Realism in suggestion threads

[Talon68]

I don't think anyone would post about this, but I thouht it was worth noting. When people post replies about this game, coudl you please think of the REALISM involved in your response realted to the game. Please permit me to ellaborate:
1. Main thing that annoysm me is posts that talk about adding things that they have seen in other games that just simply are stupid. Example: The fire arrows post where the person sais that a fire arrow could have an area of effect damage. That is a dumb thing to say. Then there is things like balancing by making things random pickups and restrictions that would happen in games like Final fantasy where each creature carries one item, and you find yourself with a magic fire ring gained from killing an oversized rodent.
2. Things like quests which are common in other games. Think people think. How many times in your life have you walked up to someone and had them ask you if you will take their money and go pay a ransom for their friends daughter for them. Ridiculous.

Thats really it. I know that some degree of gaminess is required to make this game fun, but don't suggest plainly ridiculous things.

 

[sheek]

1. Main thing that annoysm me is posts that talk about adding things that they have seen in other games that just simply are stupid. Example: The fire arrows post where the person sais that a fire arrow could have an area of effect damage. That is a dumb thing to say.

Why is it dumb? It's a very good idea.

 

[Narcissus]

While I understand where you are coming from, Talon ... you must remember that different people like different types of games. Hence they would like to see those elements in this game as well.

By the way, I also like a lot of realism in my games. Still, people should be able to suggest virtually anything they want as long as it isn't offensive. If you disagree with a suggestion, post and say why.

In the end, Armagan will choose whatever he feels is best for the game. Be that total realism. Total fantasy. Or a good mix inbetween.

Narcissus

 

[Kissaki]

1. Main thing that annoysm me is posts that talk about adding things that they have seen in other games that just simply are stupid. Example: The fire arrows post where the person sais that a fire arrow could have an area of effect damage. That is a dumb thing to say.

Why is it dumb? It's a very good idea.

I don't see how fire-arrows would have an area-of-effect damage. If someone is hit by a firearrow, does he suddenly burst into flames and explode, setting his surroundings on fire? No. He's not soaked in kerosene, nor is he a walking keg of gunpowder. Fire-arrows were never meant in an anti-personell capacity at any rate, but rather set flammable things on fire. Wooden buildings and such; not carbon-based life forms. A regular arrow would have more impact and do more damage on people.

I agree with Talon68, although in his second point he is complaining about a feature already in the game

I enjoy a good fantasy game as well, but I have long lusted for a game that strives for realism. I have found that in M&B. There's still room for improvement of course, there always is. The weights are mostly correct (if they're listed in pounds, not kilos), which possibly makes this the first game I've played to get that part right.

In short, years of RPGs combined with an interest in history have made me a stickler for realism. I still play Morrowind (and Daggerfall, and Arena ), but at long last I have come across this wonderful game which actually respects realism and not just "cool". I'm not too fond of those double-headed axes, nor the goggle-helmet (which dates to ca. 600-800, and as such predates even the viking age), but there is at least some precedence for both. Though the double axe as seen in the game is questionable. And I don't like how the warhammer, which is listed as doing bludgeoning damage when it attacks with the spike (not the hammer), and as such is no different from the attacks of the picks (listed as doing piercing damage). But these are minor things. Even the guards seem realistic to a good degree (well, there's a high guard and a short guard in any case), and although there's a nasty tendency to move the shield away when attacking, I accept this as a necessary step to balance things out and prevent people from becoming invincible so long as they have a shield. All in all, M&B is the most realistic hack&slash game I've ever played, and I love it for it.

This is just one man's opinion, of course, but out-of-this-world elements would only have a negative impact as far as I'm concerned. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

[Volkier]

Well, fire arrows existed. And so far I have seen people suggest fire arrows, and ONE of the EFFECTS to be AE damage.. which is completely up for discussion in my oppinion. (although I don't really agree with AE damage myself, theres room for fire arrows and for them to have some other benefits)

Regarding quests, well ok realistically speaking you won't come up to somebody in the street etc. But if you want to be that realistic, why play a game at all? Quests are there just to give players a REASON to exist. If I was to live in M&B era, I would happily get myself a horse, go into the middle of some woods, and live there for the rest of my life without hopefully seeing another human being ever again. But that is not reality, unfortunately, (or at least untill I take over the world). Thats the reason why people play games, to escape reality. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not saying the game should be unrealistic. On the contrary, a game should STRIVE to be as realistic as possible in terms of PHYSICS. That would make the person 'feel' like they are inside the virtual world while playing. Once they are there, things like quests, storyline, and some purpose of existance has to be implimented, otherwise the person playing would just get bored because the game's style of life becomes the same as reality.

Realistically speaking, if you want to put it that way, you would not roam around with a bunch of knights without rest and kill everyone you come across or at least 10 other armies each day - just so you can get better get money to buy better armor, and get better at killing (leveling up).

 

[NikkTheTrick]

1. Main thing that annoysm me is posts that talk about adding things that they have seen in other games that just simply are stupid. Example: The fire arrows post where the person sais that a fire arrow could have an area of effect damage. That is a dumb thing to say.

Why is it dumb? It's a very good idea.

1 fire arrow would never make a "fireball".
To achieve "area effect, you need:
1: Perfectly dry weather.
2: Dried grass.
3: A lot (way more than 20 ) of archers.

Otherwise, the arrow would just hit the ground and the fore will spread very slowly - the enemy would have either walked away of would have accidently extinguished it by stepping on this "match".

 

[jrawlings]

On the fire arrow discussion. Actually a flaming arrow that hits an enemy would do LESS damage than an un-lit one if anything else. The reason is that the hot flames would cartorize (sp?) the wound preventing any bloodloss associated with the puncture.

I agree Area Effect arrows are a no go unless we have some magical faerie dust to enchant them with... Don't see that coming.

I do think flaming arrows would be cool if there were raidable villages and you have the quest/desire to burn and pillage it to the ground. Wait until the middle of the night, ride in and let loose 100 arrows and watch the whole place go up.... flames silohuetting the night sky... nice...

 

[Kissaki]

Another thing which further complicates the use of fire-arrows... How do you propose to light the things? Do you carry a quiver of 20 burning arrows on your back, or do you keep a burning torch stashed somewhere?

Fire-arrows are totally impracticable if you're a one-man show, except for that one first arrow. And just to reiterate: Without objects to put ablaze, what's the point?

 

[Archonsod]

1. Main thing that annoysm me is posts that talk about adding things that they have seen in other games that just simply are stupid. Example: The fire arrows post where the person sais that a fire arrow could have an area of effect damage.

Should siege ever be implemented, then fire arrows would have their uses. Perhaps not area effect damage though.

2. Things like quests which are common in other games. Think people think. How many times in your life have you walked up to someone and had them ask you if you will take their money and go pay a ransom for their friends daughter for them. Ridiculous.

How many people do you know who have had family members held to ransom? It occurs to me that should Veigers be holding the Swadian prince, then the king himself certainly isn't going to go ransom him. Instead he would send a trusted knight (which is where you come in) to make sure it isn't a trap.

Thats really it. I know that some degree of gaminess is required to make this game fun, but don't suggest plainly ridiculous things.

Thats the thing though. There can be equally stupid suggestions which are entirely realistic. Like having to wait when you upgrade a troop while they go off and get training...

 

[Ceaning agent]

I totally agree with this thread. Be realistic. how on earth (lets assume for a minute that darwin is correct) could a lion develop wings and a beak and form a hippogriph? lions have teeth and hind legs for a reason and eagles have talons for a reason lets face it hippogriphs and alll mythological beasts are dumb. Anyway woohoo look at me I'M A MONSTER WITH 7 BRAINS SIX NOSES AND 3 CHINS AND 6 EARS! NONE OF MY BODY PARTS SERVE ANY PURPOSE BUT HELL YEAH LETS JUST DEVELOP THEM ANYWAY. ok so i may be overreacting a little.... but my point is that even things like wild animal parties or prisonor recruiting are a bt strange. one of the reasons i love mount and blade and missed my mother's funeral because of it (not really) is that it is so realistic. So, lets not add in flying turtles with bazookas and keep it real.

 

[Jhaerik]

Shrug, I'm sure if hunting for food(which by the way is rather reaosnable, and would be rather fun) was implemented "wild animal parties" would kinda have to come with it would they not? Also by prisoner recruitment, i assume you mean using prisoner to catch in your army? That actually would be rather nice, I mean there is a slave trader, and unless that guy is using them to make trail rations, they have to be going somewhere. Why not be able to use them as troops, instead of selling them. Sure, its not exactly historical, but would be rather nice if moral was every implemented, seeing as they would have greatly lowered base moral, and even lower fighting troops of the same nation.

 

[captain_bloodloss]

as far as hunting goes, i think that's where the camp command comes in, you hit it and it brings you to the map, and maybe you'll see a few animals to hunt, and maybe not

 

[Volkier]

Well any case, I would withdraw from this discussion, since I feel it is only a pointless attempt at starting an argument : (or several arguments) and it is succesfully achieving that.
*runs away*

 

[Kissaki]

Shrug, I'm sure if hunting for food(which by the way is rather reaosnable, and would be rather fun) was implemented "wild animal parties" would kinda have to come with it would they not? Also by prisoner recruitment, i assume you mean using prisoner to catch in your army? That actually would be rather nice, I mean there is a slave trader, and unless that guy is using them to make trail rations, they have to be going somewhere. Why not be able to use them as troops, instead of selling them. Sure, its not exactly historical, but would be rather nice if moral was every implemented, seeing as they would have greatly lowered base moral, and even lower fighting troops of the same nation.

You want to give them weapons? What makes you think they wouldn't attack you instead of the enemy? Especially if the "enemy" are friends of theirs...

 

[maw]

didn't Alexander the Great, Ceasar and Pompey, and other generals throughout history recruit some of the soldiers they defeated?

if a 'loyalty' factor could be implemented, it could be a possible option - maybe not a guarantee in all cases, but what talented, professional soldier wouldn't want to keep doing what he's doing for a new boss that obviously showed more talent than his previous boss? gottya assume that some of the soldiers are lowly paid mistreated conscripts, some of the outlaws 'impressed' into service or at least wanting to get a step up in life, and, hell, why ain't the farmers on the farm? prolly 'cause they ain't makin' enough money ta live.... and are looking to score some scraps....

maybe a charisma check would be easiest, with a modifier against faction attitude and successful battles (combat reputation) , could allow the recruitment option to pop up for you.

for a captured fighter, it beats rowing oar, baby. or being ground-beef in the swad-vag grinder. maw

 

[jrawlings]

didn't Alexander the Great, Ceasar and Pompey, and other generals throughout history recruit some of the soldiers they defeated?

I'm not entirely sure, but during that time, hiring of mercenary armies was practiced, so the enemy's army that you captured were "hired guns" to begin with... I would assume that so long as Alexander or Caesar or whoever had the money, they could hire the soldiers from the defeated army.

 

[Archonsod]

It was usual for mercenaries to be hired in Medieval times too.

Perhaps have it as a one time only thing - offer your captives their freedom in return for joining you in battle. After the battle you head your seperate ways...

 

[Kissaki]

didn't Alexander the Great, Ceasar and Pompey, and other generals throughout history recruit some of the soldiers they defeated?

Caesar, Alexander et al. operated on much larger scales. Our hero is hardly a conqueror, (s)he's just the leader of a merry band of rogues, and as such would inspire little loyalty in a former foe.

 

[Archonsod]

Our hero is hardly a conqueror, (s)he's just the leader of a merry band of rogues, and as such would inspire little loyalty in a former foe.

It would still work. You capture bandits (who face life as a slave or possible execution) or warriors (who presumably have some form of a code of chivalry). You find yourself facing an army of 40 Swadians, so you turn to your captives and offer them freedom in return for fighting against the knights.
The bandits are screwed either way (its not as if Swadia is going to be any more lenient to known outlaws) and the knights have the whole honour thing to uphold. So they join in the fight. Once the fight is won they can dissappear with their equipment and horse (or loot some from the battlefield).
Its not really a question of loyalty, its about choice. They aren't fighting for you, they're fighting to avoid life as a galley slave or prisoner.

 

[Jarskull]

Armagan started this project to create a game that conveys the intesity of a sword fight. Or so I remember in one of his interviews. Apparently realism was on his mind. Lets hope that the game sticks with realism. I have other games for fantasy.