Patch Notes v1.2.9

[Totalgarbage]

You should if you are on pc try out Vanillaplus, there is ehem alot of lords dying there - read captured lords have a high risk of beheading under condtions heh.

I mean yeah, mods make this game soo much better of course, but if the base game can be so much better just by some incredibly simple few tweaks on specific numbers, the devs should do those simple tweaks;

We have an option that halves the death chance, so I'm guessing that modifying the death chance is simply changing numbers (but I don't know jack **** about coding or programming, this is just an assumption on my part). I don't know if its the same for pregnancy chance, but since we have the lvl25 charm perk virile which increases the chance, it stands to reason that it would also be changing numbers.

I don't know if modifying the speed of the day/night cycle and decreasing the number of days in a year would be as simple, but it sure as hell would be simpler adding an actually fleshed out diplomacy, so it should in theory give a massive payoff compared to the amount of effort it requires.

 

[conongmoi]

Please add navy battles, ship docks to main campaign.

 

[Flesson19]

Please for the love of god increase the overall death rate in battles we participate in, or better yet, provide the player with a slider between 1% - 10% chance of death in (non auto-resolve) battles.

Birth & death is what gives the game the stakes it needs, but with such a miniscule death chance, it gives players no reason to care about things that are seemingly unrelated like randomly generated companions. Since these companions & family members die very rarely (once in several playthroughs), they just feel like stat dumps.

Becoming the king of our faction due to the death of the current ruler (which we also need to be able to accomplish without the death of the ruler and also have a way to kill the ruler of the faction we are part of) is almost completely dependant on the RNG of them dying from old age, which takes years of in game time, if it even happens in the first place.

Losing a battle or acting recklessly has nearly no consequences other than making the player grind by recruiting and training new troops.

Such a low death chance seriously negatively affects the gameplay experience. So PLEASE, I'm begging TaleWorlds to reconsider the death chance - give the players the ability to increase or decrease the death chance in battle. The miniscule death chance is currently one of my biggest gripes with Bannerlord, along with;

- Lack of proper diplomacy (both inter and intra kingdoms, as well as unbalanced policies which are always good or bad to have)

- Lack of dynastic features due to children taking too long to reach adulthood & every clan having massive amount of people in a few generations rather than having a relatively stable number of people (make the day/night cycle 1/3 shorter and decrease the number of days in a year to 40, decrease the number of NPC pregnancy chance overall)

- Lack of meaningful interactions with NPCs (which an increase to the death chance would massively help in giving the player a reason to give a damn about lords & companions).

Remedying the low death chance (& the high birth chance) along with the slow passage of time would improve the game substantially, for very little effort.

It was supposed to be 10%, then TW made it 2%. I suggested a slider so people could adjust it how they wanted it. Devs said they don't think that's a good idea to please everyone, I mean offer the choice so your stuck with it.

 

[archaicwarrior]

The latest patch is Nerf city, population Console kiddies, with BL fans as tortured slaves.

 

[Gadheras]

It was supposed to be 10%, then TW made it 2%. I suggested a slider so people could adjust it how they wanted it. Devs said they don't think that's a good idea to please everyone, I mean offer the choice so your stuck with it.

To high death rate and you end up with a population problem. Or rather a clans die out fast issue.

 

[Lesbosisles]

Please for the love of god increase the overall death rate in battles we participate in, or better yet, provide the player with a slider between 1% - 10% chance of death in (non auto-resolve) battles.

When this was only being discussed, I was saying that this will turn the game into a boring "win-capture-escape" cycle, but there were way too many crybabies, who were writing me some math formulas about "how 2% chance is a viable option".

Now, there is no need to be careful in battle, no need to worry for your wife to be killed, no need to worry that you may be killed. Because the default chance is a puny 2%,and high Medicine skill (plus some perks in it) may reduce it down to 0%. So you may have a gang of 80 years old warriors running around, even making children every now and then.

But crybabies, who savescum every lost battle, are now happy... I guess

 

[Totalgarbage]

When this was only being discussed, I was saying that this will turn the game into a boring "win-capture-escape" cycle, but there were way too many crybabies, who were writing me some math formulas about "how 2% chance is a viable option".

Now, there is no need to be careful in battle, no need to worry for your wife to be killed, no need to worry that you may be killed. Because the default chance is a puny 2%,and high Medicine skill (plus some perks in it) may reduce it down to 0%. So you may have a gang of 80 years old warriors running around, even making children every now and then.

But crybabies, who savescum every lost battle, are now happy... I guess

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.

 

[vito397]

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.

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

 

[JunKeteer]

However they coded it in, if I was a dev and so concerned of this 'equilibrium' of theirs. Clearly, the 'new game starting' set of nobles is arguably the stable ratio? Have the death rate %var deviate according to that overall 'population'.
Noble count ends up double, double the base%. Player chops every single noble head, reduce the rate or keep at base% (player is gonna game it regardless).

Instead, we can have multiple 1000v1000+ fights in the same (short) wars, and maybe one lord dies if you're un/lucky. Meanwhile, 20 new ones are born and sit in castle to wait as placeholders for the limited party# per clan; no need to be a genius to know how exponentially populace that could be after even 1 generation. I'm tired of visiting castles (whenever there even is a reason to) with 10 nobles stacked into some single entity in order to even try to rp talking to a lord vs the quick menu button.

 

[Gadheras]

However they coded it in, if I was a dev and so concerned of this 'equilibrium' of theirs. Clearly, the 'new game starting' set of nobles is arguably the stable ratio? Have the death rate %var deviate according to that overall 'population'.
Noble count ends up double, double the base%. Player chops every single noble head, reduce the rate or keep at base% (player is gonna game it regardless).

Instead, we can have multiple 1000v1000+ fights in the same (short) wars, and maybe one lord dies if you're un/lucky. Meanwhile, 20 new ones are born and sit in castle to wait as placeholders for the limited party# per clan; no need to be a genius to know how exponentially populace that could be after even 1 generation. I'm tired of visiting castles (whenever there even is a reason to) with 10 nobles stacked into some single entity in order to even try to rp talking to a lord vs the quick menu button.

Those 20 new born take 18 years before they can do anything... I had several campaigns where clans died out and the kids not yet of age vanished from the game.

 

[Totalgarbage]

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

Yeah, I get you, I wouldn't mind it if both the in battle and auto-resolve death chance is the same provided the chance of death is satisfactory (when we had deaths in battle only, I found 5% to be satisfactory - I had 1 companion and 1 spouse die, as well as lords dying in battles much more commonly iirc).

One thing that might be a nice tweak to the numbers (while potentially improving the immersion by a smidge) would be to increase the chance of death while giving birth & chance of having a stillborn. Also lords executing other (non-rebel) lords they have negative relationships with (the lord's traits would determine if their prisoner will be executed) would decrease the mid-late game lord bloat.

 

[Gadheras]

Yeah, I get you, I wouldn't mind it if both the in battle and auto-resolve death chance is the same provided the chance of death is satisfactory (when we had deaths in battle only, I found 5% to be satisfactory - I had 1 companion and 1 spouse die, as well as lords dying in battles much more commonly iirc).

One thing that might be a nice tweak to the numbers (while potentially improving the immersion by a smidge) would be to increase the chance of death while giving birth & chance of having a stillborn. Also lords executing other (non-rebel) lords they have negative relationships with (the lord's traits would determine if their prisoner will be executed) would decrease the mid-late game lord bloat.

Afaik, women can die in childbirth and so can the child.

 

[Totalgarbage]

Afaik, women can die in childbirth and so can the child.

I know, I'm saying the chance of it happening should be increased, it only happens once in a blue moon in the game whereas it happened much more often in the real world.

 

[JunKeteer]

Those 20 new born take 18 years before they can do anything... I had several campaigns where clans died out and the kids not yet of age vanished from the game.

Yes, but it's not like every year between doesn't start to build a rolling pool either of kids either.
Clans die, but that's mainly due to player intervention; which I get. But if TW is so dead set trying to create this 'equilibrium' regardless the player interaction; they missed it with this. They even said at one point, going from 2% to 4% could potentially collapse their fragile equilibrium - they're clearly missing variable factors in their simulation if a small tweak like that does so. It's been the same with the smithing 'economy', markets, loyalty/rebellion, influence, goods trades, workshops, clan scaling, etc...system is a delicate, propped up facade.

 

[Gadheras]

Yes, but it's not like every year between doesn't start to build a rolling pool either of kids either.
Clans die, but that's mainly due to player intervention; which I get. But if TW is so dead set trying to create this 'equilibrium' regardless the player interaction; they missed it with this. They even said at one point, going from 2% to 4% could potentially collapse their fragile equilibrium - they're clearly missing variable factors in their simulation if a small tweak like that does so. It's been the same with the smithing 'economy', markets, loyalty/rebellion, influence, goods trades, workshops, clan scaling, etc...system is a delicate, propped up facade.

I had large army battles take place where several lords died, and I had the same where no one died. during a campaign paying attention to the notification window you see people die from battles, old age and what not quite regulary.

 

[Kosiporka229]

Merhaba! 1.2 yamayı oynamıyorum çünkü savaş modu açısından karmaşık! 1.1.0'dan eski savaş modülünün funzkia'sını ekleyebilir misiniz? Düşmana 6 dakika boyunca vurmanın ve sadece içeri girip düşmanlarımı yenmek istediğimi düşünmenin hiçbir zevki yok. Eski aksiyon filmi seçeneğini ekleyin lütfen!

 

[Kosiporka229]

Can you do something about the complexity? Make it easy for those who only started playing, and not to hit the shields for 10 minutes and then die from arrows (Hear the developers of this beta game

 

[Lu7her]

Tw, are you planning any changes in the legionnaires instead of pilum , something similar? etc ??

 

[JunKeteer]

I had large army battles take place where several lords died, and I had the same where no one died. during a campaign paying attention to the notification window you see people die from battles, old age and what not quite regulary.

And I had multiple large army battles take place where none did at all; flip a coin enough times, it'll eventually deviate to 49>51%, as should be.

That determination in TW requires an extensive amount of battles (and lords falling in battle) to know have that 2% actually be impactful as an actual rate% to the game.

That 2%, maybe 'works' running a script to jump your 50+ years (as I doubt a single TW dev actually playtests the game). Yet, we have a population growth issue of lords within just a single generation as experienced from multiple people. And we know how stale that gets on that late-game issue within a single generation.

 

[Ningauble]

Yeah, I get you, I wouldn't mind it if both the in battle and auto-resolve death chance is the same provided the chance of death is satisfactory (when we had deaths in battle only, I found 5% to be satisfactory - I had 1 companion and 1 spouse die, as well as lords dying in battles much more commonly iirc).

One thing that might be a nice tweak to the numbers (while potentially improving the immersion by a smidge) would be to increase the chance of death while giving birth & chance of having a stillborn. Also lords executing other (non-rebel) lords they have negative relationships with (the lord's traits would determine if their prisoner will be executed) would decrease the mid-late game lord bloat.

Reading this conversation it comes to mind that a randomly applied percentage, say 2 - 5 %, of death in battle for nobles and NPCs, is not interesting enough.
Is it too much work ( I would think not, really ) to -
1. Calculate death chance according to a lord's traits ? For instance, increased for a rash general, or perhaps one that is green ( young, or otherwise for a first battle, even ), one with poor command credentials, too old ( perhaps a heart attack in the heat of the moment, or thrown from his horse ? ), etc. Maybe some traits and personality attributes can be developed along these lines, with not all of them being " positive " ? Some generals just won't ....... live long.
2. Link death likelihood to the battle result ? A crushing loss, especially if outnumbered, perhaps being more deadly. But even a victory, especially a close one, could come with some loss, of course ( witness Gustavus Adolphus at Lutzen ).
3. Connect battle death ( vs capture ) chance with the reputation and wealth of a noble ie on the losing side? Reputation and standing ( eg a king ), and not least easy recognition, and perhaps " chivalry ", could reduce the blind risk of death as it would probably be that surrender / capture and fat ransoms or other power manipulations would be desirable ( from both sides' point of view ! ). Think Francis I at Pavia. Then again, James IV at Flodden ?
4. Increase the risk of death ( and decrease escape chance; the balance is .......... capture ) if defending a besieged castle or city, and losing? All of the above also being considered, of course.
5. Increase the risk of noble prisoner execution in a civil war, as between the three Empire remnants ? Civil wars can get particularly nasty, witness the Wars of the Roses. Of course, there should be potential for rebellions and coups etc built in to all factions.
6. Increase the risk of noble prisoner execution according to the traits of the captor? There should be dread generals out there, and their reputation should precede them, giving them certain strategic ( eg enemy armies more likely to flee from them than fight ) and tactical ( eg enemy armies' morale lowered in a battle ) AI advantages. It is better to be feared than loved.

And so on. I think we all want an interesting and colourful and nuanced world in a game like Bannerlord, more RPG, and not just a " shooter ".
More attention needs to be applied to the characters of the NPCs, their traits, and Relation, court politics, etc
It's 2024, and Ladogual, my wife of many years, and many children, still has, and right from our first meeting has had, a Relation of " -1 " with me !
And yet she smiles so sweetly .........