Statement regarding Singleplayer IV

[Lornloth00]

No, at least not initially. Which information are you most concerned about losing access to?

All things in the encyclopedia if its possible but at least all places on the map and the rulers its not like the player is from another place like in Warband. Its useful to know about things like troop trees to plan a campaign.

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

All things in the encyclopedia if its possible but at least all places on the map and the rulers its not like the player is from another place like in Warband. Its useful to know about things like troop trees to plan a campaign.

Thanks for clarifying. I can assuage your worries a bit. The general entries will still be there, just some information will be unavailable. Think about how you can see the towns and their names but not their garrison if you are out of scouting range.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

If that was permitted alongside owning settlements, it would essentially be better than a kingdom as other kingdoms could not target you and you could essentially force peace through barter given enough resources (for the wars that you start).

You can take down a faction with just your one party though, so not allowing an army is just depriving the player of building the leadership skill and slowing down the garrison filling a bit. To be fair it's very boring to take much of the map alone this way and the most I even did was Khuzait and Aserai areas, before feeling completely exhausted from the process. Without policies in place there is also a max area the player can reasonable support via quests too.
Before vassal creation (and to lessor degree high loyalty/security penalties) was implemented it WAS BETTER to just be a pseudo-kingdom. However with additions of vassal creation and the harsh penalties of loyalty/security it's now 100% in the players favor to become a ruler ASAP rather then a squatter. Even in the most dire situation you can accumulate influence (that you keep) for future clans and with policies passed you can have secure land in the future.

Another option (and an easy one) is to just be a bad vassal at rank 2 to make an army. You just join a faction but do as you wish, attacking the faction you wish to weaken and using the army system to build up leadership otw to rank 4. The faction will nearly always give you fief at some point. Then you just dump them and make the new faction and re-assemble you army.

My point is just that the pseudo faction isn't that easy/useful anyways and that the "intended" rout can be a lot easier then the proposed "free clan with army" would be. I understand there's other considerations such as time/resources but I think just "too easy for player" isn't a good reason because there are already easier ways to get what you want in the game. My main issue with armies is just wanting to build up leadership with them. I feel the bulk of my power always comes from my main party of powerful units and trying to pile on more and more AI parties has diminishing returns in actual combat results.

Still, if we allowed kingdoms to declare war on you... we might just as well turn you into a kingdom when you capture a town - which would reduce the grace period of players that wish to prepare the creation of their kingdom.

I would greatly appreciate this. I would love to start accumulating my own influence much earlier in the game and be able to use an army for leaderships gain sooner too. The sooner the better! I give no grace period to the AI and I expect none in return! I suppose it could be game start option like birth/death in case players really want the intermediate state.

Removing the ability to create clan parties prior to being in a kingdom may be another idea, but I don't think we will go for it. Allowing the player to build strength outside of a kingdom and retain it when leaving one seems important to me.

TBH I never do it until I'm a vassal or a ruler because if I can't use it to farm leadership it's just a money sink. However their is a moment between vassal and ruler where I retain them and loosing them would be annoying to me. If I don't become a vassal I don't make them until I'm a ruler and can immediately army them. I think it might be good to have a tooltip pop up explaining to the player ow much it will cost to deploy a second party. Players are often disturbed by the jump in cost and it's not intuitive that the party should need 5K even when you give them cheap troops.

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

My main issue with armies is just wanting to build up leadership with them. I feel the bulk of my power always comes from my main party of powerful units and trying to pile on more and more AI parties has diminishing returns in actual combat results.

If this is your main motivation for wanting an army outside of kingdoms, then I think you will like the changes to leadership gains. (In principle, balance will be evaluated based on feedback.)

I think it might be good to have a tooltip pop up explaining to the player ow much it will cost to deploy a second party. Players are often disturbed by the jump in cost and it's not intuitive that the party should need 5K even when you give them cheap troops.

Will bring this up.

 

[dannazgu]

Maybe in the future, but not necessarily as part of the base game.

Hey, Duh.

Have you guy thought of implementing agreements in game? Like, two kingdom makes peace for 42 days or 84 days, etc.. things like that. Give time to kingdoms to rebuild and prosper?

Like "The marriage between princess of [kingdom] married prince of [kingdom], an agreement of peace for 168 days being reached"

or

"Kingdom of Vlandia agree on a peace treaty with the council support with the Battanians for 84 days (1 year-in game)"

you know things like that

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

Hey, Duh.

Have you guy thought of implementing agreements in game? Like, two kingdom makes peace for 42 days or 84 days, etc.. things like that. Give time to kingdoms to rebuild and prosper?

Like "The marriage between princess of [kingdom] married prince of [kingdom], an agreement of peace for 168 days being reached"

or

"Kingdom of Vlandia agree on a peace treaty with the council support with the Battanians for 84 days (1 year-in game)"

you know things like that

The same answer applies here. I think such things would be looked at as part of a broader overhaul rather than individual items.

 

[Gricken]

If it gives you peace of mind, you can consider anything not mentioned in the future plans as "won't be added". More realistically, though, we will continue to review suggestions and take them into account when the opportunity presents itself (more time/resources available than expected).

I think that might be one of the most disheartening things I've heard all year. Is that almost a year old future plans post really the extent of the planned substantial (defined here as being larger than new quests, armor, or weapons) changes or content additions we can reasonably expect?

 

[Fellington]

So is it possible that diplomacy or other items not listed here might be in the cards for future dlc? Or you can't confirm that?

 

[dannazgu]

The same answer applies here. I think such things would be looked at as part of a broader overhaul rather than individual items.

thank you.. another question, this be bothering me a bit since i started playing again.

The riding skill growth is working as intend? I saw some here saying that this skill grows better with horse archery than any other kind of weapon (melees). Is this how supposed to be? I thought any weapon fighting on horseback would help raise this skill and i did noticed it take slower with melees weapons and charging

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

Is that almost a year old future plans post really the extent of the planned substantial (defined here as being larger than new quests, armor, or weapons) changes or content additions we can reasonably expect?

The future plans post was made in response to the community request to share our long term plans for the game. That is what it did. Naturally, some things can change and shift, be added or removed over time (you will find some topics in this statement that weren't discussed in the future plans f.e.) but by and large we are still pursuing the priorities discussed there.

If you are interested in a specific topic, please go ahead and share that question/suggestion.

So is it possible that diplomacy or other items not listed here might be in the cards for future dlc? Or you can't confirm that?

I think there is a possibility (at least for it to be explored/discussed) but that should certainly not be taken to mean a confirmation.

The riding skill growth is working as intend? I saw some here saying that this skill grows better with horse archery than any other kind of weapon (melees). Is this how supposed to be? I thought any weapon fighting on horseback would help raise this skill and i did noticed it take slower with melees weapons and charging

I think this may be the case, though, I'm not sure on the details. I will inquire if this specifically was looked at in the experience gain changes (which may have affected riding, if the weapon changes intersect with / draw from that calculation).

 

[Lord Grindelvald]

The same answer applies here. I think such things would be looked at as part of a broader overhaul rather than individual items.

These answers are really getting me stoked!

Has there been word about a diplomacy overhaul as a possibility (outside the base game)? Like on a future-future internal dev plan? Because that'd be incredible good news. I'd love for TW to go the PDX route in that sense.

 

[dannazgu]

I think this may be the case, though, I'm not sure on the details. I will inquire if this specifically was looked at in the experience gain changes (which may have affected riding, if the weapon changes intersect with / draw from that calculation).

Thanks, I believe is the same when travelling on map, but thank you

have a nice rest of weekend

 

[dannazgu]

These answers are really getting me stoked!

Has there been word about a diplomacy overhaul as a possibility (outside the base game)? Like on a future-future internal dev plan? Because that'd be incredible good news. I'd love for TW to go the PDX route in that sense.

i believe that the only answer he can give right now is probably..hahha
from what i understood when asked the same thing, and i think he will think about, when i asked about main hero player death he said would bring up to discussion and now it's a future plan, so...i believe it's time

 

[BigFat]

I like playing as a mercenary and I think it would be nice if we could have a temporary base we could set up to dump soldiers and items, even if it was something limited to only when you're currently a merc. It kind of sucks to have to trek back to Vlandia to grab recruits when your working in the south for example. In my current playthrough, I'm funding myself through smithing and it would be great if I could dump my materials somewhere when I go out fighting as well.

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

These answers are really getting me stoked!

I would really recommend not to read too much into it. Essentially, this is just me personally not explicitly rejecting such a possibility. For proper stoking, a company announcement would be the better choice. Personally, I feel it is too early to discuss DLC.

 

[Mallard]

If it gives you peace of mind, you can consider anything not mentioned in the future plans as "won't be added". More realistically, though, we will continue to review suggestions and take them into account when the opportunity presents itself (more time/resources available than expected).

Edith: I also think some of these are out of date. First item in first list...
View attachment 162389

There is always a chance, I guess. However, currently we are not actively looking into it. So I wouldn't expect anything like this pre-launch.

So Taleworlds is going to exploit the modding community to finish their game?

Mods worked in warband because they were improving an already great game... Not finishing an incomplete game.

That's the argument so many are making. It's visually stunning, but currently incomplete. EVEN based on what was originally promised, let alone what would be required to make it full. That's also taking into account what has been confirmed to be future plans. The future plans need to be more, and needs to come faster.


We're not discrediting the work that has been done or the abilities of the developer. But we have high hopes coming from warband, Viking conquest, and are holding you to that.

I had to convince my dad to buy a CD key for mount and blade from some turkish company via email nearly 16 years ago.... I think we all want our loyalty rewarded, and we know your are capable of doing it.

 

[Mallard]

I think it's a mix between the limited control approach, immersion (aka "phone calls") and scope of a desirable solution - leading to other priorities taking precedence. IIRC I talked to you about some lighter alternative ideas about this before, right?

A small 1-2 man party, dispatched from your troops, with an exceedingly high movement speed. Like 8 or 10, not impossible to catch but would have to be trapped. Triggers a "go to clan leader" script, then joins their party. When the member reaches you they rejoin your party... Not a phone call. Easy to implement.

Edit: or you could use the already in place system for having your party members complete quests. The system is already there. Just make a "send message to other party" quest. A simple feature you could access from the camp menu..... In addition to so many other things you could access from a camp menu.

I agree that forming armies without a kingdom might break the game a bit. But you should at the very least be able to ask your parties to follow you for awhile. Why build the strength if you can't use the strength until you're already a (much stronger) kingdom? I don't need four parties in my army when I can have party of 300 tier 3+ units that I got from my city and trained in my garrison that I can fall back and defend if I lose a battle. I need it when I can barely muster 120 tier 1s and have nothing to go to once I lose.

One way to balance this would be that if you have a sufficiently large force (75+) or sufficiently dangerous (calculated the same way a party calculated to attack or flee from you) you would gain crime level with the nearby town owner. So if you have a force such that the town you were near would flee from you, were you at war and it was a party, you gain 1 crime a day that you're near it. Eventually having an army, or having a large party following you around, You would either have to pay tribute, or periodically pay your "bounty" to avoid going to war with the factions you are around all the time. You could have your crime increase by 1 every 5 days with the "default" owner of whatever fief you have. So you are forced to either make a kingdom, or use the limited diplomatic (which holds lore wise since a king wouldn't treaty with a small time squatter even if they were powerful) options to maintain peace.

My struggle is that if I(neither modder or developer)can figure out. If a modder can figure it out AND IMPLEMENT IT BETWEEN UPDATES, how can such a great developer as Taleworlds not figure it out and add it to the base game. Unless they are wrongfully and willfully leaning on the free labor of modders to finish their game. How can I support that? How is that my reward for 15+ years of loyalty? How can you justify it?

 

[Wojciech Bator]

During the time I played the game, I found out a few QoL mods that I think are a must and you guys should definitely consider:
- hotkeys support, quick menu management, also in conversation dialogs
- better time, I find it nice to speed up the gamę even more, 8, 16x speed
- party screen management, auto update troops based on saved preferences, sorting troops, auto grab prisoners, from the most valuable tiers
- have a junk pile, auto grab as many loot from the most pricey till the experience shared with warriors limit. I imagine it this way: player picks nice things. Then 1 click button grabs the rest to junk pile, but only to the limit of party shared experience. This would reduce grinding a lot
- evolve villages with their project, train Elite troops from castles, manage populations of slaves, serfs, craftmen and nobles. Just look on banner kings mod, it's a great idea for more immersive playstyle
- All in all, the UI seems undeveloped compared to engine and battles, add things like one click actions for tedious, repeated stuff, sorting, filtering of menus
- develop diplomacy, allow to send messengers to lorda via encyclopaedia, the already known ones maybe, allow for more real actions. Enc. Is a tool with great potential
- improve combat, make it more fluid, more fluid aiming with attacking, so that you can change the direction with just moving the mouse
- feasts, come on. Bloc already proved that it's doable. Consider it a really useful tool, combined with messengers, it can add a lot
- Play as a troop, have a look at freelancer
- more diversity to armor, weapons and most importantly, scenes. Maybe some procedural generation of smaller details mixed with the algorithm basing on campaign map? That would improve on using same templates all over the place
- more life and activities in cities and villages. Bring back good old Warband quests, ambushes, manhunters, nervous Man, belligerent drink
- fix the sounds of clashing and fighting. There is a mod that makes it realistic, screams and slashes right now sound a bit grotesque
- add hunting, camping, taking with your companions, relations, comments, some lore
- maybe add wildlife and ambient sounds, scenes are a bit empty sound-wise.

Granted how the development and listening worked so far, I have a feel that I posted in vain, but these above just really could make the game better.

 

[Mallard]

During the time I played the game, I found out a few QoL mods that I think are a must and you guys should definitely consider:/

You shouldn't HAVE to have a mod to finish a game that's currently in beta. When the POINT of beta is to get feed back on what to add to finish the base game?

 

[Lord Grindelvald]

Essentially, this is just me personally not explicitly rejecting such a possibility.

You shouldn't HAVE to have a mod to finish a game that's currently in beta. When the POINT of beta is to get feed back on what to add to finish the base game?

There was a guy over here a couple of days ago demanding that sex scenes be put on the highest priority.

Lotta people, lotta flavors. Cant blend them all together.