I fixed it for you and you are welcome.The same as my first post: marriage in Warband is for roleplay purposes. The use of the advantages of marriage is not as optimal as the alternatives I use.
I fixed it for you and you are welcome.The same as my first post: marriage in Warband is for roleplay purposes. The use of the advantages of marriage is not as optimal as the alternatives I use.
You don't get marshall benefits from being married. Straight-up. It does not happen. As the for the rest, either it doesn't work (****head lords still defect; you can't force them to attend a feast) or it is an also-ran, i.e. not an additional advantage. It doesn't offer anything unique, exceptional or useful outside of RP elements (which, again, are important to some people).How can you not think relation points, vassal desertion, marshal benefits etc etc are advantages for marriage but see them as advantages elsewhere such as catch-and-release, feasts etc? It makes absolutely no sense. No matter how you cut your argument, point or benefit, you are wrong.
Since you really seem to want to go this route, if I wanted to argue for its own sake, I would have led with something incendiary then insulted you directly.It's almost as if you are trying to argue just for the sake of it.
You don't get marshall benefits from being married. Straight-up. It does not happen. As the for the rest, either it doesn't work (****head lords still defect; you can't force them to attend a feast) or it is an also-ran, i.e. not an additional advantage. It doesn't offer anything unique, exceptional or useful outside of RP elements (which, again, are important to some people).
Since you really seem to want to go this route, if I wanted to argue for its own sake, I would have led with something incendiary then insulted you directly.
...Let's me put it down simpler.
Also:it is an also-ran, i.e. not an additional advantage. It doesn't offer anything unique, exceptional or useful outside of RP elements (which, again, are important to some people).
The simple fact is you keep stating features that don't work the way you think they do or just outright don't exist in Warband.The simple fact is, you were wrong on accounts and you cannot even admit it.
...
Also:
The simple fact is you keep stating features that don't work the way you think they do or just outright don't exist in Warband.
Three actually: A wife doesn't give you a stash tab -- owning any castle or town does. And there is no way to gain a claim on a throne through marriage -- you can't replace a ruler through anything but claimants, whom you can't marry.I stated one that doesn't work entirely the way I originally stated (marshal position forever, but I did state that forever part might be a bug) but you can still claim it as a benefit.
It wasn't a bug (AFAIK) that ****head lords wouldn't attend your feast.Every other benefit exists within Warband, bugs causing them to break sometimes withstanding.
?Although, I do see that you cannot answer my question in that last post. I'll take that as your concession about being wrong on all fronts.
Three actually: A wife doesn't give you a stash tab -- owning any castle or town does. And there is no way to gain a claim on a throne through marriage -- you can't replace a ruler through anything but claimants, whom you can't marry.
It wasn't a bug (AFAIK) that ****head lords wouldn't attend your feast.
I fixed it for you and you are welcome.
Your example + my two = three.That's two, first of all as you are talking about inventory and claimant marriage, not three. Secondly, it's already been stated I meant the benefit is the marshal earlier and conceded that you were right about marrying claimants. It appears you truly aren't reading my posts whatsoever.
If you have a wife, but no castle or town, where does the stash appear?And once again, towns or castles providing the same benefit doesn't mean it isn't one for marriage. It is still there even if you can get the same thing elsewhere. What part of this aren't you grasping? None of what you have said makes me wrong on what it overall does or wrong that it is in the game.
Lords with negative relations will not attend your feast. ****head lords (the ones with bad personality types) start at negative relations and are difficult to keep at neutral (let alone get them up high). They are only ones likely to defect as well. You can't feast your way out of it because -- even at positive relations -- they (generally) won't attend your feast....what?
Asked and answered:I'll provide it to you one more time. If you cannot do something so simple as to answer this question, then you can sit here and whine about it all to yourself:
How can you not think relation points, vassal desertion, marshal benefits etc etc are advantages for marriage but see them as advantages elsewhere such as catch-and-release, feasts etc?
Yes, its empty, full of RNG based mini games wich force you to save scam, characters no matter if theyre minor or major important like Bobs or Ragnars are dead borig, AI is stupid like fffffff, autoresolve breaks kinda the game experience and just delays the uninstalling of the game.I've been saying this from the start..villages used to be fiefs in their own right too. You joined a clan got issued a village , fought wars got acclaim , went to feasts , wooed a lady , worked your way up to a castle and then eventually a town...
Your example + my two = three.
Lords with negative relations will not attend your feast. ****head lords (the ones with bad personality types) start at negative relations and are difficult to keep at neutral (let alone get them up high). They are only ones likely to defect as well. You can't feast your way out of it because -- even at positive relations -- they (generally) won't attend your feast.
Other people might have different experiences there; dealing with ****head lords was easily one of the most frustrating, least fun things in Warband for me.
Asked and answered:
When I wrote "marriage in Warband is pointless, unless you like throwing feasts" it was in the same vein, except I explicitly acknowledged the RP value for some people. I want marriage to offer something unique, something that isn't just the same warmed-over +bonus applied to my sheet of big numbers.
Of course I can do the same thing but worse. But why would I, unless I was roleplaying?
The one you wrote, that I quoted.What example?
If you get married without a castle or town, where does the stash appear?That's two things, though the later is not incorrect of me to state, because it is a thing and it being something you can get another way does not mean I'm wrong.
Likewise.Nope. That's not an answer to my question. I can't say I'm surprised.
Thank you for proving to be a waste of time in the end. ?
I've been saying this from the start..villages used to be fiefs in their own right too. You joined a clan got issued a village , fought wars got acclaim , went to feasts , wooed a lady , worked your way up to a castle and then eventually a town...
I didn't even see this edit earlier. I do not believe I need to "slander" you.No I'm not. I would ask you to point out how, but I know you will not be able to. If you cannot argue the point, that is perfectly fine, just don't try to slander me because you don't want to discuss it anymore.
Are you joking?
If you do not see the point in distinguishing between the two within these contexts, I clearly cannot help you.
Clearly I did not, if this is what he really. Do not think to speak for me and what I might think. If his intent was to mean "benefits of it", he should have said that instead and shouldn't have presented that as an alternative argument to the original "point" argument.
You seem to be completely oblivious to the tone of your own writing. Meanwhile, for the past two pages of a thread that could have been an interesting read, that may have brought forth some valid points, you've been blocking any conversation simply because you either do not understand the most basic application of language in context, or because you're hell-bent on making this some ego-masturbatory excercise where you need to hear someone else apologize for making a perfectly valid point.If you even half way understood, you would get it isn't about "being nitpicky". They are two completely different things and that difference changes the entire ground of any argument presented. Wording is important. It provides context. And in that, he continued on changing the argument as soon as I answered it within the context of meaning "benefits"
He obviously sees them as advantages, but he wants something unique, something that is better than some sub-par advantages thrown together. He explicitly stated this in his answer to you. Yet, you once again completely nonsensically refer to "changing the goalposts". No goalposts have been changed. He used language effectively, slightly exaggerating to make the point that even the way Warband handled marriage was simply sub-par. It's not rocket science. Quite frankly, it's hard to believe you're arguing in good faith when your main complaint is based around a stylistic device a person used. I initially only butted in thinking there was a misunderstanding here, but apparently I was wrong.I'll provide it to you one more time. If you cannot do something so simple as to answer this question, then you can sit here and whine about it all to yourself:
How can you not think relation points, vassal desertion, marshal benefits etc etc are advantages for marriage but see them as advantages elsewhere such as catch-and-release, feasts etc?
You seem to be completely oblivious to the tone of your own writing. Meanwhile, for the past two pages of a thread that could have been an interesting read, that may have brought forth some valid points, you've been blocking any conversation simply because you either do not understand the most basic application of language in context, or because you're hell-bent on making this some ego-masturbatory excercise where you need to hear someone else apologize for making a perfectly valid point.
You're correct, I do not speak for you, but if you even remotely understood his point, after nearly two pages of clarifications, there is -literally- no reason in continuing any of this, because he obviously did not mean "literally without a point", as in, "no person could or would ever use the mechanic". I can not fathom how this could not have come across throughout his answers. This even seems obvious when reading the original message you felt the need to comment on. One snarky "When marriage gives advantage xyz it's not literally pointless, is it? *smileyface*" from your side would have achieved exactly the same thing as your three pages of long winded and growing ever more patronizing replies.
He obviously sees them as advantages, but he wants something unique, something that is better than some sub-par advantages thrown together. He explicitly stated this in his answer to you. Yet, you once again completely nonsensically refer to "changing the goalposts". No goalposts have been changed. He used language effectively, slightly exaggerating to make the point that even the way Warband handled marriage was simply sub-par. It's not rocket science. Quite frankly, it's hard to believe you're arguing in good faith when your main complaint is based around a stylistic device a person used. I initially only butted in thinking there was a misunderstanding here, but apparently I was wrong.
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.[11] The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.[12]
Anyway, now I'm truly out.
And for the record, marriage in Warband was pointless.
I guess you are right about first one but why do you think it is not necessarry to have a deeper connection with compainons ? Btw giving the example from warband is not smart. This is a new generation game and what you know maybe they're gonna give a better perspective for companinons so we can have connection with em ? I'm not blaming Tw to not having this feature.... I just wishing.How?
Relations with lords play a role in defection, marriage, Influence gain and excecution. What should they do? A tournament for your sake. A bottle of wine as a birthday present? OK I went a bit overboard but "useless" hit my mark.
Regarding the companions with a background and all this sort of stuff like " look here is the city I was born". They die in battle. You will hire new ones, they say the same or do the same and die again in battle. There is no reason for a deep relationship model between companions as long as there is the dynasty model.
You just keep saying people ''you don't understart my point'' but accually you are the one who understand sentences differently. I said it's not suppose to be lifeless because it can be. As I say down there it's not priority but it's a must. İt's a sandbox game yeah... But why ever someone don't want that as a bannerlord feature ? Making a sandbox game doesn't mean it can't have a deeper connection with other npc'sI didn't say it was supposed to be lifeless. Perhaps you should re-read my post and get the meaning before responding to me.
You just keep saying people ''you don't understart my point'' but accually you are the one who understand sentences differently. I said it's not suppose to be lifeless because it can be. As I say down there it's not priority but it's a must. İt's a sandbox game yeah... But why ever someone don't want that as a bannerlord feature ?
Making a sandbox game doesn't mean it can't have a deeper connection with other npc's
Then next time you can avoid to start a discussion about it and just be agreed or ignored. ThanxAgain, never said otherwise.
Then next time you can avoid to start a discussion about it and just be agreed or ignored. Thanx