Making enemies (selectively!) more deadly

[Destichado]

It's a common enough complaint. After the first twenty or so levels, the game starts to get too easy. We all know it, the problem is: what to do?
I may have part of a solution.


I think it's safe enough to say that the Magnificent 7 mod is currently the most common/popular mod for Mount&Blade. Among one of the first "treats" we got in that mod were rune weapons -weapons that *we* could get, but would not randomly appear in the smithies.

If that's possible, then it's also possible to make entirely new weapon types that are completely unavalable -anywhere. And we, of course, will give those weapons to the enemy NPCs.

Granting speed and/or damage bonuses to certain weapons only equipped by enemy units would make for faster-striking, more danderous enemies. Similarly, by decreasing the weight of equipment and adding additional armour points, we can make them faster/more agile, and hard to kill.
I would suggest that these non-standard equips be limited to the highest-level units -Black Knights, Khergit Raiders, and possibly Vaegir/Swadian Knights and Infantry as well.

Until we get an update that grants tactical sense to NPCs, modding and restricting the equipment should provide an easy way of keeping the game interesting for another ten to fifteen levels.

 

[The Pope]

I quite like the idea for sea raiders, khergit and black knights - They don't seem like the types to sell equipment. As for elite swadian/vaegir stuff, I'd say there should be some way to get their special equipment, but maybe only by attaining certain ranks/doing quests.

 

[Ingolifs]

Units in the game rarely have levels above 20. They need to be given some better skills as well as better armour.

The situation where the player becomes able to constantly attack one person without them being able to hit back is one which we're very familiar with. Heck, my beserker is able to do it with a Great Axe.

However, we almost never get into the opposite situation with a character who attacks too fast for us to counter properly. Occasionally having a leader type NPC soldier with the martial abilities of a level 40 warrior, and really good equipment will put some challenge in certain situations.

 

[MMad]

Units in the game rarely have levels above 20. They need to be given some better skills as well as better armour.

I think what breaks the game isn't so much enemies being low-level, but rather the character advancing to demi-godhood. Sure, putting more epic-level warriors in the game would work as a fix, but it would be very unrealistic. It's already silly that a good player can kill off a whole war party on his own. I don't think that should be possible.

 

[mazzadude]

Why not just add some more unit types. I mean anyone on a horse atm is a god but maybe if you added say pikeman who say made a line etc then cavarly charges would be hel of a lot more dangerous. This though i guess would mean the ai brains would need to be improved alot seeing as they only have one tactic and that is charge.

 

[Maelstorm]

Hero's army should be limited more with charisma and rank, as in, no knights if you dont have over x charisma or no vaegir knights if you arent a vaegir gmaster knight etc
or simply, you cant have characters on your army who are more than five levels closer to you.. uhmm. I mean, if you are level 20, you can have 15th level NPC's at most. Heroes may be an exception to this, so they'd be even more valuable. The formula may change like 5 levels lower than "your level+(leadership/3)" or something. With a proper edit of NPC levels, game would make more sense and would be, imho, more fun.

The hero also should be really limited on weapons and armor. If you find one from an enemy (and its not too hard to defeat enemies if you go solo) or got the money for it, you can equip the best.. equipment. Even if you are dont know much about fighting and just made money by being a merchant you can wield most of the weapons and all of the armors.

I dont think this is fair. Maybe an armor skill maybe added. And equipment should be really really limited. What does it take to use a Sniper Crossbow? Not much. If the game's level cap was about 30, well it'd be ok. But its not, so some changes should really balance the game. A character shouldnt be able to have done everything on 20~ levels.
We need more skill/stat requirements for weapons and equip.

At least, this is what i think would be nice. Most of them are ideas that are around anyway.

 

[Wanderer]

While a hero enemy commander or the like might be enjoyable, I believe there are a few intermediate steps that need to be achieved for simple parity.

I should not, ever, be able to tackle a horde of dark riders solo. One by one, distracted by my troops, slaughtered in the back... sure.

Solo? Nope.

The largest problem with the AI at this time is that the objects have little to no integration with friendly objects. They are independent objects with a scanning for closest enemy object. They don't scan other local friendly objects, and they're about as bright as a doorknob when deciding where to go with their bows (that goes for the enemy, too).

If friendly AI could even determine the pathing of friendlies (how often do you see fellow horses run into each other at the beginning of a fight, and it's quite obvious where that friendly horse is going...) it would be more competitive.

Giving stronger enemy heros would be a bandaid on a bullet wound...

 

[Sir Prince]

Officars aka mini mini mini bosses.

 

[MMad]

I should not, ever, be able to tackle a horde of dark riders solo. One by one, distracted by my troops, slaughtered in the back... sure.

[...]

Giving stronger enemy heros would be a bandaid on a bullet wound...

Quoted for emphasis.

Coding the kind of group behaviour you mention would most likely by very tricky, not to mention CPU intensive.. but some sort of improvement in that area would probably help a whole lot.

I don't know how the AI is coded at the moment, but I think I perceive a need for a greater degree of situational awareness. We've all see a knight charge straight into a bunch of infantry, only to get stunlocked and killed, right? They shouldn't do things like that.

Of course, if every NPC played just as cleverly as the player, you'd have a pretty strange game.. knights would be useless, since all archers would just sit on top of hills, shooting them in the head as they try to climb up. Yeah, I dunno..

 

[Sir Prince]

Have a less common, high experiance requiered unit that's effectively an officar or leader of some kind...

 

[Questor]

Lack of purpose beats being high-level.

Surviving crippling wounds is a nice game feature: you can't die, and you get the XPs from the encounter.
Problem is: you'll eventually out-level your foes, so even if they kick your arse, you can come back for more until you're experienced enough to defeat them.

Having the foes level up as well could work, but smells of DnD.
Creating high level goals could work, but sounds fake.
Problem is with level itself.
Levels are DnD related.
M&B could do without; as Dark Lands and Knights of Legend [more or less] did.

M&B is about simulating fight.
I think we could do without level and classes, and have chars get better at what they do [GURPS style].
They wouldn't have skills and levels.
Everything would be a scored proficiency, and skills would raise through practice and training, both taking time, money and effort.

It's already coded in the game: fighting in the arena/training hall allows chars to build proficiencies up without gaining too many XPs.
We could extend it to non-weapon skills as well.

This would give a stronger sense of purpose and immersion: chars wouldn't level up for completing quests - something I find artificial.
They'd get more experienced by travelling around and fighting.

Without levels, chars could start out competent already, and game could focus on combat and plot - with little DnD-style level building.

 

[The Pope]

I agree, levels are an obsolete system designed to allow experience to work on paper. They are unnecessary and artificial in computer games.

 

[MMad]

I agree, levels are an obsolete system designed to allow experience to work on paper. They are unnecessary and artificial in computer games.

Hear hear.

 

[Questor]

I agree, levels are an obsolete system designed to allow experience to work on paper. They are unnecessary and artificial in computer games.

Now that was terse.
I wish I were as laconic.

Glad you agree, though.
My idea could break present games - so I guess players could complain if it were implemented to M&B.

 

[pandaman]

I agree with questor, I think it would be cool to gain skill with certan weapons by using them, this would give tournaments more meaning than they do now.

 

[compfreak]

Yes! Raising skills by useage is great, since it is realistic and makes the game longer and more fun. It would also help eliminate the godliness of high-level chars.

 

[Sir Prince]

Yes, good idea! Make levels after lev 15 harder to reach, lower the bonuses slightly, and make usage more important. But also create a cheat so if oyu want ou can still make some uber char (wich does get boring, I admirt, but now i am getting back into cheating less)

 

[okiN]

Armagan said that in addition to raising the level cap he'd make advancing to the higher levels more challenging. Wait for the next version, then start this discussion again if you still feel it's necessary.

 

[Can O Soup]

Hopefully by more challenging he means some kind of special feats you have to perform. Like, to get over 5 in power draw you would have to get at least 20 head shots in one battle.

 

[okiN]

Doubtful.