Recent content by vito397

Totalgarbage said:

I would accept 2% death chance for auto-resolve (not for battles the player participates in) if the 2% was good enough to maintain a relatively stable population of lords. It doesn't even do that properly, the game starts to overflow with nobles within 20 years, possibly earlier.

Click to expand...

Might be just my opinion, but I think that whatever the percentage of noble deaths is, it should be the same in both player battles and auto-resolve. So if its 2% its 2 for both (even though we had a period of time where people died in player battles, while death in npc battles was added significantly later), the same if its in the 5-10% range. I agree with you on the slider as i think that deaths are too low and it leads to character bloat late game (as youve said), but i dont think its a good idea to separate values

dannazgu said:

could be bug

Click to expand...

Nah, just design. Especially mew aserai and vlandian shoulder armours

Jehiel said:

For me I played hundreds of hours in Warband and claimants were always a non factor. I never saw them. Did civil wars happen without the player intervening in Warband? I don't remember seeing any.

Also the idea of a civil war automatically occurring if a faction gets too powerful is too boring and routine. Nothing should have a 100% chance to fire like that.

I like the idea of updating the positions/roles of a kingdom first. Something like the council from CK3. I don't need Bannerlord to try to become CK, but a couple of roles like War Marshal (whoever is this role will automatically take control of any battle they are a part of even if there is an allied army present), Spy Master (idk? maybe something with back alleys and luring clans to defect) and Economic Advisor (taxes) would be cool. Then maybe if those councilors dislike the current legie, they can start something using the claimant.

Click to expand...

I agree on the roles aspect completely. However I wish to clarify. I didn't say that if a faction becomes too powerful it goes into a civil war. I said if a clan becomes too powerful inside a kingdom. So if the dey Arromanc have 30% more influence than Derthert they would wish to overthrow him. This of course isn't some foolproof concept, it's something I made on the spot as an example

Campaign map weather changes incredibly fast and changes even when the time setting is 0. Rain lasts for 1 or 2 seconds only. Is this intended? Rain also doesnt appear in settlements when it rains on the campaign map

Massive testing going on at SteamDB

I am really dissatisfied with the pace of development too but here is the thing with this post: almost anyone can make bullet points like this. Look, I can do it too:

1. Create a realistic relation between player actions and NPC reactions in a way that affects the sandbox.

Sounds great, you know what the problem is? Go ahead and program it. The problem with TW is not that they're out of ideas or dont know what to do with the game. The problem is that their "no deadlines" work ethic combined with the complexity of these tasks always puts these changes into the "too complex" territory. What I mean is, these points sound good to them too, but go ahead and invest money into the programmers, invest time and effort to write the code yourself if you think this is a problem of just "nobody thought of this earlier". This kind of abstract thinking about game mechanisms trivialises actual effort.

If you want a real answer, prompt ChatGPT to write you code for these features in Bannerlord engine. Than itll be something!

No activity on SteamDB for two weeks now

Totalgarbage said:

The mechanic itself would be very cool, and I would prefer my least likely option to be implemented because it would be adding very important and sorely needed changes to diplomacy and interaction with lords. Why I think it's unlikely is due to the name of the mechanic being claimant "quests". Of course, it might be a translation issue or just a weird wording (such as what we typically call quests we get from the notables being called issues by the devs). It's also very weird for a lord that's attempting to revolt or secede to be called a "claimant", but what can you do.

If you could be bothered, could you please try to find the reddit thread and share the link with me if you can find it. Either way, your comment made me much more hopeful about the future of the game, so thank you!

Click to expand...

Cant find the thread, which is sad because the threads were made identical on both the forums and on reddit, but now both are gone. There is one cut content post on reddit but it doesnt mention claimants. However some claimant dialogue is leftover in the files and i can edit this comment later to post it.

Edit: @Totalgarbage this is from module_strings

<!--<string id="str_rebellion_dilemma_pitiless" text="Hmm. {s45} says {reg3?she:he} is the rightful heir to the throne. That is good - - it absolves me of my oath to {s46}. But still I must weight my decision carefully." />-->


<!--<string id="str_rebellion_dilemma_2_quarrelsome" text="So tell me, why should I turn my back on the bastard I know, in favor of {reg3?a woman:the bastard} I don't know?" />-->


<!--<string id="str_rebellion_dilemma_2_pitiless" text="It is a most perilous position to be in, to be asked whom I would make {reg3?ruler:king} of this land. Yet it is also a time of opportunity, for me to reap the rewards that have always been my due!" />-->


<!--<string id="str_rebellion_dilemma_2_cunning" text="{s46} has been challenged, and thus he will never be able to rule as strongly as one whose claim has never been questioned. Yet if {s45} takes the throne by force, {reg3?she:he} will not be as strong as one who succeeded peacefully." />-->


<!--<string id="str_rebellion_dilemma_2_sadistic" text="Perhaps if I join {s45} while {reg3?she:he} is still weak {reg3?she:he} will enrich me, but perhaps if I bring {s46} your head he will give me an even greater reward." />-->


<!--<string id="str_rebellion_agree_sadistic" text="I have decided. I will back your {reg3?woman:man} {s45}. But you'd best make sure that {reg3?she:he} rewards me well!" />-->


<!--<string id="str_rebellion_agree_goodnatured" text="All right. I think your {reg3?woman:man} will be a good ruler. I'll join you." />-->


<!--<string id="str_rebellion_refuse_pitiless" text="No. I will not join your rebellion. I count it little more than the tantrum of a child, denied a bauble which {reg3?she:he} thinks should be {reg3?hers:his}. I will stick with {s46}, whose ability to rule is well-tested." />-->

I believe this is dialogue for the player recruiting people to his claimants cause? Doesnt say anything about the nature of claimants though

Totalgarbage said:

Just to make it clearer, while we know that the devs will be adding claimants/civil wars into the game, we don't know how the claimant/civil war mechanic will work, and we don't know if the addition of claimants will change anything related to succession.

My guess is that there will be both preset and randomized claimants, 1st generation claimants will be preset characters like how the kingdom rulers always are the same people at the start of the game, and the 2nd+ generation of claimants (if there will be any) will either be existing NPCs that will gain the sole claimant of the kingdom status somehow (such as through clan tier 4-5-6 or something, if so, this might open up opportunities of the player becoming a claimant) or will be newly generated NPCs similar to rebel lords. There's also the chance of claimants always being part of one specific clan/family/dynasty and the new generation of claimant always being the new head of clan after the previous one dies, but this would be problematic as claimants could then theoretically be wiped out via executions, or very unlikely pregnancy RNG such as a lady being not fertile due to age or the wife/baby dying in childbirth or even all babies being born as females and then getting married off. The possibility that I think is the least likely would be any non-ruler major clan becoming a claimant and/or a lord that wants to start their own faction by seceding from their faction or starting a civil war. It is still a possibility, but this iteration would be more about civil war and less about specific claimant "quests".

Click to expand...

As far as i remember reading deactivated dialogue code on reddit, the possibility that you have pointed out as the least likely was, I think, the considered one. Now, that was 2020, so my memory is hazy. And they probably revised the idea several times. However, claimants being existing, powerful lords is the only one that makes sense to me due to the aging and birth/death mechanic

XDaron said:

Warband as a jack of all trades, master of none, It had a mixture of Roleplay, Kingdom Strategy and battles
bannerlord heavily improved on battles, but left the other two aspects unnatended.
It might feel like if you scaled things down you could get more involved, but the true fault is at the lack of development time being put into making a world that seemed lived in, and not just a battle simulator.

The traits system appear to be remnants of an ambition to make each lord have it's own personality and desires.
the famous ''I Have a quick question'' dialog followed by ''nevermind'' perfectly encapsulates how TW ambition just fizzled out mid-development

Click to expand...

Everytime i watch old gamescom and development footage a part of my soul dies of disappointment

I agree that the chance is far too low

Apocal said:

I'm not going to put this one on TW.

People around here actually asked for this garbage.

Click to expand...

I understand where the need is coming from. Being omnipotent is stupid, kind of. But with no dislogue, no lord functions, it is the only functionable way