Search results for query: *

  1. Beta Patch Notes v1.2.0-v1.2.6

    Just encountered an interesting event. Are private vendettas a thing? One of the clans in the kingdom I belong to is being attacked but I can't get involved. But it could be because we're not at war with that merc? Or maybe it's because the status of the merc is "travelling" to somewhere?

  2. The Long Glaive

    Thanks. Would you share the approx time or prosperity of the city you bought it from?
  3. The Long Glaive

    Is this weapon gone in 1.23? I can't seem to find it and I'm already in the mid stage of the game.
  4. About Companion Parties


    I think however there is a workaround. Form a party with only high tier troops. But below the 40% of steward. And then adjust the wages to fit. Then they can´t be called to army and will patrol where one leave them. Should work for awhile atleast.
    Those high tier troops will die after they deal with a few bandits.
  5. Prosperity and Food - the death spiral of a fief

    It's the other way around. The prosperity penalty to food becomes worse as prosperity increases. It represents increased consumption as the settlement grows.

    This means that food acts as a cap to propsperity. Once the settlement is starving, prosperity will decrease until food consumption is less than production.

    Ahh. So the lower prosperity is, the less "consumption" there will be? I assumed it was negatively impacting food stocks because prosperity was decreasing.

    But if that were the case, it's still not an optimal solution since prosperity has no cap but food production does? Inevitably, a castle will go into starvation.

    If the impact of starvation was only to reduce prosperity, I might be willing to overlook it since $$ from taxation is negligible but as it impacts on the garrison, that's quite unacceptable.

    It's been a major bugbear since v1. I can't believe they still haven't implemented a fix.
  6. Prosperity and Food - the death spiral of a fief

    Food shortage negatively impacts Prosperity but reduced Prosperity lowers food production? Seems like an unintended circular logic? Surely, there ought to be means by which the owner can intervene like inject food stocks....but that doesn't seem to be an option. Why?
  7. Release Plans

    Criminal enterprises & Targeting enemy formations let's ****ing goooo! @Dejan will the enemies or AI allies also make use of the sally out overhaul?

    Is that confirmed? We're finally able to rule the streets? And target enemy formations?
  8. POLL: Your reviews of the COMPLETED FINAL Bannerlord

    Warband had all these same issues - but with a much smaller map and only 150 man battles. And I loved that. Why would I suddenly hate bannerlord because ots missing... (checks notes).... feasts...? I mean...

    That's not to say bannerlord is perfect. Oh no; I think TW could have had (nay should of had) much greater ambition. But its the same gameplay loop ice played and enjoyed for something like 15 years now.

    I'm not a fan of feasts but it was an easy way to meet other nobles and force a break to combat. I'd have thought TW would have expanded on it with tournaments since more nobles means better prize. Feasts would attract the nobles, tournaments become more worthwhile. Add a cost to the noble, add loyalty/prosperity bonus to the town, seems like a no brainer.

    Sure, it's a great game if you're playing it like a first person shooter with breaks in the lobby forced on the player. The loop is similar at a high level, but in warband, battles were consequential. Battles are absolutely meaningless in BL.
  9. POLL: Your reviews of the COMPLETED FINAL Bannerlord

    I can understand this from the point of view of a positive review? But a negative one? I will never understand.

    If I didn't like a restaurant why would I keep going back to eat there. if I didn't like a movie why would i watch it dozens of times over and over. if I didn't like a certain brand of cereal why is it always in my shopping cart - and if I don't like a video game why am i always playing it?

    Whereas instead if someone has maybe 4-8 hours and a bad review; well they have given the game a fair shot - but obviously couldn't get into it. These are the negative reviews to look at. (Conversely if someone gives something a positive review with very low hours played I am also sceptical).

    Still though - people are entitled to their opinions; but this is just my logic on what reviews I take account of.

    That's the problem with analogies, it never really works but ok I'll play.

    In a way, it's the only restaurant in town. 2nd, you really love the main dish but the sides suck, service is slow and you've already paid for a lifetime all you can eat membership.

    So, you actually think the game is great? With its crappy dialogue that is badly timed, lousy diplomacy, irrelevant battles, meaningless relations, hollow gameplay, missing elements etc etc etc...with all that, you're still a fanboy?

  10. Just over 300hrs left & still no dialogue

    If you marry your wife through her father instead of "wooing" her, the first time you meet her in person (after the "wedding ceremony" cutscene) she'll still ask who are you.

    Trivial issue of course but it just shows how crappy the so called final product is.
  11. POLL: Your reviews of the COMPLETED FINAL Bannerlord

    What part of "If I didn't like the game, you would never see me on this forum" was hard to understand?

    Also reviews are not objective, in the slightest. A review from a guy who invests over a thousand hours into a game is quite possibly the least objective anyone could get.

    As an aside, why haven't you stopped playing Bannerlord?

    How can I stop what I've not started? So far, I've tested the product and it fails on a number of levels. The game is unplayable. Of course, some people have low standards. They say, well, it boots up and it doesn't crash as if that alone deems a game playable.

    Then stop helping them get the engagement metrics they need. Stop playing the game, stop posting on the forums, stop talking about it.

    Ignoring issues aren't the way to solve them. Anyhow, you do you. If you insist your positive review is because you like the game and not because you're afraid of being mocked then well done you.

    I think sometimes people post a negative review; not because they don't like something - but they want it to be better

    Well precisely.

    I agree the concept of posting a thumbs down next to 500+ hours is incredibly self-unaware (almost laughably so) but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

    I have to disagree with you. Someone who has put in the hours will always hold more weight than the person who hasn't. Why would I even bother reading what a person who has barely skimmed the game have to say?

    My favorite kinds of reviews are those that are negative but you can still see they actively play the game

  12. 1.9 there's always 1 deserter

    Game shows banner bearers as deserted. Just a bug. I always had one crossbowman shown as deserted when I had one banner. I found a second one and now I keep having 2 deserters every battle.
    Oh good pick up.

    Have you reported it?
  13. 1.9 there's always 1 deserter

    Anyone else getting this? Like even against looters, I'm getting 1 deserter.
  14. POLL: Your reviews of the COMPLETED FINAL Bannerlord

    I think the game is a positive. If I didn't like the game, I would never bother posting a goddamned thing on these forums.

    There's certainly something to be said for being able to simply walk away from a product you don't enjoy, whose makers hold you in contempt. The question is: why can't you?

    That's not what you said bud. You said and I quote:

    Positive and leaving it positive.

    Most people laugh at those negative reviews with 120+ hours played and I'd rather not have 3000+ hours next to a thumbs down, as if I'm some kinda digital crackhead who can't help but boot up a game he hates.

    That sounds exactly like a person who's more concerned about what people think than the objective truth.

    As for me, I like the premise of the game. I just don't like the current "vision" of the game which came about when the developers reneged on their promises. I think it's important to hold them accountable. I'm sure modders will add all the stuff that's missing but that's not a good reason to let them off the hook.
  15. POLL: Your reviews of the COMPLETED FINAL Bannerlord

    Positive and leaving it positive.

    Most people laugh at those negative reviews with 120+ hours played and I'd rather not have 3000+ hours next to a thumbs down, as if I'm some kinda digital crackhead who can't help but boot up a game he hates.

    So you're leaving it positive just because you're afraid people will laugh at your negative review and not because you actually think it's positive?

    You're certainly showing your backbone there mate.
  16. Is 1.8 it?

    I feel like some people live in some strange alternative reality where this is actually true, or they're literally the less than 1% that really can't run the game properly. Or they're just extremely disingenuous. Can't really tell which it is at this point...

    You just have incredibly low standards. I expect games to do a lot more than not crash.
  17. Is 1.8 it?

    Game's still terribly broken. When's the next version coming out?
  18. How are You Feeling About Bannerlord and TaleWorlds for the Future?

    The game's a joke. In every way but the superficial, it is a step down from Viking Conquest.

    A step down?!! Mate. Bannerlords is not even fit to be used in the same sentence as Viking Conquest.
  19. Disappointing progress.

    "Turtling" in this case would be avoiding any wars and even when forced into it, avoiding any battles.

    That's what happens when manpower (or anything really) is an easily exhausted resource, especially when further conquest can only pay for itself over the long-term, while being crippling in the short-term. So in order to make that work, BL would need to get rid of battles where the loser loses everything and come up with a very different gameplay loop than the typical M&B.

    Oh before I forget, here's another poor decision TW made to stop snowballing - mercs tend to flock towards losing side even when the loser can't afford to pay them. Shoddy.

    Nothing wrong with avoiding wars and avoiding battles. Make raiding an integral part of war again!

    And yes, BL needs to get rid of battles where the loser loses everything. Why aren't they fleeing?
Top Bottom