POLL: Should players be able to disable the aging mechanic?

[Kangamangus]

Probably that of a normal human. I imagine around 60 there's a small chance it might happen and by the time you're 80 it's probably much higher. In any case, i doubt it's lower than 60.



I'm just saying it either will have consequences that you don't expect and might ruin your game, or it will be a lot more work for taleworlds than you think and it will be less time they spend working on other stuff.

And like I said, you can get pretty much the same effect much easier and with no consequences by just allowing characters to start at a younger age.

The aging mechanic is already ruining the game for some players. They have the option to disable the death feature. Why not aging as well?

 

[Kangamangus]

If you get the dev console mod, there is a command to change your age in there. Download the dev console mod first, it is easy to install and use.

Got a link for that?

 

[BlackRainZ]

Developer Console

Allows you to open the developer console by pressing the CTRL and ~ (tilde) keys together.

www.nexusmods.com

Make sure you read through the posts, there is one guy on there who made a list of commands. You can just copy and then paste the command into the console window in the game.

 

[Kangamangus]

Developer Console

Allows you to open the developer console by pressing the CTRL and ~ (tilde) keys together.

www.nexusmods.com

Make sure you read through the posts, there is one guy on there who made a list of commands. You can just copy and then paste the command into the console window in the game.

Awesome! Thanks.

 

[bestguy]

They also included death for characters and lords...and guess what? They let players turn that off! Giving players options, especially in a sandbox game, is a good thing. Let people play this game like every previous Mount & Blade if they want.

But what if they want to make additional content that depends on age and/or continuing lineage after death. Do you cater to those who leave aging and death on as default or scrap ideas because people have it off?

 

[Kangamangus]

But what if they want to make additional content that depends on age and/or continuing lineage after death. Do you cater to those who leave aging and death on as default or scrap ideas because people have it off?

If it's optional, people can choose to experience that new content, or might even start a new playthrough with the aging enabled. Having someone doing a playthrough with aging off will not affect you in any way.

TaleWorlds has already decided to make all players age. They would probably have no issue making future content based around the new mechanics. Giving players the option to play without the new mechanics won't stop them from making the game they want.

 

[Ken_Udigit]

The aging mechanic is already ruining the game for some players. They have the option to disable the death feature. Why not aging as well?

The death feature only affects you dying in combat AFAIK. It still doesn't affect other mechanics.

And as for the aging mechanic ruining the game for some players, to be completely honest, I highly doubt it. Like I said, it would take 2400 days just to get to 60 years old, probably much more to actually die. How many people have actually gotten that far in the game? I've played a lot in the last 3 days(+-25 hours), and all 3 of my characters put together haven't even reached 200 days.

I think most people don't realize just how long you have to play before you even have to worry about dying of old age. This whole thing feels like a big deal over nothing to me.

 

[Kangamangus]

The death feature only affects you dying in combat AFAIK. It still doesn't affect other mechanics.

And as for the aging mechanic ruining the game for some players, to be completely honest, I highly doubt it. Like I said, it would take 2400 days just to get to 60 years old, probably much more to actually die. How many people have actually gotten that far in the game? I've played a lot in the last 3 days(+-25 hours), and all 3 of my characters put together haven't even reached 200 days.

I think most people don't realize just how long you have to play before you even have to worry about dying of old age. This whole thing feels like a big deal over nothing to me.

Ok, then disregard the opinions of others who have said as much in this thread.

Dying mechanic does only apply to combat, but it applies to lords and NPCs as well. Turning it off 'ruins the experience' in a manner you suggest not dying of age would. TW still gave people the option to disable that mechanic.

If you look at some of the skills, stats, and perks in leveling, you can see there are perks you can take to improve life expectancy, and even one to 'cheat death once' from dying from disease. The life expectancy might be much shorter than you assume. Some people don't want to have to recreate the same character over and over, only to relevel them until they die again.

I don't want to play The Sims. I don't want to play Crusader Kings. Letting people play this Mount & Blade like any other M&B won't stop you from enjoying the mundane life simulator you obviously want.

 

[Pickingupmyteeth]

You want The Sims. I don't want the mundane aspect of creating a family, dying of old age, and having to re-level a character I've already put many hours in to.

The tactics, techniques, and map strategy are still in play. Nothing 'brain-dead' about that.

The only imagination I see from you is believing that by somehow giving players more options, somehow you're going to lose a mechanic that is already built in to the game.

I want Crusader Kings not the SIms. 'Mundane' is hacking and slashing with virtually no context to what you're doing, a la GTA, where people drive around mindlessly shooting stuff for eternity, with drool dripping out of their mouths.

It stands to reason that if enough people complain about a mechanic the developers may have second thoughts on it, water it down some, and i don't want that happening. I don't think you're doing anything wrong at all, you're trying to push your mindless play on everyone else and that's fine, because taste is subjective. I'm completely against what you are proposing, and that's fine too, everyone has a preference.

 

[Kangamangus]

I want Crusader Kings not the SIms. 'Mundane' is hacking and slashing with virtually no context to what you're doing, a la GTA, where people drive around mindlessly shooting stuff for eternity, with drool dripping out of their mouths.

It stands to reason that if enough people complain about a mechanic the developers may have second thoughts on it, water it down some, and i don't want that happening. I don't think you're doing anything wrong at all, you're trying to push your mindless play on everyone else and that's fine, because taste is subjective. I'm completely against what you are proposing, and that's fine too, everyone has a preference.

No, you're the one trying to make people play a specific way. I'm only asking for the option to turn off The Sims mode.

Again, you're ignoring the tactics, strategy, and battle techniques still required to wage successful campaigns and win mismatched battles.

 

[Pickingupmyteeth]

No, you're the one trying to make people play a specific way. I'm only asking for the option to turn off The Sims mode.

You're *****ing and whining about a feature the Devs obviously thought was cool and spent time on, making characters of different ages etc, so that random stories can emerge. Otherwise they wouldn't have spent any time making the new skins. You're the one seeking changes, your very complaint lessens the chances of the feature being developed upon, hence my opposition. I keep saying you're doing nothing wrong, and neither am i, it's just a matter of taste.

 

[RNGregory]

No, you're the one trying to make people play a specific way. I'm only asking for the option to turn off The Sims mode.

Again, you're ignoring the tactics, strategy, and battle techniques still required to wage successful campaigns and win mismatched battles.

That’s what I don’t understand. Why are others against the option to turn it off? There’s nothing to gain or lose, just pure selfishness the way I see it lmao. Many of them probably haven’t played previous titles but Sims

Once again, the dev’s said: Play the game the way you want to play it, i can’t

 

[Ken_Udigit]

Ok, then disregard the opinions of others who have said as much in this thread.

Dying mechanic does only apply to combat, but it applies to lords and NPCs as well. Turning it off 'ruins the experience' in a manner you suggest not dying of age would. TW still gave people the option to disable that mechanic.

If you look at some of the skills, stats, and perks in leveling, you can see there are perks you can take to improve life expectancy, and even one to 'cheat death once' from dying from disease. The life expectancy might be much shorter than you assume. Some people don't want to have to recreate the same character over and over, only to relevel them until they die again.

I don't want to play The Sims. I don't want to play Crusader Kings. Letting people play this Mount & Blade like any other M&B won't stop you from the mundane life simulator you obviously want.

I feel like you are either not reading what I'm saying, or not understanding it.

• I'm not disregarding peoples opinions, I'm saying that their opinions and fears are mostly unfounded. In short: I'm saying it's not as bad as they think, and I explained why.
• Stopping characters from aging could have unforeseen consequences that could affect the game and mess with other mechanics, which would be more work for the developers, and less time spent working on and improving other stuff. It's not the same as turning off death in combat.
• I even provided a much easier alternative that would increase the time you could play by about 800 days by just allowing you to make younger characters, which would not have any consequences. You could also just give player an option to change how fast time passes (How long a day is), which could make the game be like 2 times as long. All this would have pretty much the same effect you want,with no problems or need for further development as far as I can tell. And in fact, I've heard you can also age in Warband, it's just much slower and most people never get to that point.

Also, saying that aging and families makes this Sims or CK is just nonsensical. Being immortal isn't what makes M&B what it is. Sid Meyer's Pirates is a great game, similar to M&B, that also has aging (although no family), and that doesn't make it either Sims or CK. It just encourages players to make better use of their time.

 

[Kangamangus]

You're *****ing and whining about a feature the Devs obviously thought was cool and spent time on, making characters of different ages etc, so that random stories can emerge. Otherwise they wouldn't have spent any time making the new skins. You're the one seeking changes, your very complaint lessens the chances of the feature being developed upon, hence my opposition. I keep saying you're doing nothing wrong, and neither am i, it;s just a matter of taste.

They also thought death in battle was cool, and let people disable that.

You're literally insisting people have to play M&B with features and mechanics that were never in previous Mount & Blade games. You're insisting everyone has to play with the changed meta and unprecedented mechanic. You are forcing a change on players whether they like it or not. All I am saying is that it should be optional. You can still play The Sims. TW can still make the game they want. The only thing that will be different is that other players can play the way they want. It literally will not change your game.

 

[Ken_Udigit]

That’s what I don’t understand. Why are others against the option to turn it off? There’s nothing to gain or lose, just pure selfishness the way I see it lmao. Many of them probably haven’t played previous titles but Sims

Yes, because as we all know, Sims is the only game with aging or families... And of course, the most important aspect and focus of M&B has always been immortality... /s

 

[Kangamangus]

I feel like you are either not reading what I'm saying, or not understanding it.

• I'm not disregarding peoples opinions, I'm saying that their opinions and fears are mostly unfounded. In short: I'm saying it's not as bad as they think, and I explained why.
• Stopping characters from aging could have unforeseen consequences that could affect the game and mess with other mechanics, which would be more work for the developers, and less time spent working on and improving other stuff. It's not the same as turning off death in combat.
• I even provided a much easier alternative that would increase the time you could play by about 800 days by just allowing you to make younger characters, which would not have any consequences. You could also just give player an option to change how fast time passes (How long a day is), which could make the game be like 2 times as long. All this would have pretty much the same effect you want,with no problems or need for further development as far as I can tell. And in fact, I've heard you can also age in Warband, it's just much slower and most people never get to that point.

Also, saying that aging and families makes this Sims or CK is just nonsensical. Being immortal isn't what makes M&B what it is. Sid Meyer's Pirates is a great game, similar to M&B, that also has aging (although no family), and that doesn't make it either Sims or CK. It just encourages players to make better use of their time.

...or it makes other players have to skip experiences or adventures they've never had to give up on in the past.

Ok then, you can play The Sims, CK, or Pirates. No other M&B forced you to stop playing a character because of aging.

 

[Pickingupmyteeth]

You're literally insisting.... You're insisting....You are forcing...

No lets get this straight, the person who wants to change what has been already put forward, is doing the insisting.

 

[RNGregory]

Yes, because as we all know, Sims is the only game with aging or families... And of course, the most important aspect and focus of M&B has always been immortality... /s

That’s what you’re saying. What’s your problem, idiot? All we want is option to turn it off. You buthurt because of that?

 

[Ken_Udigit]

...or it makes other players have to skip experiences or adventures they've never had to give up on in the past.

Ok then, you can play The Sims, CK, or Pirates. No other M&B forced you to stop playing a character because of aging.

Again, are you even reading what I'm saying? Because it sounds like you're not, so I'm not gonna argue with you any more.

PS: please stop with the Sims and CK comparisons, it makes you sound ridiculous.

 

[Lord Earl]

Sounds like Battle Brothers !

I really wanted to get into that game. Some of the combat mechanics were too much to bear for me, sadly. But yeah, I loved the aesthetic, and the general idea of hard and brutal but rewarding fights can have a great gameplay loop to it.

If one year takes 80 days, and the character starts at 30 years old, it would take 2400 days to get to 60 years old. Most people don't even play one character that long. You could probably easily play through most of the game without dying of old age.

And adding a non-aging option would completely mess with the current system. Like some one else said, what happens when a lord dies and their kids stays 13 years old forever? It's not the same as adding auto-block which doesn't affect the other mechanics.

If you're worried about aging, it would be much better to have an option to choose starting age with a minimum of like 20. That way it would still take 1600 days to get to just 40 years old, and another 1600 to get to 60, which would give you 3200 days before you even have to worry about dying of old age. And you could even change how skilled your character is depending on how old they are.

I think you're seriously underestimating how much time is spent travelling, recovering, or waiting as part of quests. I got five days into the game after completing three quests, and that many only because I made sure they were all in the same direction. An amount of the time was spent healing.

I don't see why procedural generation of companions would be an issue since it's just their looks. Their stats seem more or less fixed based on their title.

How long do you think it would take to cross a continent on foot as a percentage of a year? The time at 80 days per year seems pretty well dialed in to me. Do you age at 1 year per game year or is that sped up?

Just their looks? I believe their back stories and all other aspects of them are procedural.

...As for how far you can cross a continent, it depends on the continent and the state of the roads. Calradia's roads, and horrible pathfinding, are not so good. I don't know how large the continent is meant to be. It is possible to get from one end of England to the other in less than 5 days. Hannibal's crossing of the Alps didn't take that long, either. The Inca runners could cover a pretty impressive mileage per day despite being in mountains, something fairly comparable to horses. Alexander, meanwhile, fought his way from Greece to Egypt to India and back again, and the fighting tends to be the really time-consuming part, along with logistics for an army, so it's hard to say how much time the marching took.

If I spent so much time planning something around a feature, I wouldn’t want to change things just because people are unhappy about it when it’s released.

That sounds rather controlling. I hate it when developers add in anti-cheating tricks for single-player games. I've seen devs refuse to put in auto-save features, because they're afraid people will save-scum. I would've kept playing some games, if they gave me ways to subvert their BS mechanics so I could get to the good ones.

I don't think you're doing anything wrong at all, you're trying to push your mindless play on everyone else and that's fine, because taste is subjective. I'm completely against what you are proposing, and that's fine too, everyone has a preference.

It's amazing how aggressive people can be, if you don't want to play the way they want to.... Maybe I don't want to waste my time playing house in a video game for ? Here's a suggestion, take those 2,000 hours it takes setting up your virtual family, and spend them with your actual family.

It's ironic, as I tend to like these kinds of features... but I know TW is going to do a bad job of it and already is with the 80 day years, and that it's stupid to force all players down this route. Many players won't even know that they're ageing, and will be in for a horrible surprise when they see their character's stats dropping, as they don't tend to check forums like these. Thousands will be wondering why years have passed when it's been less than 365 days.

Or they would... if many people were going to play the single player for that long. In its current state, I doubt it.

You're *****ing and whining

Feel free to stop *****ing at people at any time.