<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 0.34cm;">Hello all Mount & Blade players, curious individuals and accidental Mount & Blade blog readers! We hope you are having a wonderful 2015, so far and that you enjoyed our previous blog by Finn Seliger, covering the music of Bannerlord.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 0.34cm;">This time, the blog comes right from us and we're going to be touching on an interesting new feature for the single player, something we know a lot of you want to hear about.</p></br> Read more at: <a href="http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/12">http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/12</a>
But... but that's not true. I'd search for the name of a lord, I don't give two craps about his face if I just want to exchange him for cease fire or something like that. He was decked for battle last time I saw him anyway. Why would I want to be forced to memorize how each lord of the realm looks? Lord "Bul... Bul... Bulsomething" is easier to find in list then going through one item to another in grid.
They seem to have forgot to add any kind of sorting/searching options (apart from the 3 tabs) even an alphabetical one, which is very sad. But such functions can be added to either system. So lets assume that you can't use the icon to find who/what you want. with the grid you still don't need to go "through one item to another" like with a list because i can still skip over as many icons as i want. So i would argue its still not very difficult to find what you want.
A plus is if TW manages to make a lot of the important characters memorable and unique however, would make everything much more enjoyable.
Same goes for diplomatic options. It's way easier to just have list with simple icons, than some complicated images so you don't have to hover over every option anyway. I can see grid system being useful in ordinary shopping, especially if you're going for aesthetics, but in barter screen it's just better this way. IMO, grid cut into categories looks like one giant mess - especially if few categories don't have enough items to fill even single row, while list is perfect for such thing. Same goes for waging options - list offers better view on side-by-side comparison then grid.
Complicated images? here i was talking about how the icons should be easy to relate to the items they are supposed to represent, no need to be overly complicated for that. The funny part is that if you can easily see from the icon what it is suppose to represent then you don't need text besides them or hover over every item you have (or even memorize every icon!). And a list with sub-categories just adds to its length and makes it more time consuming to go thru, so i would then rather use the system that just looks like a mess.
And how exactly does it offer better side by side comparisons than a grid? Not having to scroll up and down thru a list makes it a lot easier to find stuff for me at least, and you simply get a much better overview of everything both has to offer.
No matter how much detail they put on each icon, I won't be able to remember what every city and castle looks like, not even close. They need the names visible.
I have lot of faith in "work in progress" part of the screenshot. Hopefully the ability to open/close certain categories with -/+ button will be added, which actually make side-by-side comparison easier. Even without it it's simpler to see which item is, for example, missing while looking at columns then in row of (quite possibly similar) icons. I mean... why would you even want that? Why would you want extra work - which isn't easy, mind you - to make distinguishable icons for everything to make clustered grid screen, when you can just have simple list?
Again, I understand why grid system in inventory/merchandise screen would be preferred, but not during bartering with other lords, where either most of the icons are bound to be same-ish (fiefs and lords), or amount of items in category (diplomatic pacts) doesn't really require any simplified, "shorter" display.
Armagan had already said they're going to redo that screen along with some others, so I guess the final result will be anything but what we can see right now on that screenshot.
I was interested in this back in 2012 but history has shown me time and again when development cycles take this long without any gameplay vids its never a good sign. X Rebirth anyone?
I was interested in this back in 2012 but history has shown me time and again when development cycles take this long without any gameplay vids its never a good sign. X Rebirth anyone?
I agree with you, but I think one reason why it took them so long is because they built a new engine from scratch, never an easy task I heard and with many pitfalls.
Maybe I am wrong, but I am still positive it is going to be good.
One thing I really hope is that in Bannerlord it is a lot BIGGER. More small villages, towns and more that fleshes out the map, really feeling like im travelling a huge distance and taking a large part of land. (If that makes sense)
One thing I really hope is that in Bannerlord it is a lot BIGGER. More small villages, towns and more that fleshes out the map, really feeling like im travelling a huge distance and taking a large part of land. (If that makes sense)
Of course it makes sense, you're talking about immersion through proportion, which is a completely viable point. Terrain should also play an important role, in the sense of speed, ability to cross certain terrain types for each unit and effectiveness. I talked about this some time ago:
testertesting said:
An only-cavalry should be a viable option though, as far as realism is concerned: one could ambush quite well with only cavalry. Also, a bandit band or some other controversial conglomerate of troops could be made only out of cavalry hence they'd need to only deliver a swift shock to their victims (caravans, villages) and just rob them. Speaking of speed, an only-cavalry army will definitely have a dynamic advantage across the map, moving at much faster pace with greater mobility [but only in certain areas]. This could be used during a fight if say a lord is being attacked and asks for reinforcements through a runner: a fast, only-cavalry detachment would be sent to their help and maybe arrive in time - where a full infantry-based army would fail.
In this context, a much more realistic battle time would be thinkable, and a corresponding animation on the campaign map regarding the size of the armies. As far as time goes, they don't last long. Sometimes battles are over before the player even gets there. There is also no option for reinforcements, except if a friendly lord just happens to be around and chooses to come in aid. Like mentioned above, a runner should be sent to call for reinforcements. Again, concerning this idea, there would be an appointed 'captain' or more of some sort who would take over armies and rush to the aid of their lord (or the hirer). These characters should be playable by the player themselves, switching through them at will. Of course, a quite complex order-obeying system would be required, but I do believe it to render quite promising results if implemented.
EDIT: Of course, as I'm always for realism, said 'runner' (or more) could be intercepted. Thus nobody would get the information of anybody requesting reinforcements. To make this more viable, the runner would be extremely hard to detect hence it's only one person (or a small group). The player could jump in the role of this character and deliver their message personally, while their actual main character is taken over by AI on the battlefield. Here, the AI could have some instructions - what I would call AI instructions - which means putting the main character under AI while switching to another one: the option would embrace simple rules such as heroic deeds (where the character would fight like mad and thus risk their lives), cower (where the character would do anything to avoid fighting), balanced (self-explanatory), skirmish, cavalry only (just taking some charges at enemies when given the opportunity) etc. This system would be important not only for the main character but could also serve as an expression for the moral factor concerning all other troops - or each one individually.
The reason the battle ends when the player dies is to encourage risk-reward when going to fight on your own. Mods like 1257AD that instantly spawn you as another soldier mean there's virtually no penalty for suiciding yourself for a small tactical advantage like killing a few archers. Diplomacy is a perfect medium between the two that allows the battle to go on after you lose your HP, but doesn't allow casual swapping out between characters.
I highly doubt anyone would want to let the AI control their character either.
Basically, the AI throws the lord in the first line of the offensive, most of the times ending with him being the first casualty. Yes, I'm pointing at you, Nords.
By the way, having the lord knocked unconscious should have a morale impact, making it more likely for troops to flee the battlefield and cause poorer formations.
I read some posts about immersion through terrain, but isn't the world/terrain the same as in warband? With perhaps just some villages at different locations? I doubt the landscape and big cities change that much in 200 years.
Taleworlds doesn't really go for lore continuity much (even within the same game), which is a good thing because they've got more room to make the map (in battle and on the overworld) look less silly than it is in warband.
An example of this lore-shift: in the manuals and some of the tutorial text, calradia is described as just a single province in an ancient empire that was once much larger, rather than the whole thing. This idea was scrapped somewhere in development but taleworlds didnt bother removing it from manuals and official descriptions. Again, this isn't a bad thing. Mount and blade doesn't have particularly complex or interesting lore, but it does its job at explaining and contextualising the mechanics efficiently.
I read some posts about immersion through terrain, but isn't the world/terrain the same as in warband? With perhaps just some villages at different locations? I doubt the landscape and big cities change that much in 200 years.
There were some good points in that thread, but it is the first time I've seen it and it probably hasn't had many views. I think it would have been better to post it in the general Bannerlord discussion thread: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,249537.0.html
I see from a quick look that some people do still use the Privy council for suggestions, but I think most Bannerlord discussion occurs in the above linked thread or these blog threads.
Yeah, the privy council's pretty dead. It was opened first to offer proper suggestions for early mount and blade, and then kept open to quell the spam in the warband board.
The 151 people who read your post probably didn't reply because they didn't disagree with anything you wrote. I certainly don't. I hadn't even thought about the insta-"lore" you'd get from naming a few provinces in the game.
One thing I always hated about warband is how stupid the map looks -- reminds me of Bionicle or something. Every faction perfectly matches a really sudden biome that makes it look like the factions themselves are causing the weather to change. I'd prefer a much more natural map, even if that meant some factions smaller than others, a largely monotonous climate, and areas with huge flat plains.
No matter how much detail they put on each icon, I won't be able to remember what every city and castle looks like, not even close. They need the names visible.
Lets assume that there's 6 factions in the game, and all of these has about 20 fiefs each. that would at max put the amount of fiefs at an interesting 120 (imagine dat list). now, would you remember every single name or icon? no you would not. But having only 3 different icons for all these fiefs would not make anything easier.
So why not improve things a bit? making it show on the icons what biome on the map the fief is located in (or faction it originally belonged to) with a combination of architecture (arabic, classical medieval, nordic-ish), landscape (sand, grass, snow) and a tree or something (perhaps also a faint color). Let me give you two examples:
A village located in the north-west part of the country would have: a nordic wooden house, snowy ground with some grass and perhaps a spruce tree on its faintly blue icon.
A village in the most southern part of the map would have: a house with smooth walls and flat roof, sandy terrain and perhaps a palm tree on its faintly orange icon.
Just two quick examples but this could as easily be done for the 2 other kinds of fiefs and 4 factions. This would also help you in finding where you may recruit faction specific units. As an added plus it would also look a lot better then using 3 icons for everything don't you agree? But just by simply looking at the icons you reduce those 120 to about 20, and that you reduce once more depending on what you were looking for (castle, village or town).
So no, names don't need to be visible at all times. And you can still search for items very much like you would on a list. Just take your mouse and move it from left to right over each icon, but as an added plus you can skip icons (or even entire rows) if you feel that they don't hold the letters you seek.
Do not look here said:
I have lot of faith in "work in progress" part of the screenshot. Hopefully the ability to open/close certain categories with -/+ button will be added, which actually make side-by-side comparison easier. Even without it it's simpler to see which item is, for example, missing while looking at columns then in row of (quite possibly similar) icons. I mean... why would you even want that? Why would you want extra work - which isn't easy, mind you - to make distinguishable icons for everything to make clustered grid screen, when you can just have simple list?
I would sure hope that it is a lot of "work in progress" and that it will be further improved upon. In the previous games it was not particularly hard to tell 2 different suits of armor apart from each other. And if you complain about how, in this new system, most icons will look similar (and must have text besides them to fix this) then perhaps they should go back to the old system (with snapshots) or improve on their new icons? Its after all their job to make sure the game don't become bland and generic.
If i have 5 (or even 10) identical axes in a row then I'm quite sure it does not matter which one i take. If i have 5 (or even 2) different axes in a row with the same icon then TW has been very lazy. Its not even that hard to indicate extra effects on items. Plus (good), minus (bad) and a small shield on the horses if it has added armor.
A "Simple list" have the unpleasant tendency of forcing you to go thru a lot (or most) of its items for no real payoff. let me give you an easy example:
With the grid system i can go directly from A to P without any problem simply by moving my mouse directly there. with a list i have to go from A to B to C and so on until i get to P.
With a grid system i can use both the items name and icon to find it. lets say i want to find my good ole claymore. Just a quick glance over my icons shows that the first 2 rows don't have my claymore or any other item on C. But i can quickly hover my mouse over potential suspects if I'm unsure. With a list its pretty much exactly the same as the first example. Only now I'm searching for an item before the end of the list.
This shows that the grid is easier and better to use with MKB, you can even search for items on it like if it was an improved version of a list. A list pretty much only works in one way and is best to use with (and intended for) a controller.
Again, I understand why grid system in inventory/merchandise screen would be preferred, but not during bartering with other lords, where either most of the icons are bound to be same-ish (fiefs and lords), or amount of items in category (diplomatic pacts) doesn't really require any simplified, "shorter" display.
As previously stated, a grid makes it a lot simpler to get a very good overview of what both sides has to offer in a trade, making the comparison between his inventory and yours much easier. Not a lot of scrolling up and down needed to first find yours and then his axes for comparison. Another plus with the grid is actually that you can sort your own inventory (like in previous M&B games, but i would not mind an auto-sort button). moving items around to where you can more easily find them and even have empty spots. Never seen a list where that is possible.
I already went over my thoughts on "diplomatic pacts" . And as i said i expect things like: Alliances, treaties and dialogue (you know, text heavy stuff) to be in a separate system where it belongs. Lords/kings i also see partially fitting into that system (primarily because they are worth more in trade than just a little coin), but not ordinary prisoners.
I think it would be cool if Bannerlord added a charge mechanic for infantry. Something similar to Rising Storm bayonet charges and Chivalry charges. I think it would add more oomph to combat and would look really nice to see war party's meet eachother in the field with charges rather than running up to eachother then engaging normally. It could be similar to lancing where it could ignore weapon parrys but maybe on a lesser scale and it would also have a cool down time so you can't do it over and over again until you win. Something like 10-15 seconds that gets interrupted by egaging in standard combat. Maybe the charges could also physically knock people back a bit. That could help sieges be less a war of attrition and more of a series of clashing waves that pull the battle back and forth.
I think it would be cool if Bannerlord added a charge mechanic for infantry. Something similar to Rising Storm bayonet charges and Chivalry charges. I think it would add more oomph to combat and would look really nice to see war party's meet eachother in the field with charges rather than running up to eachother then engaging normally. It could be similar to lancing where it could ignore weapon parrys but maybe on a lesser scale and it would also have a cool down time so you can't do it over and over again until you win. Something like 10-15 seconds that gets interrupted by egaging in standard combat. Maybe the charges could also physically knock people back a bit. That could help sieges be less a war of attrition and more of a series of clashing waves that pull the battle back and forth.
I like this. Imagine two armies just smashing into each other like waves. That would be incredible and awe-inspiring. I'd be tempted to just watch the battle rather than take part in it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
