How much time though? Its been a year now with no substantial updates. How much time would need to pass before you start to think nothing will change? For me it was around the 6 month mark. Before then I was as charitable as you are now. But after so long with little in the way of development you have to start to question why that is the case. and given that this game has been in development longer, and with a larger team than the example I gave it doesn't paint a good picture. So at this point I think it is absolutely valid to make a comparison to a far smaller team that has made consistent, meaningful updates to their game and ask why this game and this team- which seems to me to be in a similar situation- has been unable to do the same after a year.I do believe Bannerlord is gonna become the game we all want, but its gonna take time. The sooner we realize that the better.
I do not know, to be honest. I have not played the board games in quite some time. I simply take issue with the dismissive stance of 'just skip the broken thing'I never really got into those board games, but... Are they broken if the player is a "bad" player? Not claiming he is. I'm at best average when it come to actual chess, but I don't complain and say the game is broken if someone beat me in it.
Which still ignores the problem instead of solving it. The sieges are broken. We would like them fixed. Autoresolving sieges does not fix sieges.auto resolve
'Don't play this part of the game' is not a solution for 'this part of the game is broken'If you don´t like the mini-game don´t play it? If it´s for "in and out" quest just skip the game and pay him. you will get more then enough money back for solving.
Based senko shows us the importance partsNew content:
- Added a new clothing item: 'Decorated Thick Tunic'.
- Added a new cloak: 'Reinforced Neck Guard'.
- Sandbox mode has been added to the game
- 'Pick Them off the Walls' and 'Make Them Pay' perks have been implemented
- Added Prison Break
- Added two new siege maps: Domogtul Castle and Ayzar Stronghold
Downloading now to check it out.
I think this is a far better idea. Any changes that result in less control over our experience are ones I am not fond of. Bringing back the slider would allow people to customize their experience in a more meaningful way.Couldn't you just keep the slider but attach a label next to it which changes from Very Low to Max depending on what the slider's set at? Then you give players the feedback they need while also letting them fine-tune their settings as they like
Glad to hear you'll be passing on the suggestion! However I'm gonna have to slightly disagree on it only making sense as a player. I think there are certainly situations in which an army may find that a settlement is not worth keeping. Say because it is too far from their own lands, or because they expended too many men in taking it, or because the kingdom or clan is bankrupt or close to and they need an infusion of cash NOW and not a steady trickle later. I think it would make sense that an army leader may decide to simply pillage the town for its vast riches and leave. Perhaps this could cause tension if there were other nobles or heroes in the army that badly wanted the town (they or their clan owned it once, they lack any fiefs of their own and are eager to claim one) or even gain some benefits with other nobles (say the town belongs to someone that has defeated another noble in the army, sacking it gives them a relationship bonus because they got revenge)When part of a kingdom, the player does not actually own the settlement after a conquest - it is distributed in a kingdom decision (that takes into account who conquered it, but also evaluates the distribution of fiefs in the kingdom as well as relationships between lords). Once you are given a fief in a kingdom, you do have the option to relinquish it to be distributed to someone else or to grant it to one of your vassals if you are a king.
Having said that, I am happy to bring up the suggestion to not take control of a settlement after a siege. It would only really make sense as a player (roleplay/4d chess) option imo, though. Devastated or not, settlements are the best value in the game. Not to mention that the investment to siege it will often hardly be worth it, if it isn't kept.
I wholeheartedly agree with all of this. Bumping to give it attentionThere must be some misscommunication happening here, because what I'm talking about is abandoning mechanical ownership of a town/castle; not simply leaving the town/castle with yourself and your party. Inhabiting a settlement after destroying it is madness, the settlement would be much more of a liability than an asset. This also happens to be the case sometimes even without actually pillaging a settlement, because the town is simply too far away from any other settlements your faction owns or whatever. It is for that purpose the game sorely needs an option to pillage towns without actually conquering them.
There are multiple benefits to a system like this: It removes the necessity to do some AI calculation by there not being a change in ownership of a settlement, both for the attacking and defending factions. It would increase internal faction stability for the defending faction by not giving further incentive to a clan to switch allegience due to losing their settlements. It would also really simplify my job for the reasons previously stated in regards to more smoothly ignoring a settlement which would've been a nuisance/liability to occupy.
It also wouldn't be too hard to implement. Some very simple calculations can be done for when only AI are deciding whether to take over a settlement or not: 1) "Is this settlement too far away from most of our other settlements?" 2) "If I were to accept this settlement, would I be able to tackle the increased garrison costs I'd have to pay to properly defend it?" And some other obvious parameters.
Essentially, when an AI party successfully besieges a settlement, first the people the settlement is offered to have to decide: "Do I even want it?", if not, then more and more vassals are asked the same question, until if everyone else in the faction has said no, the decision is left to the faction leader whether the faction should pillage & abandon, or just take over the town anyways.
Ah I see. Thanks for the correction!Captain mode is the overlap between the Singleplayer and Multiplayer (since both make use of the AI competence), and the limited way TW approaches balancing (balancing all MP gamemodes using the same perks) it looks like "pull the rope" game, where the rope is the balance, and it can only go one way, but several Multiplayer modes plus Singleplayer sometimes are pulling each to their own side.
A side note:
-political discussion or any other kind of derailing is nit desirable in the on-topic threads, especially patch notes.
Ok confirmed after testing some saved battles I use as reference, devs have broken the game again and archers are ultra OP again, similar to pre 1.5.3 levels. Well done...
Yes, let's destroy the singleplayer balancing just to make captain mode players happier who probably represent 1% of the playerbase. Maybe I am wrong and most of the people do not care at all about this, but I find this to be a pretty huge issue. This game is all about battles and you have just made battles 0 challenging and 0 enjoyable again because archers are ultra OP and kill everything.