Recent content by Chaosreaper187

oh great, on performance. how are sieges doing? I remember always having crashes or low framefrates during those as well as the troops generally not wanting to go up the ladders but I guess that falls under AI

Just let taleworlds do what they need to do in order to have access to China as a market. I don't mean to say I agree with the autocratic way of the Chinese government, but what good would it do taleworlds if MB2 got banned in China? Just because they didn't want to censor some chats? I'm not saying censorship is good, but maybe censorship is better than not being able to play the game at all.

bigbalzzz said:

tbh didnt expect a crushing majority going fixes and features though this could con

no one said 100
1 for now would be good

Click to expand...

Still, new content takes longer to push out. Balance is basically math and needs to be tested continuously and with multiple patches

Maximum997 said:

Unbalanced game may be more fun then balanced. Becouse you have so much funny things to do.

Click to expand...

Then they might as well never do balance. What are you trying to argue for or are you just arguing for the sake of it

bigbalzzz said:

balancing the game in the current state is stupid. nerfing weapons,trade simulations is stupid.
all these things are effected by perks that are not in yet
how can you balance something without a feature tied to it that changes it entirely

balance updates before perks and features are a joke
with all respected the devs are finding holes and digging deeper into a never ending circle of balance
because once perks come out the whole system will need balance re-adjustment
time is money stop wasting money on temporary solution and put it into the features

Click to expand...

1. Changing balance and adding new content isn't done by the same people at taleworlds, therefore content might take longer while balance takes faster.
2. This is early access where devs are supposed to work on balance via player input. Would a player play an unbalanced unfun game? No, so balance should be improved upon in order to encourage good player experience which helps in developing the game.
3. In terms of testing balance, if you add 100 balance changes at the same time and it messes up the game how do you know which change affected the game bad? Exactly, you don't. That's why balance needs to be done continuously, to be able to pinpoint the issues.

The true one said:

Does the result of investing in stability be bugfixes within a month? Then I think they will continue to do bug fixes next month.


for example

• Council of Commons policy effect was 1 influence per notable in the settlement, it is now 0.1 influence per notable. Also, +1 militia effect per notable is removed.
• There was no waiting time after captured lords were released; they were spawning at the next daily tick, now they spawn at least 2 days later.
• Lords spawn with 10% of their party size filled instead of 25%
• Cavalry advantage in simulations is reduced to 20% from 30%
• Mercenary groups in taverns have increased in size (2x) and their average level has increased.

And I wonder how these are patches for stability. This is just a numerical adjustment. It's enough for moders to fix.

More Important thing is others

Click to expand...

Modders aren't making the game and earning money from it, the devs are so they are right to fixing balance. Besides, not everybody in the company is working on the same things. Incredible, right? This means a team will be responsible for animations and textures while another is responsible for AI. These are just examples.
There's probably a team working on new content as we speak, it's just not in a ready state yet.
But the things is that balance needs to be tested, the number changing part is probably simple but there's more to it than that. This is an early access, and testing balance and other stuff is needed for a game like this with many complicated features

MostBlunted said:

Also you didn´t want to spam your own forum in the stickied thread in the first post? So we have to search for your names to get those "changes"?

Your "real" update won´t have any new stuff compared to the hotfix or will it? I bet it won´t...

When can we expect a real major update, like real new features (giving a fief to a vassal for example when I already own it)? Not just juggling with some numbers.

Why can modders do this but not the devs?

Click to expand...

Because modders can focus on small fixes without regards to the bigger picture and future content.
Have you ever tried loading up the game with 10 different mods that make different fixes. It very likely will cause issues if it loads at all, because those mods are not compatible with each other, overlap and contradict each other.

countzero said:

Are all intended mechanics and features already implimented and were just at balancing and bug hunting now or is there more stuff to add?

I onyl ask becaue it mostly seems exactly the same as warband with the exception of the odd little thing taken from warband mods.

Click to expand...

I remember callum saying that they are currently working on implementing the rest of the perks. Later in the EA they are going to implement more diplomacy options and more kingdom options.
Also I remember from release that they said they would add a unique scene for every settlement, which I'm looking forward to a lot.

It won't happen

Earth Dragon said:

Have you read anything in this thread?

That's exactly what SHOULDN'T happen

Click to expand...

Yeah I glanced over it, it's basically sturgia should be more Russian because nationalism.
Just move the drushniks to the main branch and it will be more accessible, maybe make us choose between brigand and drushniks or give the drushniks throwing weapons and make the brigand upgrade to them.
And give everybody throwing axes.
It only makes sense, who are the main enemy of the Sturgians?
To the far west the vlandians, spears will be beneficial against their cav and shields will be good against their crossbows.
To the south the battanians, really good archers but still mostly infantry so skirmish cav is enough, infantry will need to do most of the work anyway.
To the east is the most dangerous foe, the khuzaits.
Honestly with the way ranged works in the game right now there's no way sturgia would beat them on an open field. Drushniks are no match for their heavy cavalry and their horse archers will just murder them as well.
Better to stick with infantry and a small amount of skirmish cav

Just remove the drushniks or move them to the main upgrade path and make the varyags upgrade to huscarls.

shatti said:

u watch too many ****
u have only 30 GB left in ur hard-desk
you can download only one game
go

Click to expand...

I actually went back to warband yesterday because I was feeling like playing brytenwalda against after the new season of the last kingdom.
What is surprising is that the melee combat AI is really bad, 1 v 1 s are actually fun in bannerlord because the AI will block your attacks but in warband it's really easy to know when you should attack them

Callum said:

You do realise that it isn't the same people working on those two entirely separate things right?

However, if we put that to one side, I can tell you that perks are currently being completely reworked which is why no fixes or changes have come to existing ones just yet. Kindom management is something that we planned to expand upon later during EA.

Click to expand...

Most people here realise it but there's a vocal minority that doesn't grasp the fact that it's possible to work on more than one different parts of the game at once

The Leviathan said:

Do you really not get the saying? I'm not even Brazilian and its pretty simple to understand. Basically the balancing TW is currently doing is the equivalent of trying to fix severed arm with a band aid.

Click to expand...

Yeah sure I can try to guess the saying or it's meaning or try to read into the hints of the facial impressions of the writer of the comment through my telekinetic powers.
Or the commenter could basically explain what they mean instead of basically saying: we have (this) saying in Brazil, it's so fitting haha.
There was just a statement and no argument and I asked for elaborating not just repeating the same statement