Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 11 - Some Context

Users who are viewing this thread

<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Hello all!</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">As many of you may have noticed, we have been rather busy! Last week, we visited Cologne, Germany to attend Gamescom, the largest game conference in Europe. While there, we took appointments to demonstrate some Bannerlord gameplay to the world's media. Along with this, we released a few videos which were used as part of our presentation.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">It has been great to see the excited response to the clips and we're very pleased that your feedback has been so positive! Of course, the game is still very much in development and so we had to make decisions about what to put in the videos and how it would be presented.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Here, we have compiled some of the highlights, along with a small smattering of new footage, which we want to present to you the community, along with a little explanation about some of the features.</p></br> Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/13
 
Dest45 said:
DanAngleland said:
Ambushes are a feature of Bannerlord, this was mentioned in an early blog, so you will get your wish. It is a feature I am looking forward to as well. In blog 7 they also said that the Battanians like to ambush their enemies in their native forests.
I hope, but that could just be backstory for the faction and not an actual feature

They definitely said that there will be ambushes as a feature in the game, in blog 3:

'' An example of this is ambushing. The mechanic and gameplay of ambushing itself needs to be developed but for a real implementation into the game, the AI needs to be programmed to make sure that lord and bandit parties also make use of ambushing in realistic ways. This adds extra layers to the development of a non-linear game like Mount&Blade, obviously creating complications but a necessary part of creating the games that we want to create and our players enjoy.''
 
I think people shouldn't worry about multiple hits by one swing.Taleworls is aiming to make the most realistic combat system so I think it won't be like cheap games where you can swing your sword through somebody and that somebody still don't die but a -5 mark appears on him.I thing it will be like when the enemy can  just reach your sword's range as you swing it, only the end of your sword will reach and wound or kill him and your sword will be able to continue but if he is closer to you than your range as you swing it mid of your sword will hit him and your sword will not be able to continue to hit another enemy.

By the way it would be very cool if you could chop.enemys of and maybe if you maxed the strength in singleplayer you can cut people to two or if you manage to hit enemys throat with your sword a lot of blood will be dropped and enemy will try to keep his cutted throat miserably  for a few second before dying unless you don't hit him again.
 
DanAngleland said:
Dest45 said:
DanAngleland said:
Ambushes are a feature of Bannerlord, this was mentioned in an early blog, so you will get your wish. It is a feature I am looking forward to as well. In blog 7 they also said that the Battanians like to ambush their enemies in their native forests.
I hope, but that could just be backstory for the faction and not an actual feature

They definitely said that there will be ambushes as a feature in the game, in blog 3:

'' An example of this is ambushing. The mechanic and gameplay of ambushing itself needs to be developed but for a real implementation into the game, the AI needs to be programmed to make sure that lord and bandit parties also make use of ambushing in realistic ways. This adds extra layers to the development of a non-linear game like Mount&Blade, obviously creating complications but a necessary part of creating the games that we want to create and our players enjoy.''
Made my day.
 
KhergitLancer80 said:
I think people shouldn't worry about multiple hits by one swing.Taleworls is aiming to make the most realistic combat system so I think it won't be like cheap games where you can swing your sword through somebody and that somebody still don't die but a -5 mark appears on him.I thing it will be like when the enemy can  just reach your sword's range as you swing it, only the end of your sword will reach and wound or kill him and your sword will be able to continue but if he is closer to you than your range as you swing it mid of your sword will hit him and your sword will not be able to continue to hit another enemy.

By the way it would be very cool if you could chop.enemys of and maybe if you maxed the strength in singleplayer you can cut people to two or if you manage to hit enemys throat with your sword a lot of blood will be dropped and enemy will try to keep his cutted throat miserably  for a few second before dying unless you don't hit him again.
Yes, let's hope you are right. Again this was one of the first points I mentioned upon joining, maybe you can give more insight of yours regarding the discussion below in order to progress it?
testertesting said:
15. Realistic injury and reaction
For example cutting a leg off, an arm etc. Also one single thrust could instantly kill. In this sense the 'health' bar is completely unrealistic hence if in an actual duel all it would take is one blow to die. As an addition one could think of something like struggle. For example if someone got their arm cut off they will probably be able to fight like 5 more seconds then just fall down and moan and twitch and move around while bleeding to death. Also crawling with last breath, death twitches etc. [also for horses and animals].
DanAngleland said:
Realistic injury and reaction is another interesting one. What grabbed me was the mention of the health bar system being unrealistic. A more realistic system would allow for many minor wounds, such as arrows losing almost all of their momentum after breaking through mail, but still causing the recipient to recoil (as they already do in M&B and Warband). On the other hand a single hard thrust from close range, driven deep into the torso of an unarmoured soldier, would be instantly lethal or at least instantly incapacitate them.
Johan_Stormcloak said:
I actually mentioned this a little while ago in the Bannerlord thread, and think that it would be a really cool feature. Maybe different hits in different areas would affect the player in certain things. Like if they are shot in the leg they would start to limp, or if hit in the arm, maybe they would deal less damage. It could also work for horses if they're shot in the leg, they might slow down or maybe fall forward.
Of course, all of this while taking in account the (very important) armor factor:

testertesting said:
The armor battering would be a nice implementation - if not as complex as I suggested at least it should exist locally. That means that the armor will break if say an incredibly muscular soldiers throws an axe at full power in the back of a plated knight - at least visually. It is also extremely annoying to see a sharp sword doing blunt damage: would a sharp sword hit the unarmored or lightly armored arm of an enemy (or any body part for that matter) it would cut it off (or do the appropriate cutting damage). How is this relevant to armor battering? Well firstly, a 'sharpness' level of a weapon would have to be implemented (thinkable) and secondly such cuts or blunt hits would have together with the swing momentum and strength (and ricochet action) a certain unique impact on armor: it is extremely unrealistic and annoying to watch as one character thrusts their longsword in the heavily plated (or one-piece) waist armor of its enemy and killing them. Plus even the sound which resembles flesh being cut makes for even more annoyance. The armor has to be a different entity altogether: at least seeing some sparks that cut the surface of the armor piece and hearing the according sound should be implemented. Thus a heavily-armored soldier would not suffer almost any direct damage: rather just being knocked over and then battered at (while on the ground) until the armor breaks and the soldier killed or if the characters could engage in an action such as taking the helmet off their opponent and killing them as such. Armor is a very important topic, much more than simply changing the skin of the soldiers and a few numbers related to the healthbar and stamina.
 
Having looked over the released video teaser (again) I remembered another extremely important aspect which I find of essence: realistic ranks or orderly formation reactions. What I mean by this is a system that will overhaul the current order system regarding positioning. What we currently have concerning leading the soldiers is: 1. Follow (in a straight line, next to the character) 2. Attack (which would mean them rushing the shortest line towards the radar-like located enemies) and 3. Stay. In none of these (except 1 to a certain extend) are ranks followed, meaning that the main character (could be the player, could be an NPC acting as commander and the player being a simple soldier as is possible in Brytenwalda) has to have a decent reaction from soldiers: if they move through the lines, soldiers should move apart, letting the commander get through. This is of extreme importance in crowded areas, such as sieges - which are a dread having to wait behind soldiers or being stuck, even though one is the commander. A viable solution would be placement holding and placement replacing (as was realistically, historically the case): only a few soldiers occupy the leading positions (for example the archer positions on walls) and only if these die they get replaced by other soldiers waiting on the ground - instead of all of them rushing on the wall and crowding it to its maximum thus causing inefficiency of movement and accuracy. Essentially this point can be resumed in (much) more efficient movement, coordination and command choices.

I mentioned some aspects of the sort quite detailed a few months ago:
testertesting said:
Firstly, the contact physics and behavior should definitely be revised: what we currently have is the player bumping into characters and these moving a little bit forwards or to the side as the player keeps walking in that direction. This also applies for when characters make contact with the player, the player would get pushed to the side a little. This could be replaced by a mild friendly-fire action [which wouldn't cause damage] such as if one character runs into another [friendly or foe] without engaging in an attacking or pushing action [pushing with the hands, or the shoulder such as ramming without a shield], then the passive character [that is the one being contacted by the other, not the one sprinting] would engage in an animation proportional with the direction the character was contacted from and the speed of this bump such as bowing a bit forward, or being pushed a little to the side similar to a person who have lost their balance for a bit. This would not startle the passive character, they would still be able to continue doing their thing such as running or swinging their weapon, the only difference would be that they would lose balance for a split second. Of course this would be combined with a variety of actions: from a simple walking bump to a full on sprint collision on another stationary character. The stationary character would rock forward making a few running-like steps in order to regain balance, while the runner would be startled for a while with an appropriate animation. To illustrate:
here is a video of a robot losing balance and regaining it without its forward movement actually incapacitating it. https://youtu.be/cNZPRsrwumQ?t=34s. Of course, in-game this would be applied to a humanoid skeleton and on a much much smaller scale when it comes to man-man [especially friendly-friendly] contact.
What would be further thinkable is a stable stance, such as if one character is crouching statically and someone else sprints into them [without ramming], they would have less impact - with prone, not much at all.

It is important to take in account here the behavior of mass soldiers, such as when there's a lot of them crowding a small entrance or when there's a massive clash between two masses. One wouldn't simply run forwards pushing their teammates in order to get to the front line - although such a behavior would be realistic and should consist in the players themselves choosing in the engagement of discipline. In SP the bots would know how to act presumably.

Secondly, we would have a formation system. Currently if the player sets in formation with other players around them [multiplayer mostly, also singleplayer] for example a hedgehog formation or a phalanx, it is extremely hard to calculate the positions visually while keeping the weapon fixed and moving while keeping this formation. To actually make such formations do-able, hence they had a great impact historically and thus would be of importance, the game could implement a system that would project on the ground the positions which the players have to take in order to be in such a formation. For example say a spear unit [a phalanx] in a multiplayer game is led by a commander. This commander would order its troops to form up in a phalanx formation to engage charging enemies. Every soldier in that unit would set their formation system for 'phalanx' from a drop-down list [for example pressing a button and choosing what formation they want]. The game mechanism would calculate the number of troops in that specific group [the spear group, let's call it - groups would be predefined by players] and project on the ground - regarding the position of each player - a highlighted area which has to be taken up in order to make this phalanx. This from should be relative to the commander's position. The commander would then instruct the movement of the unit, while the highlighted area in the shape of the formation would follow the commander. The soldiers indivually would be free to move around, if for example they need to engage enemies to the sides. Of course such a formation would have to move slowly across the map in order to work well, which is quite realistic. Such formations would be different for units: a cavalry unit won't do much if they choose to project a hedgehog formation for example. Also some fine-tuning of weapon features would be needed here such as propping a very long spear against the ground and holding the sharp end upwards and moving it around like that while static of course. Such a spear would deliver its highest efficiency rate while static propped in the ground and moved in all directions as such.

Thirdly and lastly we could mention a tactical overview of the battlemap in real time, that only the general would have access to and command its commanders accordingly, but I think this would be quite unrealistic. However, this general could have a small company of elite units and ride around the battlefield and give orders around on such a tactical overview of the battlemap but only concerning friendlies, in other words he wouldn't see the location of enemies or of friendlies but he would be able to give commands such as charge, attack, defend, hide etc.etc.

This last point isn't as important but the first two, especially the second I find would make quite for the extreme experience.
 
Are the devs planning to add more cheap-ish peasant kit for multiplayer? All the two hand spamming of current native just makes the game cheesy and unrealistic. Two handed swords and higher-up armours should be incredibly rare and expensive.
 
mcwiggum said:
Are the devs planning to add more cheap-ish peasant kit for multiplayer? All the two hand spamming of current native just makes the game cheesy and unrealistic. Two handed swords and higher-up armours should be incredibly rare and expensive.
From what I saw in the Gamescom videos, there are a lot of troops armed with two-handers (especially swords). I hope those are only placeholders.
 
creuzet said:
mcwiggum said:
Are the devs planning to add more cheap-ish peasant kit for multiplayer? All the two hand spamming of current native just makes the game cheesy and unrealistic. Two handed swords and higher-up armours should be incredibly rare and expensive.
From what I saw in the Gamescom videos, there are a lot of troops armed with two-handers (especially swords). I hope those are only placeholders.
Hope so, would also be great to not have axes & polearms with which the handle might as well be the blade as well with the hitbox it has.  :ohdear:
 
mcwiggum said:
creuzet said:
mcwiggum said:
Are the devs planning to add more cheap-ish peasant kit for multiplayer? All the two hand spamming of current native just makes the game cheesy and unrealistic. Two handed swords and higher-up armours should be incredibly rare and expensive.
From what I saw in the Gamescom videos, there are a lot of troops armed with two-handers (especially swords). I hope those are only placeholders.
Hope so, would also be great to not have axes & polearms with which the handle might as well be the blade as well with the hitbox it has.  :ohdear:
Blunt stick with 43 cut.
 
mcwiggum said:
Are the devs planning to add more cheap-ish peasant kit for multiplayer? All the two hand spamming of current native just makes the game cheesy and unrealistic. Two handed swords and higher-up armours should be incredibly rare and expensive.

They need to be slower. I'm okay with 2handers killing in one hit but not when they're almost the exact same speed as 1 handed swords, makes you feel like there's no point in even using a 1 handed sword if it's so slow. It really leaves you with little option but to use 2handers, shields only being for siege assaults. 2handers should have a big momentum penalty where after a swing it continues swinging a bit and needs to be forcefully stopped.
 
mcwiggum said:
creuzet said:
From what I saw in the Gamescom videos, there are a lot of troops armed with two-handers (especially swords). I hope those are only placeholders.
Hope so, would also be great to not have axes & polearms with which the handle might as well be the blade as well with the hitbox it has.  :ohdear:
Like in War of the Roses. I would like to see other nice features from that game like "What you see is what you get" armor system, and even helmets blocking vision in 1st person view. The weapon customisation system was a thing I also liked much, but I'm not sure it would fit very well in Bannerlord.
 
so when does exactly the day of releasing MNB 2 ??? i mean i really love it, i've save money and even got new lap :grin: can't wait to be new faithfull jarl :grin: :grin: : D :roll:
 
There is no release date yet. Armagan said in an August interview that he didn't know when it would be finished, but his best guess is that it will be released some time in 2016.
 
I agree weapon customization or crafting is a cool feature but destroys a bit of mount and blade's originality. Medieval heroes,knight or lords didn't craft their own weapons...but instead there should be unique weapons that can be obtained through quests or forged by renown blacksmiths with unique abilities that add bonuses and stuff.....but what can we do its already in the game :grin:
 
I have a few ideas/sugestions for the combat AI development for Bannerlord. Is there a board that devs read about that? I can't seem to find any. It'd be a lot of text so I'd like it to be at least read.
 
Back
Top Bottom