Recent content by Life_Erikson

  1. Life_Erikson

    Road Map Envy

    Mad Vader said:
    there's a graveyard of pre-EA devblogs that hyped the game beyond what those crazy fans would imagine on their own.
    Click to expand...
    This. Roadmaps are nice though if they are conservative and honest. I think if TW gave us an honest roadmap after release, there would have been a lot less of these ever so hopeful "it is still in EA bro" guys. And probably also a bigger backlash of players remembering the pre-EA devlogs which is probably the reason why they didn't do it.


    I paid for Star Citizen before my daughter was even born -shes in 4th grade now. But I still dig their quarterly Roadmap details especially the AI blogs -totally informative, go for broke, down to the most trivial sh*t ive ever seen "We are now adding leaning animations for alien babes who are brushing their teeth both on and off the toilet.." -level feature creep. Seriously its like getting a new Mad magazine that i enjoy and laugh over with my coffee. Totally worth that $39.99 ship i bought that decade ago or was it $399.00....I dont remember
    Click to expand...
    This is the way I look at this forums interaction concerning Bannerlord lol.
    I had more fun arguing here about BL than ever playing it.
  2. Life_Erikson

    1.2 = No Wars = Boring

    Jehiel said:
    Are you new to Mount and Blade? Fighting IS the content, even way back to Warband.

    And I hope you're not one of those people who are going to try to tell me that feasts were meaningful content lol.
    Click to expand...
    That's just like your opinion man.
  3. Life_Erikson

    Bannerlord is really just a broken game.

    JunKeteer said:
    Someone on reddit summarized it quite well recently:
    I don't think it's the game you hate, but rather the under-utilization of it's vast potential.​
    Bannerlord could be so, so much more, and yes it is a fun game that you can pour hundreds of hours into, a game that is definitely worth your money, The thing is by the end, you fall more in love with your imagination of what the game could be, rather then the game itself.​
    It pisses me off too, at how incompetent tale worlds is, because Bannerlord just has so much massive caliber that just has not been utilized.​
    Click to expand...
    Thats true. But BL certainly does not work properly as the game it is either. There are mechanics which contradict each other, huge balancing issues und grind which stand in the way of it being an enjoyable game.

    If it was just the missed potential, only us WB players would really hate it, because TW missed their chance of making a great game. But in fact a lot of newcomers hate BL as well, for the simple fact that it doesn't quite work.

    Shiroin said:
    Imagine you are a developer at TaleWorlds Entertainment, and every day when you open the forum and see this thread, what goes through your mind is...
    Click to expand...
    Do you think that voicing criticism is harassment?
  4. Life_Erikson

    Bannerlord is really just a broken game.

    Jehiel said:
    The AI can and certainly be improved and no one is arguing that. I'm just saying there's a big difference between "this game is trash and it does nothing right" and "its pretty good as is but the AI needs to improve in these areas".

    Also I need to point out the MAJOR rose tinted glasses about the marshall system. Seriously? I played Warband for 500+ hours. The marshall system sucked. You needed to call everyone to you, wait until they go there, and then go to seige something and HOPE they don't break away to chase a group of looters or something lol. It was a incomplete, 2000s era broken mess. As I pointed out originally, the army system in warband basically evolved out of the broken marshall system and is 2 million times better (the number grew because you helped me remembered how bad the marshall system was).

    I do agree more relationship things are a good idea but at the same time this game doesn't need to be CK3. Different genres.
    Click to expand...
    Warband was a game that bearly worked as it was. And somehow Bannerlord managed to be a one step forward, two steps back situation with four times the ammount of employees and 10 years of development time.

    Whilst it is true that there are aspects of the game that have been improved, the most important part is that others, bearly working before, have stopped working altogether making the game pretty much unplayable. Diplomacy, overall balancing and economics not being linked to army creation to just name a few. Not going into detail to the lack of soul this game has even compared to Warband.

    Most of us don't have rose tinted glasses on concerning the shortcomings of Warband and yet STILL Bannerlord falls short.
    The things Bannerlord does better cannot shine since core mechanics that are necessary to enjoy the game still don't work properly or aren't present.

    It is also worth noting, that Warband (a game as you say was in large parts a broken mess) had working (and important) features which are to this day (and forever) missing from Bannerlord. What does that say about Bannerlord?


    SadMoney said:
    @Jehiel nobody's looking at Warband through nostalgia glasses.

    I never said anything about marshal system being a flawless masterpiece. It was a barely functional broken mess, but at least we had some way to issue commands to other parties. Bannerlord is somehow even worse because you don't have this option (and no, the army system is not an adequate replacement).

    In fact, that's the best way I can describe the overwhelming majority of features in Bannerlord - they are equally bad or somehow even worse that in Warband.

    Diplomacy was already terrible with no options other that "me declare war" and "me sign peace", but now it's somehow even worse due to removal of truces and kingdom destruction. Plus, tribute mechanic is absolutely horrendous.

    Relations with lords were pretty lackluster to put it politely, but now they're so bad it's laughable. You can have - 100 relations with somebody and marry their daughter without any problems. Or be the most hated person in the world due to executions and still being elected as a new ruler of your kingdom. Don't even get me started on how much marriages have regressed.

    Prison breakes were already bad, now they are even worse. At least in Warband you fought through the actual city/castle instead of some generic boring prison dungeon.

    You see the pattern here? Warband was never a good game (blasphemy, I know). It was a broken mess with some promising ideas in desperate need of polishing, but Bannerlord's take on these ideas is at best equally bad, and most of the time it's somehow even worse.

    Also, nobody realistically expects Bannerlord to be "CK3 with battles". What people do expect is core mechanics that you spent of lot of time interacting with being at least tolerable.

    A quick example - Bannerlord has the worst diplomacy system I have even seen in a game. I don't want it to be as complex as CK3 or EU4 or whatever. I want it to stop being literally the worst ever implementation of this feature. Is that a bar too high for you? Because for me it certainly is not.
    Click to expand...
    +1
  5. Life_Erikson

    Deleted the game and will not come back until at least something changes

    Jehiel said:
    Yeah but does no one remember the massive snowball issues we had on EA release? We all hated that, and for the most part it has been resolved. The trade off is that yeah, individual battles don't mean as much.

    I think there's a fine balance to be had. And I actually can sympathize with the devs here. There must be literally thousands of agents every second in a game of Bannerlord, adding up to thousands and thousands of variables. Tweaking one thing can absolutely have a negative impact down the line that everyone will hate, and that is hard to predict.

    For what it's worth I love the battles in these games and don't mind the length at all. I absolutely don't need them to be 45 minute slog fests like a MOBA. Mount and Blade is still totally unique in the simulated sandbox with fun real time army combat it provides. Perhaps the best way to solve this issue is some more realism related difficulty options for new games though.
    Click to expand...
    Preventing snowballing by nerfing the impact of battles is fine as a stop-gap-measure. But as a terminal solution it is ridiculus. It's been three years now and TW hasn't managed to fix the snowballing issue without breaking the game. And nerfing the outcome of battles to a point where they don't matter any more is gamebreaking in a game where battles are supposed to take center stage.

    I personally think that more politics in the game like peace treaties (that take a set time to run out), alliances and effects like war weariness within the factions would solve that problem. Actually having to have a reason for war, one that has to be either fabricated or provoked through action (could be a quest for the player) would limit the amount of wars going on. And giving these wars an actual end-goal like conquering a specific settlement would limit the timeframe they take.

    But I guess stuff like that is too complex™ unlike simulating an entire economy with trade routs and calculating damage by impact speed and the actual angle you are hitting your opponent.
  6. Life_Erikson

    Deleted the game and will not come back until at least something changes

    SadMoney said:
    Slow and methodical battles in Bannerlord will work only if TW increases their strategic impact.

    Right now individual victories barely accomplish anything, enemies just constantly spam new armies of low-level trash that you absolutely cannot auto-resolve against because that system is completely broken. Slowing down battles will just make wars even more grindy and tedious than they currently are.

    Currently there's only one way to make battles somewhat meaningful - execute everybody you defeat. But this opens the whole new can of worms.
    Click to expand...
    Yes. It seems like the AI can conjure up armies out of nothing. Why have a complex economic system in game when it doesn' tie in with the main prospect of the game: battles?

    But I think that battles in general are a bit too grindy. Morale should break much earlier allowing for decisive battle outcomes. Currently every victory between armies which are at least somewhat similar in numbers end pyrrhically. Even battles in which you hold a clear advantage can end up not being worth it because your losses (whilst alot smaller than the enemies) don't make it worth it.
  7. Life_Erikson

    Deleted the game and will not come back until at least something changes

    Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James said:
    People say this about a lot of different strategy games, that they want slow tactical battles, but I've yet to see a good implementation of it that doesn't just devolve into a slugfest with low infantry damage like RBM. This is also at odds with the player wanting to actually get into combat and not just move flags around for 20 minutes.

    The reason real battles lasted for hours or days is that they wouldn't actually be in melee for that long, with the majority of the army in reserve. Ive never seen this implemented in a game because the AI never makes tactical withdrawals, once a unit gets into combat it just fights to the death or until it routs and gets massacres anyway. It never gets into a 2 minute scrap and pulls back it's infantry when it's not winning.

    Without an AI that actually tries to survive the battle with minimal casualties, or doesn't just commit everything immediately, long battles are never going to be fun.
    Click to expand...
    Ultimate General Civil War pulled this off pretty well I think. The battles are heavily scripted though.

    Generally speaking older total war games handled this a bit better than newer ones. Fights lasted a bit longer and when the enemy was on the offensive it wouldn't just rush you without formations like in newer iterations.

    You are correct about the fact that people don't know what they are getting themselves into when they want properly slow battles. I tried RBM and found it too extreme even for my liking. Espacially because the AI side of things wouldn't make things worthwhile.

    However there is a middleground to be had. BL battles are too quick even for the braindead AI it currently has. Making fights last a bit longer through improving armor and letting AI block once in a while wouldn't hurt at all.
  8. Life_Erikson

    Please remove the Bound Crossbow

    Zoonanay said:
    A crossbow bolt at the heaviest weighs less than 600 grain, meanwhile a war arrow can weigh 1200 grain.

    A traditional European war bow can draw anywhere from 130-210 pounds, a heavy siege crossbow anywhere from 700-1300 pounds.

    Crossbows deliver more kinetic energy on an object that is lighter, undoubtedly they would have a greater maximum range assuming the aerodynamic properties are similar, which they are.

    A light crossbow would not have a greater range than a heavy siege crossbow, the comparison in poundage (150-350/1300) and bolt weight (350/500), shows a significant loss in poundage for a minimal decrease in projectile weight.

    Light crossbows were designed with the premise of faster reloads, perhaps not requiring mechanical assistance and being hand loaded. These would generally be used in hunting, attempting to use one on a medieval battlefield or siege would be a rather dire sign of desperation.
    Click to expand...
    You cannot compare the enrgy output of longbows and crossbows this easily by poundage. Longbows have a lot more draw length than medieval crossbows do. Work is Force x Distance. Both poundage and draw length do need to be taken into account in order to calculate how much work is enacted onto the arrow / bolt.
    Apocal said:
    In your own example, they are not similar: heavier projectile weight helps maintain energy over distance.
    Click to expand...
    Thats also true. Kinetic energy is mass/2 by velocity squared.
  9. Life_Erikson

    Deleted the game and will not come back until at least something changes

    JunKeteer said:
    In WB, victories more heavily depended on your player being involved in combat (smaller battle#, AI logic less experienced, etc...).
    In BL, the AI agents are more competent individually (compared to WB) and the formations/tactics is better (improvements/bugs needed nonetheless). You can just as easily sway battles in your favour focusing only on playing hill commander than you could in TW getting kills more by proxy than directly.
    Click to expand...
    The problem with Bannerlord is that there is not much else to do in battle if you cannot play the hero. Tactics in this game are pretty much nonexistant. The enemy AI is braindead, most battle scenes are to convoluted to manouver or even to orient yourself and battles are over far to quickly before manouverig your troops could have an effect.
  10. Life_Erikson

    Please remove the Bound Crossbow

    bestmods168 said:
    TW was misled by someone from the community to do this(that someone pops out of nowhere with no real life experience, watches a few of Todd's Workshop videos and then claims to be an expert).
    Crossbow usable distance should be at a shorter distance than the best performing bow, but should hit hard. Light crossbows should deliver similar distances but be less powerful.
    edit: for those naysayers or those wanting to ask what I'm smoking, the proof is in the pudding. From time to time TW will implement something they see from the community.
    Click to expand...
    Sorry I MUST ask. Do you shoot a historically accurate crossbow / bow? Because few people do. And apart from first hand experience I think Todd's videos are probably one of the better sources of information out there since he reconstructs these things and knows people who shoot authentic longbows.

    I'm not disaggreeing with you in the slightest, but I don't understand why you specifically picked on Todd for this when there is enough people in the internet spreading false information and half truths to fill an ocean.

    Concerning TW: I think they implement whatever they want. If incidentally that something was said on the forums then be that so. But ranged weapons were overpowered from the very start of EA. So thats nothing new.
  11. Life_Erikson

    Deleted the game and will not come back until at least something changes

    Goyyyio said:
    Maybe armours should be better, but people dying to looters is still ****ing hilarious, never happened to me once
    Click to expand...
    I never in my entire life hit my toe on furniture. Also I never slipped on ice or bumped my head on something. And most certainly I never stepped in dog poo. Weird flex but okay.
  12. Life_Erikson

    I like the game but i dont think i can take It anymore...

    Welcome to Bannerlord I guess. Thats sadly how the game works.

    Concerning workshops and caravans however you might want to search for a tutorial on youtube. Since the last patch the way these work have changed.

    Long story short: You have to be careful where and what workshop you set up. You need to make sure that the item you are producing is in high demand / demands high prices in the town you are producing. Also raw materials should be in villages nearby. And lastly there shouldn't be other workshops in the same town or towns nearby which produce the same as you do. If any of that is the case your products won't sell high enough to generate profit. Since the last patch if your workshop isn't able to generate any profit it will cease production for the time being. That is not a bug but a feature.
  13. Life_Erikson

    Deleted the game and will not come back until at least something changes

    Rossa said:
    Just found a video testing damage, speed bonus and armor effectiveness(or the lack of it).
    Click to expand...

    Wow. This is worse than I expected. But one can see here clearly that this overcomplicated system isn't even working as intended when piercing and blunt weapons are less effective against armor than cutting weapons.

    It certainly shows that not only "The Vision™" is the reason why combat is horrible, TW clearly has lost the plot on what they are mixing together here.
    The values are all over the place!

    I guess the only way to salvage this mess is to drasticly reduce the effect the swing arc and the weapon speed have on damage in this game. Then buff thrusts, certainly armor and maybe armor penetration by blunt damage. Buffing the influence of weapon skill would be useful too to differenciate low from high skill troops more.

    Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James said:
    The issue is that the way the game makes you fight looters and other low tier bandits just isnt fun at all for the first few hours. If the first impression most players get is of a thoroughly unenjoyable kiting cheese match with looters and hideouts for 2 hours, that's a problem.
    Click to expand...
    Mount&Blade always was lacking in the early game content. The thing is, up until Bannerlord you could be very quickly be done with the early game if you wanted to. Bannerlord instead added the clan system lol.
  14. Life_Erikson

    Deleted the game and will not come back until at least something changes

    Ananda_The_Destroyer said:
    Yeah your complaint is understandable and has been expressed all EA. I break it down into 3 issues that work together.

    1 Everything does too much damage, EVERYTHING: because of speed boosted damage and physics all weapons and types of troops are capable of dealing high damage to the player and high end troops. Why? Low tier troops are all too good at using weapons and the speed bonuses often contribute more then the weapon's stats. This include ranged of course too. So even juts moving towards an enemy can make supposedly "low tier" troops and weapons" do high damage.

    2 AI on foot is strangely over tuned to hit the legs of a rider, Why? I always suspected it was to make Captain mode MP bots useful against Cav. This is no excuse as it's a huge disappointment when your heavy Cav unit in single player fails a charge very often and are beat down by a recruit. Inversely, CAV AI is HORRIBLE at hitting enemies, in fact it is more successful to put them in SW and move them behind and enemy formation so they ride through them with shields then it is to advance or charge them.

    3 AI aims and fires too fast and fixates on the player somehow: The ai does not wait for the recticle to close and doesn't use any "consideration" time, it simple draws/loads and releases in the most accurate position. AI ranged also seem to target the player in situations where they would not target AI troops. We can see this easily with HA troops. Ranged troops are very bad at leading and hitting HA troops, only getting lucky shots into clusters of them or if the HA is stopped do they get them. However if the player rides into range WATCH OUT they suddenly know how to shoot you while you circle around. The Ai is also able to shoot you at the end of a siege map with the ballista, which is very difficult to do for the player. Shooting an individual so far is very improbable and sometimes darkness obscures everything, but the AI is made to do it with no effort.


    Yeah and even then it's no easy thing when it's 20+ looter and you have the noob bow. You have to go way further back then is comfortable for aiming to avoid the rocks.
    Click to expand...
    That sums up the problems with combat in this game precisely. I aggree with all of your points.
    I can't count the times I was killed on horseback because some looter hit me in the leg with his 30cm hammer while my 2,20m lance wouldn't make contact. The speed of a weapon should have much less impact on the ammount of damage it does then it does now.

    Vanthor said:
    *a rock can’t kill me.
    *or a pickaxe!
    *that’s just not fair!
    Rocks were a weapon of war for thousands of years hucked and hucked via slings and picks were a superb weapon against armour. This is all historically accurate.
    >my legs should be invulnerable because they are only legs.
    Yeah nobody needs legs, right? That’s why tanks have a little hatch that the crews dangle their legs out of. In the Flintstones.
    Heard of Achilles?
    I started a new character last night in sandbox, first time he ever travelled with only 1 sturgeon recruit as backup we were attacked by 10 bottom tier rock throwing bandits, my recruit died instantly hacked to ribbons by the mob of utter scum but my guy killed all 10 baddies from the back of a cheap mount with the pitchfork i’d just bought and with the small bow that the setup arms you with. The final one took out my horse just before i rolled and deflected his next blow and skewered him. It was freakin’ sweet to get such a cozy battle victory with a fresh character. Nicely balanced, if i had made any mistake my guy would have died as you’d expect in a 1vs10 fight IRL.
    Your problem sounds like a lack of forethought, planning and ability. It’s not a development issue in my opinion.
    Click to expand...

    People wore helmets to avoid getting killed by every random slingshot stone to the head. If the helmets wouldn't work why wear them?
    This goes for all armor essentially. Metal armor is immune to cuts of all types. Plate armor specifically is immune to thrusts and can be immune to most projectiles.

    Armor does add weight, it does restrict your movement, it is unpractical and unconfortable in everyday situations (situations you would have on campaign were you would be wearing it in case you need it) and it is always a cost factor.

    Why in the name of all things holy would you want to wear armor if it doesn't protect you?

    This doesn't mean that it isn't possible to defeat armor. Most armor does have weaknesses and gaps. And not all armor has high enough quality / thickness to protect against everything. But generally speaking you are excelently protected against most attacks once wearing armor from head to toe. This is not how the game works though.

    The use of specific "armor piercing" or blunt impact weapons designed to be used against armor is quite rare in history. Stuff like maces, hammers and picks don't nearly come up as often as do spears and cut and thrust weapons like swords. The Dacians used the feared falx which if you believe the story could pierce roman helmets of the time. Somehow the rest of the world didn't adapt them and the falx was soon forgotten. It is almost like a) these weapons weren't as good against armor as people believe or b) whilst they worked to some extent they came with drawbacks bad enough that made them unviable.
  15. Life_Erikson

    Taleworlds are good transparent developers

    Now that Most Blunted is gone. Can we at least keep Willow? :iamamoron:
See more
Back
Top Bottom