Recent content by jaceneliot

Please to everyone : if you are fine with the actual AB system, just don't polluate this thread please.

black_bulldog said:

No in one scenario you actually have to fight in the other you press a button to win.

Click to expand...

Dont **** with me please. At this point I take it personally. Either you didn't read all the messages, either you are trolling. I won't answer you because the answer to your troll is above.

Archonsod said:

The levelling progression is kind of the issue. Why when you have 200 men (mid-late game) are you fighting 7 bandits (tutorial) to begin with? The game makes those bandits run for a reason. You're basically going back to the tutorial dungeon with a high level character; the game might allow you to do it, but it's expecting you to be well beyond it by that point.

Click to expand...

Dont **** with me please. At this point I take it personally. Either you didn't read all the messages, either you are trolling. I won't answer you because the answer to your troll is above.

black_bulldog said:

I'm not missing anything. I get that you want auto resolve to give you better outcomes and what I'm saying is that using auto resolve isn't an instant GG. This character I'm playing has got like 60 tier 4 and above troops and I did poachers quest for some quick cash and influence and one of my tier 7 guys got killed. Man was I pissed but it happens.

Click to expand...

I confirm you miss the point. I don't want advantageous outcome. I want the same outcome auto fighting 10 bandits with my army than if I do it myself. There is no different outcome. It's the same. But in one way I have to do 3 loading screens and waste so many time in so many différents screens for 30 sec battle and on the other I can skip the bull**** for a better gameplay. Now, I think everyone understood you prefer keep fighting against 3 forest bandits, so why do you stay here arguing and polluting my tread ? I'm here to discuss the better way to improve the current system. If you okay with it, just go and find something else to do please. I don't want to be mean or unpleasant but I really don't see any point discuss with you about this subject.

Chips said:

Wait, you're persuading them to surrender now? I thought it was because you had overwhelming force meaning no chance to win so they'd just give up. And you said tactics (there's no fight, no leadership, nothing). If you think you should, then perhaps you think you should get tactics, leadership and charm by riding around the map with your warband. After all, you've a group of men...

Honestly, fine, get +1 charm, leadership and tactics for hunting down 5 looters and having them surrender with 200 troops behind you. Sounds legit.

Not going to continue engaging, we've clearly got different views. Some want everything on a plate. Whatever. I don't have any issues with the auto resolve at the moment. Fairly sure you'll be able to mod your +ve increments for looter clubbing if that's what you desire from the game.

Click to expand...

Why do you argue for a detail like that ? It's absolutly not the point. If you want to be that precise, as i said, there is many things which doesn't really make sense, like in all video games. I gave a long list of Bannerlord absurdites. And at this point i wonder if you read the tread or if you are kinda stuck in your bubble. I never asked for "everythink on a plate". I just answered someone who said there would be no reward to have bandits surrending. My point was just to have a better AB which reflects more what we can achieve without it. I just asked for some way to remove this redondant aspect of the game. Chasing bandits serve no purpose mid-late game, that's all. The rest was just discussing. But obiouvsly you came here just to argue against something i didn't say. Still, even if it's not my point, each action is rewarded in this game. I don't see why, if bandits surrender, we couldn't have some XP points. Not much, but just a little something. Anyway, i think your message is not relevant. It's not an answer to my initial tread, which is about AB not reflecting the real fights, which is unquestionable, but a fact.

Nani_The_Great said:

A lot of people are arguing against this suggestion by either bringing up realism or game difficulty.

Realism is a dead end argument when talking about video games. Most people don't want realistic games, and usually the line is drawn arbitrarily as to what they consider necessary or not in terms of realism. If Bannerlord was truly realistic then we'd lose men all of the time to disease and desertion, regardless of our shiny Morale Score or Food Variety.

In terms of difficulty: it is not hard to kill 20 bandits with 130 men. What is hard is actually managing to lose a single man in a fight like that - the auto-resolve should reflect this. To avoid exploits around experience and loot, I think forces that are outnumbered, say, 5 to 1, should always surrender, and attacking them should result in a cruel, reputation-damaging chase and not a battle. Different surrender thresholds could be put in place based on unit ranks, unit quantity, lord reputation etc.

The fact of the matter is that the current auto resolve system is completely broken. It has a fixed element when fighting looters (which is fine, but even then there are sometimes outrageous amounts of injuries), but an army of 100 should never lose men to an army of 10.

Click to expand...

THANKS. Finally someone. Thanks because you expressed the idea better than me (probably because you english is better too ><). Anyway, you understood the issue. Hope someone from TW will see this.

Archonsod said:

You still take casualties with looters. The only difference is that they're all equipped with a blunt weapon in their first slot, so only do blunt damage which KO's rather than kills (thus the casualties become wounded rather than dead).


Actually the hard part would be chasing them down, since the AI will run from parties with that kind of numerical advantage. It becomes pointless arguing about the AR in that situation since a reasonable inference would be the player intended to fight the battle in the first place (otherwise why bother chasing the group down?). That's not really why autoresolve exists; it's purely there to expedite situations where you're forced into a battle where the outcome can be largely predetermined due to the force disparity, it's not intended or designed to replace the player taking control of their troops.

Click to expand...

Yes for the first paragraph. But still. You can be sure you won't have any casualities, which reflect the reality. Yes 20 injuried in front of looters is not good or representative but it's better than dead i guess.

Again (and again) i just say it's boring. The point of a video game is to entertain the player. Video game has to have a leveling, a progression. And chase 7 bandits with 200 men because i know that i will loose a soldier in AB is not fun, it's just a bad implementation of a feature.

paladinx333 said:

I actually used auto resolve for the first time last night. It saved me a ton of time. I have some shrubs that needed to level up and fighting 20 actual battles against looters would have taken at least two hours of my valuable gaming time. Instead I auto resolved a bunch of looter fights, got my men trained and got my army back to the front for some epic battles. I also took many prisoners which I turned in for influence.

I like AR the way it is. It kind of serves a purpose. It lets you ignore the crap battles so you can spend more time with the fun battles.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. Exept one thing : it should work with all bandits this way, not only against looters.

Hi ! The issue is fixed yes. But i think my save is broken. No problem with new saves but old one is corruput, right ?

Since you are here, can i bring your attention on the problem of cavalry struggling to hit infantry ? It seems there is some issue with IA cavalry. They don't make a lot of kills and seems to have real deal to hit infantry or others units. There is an issue with perk/leveling too. Right now, compagnions take almost no levels and even our character doesn't take a lot. It's not really broken but i think the system is not very satisfaying right now for the player. We can't delegate or take control of formations during siege but i think you already know that. Finally, it's impossible (or maybe i don't know how) to order our troops to use siege engine (there is a blue gear when pointing tower/ram/ladders but if i press F1 or F3 they doesn't seems to follow my order), in fact i feel like i don't control anythink when i command a siege.

Surely you already know that but if you don't, could you bring these informations to the devs ? Thanks !

Chips said:

All I'd say about getting charm, leadership or tactics for surrendering opposition is... there's no demonstration of leadership, tactics or even charm. Additionally, it could be abused by just hunting down groups of looters to buff charm, leadership and tactics (without, as said, exhibiting any). If they surrender, you should get nothing as you've done nothing. If you want it to give loot or even more loot, then the return is same if you are captured, you should get looted. Looting is what you do to dead bodies.

Click to expand...

Yes but what can we answer that...do you want we list every irrealistic aspect... ? I don't see why i get roguery when i sell prisonners, why i get throw when i use trebuchet... I don't get your point. Plus it was only an exemple. Charm seems to make sense because it's like persuasion. I persuade the enemy leader to surrender, so i get charm. Make sense to me. And yes it could be "abused" like you said. I call it "play". In this case, should we change the system ? Because right now, i can just wait on the World map and make millions, i can just wait in my city to gain "stewart", i can just wait in siege without attacking, getting "enginering", i can just wait with food, getting "stewart", i can just wait in an army all the time, getting "leadership", i can just attack looters and sell it, getting "roguery", i can just fight arena hours to get "one handed, two handed weapons". I don't get your point. Of course you can make actions to get XP, that's the whole point isn't it ?

Chips said:

So basically you think auto resolve should be zero risk if you have 1 more man than opposition? or just when clearly advantage?
What if they're all top tier men, and yours are bottom? What if they've some top tier? What if they've one top tier?

Looters I barely get any injuries over either in auto resolves - are your troops all low level or something if getting lots of injuries? But at the end of the day, play the battle or don't. Surely there needs to be *some* variance otherwise people will complain it's too easy/boring/no need to actually fight battles.

As for surrender, I have had 2 groups who did just that! (they asked to join instead) - but I refused and killed them anyway. For the xp.

But, imo, if auto resolve had surrenders instead, then:
1) No xp.
2) No loot (at least not unless they then implement player looted when captured by enemy - lose armor, horse, upgrades, weapons, money)

But surrender should only be for ridiculous odds, not just "i've got 20% more men so surrender".

Click to expand...

Obviously only when you have massively more men. And it's more about bandits and sea raiders than against actual lords. For instance : if i have 75 soldiers (good soldiers, tier 3-6), i should destroy every bandits i meet without any dead, because if i play the battle, i won't loose anybody, my archers will kill any men approaching. It's really boring to fight all bandits....And against lords, i would say that if i have like 150 men and the other Lord has like 25-35, the AB should calculate a death rate between 0 and 2. And the AB should be able to calculate that hight tier soldiers should have a lot less chances to die than lower tier. That's just some exemples. Obvisouly, if i have like 75 recruits and the bandits have 20 high tier, it should be different. I don't say "i want 0 dead no matter what". I just say that the actual AB is not realistic and make too many casualities. It should be more smart and more close to actual battles. I just want a system which avoid us to launch real fights with all the loading screens. It's so boring to fight against 10 bandits when you have 150 men. But still important for XP, look and protect economy. Just give us a progression feature. At the beggining, i'm ok to fight bandits, but in the mid-late game, i don't want to fight against groups having less than 50 soldiers. PROGRESSION TW

As i said before, they could implement different attraction for surrender. We could receive some "charm" or "leadership" or "tactic" skill for instance. We could loot even better since we didn't destroy any loot and we can just take it. And the fact that our soldiers don't get XP balance the whole thing. We can still choose to destroy the enemy, as you said.

I agree for the odds : but i have 150 men and i meet a Lord who have only 25, he should surrender or try to escape because he could die otherwise.

Thanks for your message.

Pejot said:

With that part i won't agree cause AI is just a line of code and can be tweaked to match expectations. Of course You won't get perfect AI cause there's no such AI in the world right now.

Click to expand...

Okay you probably right. But i think you get my point. The game don't really keep his promises and it not gonna change dramatically in the next months.

Stromming said:

You can't clearly state "they won't do X and Y" because you simply don't know. You are just guessing.

Get out of here with your know-it-all attitude. You are not a dev working on this game so how could you possibly know what they play and not plan to do.

Click to expand...

Sorry it wasn't my attention to hurt you. I can't get out because it's my tread. So if you can't accept my opinion, just ignore my tread. However, i would prefer to discuss with you. I just say that in my experience, it's impossible to change a lot a game which is advanced in its developpement. It's not a judgment. I like the devs and i'm not trowing rocks on them. I just say that the game is almost finished, that's all. Don't hope for a lot more than there is now. Yes there probably will be new features, but nothing changing the core of the game, IMAO. And it's obvious that I don't KNOW for sure. I just give an honest opinion.

Pejot said:

Mate being disappointed by game in development is funny. They said it clearly before EA release "it's not the final product if you want to avoid disappointment don't buy it".

If you want to participate in development of Bannerlord play EA, give feedback, point errors and be patient.

Buying game in EA is like taking a job as manual tester except you're paying and your only benefit will be the final product without flaws that you will point out while playing.

Click to expand...

Dude with plenty of respect, YOU are funny. And naive. You noticed i didn't talk anything about bugs, issues, balance, same scene or sames names. I didn't talk about that because i know what EA is. But you seems to not know what EA is. I tried a lot of early access. No game ever changed a lot.

Bannerlord is almost finished. The game you see now is what you'll have in 1 or 2 years. They have a lot of work to balance the game, fixing the numerous bugs and issues. They will probably add dozens of scenes et PNJs. They will implement the unfinished features they didn't add in the EA yet. They will finish the multiplayer. Yes. But they won't change the game's core, the key features. The game you see is Bannerlord. They won't add life to their game. They won't add a good IA who play smart. They won't add plenty of things to do. They won't make PNJs interesting. They won't remake the perk/level system. They won't change (a lot) the units. They can improve some stuff (like auto battle) but they won't change complex stuff. This is not how EA works. EA is basically : "we've mainly finished the game, now we need help to track bugs and major issues and balancing the game". It's not at all like "this is our EA, please tell us what wrong and we will change it".

Sorry if you had illusions about that but that's reality.

Archonsod said:

It's on a par with just about every other game I can think of that has an autoresolve system. In fact it's pretty much identical to every game that has an autoresolve, the only thing that tends to change is where the emphasis is placed and whether they chuck in arbitrary modifiers to abstract away things like having a horse. Problem you're always going to get is the entire game is built around you fighting those battles, and all the underlying systems are focused on that. It's never going to be possible to replicate the capabilities of the player by abstraction.

Rebuilt the engine two or three times.

Click to expand...

I gave some ways to improve it. Just writing some rules to make the system more realistic and less frustrating for players. Simple stuff like not casualities (kinda like with looters) against bandits if outnumbered.

Yeah...but rebuild the engine is not sufficient. I'm really not a hater, i was the 1st one to get hyped. I read all the dev blogs and followed the developpement. That's why i know that what they teased is not what we get now. The "alive world", the "better IA who use tactics" and "varied game and quests" are lies to me. There is nothing like that. It's still empty AF and dead AF. There is still nothing to do apart capture castles and towns. It's still the same game with better interface and graphics. The smithy is a joke. The only good improvement is clans. There is even stuff missing from Warband and worst features.

I have 60 hours on the game and i already saw everything. I fear that i'm not gonna play as much as i played on Warband on Bannerlord. That's it. Cool Warband mod. I waited 8 years for that and yes i can tell it's definitly a disappointment. When all players will have 100 hours, i know i'm not gonna be alone to think like that. I already see many reviews expressing huge disappointment. Many (like me) put a positive grade or a recommandation on Steam, because, as i said, i'm not hater. I don't want to give them bad review. I recommended the game because overall, it's Warband but better. But it doesn't worth the time we waited. Not even close.

Archonsod said:

The AR literally just lines up both sides and has them swing at each other until one side falls over. As a result, the only thing you really want to care about in AR is the armour and hitpoints of a given troop. Taking in archers, cavalry or similar high-tier troops who's effectiveness isn't based around them basically being a tank is quite likely to result in problems.

Click to expand...

Yes...and to be honest it's a really bad system. TW is lazy for a lot of things on this "new" game...They had 8 years to add real new stuff and improve all the flawes of Warband. I feel like it's Warband but with some (not much) new stuff. The biggest improvement is graphics and interface, and still, it's more 2015 game graphics. Now they have millions, i'm not sure they will change anything. Bannerlord will be a disappointment, even if players are now too hyped to realise that. I'm absolutly not salty, i like the game, but huge disappointment. I wonder what they did these 8 years.