Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

[Mr.X]

Good answer. Very good answer.
Now imagine a Total War game, in witch the player can switch from TW camera view to first person view (M&B) and can fight in the melee just as in M&B. (If I was in EA's board of directors, I would have bought M&B engine long ago and somehow will make the two work together.) How much room will be left for M&B on the market? None.
Somebody will do it soon or a later, and if the combat is done well enough (better then War Of The Roses) M&B will be dead. And I don't want this. I want Taleworlds to continue to grow.

No. Just no.

RTW/TWseries is a completely different game and genre from M&B. Mixing the two would not work.

Taleworlds would not have sold their engine, to EA, even if they had asked.

Yea, Amontadillo is right.

If Total War implemented that, the market for MnB would be huge because everyone would be like "wtf is this game" and not play it .

Like I said before, you can't just mix what you like about every game together to make a super-game. It doesn't work like that. Games have particular styles. And more importantly, features in games have /reasons/. Adding everything into one game might seem "epic", but it will suck. For a couple reasons. First, if you give a player the option of being "tactical" or playing "combat", he either won't know what to do and stop playing the game because the experience is confusing, or he'll vastly favor one option. Most likely the former. But even so it just reeks of bad game design because there's no clear goal, and no good player experience.

You're also not the first person to come up with this idea. There's dozens of threads floating around taleworlds about this.
These three threads are all on the front page of the suggestions forum:
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,26107.0.html
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,10521.0.html
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,2975.0.html

Here's a popular mod that adds a pre-battle deployment phase:
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,142816.0.html

The way it's done in that mod (which I've only seen in videos, never actually tested) seems to be the best way to go about it. Before the battle starts you can arranged your troops in a very basic way and give them some preliminary orders. Then the battle starts and that's it. There's also numerous mods that involve formations and other thingies that come up in the Total War games. And those I have tried, and they are all extremely disappointing in my opinion because the AI doesn't warrant formations, nor do they really seem to have large effect on the battles. In fact, attempting to organize your troops into formations often makes the battles more difficult and less efficient to fight. In SP battles, because of the way the AI works, the best things to do is simply get the most surface area to be attacking. Troops naturally clump up, so if you can have your troops attacking from many sides, you have a larger surface area which means the clumped troops will get in each other's way and will have to block in various directions (which is tough with directional blocking :p). Putting your troops into a phalanx or something usually lessens the surface area you have to work with.

 

[Kawee]

I stand corrected in the armor debate. So, basically whether one used plate or lighter armor was simply a matter of being able to afford it? (Just a question, I'd like to know)

Pretty much.

Assuming European battlefields, plate armour was superior to light armour in almost every way. The greater mobility offered by light armour is relatively minimal compared to the much greater protection offered by plate armour. However, plate armour and warhorses and whatnot were very expensive. Vast majority of the population (peasants) could work their entire life and still not save up enough for suit of armor. Even some lesser nobles struggle.

 

[deutrino]

Mixing the genres can work splendidly well (Minecraft?). And I know about these mods. But this is not important.
I will try to explain again what I mean. Please forgive me if my English is too rough/limited.

M&B combat system is the best for now, but who knows for how long? If only one big developer try to implement the same concept of "directional block" in one of their AAA titles - bye-bye Taleworlds. (They don't need to buy it, they can "emulate" it. WoTR's guys haven't asked for sure.) If you look in the single player topics you will find out that repetitiveness is the most common complain. There is only so much a good combat system could do for the gameplay.
Seriously, if a game like Skyrim have the same combat system as M&B, or the possibility to hire 50 soldiers and to siege castles which one would you play? (multiplayer aside)
As long as the combat is the only thing that makes M&B exceptional game, Talewords are vulnerable. Because let's be honest here - what else is in this game beside combat???

P.S. I play M&B singleplayer for five years by now, and there is a lot more to be desired.

 

[Ringwraith #5]

M&B combat system is the best.

No, it isn't. It's atrociously bad. The best combat system currently in existence is in Dark Souls.

 

[bark bread]

It's only natural for gameplay elements other than combat to gain more importance as the game progresses but late game shouldn't feel like an entirely different game belonging to another genre.

I like playing a merchant in M&B but I wouldn't suggest turning it into a medieval trading sim. BUT it should have enough features & depth in that department and allow me to immerse myself and play realistically as a trader.

 

[Tork789]

what else is in this game beside combat???
I play M&B singleplayer for five years by now, and there is a lot more to be desired.

Oh, WotR tried to copy the combat system, but the game felt awful. And I might have figured out why. First of all, the thing that makes M&B's combat system special is it's physics engine, specifically this speed modificator thingy, I've never seen a game that had such things.
Fatshark tried to copy that and they failed, even with money from Paradox. Swings and hits just doesn't feel the way they feel in warband, I couldn't figure out the range of a weapon, and I couldn't feel what I should do to hit properly, everything felt very unintuitive, and those colored numbers and shields that pop up from every successful strike didn't help much.
And maybe partly because of the awful animations they made. In Warband your movements feel so real: every time a character does a strike, he steps forward, his whole body moves and spins towards the direction of the hit and it feels realistic, in WotR characters hit using only their hands, the rest of the body stays static. Even when a character stands still in warband, he shifts from one foot to other and gives me, personally, a feeling, that he is a alive, in WotR the character just half-squats like in some kind of a fighting game and I feel disgust when I see that.
So you see, even though anyone can try to replicate Warband, it will always be those little details which make warband special and the reason why people like me would prefer it instead of other games.
So no, Taleworlds, in my opinion, just should stick to their ideas and polish them instead of trying to integrate something from other games.

 

[Yabloko]

M&B combat system is the best.

No, it isn't. It's atrociously bad. The best combat system currently in existence is in Dark Souls.

Yes, I think that Dark Souls has one of the best combat systems I've ever seen, and the combat system is not the only good thing of that game.

Good answer. Very good answer.
Now imagine a Total War game, in witch the player can switch from TW camera view to first person view (M&B) and can fight in the melee just as in M&B. (If I was in EA's board of directors, I would have bought M&B engine long ago and somehow will make the two work together.) How much room will be left for M&B on the market? None.
Somebody will do it soon or a later, and if the combat is done well enough (better then War Of The Roses) M&B will be dead. And I don't want this. I want Taleworlds to continue to grow.

No. Just no.

RTW/TWseries is a completely different game and genre from M&B. Mixing the two would not work.

Taleworlds would not have sold their engine, to EA, even if they had asked.

Yea, Amontadillo is right.

If Total War implemented that, the market for MnB would be huge because everyone would be like "wtf is this game" and not play it .

Like I said before, you can't just mix what you like about every game together to make a super-game. It doesn't work like that. Games have particular styles. And more importantly, features in games have /reasons/. Adding everything into one game might seem "epic", but it will suck. For a couple reasons. First, if you give a player the option of being "tactical" or playing "combat", he either won't know what to do and stop playing the game because the experience is confusing, or he'll vastly favor one option. Most likely the former. But even so it just reeks of bad game design because there's no clear goal, and no good player experience.

You're also not the first person to come up with this idea. There's dozens of threads floating around taleworlds about this.
These three threads are all on the front page of the suggestions forum:
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,26107.0.html
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,10521.0.html
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,2975.0.html

Here's a popular mod that adds a pre-battle deployment phase:
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,142816.0.html

The way it's done in that mod (which I've only seen in videos, never actually tested) seems to be the best way to go about it. Before the battle starts you can arranged your troops in a very basic way and give them some preliminary orders. Then the battle starts and that's it. There's also numerous mods that involve formations and other thingies that come up in the Total War games. And those I have tried, and they are all extremely disappointing in my opinion because the AI doesn't warrant formations, nor do they really seem to have large effect on the battles. In fact, attempting to organize your troops into formations often makes the battles more difficult and less efficient to fight. In SP battles, because of the way the AI works, the best things to do is simply get the most surface area to be attacking. Troops naturally clump up, so if you can have your troops attacking from many sides, you have a larger surface area which means the clumped troops will get in each other's way and will have to block in various directions (which is tough with directional blocking :p). Putting your troops into a phalanx or something usually lessens the surface area you have to work with.

Let me tell you that you can do it, it just needs to have the characteristic essence of M&B, and I think that TaleWorlds is totally able to do that. Not that I'm asking for those features, I just want to say that if TaleWorlds wants to innovate adding a feature from another game is probably going to make it even more epic.

 

[Mr.X]

Mixing the genres can work splendidly well (Minecraft?). And I know about these mods. But this is not important.
I will try to explain again what I mean. Please forgive me if my English is too rough/limited.

M&B combat system is the best for now, but who knows for how long? If only one big developer try to implement the same concept of "directional block" in one of their AAA titles - bye-bye Taleworlds. (They don't need to buy it, they can "emulate" it. WoTR's guys haven't asked for sure.) If you look in the single player topics you will find out that repetitiveness is the most common complain. There is only so much a good combat system could do for the gameplay.
Seriously, if a game like Skyrim have the same combat system as M&B, or the possibility to hire 50 soldiers and to siege castles which one would you play? (multiplayer aside)
As long as the combat is the only thing that makes M&B exceptional game, Talewords are vulnerable. Because let's be honest here - what else is in this game beside combat???

P.S. I play M&B singleplayer for five years by now, and there is a lot more to be desired.

How many genres is minecraft? Pretty sure it's open world/free roam.

I get it, you've been playing a long time. I've been playing for more than 5 years though, and it really doesn't matter. If skyrim had the combat and the abilty to hire 50 soldiers and siege a castle, it wouldn't be skyrim. Skyrim (I haven't actually played it so I might be off a bit here), AFAIK, has a storyline that you follow. M&B doesn't. That alone is a big enough difference to classify them as completely different genres. If you give MnB a storyline, it won't be open world/free roam anymore, and then this whole argument is pointless. Now, you might think the only thing that makes this game exceptional is the combat, but I think the fact that it is open world and the fact that it doesn't have gimmicky RPG elements like perks and special powers and moves based on leveling makes this game exceptional, in addition to directional combat.
So basically, you need to expand the way you think about video games and realize that not everyone games the way you do.

 

[Yabloko]

Mixing the genres can work splendidly well (Minecraft?). And I know about these mods. But this is not important.
I will try to explain again what I mean. Please forgive me if my English is too rough/limited.

M&B combat system is the best for now, but who knows for how long? If only one big developer try to implement the same concept of "directional block" in one of their AAA titles - bye-bye Taleworlds. (They don't need to buy it, they can "emulate" it. WoTR's guys haven't asked for sure.) If you look in the single player topics you will find out that repetitiveness is the most common complain. There is only so much a good combat system could do for the gameplay.
Seriously, if a game like Skyrim have the same combat system as M&B, or the possibility to hire 50 soldiers and to siege castles which one would you play? (multiplayer aside)
As long as the combat is the only thing that makes M&B exceptional game, Talewords are vulnerable. Because let's be honest here - what else is in this game beside combat???

P.S. I play M&B singleplayer for five years by now, and there is a lot more to be desired.

How many genres is minecraft? Pretty sure it's open world/free roam.

I get it, you've been playing a long time. I've been playing for more than 5 years though, and it really doesn't matter. If skyrim had the combat and the abilty to hire 50 soldiers and siege a castle, it wouldn't be skyrim. Skyrim (I haven't actually played it so I might be off a bit here), AFAIK, has a storyline that you follow. M&B doesn't. That alone is a big enough difference to classify them as completely different genres. If you give MnB a storyline, it won't be open world/free roam anymore, and then this whole argument is pointless. Now, you might think the only thing that makes this game exceptional is the combat, but I think the fact that it is open world and the fact that it doesn't have gimmicky RPG elements like perks and special powers and moves based on leveling makes this game exceptional, in addition to directional combat.
So basically, you need to expand the way you think about video games and realize that not everyone games the way you do.

About that, I'd like that as you advance in game, a story is created and recorded, and that decisions you take in the present heavily affect what will happen in the future.
And more nobles and descendants, that would make a free world that, even if free has a storyline created by you

 

[Marmz]

Oh, but you can make a super game about everything!
You only need unlimited time and unlimited (computing) power.

A game brilliantly mixing Total War and Mount&Blade would be absolutely incredible, but the technology isn't there yet.
As it stands, Total War's Warscape engine cannot hope to offer an enjoyable melee experience; the engine just isn't built that way. Maybe in 10-20 years, who knows?

And I fundamentally disagree with the saying: "you can't mix this genre and that genre".
Why is that? I have yet to come across a convincing argument, i.e. one that is affirmative and not negative.

I mean, look at life: that's one super meta game if I ever saw one.

I understand game developers being limited in time, so it beckons they may want to focus their attention on only certain aspects of human existence (or "genres"), but there's really nothing stopping them from mixing and matching whatever they please in the realisation of their vision. It only becomes a problem when their universe becomes incoherent, when two seemingly identical actions produce different results; when what you see doesn't relate to what you get, cohesiveness is broken and so is immersion.

All games cheat to some extent, and it falls on the player's imagination to fill in the gaps. But when the game deceives the eyes too much, my feeling of immersion is irremediably lost.
There's a difference between showing something in an abstract (albeit consistent) way, not showing something at all (like in a book), and outright cheating the player's sense of expectation.

In my opinion, M&B strikes a fine balance.

 

[deutrino]

bla-bla-bla

Skyrim is more open world than M&B will ever be.
Minecraft genres - survival/puzzle/rpg/sandbox/action/building sim
Perks, special moves and so on - this why I've stoped playing Skyrim. This is why "M&B combat system is the best." You are too opinionated.

you need to expand the way you think

You are american aren't you? American multiplayer guy. Tipical.

 

[MadocComadrin]

M&B combat system is the best.

No, it isn't. It's atrociously bad. The best combat system currently in existence is in Dark Souls.

You're kidding? Dark Souls combat is very good, but it will never be the best--it's not really suited for multiplayer with more than one person and while it does have some decent depth for the breadth it has, it's lack of breadth causes it to suffer. M&B's combat system with more depth would outdo Dark Soul's.

 

[BacCompany3]

Not sure whether to laugh or report for trolling.

lol. Do it (palpatine's voice) 

 

[Ringwraith #5]

M&B combat system is the best.

No, it isn't. It's atrociously bad. The best combat system currently in existence is in Dark Souls.

You're kidding? Dark Souls combat is very good, but it will never be the best--it's not really suited for multiplayer with more than one person and while it does have some decent depth for the breadth it has, it's lack of breadth causes it to suffer. M&B's combat system with more depth would outdo Dark Soul's.

Have you actually played DS? I'm guessing not, or only briefly. Play it for a few hundred hours, then we'll talk about which game has a combat system with more depth. Mind you, it's going to be a very short conversation. It'll go like something this:
Me: "DS has a combat system with much more breadth and depth than M&B."
You: "I agree."

 

[MadocComadrin]

I have played Dark Souls, I do not agree. And I'm not going to debate with you if you're just going to act like an ass, which means I'm probably not going to debate with you.

 

[Marmz]

For having played both DS and M&B, I must say I prefer M&B's system.
I feel it allows a lot more freedom in how you handle your weapon.

Too many times I've hit walls trying to swing a sword in tight corridors in DS, due to not being able to choose which direction to swing.
Never had this problem in M&B.

M&B's system could certainly use some improvements, and I don't mind them looking to DS for inspiration, but overall I feel M&B's system is more free flowing and fun, and more intuitive.
Also, the way you had to target enemies in DS felt contrived (at least in my opinion); it made fighting a crowd somewhat harder than it should.

 

[Scully]

M&B combat system is the best.

No, it isn't. It's atrociously bad. The best combat system currently in existence is in Dark Souls.

You're kidding? Dark Souls combat is very good, but it will never be the best--it's not really suited for multiplayer with more than one person and while it does have some decent depth for the breadth it has, it's lack of breadth causes it to suffer. M&B's combat system with more depth would outdo Dark Soul's.

Have you actually played DS? I'm guessing not, or only briefly. Play it for a few hundred hours, then we'll talk about which game has a combat system with more depth. Mind you, it's going to be a very short conversation. It'll go like something this:
Me: "DS has a combat system with much more breadth and depth than M&B."
You: "I agree."

You haven't played Warband multiplayer though, but I have. Both DS and Warband. Dark Souls has a lower skill ceiling than Warband, and when it comes to the melee combat it's much worse than it. The blocking is simplistic, there is no weapon collision, the netcode sucks compared to Warband and the hit detection can be really weird.

You really can't speak on the issue until you fully familiarize yourself with the melee system in Warband, something you can't do in singleplayer.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Having played both Demon's Souls and Dark Souls extensively over the past 2 years I can safely say Mount & Blade has the superior combat system. The Souls series' combat is great (along with the games as a whole) but it doesn't come close to the tactical depth allowed by Mount & Blade.

 

[Merlkir]

I see this thread is still productive as ever.

 

[Tork789]

Wait, so here you can find people that haven't played warband multiplayer yet? How can that happen? I always thought that it's just a matter of time to push "multiplayer" button in the game you own, but not that long!