Make sense please.

Currently viewing this thread:

bs99amb

Recruit
Game Devs, can we please have a little more reasoning and logic in the game design and features? Some of the perks are just plain silly: infantry wizzing around as if jet assisted; 360 vison for IA troops; Dodging arrows; and auto-blocking peasants. Soo many perks seem to have strange effects, some just do not count unless you are a governor. Skills seem totally exagerated; you start running as though under water and eventually reach a point where you move and run like the Flash. These silly game mechanics do not add any quality to your game. Warband did not need to rely on silly, flashy and non-sensical features that seem only to pander to immediate or short term satisfaction and long term frustration. There are other features in the game that also make me shake my head in wonder; Long Kite shields with Bosses? (they had multiple straps and a fist pad on the inside) Giant round shields that have a speed rating greater than a smaller lighter shield and sythes that do a whopping 59 piercing damage, and when modified by several ridiculous perks, turn a recruit or peasant into a one-shot wonder! Please calm it down and make a "Does this make sense?" pass accross the game and any new features in the future.

I do not need super-soldiers to win, and i do not expect the AI to need them either simple attribute system and learnable skill system worked fine in Warband.
I do not need to be teased with Goveror perks i do not need, make no sense and could not use anyway.
I would like all perks that make no-sense removed.
All equipment needs to be given stats that make sense (most swords are balanced better than hammers, axes and maces, and so would have higher handling and swing speeds surely.
Cavalry does not need to spawn ontop of cliffs to look impressive.
Swinging pole-arms on horseback should result in nasty self-inflicted wounds (much to the hilarity of both your troops and the enemy's).
Archers do not need to pretend to be Infantry to take part in sieges (all are welcome, no prejudice here).
As much as it would be cool to be able to use all bows and cross-bows on horeseback, it is probably just silly and impractical.
Bring back specific item modifiers such as can crush through, bonus against shields.

This is by no means a comprehensive list. Sorry about the inclusion of the odd bug/glitch, (couldn't help myself).

What does everyone think?
 

Lithane97

Recruit
WBNW
It sounds like you are compiling a list of things that sure, don't quite make sense, but at the same time was it even really meant to be that way in the first place? I feel like most the things in the game at this point regarding perks and weapon balancing etc. are very much GOING to be changed, so making a complaint like, "Why are all these things like this???" Seems a bit weird, rather just make a list of all the things that don't logically make sense, then let them decide from there what will and won't work in their game design?
Trying to pin all these little bits down as bad game design is short sighted considering it's abundantly clear that everything in the game is subject to change, and it seems like most of their time is spent just adding in new things, fixing errors that cause the game to be unplayable etc. rather than focusing on balancing as much. They will no doubt get to balancing these things, but it's clearly not a priority for their team.
 
They will no doubt get to balancing these things,

One hopes. As things stand now, the economic system is broken, the AI recruitment is broken, Looters are broken, sieges are ... ok, less broken than Warband, but still ...

Yes, I know, Early Access, but I suspect a lot is working as intended, and if we dont make noise now because its unplayable or not just not as fun as previous iterations - they might stay as-is come release. It doesn't make sense than a peasant with a stick can one-shot my heavily armored PC, its not fun starving because owning a castle is a money pit no matter how many fairgrounds and tax collectors you build. If I'd wanted a boring management sim I'd have gotten one of those you own a sports team sims. Its not fun watching your warband break and run because Leadership increases at a snail's pace - even with all 5 bars filled.

There is a lot of cool content, a lot of cool improvements. A lot of work put into the game. Not saying otherwise - but I broke my rule to never buy EA / beta because of my love for the series. I really hope I dont come to regret that.
 

bs99amb

Recruit
Yeah, I have to second this. I mean, we're not riding around with bills or halberds - mounted polearm means spears and lances.
There are some nasty Infatry polearms like the "makeshift sledgehammer" and "rhomphalia" together with billhooks and other two-handed polearms that you can swing from horseback two-handed. I can't help thinking you would chop your own leg off of perhaps your horse's head.
 
There are some nasty Infatry polearms like the "makeshift sledgehammer" and "rhomphalia" together with billhooks and other two-handed polearms that you can swing from horseback two-handed. I can't help thinking you would chop your own leg off of perhaps your horse's head.

I've never tried, but if you can use a bill mounted in this game, that's just historically inaccurate (and this game's tech period is supposed to be based on Byzantium c. 9th cent.). I cant think of any Western example of a two-handed weapon that wasn't a bow. There are plenty of examples throughout history of controlling a mount with your legs, and numerous examples of horse archers - even large bows (just google Japanese mounted archers). And weapons like spears can be either one or two handed. But a strictly two-handed polearm? I just think it would be so heavy as to be impractical - you've got to swing this huge thing and keep your seat? Over and over? Fatigue isn't a thing in this game, but maybe it should be.

Come to think of it, I cant think of any weapon heavy enough to require two hands being used on horseback. I mean, Zweihänder dragoons, maybe could have been a thing (it wasn't) - where the horses are just a means to get from A to B and the soldiers are the biggest you can find. But Zweihänder cavalry? That's anime level wackiness.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
There are some nasty Infatry polearms like the "makeshift sledgehammer" and "rhomphalia" together with billhooks and other two-handed polearms that you can swing from horseback two-handed. I can't help thinking you would chop your own leg off of perhaps your horse's head.
I've never tried, but if you can use a bill mounted in this game, that's just historically inaccurate (and this game's tech period is supposed to be based on Byzantium c. 9th cent.). I cant think of any Western example of a two-handed weapon that wasn't a bow. There are plenty of examples throughout history of controlling a mount with your legs, and numerous examples of horse archers - even large bows (just google Japanese mounted archers). And weapons like spears can be either one or two handed. But a strictly two-handed polearm? I just think it would be so heavy as to be impractical - you've got to swing this huge thing and keep your seat? Over and over? Fatigue isn't a thing in this game, but maybe it should be.

For starters, the kontos -- used by cataphracts -- was a two-handed weapon that wasn't a bow. It was a thirteen foot long polearm used on horseback, wielded in a similar fashion as a pike, rather than a couched lance.

For visual sources, you can argue the weapon depicted here hacking halfway through some guy is either a sword or a polearm, but it is definitely being shown in two-handed use:
Biblia_de_Maciejowski_miniatura_h10.jpg


More to the point:
Swinging pole-arms on horseback should result in nasty self-inflicted wounds (much to the hilarity of both your troops and the enemy's).

There were a number of two-handed polearms used in China and Korea including what is functionally equivalent to the glaive in-game, the Guan Dao or moon sword. Weapons of the type, and similar, eventually found their way to Central Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe -- possibly by way of transmission via the Mongol invasions or simple cultural/military osmosis along the Silk Road.
Sovn_RusVsadnik.JPG

gqXge.jpg

As an aside: interestingly enough, every depiction of a sovnya, guan dao or moon sword (all broadly similar polearms) on horseback that I've seen also shows the user(s) equipped with a bow and quiver of arrows in addition.

Now, with all that before us, there is definitely a saying, "Lots of one-eared horses in the cavalry." So in real life there was a very real risk of striking your own horse with a poorly-directed blow.

But in game terms, the tradeoff and risk is non-existent. Perhaps it could be best reflected by a requirement for a certain threshold of Riding and Polearm skills before it can be wielded on horseback? But it would be a UI nightmare explaining that to players, so perhaps just penalize the use of two-handers on horseback, with the Polearms (or Riding) skill offsetting the penalty?
 

AnandaShanti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
But it would be a UI nightmare explaining that to players
I think we would be explaining it players after they buy a glaive and don't notice the red numbers and can't swing it on horseback. But it would be an okay idea to have multiple requirements, or just riding requirements to equip them at all. But really it doesn't matter, we don't even have FF for non-ranged weapons so the whole "be careful with glaive" is kinda out the window already. Honestly the best part of glaive type weapons is in a Khuzait VS Khuzait fight I can't tell who's who sometimes so I can't shoot, but I can swing wildly and if it's the enemy they die. It's awful when I have Cav on fallow me and I stop and an enemy lancer just rides up to me, stands there for a second then stabs me in face.
 

Silfir

Regular
There's a manga called Kingdom that's all about huge motherf****r generals on horseback dueling each other with massive two-handed polearms. Don't take that away from me!
 

Apocal

Master Knight
I think we would be explaining it players after they buy a glaive and don't notice the red numbers and can't swing it on horseback. But it would be an okay idea to have multiple requirements, or just riding requirements to equip them at all. But really it doesn't matter, we don't even have FF for non-ranged weapons so the whole "be careful with glaive" is kinda out the window already.

But I'm not suggesting a general skill gate on using the glaive or rhomp -- I'm suggesting having one for using it on horseback specifically. The game isn't setup to display that sort of thing right now and it would need new iconography so players could understand at a glance (like they do now with no-shield or no-horseback) what the weapon was capable of doing.
 

Bannerman Man

C# Sleuth
Knight
The game isn't setup to display that sort of thing right now and it would need new iconography so players could understand at a glance (like they do now with no-shield or no-horseback) what the weapon was capable of doing.
It could be perk-gated, similar to how you need the Mounted Archer perk to wield longbows on horseback.
 
I've never tried, but if you can use a bill mounted in this game, that's just historically inaccurate (and this game's tech period is supposed to be based on Byzantium c. 9th cent.). I cant think of any Western example of a two-handed weapon that wasn't a bow.

Does it make sense to talk about stuff like this as long as I can use a siege tower as a ramp to jump over the wall with my horse? :grin:

It´s still a game :wink:
 

Elbromas

Recruit
The only thing I agree with this post is running like the flash at mid-late game, its quite weird entering a town and being an incredible athlete, even walking is messed up lmao
 
It could be perk-gated, similar to how you need the Mounted Archer perk to wield longbows on horseback.
Bye bye Khan's Guard then. Perks don't work on regular troops and judging by how they're designed, I don't think they will be. Which is a shame. Perks could add some distinctive differences between seemingly similar troops.

Bring back specific item modifiers such as can crush through, bonus against shields.
Isn't this already a thing? Axes can cleave, and have a bonus against shields and wood.
 

Lithane97

Recruit
WBNW
One hopes. As things stand now, the economic system is broken, the AI recruitment is broken, Looters are broken, sieges are ... ok, less broken than Warband, but still ...

Only thing that is seeming REALLY broken to me right this second is the armies never having enough food. I was just watching one of my vassal armies running around and there was like 900 of them in an army, they went to siege a castle and I was standing around smacking enemy armies that came near, I look over and they start dropping in numbers like flies... 1000 men just dying like crazy because AI can't buy more than a days worth of food *smh*.

I'm not sure what you mean by, "the economic system is broken"? Seems fine to me.
Also what is wrong with ai recruitment?
And if your looters are feeling broken, just change the difficulty setting to something other than realism, because that was giving me a headache, getting stoned to death on my horse like they were shooting me with heatseeking missiles. 😡
 

paladinx333

Sergeant at Arms
you start running as though under water

Yeah, at the start of the game the player character is almost useless. Can't walk, can't win a sword fight. It's hard to believe that I "trained with the infantry" when I can't beat a fat man up a hill.
 
Only thing that is seeming REALLY broken to me right this second is the armies never having enough food. I was just watching one of my vassal armies running around and there was like 900 of them in an army, they went to siege a castle and I was standing around smacking enemy armies that came near, I look over and they start dropping in numbers like flies... 1000 men just dying like crazy because AI can't buy more than a days worth of food *smh*.

I'm not sure what you mean by, "the economic system is broken"? Seems fine to me.
Also what is wrong with ai recruitment?
And if your looters are feeling broken, just change the difficulty setting to something other than realism, because that was giving me a headache, getting stoned to death on my horse like they were shooting me with heatseeking missiles. 😡

I had a castle. Fully upgraded tax collector. Villages doing fine, should be, since I have the perk that gives me a village bonus. Kingdom passed the toll tax, with my help. But because of the guards in a castle - you know, the whole point of having a castle - I was loosing 300 gold a day. From just the castle. Add on a small band of 75 troops, quality, I could see losses of 500, even a 1000 gold in a day. I went broke. Stopped playing because I couldn't even recruit some filthy peasant because I didnt have 20 gold. Even if I could by a peasant, couldn't feed him. In other words, I should not be penalized for successfully lobbying my greedy Vlandian leige to stop grabbing every bit of real estate that comes his way and give me a holding. This is not a castle sim - it's a medieval FPS.

Now, you say, well, invest in the nerfed caravans that now get murdered by a moderatly large looter band because the sim automaically kills troops fighing looters no matter the disparity in tiers, or drop ten grand on a smithy. Which I would if I wasnt burning gold so fast I would amost never see that much money.

The AI recruits, I think its what, 25%, of its force just by magic. Just boom, decent tiered troops. You lost a 100 men, have twenty five good ones back, on the house. Now, you, player, you go get some scum and grind them up, no magic heals for you. By the time you've spent the necessary time murderhobo'ing your way through looters, that lord you defeated will still have a better army.

But lets say I want to make things easier. That was what I did with my first game, and it was boring. I could beat armies at 10-1 odds. I was a force of nature. It was so incredibly boring.

So, the economy is broken, the AI recruiting needs a difficulty scale, and armor needs a threshold value. Against piercing or blunt - you have to exceed x damage before damage even register. Your first tier guys should take bashing damage from looters with rocks - they're wearing street clothes, some jerk just lobbed a brick at their head. Your mounted tank should ignore such trifles.
 
The only thing I agree with this post is running like the flash at mid-late game, its quite weird entering a town and being an incredible athlete, even walking is messed up lmao
The animations of someone with really high athletics is almost comical. At low levels you feel like your character is running on ice but once you get it high enough on you feel like you could beat Usain Bolt in a foot race with full armor on. Imho athletics first should be toned down, second it shouldn't affect character speed it should offset the penalties of being on foot while wearing heavier armor or using two handed weapons.
 

Elbromas

Recruit
The animations of someone with really high athletics is almost comical. At low levels you feel like your character is running on ice but once you get it high enough on you feel like you could beat Usain Bolt in a foot race with full armor on. Imho athletics first should be toned down, second it shouldn't affect character speed it should offset the penalties of being on foot while wearing heavier armor or using two handed weapons.
Yeah, I second this by millions. It ruins my immersion so much and it looks dumb, it also feels dumb too.
 
Top Bottom