You may find a lot of similar videos about other engines. Such things are important part of communication between developers and rest of the world, they attract but do not answer questions.Ki-Ok Khan said:Maybe this?
MadVader said:Good questions, perhaps you need a custom engine to optimize it for a large number of actors, their animations, AI and pathfinding, and it's not merely a vanity project…
Usually if you do approximately the same as others it’s impossible to win the race if you started significantly later. Time is very material.Osvaldon said:A custom engine, created for the needs of a specific game, can provide better performance…
The question «why do not others do that» makes sense only under very specific conditions.DanAngleland said:… why on earth nobody else is making games with anything remotely near M&B's NPC and real player numbers if that is the case- and player/NPC count is just one facet of M&B.
DanAngleland said:extensively modifying it before eventually running into brick walls.
Yes. That’s usually one of the main point of redevelopment — control over source code, no limit etc. Even opensource projects if they are huge do not give enough control and freedom. Understanding and changing the code that is not yours is a difficult problem. However developing from the scratch you also may eventually run into a wall, because limits exist anyway. And if for a stable engine this wall is from shiny brick and well-documented, your personal wall will be from vague strained glass appeared suddenly from «nothing».Osvaldon said:But the most important part of having a custom engine is that there are no limits to what you can do with it when developing your game.
Some of games on mentioned UE have very rich modding culture too.Harmi said:Why didn't they do it then? They wanted to keep the rich modding culture going on.
Yup, that’s why I don't ask to compare new BL engine, UE and Unity from the point of whole business process. Reformulating my question I'm interesting how opinion of developers changed for 5(I'm not sure here) of developing. My question is not about business but about personal feelings.kalarhan said:which is better? Again that would be a boring business discussion, not something for a reply on a blog discussion.
RoboSenshi said:I completely agree. I also hope the AI is coded to attack and fight at each other's borders rather than target settlements way too far away. It would be so annoying if the AI in BL go on and seige a town on the other side of the map and ignore the one on its border. I hated that so much in Warband.warpowerfull said:I'm a bit worried about being able to defend your territory as it becomes bigger and bigger. Since you can't be everywhere at the same time the AI controlled armies that are in your kingdom need to be able to be smart enough and capable enough to defend your territories. Like if there is a huge enemy army coming controlled by a marshal, your AI lords need to get together and face them as a big army and not just run away from them individually, which happens in Warband a lot. I hate not having the abilities to adequately control my borders and just getting harassed by the AI in games. Recent example being in Total Warhammer where AI just raids and runs away without you being able to catch up to them.
Are you sure? I would assume that line 10 istroycall said:2. I'm getting an error at line 10, group ID error: 25, any idea on what might be causing this?
(agent_get_division, ":class", ":agent"), #Group ID error (class_is_listening_order, ":player_agent", ":class"),
In the code, which you are investigating.meminimina said:where do i actually do this.?
sorry im kinda new to these kinds of stuff sorry.
In case of mystery, first, that is good to check is if the code even is called.meminimina said:can you explain to me how?
To test I usually used shortened timings for simple triggers, keys for battle tirggers and global vars (that allow skipping conditions) and menu for regular ones.Khamukkamu said:What's
the besta good way to test triggers (simple or regular triggers)? Bind it to a key click then see if it triggers? Anyone have best practices?
If it's not possible for you, it does mean that it's not possible for a normally physically developed person.Stromming said:Rongar said:No. The person turns all torso, not just head.TheBarbarianGamer said:Rongar said:
In the video the person did turn the head 180 degrees...
Yeah it is still not possible. Silly people trying to defend silly things is just silly
I could guess that because it requires efforts but it's doubtful feature for game play.SenorZorros said:then why haven't they already implemented the option to switch out troopsRongar said:For M&B they definitely were reading suggestions. And I believe that they implemented those of them that were reasonable in sense effort-result.
But since that I don't think they need to read new suggestion because amount of suggestion that were made in time of M&B betas enough for 4-5 games. And frankly, I don't see really new suggestions.
No. The person turns all torso, not just head.TheBarbarianGamer said:Rongar said:
In the video the person did turn the head 180 degrees...
For M&B they definitely were reading suggestions. And I believe that they implemented those of them that were reasonable in sense effort-result.KuroiNekouPL said:I don't think TaleWorlds even reads suggestions. They didn't seem to before Warband launched.Quidfit said:I just want to put out how I think a coop mode should work in bannerlord. I know it's unlikely to be considered but is there anywhere to submit suggestions?
There is not ablity to turn a head 180 degrees in WB or even in MB. However unability to turn head 180 degrees it does not mean that it's not possible to look back.TheBarbarianGamer said:
If you could know how we made a decision to do that, you would never suggested it for BL.Do not look here said:As far as helmet vision goes, this one is, I think, best approach I've seen.
Varrak said:Add breath voice into that and perfect
Gladiatorial fights originated from ritual sacrifice where "god chose who it wanted to be sacrificed".TheFlyingFishy said:From my understanding the vast majority of Roman gladiatorial fights were explicitly not to the death.
I don't see an error in provided part of the code. I could suppose that it's either a disguised indentation error or it comes from the other part.builder of the gods said:error code:
it's in let_nearby_parties_join_current_battle (module_scripts).Vulpes_Inculta said:Got a question here and hope it's a right thread to ask.
How may I change a range at which "allied" enemies join each other battles against player on the world map?
For example - 2 bandit groups are chasing me cause their combined strength is supposed to be higher. One of them attacks but another doesn't join because it's still too far away. That's not right. How may I increase this "joining" distance? Thank you!
Yep, that is quite nice point, that realistic game is not that game where rare/unlikely approaches are forbidden, but the game where you can explore weakness and strongness of different approaches. And if you are exceptional in kb skills you can be exceptional in virtual battlefield too.SenorZorros said:dual wielding:
I'd still like to see the ability and it's uselessness as well as this: