<p>To all interested and uninterested parties, let it be known that we at TaleWorlds are making a new game, by the name of Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord. It is the next in the Mount&Blade series and a prequel to Mount&Blade Warband. This is the third entry in our Developer Blog, talking about making the game to whoever wants to listen. Thisweek we're talking about the campaign team, developers of the game's single player mechanics and gameplay. The team formerly known as “Team 3”...</p></br> Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/4
Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 3 - Unexpected Parties
- Thread starter captain lust
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
+1Brador said:Indeed!zmogusnr1 said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJBEDxh0RQw
I felt like the dual wielders need to watch this.
I think all this dual-wielding bullsh*t people have been asking for all this time is the greatest cancer of this forum, really. I'm very happy that the devs did never put this nonsense in the game.
If anyone looks for this, here is the Turkish Translation of the new blog post.
http://www.oyunfest.com/mountblade-ii-bannerlord-dev-blog-bolum-3.html
http://www.oyunfest.com/mountblade-ii-bannerlord-dev-blog-bolum-3.html
forexjammer
Sergeant
Now im gonna walk in calradia with a cloak and black armor like a inquisition hunting heretics with an rapid firing crossbow
Brador said:Indeed!zmogusnr1 said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJBEDxh0RQw
I felt like the dual wielders need to watch this.
I think all this dual-wielding bullsh*t people have been asking for all this time is the greatest cancer of this forum, really. I'm very happy that the devs did never put this nonsense in the game.
Should I be the devs, I would have made dual wielding, and made it as absurd and useless as it would have really been to make all those askers suffer.
Exactly what those trolls deserve, counter-trolling.Nordous said:Brador said:Indeed!zmogusnr1 said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJBEDxh0RQw
I felt like the dual wielders need to watch this.
I think all this dual-wielding bullsh*t people have been asking for all this time is the greatest cancer of this forum, really. I'm very happy that the devs did never put this nonsense in the game.
Should I be the devs, I would have made dual wielding, and made it as absurd and useless as it would have really been to make all those askers suffer.
For example, when dual-wielding, you hit yourself a lot when you swing your weapons in a wild frenzy. Great for battlefield suicides.
MadVader said:Exactly what those trolls deserve, counter-trolling.Nordous said:Brador said:Indeed!zmogusnr1 said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJBEDxh0RQw
I felt like the dual wielders need to watch this.
I think all this dual-wielding bullsh*t people have been asking for all this time is the greatest cancer of this forum, really. I'm very happy that the devs did never put this nonsense in the game.
Should I be the devs, I would have made dual wielding, and made it as absurd and useless as it would have really been to make all those askers suffer.
For example, when dual-wielding, you hit yourself a lot when you swing your weapons in a wild frenzy. Great for battlefield suicides.
(Self)Eye Poker 2014 Gold Edition.
MadVader said:
Yeah, why not apply this to all the dangerous weapons used by toons in the game. Daggers should have a chance to misfire and poke yourself in the eye even on their own, because it's frankly inconceivable that anyone could not be so stupid as to do that.
Nordous said:
Enlightened by your own magnificence as you lot may be (and I know that for that reason it seems redundant for you to read the arguments that you are theoretically responding to), you might to have failed to notice that many duel weilding proponents don't want it to be easy-mode. Of course a shield is usually better than a second sword. That doesn't change the fact that a second sword is better than nothing. Since most serious players scorn shield use, uptake for dual wielding would be high even if it were ridiculously difficult.
Inanch-Bilge
Exactly, add it and watch them cry
I think the following would be a realistic, and good native system for dualwield.
Firstly, limit the kind of weapons that can be used in the off hand, to daggers and the like.
Make the dual wielder able to deliver two attacks in a row, even if the first is blocked. However, they will be stunned after being blocked twice in a row.
In addition, the second attack will be limited by the small range of the off hand weapon, leaving the attacker open to kicks, and requiring the user to be good at footwork.
Firstly, limit the kind of weapons that can be used in the off hand, to daggers and the like.
Make the dual wielder able to deliver two attacks in a row, even if the first is blocked. However, they will be stunned after being blocked twice in a row.
In addition, the second attack will be limited by the small range of the off hand weapon, leaving the attacker open to kicks, and requiring the user to be good at footwork.
Do you have a problem with the way I suggest implementation?Antar said:
It would add some fun and variety to duels, and perhaps in battle as well.
Sword and dagger was a common enough martial style, except in frontline units.
In addition, modding support for dual wielding should be there, as there's plenty of modders who like fantasy, and have to make do with knockoff dualwielding measures.
Inanch-Bilge said:Exactly, add it and watch them cry
Yeah, good design philosophy. Do anything to belittle customers, no matter how stupid it is. I'm in awe of your genius.
arctan
Recruit
It would be really cool if there was some functionality to construct smaller forts and other improvements directly on the map. Some kind of system to allow the player to either use his party to construct them or order a nearby village or town they control to do it. If said forts and improvements could be destroyed but provided fairly large bonuses (like zones of control which made passage by enemy lords more difficult for one reason or another [barrages from the archers on the ramparts or siege engines in the fort?]). Similarly to construct caves or other hide outs based on the terrain type so as to be able to store loot at while unfactioned in the case you get captured. Give them a chance to be looted same as how you could wreck bandit ones in Warband.
It'd be an interesting way to start a faction. Start with a hideout essentially as a bandit, build some renown and troops. Once you've got a reasonable military order the garrison in the hideout to prepare a proper fort nearby, and go from there until you can capture a village or castle or something in order to obtain civilians. Construction and destruction of villages would be cool, but I imagine unless it was very well implemented and regulated would be incredibly game-breaking.
Also, barrages outside of combat. A castle under siege isn't just going to sit there and wait for the defenders to come. Especially if they have siege weapons. Sure, if they are massively outnumbered there isn't much they can do, but both sides should suffer some attrition casualties (the larger side suffering more, as requiring more supplies and being more likely to suffer arbitrary deaths from illness and whatnot). And on that, it would be cool if the Warband function to leave some soldiers behind was expanded that you could leave soldiers from your army in ambush or to be picked up later. Say you meant to surrender because you knew you couldn't win, getting your army to hide out in a nearby forest until you could come command them again wouldn't be too illogical. It would hurt morale, sure, but a lot less than all ending up dead.
The ability to send one of your soldiers as a messenger while traveling would be enjoyed, rather than having to return to your castle.
Iono. Been lurking for a long time, figured I'd contribute a couple thoughts. Probably all been thought before, but figured they were worth voicing.
It'd be an interesting way to start a faction. Start with a hideout essentially as a bandit, build some renown and troops. Once you've got a reasonable military order the garrison in the hideout to prepare a proper fort nearby, and go from there until you can capture a village or castle or something in order to obtain civilians. Construction and destruction of villages would be cool, but I imagine unless it was very well implemented and regulated would be incredibly game-breaking.
Also, barrages outside of combat. A castle under siege isn't just going to sit there and wait for the defenders to come. Especially if they have siege weapons. Sure, if they are massively outnumbered there isn't much they can do, but both sides should suffer some attrition casualties (the larger side suffering more, as requiring more supplies and being more likely to suffer arbitrary deaths from illness and whatnot). And on that, it would be cool if the Warband function to leave some soldiers behind was expanded that you could leave soldiers from your army in ambush or to be picked up later. Say you meant to surrender because you knew you couldn't win, getting your army to hide out in a nearby forest until you could come command them again wouldn't be too illogical. It would hurt morale, sure, but a lot less than all ending up dead.
The ability to send one of your soldiers as a messenger while traveling would be enjoyed, rather than having to return to your castle.
Iono. Been lurking for a long time, figured I'd contribute a couple thoughts. Probably all been thought before, but figured they were worth voicing.
Something that has always upset me about M&B, Is the fact that there is NO siege equipment, None, And the game badly needs it. The Roman faction should have most if not all of its historically used equipment such as the ballista that was common up to the high middle ages, and I would Love to see special artillery towers, with the roman ballista or even the Roman Scorpio being able to fire from arrow slits in the walls of the towers as they did historically, it would be Fun to man a Ballista in the Field with a crew or in a fort or city or castle with rocks or bolts. I would like to see them used in Castles as well as on battle fields to attack and defend Also other siege equipment such as the Mangonel and trebuchet. It would be nice to see both Eastern and Western roman influence in the game shown in armor and buildings as well as city walls and towers and maybe if its not to much a little Greek fire to those dirty barbarians.
Also I hope with a roman faction this will also mean early types of armor from roman on down to early middle ages
Ok that's my rant...Ideas for your consideration Dev's 
Also other siege equipment such as the Mangonel and trebuchet. It would be nice to see both Eastern and Western roman influence in the game shown in armor and buildings as well as city walls and towers and maybe if its not to much a little Greek fire to those dirty barbarians.Also I hope with a roman faction this will also mean early types of armor from roman on down to early middle ages
Ok that's my rant...Ideas for your consideration Dev's Mocha Mike
Recruit
Red_Lancer said:Something that has always upset me about M&B, Is the fact that there is NO siege equipment, None, And the game badly needs it. The Roman faction should have most if not all of its historically used equipment such as the ballista that was common up to the high middle ages, and I would Love to see special artillery towers, with the roman ballista or even the Roman Scorpio being able to fire from arrow slits in the walls of the towers as they did historically, it would be Fun to man a Ballista in the Field with a crew or in a fort or city or castle with rocks or bolts. I would like to see them used in Castles as well as on battle fields to attack and defend
I agree with adding the siege weapons for attacking and defending castles, though only ballistas and trebuchets.
Ballistas for defending castles, and trebuchets for attacking castles. In M&B you can improve your prisons and messenger posts, so in Bannerlord ballistas should be, if put in game, in that selection of improvements to your caslte or city, asan extra line of defence.
Trebuchets should be an extra option for attacking that lets you destroy part of an enemy's castle wall for an extra point of entrance(instead of one ladder, like M&B, making it you lose lots of soldiers because of the choke point.) at the cost of a couple hundred denars, for the resources or bring your own, and a few hours longer waiting time to build it.
While I'm throwing out my thoughts I might as well add that you should be able to deploy a few soldiers at villages to help stop bandits plundering your villages.
I think villages should start as such and be upgraded to Cities or Castles and start out with a basic palisade wall and ditch with simple towers plus a town watch that you can SEE when you go into the village. I think you should be able to upgrade the walls and roads in your own kingdom, build buildings on the map that you can see. Have fishing fleets and shipping on the sea as well as land. I think there should be stone mines gold mines and silver and other metals, flower mills, irrigation and farming, one BIG down side to sandbox games is that after awhile with Low dialogue as the last game did, it gets old after awhile all you do after the story is played out is go from castle to castle and then run down landless lords game over, Borrrrrrrringggg......I need to be able to manage my kingdom not just fight battles all the time or ride around selling and buying goods we should have an appointed person who does that and we get to select what items we want to trade with other cities riding from place to place got tiresome after awhile I need more content to keep me in the game. Running around after I loose my armor from city to city looking for the same suit is also boring, we should be able to make our own after awhile if we start as a blacksmith or something......WB needed ALOT of improvements, I hardly noticed the story line in fact I never paid it any attention at all it was kind of boring and then the game just turned into a medieval simulation...The game needs more Much more content..
I think they will implement dual wielding because it is a feature that would look good on the Steam page - "Now you can dual wield!!11" - not because it's necessarily a good idea. Dark Souls 2 is doing the same thing with its DW revamp.
Dual Wielding daggers is perfectly fine irl but you're more of a thug or a street urchin if you're doing this, you intend to cut a man down in the shadows, not fight him toe to toe on a field. Let's point out that M&B supports banditry and bandits and I've often roleplayed playing as one in my single player romps - it's fun. Thus, dual wielding small arms seems fine and fair, to me. The mechanic should simply be you can keep attacking frenetically, but that you can only stun your opponent if you attack at the same time with both weapons, otherwise your attacks will only do damage and not stun? This would make defending against a dual wielder possible. Dual Wielders can block with their blades - even if they are knives - but they will only reduce damage by 50% or maybe only prevent the stun (but still take the damage).
Trying to dual wield anything but a sword and dagger or two daggers simply shouldn't be feasible. Doing a sword+dagger combo should be feasible. Daggers should have bonus damage under some circumstances? Like attacks from behind?
But dual wielding should be a novelty, I honestly think they should balance it so that it's almost always a bad decision - because it is. On the battlefield, you need a means to protect yourself from arrows and horse charges, not having a shield is a big disadvantage. If you're going to use two-handed weapons without a shield, that's reasonable, since those weapons can penetrate armor effectively. But dual wielding gives no battlefield advantage, it's mostly for duels or cutthroat behavior, and should reflect that.
It would be neat if dueling a noble were a system to gain notoriety in a given society, in M&B 2.
Dual Wielding daggers is perfectly fine irl but you're more of a thug or a street urchin if you're doing this, you intend to cut a man down in the shadows, not fight him toe to toe on a field. Let's point out that M&B supports banditry and bandits and I've often roleplayed playing as one in my single player romps - it's fun. Thus, dual wielding small arms seems fine and fair, to me. The mechanic should simply be you can keep attacking frenetically, but that you can only stun your opponent if you attack at the same time with both weapons, otherwise your attacks will only do damage and not stun? This would make defending against a dual wielder possible. Dual Wielders can block with their blades - even if they are knives - but they will only reduce damage by 50% or maybe only prevent the stun (but still take the damage).
Trying to dual wield anything but a sword and dagger or two daggers simply shouldn't be feasible. Doing a sword+dagger combo should be feasible. Daggers should have bonus damage under some circumstances? Like attacks from behind?
But dual wielding should be a novelty, I honestly think they should balance it so that it's almost always a bad decision - because it is. On the battlefield, you need a means to protect yourself from arrows and horse charges, not having a shield is a big disadvantage. If you're going to use two-handed weapons without a shield, that's reasonable, since those weapons can penetrate armor effectively. But dual wielding gives no battlefield advantage, it's mostly for duels or cutthroat behavior, and should reflect that.
It would be neat if dueling a noble were a system to gain notoriety in a given society, in M&B 2.
