Marajah
Regular
nope
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
1.7 - Too many noble troops available
- Thread starter Death2Tyrants
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Regular
LuciusDomitiusAurelianus
Sergeant
Pepperidge Farms remembers when people were *****ing about not enough Nobles, now it's too many.
For ****'s sake lol
For ****'s sake lol
five bucks
Knight at Arms
The middle point is what's needed.
Just playing in a natural way you can capture several fiefs at least by then as once you get rank 2 you can join faction you can easily get a large enough army to do it, even with modest player skills. This is of course counting on rank 2 at say 40 days or less, giving you plenty of time to gain some influence and get busy before 90. Some players act like it's more complicated but you can get it pretty fast just fighting and tournaments to rank 1, then merc and fore recruit villages, easy lords if you see one, easy to get by day 40.
3 or 4, alone as a solo clan. But now that you need to deal with security and loyalty it's not useful to rush fiefs early. Back in the day it was like taking candy from a baby, walk up with 40 HA, they sally out, run and gun, retreat and repeat, fief all mine with no siege fight. Walk up to the next enemy lord you see pay him 5$ for peace, do it all again at your pleasure. Now it's better to be more developed to actually make a faction for policies ASAP and to plan on actually crushing the faction outright.
Sweynforkbeard
Squire
Thats just it. You could take fiefs early, but why would you, there is little benefit to it.
You are much better off merc-ing until you have basically everything you could need and then go full on conquest mode. The only thing that ever stop me from fully taking advantage of the merc phase is the inevitable boredom.
That aside, there are plenty of things that you can do but the question is if you should. In my current campaign I soloed three merc parties between day 3-4 to powerlevel my char. But it probably also cost the life of my mouse and my arm.
Last edited:
five bucks
Knight at Arms
I didn't say grabbing fiefs early though, just was talking about how much you can accomplish in a 90 day period of campaign time
Sweynforkbeard
Squire
Target: Sturgia
War length: 41 days
Castles captured: 5
Towns captured: 4
The benefits of spending time preparing. And bringing a big ....... army.
default is up to player and choice, if you don't want to use it, simple don't use it. take away freedom of gameplay from player is more harm than good or limited gameplay may cause other player bored with game, since not everyone had same taste of gameplay rule, so more freedom is better so it's leave to player's choice how gameplay is played, rather than limited for few's favorite rule of gameplay because all player's personal gameplay rule is not same mind, same interesting.
I don't think sacrifice that freedom for benefits of few, hardcore or one who are unable had no self control when come to gameplay is worth it. Casual gamer isn't interesting in that kind of limited gameplay and there is major more casual gamer than hardcore or one who can't control themself limited of gameplay on based of their idea. Casual gamer prefer easy going gameplay and there is offer for them.
As I said before, it's better to buff normal troop, not nerfed those noble troop. nerfed is not always good thing, and it's better to buff other to keep up.
This had been number of time in many game and it's don't work well in past, couple people losing interesting in the game when too many nerfed.
There is already people not happy and find it's bored to recruit troop while losing lot of troop already in other post when come to large army fighting short battle already! Like this one https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/serious-issue-with-gameflow.450052/
Some might like slow, but some like fast, it's can be leveling, it's can be getting kingdom, it's can be any kind type of gameplay, Some think it's too slow, some think it's too fast, where is fine line? Maybe best option of gameplay like how fast or slow leveling is, how fast you get type of troop, how high number of troop you can get in game since everyone's personal is difference taste of gameplay since not all are same taste.
People already found it's bored to grind leveling system to get 300 or 330 here and there, while other said too easy, but other said too much grind, why? Because everyone had difference idea how fast or slow it go, and no one are same mind, same interesting, so freedom and option is way better for everyone than limited gameplay for few.
Mod for hardcore, official for common, casual people that offer more freedom, quicker than limited, slower, if limited then it's should be make from mod, not official version, since casual people don't seek mod that much.
If one want limited or make game harder or slower, then leave that for mod, but Official version should forced on easy, quicker (faster leveling, faster to get more troop, building getting done sooner, ect) fun game for all kind type of people.
Last edited:
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Your post is absolutely full of strawman arguments so I'll stoop to the same low.
Basically, you're saying that the best FPS game design is one where you have 99999 health, wallhacks, and all your guns kill instantly. And by your argument, if you don't find it challenging enough, just try and miss on purpose!
And according to you, the best racecar game design is one where your car has rocket engines and all the other cars don't. If you don't like it, just go slower and let them catch up!
And in a chess game of your school of thought, the player's pieces are all queens, while the AI's are all pawns. Too easy? Well just don't use half of your pieces!
Those strawman arguments show what a game with total freedom looks like - not fun, because there are no restrictions on the player to create challenge. Therefore, "more freedom" isn't inherently better for a game. And that's what makes your overuse of the word "freedom" ridiculous. Plus you already have a very easy setting for recruitment, which provides +2 to all recruitment slots that the AI doesn't get. Your game is not going to be massively restricted by changing 1 notable from elites to normal recruits.
This is really rich. Because you completely lack any form of attention span, you accuse other people of lacking self control.
If we had self control issues we would be reducing all difficulty settings to easy, so that's a ridiculous statement. It's a question of immersion. The player constantly having to impose arbitrary restrictions on themselves to have a challenging or varied experience seriously damages immersion. Even if we do decide not to hire all the elite recruits coming out the wazoo, and put ourselves at the disadvantage that entails, it's flat out weird that they're so incredibly common.
Where is the evidence to back this statement up? Have you done a survey of ~300 M&B players asking them whether they like the current state of noble recruitment?
In this thread alone, there are 12 people in favour of reducing the amount of notables, about 5 who don't seem to disagree but don't think it should be changed without changing something else, and only 4 who actively disagree.
It isn't a buff or nerf, it's a change in quantity.
And normal troops are not meant to be the equivalent of elite troops, elite troops are meant to be special, hence the name.
Yeah, in any multiplayer game you will always find a couple of morons who loudly complain and quit when something broken overpowered gets nerfed. However, what isn't as noticeable, but more important, is the core community who will stay around for a balanced game and play it for 20 years if it's well-balanced enough (see the earlier examples given of Dota 2 and Starcraft: Brood War).
We're asking to reduce the ratio of elite recruits to normal recruits, not to reduce the amount of recruits.
Less elites, but more normal recruits. So the total amount of recruits will be the same.
Reducing the ratio will reduce it for both the player and the AI, therefore it will not make it take longer to recruit the same army size.
You don't even have to. You literally get +2 recruitment slots in easy difficulty setting, and you can use console commands to cheat yourself troops.
A game should be designed well by default for those who want an immersive experience and sensible challenge, and want to use the content in the game; then people like yourself who don't care about immersion, who don't want to use 90% of the game's content, and just want to cruise through easily without any brain cell activation required, and have an army entirely composed of one troop, can just use console commands to cheat themselves troops.
that is way extremely more than what I meant and explain, not that far to point of cheat, cheat and easy is not same thing.
In current 1.7, I find more normal troop than elite troops, where town had number of village and town itself that had lot of normal troop and no elite troop there, meanwhile castle don't had any troop but village linked to castle do had elite little more than normal troop that together, but normal troop is still more number than elite do due town and village, and even elite's village linked to castle, it's reasonable balanced and I do not think that many noble since town and village offer normal troop far more than elite do.
There is Elders, disability and children do play game as well, is part reason why default should be prime easy, while hard is options.
My experience that I saw too many game and knew that common people prefer easy/normal, faster pace game rather than slow, painful hard grinding game that played by few for over my experience 20 years in many different game.
Slow or limited would cause people bored, because well, limited action, less to do, very slow gameplay then there more freedom offer lot thing to do, faster pace (whatever it's faster leveling, faster gain troop, ect) would keep them more busy during actions, less bored for people.
In current 1.7, I find more normal troop than elite troops, where town had number of village and town itself that had lot of normal troop and no elite troop there, meanwhile castle don't had any troop but village linked to castle do had elite little more than normal troop that together, but normal troop is still more number than elite do due town and village, and even elite's village linked to castle, it's reasonable balanced and I do not think that many noble since town and village offer normal troop far more than elite do.
There is Elders, disability and children do play game as well, is part reason why default should be prime easy, while hard is options.
My experience that I saw too many game and knew that common people prefer easy/normal, faster pace game rather than slow, painful hard grinding game that played by few for over my experience 20 years in many different game.
Slow or limited would cause people bored, because well, limited action, less to do, very slow gameplay then there more freedom offer lot thing to do, faster pace (whatever it's faster leveling, faster gain troop, ect) would keep them more busy during actions, less bored for people.
Last edited:
five bucks
Knight at Arms
So you agree that limitations in a game are what makes it interesting, and that "more freedom" is not necessarily good.
I'm not saying that there are more elite troops than normal ones. I'm saying that there are just too many elite troops. Refer to the earlier post. 70% of troops are normal and 30% are elite. I'm proposing it should be 85% normal and 15% elite.
Children shouldn't be playing a mass murder game where you kill 10,000+ people anyway. Being old doesn't make it hard to play singleplayer games, one of the posters here (archaicwarrior) is 60 IIRC, and nobody over 80 has ever heard of a "mount and blade". The only disability which would make it hard to play games is being blind.
Reducing the amount of elite recruits from 30% to 15% is not going to make the game significantly harder or grindier, because it will apply to the AI as well as the player, so they will be at the same disadvantage.
It will only make the game take more grind if you are obsessively dedicated to only ever having a 100% elite party and never hiring regular troops. And it won't even be insurmountably difficult for you, either. But if it is too much, you can always use cheats.
For normal people who recruit a balanced army composition, it will not increase the game's difficulty or grindiness at all.
What it will do is:
1) Make elite troops feel more special, as they are more rare.
2) Improve immersion.
3) Make the perk to upgrade bandits to elite recruits comparatively more useful as a supplementary way of getting elite recruits.
4) Make the Vlandian Vanguard and Khuzait Heavy Horse Archer more viable compared to the Banner Knight and Khan's Guard.
5) Increase the variety in the game and player armies.
6) Reduce the issue of the player being at a disadvantage if they choose to pass up excessive amounts of elite recruits.
Sweynforkbeard
Squire
Seriously, I just dont get it. You keep on spewing the same falsehood again and again, even despite the fact that it was you who provided the actual numbers...
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Explain to me where I can find 0.7 of a notable in the game. You couldn't do it before.
Sweynforkbeard
Squire
That is not how averages work. An average of 1,7 notables just means that in some villages you will only have 1 notable and in others you will have two or more. The average fundamentally just shows how likely you are to see one case over the other.
We use approximation when we are not sure what the true number is. E.g. assuming that on average each village has 3 notables. Its a substitute/best guess of what the true average might be.
But you will never use an approximation when you have the actual number for obvious reasons; the approximation is our assumption on what the true number is.
We generally vibrate on the same wavelength you know it, I read you and I agree with you most of the time
. However and I get no tired about commenting that perk in my eyes doesn't make any sense... turning bandits into noble/elite troops? excuse me? no, I don't buy it.
It will barely phase the player in the know how too. They will have a full party of their chosen troops easily and the AI will just always have less.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Averages are an approximation of the actual game situation as well. The player can never actually come across 0.7 of a notable in gameplay.
What that .7 actually means in real gameplay terms is that you are objectively more likely to come across a castle village with 3 notables - and thus a whole extra row of troop slots- than one with 2, which lacks a whole row of troop slots. There are no notables that offer only 0.7 of a row of troops.
When you say "how likely you are to see one case over the other", that's exactly why you round it to 3, because we are talking about ingame cases here. It shouldn't even need explaining.
By all means keep requesting for it to be changed if you think it's too unimmersive. But if they have no plans to remove it, and it helps make bandit playthroughs more viable, it may as well be useful though, no? Better a questionable, useful optional perk than a questionable, useless optional perk.We generally vibrate on the same wavelength you know it, I read you and I agree with you most of the time
Last edited:
I'm tired of grabbing the rope... it burns my hands and it's already late and it's cold outside
. Mmmm... it's those design decisions that don't work in my eyes. Decisions like this... just freak out. Cry with me brother.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
That's just insane.I'm tired of grabbing the rope... it burns my hands and it's already late and it's cold outside
I hate that we never get WHY something is an intended design. What could even be an upside to this? I havent seen a YouTube or Reddit comment that says they love the direction the game is headed. Warband it is, I guessI'm tired of grabbing the rope... it burns my hands and it's already late and it's cold outside
Similar threads
