- Best answers
That 2015 trailer shows some interesting things, the city scene appear much more alive and to enter the tavern requires no loading screen. Wonder what went wrong.
Something surely happened along the way, i suspect that at a certain point an "investor" came in and started "trimming" costs on Excel and pushing for more profitable ways to sell the game (MP was developed and released before SP for this reason), this translates in many features cut (like the amazing no loading screen scene showed).That 2015 trailer shows some interesting things, the city scene appear much more alive and to enter the tavern requires no loading screen. Wonder what went wrong.
Thats something I've also been thinking, defenses need to be a lot stronger before we make attacking any better. Right now you actually hurt yourself by chosing to defend in the battle scene instead of autocalc the battle. Also we need destructible walls so the in scene catapults and trebuchets actually have a purpose. Also allowing us to decide the pacing of the battle, like when to send the siege equipment. Maybe i want to destroy the walls before sending the troops, maybe i want to let my archers clear the walls before approaching. The siege on tracks was fun the first few times but now its just the same siege over and over. Honestly the most fun i have in sieges is defending in scene even though its a massive disadvantage.At this point I'll take any siege tower that the AI actually use properly. But then again I don't think I've ever failed a siege even with broken ai, god knows how easy it would be with functional ai.
Endless redesigning. We should really be playing Mount and Blade III by now. They had many good ideas, most of which seem to have ended up on the cutting room floor.This 5 year old trailer really makes me sad, the game looked so good in this trailer. What happened from 2015 until now?
well, basically a massive downgrade is what happened.This 5 year old trailer really makes me sad, the game looked so good in this trailer. What happened from 2015 until now?
As always you bring good points. I endorse your ideas, although I still believe there are better ways to achieve balance regarding sieges, the most critical one is some way to control troop positioning to counter-act siege-engines. Curve line formations and melee defensive blobs come to mind as to "formations" to be available on sieges. I mean, to me, we need both positioning control of troops on siege scenes for both sides, auto-managing troop movement (which we should be able to chose who goes where, and condition triggers for retreats, repositioning, etc), and a more realistic AI for archers on both sides (where they shoot and hide behind cover). As well as siege exclusive formations...Yesterday, in the Discord Channel, @Younes123 talked about the problems with the current siege tower model. As part of the conversation, I added that the model in my eyes looks unsatisfactory because it lacks an upper level to give covering firing and the access ramp should be sloped downhill favoring the attackers (over the battlements in a horizontal position by default; if there is no battlement the ramp is supposed to be sloped in favor of the attackers.).
The thing is, I remembered in 2015 Taleworlds showed us this:
Here you can see an early version of the battering ram and the siege tower. The current ram, morphologically, makes more sense since its lack of protection favors the gameplay; the shape of the old one provided too much protection for attackers.
In contrast, I think the early model of siege tower makes much more sense than the current one; mostly because of the upper floor and larger dimensions. Perhaps, due to navigation pathfinding problems, the early model with sinuous stairs was replaced by a new one with straight stairs. Under that premise I have thought a simple solution to my way of seeing that it combines a fast vertical deployment (as it is currently) along with an upper floor for support work or covering fire.
For the MP section I think it would work great if players coordinate their attack. While the siege tower is moving towards the walls, a group of shooters may be positioned on the top floor. It would work the same way in the SP section, you would just have to provide an additional path for the AI through the trapdoor ladder (just like in the 2015 video).
I know that this is more of a suggestion and that it should be in the corresponding section. However, I would like to know the opinion of the player's pool (SP and MP) by means of a survey of interests. Both MP and Sp players are aware of the current problems of the current siege tower.
Could a siege tower design in line with what was in 2015 provide an improvement in gameplay?
I think so, but first let's check out the general interest.
I agree, though MP balancing should always be done secondary to SP balance. It's not unusual to see cut-content when playing MP version of many games. To me they should basically treat each as a single thing entirely...I know that many of you are SP players, however the idea is to apply equally in MP (so I would like to). From having the current one to having one similar to the model with upper floor, there is a notable tactical difference.
I agree, though MP balancing should always be done secondary to SP balance. It's not unusual to see cut-content when playing MP version of many games. To me they should basically treat each as a single thing entirely...
For balancing a more decent siege tower for MP I'd guess they'd need to make the entire scene revolve around it instead of trying to place it over any scene. This way you can guarantee that the best siege weapon is always balanced (towers are meant to be the ultimate siege tool anyway)
When playing the game months ago (2 patches prior I think), my experience was basically: "wtf? this is kind of retarded" when seeing any of the elements involving sieges... Auto-calc is trash, the mechanics are trash, and even the siege-tools look like they were made by completely retarded people (logic wise). The "new siege tower" is just too stupid to be taken seriously, it places you in a extreme disadvantage while still working due to garbage siege AI + zerg rushes from attacking armies. I mean, 90% of the time the defending AI will just sit in place like morons taking hits and being surrounded by invading troops, it's just mind-boggling... The most notorious is the group supposed to block the gates, which they never do, enemy AI can rush past them with easy, it's like watching a river flowing around a rock. In SP the only siege defense you have is stopping the AI from passing any of the initial thresholds, whenever they do, the siege is already lost, again, because of garbage AI behavior for the defending side.
Attacking side, on the other hand, was almost entirely bugged back than (have no idea now), and they'd glitch on every choke-point, either by getting stuck running against walls, staying put on the bottom of ladders, not path-finding siege-towers, etc...
makes sense. Haven't touched the MP on BL yet so I have no useful input. SP I've tested thoroughly and gave up on it after seeing that the AI was not being worked upon (which's the most broken part of it). Since the patches are slower to release I guess I'll do good at steering clear from the game for now, it'll only serve to stress me out atm.As for MP I don't see any balance problem if we put one more floor to the current siege tower.
The defending artillery will always aim at the tower while it moves to the walls and the attacker should support the tower. With an upper floor on the attacking tower a reduced number of archers (maybe <10) could be positioned to support both the deployment and the assault on the wall. For SP, the problem again lies in the AI not in whether we put in another ladder or put in another ramp.
Yeah, that's the small part. I'd add some side reinforcements and wooden parapets on the top floor, too. With the model on the right, I mean more of a chassis ( skeleton - the structural shape).Yeah model on the right is way better. The planks on the outside are not necessarily for structural support so it makes zero sense to add extra weight with haphazard planks like the model on the left. If I were building a siege tower I’d also cover the sides for protection, maybe a consideration.