Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 12 - The Passage Of Time

Users who are viewing this thread

Hello Bannerlord blog regulars and newcomers. In this entry, we are once again responding to your demands to hear more about single player gameplay - specifically, looking at the overworld map and some of the improvements made there. We revealed the map at Gamescom and mentioned some new features in the last blog. Here, we'll take what we've revealed and go into some more detail.

Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/14
 

SenorZorros

Squire
Shidan said:
IDK but it IS possible to jump and block at the same time. I do it all the time to defend against cavalry since the horse won't knock you back in mid-air. So you can probably attack too.
that... sounds like a broken mechanic... I hope they fix that in bannerlord. they should actually make you fly...

EDIT: they should also give you the option to bash anyone as stupid to do this towards the ground.
Varrak said:
-- swinging image snip--

You can also do this, legs are free while you are attacking. You can use your sword while spinning
does that also increase damage?
 

Varrak

Baron
WBWF&SNW
Attacking with spinning does not also increasing damage in Reality, i mean yes it can only if you spin exactly same speed as your sword's momentum, otherwise if you spin faster than your sword's momentum, your hitting would be cutted in middle with less damage, or if your spinning is slower than your sword momentum, your hit would stop before you hit your target.

I mean, "spinning" is not an effective way to attack, most likely your damage will be smaller
 

DanAngleland

Grandmaster Knight
M&BWBWF&SNW
You can jump attack and turn while attacking, but the jump looks silly really and it doesn't look like Brad Pitt's jump attack. What's more, you should need a short run up to do it; Brad Pitt didn't leap from a stationary stance. Also, the turn and attack isn't quite like spinning and swinging, though that doesn't really work well in real life anyway- the enemy would have ample time to flick their spear or sword at you and hit you with your back turned, you give the enemy time when neither your blade or eyes are facing him.

If implemented, whether by the devs or modders, any of these ideas should reflect the weaknesses of such actions and why they can only be used in specific circumstances or to catch an enemy off guard. Also when debating whether they could be done in real life, we need to bear in mind the abstractions of reality that are already made in the game for gameplay purposes. Normal attacks are slower in Warband than real life so that we can see them coming and defend, it would be too difficult and require too much concentration to be fun to fight as they did in real life. Just because it is possible to jump up like Brad Pitt, doesn't mean it should be in game because that level of agility and speed is not allowed for normal actions, not to mention there is no stamina in M&B so one can bound about all they like, whereas tendons and muscles soon get less effective when performing to their utmost in real life (like jumping as energetically as you can).
 

SenorZorros

Squire
on the spinning, f this couls be used as a speed bonus it could work (and be almost impossible to actually use)

if normal attacks are slower I think  that weird attacks also should be slower. that should not be to much work.

I have to admit though than I did not think about stamina and I'm unsure how to implement it. viking conquest has a stamina function which I always turn off because it is tedious and annoying. especially since I believe the npc's do not bother with it. maybe a stamina bar which would give a small (up to 20% ish) speed debuff could work though it is hard to visualize that in a non-gamey way..
 

Gondvanaz

Recruit
Wyzilla said:
there is no such thing as dual wielding on the battlefield.
So i guess you're a former warrior from the Early Medieval period. Let's see what we need in order to implement this "unexisting" skill. Hmmm... two weapons, one in each hand. We already got a weapon so basically we just need one more. What a surprise, isn't it?!!!

But if you guys want to stay "historically accurate", then please don't use the dual wielding. It is not that hard, is it? I don't give a **** if they used two weapons, one in each hand or not. In fact the main question here is: Has there been or has there not been a dual wielding? The answer is: YES. Which makes it theoretically feasible. Its rarity doesn't matter, we are not gonna do an army of dimachaeri, i'm asking for dual wielding only for the protagonist.
Wyzilla said:
The only thing that should result from any character wielding two full length weapons is an impaled corpse on the ground.
Your points is valid for farmers like you... sorry i mean keyboard wiseacres like you nowadays.
Don't put everybody in the same pot!

I don't think Warband's combat system is enoughly good and it doesn't seem enoughly realistic to me, the movements are far too robotic and monotonous. Saying it is a realism is an excuse.
 

adrakken

Sergeant
M&BWBNWVCWF&S
578 said:
And who are you exactly? As said above, freedom to the people is great. Get a game, mod it, make it amazing. But as with all things, mod tools fall into wrong hands. Fantasy is not realistic, but imagine if in bannerlord someone creates a companion who is a Loreal model Elf with skimpy armors and skinny arms. That's bad taste. Unless the mod is an overhaul of the universe.

Who am I? I am me. Who are you to ask as if you are more important? And you speak of "freedom" but then try to force your morals onto others to prevent them from doing something you personally do not want to be done.

It simply does not matter if you do not want skimpy armor on females in a game that has skimpy armors on men...your opinion only applies to whatever mod you yourself are going to create.

Do not force your desert sky god created sexual repression onto me please and I will not force my freedom to live as I choose onto you by not forcing any mods I create onto you.
 

adrakken

Sergeant
M&BWBNWVCWF&S
SenorZorros said:
the Amazons did not exist. there were no tribes of man-hating women that cut off one of their breasts to improve their archery. the Scythians did exist however, and they wore  lamellar and scale armour.

I thank you for telling me about the people you quoted ME speaking about...and no, they did not wear scale armor into battle, all archaeological findings prove otherwise from the depictions of women BY THE SCYTHIANS themselves.

1. The word Amazon was first used by Hellanikos who said it meant without breast. But the word Amazon isnt even Greek, he applied a Greek meaning to this foreign word, which sounded like the Greek word "Mazon", which means breast.

2. No Greek bought the idea that Amazon meant without breast which is why there ARE NO Greek paintings or statues of Amazons with 1 or no breasts...oh yeah...oops.

3. Modern Linguists claim the name derives from Persian.

4. No one in antiquity ever claimed that Amazons were man-haters...this is a modern idea.

5.  Apollonius wrote of an Amazon island in the black sea that had ruins of a temple and an alter...ruins...making Amazons an older power in the Bronze age and something proven to be true by Turkish archaeologists recently.

So yeah, Amazons were real, the BS tied to them is not...not only the BS about them cutting off their breasts but also the BS that they wore full armor at a time when no one else in the world were.
 

SenorZorros

Squire
@adrakken, that was almost a week ago. please stop pulling old cows out of the ditch...
EDIT: this was written before the doublepost, I had to do some research.
on the amazon's, do you know what full armour is? /EDIT

Gondvanaz said:
Wyzilla said:
there is no such thing as dual wielding on the battlefield.
So i guess you're a former warrior from the Early Medieval period. Let's see what we need in order to implement this "unexisting" skill. Hmmm... two weapons, one in each hand. We already got a weapon so basically we just need one more. What a surprise, isn't it?!!!

But if you guys want to stay "historically accurate", then please don't use the dual wielding. It is not that hard, is it? I don't give a **** if they used two weapons, one in each hand or not. In fact the main question here is: Has there been or has there not been a dual wielding? The answer is: YES. Which makes it theoretically feasible. Its rarity doesn't matter, we are not gonna do an army of dimachaeri, i'm asking for dual wielding only for the protagonist.
Wyzilla said:
The only thing that should result from any character wielding two full length weapons is an impaled corpse on the ground.
Your points is valid for farmers like you... sorry i mean keyboard wiseacres like you nowadays.
Don't put everybody in the same pot!

I don't think Warband's combat system is enoughly good and it doesn't seem enoughly realistic to me, the movements are far too robotic and monotonous. Saying it is a realism is an excuse.
1. I want to rage but luckily a lot of more knowledgeable people have already talked abut it so... please watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJBEDxh0RQw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZNZyhNFSaE
so he is correct.
I wouldn't mind seeing it as an option though. except that I'm afraid angry idiots will swarm the forums complaining about how useless it would be.

2. you should probably look to yourself before using an ad hominem on others.

3. the combat system is a bit robotic and monotonous because it is not realistic enough. not because there is too much realism...
 

Sekij

Regular
WBNWVCWF&SM&B
@Gondvanaz

You allready got the community to rant (if the community didnt bring up all the point i would do it) but after suggestin Duel Wielding (which was used for some Show duels and rarely in real duels by only One Known person and all of this duel system had a sword and an Dagger or Shortsword, just using it for parrying not the "Kirito bull**** style" of use you maybe imagine), you should also suggest that Katanas have the 90% Possibility to destroy enemy swords and well of course Katana have to cut trough Enemy Blocks because same as Duel Wuilding and "Troy combat Style" its fact. I mean only because in History it wasnt used it doesnt mean its a bad idea to use....


Imagine kids in 500 years... and thinking "This 2. ww Game should have duel wielding Machine guns, i mean We already got a weapon so basically we just need one more. What a surprise, isn't it?!!! "


Btw. an interessting serious Video about it as well ^^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc8akxwI56s Of course making a Legit System like this is extremly hard for a Game which allready have an combat system like warband. And dont forget that Shields exist in Bannerlord so that alone make this system useless.... Shield > Dagger
 

SenorZorros

Squire
Sekij, please don't go down to his level.

(also, there are already kids these days who think you need to dual wield desert eagles)
 

Gondvanaz

Recruit
SenorZorros said:
@adrakken, that was almost a week ago. please stop pulling old cows out of the ditch...
EDIT: this was written before the doublepost, I had to do some research.
on the amazon's, do you know what full armour is? /EDIT

Gondvanaz said:
Wyzilla said:
there is no such thing as dual wielding on the battlefield.
So i guess you're a former warrior from the Early Medieval period. Let's see what we need in order to implement this "unexisting" skill. Hmmm... two weapons, one in each hand. We already got a weapon so basically we just need one more. What a surprise, isn't it?!!!

But if you guys want to stay "historically accurate", then please don't use the dual wielding. It is not that hard, is it? I don't give a **** if they used two weapons, one in each hand or not. In fact the main question here is: Has there been or has there not been a dual wielding? The answer is: YES. Which makes it theoretically feasible. Its rarity doesn't matter, we are not gonna do an army of dimachaeri, i'm asking for dual wielding only for the protagonist.
Wyzilla said:
The only thing that should result from any character wielding two full length weapons is an impaled corpse on the ground.
Your points is valid for farmers like you... sorry i mean keyboard wiseacres like you nowadays.
Don't put everybody in the same pot!

I don't think Warband's combat system is enoughly good and it doesn't seem enoughly realistic to me, the movements are far too robotic and monotonous. Saying it is a realism is an excuse.
1. I want to rage but luckily a lot of more knowledgeable people have already talked abut it so... please watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJBEDxh0RQw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZNZyhNFSaE
so he is correct.
I wouldn't mind seeing it as an option though. except that I'm afraid angry idiots will swarm the forums complaining about how useless it would be.

2. you should probably look to yourself before using an ad hominem on others.

3. the combat system is a bit robotic and monotonous because it is not realistic enough. not because there is too much realism...
These YouTube videos prove nothing. All these people are expressing their own points of view, i've got my own point of view and i don't need help to get my own conclusions.
As i said dual wielding is theoretically feasible, historically accurate (dimachaeri) and  is all about your choice how you want to fight. If you don't like it and think it is unrealistic, then simply don't use this option cause after all  it is all about your preferences. Noone will hurt you if you don't use it. But i can't understand why the people try to prevent the rest of us who love this feature from using it!? Why do you even bother!?

These knowledgeable people who spam with "this is utter nonsense" only because they don't like one's ideas definitely will not gain my respect. At least they should try to say something strong to make my wrong points stand out clearly.
 

FrijolitoJR

Knight
SenorZorros said:
Sekij, please don't go down to his level.

(also, there are already kids these days who think you need to dual wield desert eagles)
He said machine guns , not pistols..
Señor, pistols have little knockback and little weight...
You can do it but you will have really poor accurary...

With sword or axes you need to use all your arm to give a hit capable of killing someone.
A sword and a dagger is something normal , but dual-wielding axes? or swords?
The atacks would be a lot more weaker and slower.
Why? Like i said before you need to use all of your arm to give a nice hit , it's a lot of time doing it with both arms .
You don't use all of your strenght neither.
 

FrijolitoJR

Knight
Gondvanaz said:
These knowledgeable people who spam with "this is utter nonsense" only because they don't like one's ideas definitely will not gain my respect. At least they should try to say something strong to make my wrong points stand out clearly.
+1 I know dualwielding makes no sense but it's fun :grin:
 

Gondvanaz

Recruit
FrijolitoJR said:
Gondvanaz said:
These knowledgeable people who spam with "this is utter nonsense" only because they don't like one's ideas definitely will not gain my respect. At least they should try to say something strong to make my wrong points stand out clearly.
+1 I know dualwielding makes no sense but it's fun :grin:
I don't know whether it makes sense or not. But games are supposed to be fun... i don't why the people on this forum are obsessed with this realism/historical accuracy bull****.
I bought Dark Souls 2 only because of the dual wielding, but i didn't enjoy it at all because of the dragons, monsters, ghosts, skeletons, tortoises, ogres etc.
All these kinds of enemies are extremely unrealistic. That's what i call "unrealistic", not the dual wielding.
 

DanAngleland

Grandmaster Knight
M&BWBWF&SNW
adrakken said:
I thank you for telling me about the people you quoted ME speaking about...and no, they did not wear scale armor into battle, all archaeological findings prove otherwise from the depictions of women BY THE SCYTHIANS themselves.

Are you saying that:

A) The women wore no armour
B) The women wore armour but not scale armour
C) The Scythians never wore scale armour

I was under the impression that scale armour was definitely something the Scythians used; there are those famous gold combs for instance, some of which depict Scythians very clearly wearing scale shirts. If they did wear scale armour, isn't it a bit of an assumption to assume women never wore it, if indeed they fought in battle? Why on earth would they not, especially if they were high status people as the graves would suggest? Either the women buried with weapons were warriors or they were queens who were buried with weapons to symbolise their armies. If they were warriors worthy of such a burial, surely they would have worn armour when it was appropriate?
 

Sekij

Regular
WBNWVCWF&SM&B
As i said dual wielding is theoretically feasible, historically accurate (dimachaeri)

Thats what we said about Show Duels not used in Battles. And how much fun would it be to get killed all the time from more Superior enemys which use a Shield the best toll of the side hand you know.

In the very short footage of Bannerlord it looked like it was the same system as Warband combat system, what means that it would not work to make a propar controll for 2 Swords (or two bows make as much sense). It would be at max as worse as it is in Skyrim (yeah i think duel wield weapons is lame as **** there, its just left or right OR a Power move with both hands which does nothing).

Duel Wielding... as swords (not daggers and those roman swords are quite daggerish) there are no technics so they would have to think out of their asses to bring up a system for 2 swords, which wouldnt be underpowerd as it would be in an game like Warband. And the people who talked about Duel Wielding are not just opinions by random people, its from HEMA and strangly no HEMA Guy like the idea mostly because its not a historical thing only for Show.

Maybe ... Dynasty Warriors better for you :S


The People are so hardcore about Realism is because Mount and Blade is Low Fantasy and the combat is maybe not Fluit realistic (as Kingdom Come) but its at least use real moves (even if you can jump attack in Warband  :roll: ) And Sandbox games have most of the time "Realism" Fans, i mean even Star Citizen trys to be as realistic as possible and the fans want it.

I mean maybe Fans will programm an duel wield Mod for Bannerlord, same as fans will do Magic.
 

SenorZorros

Squire
@Gondvanaz,
fist off try to keep quote trees to a minimum. furthermore, please read the thread. no one said it never happened. only that it was unfeasable. also, you are resorting to false balance. the people in the videos have shown their work and are clearly knowledgeable in the area while you haven't. you are allowed to have your own opinion but your opinion is still wrong.

@FrijolitoJR,
a desert eagle is not just a pistol. it is an extremely high-caliber weapon with massive recoil. so much that even for trained users the recall is not practical and not worth the power it provides. it is no machinegun but it is about as unrealistic.

that said, your point about dual wielding seem correct to me.

@Sekji,
you might want to watch the video by Scolagladiatora, there were some techniques for same-length dual wielding although those were mostly as a show of swordsmanship skill and less because of practical reasons.
 

Gondvanaz

Recruit
Sekij said:
Thats what we said about Show Duels not used in Battles.
First of all, the gladiators were mainly slaves who were fighting for their life. On the other hand, the farmers were fighting for their king. Do you realize the difference and why
Gladiator >>>> Farmer and why these "Show Duels" >>>>> Battlefield

In the arena you're all alone (while in the battlefield you've got your fellow soldiers who could save your life), sometimes you're even outnumbered and you fight for your life. That's why the "show duels" in the arena are many times more superior compared to the melees in the battlefield. The arena is a supreme test and you need real skills to survive there. Also the gladiators are trained killers. Don't even compare them to the soldiers.

This only seconds my point that the people who dual wield are many times superior warriors than the ordinary soldiers.
 
Top Bottom