Recent content by Carrion

The campaign warfare is quite poor th no logistics, patrols, supply chains, blockades, communication/ messangers, no parley no stand offs . . . The actually battles are meh and repetitive.

I feel alot of design choices are viewed as black or white instead of having the option to do either/or/both it really funnels alot of the gameplay down one path.

Apocal said:

Because it is easier to balance one aspect in isolation than multiple. This way, if any new mechanics come along and upset things, you know where the issues probably lie without having to spend time testing every part.

Also, people complain more if you leave obviously unbalanced stuff unaddressed while waiting for a big release.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying but I said "crucial mechanics" and not accompanying systems. They should just unleash everything, imho, I am certain the community would help identify problems and potential solutions faster then this piecemeal approach.

Yea I really don't understand this approach. How come they're trying to balance these issues/symptoms isolated from other crucial mechanics that should be present? I really appreicate this kinda post from mexico though, thanks a lot!

black_bulldog said:

This has nothing to do with cargo there's a separate penalty for that. This is about penalizing players for having too many horses/animals in a party not because caravans where too overloaded. But they did it without thinking about the ramifications it would have for caravans. This messes with balance and regardless of what you may think I don't have bad faith but I think this is excessive, and will negatively affect the game economy. I can make money other ways in game, but this makes running a caravan untenable for any amount of time and denies the player another source of income besides looting or smithing because running workshops is dicey at best and money that towns/castles generate is extremely low.

Click to expand...

you missed his point

I was under the impression that any idea put on the forums no matter how good or practical was immediately put on list of items that were verboten to be speak about at taleworlds

thefirst1nvad3r said:

For my experience, TW has always listened to players opinions and ideas. However, you can't just take an idea and put it inside the game, it's not that easy.
There's a long process of analysis if you want to add a new feaure, because even if theoretically it seems good doesn't mean that it'll work good once in the game. Also, you always need time and effort to write code and build stuff to make things fit right into the system.

Click to expand...

That's why we have a game barren of features or content!

do you get a crash log? or error report?

The community itself is a little hostile towards taleworlds and internally and it's understandable really.

Taleworlds does not communicate like other game developers do with regularly updated roadmaps, clear game design goals and mile stones, transparency on why certain systems get scrapped, etc.

I honestly think it's due to some sort of insecurity on the part of the taleworlds admin, they dont want internal fissures and disagreements or failures being shown as they believe it would shatter any community moral / faith left. whereas from my point of view it would strengthen our faith in them, especially with the engine development. Can anyone think of another reason we still have no clue what is actually going on?

Ok, ok so looters never took an idiot lord hostage in history? It seams like a bad fix to me. Horses in medival times we really expensive, 260 denars for one makes no sense in my honest opinion. Did most lords even do thier own recruiting? I think they hired people to do the recruiting for them, or sent letters out to towns for arms to be called.

Why cant we actually have some of these realistic features? why are they trying to balance this game with compromises towards simplicity?

Good point on mods sure.

On the garrison issue, what is the "realistic" standard in your opinion?

They did touch the price of all javalins afaik, specifically harpoons used to be 50k and are now 16k. Might be regional pricing, why do you guys always get stuck on examples? I think this a fitting example, they shouldn't be using artificial hurdles to change gameplay imho, you can disagree.

So you guys do not think the weird patches and solutions to issues that taleworld has put forward thus far and the resulting unforeseen changes in game play are not undesirable? or are just not occurring?

When you are balancing this game concerning, i ono lets take javelins as an example. You don't make javelins 50k cuz they're to effective, at least not from a realism standpoint. Perhaps from a diversity or fun standpoint you nerf the javalins or implement sway or something else to mitigate the effectivenes ( direct balancing ). The result from this is "Oh look everyone is now making javalins and selling them to break the econ" but atleast no one can afford to get them before level 10. Heck javelins should be no more expensive then spears in terms of material and labour, no?

Perfect example would be symmetrical vs asymmetrical balancing in a ww2 shooter. Two approaches as exsample hell let loose and call of duty world at war, nether are perfectly balanced.
Cod is more symmetrical whereas hell let loose is more asymmetrical in terms of small arms. Sure they Nerf things here and there that are realistic but impeed gameplay fairness and buff things that arent to smooth game play but both sides are still playing the same game, aim / shoot / cover / teamwork etc.

With bannerlord it seams like the AI is literally playing candy crush and has knowlege of things they just shouldn't know atleast not instaneously ( instant relation hit ). Just my opinion but the way the AI handles knowlege transfer makes no sense to me. It can never be balanced, it feels gimmicky because it is.

The ai then responds with this knowlege or advantage it shouldnt have so instead of rectifiying the actually cause of the imbalance they tweak other things to mitigate the unintended result. That is reverse balancing in a nutshell

Normal game balancing from my experience is tied to a more instantaneous intrinsic gameplay experiance and doesn't involve or affect other systems in this fashion.

Adryl said:

Where do you see them doing this reverse balancing?

Click to expand...

We've seen them do this with the economy balancing and troop balancing in several patches.

The primary point is they are reverse balancing the game. They see behaviors/ outcomes they do not like and tweak things upstream in an attempt to get the desired outcome / gameplay. Unfortunately due to the complexity of the system this has other unintended consquences and so they continue on with this game of whackamole ad um infinity. Instead they should be focusing on emergent and procedurally generated gameplay in order to widen the replayability and strengthen the AI to actually be proactive and decsive instead of meandering and proped up by a segemented rule set. Does that make more sense?

That literally the definition of reverse balancing! sorry I brought up CK3, yes the ai is tweaked but it still has the same rules as the player, they don't just omnipotently know the strength of a castle on the other side of the map.

paragraphs . . . please. Ok ck3 is a bad exsample to use , because your all missing the point, despite limits placed on the ai the Ai is playing the same game as the player, this is not nessisarily so with bannerlord. It was worse in warband though but still i cannot find another game where the ai plays by different rules. Making the ai dumb or limiting thier abilities does not inherently mean they are playing by different rules.