No offence, but I don't feel like that his post was overexaggerated, it's just same old problem that we are bored to hear. Stances serve no real purpose at their current state and he gave a good example how to fix it. It just seems you are the one who wants to shut the topic.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Users who are viewing this thread
There's no comma between "thousands of hours" and "8-10 years of warband experience".
The core ideas of the combat and mechanics of the two games are the same. It's easy to see the effect stances have, because it's relatively easy to test. Even with the stance system not working, making the combat feel inconsistent, and clashing with server lag and latency problems, and disrupting the proper flow of combat with seemingly random actions on behalf of the game to decide what does or doesn't constitute a stance change from movement; at a high skill level it disrupts combat because of actions that absolutely feel out of your control due to poor mechanic implementation. My personal opinion is that stances aren't an inherently bad choice for a game mechanic, merely that it is poorly implemented, and in the effort to add to mechanical depth, has instead created a pseudo-rng system that makes a player win or lose based on factors seemingly outside their control, thus taking away from the game. Which is not good game design in a supposedly skill based game. Until stances reach a point where the community consensus agrees that automatic movement stance changes aren't making the combat worse, stance changes should be relegated to a hotkey, at least as an option, and perhaps after they are fixed too. That you personally think they don't do anything is irrelevant beyond you stating your opinion for general consideration. Everything else is ego and hot hair.
Literally you in this thread. You've spent the entire argument trying to "discredit me based on outside factors instead of actually talking about the subject" too, you blatant hypocrite. I am telling you what I know from a relatively large(but not as large as some others) pool of accumulated experience what I know about Mount&Blade. Go ahead and disagree with it, but then don't act like your ego gives you a monopoly on objectivity regarding this game. If you want to have an argument over what subjective appraisal of what does or doesn't constitute relevant information regarding stances' effect on the combat system, then I'm happy to have that argument. Don't repeatedly paint me with the brush you use to paint yourself, and then blame me for getting paint on the carpet.
All the highlighted parts are false. They would be true if we were talking about Beta stances, but again, you are not playing the game and therefore you don't understand that. This idea of "I lost because my opponent happened to swing from the right stance!!!" is a fantasy scenario that doesn't occur even among the best players in the current version of the game. I told you already, but I will repeat myself: Timings are almost entirely dependent on weapon speeds and positioning. I don't say this from a point of view of a person who likes talking down on people and winning arguments, but from someone who plays the game a lot and duels with the best. Winning and losing doesn't happen due to stances. Period.
All of the highlighted parts are subjective. The stances are the same now as they were 3 months ago, as they were at release. Winning and losing can happen due to stances if the skill bracket is high enough, and the player is seemingly unlucky enough. "Period".
I didn't expect much, but this is a really sorry comeback that makes it seem like you didn't actually read my post. Just keep believing the stupid **** you say and your "d00d i have 20k hours in warband trust me bro" friends. ?
"He disagrees with me, therefore he didn't read my post". Nice cope.
Also 3/10 on the flamebait, pretty transparent.
Oh yes stance discussion.
Feels like Beta again.
Well I think Pacemaker is right.
Right now the whole infantry combat revolves around kicks and positioning.
Don't know about duel though.
But that might change again with the coming, big multiplayer update. Maybe then it's time to have another look at stances, for now they don't matter.
Feels like Beta again.
Well I think Pacemaker is right.
Right now the whole infantry combat revolves around kicks and positioning.
Don't know about duel though.
But that might change again with the coming, big multiplayer update. Maybe then it's time to have another look at stances, for now they don't matter.
Aprikosenmann
Knight
Not overexaggerated?
" Winning or losing a fight simply because you were in the left stance rather than the right stance "
" your attack was a few points shorter than it should've been, and you lose the entire game because of it; is an extremely frustrating feeling"
" stances absolutely are still relevant as a piece of the whole as to why combat feels terrible, inconsistent, and seemingly unresponsive. "
" being in the wrong stance at the wrong time because the game decided to not switch your stance, leads to you losing 100% of the time. "
Yes, when you ignore stances as a player it adds a very small RNG element to combat. The benefits of being attentive towards your stance managements are equally small.
Sundeki is telling us that he can heavily recognizing those small differences when fighting. He can not know if it was the stance or just his camera angle or position when getting spammed for example. He is overexaggerating. When getting outranged is the timing or angle aswell.
Now when stances add a bit of RNG and can be almost ignored, why dont we remove them? Well stances also have benefits. More animations make blocking harder which increases the skill cap. Also when inventing a feint you can think of the stances. Should you walk left or right while doing feints from the right.
Once you mastered movement, blocking, feinting and kicks you can start thinking about stances since they have the smallest effect on combat.
It's just not authentic when inactive players want to sell you the story of stances being a major problem when even the best of the best dont feel it.
This was always true though, and the argument has always been that the stance system disrupts that. Now it's good that that disruption is currently minimal, but it's still there unless they've completely removed the attack speed/movement speed bonuses which to the best of my knowledge they have not, and if it's still there then it's going to impact fights even if rarely (as you say, 5%).
The point has always been that Bannerlord has too many factors influencing the mechanics, while on its own the stance system may not be that important, it's one hard to predict influence upon many others; speed bonus, delay between animation blending, defender stun vs attacker stun, class stats, armour weight, handling stats, etc. All of them add up and create the inconsistent feeling which devs have been struggling to make feel good for the player while also being balanced.
So I think that stances, while not a huge issue in and of themselves, are kind of representative of that more general problem and so it's good to keep pointing it out.
rektasaurus
Squire
None of this makes sense. The biggest considerations in a fight are positioning and timing.
I think Pacemaker’s point is being missed. Stances are currently largely just a visual thing. You might see an increase of about 10% damage and I’m totally ballparking from poor memory. Even the difference in swing speed is almost negligible. Stances don’t add rng to damage values and are for sure never the deciding factor in losing a fight.
When people talk about rng and stances, it’s that the stance you find yourself in can basically be considered rng because you’re moving in response to your opponent and not exactly always thinking about stance anyways.
I think making stances easier to control and increasing the effect they have on swing speed or damage would make the game more fun. It could be a great way to balance thrusts and overheads compared to op left right swings too.
Others might prefer it the way it is, or may prefer the tiny differences which currently exist being completely removed, and that’s okay too. I can get behind that. Better to tighten up what exists before adding a new system.
I think Pacemaker’s point is being missed. Stances are currently largely just a visual thing. You might see an increase of about 10% damage and I’m totally ballparking from poor memory. Even the difference in swing speed is almost negligible. Stances don’t add rng to damage values and are for sure never the deciding factor in losing a fight.
When people talk about rng and stances, it’s that the stance you find yourself in can basically be considered rng because you’re moving in response to your opponent and not exactly always thinking about stance anyways.
I think making stances easier to control and increasing the effect they have on swing speed or damage would make the game more fun. It could be a great way to balance thrusts and overheads compared to op left right swings too.
Others might prefer it the way it is, or may prefer the tiny differences which currently exist being completely removed, and that’s okay too. I can get behind that. Better to tighten up what exists before adding a new system.
@Aprikosenmann
It would be an overexaggeration to say that what I said was the sole or almost sole responsibility for winning or losing most fights. Nowhere did I say or allude to that. Probably most of the time it doesn't play a significant factor. Pacemaker is ranting about how the seemingly small range and speed difference is essentially visual and nothing more, and ultimately irrelevant. I can cite specific examples from memory when this is 100% provably false. I did not, however, say that the stance problem is relevant in 100% of all combat situations.
At the end of the day, all I wanted to say, before being drawn into a flamewar with that clown, was that stances add another layer of contrived inconsistency to the game in their current implementation, on top of other mechanical problems with the combat system, and is a contributing factor to the poor way the game feels, and that adding a option selection for changing stances with a key, rather than movement, would be beneficial to combat in those examples that I was complaining about, and help improve player control over their character.
It would be an overexaggeration to say that what I said was the sole or almost sole responsibility for winning or losing most fights. Nowhere did I say or allude to that. Probably most of the time it doesn't play a significant factor. Pacemaker is ranting about how the seemingly small range and speed difference is essentially visual and nothing more, and ultimately irrelevant. I can cite specific examples from memory when this is 100% provably false. I did not, however, say that the stance problem is relevant in 100% of all combat situations.
Where did I say that the stance problem is "a major problem"? It becomes a noteworthy problem in a small number of examples and circumstances, and even then the issue is not tied specifically to the stances themselves, merely the manner in which stances and stance changes are implemented. I even prefaced one of the quotes you gave , here: " All other things even, being in the wrong stance at the wrong time because the game decided to not switch your stance, leads to you losing 100% of the time". This means that in a hypothetical scenario where the two players are of identical skill, the stance is the deciding factor.
At the end of the day, all I wanted to say, before being drawn into a flamewar with that clown, was that stances add another layer of contrived inconsistency to the game in their current implementation, on top of other mechanical problems with the combat system, and is a contributing factor to the poor way the game feels, and that adding a option selection for changing stances with a key, rather than movement, would be beneficial to combat in those examples that I was complaining about, and help improve player control over their character.
I'd totally drop stance movement gains and damage bonus formula related but no the dynamic itself. No bonus, just a visual thing.
Having said that, I see a futility of stance only for the shield + 1h weapon combination. I believe that stance (visually - no bonus/multiplier gain/lose parameters) works fine for 1h-2h weapons in a dynamic way; however when we introduce the shield as a second item, the stance (boxing guard) with this should be limited to left foot forward and right foot backward and pivot (foot change/footwork) when attacking by recovering the initial guard stance. The advantage of having a shield should carry a handicap of movement and range of the right hand.
I strongly urge the developers to consult the Medieval Swordsmanship: Illustrated Methods and Techniques book in order to polish and order the positioning of the main weapon and the shield. In this book there are also stances & footwork when using a long sword; I urge you to review them as well.
Having said that, I see a futility of stance only for the shield + 1h weapon combination. I believe that stance (visually - no bonus/multiplier gain/lose parameters) works fine for 1h-2h weapons in a dynamic way; however when we introduce the shield as a second item, the stance (boxing guard) with this should be limited to left foot forward and right foot backward and pivot (foot change/footwork) when attacking by recovering the initial guard stance. The advantage of having a shield should carry a handicap of movement and range of the right hand.
I strongly urge the developers to consult the Medieval Swordsmanship: Illustrated Methods and Techniques book in order to polish and order the positioning of the main weapon and the shield. In this book there are also stances & footwork when using a long sword; I urge you to review them as well.
I literally agreed that those were the biggest considerations and always have been.
rektasaurus
Squire
I’m not arguing with anyone either way, wasn’t talking negatively to you, glorious leader, and don’t think you all are actually arguing with each other either, maybe writing past each other a little.
So no point keeping it as it is. It would be fine if you could utilize stances in a meaningful way, for example a hotkey that changes stance.
It's just a one extra layer in Bannerlords combat system which relies mostly on luck. Of course stances never decide anybodys fate, but when all combined it can be considered a factor for defeat.
It would be fine and all, if you could control your stances more reliably. It's really stupid design choice to put stance switch to keys you have to press all the time, but oh wait, don't you dare to hold your attack and remember to wait 0.5 seconds after swing to change your stance. If only you could control your stances, i could live with it.
I'm really baffled how can't "best of the best" feel it. It's pretty obvious when you are using two-handed swords, but I guess too pleb to understand.
This really only boils down to do you like RNG elements or do you wan't to use the system that is more consistent.
Aprikosenmann
Knight
But having the stance switch on a key would change nothing. Stance control would still be useless since the effect is so small. Not worth thinking about it.
I think almost everyone would ignore the key which leads to the feared "inconsistent attack speeds and range" aswell.
I think almost everyone would ignore the key which leads to the feared "inconsistent attack speeds and range" aswell.
Maybe I have spoken to early. I don't know stuff about 2h, but they feel terrible for sure
Last edited:
rektasaurus
Squire
I like 2 handed sword duels. Variable block delay becomes far more pronounced depending on stance and it begins to matter much, much more what stance you are in and it really is almost necessary to be able to stay in a left foot or right foot forward stance. Like the way stance works slows down 2 handed sword duels I think.
Right/left damage is the same, but overhead damage is higher with left foot forward, and maybe thrust only a little higher in same stance, it may have been no difference. What I really dislike is that it seems to default to a right foot forward stance after “power” overheads starting from left foot forward, which is completely opposite. It should be left foot forward dominant if the sword is held with the right hand above the left.
The other 2 handed weapons with strange shapes and weird rotation fulcrums or something are very weird and scary to fight against.
So yes, the rng factor deciding what stance you’ve ended up in has a much bigger impact on two handed swords because of variable block delay speeds and I could see how it could be very annoying.
To terco’s point earlier, it would be nice for tw to review some historical fighting styles/guides and adjust a few things so that it continues to better simulate medieval melee.
Right/left damage is the same, but overhead damage is higher with left foot forward, and maybe thrust only a little higher in same stance, it may have been no difference. What I really dislike is that it seems to default to a right foot forward stance after “power” overheads starting from left foot forward, which is completely opposite. It should be left foot forward dominant if the sword is held with the right hand above the left.
The other 2 handed weapons with strange shapes and weird rotation fulcrums or something are very weird and scary to fight against.
So yes, the rng factor deciding what stance you’ve ended up in has a much bigger impact on two handed swords because of variable block delay speeds and I could see how it could be very annoying.
To terco’s point earlier, it would be nice for tw to review some historical fighting styles/guides and adjust a few things so that it continues to better simulate medieval melee.
Similar threads
- SaladssA
- Suggestions