-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
[Poll] Multiplayer Discussion Thread
- 主题发起人 Varrak
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
PepperKP 说:
this guy knows
This.Firunien 说:
Jarl approves too
I want to propose to make the system of sergeants as in a single game for multiplayer. That ordinary players could see the written orders of their commanders, as well as add a voice chat. With a limited ability to communicate only for the commander of the army and his captains of different arms. Then messy battles can take the form of organized battles against the formation of the system.
I understand that you can just play a clan on a clan or attend an event, but that's not often the case.
I understand that you can just play a clan on a clan or attend an event, but that's not often the case.
I suggested this 2 years ago (hoping they implemented it).
Multiplayer siege:
Multiplayer siege:
- an interface before the map starts where players can "poll" where to put the siege engines. The map creator can place more than 1 point where to place the siege engines. Before the map/battle starts players click on these predefined points and selects the siege weapons from a list decided by the mapper. In a similar way to single player siege. But this interface lasts for 30 seconds and acts like a poll. This will make sieges more tactical and dynamic.
- make it possible for mappers to decide how many players can be on defense and how many on attack. Maps can vary a lot and it's hard to balance them with different players amount. In this situation we've to use limited lifes for defenders. On my server i had to create an automatic lifes system to balance different situations. But this isn't fair. The best solution is to let the mappers decide the % of players for each side. This is also more realistic because in siege usually the attackers were always more than defenders.
We know they will have horse archers, the issue is if they play like warband now no matter how much you nerf them they will be over powered (and therefore unused in multiplayer).
I would like a change to be made (possibly multiplayer only) so that you cannot control the horse while drawing the bow, so if the horse is running it will stay running just at the same direction and speed. I did some tests on this a while back in warband and it makes cav archers much more balanced since cavalry can catch and kill them without getting shot to bits. Without being able to control the horse while aiming the rider cannot move away from incoming cav AND fire at the same time.
It also makes hitting cav archers easier for other rangers since they cannot fire and dodge at the same time anymore. Cav archers would still be effective but they would no longer be able to straight up beat cavalry and archers which is the main issue now.
I would like a change to be made (possibly multiplayer only) so that you cannot control the horse while drawing the bow, so if the horse is running it will stay running just at the same direction and speed. I did some tests on this a while back in warband and it makes cav archers much more balanced since cavalry can catch and kill them without getting shot to bits. Without being able to control the horse while aiming the rider cannot move away from incoming cav AND fire at the same time.
It also makes hitting cav archers easier for other rangers since they cannot fire and dodge at the same time anymore. Cav archers would still be effective but they would no longer be able to straight up beat cavalry and archers which is the main issue now.
That is a pretty good horse archer suggestion. It might work really well if you just had turning after you knock the bow kick you out of the draw animation. This way you don't really lose maneuverability and feel like you've lost control of the horse, but you won't be able to turn and get the arrow ready at all either, so you still effectively have to ride in a straight line to shoot.
I also like the idea of asymmetric siege battles, that would be really cool to try a few maps where you have a 4 to 1 ratio of players and let the maps have some really ugly defenses to get through. It still might be overly frustrating though if you have a few ass clowns on the defender side that don't do the work they need to to make the castle hold. The attackers might also hate the gameplay of having to get boulders thrown on their heads for 20 minutes before they can actually fight someone too.
I also like the idea of asymmetric siege battles, that would be really cool to try a few maps where you have a 4 to 1 ratio of players and let the maps have some really ugly defenses to get through. It still might be overly frustrating though if you have a few ass clowns on the defender side that don't do the work they need to to make the castle hold. The attackers might also hate the gameplay of having to get boulders thrown on their heads for 20 minutes before they can actually fight someone too.
Horse Archers combine the strength of archers which is an effective long range attack, and the strength of cavalry which is high mobility, but don't really inherit either of their weaknesses.
The current balance problem isn't so much that cav or archers can't handle them, since it's typically easier for a grounded archer to win a shootout (better archery proficiency and less movement resulting in better accuracy) and cavalry outspeed horse archers through both the riding skill and the ability to buy faster horses.
The gargantuan balance problem is that there's literally nothing an infantry can do against a horse archer. Infantry can easily beat archers by getting in their faces and using their melee advantage, they can easily beat cavalry by using polearms and stopping horses that eventually have to get close enough to deal damage.
Horse archers on the other hand don't run into either of these problems. They don't ever have to get close to deal damage to infantry with their highly mobile horse, so there's no way for an infantry to get close to a horse archer.
Your suggestions wouldn't change that, they'd just make fights against grounded archers nearly impossible and shooting down cavalry much harder, all while making the class extremely unrealistic, resulting in very unnatural and lame horse archery gameplay.
It would be better to just leave horse archery out of multiplayer entirely. If implemented realistically, it would be too powerful. If implemented with the necessary nerfs, it would be disgustingly unnatural and provide both **** gameplay and a bad competitive spectacle.
There's no good reason to have a class that can't be naturally balanced which becomes unenjoyable to play against, or a class that can be artificially balanced, but becomes odd and unenjoyable to play as.
The current balance problem isn't so much that cav or archers can't handle them, since it's typically easier for a grounded archer to win a shootout (better archery proficiency and less movement resulting in better accuracy) and cavalry outspeed horse archers through both the riding skill and the ability to buy faster horses.
The gargantuan balance problem is that there's literally nothing an infantry can do against a horse archer. Infantry can easily beat archers by getting in their faces and using their melee advantage, they can easily beat cavalry by using polearms and stopping horses that eventually have to get close enough to deal damage.
Horse archers on the other hand don't run into either of these problems. They don't ever have to get close to deal damage to infantry with their highly mobile horse, so there's no way for an infantry to get close to a horse archer.
Your suggestions wouldn't change that, they'd just make fights against grounded archers nearly impossible and shooting down cavalry much harder, all while making the class extremely unrealistic, resulting in very unnatural and lame horse archery gameplay.
It would be better to just leave horse archery out of multiplayer entirely. If implemented realistically, it would be too powerful. If implemented with the necessary nerfs, it would be disgustingly unnatural and provide both **** gameplay and a bad competitive spectacle.
There's no good reason to have a class that can't be naturally balanced which becomes unenjoyable to play against, or a class that can be artificially balanced, but becomes odd and unenjoyable to play as.
make horse archers only able to use bad horses and limit which bows can be used on horseback and its gute 
)
)
Fidel Lagstro 说:
But isn't this historically accurate? Huns destroyed big Roman Armies near Constantinople, without getting closer to them, but only using horses and arrows.
Horse Archer's counter unit seems like cavalry units which has better strike damage and more armuored horses, also enemy archers would block horse archers to get in some places.
This scenario also happened in E3 gameplay video, where player attacked enemy horse archer units with his cavalry units.
Sir Galahad the Pure 说:
I smelled donkeys in this thread so I came here
Edit: Erm, on topic, lest I get a warning: something to make cav less OP cause I also smell OP cav if Inf now flies around so much when they get hit by it. Also cav which does not clip into buildings so you can't hurt them when you kill their horse like it's sometimes currently the case; and no tiny, but 359° shields for those bastards anymore. And no more free Cavjavs anymore pls (or only free javs if you mount a war donkey which may decide to stand still or go the way it wants)
UrsaWarrior95
Recruit
TBH the coolest ting the devs could add to MP Banner lord is a "Commander" game mode, something like the game "Tiger Knight:Empire War" on steam has that would be really cool to have you as a commander facing off another in a pitched battle.
