Those look like some amazing changes hope they come soon ? ? ? ?
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
The many issues i see with cavalry in MP
- Thread starter Yukmouth++
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
salad_fork
Squire
Nice. The only issue I see is that it seems pointless to take a perk for a bow that can only be used on foot for a cavalry class.
DainMorgot
Sergeant
These changes seem good, vanguard's class identity is kinda lost though. Also one of the huge issues is how knockdown works even at very low speeds. Not only that, but cav does not bump/knockdown friendlies.
As much as I don't want to be a party pooper, Noudelle is making a joke, and I don't want this perfectly reasonable thread become saturated with discussion based on lies and potential false hope.
druzh gets throwing knives lol
But besides that, some of his joke implementations sort of made sense.
But besides that, some of his joke implementations sort of made sense.
I wrote these 'patch notes' balance changes to be as off the mark from the actual issues as possible, as is tradition.
The longbow thing I'm sure could have worked well mechanically, but would have made no sense in the context of Bannerlord.
Last edited:
Yeah I can see just adding bump to FF would make a huge change. Not with TDM though obviously.
DainMorgot
Sergeant
Holy crap, you got us good Noudelle.
NGL, the vague and completely unrelated wording (lowered cav armour? Where? On the horse? On the rider?) got me good.
I didn't state there was anything wrong with Theory crafting, I just think there could be a different thread for it as this thread is related purely to Calvary and issues with it. When you start adding in archers or various nuanced situations, that changes the initial discussion of the thread. It's fine to discuss the issues, but it's probably best reserved for another thread when you start delving into the many variables and strategies a player might use in a given a situation.
Also if your team has just you and one other person, the rest of your team is dead, and you're surrounded by archers and Cav, they have the last flag ticking down, then it sounds that simply the opposing team has all but won the round. The options at that point are to try and at least get a kill before the round ends if it isn't the final match to cost the team some gold to spawn next round or withdraw and try to stay alive to not feed the other team some gold. If it's the final round, might as well try to valiantly make a stand to get an extra kill or two before it ends.
That is to say, this theory crafting on these specific situations does not address the inherent issues with Cav as it's already setting up advantageous situations for them. If a team has an advantageous situation against the opposing team, unless the other team is more skilled or the team with the advantageous situation is highly incompetent, then they should win, it's an advantage afterall. I don't think we should be theory crafting ideas to nerf classes into the ground to have a disadvantage when in an advantageous position to gain an edge, that will make the class perform much worse when in situations on even footing.
Zoonanay
Knight
That is my mistake, tonality can be hard to detect in written word.
You're probably right this should be discussed in a seperate thread, but after looking at the plethora of abandoned cavalry discussions and threads I thought keeping the conversation at least somewhat active in a single place would encourage more inputs from different perspectives yet to be heard, if there are any left.
The daunting prospect of the theoretical combination is it is unfortunatley irrelevant if there are two, four or six of you together. The situation remains the same as long as archers/cavalry are in equal number to you, your mobility is too slow to catch either cav nor archer if in combination, your attention is split leaving you open to rear strikes and arrows, and if you strike at a heavy horse you'll be lucky to do 1/4 rider/horse health whilst once again, exposing yourself to arrows.
I'd have to disagree here. Context is everything, and the disturbing prospect is any situation is at least indifferent for cavalry, if not advantageous. For example, a Knight and Spear Sergeant's duel will probably end in stagnation until one's attention slips and they get stabbed.
Now, have the same situation of equal competency between Knight and Spear Sergeant. Except, now there is a seperate duel happening 10 yards away.
-A-
If the Knight has greater competency he'll run down the Spear Sergeant and then probably run to the other duel to assist his team mate.
-B-
If at equal competency, either Knight hits sergeant (50 dmg range) Sergeant or the Sergeant pokes the knight (30 dmg range). If the Sergeant gets stabbed, he has to stand and fight. If the Knight gets stabbed, he can just hop over to the other duel and hope for an easy back stab, long before the Sergeant has any chance to defend his ally.
-C-
If the Sergeant has greater competency, maybe the Sergeant gets lucky and one-shots the rider with their shorter spear, however this is exploiting incompetence and not a consistent skill given the rider's spear is avg. 20-30cm longer. More likely, he stuns the heavy horse and stabs the rider (30 dmg range). At which point the less competent Knight skedaddles out of there and goes to the other duel, to go for a backstab.
--
So, where Knight is more competent he gets 2 kills. Where equal, Sergeant might get 30 dmg on him, Knight gets chance at 50 dmg and a free backstab skill. Where Sergeant is more competent, maybe a one-shot then backstab on the duel, Knight probably takes 30 dmg but maybe picks up a free kill on distracted dueler.
In all three scenario's the Knight is either in a fairly equal position, or an advantageous one. If we were discussing cavalry in context to a Duel Server, I'd agree that such discussions do not address the inherent issues. However being that Skirmish, TDM, Siege, and Captain Mode are all designed around teamwork I feel leaving out the teamwork part will give you distorted results that are not representative of a real game.
Since TW have unfortunately chosen to remain silent on any progress made towards any of the MP issues, this theory crafting is the best I or anyone can do without the actual statistical results of Skrimish, Captain, Siege and TDM game modes, as selecting individual units and having them battle each other Deadliest Warrior style will lead to typical Deadliest Warrior style bias'.
I understand your points, but what I'm getting at is that I think it's inherently wrong to start trying to mechanically change the game on variable scenarios that might lead to different outcomes based on the scenario rather than actual hard data. By the way the units themselves are made, yes, if an infantry is equipped with a short spear, he is automatically at a disadvantage. The Knight is on a horse, so he should be able to move about more freely than the Infantry. The Knight's inherent advantages should be mobility and an excellent thrusting weapon with reach.
So in two of those scenarios, A and B as you describe, the Knight has the advantage in mobility and can attempt to control the fight. Whether he is able to ride the Infantry down or disengage and help out his teammate. In scenario C, if the Infantry has more skill, then he should be able to drive off the Cav or outright kill him. I've killed unwary Cav with a well timed Spatha thrust to the Cav rider's leg as they jetted by me missing with their lance at full speed.
Instead of focusing on those three scenarios, if you look at Scenario B only and analyze that scenario, you can make meaningful mechanical changes that will influence the other scenarios. Perhaps considering the damage difference, Spear damage can be buffed against horses only. If an Infantry has an easier time taking away the mobility of the Knight, he has a better chance overall in preventing the Cav from disengaging to help his teammate or outright killing the Cav player and then helping his teammate. Maybe the spear needs to be better in general to stop horses to prevent from easily being ridden up on and lanced. Maybe the Cav player has too much mobility with his horse on equal footing in the B Scenario and should be adjusted.
Also, we're not accounting for throwing weapons which can do a good amount of damage to either the Rider or the horse of the Cav player. Or infantry types where they get spears or Pikes with as good or greater reach than the Knight. Which would also prompt theory crafting on it's own. What I'm proposing isn't a Deadly Warrior style of looking at it, but tweaking for one scenario and adjusting as necessary after seeing how the various other scenarios are affected by that change. Let's change simple things and see what works and what doesn't, then once we're sure that one on one scenario feels right for both players but there are still problems with other types of scenarios it'll be more easily discernible to root out those inherent issues and address them.
My whole point is before theory crafting gets crazy and the cart is put before the horse, we should address the major problems we all can inherently see first.
So in two of those scenarios, A and B as you describe, the Knight has the advantage in mobility and can attempt to control the fight. Whether he is able to ride the Infantry down or disengage and help out his teammate. In scenario C, if the Infantry has more skill, then he should be able to drive off the Cav or outright kill him. I've killed unwary Cav with a well timed Spatha thrust to the Cav rider's leg as they jetted by me missing with their lance at full speed.
Instead of focusing on those three scenarios, if you look at Scenario B only and analyze that scenario, you can make meaningful mechanical changes that will influence the other scenarios. Perhaps considering the damage difference, Spear damage can be buffed against horses only. If an Infantry has an easier time taking away the mobility of the Knight, he has a better chance overall in preventing the Cav from disengaging to help his teammate or outright killing the Cav player and then helping his teammate. Maybe the spear needs to be better in general to stop horses to prevent from easily being ridden up on and lanced. Maybe the Cav player has too much mobility with his horse on equal footing in the B Scenario and should be adjusted.
Also, we're not accounting for throwing weapons which can do a good amount of damage to either the Rider or the horse of the Cav player. Or infantry types where they get spears or Pikes with as good or greater reach than the Knight. Which would also prompt theory crafting on it's own. What I'm proposing isn't a Deadly Warrior style of looking at it, but tweaking for one scenario and adjusting as necessary after seeing how the various other scenarios are affected by that change. Let's change simple things and see what works and what doesn't, then once we're sure that one on one scenario feels right for both players but there are still problems with other types of scenarios it'll be more easily discernible to root out those inherent issues and address them.
My whole point is before theory crafting gets crazy and the cart is put before the horse, we should address the major problems we all can inherently see first.
Zoonanay
Knight
I agree the inherent problems with spear redundancy, armour values, audio cues etc. should be addressed first. I also agree that hard data should be a major formative element in game design, but it should not be the exclusive metric used to measure somethings effectiveness. A great example is horse knockdowns, a statistic which will rarely show in kills or assists due to its low damage but an unquestionably powerful ability that leads to many kills.
In any case, spears do need a damage buff to horses which should probably be done by a velocity damage increase based on the velocity of the horse. The horses armour values also make low-velocity thrusts and swords effectively useless, while historically accurate there are a great many reasons why fully-armored horses were never the standardised norm among nobility, namely not overheating a 650kg war horse covered in metal and the cost of doing so.
I've talked about throwing weapons in previous posts, the jist of them was that they rely on a high velocity which leaves the thrower with a small opportunity to hit a medium sized target, while the horse has a medium opportunity to hit a exposed, static target. Throwing weapons are undoubtedly the best counter to cavalry in my opinion, but they still aren't an adequate one. They statistically lose out in trade situations, where the projectile doesn't one-shot the horse (whether miss or wrong body part) and the thrower gets couched whilst ending the slow release animation or likely sacrafices their shield if fortunate enough to block.
The reason I moved from statistical analysis to situational analysis is because the statistical element has pretty much been covered and situational analysis' tend to offer a more compelling argument than statistical ones. If TW are going to do anything about it, it is already in the works, if not, then this is a largely pointless excersize anyway. So why not make it clear from every possible contingency and form that these changes are not wanted, but necessary?
Ultimately, this entire thread has no basis in any kind of statistical analysis, we have no hard data. All we have is our experiences, a list of weapon and entity stats, and theoretical scenario's. All of this is based on guesswork and assumptions, not hard data. Only TW have the hard data and judging by their actions, despite how clearly it seems to be theoretically and anicdotally overpowered, they don't believe that's the case. What's the harm in poking around hoping for some kind of response with actual hard data attached, something we can understand and analyse ourselves? Until this is the case, I see no harm in exploring all theoretical aspects.
Well, I agree that all the points have been made to death, and that TW has all the hard data, We don't really know if they are doing anything about it. There is no acknowledgement that they're working on it or not. It would be great if they are and I certainly hope so. But I don't think it's a bad thing to hammer those points home until we get some form of acknowledgement from them. In the meantime if they are comfortable with releasing some hard statistical data to look over in the meantime I certainly wouldn't begrudge them that either, it would be interesting to see what the data says.
Also while I don't personally view exploring theoretical scenarios as things stands now to be a bad thing. I just wouldn't want to give TW the wrong impression on what and what isn't a problem and them potentially changing something until the current issues are addressed.
Also while I don't personally view exploring theoretical scenarios as things stands now to be a bad thing. I just wouldn't want to give TW the wrong impression on what and what isn't a problem and them potentially changing something until the current issues are addressed.
matamor
Veteran
Just enjoy the game. Cavalry is fun. It's like driving a panzer towards infantry spawn. Been playing WWIIOnline for 15 years. Developers might add and change content all the time. My words are simple : adapt your play and overcome it. I already seen people getting better facing cavalry charges during these last weeks especially on TDM servers and ion Captain mode.
