Official suggestions and feedback thread

[Native Expansion]

This thread will serve as the gathering point for all suggestions and feedback currently being considered. Ideas we pick up from everyone will be sorted through, and ones we feel are possible to implement we'll add here. Specific discussion threads are separate from this, especially for things which require discussion and careful consideration. This is distinct from bugs - there's a separate thread for bugs.

Don't feel bad if your suggestion doesn't make it here. Not everything is feasible, but if you feel a suggestion has been missed, please bring it to our attention. Feel free to make suggestions in this thread. We will occasionally prune this thread, so don't be surprised if your post gets deleted - we will move suggestions into this main post before pruning.

As suggestions get considered and we identify exactly what we need to make it work, notes will be added to each suggestion in turn.  Check this thread often to see how you can help NE grow!

Final note: suggestions marked 'adopted' are ones which have been deemed feasible and will be included at some point in the future.

=== Outstanding Suggestions ===

Gameplay/Balance suggestions:
* Require a renown check to hire Noble soldiers (slated for release in .604)
* Faction bandits will let the player go if player has a negative rep with that faction (adopted)

Overland map suggestions:
* Zone control for cities/villages to disallow armies to trespass
* A player-constructable camp that could serve as a garrison/HQ for the player's party

Soldier/Item suggestions:

Fief/Building suggestions:
* A 'torture chamber' building in cities/castles that would improve on the prison tower, making escape/duels impossible, but would cause a rep hit every week
* A church inside villages that would improve reputation

Quest suggestions:
* The wedding quest currently only has options to fail or murder innocents. Alternative endings would be nice.
* The 'Train Militia' quest should help protect/prevent a village from getting attacked by bandits, since they can now defend themselves (adopted)

Integration suggestions:
* Integrate PBOD
* Integrate Diplomacy
* Integrate the Freelancer mod.
* Integrate the Companion Overseer mod (slated for release in .604)
* Integrate Better Trade Goods.
* Integrate Siege Camp Icon.

[Ballacraine]

While I was wandering around these parts, I came across this tutorial thread that might be worth a look.

It is about creating NPC dialogue.

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,127231.0.html

It would be great if we could have a lot more NPCs 

Also this for a damage system. I don't know the first thing about Python, so I'll just post the link! 

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,211833.0.html

To be honest, I don't think much is gained from the alternative approach to the damage system proposed there.
I would have thought it would perhaps be better to think along the lines of introducing stamina & fatigue.

Balla. 

[Lav]

Since .604 is going to be save-incompatible, I'm re-iterating my suggestion (from the previous thread) to integrate the Companion Overseer presentation (however much of self-glorification this might be ).

Just have a look and you'll understand why.



Integrating it is just some copy-paste. Would be great if it was used to replace the standard loot screen (it was designed to be possible to do so and it's explained in readme), but even simply adding it would be a great addition to the game IMHO.

Adding Better Trade Goods and Siege Camp Icon would be nice additions as well, but they are of lesser caliber.

[soulmata]

I like that. I like that a lot. I haven't looked at your source yet, but tell me, do you think it's feasible through environment variable checks to turn it on/off?

[Lav]

I like that. I like that a lot. I haven't looked at your source yet, but tell me, do you think it's feasible through environment variable checks to turn it on/off?

Shouldn't be a problem at all.

(click to show/hide)

Hmm, let's see. With Native, you write:

Code: [Select]

(change_screen_loot, "trp_temp_troop"),When using Overseer for looting, you write:

Code: [Select]

(assign, "$g_lco_page", 2), # Open equipment screen by default
(assign, "$g_lco_garbage_troop", "trp_temp_troop"), # Troop to be looted
(jump_menu, "mnu_lco_presentation"), # Start the OverseerWhen using Overseer with some environment option to turn it's usage on/off for looting, you write:

Code: [Select]

(try_begin),
  (eq, "$g_use_overseer_for_looting", 1),
  (assign, "$g_lco_page", 2), # Open equipment screen by default
  (assign, "$g_lco_garbage_troop", "trp_temp_troop"), # Troop to be looted
  (jump_menu, "mnu_lco_presentation"), # Start the Overseer
(else_try),
  (change_screen_loot, "trp_temp_troop"),
(try_end),Something like that.

[soulmata]

I like this a lot. I think we'll be adopting this. The Siege icon is also pretty cool and looks to be only aesthetic and simple to include so I think that will get rolled in as well. So long as I can make the OSP user-toggleable, I think we'll try our best to include it in .604b

That's some awesome work, Lav.

[soulmata]

A question regarding the new interface, Lav: Does it pay respect to equipment skill restrictions like the existing interfaces do? For instance, if I use the auto equip to try and equip someone with armor that requires 12 str fail if said person only has 6 str? And the same logic for things that require power draw, power throw, shield, etc.

[Lav]

A question regarding the new interface, Lav: Does it pay respect to equipment skill restrictions like the existing interfaces do? For instance, if I use the auto equip to try and equip someone with armor that requires 12 str fail if said person only has 6 str? And the same logic for things that require power draw, power throw, shield, etc.

Of course. It does not check shields though - I excluded them from checks for some reason which I can't remember already. Either their difficulty values were ignored by the game anyway, or was it because they weren't auto-equipped without a weapon? Not sure, this was several months ago. If it was the latter, then shields can be checked as well, they'll just need some extra code. And if it's the former, then everything fine as it is anyway.

UPDATE: What you need is "script_cf_lco_can_drop_item", all checks are there.

[soulmata]

A question regarding the new interface, Lav: Does it pay respect to equipment skill restrictions like the existing interfaces do? For instance, if I use the auto equip to try and equip someone with armor that requires 12 str fail if said person only has 6 str? And the same logic for things that require power draw, power throw, shield, etc.

Of course. It does not check shields though - I excluded them from checks for some reason which I can't remember already. Either their difficulty values were ignored by the game anyway, or was it because they weren't auto-equipped without a weapon? Not sure, this was several months ago. If it was the latter, then shields can be checked as well, they'll just need some extra code. And if it's the former, then everything fine as it is anyway.

UPDATE: What you need is "script_cf_lco_can_drop_item", all checks are there.

Shields never had a skill check before, but as of .603b and further, skill_req is set for all shields and checks the shield skill. The game does check for the shield skill if defined, so that part works.

I'm attempting to build NE with Companion OSP integrated now. We'll see how it works...

[soulmata]

After one build to update headers, it built almost cleanly, but when trying to export scripts, it complains a few times about calls to undefined variables:


ERROR: Usage of unassigned local variable: :qty_max
ERROR: Usage of unassigned local variable: :ex_quantity_max

This only occurs in module_scripts, inside the lco_fill_hero_panels and lco_fill_player_panels:
                                (troop_inventory_slot_get_item_max_amount, ":qty_max", ":troop_id", ":index"),
                                (call_script, "script_lco_item_name_to_s41", ":item_id", ":modifier", ":qty", ":qty_max"),

Something like that.
I'm testing it now to see if it works in a new game.

[soulmata]

It appears to be mostly working, but when switching to the I/E tab with one companion, there's a few dozen lines of error spew, repeating this:

Illegal lvalue in statement; Opcode = 1538; LINE NO: 35:
At script: lco_fill_player_panels

So, yeah, there's definitely something broken in there, not sure if it's in OSP or due to NE changes, but I'm taking a look.

edit: After making one change to one companion, the errors haven't repeated.

[Lav]

Have you used the header_operations.py fix from the bundle? Opcode 1538 is troop_inventory_slot_get_item_max_amount operation, and it's exactly this what the fix is about.

Regarding shields - does their difficulty stat put a prerequisite for STR or for Shield skill? If it's STR then removing (neq, ":type", itp_type_shield) operation (there's only one) should do the trick. If it's Shield skill then script_lco_replicate_attributes will have to be expanded to take the skill into account.

[soulmata]

Have you used the header_operations.py fix from the bundle? Opcode 1538 is troop_inventory_slot_get_item_max_amount operation, and it's exactly this what the fix is about.

I only downloaded the .rar on this page: http://www.mbrepository.com/file.php?id=3159

What's the fix? I can update the header now and make a commit. (Current NE code base is using SVN)

[soulmata]

Regarding shields - does their difficulty stat put a prerequisite for STR or for Shield skill? If it's STR then removing (neq, ":type", itp_type_shield) operation (there's only one) should do the trick. Though I'm a bit sceptical that it's that easy.

It's for the Shield skill specifically.

[Lav]

The rar should contain the fixed file with comments on what was wrong. It's in the folder with full file versions. Essentially, you have to add troop_inventory_slot_get_max_amount to the array of lhs_operations at the end of the file.

Also: does Warband really check shield skill for shield requirements? Or is it some NE scripted restriction? If it's the latter, then some manual hacking will be in order.