Realism vs Balance
- 主题发起人 diavel
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Kalthios
Regular
Realism is naturally balancing. If balance was the most important thing we would all be playing chess or war.
For example, the Archer-
Lower the accuracy of shots.
The Infantrymen-
Shield must be actually blocking the head or feet, not just near it.
These two modifications that make the game more realistic, also make the game more balanced.
Try to think of an example of this yourself. Hint, cavalry collisions.
For example, the Archer-
Lower the accuracy of shots.
The Infantrymen-
Shield must be actually blocking the head or feet, not just near it.
These two modifications that make the game more realistic, also make the game more balanced.
Try to think of an example of this yourself. Hint, cavalry collisions.
If we could position the shields up, down, and to the middle, in order to choose which area to cover, we could use that in formations. That is, if crouching would be possible and if we presume that people can be driven to use formations of that level. It would mean more controls to handle, though. If we had such options, we could maybe get rid of the shield's force field. But I'm not proposing anything here - just a thought. Although, crouching ability would be nice.
So, at the moment the situation is that to cover the missing detailed movements, we have the force shield. If we had the vertical force field removed then the shields wouldn't be much use against archers. Most of the shields leave quite a wide area of body exposed. So if people would try to form a shield wall, a bunch of archers could pick them off in no time just by shooting somewhere in the middle of them. Regardless if their accuracy have been lowered or not.
Now, I forgot what the OP was about exactly, so I'm not sure anymore what kind of realism are we debating here. Was it just combat or historical accuracy or tactics or something else... I'd sure like to see some improvements to the combat system itself, as long as the controls remain manageable. But there are limits. In reality, pointy objects tend to get stuck in stuff when they are introduced with an sufficient force. Now, if that was the case in M&B, most battles would be a huge grappling mess - I guess they were that in RL. I'm not sure how much fun that would be but overwhelming lancing days would be over. One cannot ride a horse with a dead man impaled on his lance. I have no idea how they did it in medieval times. Maybe they just dropped the lance and returned to the back lines to get another from their armiger, or just kept fighting using the secondary weapon.
About other kind of balance and realism. The warring sides have always been unbalanced. Some are outnumbered by others and some have better equipment. And as far as I can see - that's how it is in the singleplayer. But I doubt that anyone would like to see that kind of realism in the multiplayer.
So, at the moment the situation is that to cover the missing detailed movements, we have the force shield. If we had the vertical force field removed then the shields wouldn't be much use against archers. Most of the shields leave quite a wide area of body exposed. So if people would try to form a shield wall, a bunch of archers could pick them off in no time just by shooting somewhere in the middle of them. Regardless if their accuracy have been lowered or not.
Now, I forgot what the OP was about exactly, so I'm not sure anymore what kind of realism are we debating here. Was it just combat or historical accuracy or tactics or something else... I'd sure like to see some improvements to the combat system itself, as long as the controls remain manageable. But there are limits. In reality, pointy objects tend to get stuck in stuff when they are introduced with an sufficient force. Now, if that was the case in M&B, most battles would be a huge grappling mess - I guess they were that in RL. I'm not sure how much fun that would be but overwhelming lancing days would be over. One cannot ride a horse with a dead man impaled on his lance. I have no idea how they did it in medieval times. Maybe they just dropped the lance and returned to the back lines to get another from their armiger, or just kept fighting using the secondary weapon.
About other kind of balance and realism. The warring sides have always been unbalanced. Some are outnumbered by others and some have better equipment. And as far as I can see - that's how it is in the singleplayer. But I doubt that anyone would like to see that kind of realism in the multiplayer.
sdog
Veteran
i don't think balance is very important for multiplayer gameplay. it just shifts the level of challenge.
realism always is very much limited by the fact it is a game, therefore it's necessary to try to get as realistic as possible without breaking the game.
so far the best balance of playability and realism i've seen was in ACE2 mod for ARMA2 and in some mods for a small russian tactics game: E5 (and 7.62) here's a good review: http://www.dslyecxi.com/shackposts/new_jagged_union_beta.html
realism always is very much limited by the fact it is a game, therefore it's necessary to try to get as realistic as possible without breaking the game.
so far the best balance of playability and realism i've seen was in ACE2 mod for ARMA2 and in some mods for a small russian tactics game: E5 (and 7.62) here's a good review: http://www.dslyecxi.com/shackposts/new_jagged_union_beta.html
Lerxst
Regular
Make it real and balance will happen naturally. Most mods I'd like to see in this department could be saved for a sequel though:
- Battlefield 2 style "Commander" system
- Battle formations
- On-screen HUD that indicates troop movement orders for formations, where to stand, etc.
- Reduced 2 handed/polearm speeds
- Less accurate but more powerful bows
Bellum 说:Eh. They used archers and such in real life, and presumably for a reason. In theory, if everything was perfectly realistic, it'd also be pretty damn well balanced as well.
In this game, some Factions troops should really be boosted, and AI needs serious reworking, but in real life realistic has nothing to do with balance.
In real life, no war ever fought has been balanced, the better army will allways win.
Can You possibly think of a Lord ever approaching his opponent Lord asking him to balance their troops.
During the battle of Agincourt, did Henry V asked Constable Charles d'Albert to dismiss part of his army so as to balance their armies? The English were vastly outnumbered (6,000 to 10,000 English against 20,000 to 30,000 French troops, their odds were 2-1, 4-3 to 6-1, depending on different sources available), yet, they won, bringing France to its knees.
Bellum 说:
I agree 100% with You, and many guys in this and many other topics have posted very good and excellent ideas. So lets hope the devs. see them.
Urlik
Sergeant Knight
reality is not balanced in any way, shape or form.
if it was, no-one would ever have need to say "that's not fair"
fair doesn't come into it in real life, but in a multiplayer game everyone needs a chance at winning, regardless of their arms and armour.
in the single player game you have different balance issues.
faction A has great cavalry while faction B has rock solid infantry and faction C has reasonable cav and inf.
you can have more realism in SP because you can always change the settings if the game is too hard or easy.
if it was, no-one would ever have need to say "that's not fair"
fair doesn't come into it in real life, but in a multiplayer game everyone needs a chance at winning, regardless of their arms and armour.
in the single player game you have different balance issues.
faction A has great cavalry while faction B has rock solid infantry and faction C has reasonable cav and inf.
you can have more realism in SP because you can always change the settings if the game is too hard or easy.
dochtorgajo
Squire
ramonb 说:Bellum 说:Eh. They used archers and such in real life, and presumably for a reason. In theory, if everything was perfectly realistic, it'd also be pretty damn well balanced as well.
In real life, no war ever fought has been balanced, the better army will allways win.
During the battle of Agincourt, did Henry V asked Constable Charles d'Albert to dismiss part of his army so as to balance their armies? The English were vastly outnumbered (6,000 to 10,000 English against 20,000 to 30,000 French troops, their odds were 2-1, 4-3 to 6-1, depending on different sources available), yet, they won, bringing France to its knees.
Bellum 说:
I agree 100% with You, and many guys in this and many other topics have posted very good and excellent ideas. So lets hope the devs. see them.
Actually it was more like 9000eng:12000fr and with huge disadvantage for French so it wasnt balanced for them. And noone brought France to its knees english eventually lost everything that they held on continent and France became maybe biggest standalone force on continent for several centuries.
I think the most important thing is how intuitive and natural feeling the game is. It should feel right
There are certain "realism" things that are actually counter-intuitive. In addition, many "realism" proponents that don't know what they're talking about often advocate certain "realistic" mechanics that are generally quite unrealistic.
However, a lot of realism aspects help make the game more intuitive and are therefore desired.
And honestly, it's going to be impossible to make everything 100% realistic.
And making things more realistic doesn't necessarily make things less balanced. If you make one sword very realistic and forget to give the same kind of treatment to, say, a shield, then that can throw off game balance. But then you could start making the shield more realistic until it was balanced with the sword.
As for the singleplayer/multiplayer thing... I personally want the same gameplay in both modes. I hate when the gameplay is different between singleplayer and multiplayer. A good example would be Star Wars: Republic Commando. Single player = awesome. Multiplayer used a different interface, lacked some important mechanics, and basically sucked in comparison.
There are certain "realism" things that are actually counter-intuitive. In addition, many "realism" proponents that don't know what they're talking about often advocate certain "realistic" mechanics that are generally quite unrealistic.
However, a lot of realism aspects help make the game more intuitive and are therefore desired.
And honestly, it's going to be impossible to make everything 100% realistic.
And making things more realistic doesn't necessarily make things less balanced. If you make one sword very realistic and forget to give the same kind of treatment to, say, a shield, then that can throw off game balance. But then you could start making the shield more realistic until it was balanced with the sword.
As for the singleplayer/multiplayer thing... I personally want the same gameplay in both modes. I hate when the gameplay is different between singleplayer and multiplayer. A good example would be Star Wars: Republic Commando. Single player = awesome. Multiplayer used a different interface, lacked some important mechanics, and basically sucked in comparison.
dochtorgajo 说:
Numbers vary greatly, it depends on who you want to cite. That is why I gave different troop numbers and odds.
The numeric disadvantage was for the English, who in spite of being outnumbered, won the battle. And yes, France was brought to its knees as Henry V married Catherine of Valois, the daughter of King Charles VI of France, unfortunately, Henry V died before being crowned King of France.
Under the terms of the Treaty of Troyes (1420 ad), King Charles VI of France recognized King Henry V of England as regent and heir to the throne of France.
What France did or not after Henry's life does not matter in this subject, as Henry was already dead and the battle of Agincourt was long gone. Yes, France expelled the English by 1453, thus ending the Hundread years War, but that is another story.
Bob the Insane
Recruit
Realisim vs Balance...
How can realisim even start to get to the forefront? You have a Heath Bar, a Health Bar for goodness sake!
Simulation - Arcade and just opposite ends of the same scale. Realisim is a interptation of how far along that scale you are towards simulation. Also to complicate things, any game contains numerous features and those individual features and being on different places on the scale...
Balance has nothing inherently to do with that. If heavy knights are all powerful and you want high simluation in the game you can still have balance by limiting the numbers of Knights as compared to Archers, etc....
The game is the best of it's kind, huge fun... It combines may arcade features with simulation features...
When you are on a server with 160 people, 80 on each side in shield walls with archers firing overhead and cavalry on the flanks it sure feels both realistic and fun...
How can realisim even start to get to the forefront? You have a Heath Bar, a Health Bar for goodness sake!
Simulation - Arcade and just opposite ends of the same scale. Realisim is a interptation of how far along that scale you are towards simulation. Also to complicate things, any game contains numerous features and those individual features and being on different places on the scale...
Balance has nothing inherently to do with that. If heavy knights are all powerful and you want high simluation in the game you can still have balance by limiting the numbers of Knights as compared to Archers, etc....
The game is the best of it's kind, huge fun... It combines may arcade features with simulation features...
When you are on a server with 160 people, 80 on each side in shield walls with archers firing overhead and cavalry on the flanks it sure feels both realistic and fun...
kingofnoobia
Master Knight
Well said.ares007 说:
