Realism or Arcade

[rokema]

tl,dr? Skip to conclusion
Thesis

Melee
For melee the thing that pisses me off the most is that you are able to feint spam a weapon much faster than you can swing that weapon. Arcade. The animation should be equally as fast, so that with heavy weapons, the blocking is much harder. I don't know how somebody is able to stab me from two inches away with a bamboo spear by simply releasing the attack button away from my body and stabbing my feet.

Additionally, when a horse brushes past me, I shouldn't be knocked back.

This is the only part i agree with, most of the times there is no reason to take a 1handed weapon over a 2handed except to use a shield, but this usually means that people go around with a cheap shield and free 1handed to get close to archers and switch to a 2handed to fight them in melee. Not funny and unrealistic in an unpleasant way too.

What're 2handers supposed to do then? Archers can shoot accurately halfway across the map by just moving the reticule a centimeter upwards, IMO make the arrows drop more so archers have to aim up to kill people

-Anyway, why do people complain about archers being underpowered, just camp spawn and you're set, shoot some infantry in the back and dodge nooblancers. Oh and if cavs just run into walls while they're trying to attack you; just run around in circles around them and shoot them because due to unmaneuverable horse they can't do **** except backstab.

(I am one to buff horses and nerf lances)

-Last edit: It's hard to think about things that're balanced and realistic.

 

[doomsayer]

Removing the crosshair, to put it bluntly, is an imbecilic move. As many other posters have stated, there's no real way to aim your weapon in-game. Even in first person, judging the arc of the projectile is a massive pain because of the way it's represented. If you remove the crosshair you might as well get the archers to play the medieval adaptation of Battleships.

Really as I said before it's not a problem to use the bow in close/med quarters without crosshair. Arrow drop does really not figure in at all since all you have to do is look for a reference point as which the arrow really serves well (it's horizontal and finetuning of aim that's hard but I'm fine with that ... don't really like horse archers that shoot my horse and make a perfect passing headshot while I'm lying on the ground).
Also let's not focus on crosshairs only (it's probably best to keep the option to use it at will imo), what about adding wind while adding also an option to shoot over/under shields. If done correctly it wouldn't make archery less effective but more interesting.

 

[kaleena]

-Last edit: It's hard to think about things that're balanced and realistic.

I'm not sure that war in real life was ever balanced in any way so realism in multiplayer video games fails. 

 

[Night Ninja]

Reality is balanced because you have far more options available to you, whereas games have to be balanced within a specific context.

 

[xenoargh]

I'm with Archonsod on this.

If you want realism... imagine a game where:

1.  Every time you take a wound, you have a 30% chance of getting gangrene, having to have the limb removed, and / or dying.  And that's a non-lethal wound.  Medieval medicine was awful; nobody cleaned wounds properly, they didn't understand shock or how to deal with combat injuries.

2.  Perma-death.  Always.  Non-optional.  It would then save the game and require a restart.  Imagine that, after playing for a game-year and conquering half of Calradia 

3.  Random disease from food or water has a chance to kill your character every week, or make your character so sick that he/she is unable to lead troops for months.  It happened rather frequently to commanders IRL.

4.  Remove all of the medical skills entirely, because they didn't actually exist; in 1257, there were no real doctors (at least, in the modern sense), the scientific method hadn't been invented yet... and field medicine usually involved a guy with carpentry skills and a saw.

5.  Remove all blunt damage, because IRL, you can't hit people with blunt objects and magically knock them out.

6.  You'd never get dead troops back, and 60% of the unconscious would be unfit for duty.  IRL, anything that makes you unconscious is probably a serious injury... and they didn't know what to do about serious injuries back then, besides a few crude techniques and a lot of prayer.  The character of Jeremus is fairly ahistorical; he's more suited to the Renaissance than to 1257.

7.  Your men would frequently get dysentery, rendering them unfit or dead.

8.  Let's not even talk about what would happen to you if you were female.

etc., etc.

In short... 100% realism would suck.  People who would like that can feel free to make a mod that does all that stuff- I am 100% certain that everything except for the perma-death-with-no-recourse can be done with this engine. 

Making a mod that merely changes the way that chambers work and gets rid of the sights for missile weapons would take about an hour to implement (if you know what you're doing). 

Just change the alpha on the sights and adjust the aim animations to be iron-sights-correct, and you're done with missile stuff.  Nobody will use bows in 3rd-person, unless they've put a dot on their screens.  IIRC, at least one mod has done it already.

Chamber changes would just involve making the ready state automatically continue to the release, so that you simply can't feint at all, IIRC.

So, there ya go- you can go do this stuff, that's all the knowledge you need.

But it wouldn't be fun, so don't be surprised if nobody wants to play it.

It would be arbitrary, and the game would feel like a perverse version of Oregon Trail- an angry "history lesson" developed by jerks.  It would not be fun.

 

[Baron Conrad]

Earlier you said something about steepening the learning curve so better players will stand out, I think most sensible good players don't want that, it is already steep enough. Making archery impossible for beginners may be realistic but completely game ruining, I think it would turn off new people who wanted to play archery a lot.

 

[Qwertyman]

I feel the learning curve is good atm tbh,  a great player really does stand out-  ive seen battle games where the whole match has revolved around a couple of veteran players-  with the rest of the team working to get them deployed where they can kick arse

I dislike the anti-realism argument that goes "oh but you dont respawn in real life, and you get desease bla bla bla"  nobody is asking for ULTRA realism, but instead-  realism of combat simulation.  entirely diferent things.

one thing i'd like to see is as well as 'proficiency'  we would have 'familiarity' with weapons, but actual specific weapons, armour and horses.  horses being the equipment it is most noticable with,  it would function the same as proficiency- in that the higher the number the more effective you use it, but would have a much less noticable and subtle effect.
basically when you get a new sword/horse/whatever you will start off a little uneasy with it, and gradually 'grow into it' taking perhaps a battle or two to use it to its full effectivness, then begin to use it better than anyone else could-  after a while the 'familiarity' will grow at a snails pace, so you cant use a dagger as well as a greatsword.  but you can always have a 'favored blade' or a horse that has been with you years, that cant serve you like any other.

EDIT:  rambing i missed the point.
in terms of multiplayer-  this would mean that all faction troops would use their own faction equipment better than that of others,  horse archers for example would be brilliantly agile with steppe horses, but if they steal a charger then they may as well be using snails as mounts.
in terms of singleplayer it adds that little extra bit of customisation and roleplay,  it gives incentive to hold onto a peice of armour a little longer, and gives a sense of attatchment.  and losing a horse will be far more than a hole in your wallet to a veteran horseman.

 

[xenoargh]

I dislike the anti-realism argument that goes "oh but you dont respawn in real life, and you get desease bla bla bla"  nobody is asking for ULTRA realism, but instead-  realism of combat simulation.  entirely diferent things.

Well, if you just want a more realistic combat model, I've already built one. 

I really doubt it's fun MP for casual play.  People would really cry about the way the missile weapons work- realistically- and implementing iron-sights wouldn't change the dynamics at all.  Running around with a two-hander trying to spam would just get you killed, generally, because you wouldn't have a shield.  People who're used to Native would hate it.

Either you want historical accuracy, or you just want some nerfs on weapons you think are OP.  Don't invoke "realism" unless it's what you actually want.

Historically-accurate combat would be much more lethal, fast and generally unforgiving than Warband is right now.  I really don't think it would appeal to folks outside of the true hardcore.

 

[Archonsod]

What're 2handers supposed to do then? Archers can shoot accurately halfway across the map by just moving the reticule a centimeter upwards, IMO make the arrows drop more so archers have to aim up to kill people

If only In the first instance, the arrow trajectory is randomised which plays a bigger part the further you're shooting. As soon as you get beyond mid range hitting is as much about luck as aiming; you can fire three arrows without moving the crosshair and have all three land in completely different areas. Secondly, I never take a shield and have no problem getting close to archers and the like. Most maps offer plenty of cover, and if all else fails you can easily zig zag to throw off their aim.

Really as I said before it's not a problem to use the bow in close/med quarters without crosshair.

Yes, it's a problem if that's all you can do though. The point of a bow or crossbow is for long range engagement. Thrown weapons are better over the short range, with both being equal at the mid range (the lack of damage of the bow/crossbow vs the lack of accuracy with the thrown weapon).

Also let's not focus on crosshairs only (it's probably best to keep the option to use it at will imo), what about adding wind while adding also an option to shoot over/under shields. If done correctly it wouldn't make archery less effective but more interesting.

Trajectory is already randomised when the arrow is fired. I'm not sure a wind system would be a good idea; presumably one could predict and adjust for the deviation which would make it possible for the more skilled archers to regularly kill from across the map.

 

[Brother of blades]

dude even if the whole comuntiy agreed with you if we implemented what your asking them to do it would cost a incredible amount of money and probably take years to make. if you want realism go join one of those groups of people who dress up like vikings and attack each over or go f*ck of to the army
and **** me i can hear your accent and your not even talking 

edit

and for god sake man people play games to get away from reality.
or they use booze
weed
or many other drug substances
and for god sake youve got me speaking posh now 

 

[Night Ninja]

I'm with Archonsod on this.

...

Oh wow, the ****ty slippery slope argument again. Nobody said you have to dump in every aspect of reality.

 

[CalCD]

Going to the original question, Realistic or arcade combat... If you remove feintspam you will need something to occupy good players at higher levels other than kicks, since most good players will be able to block attacks until the second coming - chamber blocking is risky atm , and kicking is really inelegant and rather cheap, since you're still able to block during kicking and can abuse the hell out of it if you want to, automatic win for a successful kick and you can try again a few seconds later...

I really cant think of anything that would allow skillful players to gain an advantage in combat over less skillful players, but a new mechanic would have to be implemented if you dont want endless battle syndrome afflicting higher level play...

 

[Archonsod]

Oh wow, the ****ty slippery slope argument again. Nobody said you have to dump in every aspect of reality.

Actually, they do. Or rather the insistence of using "it's more realistic" without justifying or clarifying how this in any way improves the game means you're perfectly justified in dumping in as many elements as you'd like, since they too are "more realistic".

 

[Gorath]

Hardcore realism typically takes all the "fun" out of games.  Some realism is good, but proper game balance is more important.  I'd rather have a little more "arcade" style to the game.  On demand sprint (ala americas army for instance), double tap dodge movement (ala UT) so we can dodge and lunge, etc.

A few realism elements would be nice to have as well:
Armor affecting movement and swing speed more so choosing to be a tank or nimble fighter actually is a choice instead of best gear = best style without drawbacks.

Archery having no X-hairs and requiring ranged weapon users to aim down the sights/arrow shaft/ thrown weapon, etc.

Both schools of thought blended together well probably works best for the game imo.

 

[Night Ninja]

Actually, they do. Or rather the insistence of using "it's more realistic" without justifying or clarifying how this in any way improves the game means you're perfectly justified in dumping in as many elements as you'd like, since they too are "more realistic".

Generally, the claim that something is more realistic is usually qualified by an explanation or is self-explanatory in its given context.

Armor affecting movement and swing speed more so choosing to be a tank or nimble fighter actually is a choice instead of best gear = best style without drawbacks.

Armour already affects movement a heck of a lot in Warband, and going into armed confrontation voluntarily as a 'nimble fighter' is the classic example of an activity that deserves a Darwin Award.

 

[omzdog]

Oh wow, the ****ty slippery slope argument again. Nobody said you have to dump in every aspect of reality.

My point entirely. I'm not asking to implement ****ing gangrene. If anything, I would ask to focus on combat rather than the reality of campaign.

Honestly, if people disagree with at least considering adding reality to Warband it really doesn't matter. As in to say these people don't make an assessment of what reality in WB might be and simply judge on what they think it will be. With every update comes more realism, and the best mods are the ones that include very realistic aspects. I know that inevitably the game will shift.

 

[Archonsod]

Generally, the claim that something is more realistic is usually qualified by an explanation or is self-explanatory in its given context.

I've yet to see one ...

 

[civbts319]

I want realism. 

 

[possum]

隐藏

I'm with Archonsod on this.

If you want realism... imagine a game where:

1.  Every time you take a wound, you have a 30% chance of getting gangrene, having to have the limb removed, and / or dying.  And that's a non-lethal wound.  Medieval medicine was awful; nobody cleaned wounds properly, they didn't understand shock or how to deal with combat injuries.

2.  Perma-death.  Always.  Non-optional.  It would then save the game and require a restart.  Imagine that, after playing for a game-year and conquering half of Calradia 

3.  Random disease from food or water has a chance to kill your character every week, or make your character so sick that he/she is unable to lead troops for months.  It happened rather frequently to commanders IRL.

4.  Remove all of the medical skills entirely, because they didn't actually exist; in 1257, there were no real doctors (at least, in the modern sense), the scientific method hadn't been invented yet... and field medicine usually involved a guy with carpentry skills and a saw.

5.  Remove all blunt damage, because IRL, you can't hit people with blunt objects and magically knock them out.

6.  You'd never get dead troops back, and 60% of the unconscious would be unfit for duty.  IRL, anything that makes you unconscious is probably a serious injury... and they didn't know what to do about serious injuries back then, besides a few crude techniques and a lot of prayer.  The character of Jeremus is fairly ahistorical; he's more suited to the Renaissance than to 1257.

7.  Your men would frequently get dysentery, rendering them unfit or dead.

8.  Let's not even talk about what would happen to you if you were female.

etc., etc.

In short... 100% realism would suck.  People who would like that can feel free to make a mod that does all that stuff- I am 100% certain that everything except for the perma-death-with-no-recourse can be done with this engine. 

Making a mod that merely changes the way that chambers work and gets rid of the sights for missile weapons would take about an hour to implement (if you know what you're doing). 

Just change the alpha on the sights and adjust the aim animations to be iron-sights-correct, and you're done with missile stuff.  Nobody will use bows in 3rd-person, unless they've put a dot on their screens.  IIRC, at least one mod has done it already.

Chamber changes would just involve making the ready state automatically continue to the release, so that you simply can't feint at all, IIRC.

So, there ya go- you can go do this stuff, that's all the knowledge you need.

But it wouldn't be fun, so don't be surprised if nobody wants to play it.

It would be arbitrary, and the game would feel like a perverse version of Oregon Trail- an angry "history lesson" developed by jerks.  It would not be fun.

i would like it. really.

it would also help to avoid that players would have a huge top tier army and become unbeatable. some top troops would die and the player would be forced to replayce them. permadeath would also force the player to think before he decides to attack a larger army.

 

[Qwertyman]

隐藏

I'm with Archonsod on this.

If you want realism... imagine a game where:

1.  Every time you take a wound, you have a 30% chance of getting gangrene, having to have the limb removed, and / or dying.  And that's a non-lethal wound.  Medieval medicine was awful; nobody cleaned wounds properly, they didn't understand shock or how to deal with combat injuries.

2.  Perma-death.  Always.  Non-optional.  It would then save the game and require a restart.  Imagine that, after playing for a game-year and conquering half of Calradia 

3.  Random disease from food or water has a chance to kill your character every week, or make your character so sick that he/she is unable to lead troops for months.  It happened rather frequently to commanders IRL.

4.  Remove all of the medical skills entirely, because they didn't actually exist; in 1257, there were no real doctors (at least, in the modern sense), the scientific method hadn't been invented yet... and field medicine usually involved a guy with carpentry skills and a saw.

5.  Remove all blunt damage, because IRL, you can't hit people with blunt objects and magically knock them out.

6.  You'd never get dead troops back, and 60% of the unconscious would be unfit for duty.  IRL, anything that makes you unconscious is probably a serious injury... and they didn't know what to do about serious injuries back then, besides a few crude techniques and a lot of prayer.  The character of Jeremus is fairly ahistorical; he's more suited to the Renaissance than to 1257.

7.  Your men would frequently get dysentery, rendering them unfit or dead.

8.  Let's not even talk about what would happen to you if you were female.

etc., etc.

In short... 100% realism would suck.  People who would like that can feel free to make a mod that does all that stuff- I am 100% certain that everything except for the perma-death-with-no-recourse can be done with this engine. 

Making a mod that merely changes the way that chambers work and gets rid of the sights for missile weapons would take about an hour to implement (if you know what you're doing). 

Just change the alpha on the sights and adjust the aim animations to be iron-sights-correct, and you're done with missile stuff.  Nobody will use bows in 3rd-person, unless they've put a dot on their screens.  IIRC, at least one mod has done it already.

Chamber changes would just involve making the ready state automatically continue to the release, so that you simply can't feint at all, IIRC.

So, there ya go- you can go do this stuff, that's all the knowledge you need.

But it wouldn't be fun, so don't be surprised if nobody wants to play it.

It would be arbitrary, and the game would feel like a perverse version of Oregon Trail- an angry "history lesson" developed by jerks.  It would not be fun.

i would like it. really.

it would also help to avoid that players would have a huge top tier army and become unbeatable. some top troops would die and the player would be forced to replayce them. permadeath would also force the player to think before he decides to attack a larger army.

lol, ironically, if someone made a mod with all those features i'd play it