Realism vs Balance

[caddux]

About the "travelling long distances at normal speed" thing, this is something that always bothered me in M&B! Why cant we speed up the time when we are travelling, just like it happens when you camp? Did they do this so it would feel more realistic? I mean, come on, it is really a loss of lifetime just to stare at the screen for long minutes while your character slowly crosses the map! Doesn't anybody else feel the same?

 

[blink180heights]

if traveling would be sped up, you will never see that huge enemy campaign warband coming at you and be able to run away lol .. don't u think?

About the "travelling long distances at normal speed" thing, this is something that always bothered me in M&B! Why cant we speed up the time when we are travelling, just like it happens when you camp? Did they do this so it would feel more realistic? I mean, come on, it is really a loss of lifetime just to stare at the screen for long minutes while your character slowly crosses the map! Doesn't anybody else feel the same?

 

[caddux]

if traveling would be sped up, you will never see that huge enemy campaign warband coming at you and be able to run away lol .. don't u think?

That would be the price to pay if you want to speed up time. If you don't want to do so, just travel at normal speed. Problem solved. Everybody is happy.

 

[Vigil80]

If you want to speed up travel time, there's an easy tweak...

Go to Warband's installation directory, and find the folder Modules→Native. Look for the file module.ini, and change the time_multiplier variable.

(Note: I did not find this tweak, but I do not know who is responsible for finding it.)

 

[Night Ninja]

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.

That is the point. This is why reality is balanced, especially in the absence of major technological advances.

 

[Archonsod]

No, reality is inherently unbalanced. If you disagree, try fighting a tiger with your bare hands and then tell us it's balanced

 

[Kamamura]

Please note that the sword combat, as portrayed in M&B, does not have anything to do with historically realistic use of bladed and blunt weapons.

The reason is simple - complete lack of footwork and lunges. It's the same style as in Star Wars - the combatants stand or slowly walk, while "swinging". Needless to say, in real sword fight, lunges and footwork are used to minimise risk while defending (i.e. backward step is made with most defensive actions), while offensive actions are done from lunges with fast return to the original stance.

That creates the characteristic "rhythm" of a swordfight (back, forward, back, forward) that is completely absent from M&B. Hence, we cannot talk about realism at all. It's a nice game, but that's all.

Look at the original prince of persia (the old dos one), it shows perfect lunge and parry. That's how it's done - not the MB way.

 

[Night Ninja]

No, reality is inherently unbalanced. If you disagree, try fighting a tiger with your bare hands and then tell us it's balanced

We haven't developed along quite the same lines i.e. unarmed combat.

It's quite different when we get access to whatever tools we can carry, though.

Please note that the sword combat, as portrayed in M&B, does not have anything to do with historically realistic use of bladed and blunt weapons.

The reason is simple - complete lack of footwork and lunges. It's the same style as in Star Wars - the combatants stand or slowly walk, while "swinging". Needless to say, in real sword fight, lunges and footwork are used to minimise risk while defending (i.e. backward step is made with most defensive actions), while offensive actions are done from lunges with fast return to the original stance.

That creates the characteristic "rhythm" of a swordfight (back, forward, back, forward) that is completely absent from M&B. Hence, we cannot talk about realism at all. It's a nice game, but that's all.

Look at the original prince of persia (the old dos one), it shows perfect lunge and parry. That's how it's done - not the MB way.

I agree with this, though I have one minor quibble. Lunges are mostly confined to the use of the rapier and other civilian knitting needles.

 

[caddux]

Please note that the sword combat, as portrayed in M&B, does not have anything to do with historically realistic use of bladed and blunt weapons.

The reason is simple - complete lack of footwork and lunges. It's the same style as in Star Wars - the combatants stand or slowly walk, while "swinging". Needless to say, in real sword fight, lunges and footwork are used to minimise risk while defending (i.e. backward step is made with most defensive actions), while offensive actions are done from lunges with fast return to the original stance.

That creates the characteristic "rhythm" of a swordfight (back, forward, back, forward) that is completely absent from M&B. Hence, we cannot talk about realism at all. It's a nice game, but that's all.

Look at the original prince of persia (the old dos one), it shows perfect lunge and parry. That's how it's done - not the MB way.

Nah... MB is reality. The rest is BS. 

 

[diavel]

Nah... MB is reality. The rest is BS. 

I agree

I have a question that is out of topic: do you know about anything that would make you more immersed into middle ages than M&B? I watched many (para)documentaries, read some books, watched some films and really it's hard to find anything with that "feel". Either it's too "epic", badly made or simply informative in a rough way.

 

[Reapy]

Please note that the sword combat, as portrayed in M&B, does not have anything to do with historically realistic use of bladed and blunt weapons.

The reason is simple - complete lack of footwork and lunges. It's the same style as in Star Wars - the combatants stand or slowly walk, while "swinging". Needless to say, in real sword fight, lunges and footwork are used to minimise risk while defending (i.e. backward step is made with most defensive actions), while offensive actions are done from lunges with fast return to the original stance.

That creates the characteristic "rhythm" of a swordfight (back, forward, back, forward) that is completely absent from M&B. Hence, we cannot talk about realism at all. It's a nice game, but that's all.

Look at the original prince of persia (the old dos one), it shows perfect lunge and parry. That's how it's done - not the MB way.

I actually was just noting in my duels the other day that this was happening with them. I actually saw the pattern and thought I needed to stop acting in it. So while the character model is stationary, the flow of combat is back and forth. One of my bad habits I have actually is coming forward when I attack too much and getting kicked a lot.

But I generally notice that players in this game do back up when they are under pressure and do come forward when attacking. When I have a good back and forth duel with a person there is a forward and back seesaw that's present.

So again, the character model's center of gravity is always straight up and down, but the fight pacing and mechanics do allow the backwards and forward shifting.

Footwork is hugely important too because the kick is such an overwhelming attack still, so with a strong kicker, the moment you let up your guard you take a boot to the face and the fight is over.

 

[EdwardWellcraft]

Please note that the sword combat, as portrayed in M&B, does not have anything to do with historically realistic use of bladed and blunt weapons.

The reason is simple - complete lack of footwork and lunges. It's the same style as in Star Wars - the combatants stand or slowly walk, while "swinging". Needless to say, in real sword fight, lunges and footwork are used to minimise risk while defending (i.e. backward step is made with most defensive actions), while offensive actions are done from lunges with fast return to the original stance.

That creates the characteristic "rhythm" of a swordfight (back, forward, back, forward) that is completely absent from M&B. Hence, we cannot talk about realism at all. It's a nice game, but that's all.

Look at the original prince of persia (the old dos one), it shows perfect lunge and parry. That's how it's done - not the MB way.

Like Reapy I also notice the back and forth flow to combat in M&B. I move forward to strike, and back up after the strike to try to create some distance. It gives me a bit more awareness and also will occasionally create enough range for an attack to simply miss entirely. (if the other guy isn't too aggressive.) So I think realism can be talked about, you just have to recognize the balance between realism and game play that has already been struck. M&B combat is an abstraction of real combat. It's a good and fun abstraction, but an abstraction none the less. Think about that abstraction when talking about making it more realistic.

 

[Kamamura]

I can agree that the forward-backward motion is visible in multiplayer matches, but what is missing from MB is the fast acceleration of the lunge. Walking really does not cut it.

... and what brings greatest middle age immersion? I can name a few games - Crusader Kings from Paradox, for one, old Lord of the Realms 2, and also the original Stronghold, to an extent. M&B, while featuring enjoyable battles, really lacks the atmosphere with the wooden, non-believable, cookie-cutter characters and lack of meaningful storyline. Middle Ages life was so much more than riding around and battling half-naked looters - religion, art, politics, court intrigue (and no, I don't mean the occasional "um, my lord, do you have a quest for me?")

 

[crazyboy11]

I'm waiting for the day a developer releases a patch specially for those people demanding extra realism that disables respawns for those select individuals.

They die in any way, game over. Forever.

Anyone here in favour of that patch? No?
didnt think so.  /thread

 

[diavel]

Death can be modded I suppose. I would like if there would be some significant chance of death for player's character or lords and companions just like any other troops.

 

[madeking]

No, reality is inherently unbalanced. If you disagree, try fighting a tiger with your bare hands and then tell us it's balanced

We haven't developed along quite the same lines i.e. unarmed combat.

It's quite different when we get access to whatever tools we can carry, though.

i agree completely
Unarmed fight - Tiger rips the humans throat out,
We roll in with a tank, things become much much fairer 


and on this point, reality certainly isn't balanced
I'm not historian but i don't think it was balanced when Alexander the great invaded small Indian tribes with his large well trained modern army,
i don't think it was balanced when the Romans invaded all the Celtic tribes,
and i don't think it was balanced when the British/Americans attacked all the native American tribes- etc

Please note that the sword combat, as portrayed in M&B, does not have anything to do with historically realistic use of bladed and blunt weapons.

The reason is simple - complete lack of footwork and lunges. It's the same style as in Star Wars - the combatants stand or slowly walk, while "swinging". Needless to say, in real sword fight, lunges and footwork are used to minimise risk while defending (i.e. backward step is made with most defensive actions), while offensive actions are done from lunges with fast return to the original stance.

That creates the characteristic "rhythm" of a swordfight (back, forward, back, forward) that is completely absent from M&B. Hence, we cannot talk about realism at all. It's a nice game, but that's all.

Look at the original prince of Persia (the old dos one), it shows perfect lunge and parry. That's how it's done - not the MB way.

I also would like to see a bit more movement based combat, i like being able to out manoeuvre my opponents, and this is hard the way the system is at the moment,
again, I'm no historian, but although i can see that people wearing full plate armour walking into combat and simply bludgeoning there way through enemies,
I would expect to see people wearing cloth etc. to do alot more parrying and lunging, and i would like to see something like this in m&b, maybe a weight based system?

I'm waiting for the day a developer releases a patch specially for those people demanding extra realism that disables respawns for those select individuals.

They die in any way, game over. Forever.

Anyone here in favour of that patch? No?
didn't think so.  /thread

when a player restarts the game in an rpg he create a new character, not the same one, and when a person dies in the world, it doesn't mean there will never be any new people ever again..
if a death mod was enabled and the players character died(no quit without save enabled) he would be dead forever but a new character would still be possible while remaining realistic- its a different person.

 

[Night Ninja]

I'm waiting for the day a developer releases a patch specially for those people demanding extra realism that disables respawns for those select individuals.

They die in any way, game over. Forever.

Anyone here in favour of that patch? No?
didnt think so.  /thread

It's a good thing that the player character doesn't actually die in M&B, is it?

Take your silly argument out with you when you go.

 

[diavel]

About death and realism in game. From what I know nobles rarely killed each other in battles. They let their livestock die instead. Nobles were ransomed. Nobles were treated like human beings, the rest more like cattle. But there could be some chance (optional, set in game settings) of dying in my opinion.

 

[MuttersomeTaxicab]

I think Mount & Blade is reasonably realistic. Combat has enough of a learning curve for new players as it is. I agree that the nerd in me wouldn't mind seeing some slightly more complex mechanics like stances, but part of what I love about M&B is the viscerality of the combat. Put too much complexity into things and I imagine that would get lost.

The combat itself is pretty far from "realistic" but it captures the satisfaction and grit of those battles - at least as we imagine it - more than capably.

Also, yeah. Reality is far from balanced. I think if we were to tweak, say, the archers into having less accuracy, the infantry into having arguable killshots a good chunk of the time on lightly armoured classes, the multiplayer games would be broken as a result.

That balance between units is necessary to keep the multiplayer game varied and interesting. If one specific unit is more powerful than the rest, people will gravitate towards it. As much as I'd find it delightfully absurd to join, say, a siege game full of archers, the novelty would wear off eventually.

Really, the major differentiation between the units is the individual player's skill with that unit. This is where the vast majority of the satisfaction lies with the combat.  For the new player, killing someone results in a feeling of "Oh man. Awesome. I'm not dead!" and for the more experienced player, killing someone of an equal skill is a hard-won victory that, yeah, takes some investment.

 

[earthling]

Reality is no more balanced than it is fair... just ask one of the few remaining tigers.

Wounding is realistic... didn't see any mention of some sort of wounding mechanic.  I imagine it would make ranged weapons much more deadly and would be hard to integrate in a fun way.  A shot to the chest etc may not kill outright, but it would surely cause a painful and perhaps crippling injury.