Recent content by diessa

  1. Fog

    Fog on the overhead map is one of my least favourite things about Mount & Blade. You're the only one who can't see.
  2. Feedback Poll: Interface Background

    The suggested background retains the benefits to usability (i.e., more uniform colours that allow text to show up anywhere on the page) while going back to Native's sense of style (i.e., a book with sketches in it). It is a great improvement.
  3. Spearmen

    Curaw Town Guards are the only unique unit that stands out to me as bad. Vaegirs already have a glass canon unit in the Guard, and the Town Guard is merely a more expendable version. The lack of a helmet has been noted, and it results in some uselessness even if the sprint ability is factored in. Unique units often fill "gaps" in the faction's unit tree, but Vaegirs continue to have a gaping hole where someone to hold a shield or take a hit while on foot.
  4. Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

    GlorvalhirSRB said:
    But seriously people, what are you talking about ?
    Is this some kind of "we're gonna talk so much about it that they have to listen to us" secret agreement  :?:

    I think game developer's policies toward their consumer-producers is an interesting topic, so I talk about it because I feel like it. However, considering the Mount & Blade series' relationship with modifications (i.e., they are critical), it is appropriate that the topic would come up. The most recent comment in this thread came from MadVader, a person responsible for one of the largest, most popular modifications. The discussion isn't binding, but it isn't ridiculous, either. Like many things in this somewhat-of-a-threadnought, it is simply one of the many things being discussed at a given time.

    Edit: I think a theme in this thread has been that you can criticize something you love. There are some cynics, and they are some idealists; however, fans, consumers, and consumer-producers can provide feedback–some of which is critical–while being supporting of the developer's efforts. Does it matter what they think? Yes and no. This thread won't change history, but Taleworlds has demonstrated that it is sensitive to feedback; what people say matters here.
  5. Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

    I'd be surprised if Taleworlds doesn't reach out to some of the most established modification producers at some point during closed testing. There are some people in the modification community, both single player and multi-player, who have had professional standards for their work. It'd be a good way to extend their QA capacity, and it'd help build relationships among their content creators, who are the people who help the product survive and prosper for years.

    Edit: elitism doesn't factor in here; I think it is better for the question to be asked, "who do you want to help your game be successful?" That wouldn't put a time limit or popularity count on people. Whomever TW would think could be, firstly, worth mailing the NDA to and setting up services for would be good and, secondly, able to contribute to their QA. It'd be easy to look at some of the top competitive teams for capable multi-player balance and gameplay testers, and you could look to some of the most influential mods for people to help bolster single-player. There is no shortage of consistent, invested talent in this community.
  6. Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

    Rallix said:
    blackthursday said:
    DoctorPainkiller said:
    blackthursday said:
    2. There is no fatigue bar.
    That's a good thing
    I didn't really want fatigue either, but I had a feeling it might have made it's way in.
    TW doesn't have to add too many new core mechanics. Modders can do such things as add stamina bars, etc.
    Sartek said:
    Screw multiplayer, singleplayer all the way.
    I own all M&B games and I very rarely touch mp.
    Well, its good to hear that the game still has all the right focus and will surely be a hit game.
    Unlike CA who have abandoned modders now. Or rather, dont support them as much.
    While I am a competitive MP player, I agree. Singleplayer should have the primary focus, and should not suffer for MP.
    As long as MP can be modded and improved by players, there won't be big problems.
    Plus, beta testing.

    This logic is problematic. (I'll argue from a largely single player perspective for now.) While third parties extend the game in ways the developers never thought of—some of which are dependent on player preferences (e.g., fatigue)—it is problematic for third party modifications to be necessary for improving poorly designed or unfinished features. When third party modifications, such as WSE and Diplomacy, are so widely used that they become "necessary" for the game, perhaps the product missed something. For example, compare being a liege in Native to Native+Diplomacy. The core features of Diplomacy, as an example, are neither new nor radical; they are iterations to a mostly complete game system. Similarly, the reliance of the community on third party modifications is vexing when there are issues with version control. For example, WSE was out of date during the Warband v1.4x and v1.5x series, so mods had difficulty updating. While providing an (even more) amazing base for modders is a good step, the next step is to be able to handle shipping sandbox gameplay that provides complete features for players to use. I wouldn't expect Taleworlds to predict everything about their product's use, such as the amazing features of modern multi-player maps, but they can ensure the form, style, and narrative of their features is consistent. This commitment must be present in a beta phase, or the release will feel a lot like beta testing—something this series has been through in the past. My hope, and I'm hopeful, is that Taleworld's focus on fundamentals will create a different outcome!


  7. Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

    I know that a release date (probably) won't be announced soon, but I'll be curious about when Bannerlord will be release and how, or if, existing Warband modification conversion might work. Will modifications be able to be salvaged and re-purposed in the (presumably) new engine? In conjunction with the release date, this may impact people's commitment to module development. For example, would it be worth while for me to spend hours designing Silverstag's itemization if nothing will be able to transfer to a product that might be a surprise Q1 2014 release? It is a less likely outcome, but I wonder about it.
  8. Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

    From the screen captures, Bannerlord looks good. That is a big accomplishment for a series that people have derided for looking out of date. I agree with an earlier post: I love the darker, realistic feel to things!
  9. Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

    Vermillion_Hawk said:
    No info on single player yet, just the screenshots and the little blurb that was posted.

    Thank you for the confirmation. I hope that Taleworlds shares their vision for how they want Bannerlord to develop. I believe it is possible to do that without giving false expectations or difficult commitments. Their public relations strategy, so far, has demonstrated wariness of those things (i.e., say nothing so as not to disappoint fans), but I hope that they get to a point where they feel comfortable to at least talk about how they envision some core aspects of the game.
  10. Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

    Did anyone who accessed the site, before it was overwhelmed, read any information about single player? I'm curious to see how Taleworlds responds, or is able to respond (time, budget, etc.), to the standard of gameplay the community has set with Warband. The presence of "mandatory" modifications to Native, such as Diplomacy, took the somewhat unfinished single player gameplay of release and provided a sense of completion to it; will Bannerlord take over some of that responsibility?

    I guess a similar question would be asking about Bannerlord's support for the mod community. This has been one of the series' biggest strengths, so I'm wondering if their vision has changed, updated, etc., for it.
  11. Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

    Draz said:
    Before the site went down, I managed to read the small description on the main page (didn't think of copying it, of course). It mentioned the crumbling empire and 3 rival factions - which would mean only 4 'major' factions. Unless smaller factions have been fleshed out, that seems like a bit of a bummer.

    Edit: That's the one, thanks  The Bowman. It does sound like the "little guys" could present a considerable challenge, too.

    Four unique, balanced factions that have comprehensive, developed storylines, style, and different mechanics? I'd hope that fewer core factions would allow for better core factions. That isn't something that M&B has done well at any point, given the time or resources it takes to accomplish that. I'd love for the out-of-"box" gameplay to stand by itself. That wish goes for stylization, balance, mechanics, and storytelling.
  12. Enterprises

    Karl, that's an interesting idea. I like that it could account for uncertainty, profit, and abuse in the system. However, I feel that players would prefer the system of tax collectors, mentioned by RV, compared to tax farming; many players wouldn't be close enough to their centre or region finances to be able to negotiate within an intelligent bidding system for tax farmers. That sense of "taking a cut" could be achieved with the share contract system.
  13. Feedback Poll: Garrison Recruitment Method

    I like the control of the Percentage system and learning curve of the Queue system. Recruitment queues make sense for a smaller number of fiefs because the player is able to micromanage them. However, choosing an "easier" system that doesn't scale to the later portions of the game is problematic. As a result, I prefer the Percentage system narrowly, and my interest would be in making it as intuitive for new players. Percentages, themselves, may be more intuitive, for each week, they have a rough idea of how many troops of each type they'll be getting. I think that having a precise explanation of the feature would be critical. For example, "Each week, the captain will use the weighted percentages to train the available peasants. A separate budget is used for each troop type, so extra money in each area in kept for the next week's recruitment." A "read more" system could be used for the more complicated aspects and settings of the core function, so that would allow people to get the most of it while letting it be functional for everyone right away.
  14. Enterprises

    Windy's comment about RV's post interested me, so I thought I'd get the quote:

    ruralvirginian said:
    It is interesting that if I , the player, accept to collect taxes for a lord I will agree to a what is referred to as a Share Contract of 20/80 (I get 20% of the collected taxes and the lord receives 80%.)  Yet when I control over "x" number of fiefs I become penalized by tax inefficiency that grows to some 60% of the generated income.  If I am centralizing the government I would be increasing the efficiency of tax collection through the elimination of the middle man - not the opposite. 

    Perhaps what needs to be done is to eliminate two items.  First: change tax inefficiency to -0%.  Second: Eliminate automatic collection of taxes.  If you want 100% of your taxes you will need to go from town and village to gather them.  If you have a couple of fiefs, that probably will not be too cumbersome.  If you begin to have a large number then you may end up spending all of your time simply collecting your tax revenue.  Very cumbersome - especially during a war.  But wait! There is an alternative!  You can set up a tax collector in each town on a "Share Contract."  The tax-collector will collect and forward your taxes for "a share" of the revenues.  The Share percentage base would be set at 60/40 (tax-collector gets 60%, you get 40%) modified by your persuasion skill (+4 per level) so that if you have a persuasion skill of 5 your share percentage is modified to base 40 + 20 [4x5=20] = 60%.  Hence, a level 10 persuasion skill  would result in the same 20/80 share offered to you the player by a lord.

    I think a system like that would be excellent. While I think that either 60/40 is too unfavourable or the tax collection quests need to use the AI lord's slvl Persuasion, I feel the change would give some interesting gameplay choices.
  15. Suggestions

    kieleru, I don't think you've wasted anyone's time!

    Re: troop training

    There have been a few suggestions for a "hybrid" system (i.e., a combination of old and new training systems) that allows for units to improve slightly. If it is possible, I like it a lot. It allows you to develop those mid-tier, cost-efficient units slightly instead of having them be mostly expendable. Obviously, it allows you to get (even more) attached to your veteran units.

    Currently, I don't think experience factors into the units at all. The effect of XP was disabled. I think that your suggestion of pooled experience providing party bonuses is an interesting one. My only concern is that it could lead to super parties in the player's hands when they already have an advantage because they are smarter than the AI. It is already possible to conquer swaths of Caldaria in a day, so I don't know if speeding that process up at all is better.

    Re: fief improvement

    You do you envision this system affecting the AI? Silverstag tries to keep systems the same for both players and AI lords. I like the idea of having to transform peasant recruits into militia to move them, but it might make the process too cumbersome. Still, I think it is interesting.

    Re: companion party

    Having sub-lord companion parties for smaller tasks would be really cool!

    Re: companion messages

    This would be helpful is some quest-based situations, in particular. You can send companions away when you get to the liege level; overall, I love the idea of bringing some of that later game utility to be early game. There are so many times where you just need to go pick something up or drop it off, and a companion—with the necessary relationship amount—could do it for you.

    Re: automatic reading

    If it is in their inventory already, it makes completely sense for them to move onto it when they're ready (if this is possible).

    ***

    Thanks for the read, kieleru!
Back
Top Bottom