Recent content by Nerevar

order_without_power said:

Instead of overriding the whole XML, try this XSLT:

Click to expand...

Thanks, XSLT format worked!

MArdA TaleWorlds said:

With the last change on that area, if the player has met them before they will be deleted form the encyclopedia after 40 days. IF the player did not met them before they will be deleted from the encyclopedia instantly. IF you believe this is not the case here you can send us the save file and we can take a look.

Click to expand...

In my case, I never met this wanderer. This are the screenshots from the encyclopedia from 2-3 game days before she disappeared:





I opened a new ticket with a save file and link to this post few minutes ago.

Thanks for checking this!

madnessario said:

If i remember correctly, notables can disappear/become lost if their power falls under a threshold (100 I think). They should be replaced after some time.

Click to expand...

Seems like you are right, after loading my save several times, I noticed that the notables which are disappearing are always the same in the given time period.

Ananda_The_Destroyer said:

I notice campaign bother's starting skills are different, notably lower steward skill. Not that this is bad per say, but I wonder if it's the same for everyone or if maybe your choices effect him too?

Click to expand...

TBH it's a great change, since your brother is no longer a "free real estate" and you do not feel that you are losing a very developed clan member by not playing the Campaign.

MichaelJ said:

Wasn't that always the case? Dead heroes will still be in the encyclopedia. Need to filter on Alive.

Click to expand...

I think that heroes are not dying as often, as wanderers will do when this new feature will finally be fixed. Because if they will remain in the encyclopedia after they leave, it will mean that every 5 in-game days you will get one more useless record there, and so they will pile up pretty quick and take a lot of space in a lengthy plays.

Duh_TaleWorlds said:

We haven't experienced this in our internal tests, so my speculation is that it may be a combination of some changes that may create such an impression

• Wanderers update (aka despawn/respawn or kill/resurrect) with a 20% daily chance for it to occur once. So every 5 days 1 wanderer dies. The dead wanderers are not displayed in the encyclopedia. The main purpose of this is to ensure a useful distribution of wanderers in the world.
• The game moves 4 wanderers / day. (This isn't new.)
• The enyclopedia now hides information for unmet characters.

Click to expand...

Hi! I'm playing the latest version of 1.1.0 and the died(retired) wanderers are still displayed in the encyclopedia



And there is also an issue that not only wanderers can disappear, but notables too. Seems like they are also part of the list which game looks at when that "20% daily chance to retire someone" happens. But they at least do not explicitly listed in the encyclopedia when they are alive and so they do not stay there upon disappearance

littlesake said:

There were fat people in the military.

Click to expand...

Some officers - yes, but frontline fighters - no, no SO fat as we can see right now in game.

littlesake said:

Intense physical activity does not automatically translate into lean bodies (how many modern people would have loved that!). One example would be Japanese professional Sumo players.

Click to expand...

Very bad example - a typical sumo wrestler eats a daily diet of ~20,000 calories, while the normal human eats around 2500-3500 calories

Kehlian said:

Beeing fat was a sign of high wealth in the middle ages, because only the rich could afford to eat enough to make them fat

Plus, in BL currently, the characters just look plain ridiculous... it's not even funny, it's just immersion breaking

Click to expand...

Exactly this!

Cèsar de Quart said:

if you meant "regular knights were not as wealthy as the rich dukes and kings", sure, but still, owning a lordship came with some serious luxuries and perks.

Anyway, we agree on the essential of the matter.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, majority of the knight didn't owned a land or owned a small piece of land and maybe 2-3 peasants. It's enough to eat well, but not enough to overeat.

Yeah, I am not against bulkier soldiers, I just want it to be realistic, without Obelix/Peter Griffin/Arnold -like bodies.

Tork789 said:

For example here's a reproduction of a Stirling knight:

Spoiler

Click to expand...

Perfectly fine body for upper-class soldiers, but my point is that right now in-game we see much much bulkier/fatter/muscular bodies.

For exapmle, on this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_boxing - you can see the statue of the ancient Greek boxer - very nice healthy strong body, but not a body of Gregor Clegane or Schwarzenegger

vahadar said:

Patch fix it, it was a bug as reported in first beta release.

Click to expand...

Patch fixed it for most units but intentionally lefts it for some units - that's what this topic about.

Cèsar de Quart said:

but keeping the muscular type for top tier "noble" soldiers would not be inaccurate. Both knights and clan chosen and most of these noblemen would not have "standard rations", they'd eat copiously and whenever they wanted.

I'm not saying all knights were rich, all knights were Tom Hardy, because they were mostly not, but these dudes only did two things: hunting and training. And a lot of meat in their diet. Look at Henry VIII, the guy was ripped until he had a bad fall off a horse during a tourney and the leg injury prevented him from training and sparring and actively hunting or playing tennis. He ended up obese as a sealion.

Click to expand...

Hunting and training was the prerogative of rich knights, mostly high-ranking nobles like dukes or counts, but most of knights was something like the "middle class". Henry VIII was a king, and even he was something akin to exception. Btw I'm okay with some nobles being overweight.