Recent content by xdj1nn

Rdm15000 said:

I stop playing the game for 2 years, i never uninstalled it, it's still the same files. But now my old Diplomacy save file don't load.

When I try to load it this message appears:

RGL ERROR - Load error: Number of info_pages in file: 14, exceeds 9

My save was corrupted? Did the game receive an update and my save is no longer compatible? What can I do? How can I play my save again?

Edit: I also upgraded from Windows 10 to Windows 11, if this might have something to do with...

Click to expand...

nope, engine's crap... it has a crapton of memory allocation bugs which wind up forcing crashes either for RGL or "not enough memory", TW has never really got around to fixing that probably because it might be a problem with core structures of the engine itself. It did occur more often when "beta" "early access" first hit, it has improved, for sure, but the game can't handle it for too long. The more demanding a save gets, the worst are the negative effects.

My tip's to try a new save which will likely result in less issues on a lower frequency rate. TW has made some patches that cannot work with old save files too, not sure how and when or if it continues like this, but in the beginning those were very predominant...

thedemon44 said:

I am trying to find a version of the game before we had the deployment stage. Using Steam the oldest version I was able to download still had the deployment stage. I believe that before official release was the last time the game had no deployment stage? I tried using SteamDB but the depotid's i found were still using deployment stage and when a different appid for the old beta it told me I needed a password, so I am not sure I did that right.

Any help would be appreciated. I have a deep craving to play the game before the deployment stage, as I found the battles to be more fun, with the armies starting further apart and having to get up everything on the fly. It felt far more immersive and I miss it.

Click to expand...

yes but it is a rather annoying finnicky thing to do. even after this significant time of the game being available, the way TW has made their patches basically killed the potential modding community BL could have, most of the best minds left after getting their mods completely wrecked with "patches battery ram", like TW releasing 4 patches that changed core coding in a row within 3 months... stuff like that killed many mods, and mod authors simply abandoned the game. So I am very aware of the struggles involving finding a descent mod and being forced to downgrade the game so it's playable

This also happened with WB when the modding community started thinning... We have pretty old WB mods that surpass this entire game on almost every aspect, some are totally abandoned, have been for ages, which basically makes them unplayable unless you downgrade. For BL, well, the only hope's that new modders pick it up or the old legends decide to come back, yet that's very far-fetched considering a majority of these guys are much older than me (past the 40s) meaning it's depending on them having a stroke of nerdity to come back, most will never, not for creating mods at least...

The one apparent "bail" that got me by surprise was PoP creator, he had lots of hopes and dreams for a Bannerlord PoP version, but I think he ultimately quit since so far we got absolutely nothing...

Willow Ufgood said:

I believe that making money in Bannerlord is far too simple. With so many trade caravans running rampant, it's easy for even a capable novice to rake in coin by taking advantage of the opportune economic climate - a situation which should be more closely monitored to ensure that it remains balanced and fair. It may be necessary to make some adjustments to the current system if we are to stop those who wish to exploit this feature and hoard wealth beyond what is deemed acceptable.

Click to expand...

weak argument for it does not reflect the root of the problem:
making money in the game's too narrow, there's only 1 path to do so efficiently, and said path blocks alternative playstyles completely killing roleplaying and consequently destroying replayability and "fun-factor" due to lack of variety.

In fact, the lack of variety's what hurts the game the most, perks are fashioned in a way that there are clear "Best in Slot" choices vs "useless" "useless 4 player" "useless 4 companion" and "gimmick". - If we were to have perk trees (which they've shoehorned upon us) said system needed to be either as vast and complex as what we see in Path of Exile (that because we're talking about an open-world sandbox game primarily dependent on customazation depth / player control), or at bare minimum, structured under a proto-classes system where perks complement each other and branch into logical differences between class archetypes. We got, instead, this ridiculous thing that hurts the gameplay and can completely ruin the experience of playing the game.

Anyway, I've detracted hardcore there, thing is that caravans and workshops which would fill a trader playstyle are utterly useless vs battle looting, even "slavery" (not sure we can call it that, but it is what it is on the "ransom" thingy) doesn't even cover a fraction of profits made through equipment looting and selling from battles. The game lacks any source of viable steady income, instead relying on loot caravaneer tactics. This destroys pacifist playstyles or playstyles that avoid nobility or focus on "helping the people" (mercenary that goes questing) True caravaneer, burgoise capitalist with caravans and workshops, etc are all invalidated by the game's rigged system and overtime they tend to also affect negatively when you go for the primary and "only" supported playstyle which's forming a kingdom / being a vassal and owning lands. That because you can only really finance all upgrades and expenses through, again, vulturing loot from battles and spreading those across towns.

BL should've gone in a totally different direction where all playstyles would be viable and fun, it should've also adopted the "castle settlement" system seen in WIth Fire and Sword WB's spinoff expansion, where castles are economically useful and viable. As is, owning one sucks as much as it did back in WB vanilla, and more often than not it hurts character's economy instead of being a "good thing".

So in sum, no, it's not "too easy", it's just boring, as such increasing difficulty on that regard would only make the game even more boring, borderline unplayable.

anoddhermit said:

I find workshops and trade are good for renown via artisan community, or buying fiefs if you grind that far, and that's about it. Changing the price of workshops would not change a thing for me - I'm not against it but either way I'm getting trade to exactly 125 for renown from caravans or workshops, and then ignoring it. Like smithing the gameplay of it is too barebones and grindy and only really serves to get one resource faster(renown for trade, money for smithing) via tedious and formulaic methods, so it's a chore not an enjoyable element of the gameplay.

I think trade needs workshops and caravans to generate high reward optional side quests with noteworthy rewards. The other workshop and caravan owners have issues with bandits or rivals or political obstacles that you can resolve, yours should too. Imagine using charm or roguery to manage political obstacles, or of course more straightforward combat to deal with any bandits or other criminals involved.

Click to expand...

yeah, back in 2020 I made a massive rockus proposing good changes to make this game feel more like a game instead of a barebones platform, suggestions similar to the ones you pointed here were made, but everything I suggested was thoroughly ignored. Same for good old friends within the community who were way more active than me, specially @Terco_Viejo .
I'm not sure this game's ever going to reach even bare minimum potential pertaining fun-factor / feeling "complete".
The main issue with BL is it's Game Design - cannot be improved with a massive change in vision from the Lead Designers themselves or them resigning / being replace by better Game Designers...

Duh_TaleWorlds said:

I am personally not a huge fan of the levels. Workshops are intertwined with the local economy, which has some outcomes that are not necessarily intuitive. IMO most players would expect an upgrade to increase profits. But if you were to increase output that may overflow the market and actually lead to falling prices and loss. If you were to decrease costs, that may lead to AI workshops not defaulting when they should (assuming they are permitted to upgrade) - potentially making settlements perform worse than before.

Naturally, these challenges can be overcome (should they even come true as I imagine them), but even then - it likely just ends up with a 1 time interaction that makes a number go bigger. To me, something that improves interactivity is a more valuable change.

Click to expand...

You're right, and we don't even need to delve too deep as to why, pure observation already tells us that: If economy fiddling was fun, most people would want to work in that field. In a video-game, core issues with a capitalist market are exhacerbated, and that can never be fun, it's physically impossible, unless the player has the "economist craves", which would do them good to not play videogames and simply apply that into their real lives instead...

I occasionaly do a random drop-by in the forums to check if anything improved (since 2021) - and, nope... same old same old.
I think I'll never understand how TW works. Considering how I work (not games, but not quite that far removed from them), the equivalent of work put by a single dev member since 2020 (by doing some skewed math) isn't a 10th of the speed I do my work, and if I happen to get 5 times slower, i'd be in breach of contract with most of my clients, and would be fined for it - TW seems ot work twice as slow as my "deadlines" allow...

Draky said:

given that they couldnt even bother to add more than like 10 procedural quests i think there's no way they're ever adding 50 hand crafted ones, i dont even think they have anyone on the staff to do the writing and game design necessary for that

Click to expand...

they've worked without a GDD (game design document) according to one of the devs (it's lost in some post within the forums somewhere)... It's arguable that they've worked without a game designer entirely... Writing's there but only bits and pieces, similar to "place-holders" without any actual flushing (talking about lore)...
I was just saying what I think's better - too many generic procedurals are a waste of time considering most would ignore them, that's why I said that either logical ones or a bunch of hand-crafted ones would be needed + the combo of what we have with both BL and WB to actually add enough activities to follow you through an entire campaign without turning late game into a wasteland of features (which's what we have rn - and would with pure procedurals that aren't logical).

anyhow, I think I'm saying my goodbyes to BL for the foreseeable future today - just uninstalled and will cash over nostalgia with better older games... Modding tools weren't updated so I can't really pursue anything with BL because all current mods are too bland for me and my only hope was going for a DIY, yet what I need and want to achieve can't be done until they fix their tools so there's that. Fact's that BL needs an overhaul - could be lore-friendly vanilla enhancing or a total makeover with a different setting, neither are possible atm and the better, older mods that surfaced during EA can't be properly updated neither. So, yeah... I'm done for now.

Ser Jon said:

Am I understanding you right that no money was required to do that VA work? If so, I find that really hard to believe, but I guess it could explain why the VA work is so bad.

Click to expand...

Sorry didn't understand what you're saying... Generally what revolves around pushing their staff to do doesn't require extra $ investment, the expenditure remains "in-house" which's basically what they would spend anyway if they were doing absolutely nothing...

Kaptain Cnuckles said:

Fine by me. Frankly I don't miss it. Lots of people are blinded by nostalgia and think it was a useful feature. It was horrible. Entire kingdoms decimated because the AI decided a feast was better than retaining any of your kingdom's fiefs when at war. I feel like I can meet lords at their armies in Bannerlord just as easily as we could at their feasts with Warband, so I see no real point in clammering for it.

Click to expand...

you sound dull - feasts would be great if done properly this time around. In fact anything would if done right... Instead we have less stuff, and what we have's still done not-right....
Still feasts are useless considering how the AI tend to keep any faction into war constantly - there's no downtime unless you manually force it.

Draky said:

Not sure if it's fits into the "1 feature" mindset, but more procedurally generated quests with higher complexity. This game, developed by allegedly almost a hundred people, has like 10 quests most of which play similar, half of which are super boring and all of which are 1 step primitive adventures.

Click to expand...

procedural systems are often bad - I wouldn't want that, it'd instead be better to have all procedurals we already have + the missing ones that we used to have in Warband + a significant number of hand tailored ones (something around 50 would do the trick for all stages of the game) - it would be dismissible (the hand crafting) if we had logical reactive procedurals instead, but that's long to explain so I'll leave it at that...

TheViviansen said:

I think it's good to have limitations on building your char, it adds a little bit of replay value in my runs and it helps with roleplaying. You finish having chars with different focus which is pretty much standard in every rpg-like progression system. We should ask for more personality, more identity, more unique chars, not a way to min/max everything. A sandbox game should live on its stories, the numbers are there only to remember who you are. Identity is about differences. We need more, not less.

Click to expand...

once you realize there are only 2 relevant possible builds, you'll take that back

Ser Jon said:

Well, it might not be time consuming and it may not be as expensive as other things, but I still struggle to understand why any sort of money from Taleworlds went into it. It's not a feature anyone needed, but there are other parts of the game that greatly could have benefited from whatever time or funds they did put into VA.

Click to expand...

well the result's that the money hasn't gone there nor anything else really... If I'm to pick between nothing and something I prefer something any day

Ananda_The_Destroyer said:

To be fair, TW did take the button away, now you have to talk to your governor. The point still stands though that warband had a more consistent rule: you take fief alone, you are a rival faction and are treated as such. In Bannerlord you can squat and nobody cares, you can punk fief after fief and only the faction you mess with cares and is incapable of attacking you if you pay them off: until you get to rank 4 and have conversation with you governor and suddenly it's open season on you.

Click to expand...

well the game's objectively bad, denial or not...
Combat's unbalanced and we are limited to either cheesing the mechanics or tanking through anti-player truman show... After you successfully pull a certain % of power by converting lords, than you can go FFA and sit in your town forever because there's no way the AI will manage to win against your own vassals, be mindful that you will lose fiefs if you do that, but your vassals will retake those with ease, that's due to Omniscient AI which will use it to constantly backdoor your faction, yet it can't hold against your vassals at all... Not only that, you'll have nothing to do really other than setting silly self-imposed objectives...
The game lacks rewarding mechanics and challenges both, once you hit late game the game's basically dead...

Other argumentative pts that surfaced for me during the latest patches are world scale (I find the scaling of battle maps and actual world locations to be really small - one 500 men army if scaled properly would take 3 to 4 cities' space in the campaign map, yet they've shrunk the relative size of the party leader in it and doesn't consider the amount of ppl we're leading. It's really weird.... The best way would be to upscale the battle maps at least 2x the current size to be a little more consistent. And finally bad implementation of the banner system, it's cool but it's "glitchy"...

Spinozart1 said:

Well it has some consequences but not that one.
If you already know about the related mechanics, then just ignore the following...
Gang leaders own the areas (it gives them power), the thugs are working for them.
Cleaning the area will give you a relation penalty with the alley owner and a relation bonus with the clan ruling the town (if it is the player then you get a relation bonus with all notables).
And that's it... No impact on security or loyalty or anything else. Not even a direct impact on the gang leaders power.
After a few days, the gang leader takes back the alley automatically or the issue "Rival gang moving in" is activated.
Hopefully TW will improve this and make the whole thing more coherent.

Click to expand...

it has but it's very light-weight...
If you clear all alleys in a town it's security jumps up, the calc seems to be related towards the gangleader notable power... So much so that if you keep a perfect security gov ruling, both gangleaders won't ever be able to raise their power above regular.
You simply didn't notice it, but that's okay...

speaking of which, security in castles' completely irrelevant unless you are running for max loyalty - game effects are null... Same goes for hearths and prosp - game has a hard-cap disguised as soft-cap towards prosperity directly linked to the amount of bound villages and their hearth tier (only 3 available - below 200; between 200 and 600; above 600) which blocks prosperity and will always tank your garrison making the fief vulnerable due to starvation...

Most of the intricate mechanics in the game are poorly implemented and only support surface level shallow effects... We can't opt to build tall, we can't opt to coexist without being forced to deal with constant wars or vassals snowballing fiefs... There's just too much bad in the game that blocks any good sandboxing experience - we can't really "RP" anything other than world conquest after some pt, and even doing so will break the 4th wall constantly due to dumb mechanics like voting ballots, arbitrary reasonless wars and other shenanigans...

I've managed to create a stable calradia with coexisting factions through use of multiple mods and exploiting trade 300 perk... But I have to manually handicap my own kingdom and overrule votes constantly, both to avoid wars and to give logical geographically located fiefs to other kingdoms... Did full main quest on campaign to destroy the empire, yet the mentally impaired mechanics did go rage mode even doing so... Basically the game decided to throw all remaining emp clans into Khuzait - creating a massive balance blackhole of which I'll have ot manually curb if I want to continue playing in said campaign - sad part is there's nothing else to do really, unless I want to go for world conquest, as such I don't feel compelled to even open that save...

froggyluv said:

We did the voice acting for PoP mod - the Devs can if they want and certainly have the resources for it. But if the fanbase lets them off the hook with so many things being "too expensive for this tiny team" -then thats exactly what they'll do. Path of least resistance reigns supreme in many niche turned mainstream Game companies

Click to expand...

exactly, anyone in the know of how acting works has the same view as we do mate... It's not expensive, it's actually an extremely underpaid job, so much so that most voice actors run freelance gigs constantly to even be able to survive