Surprised so many hate this as an option, given that it is present in VC and mods already. I think to be fair it should apply to all units; all armor, weapons, shields and so forth have weight and the more you carry the more rapidly you become fatigued. IRL this is a huge issue, and really adds a realistic advantage to the light armors which are otherwise basically useless. There should be a means to increase this based on conditioning-- either by manually upping stats like agility/endurance or based on amount of time spent in combat while taxing endurance.
[...] Exactly, stamina may be more realistic but it's not fun in Mount & Blade. Stamina punishes players for fighting. Any game that punishes players for using it's core game mechanic is just badly designed. This would be like Mario becoming exhausted after jumping and being forced to rest - it's more realistic but it's not more enjoyable.
I have played a lot of VC and used heavy armor and shields and had absolutely no problem with stamina. It slowed me down once in a while and I had to adjust my fighting style accordingly. On the other hand it allowed my lightly armored character to be extremely agile and successful in combat. And the same goes for lightly armored troops, which actually can fulfill important roles in battle.
Thus stamina is a great mechanic enhancing the game threefold.
- It increases the tactical depth of battles by giving lightly armored combatants a decisive advantage balancing their lower armor value.
- It allows for more diverse fighting styles for the player and forces the player to adapt to their chosen equipment, allowing interesting different experiences (lightly armoured pict vs. heavyily armoured saxon).
- It enhances immersion by adding this "realistic touch".
Aren't maps supposed to be much bigger too? Walking from an end to the middle of it would probably take a while if you're using heavy armor and have some heavily armored infantry, and the mirror fights would probably be snail pace to the middle or not moving at all , add some hills and forests in between for extra immersion
I want to like the idea of stamina but in the scale of a game like Mount&Blade, and specially considering that there's no such thing as "stamina potions" or sitting to regenerate it faster (which would also be pretty dangerous), most of the time it'd just sum up to running out of stamina quickly and swinging your weapons weakly. Unless they made the stamina system less restrictive, but if it's just going to be a minor nuissance why have it in the first place? It'd have to be something pretty unique and well thought out to not just be an annoyance and make gameplay more interesting.
On the other hand, a general army fatigue system, sort of like a separate morale that decreased overtime while you're on the field and after every fight it took a hit (with a slider for preference), but replenished everytime you rest in a city/town or use that rest option on the field, and that affected the general combat capability of your troops (movement speed, damage, accuracy, etc.), that I agree more with. Mostly because it doesn't mess with pvp balance or directly affect combat balance, and it makes extremely long military campaigns need to halt from time to time instead of deathballing through the map with the king and 5-6 lords with over 1000 soldiers.
Surprised so many hate this as an option, given that it is present in VC and mods already. I think to be fair it should apply to all units; all armor, weapons, shields and so forth have weight and the more you carry the more rapidly you become fatigued. IRL this is a huge issue, and really adds a realistic advantage to the light armors which are otherwise basically useless.
There's already a noticeable difference between light & heavy armors aside from protection, which is movement speed. In any multiplayer mode except duel that can be the difference between winning and losing. Heavy armor has a lot going for it, but it's expensive and slows you down. Nerfing it with a stamina system (and thereby buffing light armor relatively) would make heavy armor such a hindrance that it would become niche or possibly useless. We don't have the depth of armor simulation necessary to make heavy armor as useful as it really was, and adding only the realistic drawbacks would make it garbage in multiplayer. Your mileage may vary in singleplayer & mods, but their approach to balance is generally much more lax than the native game's should be.
NPC99 说:
There’s no conflict if it can be toggled on or off at each individual player’s option.
There are two questions to consider: What are we trying to accomplish with a stamina system? and Is there a better way to accomplish this?
IMO, one of the flaws in Warband is that there is never sufficient reason not to wear the heaviest armor you can afford. Likewise, there is little reason (really, little choice) but to upgrade your troops to the heaviest option available. Even at full difficulty, 100 Swadian Knights make you invincible in field battles. It there any reason to have Sarranid Skirmishers other then as a stepping stone to Master Archer? If I wanted infantry with throwing weapons I'd start down the Nord tree, Jarids piercing damage notwithstanding.
I think that is the problem which mods and VC are trying to address by adding a stamina system; to create a role for lighter armored troops. I think that VC's stamina system, along with the Armor Penalty, did an ok to good job. But I don't what that to be the way Bannerlord addresses the issue. Whatever the solution is, it needs to be a core part of combat, not something that can be switched on or off. The stamina system (at least as implemented in VC) feels too much like "look at this game mechanic".
I think a better solution, at least in part, would be to give useful battlefield roles to different types of units. Obviously we don't know how things will actually shake out in the end, but it's looking like they are heading in that direction with the sergeant system, multiplayer captain mode and quotes like
Bannerlord is working to make control of the battlefield more important, so that skirmishing is usually a prelude to a clash
I like the ideal of realism. Reading about Roman tactics, they had a system of rotating troops in the middle of a fight so that they could rest and be effective. Compare that with Germanic Barbarians or Gauls who tended to go all in and tend to lose effectiveness over time.
Just that the way I've experienced it in Brytenwalda, I'd have to invest in the athletics skill to get some recovery. Really bad experience when I first had it since at 0 athletics you basically don't recover.
If implemented well it might work out.
How about a reduction in movement for wounded people? I'm sure you ain't going to sprint when you've taken a few sword cuts. Shaking up that wound might reopen it....
Surprised so many hate this as an option, given that it is present in VC and mods already. I think to be fair it should apply to all units; all armor, weapons, shields and so forth have weight and the more you carry the more rapidly you become fatigued. IRL this is a huge issue, and really adds a realistic advantage to the light armors which are otherwise basically useless. There should be a means to increase this based on conditioning-- either by manually upping stats like agility/endurance or based on amount of time spent in combat while taxing endurance.
The implementation on warband mods sucked big time. You cannot make a traditional system of stamina in MB and make it fun. You either need to have need and be reasonable or find another system to control the pace. I hated how my character got exhausted in VC after a few swings and how heavy the equipment felt.
Exactly, stamina may be more realistic but it's not fun in Mount & Blade. Stamina punishes players for fighting. Any game that punishes players for using it's core game mechanic is just badly designed. This would be like Mario becoming exhausted after jumping and being forced to rest - it's more realistic but it's not more enjoyable.
I guess it is different preferences and backgrounds-- to me using real world tactics skillfully and winning against long odds is enjoyable. I don't like games, I like simulations. I grew up playing tabletop miniatures, and served in military doing real life wargames (staff exercises). Now I develop simulations for the Army, so to me Warband (e.g. Brytenwalda, VC, other mods with adjustments) is simply one of the best simulations of combat in this era.
A glitched feint that makes your enemy see a thrust when you do a swing.
- - - -
Title is misleading, this is not cheating but a macro, see the difference though.
- - - -
https://youtu.be/tOSKl8pdBgs
Just look at that, lmao.
Regarding horses: Well-known competitive players have been commenting during the last weeks on a cavalry thread also noting that cav in general is unfair. I guess they need to git gud. Also, the main problem are those issues, stamina would be a way to fix some, or maybe not. It was a hypothesis. I do not particularly care about it. None of these issues are game breaking, but I dont see why not fix what was clearly not meant to work the way it currently does.
Also, I dont think they meant those mechanics to be played that way, they have already said that they will tone down feints in bannerlord. Even the main competitive mode, Battle, is only an overglorified deathmatch with a minimal objective. Even siege itself is stupid, without multiple objectives to spread the crowds. What I am trying to say is that warband was not really thought out in multiplayer, it just had it as an extra feature. Instead of keeping clunky mechanics, they should either somehow make them better, or remove them and replace it with an equally deep system. Feints will never go away of course and nobody would like that, but some of craziness, in my opinion, needs to be toned down.
You cite one example as the crutch of the argument for a stamina bar? That technique is far from what made most high end duelists / infantry players. Outside of that, fixing the glitch in that niche scenario fixes the problem, why throw out the entire system and add a stamina bar to try and address it? Terrible example and supporting evidence for your argument. Nonsensical, really. You say that the developers "didn't intend" for things to be used a certain way, yet I can think of plenty of wildly popular multiplayer games where mechancs are reguarly used in ways "not intended," because developers are developers and not high-end players of their own games. That happens everywhere. You're advocating a "better" system, a "deep" system, and you call the current system "clunky." That's funny, I'm willing to bet you never were very good at the current system so it's easy to lay the blame at the foot of the system that you couldn't quite figure out and expect the game to be changed to more suit you. Pretty selfish, really.
Now, on to my favorite part:
Regarding horses: Well-known competitive players have been commenting during the last weeks on a cavalry thread also noting that cav in general is unfair. I guess they need to git gud. Also, the main problem are those issues, stamina would be a way to fix some, or maybe not.
Your qualitative assessment of "competitive players," I find anecdotal at best and ironic at worst, as you're sitting here talking to one with a thorough understanding of the game at higher levels who is literally telling you in plain words why cavalry is not, in your own words, "overpowered." It could do with friendly bumping, but it is definitely not "overpowered." If it were, why do we not have more cavalry more often? We do we, on the whole, most often see infantry and ranged than cavalry? Why, if it is "OP," do we not see teams running comps of all cav, even on Random Plains? Perhaps because it isn't overpowered, it's just good at what it does and it has a niche. I find it laughable that you call cavalry "unfair," or that these ethereal "well-known competitive players" are calling cav "unfair." They must not be very well known, not very competitive, or neither, if they arrive at the conclusion that, "Guys, cav just isn't fair." Sorry, but that's not accurate, for the reasons I've already supplied.
A stamina system does nothing but artificially slow the game. As previously mentioned, the original Mount & Blade and follow Mount & Blade: Warband existed in an industry space where it had little-to-no real competition in the space. Not only is there, now, more competition existing in the same space that used to be barren, but games like Kingdom Come and Mordhau are on the horizon, with others following close behind. I'm not sure if you understand marketing or differentiation, but I'll make this easy for you and let you in on the general idea: being unique in a space that becomes congested is a good thing. Borrowing ideas that take away from your uniqueness in favor of status quo is typically a step backwards in most cases, unless the system or practice you're adopting is empirically superior -- which the stamina system people seem to be talking about, is not. Bannerlord needs to hold onto what has made it great and that's the combat that every other game has people on their forum posting things like "Why is the combat not more like M&B?" You start hacking the heart out of the system here, and you lose the differentiation and the spirit of what makes the game half worth playing.
IMO, one of the flaws in Warband is that there is never sufficient reason not to wear the heaviest armor you can afford. Likewise, there is little reason (really, little choice) but to upgrade your troops to the heaviest option available. Even at full difficulty, 100 Swadian Knights make you invincible in field battles.
Can you explain how exactly wanting to wear the heaviest armor is a flaw?
Making heavy armor good against a guy with only a shirt shpuld be logical, because thats how the medieval times did it. However, good armor is way to expensive to outfit for your army, so that right was usually reserved to the rich. Since the poor cant afford good heavy armor, they need their own sort of defense. So thats why we have shields, crossbows to pierce metal, and axes and warhammers to dent the armor.
What warband failed and why swadian knights are overpowered is because the game has a ****ed sense of economy.
AI lords dont pay wages. They always march around with a set percenage of tiered troops. (for example when you fight a full even army on 150 troops, you will always see around 2 swadian knights, maybe 4 men at arms, and 20 crossbow men and 20 infantry.)
Armor is crafted out of thin air. There is no limiting factor like real life (metals, smiths to pay,). When you click on the upgrade troop button, where did their armor come from?
Not to mention swadian knights are cheap as ****. 250 upfront, and 60 a week? Thats enough for a normal shield, some 20 point armor maybe, and a sack of grain.
So what we should be doing is limit economic factors that help fund these troops, not actually making them ****.
Bannerlord captain mode does this by making it so if you pick elite troops, you get less troops;
-If you pick the light troops, you get like 20 men, but they have **** armor.
-if you pick the heavy troops, you get 12 men, but they got scale armor
Not to mention swadian knights are cheap as ****. 250 upfront, and 60 a week? Thats enough for a normal shield, some 20 point armor maybe, and a sack of grain.
I'm going to play as an archer so I'll need Plate Armor, Plate Boots, Winged Great Helmet and Gauntlets.
Why bring any Velites if you could bring more Principes; Jinete are just rubbish knights, right?
But seriously, if you had to fight just one field battle with a force pool of Sarranid Skirmishers and Nord Huscarls to recruit from how many players would take any Skirmishers?
It should go far as an optional in SP, maybe an optional in MP for commander battle modes ONLY. Ideally stamina would work like in the older Total War games.
578 说:
The implementation on warband mods sucked big time. You cannot make a traditional system of stamina in MB and make it fun. You either need to have it and be reasonable or find another system to control the pace. I hated how my character got exhausted in VC after a few swings and how heavy the equipment felt.
I'm going to play as an archer so I'll need Plate Armor, Plate Boots, Winged Great Helmet and Gauntlets.
Why bring any Velites if you could bring more Principes; Jinete are just rubbish knights, right?
But seriously, if you had to fight just one field battle with a force pool of Sarranid Skirmishers and Nord Huscarls to recruit from how many players would take any Skirmishers?
No, his argument is that in real life you could reliably complement your army with lightly armoured soldiers.
This is where ****ed-up economy kicks in, you don't use light gear because heavy gear is easily available. You don't use light troops because heavy troops are easily available. There's no reason to utilize lighter forces on the field if you can stash them at the bottom of your party and wait till they're elite.
That being said, I believe Bannerlord will address at least some of the components of this problem. One of the devblogs already told us that elite troops are being gated behind the new NPC-based recruitment system
07/09/17 Dev Blog 说:
Some special troops, such as Vlandian Knights, represent minor nobility. These kinds of units have completely different troop trees. In the instance of Vlandian Knights, they can only be upgraded from Vlandian Squires, who in turn can only be recruited from NPC nobles. With this in mind, it is wise to maintain good relations with Vlandian nobles if your eventual aim is to have Vlandian Knights in your party.
However, that’s not to say that you are restricted from acquiring heavy cavalry if your relations with the Vlandian nobility is too poor. You will still have access to Vlandian Men-at- arms, who are almost as skilled as Knights but aren’t as heavily armoured.
Then there are those mysterious ambushes, which could be flavour talk in factions' blog, but maybe it wasn't and that could utilize lighter units as well. Heck, whole Battanian faction seems to revolve around lightly armoured troops, so I imagine they'll have something to not make choosing them a dead-end.
A glitched feint that makes your enemy see a thrust when you do a swing.
- - - -
Title is misleading, this is not cheating but a macro, see the difference though.
- - - -
https://youtu.be/tOSKl8pdBgs
Just look at that, lmao.
Regarding horses: Well-known competitive players have been commenting during the last weeks on a cavalry thread also noting that cav in general is unfair. I guess they need to git gud. Also, the main problem are those issues, stamina would be a way to fix some, or maybe not. It was a hypothesis. I do not particularly care about it. None of these issues are game breaking, but I dont see why not fix what was clearly not meant to work the way it currently does.
Also, I dont think they meant those mechanics to be played that way, they have already said that they will tone down feints in bannerlord. Even the main competitive mode, Battle, is only an overglorified deathmatch with a minimal objective. Even siege itself is stupid, without multiple objectives to spread the crowds. What I am trying to say is that warband was not really thought out in multiplayer, it just had it as an extra feature. Instead of keeping clunky mechanics, they should either somehow make them better, or remove them and replace it with an equally deep system. Feints will never go away of course and nobody would like that, but some of craziness, in my opinion, needs to be toned down.
You cite one example as the crutch of the argument for a stamina bar? That technique is far from what made most high end duelists / infantry players. Outside of that, fixing the glitch in that niche scenario fixes the problem, why throw out the entire system and add a stamina bar to try and address it? Terrible example and supporting evidence for your argument. Nonsensical, really. You say that the developers "didn't intend" for things to be used a certain way, yet I can think of plenty of wildly popular multiplayer games where mechancs are reguarly used in ways "not intended," because developers are developers and not high-end players of their own games. That happens everywhere. You're advocating a "better" system, a "deep" system, and you call the current system "clunky." That's funny, I'm willing to bet you never were very good at the current system so it's easy to lay the blame at the foot of the system that you couldn't quite figure out and expect the game to be changed to more suit you. Pretty selfish, really.
Now, on to my favorite part:
Regarding horses: Well-known competitive players have been commenting during the last weeks on a cavalry thread also noting that cav in general is unfair. I guess they need to git gud. Also, the main problem are those issues, stamina would be a way to fix some, or maybe not.
Your qualitative assessment of "competitive players," I find anecdotal at best and ironic at worst, as you're sitting here talking to one with a thorough understanding of the game at higher levels who is literally telling you in plain words why cavalry is not, in your own words, "overpowered." It could do with friendly bumping, but it is definitely not "overpowered." If it were, why do we not have more cavalry more often? We do we, on the whole, most often see infantry and ranged than cavalry? Why, if it is "OP," do we not see teams running comps of all cav, even on Random Plains? Perhaps because it isn't overpowered, it's just good at what it does and it has a niche. I find it laughable that you call cavalry "unfair," or that these ethereal "well-known competitive players" are calling cav "unfair." They must not be very well known, not very competitive, or neither, if they arrive at the conclusion that, "Guys, cav just isn't fair." Sorry, but that's not accurate, for the reasons I've already supplied.
A stamina system does nothing but artificially slow the game. As previously mentioned, the original Mount & Blade and follow Mount & Blade: Warband existed in an industry space where it had little-to-no real competition in the space. Not only is there, now, more competition existing in the same space that used to be barren, but games like Kingdom Come and Mordhau are on the horizon, with others following close behind. I'm not sure if you understand marketing or differentiation, but I'll make this easy for you and let you in on the general idea: being unique in a space that becomes congested is a good thing. Borrowing ideas that take away from your uniqueness in favor of status quo is typically a step backwards in most cases, unless the system or practice you're adopting is empirically superior -- which the stamina system people seem to be talking about, is not. Bannerlord needs to hold onto what has made it great and that's the combat that every other game has people on their forum posting things like "Why is the combat not more like M&B?" You start hacking the heart out of the system here, and you lose the differentiation and the spirit of what makes the game half worth playing.
What exactly do you not understand about my posts? I have mentioned at least 2 times that stamina system will not be a bar that depletes you from attacking. Stamina system in games is nothing more other than a pace controller. Mount and blade is a special and different game and it would need a different 'stamina' system or a different pace controlling system in general. I have said that I AM NOT proposing a traditional system seen in other games and I have also mentioned that I am perfectly fine without a stamina system, this is for the sake of discussion. 8v8 does not need a pace controller but the appeal to this game in multiplayer is war, big game modes like Siege for example. And its always a cluster****.
Regarding cavalry and you being a pro player: Lets see what cavalry has: 180 degree invisible shields, shielding the horse's head which is a glitch - happens in certain situations like difference in ping but it still happens. Superior mobility, unlimited bump, bump-thrust, knockdown at high speeds, easy escapes from zergs. If you think Cav is balanced, you are delusional.
We can stay here and pray warband as the superior game mechanically and gameplay wise but we would be wrong. Despite Warband being my favourite game I will not stay and talk **** that make no sense like ''in-depth mechanics'' because they do not exist in multiplayer. I was recently informed that Swadian cavalry has the highest 1H speed, is that balanced or makes sense?
Your mentioned games, Kingdom come is trash and Mordhau is the same. I have played Kingdom come since very early stages including the latest builds and Mordhau since the first days of Alpha. They will not stand a chance against Bannerlord. Kingdom come might appeal to open world RPG fans, but its combat is dull and horrible.
as you're sitting here talking to one with a thorough understanding of the game at higher levels who is literally telling you in plain words why cavalry is not, in your own words, "overpowered."
Lastly, if you dont want mount and blade to evolve, that's fine. You can stay and play the flawed Warband forever. For the last time, everything in this thread is for the sake of discussion. I dont care about stamina to the point of losing sleep over it, I have about 1.2k hours in Warband, I have learned to play without it.
Stamina is trash but for big multiplayer game modes some sort of balance for naked 2h spam might be appropriate as that puts a lot of people off. I'd prefer some sort of increase to the unbalancing effect of a missed attack, so people who can't block can't just swing wildly in an area around them and face no punishment. This would have difficult to balance knock-on effects to duel and competitive though so I don't know if it's really a good idea. Warband combat has proven workable and getting good overcomes most cheap idiot tricks, it just remains a barrier to entry.
Cav is still OP though, Rhade only used courser because he knew the hunter was OP and stopped playing because archers were allowed polearms and shields so they couldn't be run down by the hordes of Mongols arriving over a hill (archers are still rundown ofc but now we manage to stop one cav first).
Your qualitative assessment of "competitive players," I find anecdotal at best and ironic at worst, as you're sitting here talking to one with a thorough understanding of the game at higher levels who is literally telling you in plain words why cavalry is not, in your own words, "overpowered." It could do with friendly bumping, but it is definitely not "overpowered." If it were, why do we not have more cavalry more often?
, add some hills and forests in between for extra immersion 
