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
Gondvanaz said:
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.
with all due respect...
learn history you idiot.

gladiators:
1. were not always slaves
2. were often spared, it should be obvious considering no one could affort to train one for just two matches.
3. wore INOPTIMAL GEAR. the romans preferred their gladiators to wear often exotic and never perfect gear. they especially dislkied armour resulting in most gladiators walking around bare-chested. if a gladiator dual wielded they did so because they had to. not because it worked that well.
 

Shidan

Sergeant at Arms
WF&SM&BWBVC
Regardless of the realism of dual wielding, the chances of it happening are practically zero. There's just no good way to make it work with the current system without making it really gimmicky or reworking the combat system. And you would want to avoid changing that too much to avoid alienating the fans.

Personally, I couldn't care less either way. If it were added I'd probably use it on a character or two. But I won't miss it if it's not.
 

davidoner4

Recruit
M&BWF&SWBNWVC
Any word on how the seasons will effect bandit parties? For example, would they be less active in the winter months to simulate conserving supplies (or would they become more active due to a lack of supplies?)?
 

Gondvanaz

Recruit
SenorZorros said:
Gondvanaz said:
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.
with all due respect...
learn history you idiot.

gladiators:
1. were not always slaves
2. were often spared, it should be obvious considering no one could affort to train one for just two matches.
3. wore INOPTIMAL GEAR. the romans preferred their gladiators to wear often exotic and never perfect gear. they especially dislkied armour resulting in most gladiators walking around bare-chested. if a gladiator dual wielded they did so because they had to. not because it worked that well.
1) Are you stupid or act like a such? I SAID MAINLY!!!
2) I'm not here to discuss history and this thread is not about history, it is about a computer game.
3) The history is written by writers, people who have never been in a battlefield, not by the warriors themselves. The history books reflect only the one side of the war and you can never be sure it is not a misinformation.
4) The dual wielding gladiators are the the highest ranked gladiators, you...*%$#
5) Be careful with the insults, little boy!!! :evil:
 

SenorZorros

Squire
Gondvanaz said:
SenorZorros said:
--snip because I actually clean up forum trees.--
1) Are you stupid or act like a such? I SAID MAINLY!!!
2) I'm not here to discuss history and this thread is not about history, it is about a computer game.
3) The history is written by writers, people who have never been in a battlefield, not by the warriors themselves. The history books reflect only the one side of the war and you can never be sure it is not a misinformation.
4) The dual wielding gladiators are the the highest ranked gladiators, you...*%$#
5) Be careful with the insults, little boy!!! :evil:
1. my apologies, it is hard to stay coherent while keeping the discussion on your level.
2. a computer game based on history with mechanics derived from history. we were discussing if a certing possible mechanic was historically accurate. it is better not to turn around and say a discussion is not about history after using history as an argument in the discussion.
3. eehm... so what? are you stating that because warriors didn't write history we cannot know anything about the techniques used? which is not completly correct by the way as most rulers were warriors and the idea of a warrior poet has been regarded as an ideal in many civilizations. this is not only a false claim as we can actually derive an incomplete but relatively accurate picture of the past. it is also irellevant since it does not change the fact that gladiators did not wear battlefield equipment.
4. burden of proof my friend... burden of proof...
also, I have turned cencoring off but I see wierd symbols. if this means you actually typed those symbols that's doubly weak. did you really not only have to resort to swearing but are you also so much of a coward that you can't actually type the word? that is about the lowes I have seen raging forum trolls ever go...
(if it doesn't taleworlds should disable the filter a bit more)
5. I have a beard :wink: also, you should probably look to yourself. only a fool tries to tell someone manners without having them first.

EDIT: also, an evil emoticon does not make you look more imidating. only more childish.
 

Varrak

Baron
WBWF&SNW
Don't worry guys, i am pretty sure about someone will make a mod about dual wielding, Taleworlds doesnt need to put this feature into game.
 

DanAngleland

Grandmaster Knight
M&BWBWF&SNW
jeehwanlee99 said:
Ive heard that the release date has been announced to be December 11th, 2016

No, as far as we know even the devs don't have a firm release date in mind yet. I think someone else on this forum found that written somewhere; if I remember rightly it was just some unknown site that wanted to generate more visits by making up info. Anyway, it isn't true.
 

Sekij

Regular
WBNWVCWF&SM&B
3) The history is written by writers, people who have never been in a battlefield, not by the warriors themselves.

So people like Gaius Iulius Caesar or Cato the Elder well Roman senators in general are for you not warriors ? They often fought with their man.

And btw. Fighting for life in an Arena with exotic mostly only used in arena made weapons is not comparible to a Battlefield, on the Battlefield without a Shield you just handycap your whole corps.

Strangy how Roman Soldiers never used the Gladiator type of weapons (well beside the comparible shield an Gladius).


But you don't really care about History and practice of weapons. Wait for Fantasy mods or chill. But i agree it would be cool if they add Two Sword system ... for the multiplayer so i can shieldbash the **** out of them  :iamamoron:
 

Wyzilla

Sergeant
WB
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.

No there hasn't. Your baseless thoughts are just that, baseless. Unless you actually cough up a historical account (treatise, diary, codex, etc) describing the usage of two melee weapons on the battlefield at once, and not a shorter sword or dagger on the off hand for parrying. Your assumptions are worth nothing, especially when we can be quite certain that dual wielding provides NO advantage on the battlefield compared to a shield. It should only be implemented if permadeath is introduced, so we can point and laugh when your silly dual-wielding character gets shredded by some archers.

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.

And the movements you propose are utterly moronic and should only result in your character's death.

Gondvanaz said:
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.

Your "point of view" is worthless on the subject as you are neither a historian or a practitioner of HEMA. It doesn't matter what you think if the actual professionals on the subject (Easton) who have gone to college for years to study on these subjects, believe your position utterly false.

Gondvanaz said:
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.

Gladiators did not fight for their life except in extremely rare circumstances. They were spared most of the time because they were terribly expensive, and executing them was a similar waste to executing the losing boxer in a star fight. The money and time to replace such warriors would be ridiculous if they were often killed. Not to mention the public outrage given they were the Classical Period's version of celebrities. Civilians either with a hankering for fame or with combat training would volunteer themselves as Gladiators. This would not be done if death was a likely fate. Stop spouting meme!history you learn in primary education.


Considering your posts even got featured on /mbg/ in /vg/, I'm beginning to suspect you're simply trolling.
 

Dest45

Knight at Arms
WBVCNW
I'm sure there were many different types of gladiators and gladiator fights, some to the death, some not so much. Don't presume to know exactly how ALL gladiator fights were conducted and let people imagine it the way they want it to be because most likely, we're all wrong.

There were so many places, so many people that all could have had their own take on gladiator fights.
 
From my understanding the vast majority of Roman gladiatorial fights were explicitly not to the death. Because, you know, it's kind of expensive to train, house, feed, buy, promote, equip, and transport humans and you're sort of just smashing expensive cars into walls when you kill them. Except you're hoping enough people are paying to watch to offset it, which usually isn't the case, ergo, you fight to whatever limit is agreed upon. But there were times when big games were going on when people just died by the boatload.



Oh. I read just your post, but then I read Wyzilla's after I made mine. What that guy/girl said.
 

Rongar

Master Knight
M&BWB
TheFlyingFishy said:
From my understanding the vast majority of Roman gladiatorial fights were explicitly not to the death.
Gladiatorial fights originated from ritual sacrifice where "god chose who it wanted to be sacrificed".
So originally they were fights to the death. But later gladiatorial fights where transfered into show with somewhat 10% lethality.
 

hiul

Sergeant at Arms
yeah i think stance will be good it can boost attack and defense for each part of the body or want to focus in hitting some part as weak spot, also i want half sword so atleast melee weapon have some blunt damage mode without army require to have blunt weapon of course the damage would be weaker than pure blunt damage
 

Sekij

Regular
WBNWVCWF&SM&B
Yeah Battlestances sounds good, games which have them are most of the time deep fighting games like: Bushido Blade, Star Wars Jedi Knight (some games) and BladeSymphony which took the stances system from Star Wars.

The only thing is that they have to make are more animation and more indepth attacks and if they didnt plan to make it until this point... than i think it will increase the dev time dramaticly.
 
Top Bottom