You forgot to ask for Battle
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
TW devs quotes to give you hope (EDITED)
- Thread starter Yukmouth++
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Zoonanay
Knight
Yeah, there's nothing worse than taking a decisive risk, gambling your life, and then pulling off the manouever but still dying anyway because the horse happened to be at maximum health and the rider panicked S+S to reduce damage.
Either all heavy cav need significant price increases or stats need to be reduced, even with the coming cavalry behaviour changes.
So you're proposing that a single individual should be able to kill a heavy cav once he manages to stop him? Do you not see how wrong it is? The cavalry costs more and is already handicapped by the simple fact that it's a huge target that you can literally hear coming from the other side of the map and the only thing you gotta do 1v1 is listen, turn around in his direction and poke him. That's it, you're invulnerable to cav's attacks 1v1, unless you're really really bad. The real way for cavalry to capitalize on it's advantages is during teamfights, where, if you're with a competent team, you can easily just turn the tables against the cav using teamplay. There's literally nothing a cav can do head-on alone, even to an archer who can just shoot it while it tries to hit him.
Explain to me what's the point of you ignoring my posts if you periodically sperg out on me anyways? Make up your mind already.
Maybe not an individual, but at very least, when a spearman stops a horse in the middle of all his teamates, they should be abble to destroy the horse with their swords, maces and axes.
Zoonanay
Knight
No, I don't see how wrong it is.
The rider made a choice. That choice was to ride at considerable speed and head on to the opponent. They could've gone slower, and turned as they approached, sure, it'd make the stab harder to land and reduces damage but eliminates all chance of being reared. Being reared should come with severe consequences.
Those consequences could be an individual killing the rider, or an individual being able to fully kill a horse with spear, if it was moving at high velocity. Either way, a spear should have more velocity damage and pila should guaranteed one-shot to a charging horse to the head. If the rider's at speed to couch, the horse should be in velocity to get one-shot.
Perhaps you haven't been faced with a competent cavalryman in Bannerlord. Between horse head bobbing to absorb stabs and throws, quick deploying couches after shielding, low speed couching, bump stabs, and deceleration baiting to name a few techniques. I find it hard for you to say "you're invulnerable to cav's attacks 1v1", I feel this is a misrepresentation you've carried from Warband where most cavalry was not armoured, and it was indeed the case that, unless the rider was particularly exceptional, the cavalry would lose 1v1 mounted.
I agree, teamplay is the key to opposing cavalry and should be the most effective method. But team play alone should not be the only effective method of defeating a cavalry unit, otherwise low-to-mid tier games with little cohesion will be nothing more than cav spam festivals.
At a competitive level the armour values make rapid reaction throws redundant as they'd be better served guaranteed into an infantry for good damage, than possibly into a heavy horse for almost none. They make risking headons almost pointless due to glances, low rear reward, and potential one-shot, which ends with most blocking and attempting to dodge. But worse they consistently punish a single awareness mistake with an almost guaranteed one-shot kill, with the only equal course of retribution a perfectly placed headshot onto the charging cavalry, a significantly more difficult mechanical feat.
Consequences matter. Getting reared is a simple mechanical error, and it needs severe consequences, it is a severe misplay. The only way I see to do this is adjusting horse armour values and spear velocity damage parameters.
The problem with nerfing one class and not the others is that it will create an even greater unbalance. I think that all the balances need to happen at the same time for it to work. It seems that only cavs are getting nerf for next patch atm. I think we can expect the removal of infinite couch and the addition of a cooldown for couches (i hope lol), but then archers will become overpowered and throwing weapons will be even more op.
I believe that those modifications can only make the game balanced if they are at the same time:
Cavs: Removal of infinite couch, addition of a cooldown for couches, and a reduction of speed and maneuverability for armored horses, disable the ability to block when dismounted, make bump couching WAY harder.
Infantries: Increase in melee weapon damage, reduction of glances, major rework on how throwing weapons currently function (no kick shots, either less javs or removal of the possibility to pick javs on shields/corpses and ofc only give javs to light infantries). A rework of the kick mechanic would also add flavor to melee
Archers: I would hope for a complete rework of the shooting (make it similar to warband rather than just a point and click thing) but I highly doubt this will happen so I think the most reasonable thing would be to reduce ammo and give less armor to some archer units (hello fiann) or make those tank archers less accurate.
And then, only after those modifications happen, will the slight stats adjustments matter.
I believe that those modifications can only make the game balanced if they are at the same time:
Cavs: Removal of infinite couch, addition of a cooldown for couches, and a reduction of speed and maneuverability for armored horses, disable the ability to block when dismounted, make bump couching WAY harder.
Infantries: Increase in melee weapon damage, reduction of glances, major rework on how throwing weapons currently function (no kick shots, either less javs or removal of the possibility to pick javs on shields/corpses and ofc only give javs to light infantries). A rework of the kick mechanic would also add flavor to melee
Archers: I would hope for a complete rework of the shooting (make it similar to warband rather than just a point and click thing) but I highly doubt this will happen so I think the most reasonable thing would be to reduce ammo and give less armor to some archer units (hello fiann) or make those tank archers less accurate.
And then, only after those modifications happen, will the slight stats adjustments matter.
Thats in the absolute best case scenario and against an unarmored horse. Often the spear hits the head of the horse, deals roughly 50 damage and the couch still kills you. If you stop a horse and then hit the rider you'll do maybe 30 damage to the rider, considering the cavalry wouldve done 500+ damage to you, thats not balanced.
Also important to note that once a horse is reared up, its not easy for an archer to land a headshot on the cav like in warband. The shield seems to block it most of the time, so you're better off putting the arrow in the head of the horse and then trying to kill the rider once hes on the ground. If its a heavy horseman and you have swords as your primary weapons, you probably wont kill him.
Anyway as mentioned before this is kinda off topic so that'll be it from me. Hopefully the patch will be here soon, and it wont bring even more stability issues with it.
Fallacy fallacy
I'm baffled why a 145 hit on a charging horse with a two handed axe doesn't even make a horse flinch. And if you stop it with a pike, by the time you switch weapons it's gone.
Horses are tanks in this game. In Warband you never see cav charging into an infantry who's ready and waiting. In Bannerlord you see guys charging through thick groups of infantry just taking pot shots.
But, back to the OP, it is good the devs are FINALLY paying attention to the players. I know a lot of beta players who just got fed up and quit because Taleworlds wouldn't listen.
Horses are tanks in this game. In Warband you never see cav charging into an infantry who's ready and waiting. In Bannerlord you see guys charging through thick groups of infantry just taking pot shots.
But, back to the OP, it is good the devs are FINALLY paying attention to the players. I know a lot of beta players who just got fed up and quit because Taleworlds wouldn't listen.
Do I have to remind people that this is a fantasy game, I think Tork doesn't quite understand what that means, and resorts to 'realism' as an answer. Being inspired by historical events doesn't mean they're aiming for realism. Besides, if they were aiming for realism, if a polearm were to hit even an armoured horse, it'll go down lack a sack of spuds (which was why charging was a 'winning tactic', only used when the opponents were heavily weakened). Barding was mainly used to protect the horse from projectiles and not riding full force into a polearm.
Since you love realism Tork, lances were a 'one-use-per-engagement' weapon, because they'd usually get stuck in their enemy or were too long and heavy, so after the charge, they'd drop the lance and continue to use their secondary weapons (axe, sword etc.), but that wouldn't fit your narrative would it (or it would, but you'd refuse to believe it)? You'd never want a one-time use lance. You can't use realism as an argument, because Bannerlord cavalry are anything but realistic, so you're just throwing random arguments in an attempt to back the clear and pressing issues of cavalry, which seems awfully silly and antagonistic. Having an opinion is fine, and I agree that people shouldn't be using 'Ad Hominem' by attacking you, but you're constantly ignoring the whole point of that fallacy, and that's to actually have a point in the first place. Even if people don't resort to Ad Hominem, the reason they do is because your points are unjustified and even if proven wrong, would not budge your opinion.
Since you love realism Tork, lances were a 'one-use-per-engagement' weapon, because they'd usually get stuck in their enemy or were too long and heavy, so after the charge, they'd drop the lance and continue to use their secondary weapons (axe, sword etc.), but that wouldn't fit your narrative would it (or it would, but you'd refuse to believe it)? You'd never want a one-time use lance. You can't use realism as an argument, because Bannerlord cavalry are anything but realistic, so you're just throwing random arguments in an attempt to back the clear and pressing issues of cavalry, which seems awfully silly and antagonistic. Having an opinion is fine, and I agree that people shouldn't be using 'Ad Hominem' by attacking you, but you're constantly ignoring the whole point of that fallacy, and that's to actually have a point in the first place. Even if people don't resort to Ad Hominem, the reason they do is because your points are unjustified and even if proven wrong, would not budge your opinion.
Last edited:
In fact, the arguments you just made Fietta are quite cheap too. Nice story about realism but I think we can all agree that this game is supposed to be ''somewhat'' realistic, right? What you are doing is just naming overexagarated examples of realism.
Tork makes some fair points and by saying realism he doesn't mean that this game has to be real-life. Fietta, your arguments are cheap and you obviously know he doesn't mean it in a way of real-life realism. Because if that was the case, he would suggest having to walk five real-life days in order to get to a multiplayer game, which he hasn't suggested.
There has to be a balance between fantasy and realism. Too much realism is bad and too much fantasy is even worse.
Tork makes some fair points and by saying realism he doesn't mean that this game has to be real-life. Fietta, your arguments are cheap and you obviously know he doesn't mean it in a way of real-life realism. Because if that was the case, he would suggest having to walk five real-life days in order to get to a multiplayer game, which he hasn't suggested.
There has to be a balance between fantasy and realism. Too much realism is bad and too much fantasy is even worse.
There is no such thing as 'somewhat realistic', you either have realism or you don't it's that simple - you can't pick and choose what parts you want for an argumentative point of view especially when Tork used realism in his argument.
It's an odd one, especially when it's impossible to actually determine what parts should be realistic and what shouldn't, which is why it shouldn't be brought up in discussion, rather use what you already have available and base the mechanics around meta. If horses are too tanky which makes them almost unstoppable, then make them less tanky (which goes against 'realism' or 'somewhat realistic'). People obviously have completely different opinions on what parts of the game should be realistic, or 'somewhat realistic', so it's not worth discussing or be used as an argument.
It's an odd one, especially when it's impossible to actually determine what parts should be realistic and what shouldn't, which is why it shouldn't be brought up in discussion, rather use what you already have available and base the mechanics around meta. If horses are too tanky which makes them almost unstoppable, then make them less tanky (which goes against 'realism' or 'somewhat realistic'). People obviously have completely different opinions on what parts of the game should be realistic, or 'somewhat realistic', so it's not worth discussing or be used as an argument.
Last edited:
Realism is a terrible argument for multiplayer video games and it always comes down to pick-and-choosing realistic elements that fit the specific player's agenda when arguing about something.
Instead, balance within the game's boundaries that makes sense with it's specific mechanics should be argued for. Paying 60g more for a roflstomp tank cavalry that can dish out 500 damage per couch is not balanced. Having nearly 800 skirmish wins playing purely as cav, I can safely say spears do very little damage to a heavy, and even a light horse after the initial stop. Swords/axes literally bounce off heavy horses and do maybe 30 dmg to light horses on a good swing. The only considerable threat are throwers, ranged and other cavalry.
Of course, if you ram yourself at 4 dudes and get reared, chances are you will probably die, but that's only because you play extra dumb. Your horse probably won't get killed though.
Instead, balance within the game's boundaries that makes sense with it's specific mechanics should be argued for. Paying 60g more for a roflstomp tank cavalry that can dish out 500 damage per couch is not balanced. Having nearly 800 skirmish wins playing purely as cav, I can safely say spears do very little damage to a heavy, and even a light horse after the initial stop. Swords/axes literally bounce off heavy horses and do maybe 30 dmg to light horses on a good swing. The only considerable threat are throwers, ranged and other cavalry.
Of course, if you ram yourself at 4 dudes and get reared, chances are you will probably die, but that's only because you play extra dumb. Your horse probably won't get killed though.
2 new quotes added
Where tf is the removal of block delay.
They'd removed it just like that in beta why can't they just do it now.. without ever implementing it back again
They'd removed it just like that in beta why can't they just do it now.. without ever implementing it back again
Damn, first time I agree with Fietta.
Everytime there is a gamebreaking feature that needs to be addressed, the argument of realism is being brought up, except bannerlord is not realistic at all. It's just cheap arguments to keep an op class to feel good about yourself when you kill someone.
There is no such thing as realism in warband, in bannerlord, nor in ANY game ever made.
I...I...actually...... agree with Alyss...
This is a game first and gameplay should always be the priority. If within the bounds of good gameplay you can make it realistic (or close to) as well then good job but... it's a game.
People have been saying that the past 3 years, it's a meme at this point.
But its true tho
Similar threads
