I Have No Control Over My Vassals - I accidently started an Oligarchy

[Tacostrom]

@mexxico

Mexxico, always very grateful for your very open approach to internal debates. I had to do a couple of inhale-exhale cycles after reading your comment.

Let's see, I'm no longer talking about pointing out objectives like in total war, yet you're telling me that what Party AI Overhaul and Commands mod (an essential top mod ) offers at a possibility/concept level you guys don't want to implement in analogous way?

I understand that incorporating new systems, right now, can lead to new bugs. But you're telling me that once again these kind of decisions, excuse the expression "paternalistic" that the player is going to be overwhelmed or saturated with so much info? I'm not talking about complexity anymore... I don't know, this is beyond my understanding .

Once again, thanks for the informative mission; your last two comments are being very revealing as to "where" Bannerlord is going as a product. From the heart I say; a sincere hug Mr. Gümüş.

Good comment Terco, well written and my feeling as well. This paternalistic attitude especially for previous m&b players, it is very frustrating.

 

[AJIexander]

We carried some of your ideas to meeting and also we added some ideas. However sadly most are rejected. As a decision there will be only 2 implementations at this subject.

1- There will be a wage slider for your each party so you will be able to limit waghe of your parties. For example you can set this limit to 500 denars for a party lead by companion X. So this party will stop recruiting / upgrading men when their party limit reaches that limit. Even this was nearly rejected (would be left to future for finding better idea(?)) - we insisted to do it now and it worked.

2-Player will be able to set stance of their parties as one of 3 stances (defensive / agressive / default)

What are rejected :

1-Player will not be able to set a prioritized target for his clan parties. Example : you will be able to set stance as defence but you cannot select a prioritized target. So you will not be able to say your clan party prioritize defending target X (which would result in patrolling around X most of time). (I am not aganist this suggestion by the way and wanted to see at game)

2-Player will not be able to select prioritized upgrade targets or focused troop types like archer / cavalry / infanrty or limit recruiting to any culture. Imo this is not so important too so much micromanagement.

3-Most dissappointing is as a king we will not be able to do anything over AI decisions as it is current situation of game. We come up with an idea of king to spend influence to boost some war targets. In this scenario king will be able to spend 50-100-200 influence to boost a target so probability of AI armies to select this target would increase. If that target is captured by one of our armies this influence spent by king would be shared by leaders at that army. If any other kingdom capture that target king would get spent influence back. So as king player would be able to boost selection of target. When player is vassal he would see a target chosen by AI time to time (not always). This would add much sense to game. However it is also rejected. If it was accepted you will be seeing something like this (and player would be able to change it if you are king) :

So as summary as decided design you will get one slider for each clan party for limiting wage of that party and one dropbox for determining stance of your clan parties (so if you select defence stance they will not do any hostile actions but you will not be able to give them a prioritized target to defend - maybe at defence stance we can prevent clan parties to join hostile armies also - however even an army is created for defending it can change idea later). Probably these 2 additions will have so limited effect on gameplay. We are sorry for this. Nothing to do, we wanted to do more detailed systems which gives more control to player (as clan leader and king) which can make gameplay better but we cannot do these without permission. What annoying is decision takers are not coming here and discuss with you even I do not think they read here most of the times. As reason they give us to reject most of these ideas they say our game is not a real time strategy where players have to select targets. They say AI should do always nearly most logical things which does not bother player so player should not spend time and need to select these targets himself or deal with several different micromanagement. However in my opinion in current situation of game being king does not make sense because king has no effect over anything also similar case for clan leader control over clan parties, so spending time for that stuff is not big deal for player even he does not want spend time it can stay at default (which is current situation).

So adding these decided stuff will take only 1-2 days after UI make needed additions because nothing much is selected. At saved time I will try to do improvements at these stuff (cannot guarentee removing all back and forths but will try to reduce) :

Are these decisions made by Armaghan himself?

 

[Nalgasucia507]

Thanks Mexxico.

Quien pinga maneja esta compania. Que imbecil.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

Thanks for fighting the good fight mex, we know you did your best.

What are rejected :
3-Most dissappointing (just as personal view) is as a king we will not be able to do anything over AI decisions as it is current situation of game. We come up with an idea of king to spend influence to boost some war targets. In this scenario king will be able to spend 50-100-200 influence to boost a target so probability of AI armies to select this target would increase. If that target is captured by one of our armies this influence spent by king would be shared by leaders at that army. If any other kingdom capture that target king would get spent influence back. So as king player would be able to boost selection of target. When player is vassal he would see a target chosen by AI time to time (not always). This would add much sense to game. However it is also rejected. If it was accepted you will be seeing something like this (and player would be able to change it if he is the king) :

This is a massive disappointment. I'd understand keeping war decisions out of the kings hands if we had something like a marshal who makes overall strategic decisions like in warband. But to leave it where it is makes being a king extremely helpless. At this point I don't believe these decision makers have actually played the game to the point of being a king.

What annoying is decision takers are not coming here and discuss with you even I do not think they read here most of the times. As reason they give us to reject most of these ideas they say our game is not a real time strategy where players have to select targets. They say AI should do always nearly most logical things which does not bother player so player should not spend time and need to select these targets himself or deal with several different micromanagement. However in my opinion in current situation of game being king does not make sense because king has no effect over anything also similar case for clan leader control over clan parties, so spending time for that stuff is not big deal for player even he does not want spend time it can stay at default (which is current situation).

They haven't come here, I've been creepily watching time online and it hasn't moved a minute the past few months (likely since EA released but I wasn't paying attention to it at that time). If you and our UI guru weren't here it be safe to say TW wasn't being honest about working with the community.

It also feels like these meetings where you bring community suggestions is the decision makers attempt to not participate actively in the forums and force you guys to do it. Its bull**** and any faith I had left in the man has been eroded. Honestly there is no excuses for their absence. He was here during mp beta and because of that we actually got to push MP closer to what is acceptable to the community. I wonder what made him lose sight of what made warband great. My respect for the man has diminished greatly, I feel like a disappointed dad.

I feel bad for you mex and its no wonder you are burned out trying to make up for him.

So adding these decided 2 things will take only 1-2 days after UI make needed additions because nothing much is approved. At saved time I will try to do improvements at these stuff (cannot guarentee removing all back and forths but will try to reduce) :

For #2 (in the pic) id say go as far as making AI armies the same as player armies by letting them actively invite and dismiss parties from their army. They could invite new parties when they want to attack/defend something stronger than their current strength and they could dismiss parties who get to low on troops and need to go recruit (armies going around recruiting is a huge waste of time).

I know I've said some harsh things, but they wont be here to see it anyways.....


@Terco_Viejo I need one of them hugs.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

@Blood Gryphon

?

 

[XDaron]

What annoying is decision takers are not coming here and discuss with you even I do not think they read here most of the times. As reason they give us to reject most of these ideas they say our game is not a real time strategy where players have to select targets. They say AI should do always nearly most logical things which does not bother player so player should not spend time and need to select these targets himself or deal with several different micromanagement.

this is heart-breaking to read, one thing is to want a game that is simple, another is to make it shallow, if it is their decision to deny such an intuitive feature, then it kills a great portion of my leftover hope that the game will be improved meaningfully

 

[Blood Gryphon]

@Blood Gryphon

?

Much better

At least we got custom wages and a way to stop our parties from constantly raiding.

Lmao also aren't people just going to try and cheese the accepted #2 to be like the rejected #1 by going to specific areas and releasing their parties and then ordering then to be defensive/aggressive? (so once again being force to personally go places instead of just being able to order your clans, I don't have time for that as a king)

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Spoiler

Much better

At least we got custom wages and a way to stop our parties from constantly raiding.

Lmao also aren't people just going to try and cheese the accepted #2 by going to specific areas and releasing their parties and then ordering then to be defensive/aggressive? (so once again being force to personally go places instead of just being able to order your clans, I don't have time for that as a king)

At least™

 

[niekdegrijze]

very dissapointing. I am happy with every small positive change, but they reasoning behind the rejections is baffling. As a king you should have more controle over your vassals. You do not have the time to be everywhere.
I think there should be a big difference between playing as a small clan and as a king. becoming a king should be a big accomplisment that rewards you with extra strategic options. By the time players can become king they are no longer new to the game and are ready for a change in play style. I personally regard the party AI mod and the RTS mod as essential, sometimes with the improved garrison mod.

 

[kreamy]

Much better

At least we got custom wages and a way to stop our parties from constantly raiding.

Lmao also aren't people just going to try and cheese the accepted #2 to be like the rejected #1 by going to specific areas and releasing their parties and then ordering then to be defensive/aggressive? (so once again being force to personally go places instead of just being able to order your clans, I don't have time for that as a king)

i dunno.

custom wages are bleh. Just keep your parties in your army, and you can basically do the same... Not like parties are useful ATM (if you let them go about - my experience = keep clan in ur army at all times...)

 

[Mad Vader]

Wow, mexxico is a real champion of the core fans and goes above and beyond his job description.
Now, from the management (or "decision maker") perspective, it seems that they are shooting down most ideas and approving only easily implemented ones that won't cost much time. Their priority must be to avoid feature creep and get to a release ASAP, which would cut their costs too.
While you can expect this from management types (and they would be right to prioritize time over content, from their POV), I miss the lead designer type among the decision makers who would seek ways to respond to identified gameplay problems (the one benefit of EA is player feedback!) and provide guidance to the developers instead of shooting down their ideas.

 

[babelfisch]

We carried some of your ideas to meeting and also we added some ideas. However sadly most are rejected. As a decision there will be only 2 implementations at this subject.

1- There will be a wage slider for your each party so you will be able to limit waghe of your parties. For example you can set this limit to 500 denars for a party lead by companion X. So this party will stop recruiting / upgrading men when their party limit reaches that limit. Even this was nearly rejected (would be left to future for finding better idea(?)) - we insisted to do it now and it worked.

2-Player will be able to set stance of their parties as one of 3 stances (defensive / agressive / default)

What are rejected :

1-Player will not be able to set a prioritized target for his clan parties. Example : you will be able to set stance as defence but you cannot select a prioritized target. So you will not be able to say your clan party prioritize defending target X (which would result in patrolling around X most of time). (I am not aganist this suggestion by the way and wanted to see at game)

2-Player will not be able to select prioritized upgrade targets or focused troop types like archer / cavalry / infanrty or limit recruiting to any culture. Imo this is not so important too so much micromanagement.

3-Most dissappointing (just as personal view) is as a king we will not be able to do anything over AI decisions as it is current situation of game. We come up with an idea of king to spend influence to boost some war targets. In this scenario king will be able to spend 50-100-200 influence to boost a target so probability of AI armies to select this target would increase. If that target is captured by one of our armies this influence spent by king would be shared by leaders at that army. If any other kingdom capture that target king would get spent influence back. So as king player would be able to boost selection of target. When player is vassal he would see a target chosen by AI time to time (not always). This would add much sense to game. However it is also rejected. If it was accepted you will be seeing something like this (and player would be able to change it if he is the king) :

So as summary as decided design you will get one slider for each clan party for limiting wage of that party and one dropbox for determining stance of your clan parties (so if you select defence stance they will not do any hostile actions but you will not be able to give them a prioritized target to defend - maybe at defence stance we can prevent clan parties to join hostile armies also - however even an army is created for defending it can change idea later). Probably these 2 additions will have so limited effect on gameplay. We are sorry for this. Nothing to do, we wanted to do more detailed systems which gives more control to player (as clan leader and king) which can make gameplay better but we cannot do these without permission. What annoying is decision takers are not coming here and discuss with you even I do not think they read here most of the times. As reason they give us to reject most of these ideas they say our game is not a real time strategy where players have to select targets. They say AI should do always nearly most logical things which does not bother player so player should not spend time and need to select these targets himself or deal with several different micromanagement. However in my opinion in current situation of game being king does not make sense because king has no effect over anything also similar case for clan leader control over clan parties, so spending time for that stuff is not big deal for player even he does not want spend time it can stay at default (which is current situation).

Everybody can have different ideas over game by the way. We cannot know which one best suits game or imporves gameplay we just make some guess. So I cannot be sure about what is best, I cannot say my view is best, everybody thinks that their ideas are best. However I personally support rejected 1-3 and wanted to see them at game maybe some of you think that these rejected ones do not suit M&B series well or some of you can think similar with me. So these are just personal thoughts and we cannot know which is best design before implementing all and trying. So these additional rejected ideas can be tried by mods over time and we will see results.

So adding these decided 2 things will take only 1-2 days after UI make needed additions because nothing much is approved. At saved time I will try to do improvements at these stuff (cannot guarentee removing all back and forths but will try to reduce) :

Thank you very much for your efforts and being honest. We all want the game to be as good as possible and I understand that not everybody has the same opinion how that can be achieved. Still, I think it's time that Armagan says something to the community. It's almost one year since EA release, the company earned lots of money from us and we provided tons of feedback and helped finding bugs and improving the game. All we got is complete silence. And while it's awesome that you talk to us, it's not your job.

 

[black_bulldog]

@mexxico thank you for proposing this stuff. We see but again that those who are in charge have no idea what M&B players really want from this game. I've seen some questionable decisions made during the development of this game but this one is just bad. My question for those making this decision is "what is the use in being a king if you can't run your kingdom?" Atm we're a glorified prime minister or president because we can be overridden pretty easily and any decisions we make are subject to approval by vassals. This decision may well kill this game for me. I want to play the game the way I want to play it and not be subject to the fickle decision of the ai lords, again thanks for your effort and honesty but imho Bannerlord has taken a severe turn for the worse.

 

[mexxico]

it seems that they are shooting down most ideas and approving only easily implemented ones that won't cost much time. Their priority must be to avoid feature creep and get to a release ASAP, which would cut their costs too.

This can be case sometimes but here I do not think this is the case because rejected ideas (1-3) are not hard things to implement actually. I think here these are rejected because they think that these do not suit well to M&B sandbox world (which I do not think same, they can suit well).

Actually here in this post it seems we think similar however I also read comments at other platforms and it seems some people also find taken decisions right as seen here :

Spoiler: Comments approve declines

So we all look from our perstective, in my opinion if we add these even I think we will reach 22Ks as player count at weekends means even that kind of small addition will make game played 5% more (this is only a guess) and i think player count shows what is right choice (again it is my idea you can say it does not show anything). As I said I dissapointed when I hear these decisions but some can think these declines are right decisions with different backgrounds / reasons. Maybe there are some people in forum also find these declines right but they do not write. What I critise is not taken decisions actually I critise less interaction between decision takers and community also even less interaction between devs and decision takers. I critise taking that kind of big decision in 5 minute without thinking on it / reading comments about it / watching streams (actually not sure about this only guess). Otherwise maybe if there happen long and detailed debates maybe we can see we are wrong but in these conditions I do not think that way and I am not persuaded.

 

[a_ver_est]

@mexxico thank you for proposing this stuff. We see but again that those who are in charge have no idea what M&B players really want from this game. I've seen some questionable decisions made during the development of this game but this one is just bad. My question for those making this decision is "what is the use in being a king if you can't run your kingdom?" Atm we're a glorified prime minister or president because we can be overridden pretty easily and any decisions we make are subject to approval by vassals. This decision may well kill this game for me. I want to play the game the way I want to play it and not be subject to the fickle decision of the ai lords, again thanks for your effort and honesty but imho Bannerlord has taken a severe turn for the worse.

It's curious, because WB have a very diferent approach. I mean there was just an army per kingdom and you could control it being the king/marshal, so the main targets were set by you. Of course there were always some lords doing errand things outside the army but they were just a minor noise.

It looks like that the people who take the decisions are otherones not involve in WB or so, not sure. It is very extrange and hard to understood, they have created a live world with a complex economy/relationship system to build a 'simple' battle simulator on top of it due the cruel lack of interaction with the NPCs.

 

[mexxico]

For #2 (in the pic) id say go as far as making AI armies the same as player armies by letting them actively invite and dismiss parties from their army. They could invite new parties when they want to attack/defend something stronger than their current strength and they could dismiss parties who get to low on troops and need to go recruit (armies going around recruiting is a huge waste of time).

Here actually about #2 in pic problem I mentioned creates some cases where an army siege a settlement and a nearby party / army raids village connected to it or pass by that besieger army and do nothing. It can be better these parties (at least nearby) join siege, of course further parties should not do this joining. They can join siege without joining army. It will be more satisfying AI for players. Currently npc parties and armies do not consider joining ongoing sieges we can add it and this will improve gameplay a bit. Just look at this case :

Spoiler: Siege & Raid

Also sometimes two armies pass by and do not attack each other but they go their own hostile targets, this can be improved too. It can be better if they attack each other. Anyway these are out of topic. We can discuss further at another post.

 

[froggyluv]

. I think here these are rejected because they think that these do not suit well to M&B sandbox world (which I do not think same, they can suit well).

Sandboxes by themselves are boring. A box of sand with no toys, tools, props or rulesets is just an empty lot of sand. People want to feel themselves have an effect on the world they are playing in -that goes for games as simple as Angry Birds -people flock to it because even if they dont understand physics they understand instinctively that if they fling a rock at a certain trajectory -expected and unexpected results will follow - but the enjoyment is in that they caused it.

We need the tools to be able to control our parties as well as the AI to have the tools to make an interesting adversary -or else its just an empty lot of sand

 

[Blood Gryphon]

Here actually about #2 in pic problem I mentioned creates some cases where an army siege a settlement and a nearby party / army raids village connected to it or pass by that besieger army and do nothing. It can be better these parties (at least nearby) join siege, of course further parties should not do this joining. They can join siege without joining army. It will be more satisfying AI for players. Currently npc parties and armies do not consider joining ongoing sieges we can add it and this will improve gameplay a bit. Just look at this case :

Spoiler: Siege & Raid

Oh yeah they should definitely consider it. I was taking it a step further and think armies could be more dynamic by actively inviting/dismissing parties as well.

Also sometimes two armies pass by and do not attack each other but they go their own hostile targets, this can be improved too. It can be better if they attack each other. Anyway these are out of topic. We can discuss further at another post.

Sounds good. Not sure if you were referencing it here but you got an example of that in the "about donate troops" convo. I could start a thread if you needed more concrete stuff

I critise taking that kind of big decision in 5 minute without thinking on it / reading comments about it / watching streams (actually not sure about this only guess). Otherwise maybe if there happen long and detailed debates maybe we can see we are wrong but in these conditions I do not think that way and I am not persuaded.

Yep exactly this. I'm fine with things getting rejected if there is reasonable explanation that has clearly taken many considerations into account.

 

[vonbalt]

Sandboxes by themselves are boring. A box of sand with no toys, tools, props or rulesets is just an empty lot of sand. People want to feel themselves have an effect on the world they are playing in -that goes for games as simple as Angry Birds -people flock to it because even if they dont understand physics they understand instinctively that if they fling a rock at a certain trajectory -expected and unexpected results will follow - but the enjoyment is in that they caused it.

We need the tools to be able to control our parties as well as the AI to have the tools to make an interesting adversary -or else its just an empty lot of sand

best description of it, a sandbox just by itself is nothing, i'll maybe look at it, try my hand at making a rudimentary sand castle and leave for something better.

Now if we have tools to improve things and make better use of our imagination the sky is the limit, these tools are immersive and indepth systems in the game's case and the upper management seems to dread anything more complicated than a 5y old could handle.

A real shame, classic/warband were labors of love and it reflected in the game, even if the possibilities were a bit shallow they were there (and were amazing for it's time), in bannerlord they have this dream engine and want to do nothing with it.

Casual/console players will take this game, play a few hours and leave for the next COD or moba whatever, bannerlord will live or die by the community just like the previous games, a shame it seems we will need to wait for "release" and then for modders to do what the devs themselves could if the upper guys just allowed it.

 

[kreamy]

best description of it, a sandbox just by itself is nothing, i'll maybe look at it, try my hand at making a rudimentary sand castle and leave for something better.

Now if we have tools to improve things and make better use of our imagination the sky is the limit, these tools are immersive and indepth systems in the game's case and the upper management seems to dread anything more complicated than a 5y old could handle.

A real shame, classic/warband were labors of love and it reflected in the game, even if the possibilities were a bit shallow they were there, in bannerlord they have this dream engine and want to do nothing with it.

Casual/console players will take this game, play a few hours and leave for the next COD or moba whatever, bannerlord will live or die by the community just like the previous games, a shame it seems we will need to wait for "release" and then for modders to do what the devs themselves could if the upper guys just allowed it.

I dunno, I get the impression when a suggestion is refused and justified with "doesnt fit sandbox" - it just makes me think that the suggestion should be considered as: HOW can we make this interesting feature part of the sandbox (i.e. not being RTS, but having sandbox elements)

Like, calling lords to ur army is not sandbox (obviously, if we use the strictest interpretation of the word)

So a feature where you have more control but still has sandbox elements to 'mold it' in (like, NPC decide to not actually follow the command 100%, but use it as a suggestion. Or, if NPC gets captured/lose in battle, less relations & influence penalty, and next time they dont follow command as much etc (or refuse)) -> this is the type of sandbox element I think players are looking for!

Dont make it too easy for the player, but give them options for godsake.

And if those options are 'OP' - counter balance it with negative consequences and dont make it abusable (1 command per week or something, or 1 command issuable to only 1 standing army, or player clan NPC only can carry out the order (like, hand of king type implementation...)

I dont see how RTS elements negate sandbox - there are RTS elements throughout the game...