Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 8 - Engine Power [VIDEO]
- 主题发起人 captain lust
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
jeehwanlee99
Regular
i think 5000 vs 5000 is quite possible if they optimize the engine enough. Maybe similiar to LOD and tesselation the combat near the player is like M&B but combat far away from player is like TW?
And I swear i remember playing a game where you can switch between fps and rts modes
EDIT: Rise and Fall Civilizations at War
Maybe if not totalwar-esque, we can at least have larger better simulated batttle (1000vs1000) like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6oXUOqitGM
start at 9:35
And I swear i remember playing a game where you can switch between fps and rts modes
EDIT: Rise and Fall Civilizations at War
Maybe if not totalwar-esque, we can at least have larger better simulated batttle (1000vs1000) like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6oXUOqitGM
start at 9:35
Siegbert_von_Meklenburg
Knight
But it's not about the character models and animations. It is about tracking the actions of the NPCs or players which in terms of M&B is quite complex: people block and attack in different directions, they feint and kick.
In games like Total War or this Viking game they do nothing of that kind. They'll perform their scripted animations until the health points of one character hits 0.
Sure you can have thousands of character models in one scene but it will be a dull experience.
In games like Total War or this Viking game they do nothing of that kind. They'll perform their scripted animations until the health points of one character hits 0.
Sure you can have thousands of character models in one scene but it will be a dull experience.
(to jeehwanlee99)
I suppose that you don't understand how Total War mechanics work like. In TW, the combat system is much more simple and requires less CPU operations to take place. That happens because the troops, as independent agents, have no influence on the battle. They are just a couple (thousands) of dolls which play an animation during clashes. In Mount&Blade, each agent has its own intelliglence; therefore, the computer needs to calculate every single thing done by the agent in cause (including individual skills, weapon proficiencies, attacks, blocks, health etc). Imagine that the computer has to calculate the same stuff, but for 10000 agents? That would be insane.
I suppose that you don't understand how Total War mechanics work like. In TW, the combat system is much more simple and requires less CPU operations to take place. That happens because the troops, as independent agents, have no influence on the battle. They are just a couple (thousands) of dolls which play an animation during clashes. In Mount&Blade, each agent has its own intelliglence; therefore, the computer needs to calculate every single thing done by the agent in cause (including individual skills, weapon proficiencies, attacks, blocks, health etc). Imagine that the computer has to calculate the same stuff, but for 10000 agents? That would be insane.
Not for people that would rather play as commander instead of warrior.
don't see how it would change anything... the player just wouldn't get close, the AI would behave as Total War AI does. Getting involved in the fights and sending your specialised army against another's are two different kinds of thrills that are both solved by this I feel.Do not look here 说:
Having two different systems in a single game kills immersion pretty hard. It won't take an average player long to realise he's in a giant façade, one which would be open to exploitation (run away from an area so that your out-of-position soldiers will fight better under the automated system).
Terrain borders are nearly invisible in some mods, but the very presence of them subconsciously makes you avoid them. The human eye is incredibly good at noticing BS.
What might work is a dual-system approach to battle scale. In small battles, troops would act as normal, blobbing together and ignoring each other and doing all that lag-inducing stuff. In larger battles (400+ guys), troops who aren't immediately in combat would be scripted to move, but nothing/little else. This would require quite a rigid formations system where groups of soldiers don't compute their attack targets independently.
Terrain borders are nearly invisible in some mods, but the very presence of them subconsciously makes you avoid them. The human eye is incredibly good at noticing BS.
What might work is a dual-system approach to battle scale. In small battles, troops would act as normal, blobbing together and ignoring each other and doing all that lag-inducing stuff. In larger battles (400+ guys), troops who aren't immediately in combat would be scripted to move, but nothing/little else. This would require quite a rigid formations system where groups of soldiers don't compute their attack targets independently.
jeehwanlee99
Regular
jacobhinds 说:
That would be a nice compromise between TW and M&B and also allows possibility of larger battles. BTW, assigning units to groups and issuing commands to these groups was buggy, difficult and ineffective in Warband. They need to do a better job of Grouped and Formation warfare
And yes, I am well aware of TW battle mechanics since I have been playing since Medieval 1.
I am thinking of a new group system much improved from Warband. You can assign X number of soldiers of Y type into group 1 (for example 30 swadian footman and 10 swadian pikemen into group 1, and 20 Swadian Crossbowmen and 10 Mercenary Archers into group 2) then you can order and command a certain group to attack, defend, follow, etc. However, they need to make a new UI system that allows us to do this very easily. TW did this with their unit card system. With multiple groups, you can make a Heavy Infantry group and maybe two light infantry groups to flank and/or cover. Maybe create a mixed comp of heavy and shock cavalry group to flank and charge the enemy from the behind. That would make the battles more realistic and fun. There would be ~10 or 20 of such groups. For larger battles (ESPECIALLY SIEGES) the AI would switch to grouped formation warfare similar to TW, but for multiplayer, smaller skirmishes, etc, individual AI would predominate
If you listen closely in the Dev Blog 8, the narrator said something about engine optimization and hinting it would allow larger battles and larger scenes. I am very curious what their standard of "large" is
By which he means to say 225 km2, not 225 km x 225 km.
I think there are good arguments for simplifying unimportant combat AI, but there's also something very nice about the completeness of a M&B battle (the same can be said of the overworld map). There is a complete absence of smoke and mirrors, you're witnessing the organic outcome of combat that's being simulated in detail all along the line. I think that's a great strength of M&B and battle size can and will follow as hardware allows.
If it came down to it, I'd prefer a smaller battle size with universally smarter AI.
I think there are good arguments for simplifying unimportant combat AI, but there's also something very nice about the completeness of a M&B battle (the same can be said of the overworld map). There is a complete absence of smoke and mirrors, you're witnessing the organic outcome of combat that's being simulated in detail all along the line. I think that's a great strength of M&B and battle size can and will follow as hardware allows.
If it came down to it, I'd prefer a smaller battle size with universally smarter AI.
Meevar the Mighty 说:
You wouldn't be saying that if you looked at the warband source code. D:
They way things are currently, there are a ton of really inefficient scripts, and that's just softcoded stuff -- the hardcode relating to combat is responsible for a huge amount of (possibly preventable) lag. Not every agent on the field needs to be running individually determined scripts, nor do they need to bother with attacking if they're in the middle of a formation. It looks ridiculous when you're on a horse with arrows and all 50 looters charge directly at you with knives raised in unison.
This. A tangential example that I can mention is the large game_start script that is run upon the player clicking the "new game" button. With my mod adding a lot of factions and parties and whatnot, the game took over three minutes to load a new game - and the worst part was that testing and implementing new features usually requires you to start a new game, at least once per "modding session". In any case, though, at one point I got infuriated, tossed the old script out of the window, and re-wrote it as a monolithic structure that loops over all parties only once - the default version has multiple loops over all villages, for an example, sometimes right after one another, which serve no practical purpose whatsoever, and that's not a problem when you've got some 150 villages, but with 1200 of them, there's a titanic difference.jacobhinds 说:
After testing my re-written script, a new game would start not in three minutes, but in three seconds. I was baffled and amazed.
I'm pretty certain that this happens with the gradual adding of things over the game's development cycle. It's nice to throw everything out and start anew every so often, so I can't wait to get my hands on Bannerlord's improved scripting. Especially while it's still fresh out of the oven.
I'd had your game_start 3 second statement in my head since you last mentioned it in 2013 or something, and scoured the script thinking "this isn't too bad". Didn't think that trying_for_parties was so intensive (i thought that having the first line as a strong cutoff like " eq, terrain, pt_snow" would prevent it dragging out), especially since i was thrown off by the absolutely enormous "random_political_event" which is called 5000 times.
I'm more than happy for the AI to be optimised and refined to behave more sensibly, but it would be sad for it to behave less sensibly in places for the sake of having more bots on screen, which is obviously the goal that the Total War franchise has pursued to the nth degree.
The confusion is long past, it's just that it's actually false to say it's 225 kilometres squared. If I were buying beans and I got 10 beans which were square (when viewed from a certain angle) instead of 100 beans, I would win the courtcase, but my family would have starved to death and in the end, everybody would lose. I can't let that happen.
ToyBoat 说:
The confusion is long past, it's just that it's actually false to say it's 225 kilometres squared. If I were buying beans and I got 10 beans which were square (when viewed from a certain angle) instead of 100 beans, I would win the courtcase, but my family would have starved to death and in the end, everybody would lose. I can't let that happen.
I've been playing M&B since version 0.6 or something. Spent months on version 0.751. Dont worry folks. Taleworlds wont let you down, neither did they abandon their games. Have a lil goddamn patience.
Even considering a battlesize near 5000 vs 5000 in M&B Bannerlord, with current AI and independant combat for each character is simply not possible. Anyone claiming it is, has no idea how this works.
Even looked closely at combat in R2:TW ? Its just a set of 10 animations playing. There are not 5000 units in your army, there are 20 units in your army which consist of a visual depicting 200 soldiers each. There is hardly any calculation done. Nothing near M&B in terms of actual combat done.
Have you ever played that game? It's laughable. Most battles in that game are 50vs50 or something like that. Not even close to a total war game.jeehwanlee99 说:
Even considering a battlesize near 5000 vs 5000 in M&B Bannerlord, with current AI and independant combat for each character is simply not possible. Anyone claiming it is, has no idea how this works.
Even looked closely at combat in R2:TW ? Its just a set of 10 animations playing. There are not 5000 units in your army, there are 20 units in your army which consist of a visual depicting 200 soldiers each. There is hardly any calculation done. Nothing near M&B in terms of actual combat done.
Janlulhannes 说:
This. This is the reason why this
wouldn't work. If I'd like to look at bunch of TWesque actors running in front of me, I'd launch TW. When I want to order around bunch of M&Besque drones, I play M&B.ToyBoat 说:
jeehwanlee99
Regular
Janlulhannes 说:
You MISsed my 2nd post. And btw, nothing is impossible. ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. A real time simulated warfare was thought impossible by the gaming community due to the amount of objects the computer has to render but TW broke this belief and used an innovated LOD system and allowed this to happen. Seriously...... maybe if you people continue to have this attitude it might not be possible.
I still would like to see much more scaled up epic battles and sieges. AT THE VERY LEAST allow us to scale up the size of battles/sieges in singleplayer.
I am sure most of you would agree but many of the "cities" and "castles" in warband felt VERY underwhelming. Very small, very compact, not a lot of space and only 100-120 units moving around at most. It didnt feel as epic as it should be. Also battles of that magnitude can only be considered a skirmish at most. I want to see REAL MEDIEVAL WARFARE with thousands of units. Soldiers can and should be able to be grouped together much easier to allow grouped formation combat. Hopefully that saves up on the amount of "calculations" the game has to do
jeehwanlee99
Regular
Do not look here 说:
yes but if possible why not have BOTH TW&M&Besque gameplay?
类似的主题
- 置顶
- 文章
- 置顶
- 文章
