Hitting Multiple People

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

"overhitting" also exists in warband on a few weapons, even in singleplayer. It's due to a discrepancy between the hitboxes and the visuals, and the fact that some animations can "confuse" the combat model and cause hits or blocks where they shouldn't be happening. It's why pikes in native warband are practically useless.

 

[Firunien]

Pikes useless in Native 

 

[lolbash]

"overhitting" also exists in warband on a few weapons, even in singleplayer. It's due to a discrepancy between the hitboxes and the visuals, and the fact that some animations can "confuse" the combat model and cause hits or blocks where they shouldn't be happening. It's why pikes in native warband are practically useless.

Video?

 

[Honved]

So, thanks to Cleaving, you can stand in the back row of a formation, with a wall of shielded guys in front of you, and are suddenly killed by a blade coming through the giant stack of shields, armor, meat, and bone ahead of you?....or you're standing next to a knight on horseback, blocked from seeing what's on the other side of the horse, when a 2-handed sword comes THROUGH the horse and kills you?  Somehow, that's someone's idea of fun?  You're supposed to prevent this by planning ahead.....how?  Then there's the ambusher hiding behind the tree, who can apparently kill you with a swipe of his magic blade THROUGH the tree.  The ONLY way that I can see damaging multiple armored opponents with one swing would be to have the blade slide across the first to the second standing alongside, and have damage to the second significantly reduced, mainly due to the weapon speed lost in the the first impact.  Having a weapon go THROUGH one character to hit a second behind the first falls squarely into the "Comic Book Hero" realm of unrealistic behavior.  Sorry, but this is supposed to be a somewhat believable pseudo-medieval setting, not a "Super-something-or-other Heroes" cartoon show.

"Fun > Reality" is a bad joke if the "fun" isn't fun (or even funny after the first time you see it) because it's STUPIDLY unrealistic.  That's the kind of thing I may occasionally find amusingly bad enough if/when it happens ONCE to post a screenshot or complaint about, and laugh it off. (I once posted a screenshot from Oblivion with a guard calmly "sitting" horizontally astride his prone dead horse; it was funny when I first saw it, but 3 days later he was still there in the same spot "making his rounds".) If something like that happens a second time, then it's time for a proper bug report.  If it's passed off as "normal" in the game, and happens over and over without being fixed in the next patch, then I'm going to have to consider playing a different game, because it SUCKS.  The most disturbing part is that some players actually WANT this level of stupidity in the game.  Sorry, but your idea of "Fun" and mine don't seem to have anything in common; you've got a heap of corny console action games to play as an alternative, so don't ask the developers to break this semi-realistic game because there aren't a lot of other choices.

 

[ArnulfFloyd]

Fun not is even a good thing because I playing games with fun but no realism, latter I've encounter in mods for Total War games, but semi-realism from M&B series waa and is something interesting for me and Bannerlord will keep a balance between fun and realism

 

[lolbash]

So, thanks to Cleaving, you can stand in the back row of a formation, with a wall of shielded guys in front of you, and are suddenly killed by a blade coming through the giant stack of shields, armor, meat, and bone ahead of you?

Why are you not holdig your shield up? If any if your troops are actually working as intended then their shields should be up and block the attack.

or you're standing next to a knight on horseback, blocked from seeing what's on the other side of the horse, when a 2-handed sword comes THROUGH the horse and kills you?  Somehow, that's someone's idea of fun?  You're supposed to prevent this by planning ahead.....how? 

By not going into wooded areas and not repeating agincourt in the first place.

Again, you intentionally put yourself at a disadvantage by riding a horse in trees and should be punished for stupidity. This is the same thing as running in the open field with no shield and not expecting to be turned into a porcupine with arrows.

And complaining about campers in a first person shooter

 

[Bjorn The Broken]

Why are you not holdig your shield up? If any if your troops are actually working as intended then their shields should be up and block the attack.

Maybe, he doesn't want to use shield maybe he wants to do "fancy moves"

This is the last time I will post this:

"So why am I worried an axe and use my sheild even if I am behind my soldier in the first place? Just explain me where the bloody fun is in that?"

Keep ignoring it to prove that you don't have any reasonable answer for it since there is not.

 

[lolbash]

Maybe, he doesn't want to use shield maybe he wants to do "fancy moves"

Do stupid ****, get punished for doing so, if fancy moves gets you killed, then it would be a very good time to stop doing them.

Also kind of ironic that you want to do fancy moves, but complain about cleaving, which is a fantasy realm move.

"So why am I worried an axe and use my sheild even if I am behind my soldier in the first place? Just explain me where the bloody fun is in that?"

I don't even understand what you are asking here. If I take this lterally, are you asking why should you be scared of an axe and shield when behind a soldier?

 

[Bjorn The Broken]

"Fancy moves" is meant to be sarcastic.

Why do I have to be worried of an enemy swinging his axe and use my shield for protection even If I am behind my soldier? Just explain me where the bloody fun is in that?

 

[lolbash]

Blocking is a core component of Mount and Blade combat. If you don't find blocking attacks fun, im not sure if you are going to even like Bannerlord in the first place.

 

[Bjorn The Broken]

I am sorry my mind is **** right now(what, why, how is this response of you relevant to my question). I can not answer this. Have a good life.

The point of the grand strategy in the firat place is that you avoid the encounter with the ambushing axeman in the first place. Would you also be conplaining when you run into the open field and archers start shotting at you intil you are dead? The fault is entirely on you for not expecting the axeman behind the tree and the axeman should not be punished for setting up an ambush.

You really really really suck at arguing a point. I'm more baffled by this post than anything. Nobody is saying that the player shouldn't be punished for being unobservant. But what that has to do with a cleaving mechanic is beyond my comprehension. It's like you're not reading any of the posts.

This happens in every thread. You propose an idea, people respond with mostly valid criticism, and then you reply to everyone with utterly incomprehensible and completely irrelevant points just to see what sticks. Nobody's going to get angry if you don't respond to everybody's reply. You don't even have to agree with them. But stubbornly arguing for the sake of it is a basement-tier personality trait to have.

100% true.

 

[Orion]

So, thanks to Cleaving, you can stand in the back row of a formation, with a wall of shielded guys in front of you, and are suddenly killed by a blade coming through the giant stack of shields, armor, meat, and bone ahead of you?

I don't see how this is even relevant because a blocked swing won't cleave. If anybody in front of you is blocking (which they should be, they're in front) then you're at no risk of being hit through them.

Why do I have to be worried of an enemy swinging his axe and use my shield for protection even If I am behind my soldier? Just explain me where the bloody fun is in that?

This assumes a lot of things. First, that your friend isn't going to block the incoming attack. Second, that it's going to reliably cleave. Third, that you're standing close enough for that cleave to follow through and hit you. Fourth, that you won't have time to react to this threat and will instead have to anticipate it (by holding your shield up).

There are a number of ways to protect yourself from cleaving attacks that don't depend on holding a shield up all the time. For the sake of argument, let's say that your buddy isn't going to block and that the swing will actually cleave, so what options do you have to protect yourself from this? First and foremost, your positioning relative to your teammate is the best defense you have. If you stand a little further apart from your teammate then there's no way you will be struck by a cleaving attack, and you don't have to stand so far away that you can't counter-attack.  I won't explain the fundamentals of footwork and weapon reach, I'll assume you already know them, so this should be readily apparent. Secondly, if we assume you are standing too close then another option is to chamber-block the incoming attack, which is reactive rather than proactive. My point here is that you are not defenseless against cleaving attacks even if you are in the worst possible position, and you decide what position to put yourself in with your movement.

As for why we should have cleave in the first place, I would say it's to punish people who don't watch their spacing & footwork. Which is to say, it's to stop people from cramming together and encourage thoughtful movement.

 

[Roccoflipside]

So, thanks to Cleaving, you can stand in the back row of a formation, with a wall of shielded guys in front of you, and are suddenly killed by a blade coming through the giant stack of shields, armor, meat, and bone ahead of you?

I don't see how this is even relevant because a blocked swing won't cleave. If anybody in front of you is blocking (which they should be, they're in front) then you're at no risk of being hit through them.

Why do I have to be worried of an enemy swinging his axe and use my shield for protection even If I am behind my soldier? Just explain me where the bloody fun is in that?

This assumes a lot of things. First, that your friend isn't going to block the incoming attack. Second, that it's going to reliably cleave. Third, that you're standing close enough for that cleave to follow through and hit you. Fourth, that you won't have time to react to this threat and will instead have to anticipate it (by holding your shield up).

There are a number of ways to protect yourself from cleaving attacks that don't depend on holding a shield up all the time. For the sake of argument, let's say that your buddy isn't going to block and that the swing will actually cleave, so what options do you have to protect yourself from this? First and foremost, your positioning relative to your teammate is the best defense you have. If you stand a little further apart from your teammate then there's no way you will be struck by a cleaving attack, and you don't have to stand so far away that you can't counter-attack.  I won't explain the fundamentals of footwork and weapon reach, I'll assume you already know them, so this should be readily apparent. Secondly, if we assume you are standing too close then another option is to chamber-block the incoming attack, which is reactive rather than proactive. My point here is that you are not defenseless against cleaving attacks even if you are in the worst possible position, and you decide what position to put yourself in with your movement.

As for why we should have cleave in the first place, I would say it's to punish people who don't watch their spacing & footwork. Which is to say, it's to stop people from cramming together and encourage thoughtful movement.

I think these were mainly focused towards SP gameplay, where your teammates will be ai's rather than players who would be counted on to block and watch footwork and all of that.

 

[lolbash]

I think these were mainly focused towards SP gameplay, where your teammates will be ai's rather than players who would be counted on to block and watch footwork and all of that.

Have you seen the ai bots in action? They will block and use their shields in formations. Its not like warband where they sometimes run at archers without holding up their shields anymore.

 

[Roccoflipside]

Right, but at some point they have to put down the shield. What if the shield breaks since it's being hit with a giant axe a bunch of times? What if the guy next to you goes to attack right when his opponent does? What if one of a million different scenarios happens and your buddy can't block the attack? Blocking every single attack would make the feature, not to mention the whole game, useless.

 

[lolbash]

What if the shield breaks since it's being hit with a giant axe a bunch of times?

Everytime your attack gets blocked, you are stunned for a couple miliseconds and that opens up time for you to attack. In fact, unless you have weapon profiency or weapon speed up to unobtainable levels, this widow is enough to let you attack and your opponent block.

Spamming attacks on a shield usually gets you killed by a competent player. If you stood and let the naked guy hit your shield for a full 10 seconds without attacking back, Im sure this is more on your skill as a player than the cleaving mechanic.

 

[Bjorn The Broken]

As for why we should have cleave in the first place, I would say it's to punish people who don't watch their spacing & footwork. Which is to say, it's to stop people from cramming together and encourage thoughtful movement.

How thoughtful is that If you see the strike and you are behind or next to your ai soldier or your friend, instead of quickly counter the enemy since he is busy with my friend, you have to be worried of "oh wait, is my friend going to block it? Anyway I better block it waste my time" rather than striking the enemy as soon as possible since my ai soldier or my friend isn't supposed to be made of paper.

 

[Orion]

It's not thoughtful of you to put yourself in a position where that's going to happen so often as to ruin your game experience. Don't stand so close to your teammates and you won't get cleaved. I'm pretty sure I explained this in the post you quoted.

 

[Bjorn The Broken]

While I am criticizing the existance of the feature, you are giving me options of how to deal with it. You say "it is not thoughtful". Yes, It's not thoughtful of you to put yourself in a position like that because this feature exists.

 

[vicwiz007]

So , let me get this straight. It sounds more reasonable to you that it is a feature to hit people without actually hitting them than it being a mere bug in the multiplayer?
They always have the disclaimer "Everything is work in progress" I guess that does not mean anything and everything is in final state..

Let me get this straight... You think they would put something so blatantly showing a netcode issue into a video carefully made to show off their game if it weren't intended? Im sorry, but thats absolutely comical. No developer in their right mind would put a bug into a showcase video like this. Please just consider this. It's not like some gameplay we got off the testers at Gamescom. Somebody unironically took that clip and thought it was good enough to showcase. If you don't see an issue with that, then there is no more I can say.

All netcode issue related stuff aside, because there is no evidence of netcode issues in any gameplay we've seen, let alone this specific showcase which was likely done in their office.