Significant balancing issue with the current game!!

[sharp]

I found M&B to be most enjoyable during the early part of the game, where I only have a few followers. The problem arises later in the game when I have an army of followers.

It creates the following problems:

- my own character's contribution to battles become relatively insignificant.

- it create a strong incentive to invest in leadership skill and other group skills, instead of individual combat skill.

- the game feels like a RTS game instead of the RPG(primary) & Strategy (secondary) game it meant to be.

To fix this, I believe the number of followers allowed should start at about 4 and max out at 12. Simiarly, the enemy number should be reduced.

Here is an example where this would make the game play much more balanced:
Scenario 1: (Under current game version) I have 20 warriors fighting against 30 enemies (assuming similar quality troops). I probably will manage to kill 3 enemies before my men get wiped out and myself overpowered. 10% contribution from me - very small chance of changing the outcome of the battle.

Scenrio 2: (rebalanced game version). I have 7 warriors against 10 enemies. By killing 3 enemies, I would have changed the outcome of the battle.

This rebalancing would really make the RPG element stand out!!! I really don't want to another shallow RTS style game where the great troop number will carry the day!!!

 

[KirbyTheHunter]

The game is about both, and at higher levels you will contribute more as you get better at the game and better at surviving. I myself find it easy to kill atleast twice my number in baddies once my army has whittled down the enemy.

 

[Ivan Bajlo]

- my own character's contribution to battles become relatively insignificant.

I like the idea that I don't have to kill every living thing in battle, there is enough games in which player has to do everything while only thing his men do is die.

No Diablo clone please.

- it create a strong incentive to invest in leadership skill and other group skills, instead of individual combat skill.

Until you run into a war party or Dark knights then your party becomes hamburger meat - horde of peasants won't save you.

- the game feels like a RTS game instead of the RPG(primary) & Strategy (secondary) game it meant to be.

RTS feel??? I don't recall of having to constantly click on the map telling my men where to go (or build them for that matter) they usually fight on there own with me trying to save as much of them as I can.

To fix this, I believe the number of followers allowed should start at about 4 and max out at 12. Simiarly, the enemy number should be reduced.

This would make thing ridicules - there is a war going on if you didn't notice, enemies moving in groups of 20-30 max just so you could easily wipe them out...

Beside graphics engine is already limiting battle size so claiming they are to big is a laugh.

I like idea of riding into middle of battle between two 90+ strong war parties in fact I would like battles to become even bigger.

Scenario 1: (Under current game version) I have 20 warriors fighting against 30 enemies (assuming similar quality troops). I probably will manage to kill 3 enemies before my men get wiped out and myself overpowered. 10% contribution from me - very small chance of changing the outcome of the battle.

It's not all about killing, I often kill very few enemies BUT if I take some ranged weapons I like to "dismount" as many enemy knights as possible before they reach my troops, also numerous enemy soldiers look like pincushions from my arrows only to be killed by some peasant lucky strike - I got no problem with that.

Scenrio 2: (rebalanced game version). I have 7 warriors against 10 enemies. By killing 3 enemies, I would have changed the outcome of the battle.

Nobody is forcing you to have a party you can play solo and become terminator.

This rebalancing would really make the RPG element stand out!!! I really don't want to another shallow RTS style game where the great troop number will carry the day!!!

I didn't notice the fact that numbers win, I often buy bunch of peasants as cannon fodder when facing larger party, I end up killing dozens of enemies and few surviving peasants become good soldiers after few upgrades.

 

[Archonsod]

I impose natural selection on my troops.

I order them into battle while I stand on a nearby hill to watch them. If we lose, I tend to walk away. If not then I figure the guys that survived the combat are obviously the better warriors.

Sometimes, I even kill a couple myself. The joys of indiscriminate bow fire...

 

[Kaine]

once tha game has implemented useful ai and accordingly useful command options, you will gain another function than being the mainkiller, namely the commander. thus the game depth and your influence in combat will increase.

i am very confident, this will happen that way...
...soon[tm]

 

[Destichado]

My poor computer has fits with large battle sizes, I'm afraid. But yes, I'd love to see the battles even bigger.

And even though I know we've been told it's impossible given the programing of Mount & Blade, I wish there could be a third side in battles -allowing us to join enemy-enemy battles or let our allies act independantly of our own troops.

 

[sharp]

I'm not asking for the game to become like Diablo, where I have to kill 90% of the enemy. But the game must not pretend it is RTW.

I belive it should primarily be a RPG with some strategic options. You contribution to combat to be significant - say 25%-33% killing is done by your main character.

If you are killing more than a dozen enemies, you must be running away from the attacking enemies while firing arrows. This very unrealistic and should be fixed in the future. I.e. enemie will mount horses and cut down you poor bowman in no time.

 

[Destichado]

I understand what you mean -using knights is cheap. They ought to be harder to get or something.

That's why I'm totally infantry, now.

 

[The Pope]

Balance doesn't really matter in a singleplayer game. As long as most reasonable tactics prevents a reasonable chance of success, the game is fine. Balance is only really relevant if M&B goes multiplayer.

 

[ThVaz]

I think you get powerful units too early on. I mean, you can command knights even before you join a army and have no rank - and even could afford the equipments the knights has.
I think the level of your troops should be determined by your ranks or level - it's not a balance issue, just make sense.

 

[KirbyTheHunter]

...Whats so horribly unbalanced about killing idiots knights who ride straight up hills at you with a bow? If your smart and their stupid, use it to your advantage, the game is balanced fine.

 

[okiN]

An advantage achieved by exploiting the AI spoils the fun.

 

[DaLagga]

An advantage achieved by exploiting the AI spoils the fun.

I agree.

Balance doesn't really matter in a singleplayer game. As long as most reasonable tactics prevents a reasonable chance of success, the game is fine. Balance is only really relevant if M&B goes multiplayer.

Couldn't dissagree more. When the single player is unbalanced, it really reduces the fun and incentive to use the underpowered strategy. Take morrowind for example. Magic was HORRIBLY underpowered, and only a great fool or someone who really wanted a frustrating challenge would play as a mage (since a warrior was vastly superior AND could cast spells almost as well as any mage). Balance may matter more in multiplayer, but it is still very important in singleplayer.

Here is an example where this would make the game play much more balanced:
Scenario 1: (Under current game version) I have 20 warriors fighting against 30 enemies (assuming similar quality troops). I probably will manage to kill 3 enemies before my men get wiped out and myself overpowered. 10% contribution from me - very small chance of changing the outcome of the battle.

Welcome to the forums sharp! I really dissagree with your suggestion though, for many reasons. First, i think part of the problem is that you're new to the game (like all of us were at one point, not trying to be derogatory) and haven't gotten the hang of combat. Secondly, once you have a decent level character and have gotten good at the game your contribution to a battle is VERY significant. Probably more than it should be. If i have an army of 30 vs an enemy group of 30, i would say that if i really get in to the action i account for at least 20 of those kills. If i sit back as an archer messing around or whatever, i can easily account for 10 of them. I do agree that knights are overpowerd though, and should be harder to get/upgrade/maintain.[/quote]

 

[Ivan Bajlo]

I'm not asking for the game to become like Diablo, where I have to kill 90% of the enemy. But the game must not pretend it is RTW.

Actually I would love if this game copied as much as possible form RTW - idea of me being single solider in middle of massive battle with ten thousand soldiers sounds just AWESOME, being in front line looking as massive fall of spears is approaching on me, desire to run away but when I look back I see centurions face ready to slide my throat if I chicken out... but I'll settle for minor skirmish as it is now.

I belive it should primarily be a RPG with some strategic options. You contribution to combat to be significant - say 25%-33% killing is done by your main character.

Again nobody is preventing you from going solo instead of creating war party.

IIRC I have played and finished most of following games Fallout 1&2, Baldur's Gate 1&2, NWN, Icewind Dale 1&2, Planescape: Torment, Gothic 1&2, Arx Fatalis, Arcanum, M&M6-9, Morronwind, Sacred, Vampire Masquerade Redemption... and from most of them my conclusion is that unless your carrying massive supply of healing potions you better have a darn good healer in your party!

If you are killing more than a dozen enemies, you must be running away from the attacking enemies while firing arrows. This very unrealistic and should be fixed in the future. I.e. enemie will mount horses and cut down you poor bowman in no time.

At the moment I'm playing two characters, myself a egomaniacal bloodthirsty mass murder in black armor who prefers to move (can't run beacuse of massive armor) on foot (since I can't hit bloody thing while on horse with bow or lance) into bunch of enemies with his two hand balanced sword of war and simply cut everything in front of him, at level 20, I can easily kill dozen mounted knights in combination with crossbow or bow (not my fault they don't stand still, I can't run after them) - peasants and other foot soldiers are not even counted since I kill them with one swing of the sword or single arrow/bolt shot in the head. My party are mostly backup dancers in case I miscalculate number of enemy war party.

My second character is nun which starts with high healing and poor fighting skills so party is a must but she still manages to knock off 30% of enemies easy.

Learn to fight in area that's what it is for!

 

[Jhaerik]

Well this is more than a bit off-topic, but I think it does have to be said. I have played Morrowind, a lot, and magic is far, far, far, faaaaar, from being underpowered. At around level 10-12 I was wiping out towns as a mage. You just have to be smart. Ever think of combining a levitate type spell with a flee type spell, and making is a touch rnaged attack? Basically the touched mob would flee at a 45deg angle into the sky and fall to his death.

Well anyway, my point is I would actually rather the number of troops in battle be greater than they are now, AND the PC weakened, OR the other troops greatly strengthened. Also would love to have a greater control over your troops, and for the enemy AI to use better tactics, but thats beating a dead horse and I refuse to talk about it. I think this game should be a bit more like Morrowind (in a very few respects mind you) Having the level of your character mean a great deal less than the skill of the player. Heck I've beaten the main storyplot in Morrowind with a level 13-15 Mage (can't remember exactly might have been anywhere from 10-18, been a very long time and I never felt like going through the main plot again). As is its too easy to level, and the rewards are too great for doing so.

I would like to mention however, the the amount of damage ranged weapons do to the PC is a bit much, even though this game is based on realism fun should always be a top priority. I think crossbow damage needs to be lowered just a tad, as well as bow damage. A bow should be very ineffective vs. chain or heavier arrow. Chain armor was pretty well impervious to most arrows.

Well before I ramble too much, I'd like to end this saying the brain is a persons more useful part, and should be used to it's fullest.

 

[Ivan Bajlo]

Basically the touched mob would flee at a 45deg angle into the sky and fall to his death.

Darn, you'll make me play it again.

I would like to mention however, the the amount of damage ranged weapons do to the PC is a bit much, even though this game is based on realism fun should always be a top priority. I think crossbow damage needs to be lowered just a tad, as well as bow damage. A bow should be very ineffective vs. chain or heavier arrow. Chain armor was pretty well impervious to most arrows.

Didn't notice a problem with that, I find myself using ranged weapons against horses (now I'll get crucified for animal cruelty ) since effectiveness isn't great unless I get lucky face shot. After they are on the ground I finish thing old fashion way with my trusted blade.

I find bigger problem with dumb AI cavalry getting entangled in obstacles allowing me and my foot soldiers to chop them up.

 

[DaLagga]

I have played Morrowind, a lot, and magic is far, far, far, faaaaar, from being underpowered. At around level 10-12 I was wiping out towns as a mage. You just have to be smart. Ever think of combining a levitate type spell with a flee type spell, and making is a touch rnaged attack? Basically the touched mob would flee at a 45deg angle into the sky and fall to his death.

Thats a good one Never really thought about doing that...but it is just exploiting (alot of that to be done in morrowind). 99% of the spells the shops sell are worthless. 10% fire resist for 10 sec??? what!? Anyway, i killed vivec at level 3 by exploting the AI, which was hilarious. But back on track.

I would like to mention however, the the amount of damage ranged weapons do to the PC is a bit much, even though this game is based on realism fun should always be a top priority. I think crossbow damage needs to be lowered just a tad, as well as bow damage. A bow should be very ineffective vs. chain or heavier arrow. Chain armor was pretty well impervious to most arrows.

I didn't find the damage they inflict too much, just the fact that they seem to hit much much more often than my archers. I would have to say that enemy crossbowmen hit around 3 times as often as mine do.

 

[Madras]

crossbow damage should stay that way imo. this is very realistic, remember that this actually WAS a problem in real life, when a humble peasant COULD take out an armoured nobleman with only 2 weeks of crossbow-training, whereas english longbowman where trained for 2 years (something like that).

guess that's why the church tried to ban crossbows as a weapon of evil (lateran council), albeit with questionable success

so to speak, i sometimes manage to kill 10+ ppl with the might of my cb (oh, and still lose, coz 3 ppl are coming for me, and on bakkup here, and my char got only 6 strenght+agility )

thats fine, and pretty realistic. thus, i want it stay that way!

 

[kkriegg]

I'm not so sure about the RTS aspect overpowering the RPG aspect. Right now one of my characters is on day 40-something and a pretty high level, followed by about 20 vaegir knights and 14 vaegir horsemen. If I raid your average-to-large sized swadian caravan, I'll lose about two knights or a knight and a horseman. If I charge out as fast as I can and fight as hard as I can, I've noticed that my losses seem to really decrease dramaticly, and in the above scenario I lose no men at all. That's pleny of reason to invest in personal combat skill.

 

[Jhaerik]

I don't mean lowering it by a lot, just to git rid of that annoying 2 xbow bolt hit KO. I would a a bit less realistic, but one hitting fulling armored knights with throwing daggers isn't much better.

Also if ya read between the lines just a bit, I also mean a bit of an increase in melee damage from AI. In high end gear it's kinda a bit like, "Hmm 20 guys with clubs, better go make some coffee, walk the dog, catch up on my sleep.....". But, with crossbowmen it's a bit more like, "Must.....not...make....mistake....want....to...live....arrrrgghhh....my horse....what have you done to. my horse....my eye arrrgggh.....*dead*"

Very extreme examples mind you, but I find myself back-pedalling and killing 40+ footsoldiers, and even the few hits I take do nothing, even at very low levels. However, I still die way more often that I'd like, from one too many bolts to the head.


Also, a couple more evil things to do on Morrowind , Levitate a mob and yourself, sprint into the sky, wait for spell to run out.....then do a featherfall spell, or just renew the levitate. Also remember that spells become exponentially more expensive the more points you put into them, so make a DoT (Damage over Time) spell for each element with a single target setting low damage and medium duration......then levitate into the sky and cast each elem DoT on the mob, you will use a lot less mana, and do a lot more damage.