Hitting Multiple People

[Ki-Ok Khan]

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.

Maybe they missed it. They are not gods. Even their screenshots they release for dev blogs have tons of bugs in them...
They yell from the top of their lungs at every opportunity that "EVERYTHING IS WORK IN PROGRESS"
You can assume whatever you want. It looks clear to me that it was a netcode issue.

 

[KhergitLancer80]

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.

Have you ever watched the first siege video ? The guy's hand holding the mangonel was reverse.

 

[wormydowg]

"Realism > Fun" is a strawman which only a couple of people in hundreds upon hundreds of posts on the topic have ever suggested. Given how nebulous a term "fun" is in comparison to "realism", it's not even worth addressing.

Sorry, but i wasn't even recognizing the logical fallacy in that.

Sorry lets just take a post to recognize this.

-------------

Also lets make the game realistic as possible. Why do you guys want a fun game? **** fun, I want a worth while experience, an immersive experience.
This game should drag you in, and beat you with a stick, and you keep coming back because your curious. This game should be built to last, If you aim for fun then its just going to be a fair weather game.

But if this game gives you an accurate experience to live the lives of our ancestors, You will always find your self coming back to it not because you are having fun, but because you are learning, exploring, and getting to step and walk around in history!

Tons of people died in the dark ages. Pay your ****ing respects.

IF you don't agree with my point, then you hate puppies, and are ****ting in the faces of all those who died in the medieval days.

 

[vicwiz007]

Maybe they missed it. They are not gods. Even their screenshots they release for dev blogs have tons of bugs in them...
They yell from the top of their lungs at every opportunity that "EVERYTHING IS WORK IN PROGRESS"
You can assume whatever you want. It looks clear to me that it was a netcode issue.

"they missed it"... are you serious? They missed the clip that they specifically took out of a match and used to represent the thing they captioned it with? Surely youre just trolling.

If anything, you are assuming it was a netcode issue which is the mistake here so heed your own advice. Basically everything talked about in Bannerlord is either assumptions or speculations.

Have you ever watched the first siege video ? The guy's hand holding the mangonel was reverse.

I didnt notice that, but thats beside the point. First, that was years ago. Second, it was not a clip but an entire battle so they arent just cherrypicking their favorite bits to include. If it's buggy, then so be it, they show a few minor visual bugs like that in the unedited gameplay footage so who cares? I dont want to say this again, but they clearly saw the axe clip and thought it was a great representation of what the shock units are capable of.


[size=10pt]Avoid double posting.[/size]

 

[lolbash]

Have you ever watched the first siege video ? The guy's hand holding the mangonel was reverse.

I didnt notice that, but thats beside the point. First, that was years ago. Second, it was not a clip but an entire battle so they arent just cherrypicking their favorite bits to include. If it's buggy, then so be it, they show a few minor visual bugs like that in the unedited gameplay footage so who cares? I dont want to say this again, but they clearly saw the axe clip and thought it was a great representation of what the shock units are capable of.

Taleworlds studio are professional game developers so give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to gameplay features they think that work. Remember, they have played the game and you didn't. Maybe in their game balancingg testingg they found that bezerkers are very weak and need the AOE attack to make them competitive.

 

[Orion]

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.

I also gave you a reason why I think it should be implemented in the first place, which would justify its existence & necessitate learning how to play with it. The reason I gave is actually what you quoted.

For reference:

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.

Allow me to elaborate. There's no benefit to be had in rubbing shoulders with your teammates except to use them as meatshields, and cleave gives people the potential to punish that kind of selfish play. It's also useful in singleplayer, where it would allow you to fend off a swarm of bots more effectively. I'm saying it isn't hard to work around it, and it does provide an advantage to otherwise high-risk styles of play.

 

[Roccoflipside]

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.

I also gave you a reason why I think it should be implemented in the first place, which would justify its existence & necessitate learning how to play with it. The reason I gave is actually what you quoted.

For reference:

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.

Allow me to elaborate. There's no benefit to be had in rubbing shoulders with your teammates except to use them as meatshields, and cleave gives people the potential to punish that kind of selfish play. It's also useful in singleplayer, where it would allow you to fend off a swarm of bots more effectively. I'm saying it isn't hard to work around it, and it does provide an advantage to otherwise high-risk styles of play.

While I still don't think I'm going to be a big fan of cleave, I have to give you props for giving a decent argument and explanation for including cleave. I don't play much MP, so my focus is mainly SP, and in SP I've definitely been guilty of using ai's as meatshields for various reasons, with absolutely no shame. That's what ai are there for, right? I can see how it could be different in MP, but I'm still not convinced it's the best way to go. Hopefully it won't be hard-coded so we can mod it out.

 

[jamoecw]

For reference:

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.

Allow me to elaborate. There's no benefit to be had in rubbing shoulders with your teammates except to use them as meatshields, and cleave gives people the potential to punish that kind of selfish play. It's also useful in singleplayer, where it would allow you to fend off a swarm of bots more effectively. I'm saying it isn't hard to work around it, and it does provide an advantage to otherwise high-risk styles of play.

well in real life there is this thing called a pike formation. you stand shoulder to shoulder and very close to the rank in front of you. everybody levels their pikes (very long spear) in front of them. this creates a wall of spear points that prevents enemies from getting too close. you take the butt (back end) of the pike and brace it against the ground, so that when cavalry charges into you in order to break the formation the energy gets channeled into the ground via the pike, stopping the horse's body. in medieval times the common counter was to use your own pike formation and try to 'push' the enemy over, disrupting their formation. the other alternative was a cavalry charge into their flank. the cavalry charges at the time were very close knit with riders in heavy armor in order to get a lot of mass in a small area to knock over as many people as possible to disrupt their formation. a loose formation was not very effective at a tight formation due to the mass of bodies the loose formation had to deal with.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Allow me to elaborate. There's no benefit to be had in rubbing shoulders with your teammates except to use them as meatshields, and cleave gives people the potential to punish that kind of selfish play. It's also useful in singleplayer, where it would allow you to fend off a swarm of bots more effectively. I'm saying it isn't hard to work around it, and it does provide an advantage to otherwise high-risk styles of play.

Doesn't friendly fire accomplish that in a much less goofy and uneven way? Cleave relies on the player being ganged up on so the idea that it prevents crowding is only applicable with some weapons.

 

[Orion]

Friendly fire is great for that, but I hope we all know that melee friendly fire is MP-only in Warband because TaleWorlds couldn't get the AI to stop hitting each other in SP. The only real detriment in SP is that your swings will be interrupted when they hit a friendly unit, which--combined with the lack of hit detection on bodies--makes for very aggravating AI behavior. As it is, they'll swing into each others' backs endlessly, so if you kill a guy and his buddy behind him is mid-swing then you're going to eat his weapon. The game punishes you for killing someone in an uneven fight, and that makes no sense.

I'm going to hope that TaleWorlds improved AI in Bannerlord to the point where soldiers will attempt to spread themselves around their target and engage it simultaneously, but I'm going to assume that they didn't and the AI will still form angry bozo trains. Even if they do have better positioning, they're probably going to swing into each other more often than they should.

Doesn't friendly fire accomplish that in a much less goofy and uneven way? Cleave relies on the player being ganged up on so the idea that it prevents crowding is only applicable with some weapons.

Cleave is most likely going to be practically restricted to two-handed weapons, in the sense that it will be more reliable to cleave with them as opposed to one-handed weapons. Getting into an uneven fight is challenging with a one-handed weapon and shield, but it's an order of magnitude more difficult with a two-hander because you don't have an omnidirectional block. This defensive disadvantage will still be present with cleave, but the offensive power of a two-hander will be made more significant. It's still not guaranteed, and better positioning is the counter. It's not hard to avoid walking into your teammates in a group fight, so if you do then it's fair that your opponent gets an opportunity to punish your mistake.

well in real life there is this thing called a pike formation. you stand shoulder to shoulder and very close to the rank in front of you. everybody levels their pikes (very long spear) in front of them. this creates a wall of spear points that prevents enemies from getting too close. you take the butt (back end) of the pike and brace it against the ground, so that when cavalry charges into you in order to break the formation the energy gets channeled into the ground via the pike, stopping the horse's body. in medieval times the common counter was to use your own pike formation and try to 'push' the enemy over, disrupting their formation. the other alternative was a cavalry charge into their flank. the cavalry charges at the time were very close knit with riders in heavy armor in order to get a lot of mass in a small area to knock over as many people as possible to disrupt their formation. a loose formation was not very effective at a tight formation due to the mass of bodies the loose formation had to deal with.

Neat. That's a great way to get shot, which is why that fell out of practice around the time of the decline of the Roman empire and didn't pick up again until advancements in body armor made it viable to stand out in the open and not get pincushioned. Then we figured out how to make moderately accurate firearms (at least when used en masse) and we stopped doing that again. Bannerlord exists chronologically in the gap where pike formations fell out of favor before briefly coming into vogue one last time.

Besides, you'll never convince people that running around in a formation in M&B multiplayer is effective. It's demonstrably not, as M&B lends itself most towards skirmishing gameplay and massed ranged fire is enough to dissuade you from anchoring your formation in singleplayer.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

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.

 

[Bjorn The Broken]

@Orion

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

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.

Lastly, I guess no one would want to use their friends as a meat shield but when in the situation, everyone would expect they are meat sheild rather than try to block coming strike. Also what is wrong with sticking togather when you are agianst an offensive unit and trying to beat them in that way?

 

[Ki-Ok Khan]

隐藏

 

[Bjorn The Broken]

隐藏

Listen to the video at 8:54.

So there is a feature of hitting multiple opponents in the game and Callum comments doesn't mean that they exclude this from the game since the debate here is for the existance of the feature not just for cleaving through two horses. We will get a better answer at Gamescom, I guess

 

[Ki-Ok Khan]

Problem is not the feature . It is the net-code. (especially the first gif)
You see this feature working wonderfully in the singleplayer videos.

Just gotta pray that they worked these problems out so it is gonna work flawlessly in multiplayer as well .
With their attention to perfectionism I would put my money on it being fixed upon full release

From the sounds of Callum's reply , they did work on it and solved the issue of killing people before hitting them..

 

[Honved]

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.

Cleaving may be valid under VERY limited circumstances (requiring extremely high strength and skill) against practically UNARMORED opponents (cloth or light leather), but immediately falls into the realm of fantasy against an armored victim.  Even with a completely unprotected target, the attack should be DRASTICALLY reduced, to the point where even relatively light protection will stop it with minimal or no damage to the second target.  Killing one guy THROUGH the other is just ridiculous under ANY circumstance, and killing someone THROUGH a horse requires modern armor-piercing firearms, not a two-handed axe or sword.

 

[Dethikus]

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.

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.

Cleaving may be valid under VERY limited circumstances (requiring extremely high strength and skill) against practically UNARMORED opponents (cloth or light leather), but immediately falls into the realm of fantasy against an armored victim.  Even with a completely unprotected target, the attack should be DRASTICALLY reduced, to the point where even relatively light protection will stop it with minimal or no damage to the second target.  Killing one guy THROUGH the other is just ridiculous under ANY circumstance, and killing someone THROUGH a horse requires modern armor-piercing firearms, not a two-handed axe or sword.

Bravo, hope TW sees this post. It looks completely retarded and out of place in M&B, and can be abused. Not to mention like you said you can get killed with really no knowledge or forewarning. Its unbalanced, unrealistic, and unliked by most of the posters here.

 

[SenorZorros]

small point that a shieldwall is the other standard formation where you again stand shoulder to shoulder with your buddies. standing shoulder to shoulder with your buddies just so happens to be a great idea because you get more attackers per exposed meter and therefore a stronger formation.
which is another reason this feature just isn't fun and is very counter-intuitive...

 

[Revverie]

Guys we can keep it simple: Allowing disable/enable. That's it.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

But with emergent games with interconnected game systems it's hard to do that without creating several unbalanced versions of the game.