Realism vs Balance

[diavel]

It's not a question of realism vs balance, it's a question of realism vs fun. It's all very well to add something or alter something to make it more realistic, but if the addition doesn't contribute to the player having fun, it's a complete waste of time.

Fun can be one thing to one player and other thing to another player. It is a question or realism vs balance. In cases like examples I posted in OP. Of course sometimes realism brings balance.

My question was if it's better to sacrifice troop balance or realism when you can't have both.

 

[Archonsod]

The idea is not to make the game fun for everyone, it's to make the game fun for your target audience.

 

[blink180heights]

These are things that should be implemented in the game if you want REALISM.

1. Blood squirt from a sword slash should be implied.
2. One stab by a swordsmen should kill a person with no chainmail or plate armor.
3. Horsemen should be able to knockdown and bump a friendly troop in Battle mode.
4. One Arrow to the chest should kill a troop not wearing chainmail or plate armor.
5. Any troop type should not be able to stab with a Great Lance but only couch, because they are really heavy and were never used to stab in real life.
6. Artillery should be implemented in the game for realism.
7. Death Match mode should not have 2 factions against each other but player be able to pick any type of troop with any type of weapon for the specific class.
8. Charger horses accelerate too slow. Their speed is fine.
9. Archers and horse archer's crosshairs should not be limited to time, but to movement.
10. Shields should be also used to bash/charge an opponent.
11. Players should be able to run while holding shield up.
12. One thrown weapon to the chest should kill an opponent who is not wearing plate armor.
13. A full speed horse charge should take away half an opponent's life bar unless you are wearing plate armor.
14. Limbs should be able to get cut off (except the head/or not).
15. A drummer should be added to single player to sound the drums of war until engagement.
16. AI should move in Formations or in a line at least.
17. A disarming feature should be implemented also if correctly timed.
18. Arrows and thrown weapons that are stuck on a shield should slow down the use of the shield or player.
19. Arrows and thrown weapons that are stuck on a shield should be removable by swords.
20. A Flail should be put in the game.

 

[Archonsod]

Some of those aren't realistic

 

[diavel]

There is a live interview going on right now with warband developers. I asked them about it. That's what they replied:

隐藏

Mikail Yazbeck:
I personally like things that feel realistic but have enough gaminess in thaem in order not to drag the experience down
Monday May 10, 2010 3:37 Mikail Yazbeck

Armagan Yavuz:
I am kind of trying to balance thetwo myself. Personally, I see reality as a source of inspiration rather than an ideal that I strive to reach.
Monday May 10, 2010 3:38 Armagan Yavuz

Mikail Yazbeck:
Also having settings like damage you take and damage to your army, helps you custom tailor the realism or gaminess to your liking.
Monday May 10, 2010 3:38 Mikail Yazbeck

Armagan Yavuz:
Realism is important for immersiveness, and is also important to make them easily understandable and intuitive. But one should be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that if you make the game realistic, it'll automatically become good and balanced. It doesn't work that way.
Monday May 10, 2010 3:40 Armagan Yavuz

Mikail Yazbeck:
I can easily second that

 

[blink180heights]

like?

Some of those aren't realistic

 

[Archonsod]

1. Blood squirt from a sword slash should be implied. - not unless you sever an artery, no
2. One stab by a swordsmen should kill a person with no chainmail or plate armor. - There are numerous places you can stab someone without ever killing them. See "body piercing" for example.
4. One Arrow to the chest should kill a troop not wearing chainmail or plate armor. - As above
6. Artillery should be implemented in the game for realism. - Artillery tended to be used for sieges. Some took hours to set up and an ox team to move around; not the kind of thing you can just wheel out with you on a raid.
12. One thrown weapon to the chest should kill an opponent who is not wearing plate armor. - The chest is evolved specifically to protect your organs. People can take shotgun blasts and walk away; a throwing weapon is not necessarily going to be lethal
13. A full speed horse charge should take away half an opponent's life bar unless you are wearing plate armor. - I've been ran over by horses and emerged unscathed. Armour won't really help; the fact a horse won't consciously step on something that could trip it up does.
14. Limbs should be able to get cut off (except the head/or not). - Not likely. Takes a lot of power to sever a limb, it's why surgeons used saws rather than axes. Fingers and similar extremities are fair game, but unless you pin the opponent down first severing a limb is highly unlikely.

 

[Moose!]

4. One Arrow to the chest should kill a troop not wearing chainmail or plate armor.

6. Artillery should be implemented in the game for realism.

7. Death Match mode should not have 2 factions against each other but player be able to pick any type of troop with any type of weapon for the specific class.

9. Archers and horse archer's crosshairs should not be limited to time, but to movement.

11. Players should be able to run while holding shield up.

12. One thrown weapon to the chest should kill an opponent who is not wearing plate armor.

13. A full speed horse charge should take away half an opponent's life bar unless you are wearing plate armor.

15. A drummer should be added to single player to sound the drums of war until engagement.

20. A Flail should be put in the game.

4. Padded and quilted armour could, in reality, stop arrows.

6. Artillery in medieval times? Unless you mean seige equipment, I'm pretty sure they didn't have it.

7. Not a realism issue.

9. Ever shot a bow in real life? It's not easy to keep the bowstring drawn for a long period of time.

11. They can? Unless you mean sprint, and in that case, try running at full speed with your arm outstretched with a heavy wooden board against it.

12. Once again, you are underestimating the damage that both a human opponent and a human opponent with light or medium armour can take.

13. Wouldn't someone knocked down in armour take more damage? The fall would certaintly hurt more, and getting up would be harder as well.

15. Music, if I am correct, was not typically part of a medieval battle line. I believe that was much latter. Music was the DEVIL!

20. Not often used as a medieval combat weapon in my opinion, more of a single-combat or torture device.

*****ing ninja'd

 

[kingofnoobia]

A realistic feel has to be achieved, no more. After the feel of realism has been established, you can play with numbers all you like to balance it out, even if that makes the game draft away from realism. Perfect realism is a bad idea, as you do not have perfect control over your character either. A realistic look is what should be strived for, imo.

These are things that should be implemented in the game if you want REALISM.

1. Blood squirt from a sword slash should be implied.
2. One stab by a swordsmen should kill a person with no chainmail or plate armor.
3. Horsemen should be able to knockdown and bump a friendly troop in Battle mode.
4. One Arrow to the chest should kill a troop not wearing chainmail or plate armor.
5. Any troop type should not be able to stab with a Great Lance but only couch, because they are really heavy and were never used to stab in real life.
6. Artillery should be implemented in the game for realism.
7. Death Match mode should not have 2 factions against each other but player be able to pick any type of troop with any type of weapon for the specific class.
8. Charger horses accelerate too slow. Their speed is fine.
9. Archers and horse archer's crosshairs should not be limited to time, but to movement.
10. Shields should be also used to bash/charge an opponent.
11. Players should be able to run while holding shield up.
12. One thrown weapon to the chest should kill an opponent who is not wearing plate armor.
13. A full speed horse charge should take away half an opponent's life bar unless you are wearing plate armor.
14. Limbs should be able to get cut off (except the head/or not).
15. A drummer should be added to single player to sound the drums of war until engagement.
16. AI should move in Formations or in a line at least.
17. A disarming feature should be implemented also if correctly timed.
18. Arrows and thrown weapons that are stuck on a shield should slow down the use of the shield or player.
19. Arrows and thrown weapons that are stuck on a shield should be removable by swords.
20. A Flail should be put in the game.

NO to 2, 4, 9, 11, 12 and 15 for a lack of realism.
NO to 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 17 for being bad for balance/gameplay/enjoyability.

Especially number 13 is a terrible idea. I've stated this argument many times already: horses in Warband are ridiculously cheap. Why? Because we want everyone to be able to ride a horse, not just one elite player. In exchange, they are made weaker, which is quite logical. Cheap horses cost less than a leather jerkin, while actually owning and upkeeping a warhorse would probably be the most expensive piece of equipment. Even the cheapest horses' cost would be more or less equivalent to medium armour at least, with the most expensive horses being about as costly as a full set of the best possible equipment.

There are some reasonable ideas though.

 

[bubble]

M&B:WB (and m&B) is one the most realistic games (when it comes to "feel" during fighting) I've played which is why I like it so much. There are situations in the game though when for playability - realism needs to be sacrificed. Some people have argued for example that archers are too precise. Although an archer is my favourite unit I would gladly agree to fix it if this would make M&B:WB more realistic. Another example is that horses don't charge friendly troops.

I'd really be more enjoying the game if fighting mechanics were going in direction of more and more realism. Why? Because that would make more abstract elements of game more fun - tactics, strategy, use of troops.

I really dislike Deathmatch mode of multiplayer. It requires that all kinds of units have relatively equal chances of winning duels. In real life that wouldn't be like this at all. From the beginning M&B was about big battles. I want it to stay this way in SP and MP with increasing realism.

There is a live interview going on right now with warband developers. I asked them about it. That's what they replied:

隐藏

Mikail Yazbeck:
I personally like things that feel realistic but have enough gaminess in thaem in order not to drag the experience down
Monday May 10, 2010 3:37 Mikail Yazbeck

Armagan Yavuz:
I am kind of trying to balance thetwo myself. Personally, I see reality as a source of inspiration rather than an ideal that I strive to reach.
Monday May 10, 2010 3:38 Armagan Yavuz

Mikail Yazbeck:
Also having settings like damage you take and damage to your army, helps you custom tailor the realism or gaminess to your liking.
Monday May 10, 2010 3:38 Mikail Yazbeck

Armagan Yavuz:
Realism is important for immersiveness, and is also important to make them easily understandable and intuitive. But one should be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that if you make the game realistic, it'll automatically become good and balanced. It doesn't work that way.
Monday May 10, 2010 3:40 Armagan Yavuz

Mikail Yazbeck:
I can easily second that

I dont think that any of these fantasy fps/mmos are "realistic in any way" but they try to catch up with realism to a minimal percentage.
Of course the developer or distributor argue with some kind of phrases since such things "sell", but at the end every pc game is about pixels vs pixels and just a huge fight with mathematical formulas. It makes no sense to discuss this game with "real realistic" issues sinc it can not provide it.

But a certain or tiny percentage is quiete nice in games and of course the game balance, last one is even more important and you wont find any game where this doesnt exist in a multiplayer/mmo game even in such realistic simulation games.

 

[blink180heights]

I am not suggesting these things, i am just showing (people) what realism would do to the game if that was the main focus

 

[Jericho]

I am not suggesting these things, i am just showing (people) what realism would do to the game if that was the main focus

Perhaps so, but many of those things you chose as examples was based upon simple conjecture and
many preconceived notions . 

 

[bubble]

Actually with realism, weapons would hit at least the target and not just be controlled with a "bugged" fantasy hit box system 

 

[Hengist]

A realistic feel has to be achieved, no more. After the feel of realism has been established, you can play with numbers all you like to balance it out, even if that makes the game draft away from realism. Perfect realism is a bad idea, as you do not have perfect control over your character either. A realistic look is what should be strived for, imo.

I agree. And the realistic feeling you mention is pretty much achieved already (and shouldn't get lost of course). Therefore, I think balance has priority. As Armagan stated, realism is a kind of inspiration.

 

[Moose!]

I am not suggesting these things, i am just showing (people) what realism would do to the game if that was the main focus

Those are more like things which would be added if the game was focused on balancing/fun, in my opinion. Not that those things are balanced, but they certainly aren't realistic, which would mean the other reason to put them in would be for balance/fun.

 

[kingofnoobia]

I am not suggesting these things, i am just showing (people) what realism would do to the game if that was the main focus

A good deal of them were utterly unrealstic, I'm afraid.

 

[Reapy]

Reality isn't balanced, that's why I play games.

Honestly, I think what most games aim to achieve is 'movie reality' to make you feel like the start of the latest 'realistic but not totally realistic' action movie.

But reality is often not fun. A good example of this trade off was the game, I think called 10 hammers? It was a military game based off a training simulator. In the simulator, when you threw a smoke grenade, it would take the full amount of time to fill an area, something like 45 sec to a minute. In the game they had to change it to about 10 seconds or so because who really wants to wait 45 seconds for smoke to get there? I have better things to do with my life than wait for smoke to fill an area.

Also look at simulations in general. It is a dead pc gaming genera. You will find a lot of these simulations that aim to achieve realism as niche car (gt legends) or plane (falcon) games based on dated engines. When is the last time you have seen a 'jane's' game in a while?

Specifically for m&b realism there are a few problems. The first of which is the engine limitations. I haven't looked under the hood of m&b but I have a feeling it has a lot of spagetti problems, it is like any project you start with a specific design goal, achieve it, and then start nailing on cool features. It works at first but the more you grow it this way the more you have to stop, recode and/or fix old concepts. It makes going forward sometimes start to be a lot more difficult, or, a new feature you want to implement cant be done because of old assumptions made in the engine.

At the end of the day, it is pretty much what was said in the interview, reality is an inspiration for games, the game should make you feel like you are visiting and taking place in that reality, but the game can never be 100% realistic. So it comes down to finding the parts of reality that you can mymic, and whether or not you want that aspect to be reflected in gameplay. So far I think they've done a good job...nobody else is visiting this particular reality what so ever, and I really enjoy being a part of it.

 

[Indefiance]

Balance should certainly have priority in the original game. Total realism should be kept in a mod, which would definitely be there some time.

 

[Ivarr]

I don't think there is ever much balance in real warfare. The very goal of the struggling sides is to win the war; not organizing some sporty battles. Everyone are doing their best to get their hands on weapons and ways that would top the enemy.

In a game I'd like to see a variety of a select weapons that are all useful in a way. Like a bigger and heavier shield is slower but provides better protection, a longer and heavier weapon is longer and somewhat slower - the thing that makes sense and thus, are realistic. Small efficiency variation among the weapons is OK with me. This is where the rewarding and the denars comes in. But I don't want to see any "best" weapons that just beat the rest.

I like that the weapons are based on their historical counterparts but they sure don't have to be the exact replicas. I think that's what we have right now and I like it. A few things could always use some tweaking but I have no interest for a drastically realistic game or the opposite of it.

 

[bubble]

Of course there is no balance in real warfare, alone the general military strategy doesnt allows it if you take attacks as an example. At the end we should be happy that we have not to go to any war, except those sad ones who decided to go for it joining the military.