Which leveling system do you prefer Warband or Bannerlord?

[Dest45]

The system is good, just unbalanced at the moment. Like everything concerning the pace of the game.

This

 

[Tomweya]

If you are still around 5 years from now I'll respect your opinion.

I've been around since there was just an Arena and a man, I ain't going anywhere.

 

[Archonsod]

I still think attributes should rise passively by gaining skills of their subset, so the multiplicator for the other skills also increases.

The tricky part there is the way the skills are divided among the attributes. Most characters are either bow, crossbow *or* throwing, it's rare you'd want more than one on the same character,. Conversely when you get to the more cerebral skills it's quite likely a character will use and find all three useful. Really the issue comes down to the way the system is designed; we seem to be in an uncomfortable halfway house between an attribute based system (similar to Warband) and a pure skill system (Skyrim) with the difference being split in a way that the two conflict rather than compliment.

Companions are different, as they start at such a high level that level-ups are hours and hours away. However doing a lot of medicine stuff will increase their skill in that regard, if their focus is maxed out. Keep in mind that medicine, tactics, leadership and steward also scales with army size. The more you have, the more there is to learn.

That's the reason for the problem though. Since leveling is dependent on the number of skill gains it's a lot quicker to have a companion use the skills they're the lowest in (which leads to relatively rapid gains up to the 50 mark, as you note) to gain levels than rely on what they're presumably supposed to be doing, at which point it will take hours simply because it's slower to level that skill. Though it comes back to the cap and the usefulness of leveling really; if my companion could hit maximum skills in those they require without needing to level then it wouldn't be such a huge issue.

 

[Gongfu]

Why doesn't the poll say, "Do you want skillpoint gain to be easier/faster?"?

Current poll just looks like trolling.

 

[Sithrain]

For me the biggest problem comes down to the roadblocking in the system. When we level up and get to pick where our focus points go, and assign our attributes, we don't grow our characters by it. All we get is the removal of an arbitrary limit put in place to make us feel like we need to level. If I really just get better by doing, why is it that I mysteriously stop getting better by doing at random intervals until I move those caps around? Proficiencies in warband worked because it limited this 'learning by doing' idea to the skills we were going to get a lot of practice with (weapons). I feel like many people who say they are in favour of bannerlords system might change their minds once they try to level a companion into a trader or a medic, because you have to do some pretty gamey stuff once you start looking at skill advancement outside of combat. Let's take tactics as an example, which apparently levels up best by autoresolving battles. In this case my learning by doing directly results in my taking a less optimal and less fun approach to the game.

I guess I would understand the controversy here better if this system was a new idea, but it very much is not. Oblivion did the same thing and I have friends who rant to this day about how stupid it was going afk while running up a mountain because they needed to increase those caps for pickpocketing. Small surprise they scrapped the system for Skyrim, and there was much rejoicing. Raising the rates may feel better in the short term but there are inherent design problems with this system that will simply be more obvious the faster we start to run into the arbitrary caps. I could also mention that even oblivion had attributes that meant something, whereas in Bannerlord we don't actually get stronger when we get stronger, we just kick the cap down the road.

 

[Tomweya]

In this case my learning by doing directly results in my taking a less optimal and less fun approach to the game.

So you're telling me you fight EVERY battle? Sounds like bull**** to me, more often than not I power level my troops using bandits, if the lower level ones die then they die, you can get new ones (Kind of the attitude the world has and does take with men, "Just let the men die, noone cares about them anyway, there's more" so there's some sad added realism there)

Either way the Warband system wasn't great and it should've been completely replaced. The only good thing about the Warband system was weapon proficiency, the rest was just carried by the rest of the gameplay.

 

[VincentNZ]

The tricky part there is the way the skills are divided among the attributes. Most characters are either bow, crossbow *or* throwing, it's rare you'd want more than one on the same character,. Conversely when you get to the more cerebral skills it's quite likely a character will use and find all three useful. Really the issue comes down to the way the system is designed; we seem to be in an uncomfortable halfway house between an attribute based system (similar to Warband) and a pure skill system (Skyrim) with the difference being split in a way that the two conflict rather than compliment.

That's the reason for the problem though. Since leveling is dependent on the number of skill gains it's a lot quicker to have a companion use the skills they're the lowest in (which leads to relatively rapid gains up to the 50 mark, as you note) to gain levels than rely on what they're presumably supposed to be doing, at which point it will take hours simply because it's slower to level that skill. Though it comes back to the cap and the usefulness of leveling really; if my companion could hit maximum skills in those they require without needing to level then it wouldn't be such a huge issue.

Yeah, that is why I am particularly fond of set skill increases via quest rewards, and more skills interacting with each other. I also agree that the three ranged options should indeed go into different attributes, as control otherwise is just pretty one-dimensional. So you have melee, ranged and athletic-type in each of the top three attributes. You could make a case to put crossbows int as well. It does not really matter as attributes have no real additional effects.
.
That is not the leveling system fault per se, more the ridiculous amount of skills and levels the companions start with. If they started at level one and with clear focus points like the player, you could get your dedicated surgeon/engineer/trademaster to sufficient levels really fast by simply "roleplaying" him, while he also becomes an average fighter with time. Your dedicated fighters would get really good faster, too.

 

[Sithrain]

No, I am not saying i personally fight -every- battle, but if you can't admit that being encouraged not to in a game that is sold on the idea of personally commanding troops on the field is questionable I don't think we have much to discuss.

I am also not saying the warband system was perfect, but if its going to be replaced it should be replaced with something functional and fun imho.

 

[bheasman]

Why tho it's a useless skill it just gives you moral boost, the one you want to lvl up is stewardship its basically leadership from warband I did the same mistake too on my first playthrough

It's nothing I focused on, it's something that's leveled up on it's own.

 

[Airbar]

I find the new system much better than the one from Warband. Yes, it is a bit slow right now and yes, some skills need tweaking, but in general I think it is a step up to the old system of just getting kills to become more intelligent and better at trading.

 

[Tomweya]

No, I am not saying i personally fight -every- battle, but if you can't admit that being encouraged not to in a game that is sold on the idea of personally commanding troops on the field is questionable I don't think we have much to discuss.

The primary benefit to tactician is to the auto resolver with most perks applying "to simulations" so I'm not sure what your point is, also the game isn't "soild on the idea of personally commanding troops" or there would be no auto resolver, arguably the least implemented feature currently is troop control as you can't even order them to use blunt weapons, and it was always extremely limited in warband. Warband is first and foremost an RPG, not a combat sim, that is why people are clamoring for the return of auto block, they preferred it for the RPG.

That being said USING THE AUTORESOLVE IS NOT THE ONLY WAY OR BEST WAY TO LEVEL THE SKILL:


You still gain tactician XP by winning battles at difficult odds (what you allegedly play the game for, or do you only charge in when it's 95 v 5?) or by making tactical retreats, I've gained far more tactictian XP from both of those options.

The game is sold on being a Medieval RPG where you can make your mark on a fictional continent and timeline, if you don't want to use the auto resolver don't use it, fight every group of 5 mountain bandits after waiting 30 seconds to load into combat - that's your prerogative. The place where we differ is I can say "I don't like loading in to a fight I know I'll win, so I prefer to auto resolve, take a few losses here and there and spend more time on the RPG aspects" but realize that is my opinion you're so full of yourself that you say anyone who autoresolves is having "less fun" because that's the "Less fun" route.

It is not "objectively" less fun, and your opinions are just opinions try to remember that.

It's an RPG not a combat sim.

 

[lcmiracle]

Indeed, a pre-battle deployment system is still nowhere to be seen from Taleworlds. They so wish for the real-time battle aspect to be the game's focus, this would be feature necessary for one to fully enjoy large scale battles.

 

[Sithrain]

The primary benefit to tactician is to the auto resolver with most perks applying "to simulations" so I'm not sure what your point is, also the game isn't "soild on the idea of personally commanding troops" or there would be no auto resolver, arguably the least implemented feature currently is troop control as you can't even order them to use blunt weapons, and it was always extremely limited in warband. Warband is first and foremost an RPG, not a combat sim, that is why people are clamoring for the return of auto block, they preferred it for the RPG.

That being said USING THE AUTORESOLVE IS NOT THE ONLY WAY OR BEST WAY TO LEVEL THE SKILL:


You still gain tactician XP by winning battles at difficult odds (what you allegedly play the game for, or do you only charge in when it's 95 v 5?) or by making tactical retreats, I've gained far more tactictian XP from both of those options.

The game is sold on being a Medieval RPG where you can make your mark on a fictional continent and timeline, if you don't want to use the auto resolver don't use it, fight every group of 5 mountain bandits after waiting 30 seconds to load into combat - that's your prerogative. The place where we differ is I can say "I don't like loading in to a fight I know I'll win, so I prefer to auto resolve, take a few losses here and there and spend more time on the RPG aspects" but realize that is my opinion you're so full of yourself that you say anyone who autoresolves is having "less fun" because that's the "Less fun" route.

It is not "objectively" less fun, and your opinions are just opinions try to remember that.

It's an RPG not a combat sim.

If you're gonna bold all these things I said, would you mind quoting what I actually said, not a fantasy that is easier to criticize? Sorry, but I'm so full of myself that I really like to see my genius properly reflected.

 

[Tomweya]

If you're gonna bold all these things I said, would you mind quoting what I actually said, not a fantasy that is easier to criticize? Sorry, but I'm so full of myself that I really like to see my genius properly reflected.

Sure, I'll dismantle your "Genius" some more, seeing as you can't even seem to read the tactician skill description.

Let's take tactics as an example, which apparently levels up best by autoresolving battles. In this case my learning by doing directly results in my taking a less optimal and less fun approach to the game.

1. Your "less optimal" claim ignores the absolute fact that we all have limited time, it is less optimal to wait 30 seconds to fight 5 bandits than it is to take the 1 or 2 wounded that will likely heal by the next fight.

2. "Less fun" is not objective, "less fun" is subjective. It is not "less fun" to me and many others because it allows us to engage in other more fun forms of gameplay i.e Trade, sieges, etc. rather than fighting every single group of 5 bandits.

3. The tactics skill is not leveled only by auto resolution, it is also leveled by tactical retreats and by winning difficult battles, perhaps you're incapable of winning non-lopsided battles or lack the necessary knowledge to know when to retreat? Either

Tactics is a passive boost gained by playing with most benefits going to the simulations, you don't "Level" tactics, it levels itself.

TL;DR That weird smell you're experiencing is methane, you'd smell it less if you extracted your head from your own rectum.

 

[Knezevic]

Bannerlord system is an improvement, however it takes way, way too long to gain points.

 

[cantare]

The new system is more immersive. You finally can be what you want to be now. I just did this particular trick that I found in the game, and I leveled up like crazy fast. Shame you can't do that anymore after the latest patch.

 

[Vianka]

I think it's fine, wtf guys, you want to cap the level at third day? seriously...

 

[Lamias]

Which is where the realism argument comes in - if you want even a basic understanding of medicine, you spend a few years reading books. I doubt there's many people who'd consider that fun gameplay

You are thinking of the university and modern way of life. In older times (medieval and ancient) learning a profession came with practice and with apprenticeship. The village or town physician would take in an apprentice and would "school" him by examining patients everyday. Especially before books were widely available, coming across notes or parchments of other physicians was extremely rare (apprenticeship would be a fun gameplay in my opinion)

It's also still suffering the same problem; all they've changed is that you now have to kill 100 enemies to have the potential to practice engineering and improve at it, and once you've hit the limits of your potential in engineering the best way to raise that potential is ... killing 100 enemies.

I am sorry, I don't understand what you are saying (english is not my native language). If you want to be good at engineering you build siege engines, you don't kill 100 men... (?)

You don't though, that's the problem. If you just have your character do it themselves they'll become skilled soon enough, and the incentive is to do it that way since the skill gains are necessary to level up so you can increase the cap on the skills you're interested in. That extends to companions too, particularly since they're usually of a higher level. It kind of speaks to the issues with the system in that if you hire a doctor companion, the most efficient way of improving their medical skills tends to be to have them do everything but medicine.

I still don't understand. If I hire a doctor companion, how will he get better if he kills enemies in battle? His weapon stats will increase, not his medicine. I might have missed something from what you say... (?)

 

[F0_]

I like bannerlord because everything takes time even if you cheat, but that being said with everything taking so long to grind and level up the perks and the rewards for doing so should greater. I really do like the current system where if you use a skill it lvels.

 

[Tomweya]

So this may not have been clear to you, but the discussion there was an example of one skill where the new system feels pretty off.

To you, it feels off to you.

You are correct autoresolve is not the -only- way to level tactics.

You've also yet to prove it is the "best" or that it is objectively "less fun", you won't be able to because it isn't, those are subjective metrics not objective ones so they don't mean anything. It is equally as valid for me to say "You just like to autoresolve battles" which is true based on your own statements.

I don't know about you but for me it is an option that occurs pretty regularly, whereas running away or getting into a battle against the odds doesn't come up for me very often.

Tactics is built for autoresolution with some minor passive bonuses built in, you find the words "in simulations" ever other word, it's an RPG skill, not an action skill, short of adding some sort of minigame there's no way to avoid this unless you want to fight every group of 5 bandits yourself.

Whether or not I am capable of winning such a battle is really besides the point here, unless you need to 'git gud' in order to have a conversation about design and someone forgot to give me the memo.

Aptitude matters when discussing game mechanics, especially as players exist at different aptitude levels, the fact that this basic concept eludes you is extremely concerning.

You are correct that everything in my posts was my opinion. I had thought that while we were engaged in a discussion, commonly understood as an exchange of ideas and opinions, that went without saying but since it makes you feel better I'll say it now.

There is a huge difference between ideas and opinions, an idea can be proven objectively good or bad based on measurable criteria, i.e. it would be a bad idea to replace all mounts with Shrek in the base game, this can easily be proven through polling of the user base. Your opinion cannot be disproved in such a way. You feel like it's less fun but that doesn't mean it is, you have no quantitative measurement or statement of impact, you just feel like it's not as enjoyable. Without some measure of whether or not a large population agrees with you it doesn't mean anything.

Do you actually have any points to make about the design of the progression system, or do you just want to shout 'You're wrong!' and resort to personal attacks?

I've already previously main my complaints and suggestions known: Perks feel arbitrary, many are under the wrong skills, the overall progression is far too slow. That being said I haven't personally attacked you, merely called out the obvious self-righteous attitude you were posting with, I understand that you're probably not used to being called out but I mean - you didn't even read the skill description.

What you view as "personal attacks" is me correcting you both on fact and on attitude.

I mean sure, you have some 'gotcha!' quotes here, and you bullet pointed them with numbers so you must be smart, but I'm not really understanding your ideas on how to improve the progression system, only that I seem to have personally offended you somehow, and in retrospect I'm sort of glad.

Sorry, I know you have a short attention span given how you couldn't even read the skill description, so I thought bullet points would be the easiest format for you to consume.