Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 62

Author Topic: Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord  (Read 106280 times)

Krevsin

  • Bay Watcher
  • [RAINBOWS:REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord
« Reply #105 on: June 19, 2016, 01:03:20 am »

Well, they added chamber blocking in Warband, so who knows what other stuff they could do with combat. How can you fight a guy who has a shield, for example? He basically has an omni-directional block that requires almost no skill, and mitigates many ranged weapons too. Many times fighting a guy with a shield is a back-and-forth hoping that his shield breaks or you manage to feint him just right, which is difficult because one handed weapons swing faster than other weapon types.

Also what about sprinting? It's annoying fighting archers by veerry slowly waddling towards them while they pepper you with projectiles. Hope you brought a shield, and even if you do holding the shield up slows you way down anyways so you'll never catch them.

And what about armor? Honestly the way damage works in M&B is pretty silly. At least there's three types of damage, but most of it just deals with making armor less effective against attacks.
Shields are supposed to be powerful counters to most attacks and what balances them is the fact that they break and that they limit your damage output to one-handed weapons. Giving people additional ways to bypass shields runs a risk of rendering them useless which they weren't historically (at least until gunpowder came around). There's a reason why for most of medieval warfare, people were running around with big ol' slabs of wood and metal.

Sprinting would be an interesting thing to implement, but you'd have to limit it somehow, otherwise you'll just end up with big ol' wads of sprinting infantry sprinting all over the place. Besides which, your infantry should not be charging archers without shields. Killing archers (and poorly protected vulnerable infantry units) is your cavalry's job, they charge into the archers, stop them shooting and then your infantry should be able to close in without fear of being shot at by pointy things.

A rework of the damage system I agree would change the game a fair bit. Perhaps keeping track of the damage to your individual body parts instead of an HP bar. That would facilitate a different approach to how armor works, tho in the end it'd still be very similar (i.e. damage reduction) but slightly more detailed (reducing damage to individual body parts rather than just your overall health). So that could be interesting.



The bigger question is how can you evolve M&B further mechanically? Because the underlying system is pretty well developed. You can expand it with stuff like more different weapons and nations and the like, or add novel combat areas like ship battles, or maybe evolve sieges further a bit, such as adding multiple paths of storming the castle, but that all's not so much evolution as much as it is additional content.
No, M&B's engine had basically shit support for any of those things. A new engine could actually do that stuff (and more) without being hacky as hell.
I'm not saying M&B's implementation of those things was good, just that they were there.  :P
Like I said, polish and presentation. Making things less hacky is part of that.
Logged

Cthulhu

  • Bay Watcher
  • A squid
    • View Profile
Re: Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord
« Reply #106 on: June 19, 2016, 01:23:08 am »

That's why I never really did much of the multiplayer.  I played it for a pseudo-realistic medieval combat sim and medieval combat wasn't based around a tight competitive balance.
Logged
Shoes...

Ozyton

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord
« Reply #107 on: June 19, 2016, 01:39:57 am »

I'm basing those suggestions off my time playing cRPG mod. While a lot of that stuff did apply to the real world in a smaller scenario it's not as effective. A lot of times, at least in that mod, any cavalry that dared try to run archers down just got headshot off their horses. As for shields, half the fun of the game, IMO, is the directional attack/block system, and when you have a one hander+shield your best attacks against anyone was the left-attack because it aims at the head, and the shield acts as an omni-directional block which throws out the directional block mechanic altogether. Sometimes I just wanna reach out and tear that dumb shield away from them or something. I think the only way to really deal with shielders was to have weapons that did bonuses to shields, and those weapons were typically worthless for anything but breaking shields. I suppose couch lancing does tons of damage to shields but it's not very reliable since the cavalry typically didn't last super long (and if they did it's because they're god tier wearing full plate and full plated horse).

M&B combat is still janky and not reaaaally authentic, but it's close enough to still be fun and at least a little believable. A lot of times it's either spin-to-win or people doing all sorts of weird twirly feint attacks that look ridiculous but are effective because they make it hard for the enemy to judge your attacks right.

E: Sprinting. They could add a stamina bar that only applies to sprinting. It would take a long time to 'recharge' so you'd get a good few seconds to charge in, but you wouldn't be able to just sprint all over the place. There'd also be a sort of acceleration period so it's not an instant janky movement.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2016, 01:45:54 am by OzyTheSage »
Logged

umiman

  • Bay Watcher
  • Voice Fetishist
    • View Profile
Re: Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord
« Reply #108 on: June 19, 2016, 03:30:04 am »

"Man, this portable wall is so overpowered. God should nerf wood and metal."

"Hey! Hey! Everyone! STOP FIGHTING! STOP! You guys are cheating!!!"

"NEW RULES! NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO USE BIG PIECES OF WOOD OR METAL TO DEFEND THEIR VITAL PARTS! SWORDS ONLY! FINAL DESTINATION!"

-------------------

I wonder if they'll do more native implementation of guns this time. Guns previously were pretty... hmm... shite.

chaoticag

  • Bay Watcher
  • All Natural Pengbean
    • View Profile
Re: Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord
« Reply #109 on: June 19, 2016, 03:35:40 am »

Well, they're turning the clock back a fair bit in terms of setting, bannerlord is going to be set earlier, so I don't think firearm mechanics are going to be added in as a core mechanic. The game wouldn't need that in 1247 or whenever it is set. Might be fore the best as it would make armor of the time worse as well, hopefully getting us less spongy fights in general. Who knows though, they might add it in for modders.
Logged

umiman

  • Bay Watcher
  • Voice Fetishist
    • View Profile
Re: Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord
« Reply #110 on: June 19, 2016, 03:49:36 am »

They should put just a whole bunch of random things inside the files for modders to use.

Like machine guns.

Dynamite.

Napalm.

Apache helicopters.

Karl Franz on Deathclaw wielding Ghal Maraz.

A Baneblade.

USS Einsenhower.

the Death Star.

Skrillex.

Chiefwaffles

  • Bay Watcher
  • I've been told that waffles are no longer funny.
    • View Profile
Re: Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord
« Reply #111 on: June 19, 2016, 03:56:48 am »

Let's just cut out the middle man and have Taleworlds pre-make all the mods.
Surely it can't be hard?
Logged
Quote from: RAM
You should really look to the wilderness for your stealth ideas, it has been doing it much longer than you have after all. Take squids for example, that ink trick works pretty well, and in water too! So you just sneak into the dam upsteam, dump several megatons of distressed squid into it, then break the dam. Boom, you suddenly have enough water-proof stealth for a whole city!

Krevsin

  • Bay Watcher
  • [RAINBOWS:REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord
« Reply #112 on: June 19, 2016, 04:07:41 am »

I'm basing those suggestions off my time playing cRPG mod. While a lot of that stuff did apply to the real world in a smaller scenario it's not as effective. A lot of times, at least in that mod, any cavalry that dared try to run archers down just got headshot off their horses. As for shields, half the fun of the game, IMO, is the directional attack/block system, and when you have a one hander+shield your best attacks against anyone was the left-attack because it aims at the head, and the shield acts as an omni-directional block which throws out the directional block mechanic altogether. Sometimes I just wanna reach out and tear that dumb shield away from them or something. I think the only way to really deal with shielders was to have weapons that did bonuses to shields, and those weapons were typically worthless for anything but breaking shields. I suppose couch lancing does tons of damage to shields but it's not very reliable since the cavalry typically didn't last super long (and if they did it's because they're god tier wearing full plate and full plated horse).

M&B combat is still janky and not reaaaally authentic, but it's close enough to still be fun and at least a little believable. A lot of times it's either spin-to-win or people doing all sorts of weird twirly feint attacks that look ridiculous but are effective because they make it hard for the enemy to judge your attacks right.

E: Sprinting. They could add a stamina bar that only applies to sprinting. It would take a long time to 'recharge' so you'd get a good few seconds to charge in, but you wouldn't be able to just sprint all over the place. There'd also be a sort of acceleration period so it's not an instant janky movement.

Re shields: That's kinda the point of shields. To give people a way to bypass shields would be to render them useless. They're designed to be the thing you use to block attacks. Using axes against them helps but again, you're fighting a person who has a big piece of wood and metal specifically made to intercept your attacks (even attacks from the side, that's why they're wide and not bucklers) which means they are at a distinct advantage.

You could make it so that a person with a shield turns around a bit slower but you need to be careful with that because if you slow down the turn rate too much, shields are useless things that aren't worth the effort.

You could make targeting people's exposed appendages easier but given how games work, that'd just mean everyone would be going for leg strikes in MP and instead of shields everywhere, you'd get people leg slicing all over the place (or whatever method of bypassing shields you can think of).

I cannot think up a solution that'd make shields and two-handing a big sword both viable options without losing authenticity of medieval combat (SHIELDS EVERYWHERE) and replacing an overused overpowered strategy with another overused overpowered strategy. (except the aforementioned slowdown of turning, tho that'd need to be carefully handled)

re cavalry charging archers: I did not have that problem playing vanilla SP. I've never played a lot of MP mount and blade (mostly because I feel the game is better in SP) but I suspected that headshots might be a big thing from people playing archers. Just like in other MP games when playing against experienced players and the skill level and the like. However, this issue should be relatively easy to fix just by boosting the level of protection a helmet gives against piercing ranged weapons.

re jankiness: it's true, M&B combat is janky AF. A lot of it has to deal with the game itself (the animations look weird and stunted, tho from what I've seen of M&B 2 it looks like they somewhat remedied that) but I suspect most of that feeling of jank comes from the input method itself. A truly jankless melee combat simulator is something that one can only achieve with VR, I feel, given how integral control of your movement is to fighting in close combat. So there's a fair bit of jank to be expected from any game that tries to simulate it. Again, a lot of that can be remedied with improving presentation and adding polish (better animations, more responsive controls, the like).

re stamina bar: That sounds like a pretty good solution to me. Probably would also be affected by what kind of armor you're wearing and how many weapons you have and your various stats and the like, but it sounds like a decent solution.
Logged

ThtblovesDF

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord
« Reply #113 on: June 19, 2016, 05:12:33 am »

... authenticity of medieval combat ...

Oh you mean Spears everywhere and no swords for miles?

I'd actually be really impressed if just holding a spear and someone running into it at full speed will do anything (no attack move, just the object).

I want to be able to throw a javlin, have it stuck in wood and the guy running along the wall knocking himself out on it.
Logged

kulik

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord
« Reply #114 on: June 19, 2016, 05:32:22 am »

On shields, I would like that the shields would also have directional blocking, but that blocking in bad direction would still protect you but at the cost of increased shield damage or, for heavy weapons, chance to strike the shield out of defenders grasp.
Logged

Hawkfrost

  • Bay Watcher
  • It's way too late to stop.
    • View Profile
Re: Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord
« Reply #115 on: June 19, 2016, 06:25:59 am »

... authenticity of medieval combat ...

Oh you mean Spears everywhere and no swords for miles?

Depending on the era of course.

Late Medieval soldiers often had swords as sidearms in case their spear broke or they ran out of arrows. Key word here though, sidearms.
Logged

BFEL

  • Bay Watcher
  • Tail of a stinging scorpion scourge
    • View Profile
Re: Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord
« Reply #116 on: June 19, 2016, 07:02:30 am »

... authenticity of medieval combat ...

Oh you mean Spears everywhere and no swords for miles?

Depending on the era of course.

Late Medieval soldiers often had swords as sidearms in case their spear broke or they ran out of arrows. Key word here though, sidearms.
From what I've heard LATE Medieval knights used big two handed swords because armor at that point was basically a full body shield.
Logged
7/10 Has much more memorable sigs but casts them to the realm of sigtexts.

Indeed, I do this.

Krevsin

  • Bay Watcher
  • [RAINBOWS:REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord
« Reply #117 on: June 19, 2016, 08:01:16 am »

... authenticity of medieval combat ...

Oh you mean Spears everywhere and no swords for miles?

I'd actually be really impressed if just holding a spear and someone running into it at full speed will do anything (no attack move, just the object).

I want to be able to throw a javlin, have it stuck in wood and the guy running along the wall knocking himself out on it.
I mean sure, while everyone had spears, they also had a secondary weapon when fighting got real close. Spears aren't good at short ranges :P

But yes, spears in M&B need more love. Like lots more.

... authenticity of medieval combat ...

Oh you mean Spears everywhere and no swords for miles?

Depending on the era of course.

Late Medieval soldiers often had swords as sidearms in case their spear broke or they ran out of arrows. Key word here though, sidearms.
From what I've heard LATE Medieval knights used big two handed swords because armor at that point was basically a full body shield.
Late medieval soldiers used maces, war hammers and halberds because swords don't deal with plate particularily well  :P

Really late medieval soldiers used pikes and muskets. At that point, a shield was entirely obsolete, and armor was rapidly approaching that same status. Turns out guns fuck shit up, yo.
Logged

Sindain

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord
« Reply #118 on: June 19, 2016, 09:51:02 am »

re cavalry charging archers: I did not have that problem playing vanilla SP. I've never played a lot of MP mount and blade (mostly because I feel the game is better in SP) but I suspected that headshots might be a big thing from people playing archers. Just like in other MP games when playing against experienced players and the skill level and the like. However, this issue should be relatively easy to fix just by boosting the level of protection a helmet gives against piercing ranged weapons.

Nah that wouldn't actually help too much. Honestly I never found headshots themselves to be not that much of a problem. All archers in (vanilla) MP had a fair level of inaccuracy built in so even the best players had trouble landing headshots at most ranges.

The much bigger problems archers posed to cavalry was the stun from being hit and how quickly archers could kill horses. If a cavalier tried to charge an archer, the archer would just shoot him when he dropped his shield to swing. The cavalier would get stunned and lose his chance to attack.
If the cavalier didn't charge the archer would just plunk at his horse and he would go down in no time.

To fix this, you would need to reduce the damage from archers horses take and reduce the hitstun caused by arrows. Or let lances attack from behind shields. Maybe restrain this to couching only, then the animation would actually make sense.

I suppose couch lancing does tons of damage to shields but it's not very reliable since the cavalry typically didn't last super long (and if they did it's because they're god tier wearing full plate and full plated horse).

Doesn't help that couching is garbage in MP and no god tier horseman would ever both using it. Especially if they had enough cash for a sword and lance, since then they could just knock the guy over and kill him, instead of breaking his shield for someone else to get the kill.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2016, 10:54:23 am by Sindain »
Logged
"just once I'd like to learn a lesson without something exploding."

Hawkfrost

  • Bay Watcher
  • It's way too late to stop.
    • View Profile
Re: Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord
« Reply #119 on: June 19, 2016, 09:59:19 am »

... authenticity of medieval combat ...

Oh you mean Spears everywhere and no swords for miles?

Depending on the era of course.

Late Medieval soldiers often had swords as sidearms in case their spear broke or they ran out of arrows. Key word here though, sidearms.
From what I've heard LATE Medieval knights used big two handed swords because armor at that point was basically a full body shield.

Knights were not normal soldiers, they largely intended to seek out and battle other knights on the field and geared themselves appropriately for that; a soldier couldn't be expected to be able to afford purchasing suits of plate armor.
By two handed swords I assume you mean a longsword. Most knights would probably go into battle with both a warhammer/pollaxe/lance as well as wearing a longsword on their belt as a backup.


The big greatswords like zweihanders were used later as weapons designed to break into pike blocks by special troops called Doppelsoldners, and are used more like polearms than like swords.



The use of shields, as far as I know, did start to wane during the 1300-1400s but weren't fully replaced until pikes and firearms took over as the main military weapons. You can't use a pike or an arquebus with a shield since both require two hands, and a wooden shield is not going to stop a shot from an arquebus in most cases anyway.



I mean sure, while everyone had spears, they also had a secondary weapon when fighting got real close. Spears aren't good at short ranges :P

They also aren't very good at dealing with people wearing sophisticated armor, unless you hit them with one while riding by on a horse going 30kph.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 62