chance by using this unimmersive, unrealistic and not fun feature.

I can even find ok to have that two handed users can one shot any sheild but not this feature.

 

[John_M]

Except that its not, its for one handed weapons as well and seems to work just as fine. Lets add in a rad whirlwind attack too! Maybe some type of ground smash AoE as well? This is fantasy MMO tier bull****. Its a lazy work around that most people seem to dislike as opposed to just fixing the AI.

This is ridiculous. First of all, I know that one-handed weapons are capable of cleaving, but it is highly probable that they will only be able to reliably cleave from horseback (because of the high speed bonus). It is unlikely that we will be able to reliably cleave with one-handed weapons as infantry; therefore, the most reliable way to cleave as infantry will be with two-handed weapons. Thus, cleaving as infantry is practically restricted to two-handed weapons (which is to say, it is impractical to use a one-handed weapon if your goal is to cleave as they will be difficult to cleave with). The rest of your post is just nonsensical baiting bull****, so spare me that.

https://youtu.be/9kcwGFWTxpc?t=626
I don't thinking cleaving with one handed is as unlikely as you suggest. It seems all it takes is two people in the line of your weapon path and for you to kill the first character. And if it is possible I am sure the competitive players out there will be able to control the mechanics to cleave with one handers as often as they like.

And even if the second half of his argument was somewhat baiting, I think that point is still valid. Why add cleave but not a spin attack? Is the application to competitive the only factor? At what point is something too fantasy or MMO-like? I am sure that if a ground pound for mauls is added to stun people in a radius in front of them that it will be used more in competitive playstyles.

If you have a two-handed weapon then all it takes is two attacks at roughly the same time from different directions to stop you in your tracks, or an archer that has your entire body to shoot at rather than just your head or feet. That's not to mention your inability to defend against couched lance attacks. The defensive advantages of a shield are immense, but the offensive advantages of two-handed weapons in Warband are just more damage and a little more reach. Cleave gives two-handed weapons more offensive capability but leaves all the weaknesses there, and that offensive capability is dependent on your opponents making mistakes. This really isn't a big deal for balancing, IMO.

I am not sure about the play styles of competitive, but the "normal" servers I play on are dominated with 2 handed weapons. This feature definitely feels like it was for the cool factor and not balance.

 

[John the Roleplayer]

Having your shield raised constantly for fear of being hit through other combatants, is as unrealistic

Next episode from the hit tv show "people arguing to make Bannerlord realistic";

"Blocking an attack because you don't want to be hit by a weapon is unrealistic"

You are again cutting short a quote without indicating that you do so, (it's still obvious of course), removing the context. You proceed by not mentioning the actual point of the previous post, but injecting something of your own with a completely different meaning. I believe there is a word for that.

 

[Orion]

Why take a two handed weapon while ranged units in the game?

Why indeed? There's currently only one situation in which there is a net advantage in using a two-handed weapon, and that's a one-on-one, uninterrupted infantry fight. It's strongly outclassed in all other situations, which makes them very unappealing and seldom used. Therefore, I think cleave makes two-handed weapons more viable in their niche without making them more versatile, which might make them more appealing as support weapons compared to popular alternatives like pike variants.

I think it will still be an uneven fight for two handed users when people get used to it since it is supposed to be an uneven fight. But you can say why are you complaining then? Beacuse I don't want to lose or take life by ANY chance by using this unimmersive, unrealistic and not fun feature.

"Unimmersive" and "not fun" are subjective, and while you are free to have opinions about things that doesn't mean your opinion on its own is a valid argument. As for realism, I agree that it's unrealistic to cleave clear through an entire person and I hope TaleWorlds has a reasonable threshold mechanic for governing cleave to keep it under control. That threshold could be modified based on the location that was hit, its armor value, and whether or not it was a fatal blow. The game would also need to calculate the weapon's path after the initial impact to see if it collides with any other hitboxes. Which is to say, if you hit someone in the arm and your swing doesn't pass through any other part of their body, then it's quite feasible that your swing would either batter their arm out of the way or sever it and have enough force to hurt someone at the tail-end of the swing. On the other hand, if your swing hit someone's arm and then intersected their torso then it should be highly unlikely that you would cleave through them. This is fine-tuning stuff that TaleWorlds will have to work out during a testing phase to get something that feels right. I think they just have a simple damage threshold for cleaving right now, which kinda-sorta works but could lead to some wonky results like skewering three people with a pike as long as you hit them all in the head or something equally outlandish.

https://youtu.be/9kcwGFWTxpc?t=626
I don't thinking cleaving with one handed is as unlikely as you suggest. It seems all it takes is two people in the line of your weapon path and for you to kill the first character. And if it is possible I am sure the competitive players out there will be able to control the mechanics to cleave with one handers as often as they like.

Captain's Mode videos should all be taken with a grain of salt. We already know that players deal disproportionate amounts of damage against AI in Captain's Mode, and if cleave threshold is based on damage (which I'd guess is likely, as it's a simple solution if not the best one) then of course there will be a higher than normal rate of cleaving. Even then, the one instance of cleaving around the timestamp you linked was through an opponent that died from that swing. My point is that the stars aligned for that cleave, figuratively speaking, so it's hardly a good example of how reliable cleaving is for one-handed weapons.

And even if the second half of his argument was somewhat baiting, I think that point is still valid. Why add cleave but not a spin attack? Is the application to competitive the only factor? At what point is something too fantasy or MMO-like? I am sure that if a ground pound for mauls is added to stun people in a radius in front of them that it will be used more in competitive playstyles.

This line of argument is predicated on the assumption that cleaving is entirely in the realm of fantasy. We know it's unlikely to happen in reality, but it can and has happened, so we know it's feasible. A ground slam attack, though? What are you going to do besides dramatically dig divots in the dirt? You can't actually strike the ground hard enough to unbalance someone nearby unless you're both standing on a seesaw or something similar. Spinning attacks are just as cartoonish and ineffective because of how obviously telegraphed they are and with how unbalanced you become while performing one. Those two examples are also discrete actions performed on purpose, whereas cleaving is just a possible result of actions we already have.

I am not sure about the play styles of competitive, but the "normal" servers I play on are dominated with 2 handed weapons. This feature definitely feels like it was for the cool factor and not balance.

The difference between playing for fun and playing to win, I guess. Two-handed weapons are fun and exciting, but they're so disadvantageous to use that they're a rare sight in competitive play. The coordination of players & skill of archers in competitive settings are generally high, so two-handed weapon users are quickly shut down unless they're in a dense melee where clear shots are difficult to land. Even then, two-handed weapons are supposed to shine in the thick of melee but with the difficulty of blocking two or more opponents at once it's much safer to use a weapon with so much reach that you aren't at any risk of counter-attack (like a pike).

 

[Dethikus]

First of all, I know that one-handed weapons are capable of cleaving, but it is highly probable that they will only be able to reliably cleave from horseback (because of the high speed bonus). It is unlikely that we will be able to reliably cleave with one-handed weapons as infantry; therefore, the most reliable way to cleave as infantry will be with two-handed weapons

Except, it can be done just as easily on foot with one handed as well. Dude did you even look at the OP? FFS theres a gif of a guy cleaving with a one handed weapon. Tell me why a whirlwind attack is too fantastical and is baiting bull****, but MMO tier cleave is okay? Why are you such a adamant defender of cleave, but not whirlwind or ground smash AoE?

It's strongly outclassed in all other situations, which makes them very unappealing and seldom used.

Dude 2 handers are some of the most popular playstyles? Especially naked 2hander, you're literally guaranteed to see them. Hardly "seldom" used. 

This line of argument is predicated on the assumption that cleaving is entirely in the realm of fantasy. We know it's unlikely to happen in reality, but it can and has happened, so we know it's feasible. A ground slam attack, though? What are you going to do besides dramatically dig divots in the dirt? You can't actually strike the ground hard enough to unbalance someone nearby unless you're both standing on a seesaw or something similar. Spinning attacks are just as cartoonish and ineffective because of how obviously telegraphed they are and with how unbalanced you become while performing one. Those two examples are also discrete actions performed on purpose, whereas cleaving is just a possible result of actions we already have.

The groundsmash I'll give you. But a whirlwind is entirely possible, just like a cleave. Really all it is - is a cleave, but with more rotation/a longer swing. So how is that entirely out of the question? A cleave hitting two guys is entirely possible, but keeping that momentum and doing like a 180 spin is instantly out of the realm of Orion approved mount and blade realism?

The difference between playing for fun and playing to win, I guess. Two-handed weapons are fun and exciting, but they're so disadvantageous to use that they're a rare sight in competitive play. The coordination of players & skill of archers in competitive settings are generally high, so two-handed weapon users are quickly shut down unless they're in a dense melee where clear shots are difficult to land. Even then, two-handed weapons are supposed to shine in the thick of melee but with the difficulty of blocking two or more opponents at once it's much safer to use a weapon with so much reach that you aren't at any risk of counter-attack (like a pike).

I'm not in the competitive scene by any means, but literally every tournament or competitive event I've seen, they used two handers. So? Are those not the competitive play you were talking about? Where do tournaments fit in? 

 

[Orion]

The gifs in the OP are from captain's mode.

Captain's Mode videos should all be taken with a grain of salt. We already know that players deal disproportionate amounts of damage against AI in Captain's Mode, and if cleave threshold is based on damage (which I'd guess is likely, as it's a simple solution if not the best one) then of course there will be a higher than normal rate of cleaving.

Which is to say, don't assume those gifs represent the norm for cleaving (the calculations for which have not been explained) when we already know that they are not an accurate representation of the rest of the game (because it was confirmed that players have bonus damage in that mode).

Dude 2 handers are some of the most popular playstyles? Especially naked 2hander, you're literally guaranteed to see them. Hardly "seldom" used.

Context is important. I was talking about competitive play. Speaking of which...

I'm not in the competitive scene by any means, but

Here we go.

literally every tournament or competitive event I've seen, they used two handers. So? Are those not the competitive play you were talking about? Where do tournaments fit in?

I'm talking about one guy with a pike on a team of 8 players, and how that's the kind of two-handed weapon useage most commonly seen in competitive play. Polearms get extra utility from being able to stop horses and can inflict a longer stagger effect on infantry. What does a two-handed sword give you? I've never seen anything approaching regular usage for them and I played competitively for years + hosted tournaments.

As for the whirlwind stuff, I feel I already said enough about that.

 

[lolbash]

(because it was confirmed that players have bonus damage in that mode)

Do you remember where this was said?

 

[Bjorn The Broken]

In this kind of competitive game, you can easily understand two handed weapons are very poor choice since the teams always want to use archery and javs. I never played a competitive game but watching a few this kind of game is enough to understand why people avoid two handed wapons.

By Orion assumption(If you doesn't have any insight info), TW want to give these weapons a chance in competitive games with these magical power(sorry, this is the only word I can choose for this feature).

I hope TW will give an option to turn off this feature in SP or will do better and discard it from the game or find a new way, which I can not think of, for two handed weapons being able to be a viable choice, which actually is not supposed to be, If Orion is right. For those who want to play BL MP like me, good luck with this feature.

@Orion

You are right. Immersiveness and fun is subjective. With this feature, I don't feel like I am in the realm of Calradia.

 

[lolbash]

With this feature, I don't feel like I am in the realm of Calradia

It is important to know that Calradia is a fictional fantasy world that is invented by Taleworlds. It is ultimately Taleworlds that decides what Calradia's facts and fictions are, and what rules its universe will follow, and not you. Therefore I don't think we should be talking about what Calradia should and should not have, because this is someone elses work of fiction and they have the ultimate authority over what is right and what is wrong.

If Taleworlds thinks that AOE attacks for two handed weapons are suitable for the world, then concerning immersion we should not complain.

 

[Bjorn The Broken]

Do not need to remind me that:

@Rainbowdash

Nah, this kind of combat features need to be realistic and fun at the same time. Isn't killing a horse with one swing already fun? But no, make it two and become Hercules which is something out of Calradia. The decision belongs to TW nonetheless. But if they don't remove this, I will be disappointed.

Lastly, I can share any feeling of me about the game so don't butt in and why there is a forum for this particular reason then? You are completely out of your mind with your sentences.

 

[lolbash]

Because you are allowed to share your opinion I am not?

 

[Bjorn The Broken]

You said:

If Taleworlds thinks that AOE attacks for two handed weapons are suitable for the world, then concerning immersion we should not complain.

While on the other hand, one of the main reason of this forum is giving feedback which can be complaining. If you apply this idea of you, not complaining about TW's daecision, to whole forum then why there is a forum. So your sentence is pointless to the core. Have a good life.

 

[lolbash]

Important word to watch

concerning immersion

You are still free to complain about balance, which is what the last 15 pages of this thread was about, but I am saying how when we are concerning immersion, it is stupid to talk about because of reason I said above.

Im assuming you probably took it the wrong way and thought I was mocking the entire thread, but I was only talking about the specific topic immersion. Because of language barrier since you are turkish, or you just want to lash at me, but either way I hope this clears thing up.