[parsehtml]<p><img class="frame" src="https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_92_taleworldswebsite.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="290" /></p>
<p>Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord’s singleplayer campaign takes place in a vast sandbox with numerous systems working together to provide players with a deep and engaging gaming experience. Bringing these systems together and ensuring that they work alongside and complement each other is no small task. And with multiple programmers working somewhat independently on each system, an additional layer of complexity is added to the mix. This is where Ömer Sari steps in. It is his responsibility to coordinate and organise the campaign team while ensuring that the programming work is of a consistently high standard.</p></br> [/parsehtml]Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/112
Dev Blog 30/05/19
- Thread starter Callum
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
For those who need a translation for the screenshot:
Hello sir, is there anything i can help you with?
-I'm looking for someone
-No thanks, have a good day.
Hello sir, is there anything i can help you with?
-I'm looking for someone
-No thanks, have a good day.
CKyHC
could clarify how many languages there will be 
In other cases, like caravans, we introduced the ability to purchase additional pack animals. However, even with a number of eventualities addressed, we felt that there should be a failsafe in place. After all, what if a party acts according to plan but is attacked and loses a lot of men? Suddenly, they may be carrying goods well beyond their capabilities. So, currently, we are looking at if and when a party should be able to rid itself of some of its cargo, prisoners... or wounded men.
If a caravan is attacked and badly mauled, why should it get to keep all its goods? The attackers may have been driven off, but why shouldn’t they have looted some goods in the process? Equally, I’m happy that a devastated caravan stuck out in the wilds/desert should be forced to abandon excess goods (low value ones ditched first). The caravan owner including the player for his/her own sponsored caravans just has to run the economic risk that things won’t work out as planned. I hope you’re not going to implement some feather bed code to let caravans off the hook.
It would be neat to be the first party to come across a pile of abandoned cargo unless these were perishable goods and I’d found them too late. I might start stalking caravans to pick up their crumbs.
“I gained the role of campaign lead programmer a few months ago. Before that, I was mainly writing code all day long. Now, I also have to be available to other campaign team members or for design meetings, code reviews, and so on.
Belated congratulations on your promotion, Ömer, but who ran the campaign team previously (for x years) and what happened to them?
If a caravan is attacked and badly mauled, why should it get to keep all its goods? The attackers may have been driven off, but why shouldn’t they have looted some goods in the process? Equally, I’m happy that a devastated caravan stuck out in the wilds/desert should be forced to abandon excess goods (low value ones ditched first). The caravan owner including the player for his/her own sponsored caravans just has to run the economic risk that things won’t work out as planned. I hope you’re not going to implement some feather bed code to let caravans off the hook.
It would be neat to be the first party to come across a pile of abandoned cargo unless these were perishable goods and I’d found them too late. I might start stalking caravans to pick up their crumbs.
“I gained the role of campaign lead programmer a few months ago. Before that, I was mainly writing code all day long. Now, I also have to be available to other campaign team members or for design meetings, code reviews, and so on.
Belated congratulations on your promotion, Ömer, but who ran the campaign team previously (for x years) and what happened to them?
Some interesting information here.
Couldn’t we have been told a bit more about how the pack animals work though?
Couldn’t we have been told a bit more about how the pack animals work though?
Ahh, reminds me of Skyrim and picking up 1 more apple and not being able to move at all.
In other words, wounded slow the party down. Good realistic detail.Kniggit said:
Hopefully they'll make it for the player to decide if he wants to slow down or leave goods/wounded behind in his own party. As for AI parties, that is complex decision system (maybe a little influenced by the nature of the faction would be good - for example I take Khuzaits as harsh nation so they'll leave wounded behind without batting an eye but value goods, especially food, more) and sure takes some time to solve. Probably a score system for AI to make a decision what to do after a battle with major losses/wounded. Could also drop wounded/goods when pursued by a larger force (again, decisions decisions) but that, maybe, is too much to ask for.
Good read.
I hope we will have an indicator to show us the [current load] / [maximum load] because in Warband we just have to guess (or read players tests and try to calculate).
Haha ! It reminds me one day I had to drop troops to achieve a quest: I could not go fast enough to attack fleeing bandits...HawkyX said:
Rules said:
Good blog ! I like the explanations of the interconnection betweeen features. That explain also why Bannerlord is a very complex game to make. The beta will help Taleworlds pretty much to find bad interconnections or features that don't work well with others. Like the screesnhot much: you can see Taleworlds 3D artist have many time to improve the graphics while waiting for the game being finished.
Arrkhon
Recruit
Each language has its own needs and rules. Our text system enables the player’s attributes and actions to change the way other characters address the player. For example, if the player is an honourable king with a family, his wife will address him as husband, his foes will address him with respect, etc. Our text system is able to replace specific parts of the text to achieve this role-playing element, and I am trying to ensure that this system works for every language.”
I wonder if this means we will be able to make up our own titles without having to mod the game desu
Things like making people call us emperor or boss desu
I also wonder if it will be possible to stick something to end of every sentence the player makes without editing each line separately(Probably not desu) desu
I wonder if this means we will be able to make up our own titles without having to mod the game desu
Things like making people call us emperor or boss desu
I also wonder if it will be possible to stick something to end of every sentence the player makes without editing each line separately(Probably not desu) desu
I noticed that red flag too. Someone resigned or got fired.NPC99 said:
A gameplay programmer went to Ubisoft also a few months ago.
None of this is particularly good news for the speed of development.
Wounded people slowing down parties is nothing new, but AI parties getting rid of them is. Also, usage of variable honorific term in sentences is nothing new. This is still Warband, people, don't get excited over nothing.
Interesting blog. Much better than last week. Thanks Callum and Ömer Sarı.
Regarding the screenshot I liked it much better without gyward's translation. I had it in mind the first part was a question about cost and the response was something about planting a dagger in their eye followed by a description of their parentage.
Regarding the screenshot I liked it much better without gyward's translation. I had it in mind the first part was a question about cost and the response was something about planting a dagger in their eye followed by a description of their parentage.
OFFICIAL JOB DESCRIPTION:
Lead Programmer (Campaign Team)
"I like the ability to directly change the living world around you through your actions."
YEEEEEEEES!
Since your claim to enjoy the sense of a living world, I'd like to say a few words on how important it is to avoid magical safety nets. With magical safety nets I do not mean wizards and flames.
You mentioned that you gave the caravans the ability to "purchase pack animals". That could mean that the caravans will be able to spawn horses when they need them (admittedly in rare occasions), instead of relying on a village to breed them. This could be a magical safety net, if there is no reasonable way of explaining how the merchants were able to get hold of the horses, or why they would loose money in exchange for them. Maybe you meant that caravans can go to a village and purchase pack animals, because that would be an awesome solution, and with regards to TaleWorlds being awesome, I must assume that your solution is amazing.
It's amazing to feel your actions have an impact on the world, and it's important that the world do not constantly fight against the player, trying to maintain status quo. Like, in Viking Conquest, you had these cities which always had very good prices for certain items, and it would never change. It would vary a tiny bit, but it would never actually change in a way that would force the player into taking a different trade rout. The game maintained the status quo, no matter how hard the player tried to change it. Even if we wiped out an entire enemy kingdom, they would simply have an uprising and reclaim some territory, making it impossible to ever rule the world.
To help you understand what I'm on about, imagine an extreme scenario, a world that would consume itself unless you manage to keep it running. A world, where NPC's could damage the food supply so much, that an entire kingdom would starve to death. Where all the lords could die in a war, resulting in their bloodlines entirely wiped out. That would be good. Very good. It makes the player a God, responsible for saving the world from utter chaos. That's a good position to be in, right? Control, power and responsibility. A sense of purpose, without any limits set by the game.
Now, imagine the opposite scenario, where the game would do anything to maintain status quo. The cities would live on, no matter what. The lords could kill each other, but not too many. The kingdoms would never be wiped out, because the world itself would protect them. In such a situation, the player is just useless, because it doesn't actually matter what the player does. The world will always stay the same. Isn't that rather a depressing task to give to the player?
»Increase reputation with this lord to get his trust so you could loose it over time, time that can be spent doing stuff to allow you to repeat the same thing over again«
- No thanks.
The best solution is probably a balance of the two, a world that actually can consume itself and die out, but where it is very unlikely that it would happen on its own, unless it's given a very long time span.
So the player can take control and be a good leader, create a kingdom that flourishes with a strong economy and high population, and thus being able to destroy the weak enemies, making managing economy a central part of being able to wage wars. Obviously, companions could be assigned these tasks, which automates it in a sense, to allow the player the freedom to play however he wants.
Or if a player is retarded and constantly fails to take power over any lands, he might think: to hell with it! So he gives up his previous plans and instead, he wreaks havoc on the the land, burning villages and raping peasants. Of course he becomes a public enemy, and the lords of the land eventually goes to great length to kill him off. But then, the player realises: »hey wait, this kingdom is really weak now.. Why don't I just attack this weak spot now and finally get that power I've always wanted?«. And so now the player is a king! And it would never have happened if the world simulation was too rigid. But remember, the player was a retard, so he never realised that if he conquered burning lands, he would never be able to defend it. His citizens are starving and soon, his enemies overwhelm him. He's taken to the gallows to be executed for his crimes.
Sad story. Better luck next time, huh? Yeah. Maybe next time you'll learn to live virtuous and make friends, not enemies, so you can take the power and actually keep it. Or marry into a strong family. Or becoming the kings closest commander, and friend, then just ****ing stabbing him in the back! I don't know, just alternatives!
By the way, don't care about trying to get anything I've said implemented into the game, just release the it. It seems to be good enough as it is. You can always keep on developing the game after release, with DLCs to bring additional features to the simulation and eventually create an entirely realistic medieval simulation game. You know, people have been waiting for a long time because we truly believe in this game. We will keep on waiting, even after release.
BANNERLORD! YAAAY!
Lead Programmer (Campaign Team)
"I like the ability to directly change the living world around you through your actions."
YEEEEEEEES!
Since your claim to enjoy the sense of a living world, I'd like to say a few words on how important it is to avoid magical safety nets. With magical safety nets I do not mean wizards and flames.
You mentioned that you gave the caravans the ability to "purchase pack animals". That could mean that the caravans will be able to spawn horses when they need them (admittedly in rare occasions), instead of relying on a village to breed them. This could be a magical safety net, if there is no reasonable way of explaining how the merchants were able to get hold of the horses, or why they would loose money in exchange for them. Maybe you meant that caravans can go to a village and purchase pack animals, because that would be an awesome solution, and with regards to TaleWorlds being awesome, I must assume that your solution is amazing.
It's amazing to feel your actions have an impact on the world, and it's important that the world do not constantly fight against the player, trying to maintain status quo. Like, in Viking Conquest, you had these cities which always had very good prices for certain items, and it would never change. It would vary a tiny bit, but it would never actually change in a way that would force the player into taking a different trade rout. The game maintained the status quo, no matter how hard the player tried to change it. Even if we wiped out an entire enemy kingdom, they would simply have an uprising and reclaim some territory, making it impossible to ever rule the world.
To help you understand what I'm on about, imagine an extreme scenario, a world that would consume itself unless you manage to keep it running. A world, where NPC's could damage the food supply so much, that an entire kingdom would starve to death. Where all the lords could die in a war, resulting in their bloodlines entirely wiped out. That would be good. Very good. It makes the player a God, responsible for saving the world from utter chaos. That's a good position to be in, right? Control, power and responsibility. A sense of purpose, without any limits set by the game.
Now, imagine the opposite scenario, where the game would do anything to maintain status quo. The cities would live on, no matter what. The lords could kill each other, but not too many. The kingdoms would never be wiped out, because the world itself would protect them. In such a situation, the player is just useless, because it doesn't actually matter what the player does. The world will always stay the same. Isn't that rather a depressing task to give to the player?
»Increase reputation with this lord to get his trust so you could loose it over time, time that can be spent doing stuff to allow you to repeat the same thing over again«
- No thanks.
The best solution is probably a balance of the two, a world that actually can consume itself and die out, but where it is very unlikely that it would happen on its own, unless it's given a very long time span.
So the player can take control and be a good leader, create a kingdom that flourishes with a strong economy and high population, and thus being able to destroy the weak enemies, making managing economy a central part of being able to wage wars. Obviously, companions could be assigned these tasks, which automates it in a sense, to allow the player the freedom to play however he wants.
Or if a player is retarded and constantly fails to take power over any lands, he might think: to hell with it! So he gives up his previous plans and instead, he wreaks havoc on the the land, burning villages and raping peasants. Of course he becomes a public enemy, and the lords of the land eventually goes to great length to kill him off. But then, the player realises: »hey wait, this kingdom is really weak now.. Why don't I just attack this weak spot now and finally get that power I've always wanted?«. And so now the player is a king! And it would never have happened if the world simulation was too rigid. But remember, the player was a retard, so he never realised that if he conquered burning lands, he would never be able to defend it. His citizens are starving and soon, his enemies overwhelm him. He's taken to the gallows to be executed for his crimes.
Sad story. Better luck next time, huh? Yeah. Maybe next time you'll learn to live virtuous and make friends, not enemies, so you can take the power and actually keep it. Or marry into a strong family. Or becoming the kings closest commander, and friend, then just ****ing stabbing him in the back! I don't know, just alternatives!
By the way, don't care about trying to get anything I've said implemented into the game, just release the it. It seems to be good enough as it is. You can always keep on developing the game after release, with DLCs to bring additional features to the simulation and eventually create an entirely realistic medieval simulation game. You know, people have been waiting for a long time because we truly believe in this game. We will keep on waiting, even after release.
BANNERLORD! YAAAY! 
krafttomten said:OFFICIAL JOB DESCRIPTION:
Lead Programmer (Campaign Team)
"I like the ability to directly change the living world around you through your actions."
YEEEEEEEES!
Since your claim to enjoy the sense of a living world, I'd like to say a few words on how important it is to avoid magical safety nets. With magical safety nets I do not mean wizards and flames.
You mentioned that you gave the caravans the ability to "purchase pack animals". That could mean that the caravans will be able to spawn horses when they need them (admittedly in rare occasions), instead of relying on a village to breed them. This could be a magical safety net, if there is no reasonable way of explaining how the merchants were able to get hold of the horses, or why they would loose money in exchange for them. Maybe you meant that caravans can go to a village and purchase pack animals, because that would be an awesome solution, and with regards to TaleWorlds being awesome, I must assume that your solution is amazing.
It's amazing to feel your actions have an impact on the world, and it's important that the world do not constantly fight against the player, trying to maintain status quo. Like, in Viking Conquest, you had these cities which always had very good prices for certain items, and it would never change. It would vary a tiny bit, but it would never actually change in a way that would force the player into taking a different trade rout. The game maintained the status quo, no matter how hard the player tried to change it. Even if we wiped out an entire enemy kingdom, they would simply have an uprising and reclaim some territory, making it impossible to ever rule the world.
To help you understand what I'm on about, imagine an extreme scenario, a world that would consume itself unless you manage to keep it running. A world, where NPC's could damage the food supply so much, that an entire kingdom would starve to death. Where all the lords could die in a war, resulting in their bloodlines entirely wiped out. That would be good. Very good. It makes the player a God, responsible for saving the world from utter chaos. That's a good position to be in, right? Control, power and responsibility. A sense of purpose, without any limits set by the game.
Now, imagine the opposite scenario, where the game would do anything to maintain status quo. The cities would live on, no matter what. The lords could kill each other, but not too many. The kingdoms would never be wiped out, because the world itself would protect them. In such a situation, the player is just useless, because it doesn't actually matter what the player does. The world will always stay the same. Isn't that rather a depressing task to give to the player?
»Increase reputation with this lord to get his trust so you could loose it over time, time that can be spent doing stuff to allow you to repeat the same thing over again«
- No thanks.
The best solution is probably a balance of the two, a world that actually can consume itself and die out, but where it is very unlikely that it would happen on its own, unless it's given a very long time span.
So the player can take control and be a good leader, create a kingdom that flourishes with a strong economy and high population, and thus being able to destroy the weak enemies, making managing economy a central part of being able to wage wars. Obviously, companions could be assigned these tasks, which automates it in a sense, to allow the player the freedom to play however he wants.
Or if a player is retarded and constantly fails to take power over any lands, he might think: to hell with it! So he gives up his previous plans and instead, he wreaks havoc on the the land, burning villages and raping peasants. Of course he becomes a public enemy, and the lords of the land eventually goes to great length to kill him off. But then, the player realises: »hey wait, this kingdom is really weak now.. Why don't I just attack this weak spot now and finally get that power I've always wanted?«. And so now the player is a king! And it would never have happened if the world simulation was too rigid. But remember, the player was a retard, so he never realised that if he conquered burning lands, he would never be able to defend it. His citizens are starving and soon, his enemies overwhelm him. He's taken to the gallows to be executed for his crimes.
Sad story. Better luck next time, huh? Yeah. Maybe next time you'll learn to live virtuous and make friends, not enemies, so you can take the power and actually keep it. Or marry into a strong family. Or becoming the kings closest commander, and friend, then just **** stabbing him in the back! I don't know, just alternatives!
By the way, don't care about trying to get anything I've said implemented into the game, just release the it. It seems to be good enough as it is. You can always keep on developing the game after release, with DLCs to bring additional features to the simulation and eventually create an entirely realistic medieval simulation game. You know, people have been waiting for a long time because we truly believe in this game. We will keep on waiting, even after release.
Hey man, that's a good insight on viewing the ever persistent way of the bannerlord world
But please, don't give them more ideas or excuses to prolong the development, hahaha
That's much better. His facial expression says "why are you walking around in a purple bathrobe you weirdo?", and that alone deserves a stern response.Grumpy181155 said:
Also note the man in the background looking at the flea he caught and dragging around an oversized sword in his belt. This is not a nice neighborhood.
Similar threads
