Search results

Soon™

Nalgasucia507 said:

Soon(tm)

Click to expand...

alt + 0153

Currently death in simulation battles is not enabled, the plan is to enable it in the future (Soon™). It was mentioned somewhere they would lower the chance of death, currently it is set at 10% (or something close) so it would be easier to catch any bugs related to death of hero type characters.

Currently existing mercenary clans and cultures mentioned in lore only (Palaic) already have plenty of potential to be used as destabilizing agents in Calradia. We have nord mercenaries, disgruntled former legionaries, separatist rebels, desert nomads and all they do is jump around boosting factions. Instead of bringing some novel faction from overseas, why not include a mechanic for minor clans to increase their overall presence/power in Calradia?

Take the Legion of the Betrayed and the Brotherhood of the Woods, for example, both of those clans originate from a group of people feeling betrayed by their overlords, one composed by former professional soldiers and the other by rebel peasants, both of them could have a set of goals to increase their power/presence/size, which the player can help, hinder or completely ignore, that could lead to a full rebellion, something like what we had with claimants in Warband.

I would much rather be involved in maintaining the status quo or helping minor clans become powerhouses than be stuck fighting armies that appear out of nowhere for no real reason.

FlowingJade said:

Indeed.

Though my main thoughts were for the developers/testers to train the AI and then make it available in the main game. However even this method has its own challenges as training AI using machine learning is not straightforward right now. And this still does not circumvent issue of computing resources necessary, only very wealthy gaming companies who are willing to make large investments to develop their AI could even consider it right now.

The use of Machine learning in video games is very much in its infancy, but the potential is staggeringly high, it will just take time, likely decades as you duly noted for researchers to come up with new more improved methods and streamline everything as much as possible.

I really look forward to what the future holds, we are in such exciting times.

Click to expand...

Blizzard had a partnership with Google to use their AI in Starcraft, it was part of a competitive matchmaking for people that opted in. I saw an article a while back claiming it was better than 98%+ players.

Okay, got me curious.

stevepine said:

Did the changed / reformatted code format in the end still have undescriptive variables? or is it better now? (A better quality of code I mean)

Click to expand...

Haven't checked, I didn't want to go over my changes again after another patch, and I thought it was time for a break, so I uninstalled the game.

It is also worth saying that poor quality doesn't necessarily mean incompetence, it may simply be inexperience. The variable names I mentioned is something you usually see on code written by people that are just starting with programming, the awareness to write your code for people other than you to understand comes with time and mentoring.

I get conflicting messages from Bannerlord. On one hand we have a feature to continue playing as an heir, which would indicate that the plan was for us to spend a lot of time on a single save, but on the other hand, it looks like no effort was really put in on anything past early game, I end up abandoning saves before getting to experience the heir feature as I get bored by fighting AI lords over and over again.

It would give me some peace of mind if they said they planned to focus development on adding stuff for early, then mid and then work on late game activities.

As for feature complete, we have no way of knowing what TaleWorlds considers feature complete, we only get a list for what they will work on during this cycle (Statement for Single Player thread).

stevepine said:

Yeah, I agree with everything in your post. Thanks for the reply.

I'm just a bit worried with the 'hard coding' of parts of bannerlord - Mods can and should save the game - but Taleworlds need to let that happen.

Click to expand...

On the hard code complaint, there is some stuff that it would be nice to have a proper way of doing, instead of finding a work around, like custom skeletons for races other than human and there is poorly written code and parts of code that aren't easily accessible, but it does not make modding impossible, it just requires a lot more work and the bigger the changes the more fragile they are to changes in code.

As an example of what I meant, some time ago I was looking into replacing troops equipment and I found out that copying the entry that defined a soldier and changing its equipment wasn't enough, it wouldn't prevent the previous equipment from being loaded and it would mix both my changes and the default. If I wanted only my version to be considered, I would have to find where it was being loaded and rewrite that part of the code to clear the equipment list before adding mine. It worked but rewriting it was annoying because there was plenty of poorly written code (like variables with undescriptive names such as flag1, flag2, node1, node2) and I had to make sure it was working exactly as the original plus + changes. One or two patches later they changed the format and code for equipment and I would have to do the same thing over again.

What has TaleWorlds shown so far that would make you think it is a good idea asking them to take over development of this mode? This guy/team has a lot more freedom on their own to make something for the players, not to sell copies to as many people as possible.

Tryvenyal said:

How do mean it should be build? In a battle-scene or on the campaign map? Sorry. I know nothing about <My life is Feudal>.

Click to expand...

Life is Feudal is one of those survival/builder games, you can harvest resources and build your own village.

I see some value in setting up camp an preparing the battlefield with some basic defenses, like adding stakes and digging ditches, it would be useful to provide an advantage versus larger armies, especially if you can set up at access points (well, the whole map is essentially chokepoints, but I digress).

But as it was pointed out by others, this is something that will have to be left for mods as it does not seem to fit whatever vision TaleWorlds has for the game. Pretty much nothing that was suggested (see the Top Suggestions thread) has been implemented, aside from some basic UI stuff.

MostBlunted said:

Never happened in the QA version!

Click to expand...

I would guess it is always the same **** as with the dialog weights bug, they test it with a debug version and when they compile the code in release mode to push it out to us some stuff is left out. It would certainly explain why so many people find broken stuff in the first few hours after a patch. It is not that they don't have QA, it is just that they have a stupid way to go about it.

Almost one year of early access and it took a group of modders to get the attention of the MP community, great job TaleWorlds...

Pancakelord333 said:

without native support

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, there was some leftover code hinting at TW planning COOP at some point, but they seem to have dropped the idea.

Anistec said:

So i was thinking....after we make our own kingdom why shouldnt we be able to create our own kingdom's troop tree???like we should be able to name them and buy their gear...and be able to recruit them only from our fiefs....i wish they will include it in the future

Click to expand...

There is a mod that allows you to do it. I don't see TaleWorlds adding anything like it in the future as they don't seem to be interested in suggestions for full features, just some basic crap like map icons telling you there are tournaments in that settlement.

While the game looks cool and I will definitely keep and eye on it, it's combat mechanics are not applicable to Mount&Blade. Like Total War, the animations you see are paired and they reflect calculations that were made between the two entities, so it is already established if the attacker landed a hit or not.

It is also worth mentioning that entities have their combat calculations on a 1 to 1 basis, and even if an entity is surrounded the calculations will not happen all at once, they will take turns running attack/defense attempts. This is clearly not the case in Mount&Blade, the agents don't care if you are engaged or not, nor will they wait their turn to do something. Making the agents more aware of what is happening around them means more calculations would be required per agent, which in turn means more resources are required. It is already known that the game has to be optimized for consoles so there is a ceiling for resource usage (mainly CPU) and this ceiling is why I don't see TW making big improvements on mission AI (siege, field battles and so on).

26, been playing Mount&Blade since I was 11. First version I played was 0.751 vanilla.

Gandamula said:

It is also funny that in tournaments the AI seems to know how to defend, block, counter attacks etc., but on the battlefield it is a mess.

Click to expand...

That is because there are few targets to choose from and the AI, especially with higher weapon skills, can handle itself well in 1v1s, but if you get 2v1 you can already see the issue the plagues battles.

Once it picks a target it acts like a zombie, it will just keep trying to murder the target with no regard for it's own existence, it has no awareness of it's surroundings and will throw itself at impossible odds.

Using formations hides this a little because individual agents have their movement constrained.

No amount of changes to armors will fix this and adding more complexity to the current combat formula will just **** it up even worse.

No, they burned the good faith capital they had and since they are a privately owned company there is likely to be no change in management and the same "quality" of design choices is to be expected.

I do hope they don't constrain development with the thought of breaking existing mods, this would be a really stupid decision and it would make progress even slower as instead of refactoring something to fit the current needs they would have to make workarounds and the overall code would be even more of a mess.

AxiosXiphos said:

I offered him a way to do it without breaching forum rules

Click to expand...

Are you sure?

AxiosXiphos said:

I'm not the one being baited here

Click to expand...

Plus you also suggested he should make racist comments. Don't see how inciting racism is very compliant with forum rules.

Revverie said:

argentinian money is worthless

Click to expand...

Have fun studying gender equality, patriarchy and whatever else to renew you driver's license lol.

method man said:

I will also use this opportunity to express support for SA Bannerlord servers. Unless Taleworlds hates their own game and loves South America to the point that they want to hide it from them, I see no logical reason for SA to get no servers.

Click to expand...

Might have something to do with currency not being worth anything. Argentinean currency is devalued even against Brazilian Real, which is also devalued at 1 USD = 5.75 BRL, it used to be between 1.60 and 1.80 in 2008.