Patch Notes e1.8.0

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Brocephus said:
Checking in to get updates on the dumpster fire. Still burning, I see.
Click to expand...
At least some official information about the console version, more video stuff (banners, how do they work)???

But nope, EA PC peasants are not even worth this...

"The pc peasants in our forum are "rioting"?"
"And? Ignore them, we already have their money *evil laugh"
 
Zerosaiko said:
From the complaints in this thread, it looks a lot more like they might be hoarding so much grain that even buying a ton of pack animals won't work At least if the original poster of this issue isn't exaggerating.
forums.taleworlds.com

In Progress - 1.80 Armies and Parties hoarding grain

Summary: How to Reproduce: Have you used cheats and if so which: Scene Name (if related): Media (Screenshots & Video): Computer Specs: OS:Win 10 GPU:3080 GPU Driver Version:516.94 CPU:i7-8700k RAM:32GB DDR4 Motherboard: Storage Device (HDD/SSD):Multiple SSDs In the late game around 2300 days...
forums.taleworlds.com forums.taleworlds.com
Click to expand...
If those numbers aren't exaggerated then yeah that's obviously way too much. I'm just worried that a fix will mean starving armies again.
 
Flesson19 said:
10) Terrible Ai decision while in an army, picking bad targets and just constantly joining other sieges making siege defense so much harder
Click to expand...

Why armies joining other sieges making siege defense harder is a problem? I mean, is it not good to see the AI being smarter and making it harder for the player?

Campaign AI still needs work, but it is doing it considerably better in 1.8.
 
Dabos37 said:
Why armies joining other sieges making siege defense harder is a problem? I mean, is it not good to see the AI being smarter and making it harder for the player?

Campaign AI still needs work, but it is doing it considerably better in 1.8.
Click to expand...
Dev mexxico worked for a long time to make it so armies would siege fiefs but they wouldn't be successful all the time as there should be some losses, but with 2 or 3 armies joining together and the way they pick targets, I have seen them go from fief to fief and dominate 3 or 4 fiefs quickly causing a snowballing issue again. So all the work he did to slow down snow balling seems to be undone in one move
 
Julio-Claudian said:
If those numbers aren't exaggerated then yeah that's obviously way too much. I'm just worried that a fix will mean starving armies again.
Click to expand...
I'm still early game but as a new vassal got 2% of the loot after fighting a 700v600 army war.
Had about 10 weapons, couple of pieces of armour, a cow and around 550 grain.

I'm glad the armies stopped starving but I really dont know what to do with his much grain. Most cities only give about 5 gold for it since they have such a surplus.

We had the minimum, we got the maximum. We need the optimum.
 
Flesson19 said:
Dev mexxico worked for a long time to make it so armies would siege fiefs but they wouldn't be successful all the time as there should be some losses, but with 2 or 3 armies joining together and the way they pick targets, I have seen them go from fief to fief and dominate 3 or 4 fiefs quickly causing a snowballing issue again. So all the work he did to slow down snow balling seems to be undone in one move
Click to expand...
Perhaps improving that AIs ability to maintain full garrisons and strong militias would help with this.

I'm sure it still needs improving but it's infinitely better than before, when most armies would spend their time just marching back and forth, constantly changing targets until they starved or disbanded.
Lord Grindelvald said:
I'm still early game but as a new vassal got 2% of the loot after fighting a 700v600 army war.
Had about 10 weapons, couple of pieces of armour, a cow and around 550 grain.

I'm glad the armies stopped starving but I really dont know what to do with his much grain. Most cities only give about 5 gold for it since they have such a surplus.

We had the minimum, we got the maximum. We need the optimum.
Click to expand...
Yeah that needs to be balanced.
 
Flesson19 said:
Dev mexxico worked for a long time to make it so armies would siege fiefs but they wouldn't be successful all the time as there should be some losses, but with 2 or 3 armies joining together and the way they pick targets, I have seen them go from fief to fief and dominate 3 or 4 fiefs quickly causing a snowballing issue again. So all the work he did to slow down snow balling seems to be undone in one move
Click to expand...

Are you noticing snowballing in 1.8.0? Yes, the AI is usually able to get 3 or 4 fiefs fast but somehow there is no snowballing in my current campaign. It is maybe something related to factions getting war declaration from everyone if expands too much without having enough strength.

What about this video:
 
Flesson19 said:
Dev mexxico worked for a long time to make it so armies would siege fiefs but they wouldn't be successful all the time as there should be some losses, but with 2 or 3 armies joining together and the way they pick targets, I have seen them go from fief to fief and dominate 3 or 4 fiefs quickly causing a snowballing issue again. So all the work he did to slow down snow balling seems to be undone in one move
Click to expand...
Armies working together goes both ways. I've seen a lot of sieges fail because multiple smaller armies can now go defend a siege instead of previously when being only limited to one army able to defend. Before hand you had to get lucky that your biggest army went to defend because if a smaller army went they would just sit there and wait. I actually think one of the major reasons we see snowballing go massively down in 1.8.0 live is because its much easier for the AI to defend sieges (along with no defections). Snowballing in 1.8 beta seemed to only be really bad because of the defection issues.

Blood Gryphon said:
The 20 year snowball score of 19 is way down compared to 1.8.0 beta which had an average snowball score of 80 by 20 years.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re defection - afaik the initial problem came alongside an optimization work. Aka just reverting isn't good enough.

Re - Armies/Flesson, I think you are framing that badly. A good portion of players here and elsewhere expressed that the world was too stale. We listened and agreed. A number of developers including sad shogun spent significant effort on finding a solution (not just army cooperation although that is pretty cool) that makes them more effective - and checking how it effects balance / snowballing over longer periods. As gryphon said - it goes both ways. Snowballing is slightly higher (in our tests), yes, but the world is notably less stale. This exchange was a conscious choice.


I will still be on the road until the 8th probably, so slow posting.
 
Duh_TaleWorlds said:
Re defection - afaik the initial problem came alongside an optimization work. Aka just reverting isn't good enough.

Re - Armies/Flesson, I think you are framing that badly. A good portion of players here and elsewhere expressed that the world was too stale. We listened and agreed. A number of developers including sad shogun spent significant effort on finding a solution (not just army cooperation although that is pretty cool) that makes them more effective - and checking how it effects balance / snowballing over longer periods. As gryphon said - it goes both ways. Snowballing is a slightly higher (in our tests), yes, but the world is notably less stale. This exchange was a conscious choice.


I will still be on the road until the 8th probably, so slow posting.
Click to expand...
Hey Duh, you don't need to revert it. There is a bug in the code that happens when a faction doesn't have any settlements but still consider a settlement their faction middle settlement. When this bug happens, nothing stops the clan owning the said settlement defecting. I reported it here and explained in detail why it happens in here. If that is too long, the exact location of the bug is `DefaultSettlementValueModel.GeographicalAdvantageForFaction` method, the first if condition. The distance variable there is 0, which causes a very high return value. Quick and easy fix would be simply giving a minimum value to `distance` there.
 
Count_Morfetico said:
There is no reason to be rude to devs...
When they take the time to come to the forums and answer anything we should be grateful
Click to expand...

Well that's why I put as a reply to that person in particular. Also popping in to say a few words to your customers isn't necessarily a major achievement we should be grateful for.
 
azakhi said:
Hey Duh, you don't need to revert it. There is a bug in the code that happens when a faction doesn't have any settlements but still consider a settlement their faction middle settlement. When this bug happens, nothing stops the clan owning the said settlement defecting. I reported it here and explained in detail why it happens in here. If that is too long, the exact location of the bug is `DefaultSettlementValueModel.GeographicalAdvantageForFaction` method, the first if condition. The distance variable there is 0, which causes a very high return value. Quick and easy fix would be simply giving a minimum value to `distance` there.
Click to expand...
I think I shared it before but to be sure I will forward it again. Defection is considered a high priority issue.

I also want to say again that I am personally grateful that you are still here with us even after moving to another adventure. I hope you are doing well gardas :wink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Piconi
  • Sticky
Patch Notes v1.2.9
16 17 18
Replies
355
Views
33K
Snorri
Snorri
New Strategies for a more difficult game
Replies
10
Views
354
Count_Morfetico
Count_Morfetico
Riveted fine steel spear pommel don't look correct in battles.
Replies
0
Views
70
Empire96
Back
Top Bottom