Recent content by Silfir

You have to choose between your native culture (rejecting the Empire) or Empire culture (embracing it). Every culture in the game has specific titles associated with it. Sturgian Jarls, Aserai Emirs etc. Makes no sense to have one restriction (only your native or Empire culture) and then implement something like this. (You don't get to rule just because your guys killed all the other guys - your kingdom has to have some form of legitimacy. You won't get that by declaring that all nobles of the realm shall henceforth be known as "Chief Bunny".)

Also - I'd like to encourage you to keep the following in mind whenever you come up with a "very, very simple to add" feature: There is a 99% likelihood that you're wrong, and a 100% likelihood that you have no idea what you're talking about.

All capstones should be impactful, even if it's just for the gameplay loop they support. It's a single player game - always start by buffing the underwhelming. Nerfing the good stuff is a double-edged sword.

EDIT: Consider that the main reason the OP considers this to be stupid powerful is because hunting down and kicking the everliving dookie out of lords is what they play the game for. The trade perks will only seem powerful to players who enjoy being obscenely rich in Bannerlord, etc.

There is a window of opportunity - companions who died in battle show up one last time in the Loot screen, and can be stripped of their equipment there. You just have to remember who the dead guy is from the battle aftermath.

I'm not sure if that's intentional or not, but I think it's not - if you're supposed to get back the equipment, why not just add it to the Loot directly? That way you'd still have the desired result, which I imagine is that you lose their stuff if you have to run away from the battle.

I'd be surprised if it worked any differently. It's kinda up to the player whether they want to game the system that way or not, isn't it?

Wanders should periodically "despawn" by themselves if they pass a certain age, to prevent this workaround from being necessary. I'm pretty picky myself.

My guess is that doubling the hardcoded maximum from 2048 to 4096 (i.e. adding a bit, the smallest possible increase) would cause a significant performance drop that would make *all* battles run worse on *all* systems, raising the minimum and recommended requirements on the CPU side.

They probably already took a hit from going for 2048 instead of 1024, but did it because they didn't want to lock themselves out of offering sizes over 1000 in the future without a refactor.

The female "teenager" model is bugged. For some reason turning the weight slider all the way to the left (skinniest setting) results in their stomach ballooning outwards as the rest of the body gets slimmer. It'll go away after a year or whenever it is that she switches to adult.

100% that you're not actually pregnant, it just looks exactly that way. On the adult model I don't think pregnancy is even visible.

paladinx333 said:

This is actually quite difficult to fix.

Reasons:
1. The value of items in the game is much too high.
2. Javelins do too much damage.
3. The base value of a weapon is determined in large part by how much damage it does.

If you let players craft powerful weapons, they will always be worth too much money. The only way to fix this would be to reduce the overall value of items in the game and reduce the amount of damage the most powerful weapons do. I highly doubt Taleworlds will do either, making this problem unfixable.

There is a mod that reduces the value of items in the game and that mod will reduce the value of crafted items. This is the only fix that I am aware of.

Click to expand...

That is most definitely not the only way to fix it.

For starters, there is no reason why the main determinant of the value of a weapon has to be how much damage it does. It should be mostly base material and smithing difficulty, as well as quality of the work itself. If it's cheap and easy to make it shouldn't be worth much, no matter how effective it is in battle. If it's difficult to make and uses expensive materials and is actually made flawlessly, it should be worth a bunch, but you also also spent a lot of money on the materials and a lot of time on skill training.

There are already quality prefixes like "rusty", "cracked", "splintered" and so on, that (I assume) can be attached to an item as it is generated and affect its sale value. So it genuinely should not be a big implementation issue to add more, such as "shoddy", "crude", "subpar", "flawed", "botched", and attach them to items that receive quality penalties in the crafting process. Give them resale value penalties of up to 95% or something.

There are many, many ways you can rework Smithing to be something better than it currently is (including how the skill is trained), especially when you don't have the restrictions on what you can do that modders have. I suspect that's also part of why it hasn't been done yet. When you have many options, it takes longer to figure out the best one. And because Smithing is tied into the general game economy system, it's difficult to re-work Smithing without also re-working the economy, so it makes sense to leave it until later in the Early Access schedule.

In the meantime - single player games don't need to be balanced to be fun. My chosen workaround is to never sell anything I've crafted. I either use it or smelt it.

It irks me that I can smelt weapons to get a pile of hardwood that weighs ten times as much as the wood inside the weapon. Why do they let Looters just roam free? Retrain all the lumberjacks into manhunters, collect Looter weapons. You'll never have to chop a single tree ever again.

Trouble is, this is just one point of many things on my list of things that are wrong with smithing and how I would fix them (I could totally fix them no problem, and the fact I'm actually convinced that is true is worrying), and everyone has such a list, but no two people have the same list. Who has the creative vision, or who has creative control and the ability to hand it over to someone with that vision?

It wouldn't be so bad, if it wasn't for the arbitrary restriction on skill learning rates that force players to actively avoid collecting experience in skills they don't need. You just look at them and think "what kind of moron skilled them up this way". Skill learning rate should simply be the same whether the character is level 1 or 30, full stop. But that's a different topic entirely.

Generally speaking nobles receive rigorous weapons training from birth, and therefore can be expected to use a variety of melee weapons that are suitable for any given situation. So I can buy that they can use all three melee weapon types; it's Khuzait nobles having crossbow skills that I don't get. Khuzait just don't use crossbows. If a noble has any sort of crossbow training, I'd love to know how they got it, when, and why. I mean, maybe they spent some time at an Empire court as a hostage, so the occasional outlier isn't an issue. (It was quite common to have foreign princes and princesses live at Imperial Roman courts in order to make sure that a peace agreement is actually upheld.)

All that aside - if you aren't able to beat a lord in a tournament, you're doing something wrong. They are more beatable than ever, if anything, since all tournament weapons are treated as blunt now. You used to have to actually use thrusting attacks or land blows to the head to hurt them, and if you glanced off the armor, you would lose half your HP on the backswing. Now armor might as well not be a thing at all, no matter if you're using a sword, an axe, or anything else.

hihowareyou said:

Yeah I understand that point, but I'm killing them in their way on escape too. And they dont event fight back. What kind of a retard would let himself die and not attack back when someone is hitting him continously

Click to expand...

The one who figures running is more likely to end with them not dead. They don't know if you will actually pursue them if they run. They just know they will definitely die if they stick around. Even if you pursue them, they figure maybe there's a chance they might get away.

Or it's just that one guy loses their **** and wants to be the one with the biggest head start, the guys next to him notice he runs and also lose their ****, and the result is a rout. Lots of historical battles end in routs, with the victorious army pursuing the fleeing soldiers and effortlessly cutting them down. This is working exactly as intended. (Granted, deciding to fight to the death in the first place should be much rarer for severely outnumbered Looters. They should just become prisoners by choice much more often. It forces you to pick on someone your own size to gain combat experience.)

There are actually valid complaints to be made about AI behavior here. Maybe not all looters should be breaking for the nearest map edge - if there is exactly one guy on horseback, they should take off in different directions.

There are also valid complaints to be made about a lack of options to train troops in the early game. Your post seems to suggest that's the core problem you're trying to deal with, and I actually agree, it's just that your solution sucks.

Personally I think some of your men should be able to spawn as practice partners in the arena and be able to gain experience. As of now I think the guys that spawn in the arena are already chosen from visiting parties or possibly the garrison, so there just needs to be code that grants experience to the guys that happen to be from your party. That would be my solution. I think it makes more sense than treating Looters as walking training dummies who throw rocks and don't wash.

What's illogical about it? They thought they outnumbered you and that you were easy pickings. These guys aren't soldiers, they're the lowest kind of criminal scum. Probably the lowest morale out of any troop in the game. You don't become a Looter by having two brain cells to rub together.

Reminds me of an occasional complaint I've read about, about people stuffing their garrisons full of elite troops, then complaining they can't make enough money from workshops and caravans to pay their exorbitant wages.

You had a point... and then you lost it.

You can spawn random companions, and then I think there's campaign_adopt_hero, which should let you adopt them. You do that a couple of times, then die, and continue playing as one of your adopted children. The others will be your siblings. That's all I can come up with.

Everyone complains all the time about everything when it comes to Bannerlord. Some complaints are justified, some are entitled hogwash, nobody has the self-awareness to determine which are which.

Anyway, try console commands. You could also start at 20, marry, make your own kids, and still get plenty of use out of them when they've grown up. You have ten extra years of life span, that's way better than having to deal with your idiot siblings annoying you out of nowhere or being kidnapped every single game.

I'm looking forward to seeing more! I subscribe to Spirit of the Law, a youtuber who has been doing this sort of content for Age of Empires II. I barely even play that game, but it's still interesting.