Search results

  1. Randomized chance of death needs to be reworked

    Problem is you would not live that long if a loosing lord has 20% deathrisk at age 33 :smile: They will be dead at 23 if they has fallen 20 times by then. Just count, age - (15 + 18 ) + 20. You can have 5% death at age 18 if you are unlucky/enter a loosing/falling streak. For AI I guess its not uncommon to loose or at least fall in 20 battles/year. Considering they fall in >95% of their "real" battle, whether winning or loosing. I don't know if their statistics are as bad in simulated battles. But if we make a system att allows at least 60% of band-leading lords to live untill they are 55, I would like a system like you propose here. They retire from warlording and settle down as a steward. I like your suggestion with tutoring youngsters but I don't want to see 18 your old monsters, who are as good as their mentor :smile: Onther issue here is that alot of the lords has a starting age of ~50. This means you will likely not encounter the "old foxes" on the field but only their younger relatives and sons.

    I mean, that was the point of the reverse death count concept (which was a good idea), winning battles reels back in the battle wounded chance of death. (Surely all the AI lords don't fall in every single against the AI right? that should grant them some reverse death counts.)

    Numbers obviously need to be worked out better but I had no information to go on before. So if it's a 10% death chance how about we aim for something like this as a baseline.

    18 -0.5%
    24 1.5%
    30 3.5%
    36 6.5%
    42 10.5%
    48 15.5%
    54 21.5%
    60 28.5%

    So with this, We can give Lords at age 18 some buffer to completely prevent death chance. We can change the wounded death chance increase to be a 5% metric with increments of 0.1% per battle if wounded and if they survive a battle they receive a 1.0 reduction in their wounded counter (i.e Lord is wounded 27 times in a row which gives him a 2.7% extra chance of death, lord survives next battle to bring his wounded chance down to 1.7%) We could also modify this to be increased or decreased based on clan size to promote healthy clan numbers. For every clan member of age above "x" or below "y" there's a percentage increase/decrease in death chance and this system will help self right clans by leveling off abnormally large ones while attempting to protect smaller ones
    I think we should seperate the player out of the equation for now. The players should not risk death in battle really(I have fallen too many times to count and yet never died from it so I guess that is the case already). But for other charachters - in what scale do we want them to die? I say maximum in same scale that a new noble comes to age. if we had a situation (globaly in Calradia) where 10 nobles comes of age each year, then an avarage of 10 nobles should die(in total, battle and age). Othervice the world would either depopulate or overpoulate - both bad! I suggest a global death-risk multiplayer depending on this statistics. Then we multiply a very low base deathrisk with this multiplier to calculate the actual deatrisk.
    Players can certainly die in battle (I've had it happen to me) I believe the game will only cold clock you if your clan is too large though. You take over whoever would be second in command (Usually your wife) As for death and birth rates, Birth rates are incredibly easy to modify. I'd rather create the outline for death rates and simply modify birthrates around that instead since that seems significantly easier. Part of the problem I see with not having a chance to kill lords immediately is that it's very immersion breaking that for the first couple years lords simply don't die then all the sudden they start falling left and right as kids come into fruition. I think the chance of killing older lords in battle can provide it's own merits even early in the game but we'd need to actually provide AI lords with some personality so players care about them in the first place since it should only take 1 interaction to build a basic idea of a character through their first impression.

    I would like a very low death-risk and introduce a "wounded" charachter-state. While "wounded", charachter suffer an lower HP regen, increased deathrisk and require additional HP to enter battles.

    Base Death-risk variables:
    = charachter age
    BM = Base modifier(15 default)
    AM = Age midifier(18 default - adult age)
    FM = Fallen Modifier(0-20 number of times a charachter has fallen)
    ARM = Armour modifier(1-6 avarage armortier)

    Base death-risk: My edited OP proposal (AGE - ( BM + AM) + FM) / ARM / 10
    • 40 year old, never fallen charachter with T3 armour: 0,7%
    • 50 year old, 20 times fallen charachter with T5 armour : 0,74%
    • 22 year old, 15 times fallen charachter with T2 armour: 0,2%
    • 60 year old, 20 times fallen charachter with T2 armour: 2,35%
    I can see at least 4 wounded states

    InjuryBattleready at HPEffectsRemoved byDeathrisk modifierRemoval effect
    None(as is)20Base(see above)
    Wounded30HP regen x 0,75HP = 50Low(Base x 5)FM = 0****
    Badly Wounded50HP regen x 0,5*Medium(Base x 20)FM - 5****
    Severly Injured75HP regen x 0,25**High(Base x 50)None
    Maimed***NeverHP regen x 0,1NeverN/AN/A

    * At HP 75: Removed and sets HP = 30
    ** At HP 100: Downgrades to Badly Wounded and sets HP = 40
    *** Even a maimed charachter can still do anything but participate in battles without any malus but they will die earlier from age
    **** By resetting/reducing Fallen Modifier when removing wounds, we give the player some additional control over the deathrisk. Given time to recover injuries, all characters benefits. Ignoring them sets them at additional risk. And yes, charachters rarely will reach a high FM - score

    When falling in battle, wound trait has a big risk(75%?) of beeing added or upgraded (if falling with one active). The player does not get them by default(can be a setting ofc but playing as maimed sounds... boring!) this would force AI lords to stay out of battle. It could be used as an AI anti-snowballing thing as well. A Badly Wounded lord leaves an offensive army for example while only a Severly injured lord leaves a defensive army.

    They don't die, but they are fighting alot less! This would give battles more meaning, give lords more personality and preserve the gamestate abit longer(less snowballing without player influence).

    This Wounded traits would provide AI writers with a great opportunity to solve alot of AI related issues in the game.
    I think part of the problem with this method would be that every lord would be absolutely destroyed incredibly quickly from battle, and it'd significantly slow the actual gameplay part of the game down which would end up not being very fun for the player who wants to fight battles or in the opposite direction, this system could be abused very easily by decimating enemy armies and taking them out of the game for longer causing heavier snowballing from the lack of response these newly wounded lords can't muster causing the player to steamroll entire kingdoms by themselves. The concept of a temporary wounded state could have a lot of merit for lord personality, quest purposes, and relation purposes but you'd need to be incredibly careful when affecting how it impacts battles since that's a very delicate scale.
  2. Randomized chance of death needs to be reworked

    Of cause, but 20 HP AI lords in battle is not much better, if they risk dying when falling. Default it to 50% for participating in simulated battles however makes more sense. If they don't enter battle, they don't die, though being among the prisoners if loosing.

    Nah, your OP-suggestion would give a lord who has fallen 20+ times and is 53 years old a death-risk of freaking high 40%. Current flat 10% is insane and what everyone votes against :razz: Nobody wants a situation where all AI lords are statistically dead after 10 times fallnig in battle :smile: It needs to go down quite alot. Very few lords would have any "protecten" from that suggestion, most would be far more fragile(All charachters starting at 43+ to be specific).

    It gives you a good reason to take care of them and equip them well as it makes quite big differense. And the purpuse of armour is to save life after all.

    It´s an issue that AI has the same armour at all time. I think they should at minimum have a risk to lose a random armourpart when loosing a battle, replacing it with a T3 noble armour-part and some mechanic for them to get them upgraded as well.

    It could even be turn into a boost for charachters in a winning party. I mean, it could range from 20 to -20%. instead of from 20 to 0%.
    I believe wounded AI lords attempt to seek shelter and recover. I could be wrong but I remember it in one of the patch notes.

    I mean, at 53 years old you've gotten pretty far and are probably on your death bed soon (Lot of AI lords die of natural causes in late 50's early 60's it seems). My mental reasoning here would be around 40-50 you stop being a party leader (Maybe unless you have traits that encourage you to stay as a war party), retire, and become a tutor for younger clan members to take over your shoes. This would help keep new lords from being terrible right from the getgo at age 18 and let the old guard step down without having to lead parties until they die. It also helps infuse new blood into long campaigns in a structured way at a reasonable time frame for the player too and gives clans a little more immersion and potential for old tutors to give unique sets of quests (Gather me supplies for teaching, I'd like to teach your companion/family member "x" for a week, escort me to "x" town during war, etc). But yeah like I said an exponential scale that starts low when young and ramps up harder as the lord gets older/has more clan members/died more would probably be better since a linear system would probably result in a lot of younger lords dying in their early/mid 30's.

    I mean, by the time I'm 30 I've already got lower tier 4/5 armor for all my companions and stacks upon stacks of it in my fief for new companions so it's not really much of a change since you shouldn't be neglecting your companions to begin with. Good armor is very easy to acquire in Bannerlord by just popping lords in a war or winning tournaments which can be done very early. I'd like a system that allows AI lords to have their armor be shifted but it's dangerous to reward their extreme high tier armor to a player since it's pretty much objectively the best armor in the game and it would instantly break any sort of gear progression as you topple over AI lords with ease. I think the economy would need to be fixed, or AI lords should start with slightly worse gear and upgrade over time to begin with. Maybe some interaction with clan tier(though clan tier probably needs to have it's own rework since it's effectively a progress bar instead of a shifting weight of how influential a clan is and that results in late game static clans) or age or influence or even just clan purse to buy the higher tier gear. Lot of options here that could be explored.

    a temporary death prevention for winning battles might be a bit too extreme in the moment. I think it'd just operate better on a universal scale since balancing a universal death counter and the temporary death prevention counter would result in easily exploitable situations and drastic turn arounds when it comes to death chance which would feel a little weird.
  3. Randomized chance of death needs to be reworked

    Haha! No, it would rather save them from death, they would constantly be below 20% health and not participate in many battles....

    Jokes aside, they could have a 50% health threshold for participating in battles instead of the around 20% for players. Especially in simulated battles, a wounded lord(below 50% health) could use the "send troops" - option as deafult.

    Age - 33(15+18 ) can alone be a very high death-rate when looking closer. A 53 year old lord would suffer a 20% death-risk if falling in battle. IE, there would hardly be any charachters 40+. I think there needs to be another parameter as well. How about dividing with the characher median armour-tier? That means the same 53 year old lord that has fallen i battle 20+ times but have an insane T6 armourwould land a deathrisk slightly above 6%? For your 40 year old companion with lootergear but who has never fallen before its 7% too((7+0)/1).

    And there could be some kind of mechanic to reduce the "death-count malus" - maybe keep count of no of battles without falling and after each battle subtract that number for the "death-count malus" - number. This can ofc be cheased by a player but a companion can fall even against 5 looters :razz:
    I should have been clearer, I meant no increased death chance on being wounded not the ability to enter battle wounded. 1HP AI lords in battle would be pretty goofy.

    Alternatively, there's probably a much more complicated way of doing this that takes into account clan size and maybe less of a linear percentage chance and more of a exponential chance the older you are/more you've been hurt/larger your clan. I have no idea what that equation would be so I just kind of spitballed a basic straight forward concept because as flawed as it is it'd still be better than the current system.

    Armor could have another effect on the chance, though it'd seem to be a one dimensional change when it comes to AI lords who never change their armor, and it would only cause your early game companions (and you for that matter) to die easier early on in the run which is kind of the intention against this system so I'm not sure how well that would work with the current armor system in place.

    I do quite like the reverse death count for surviving battles, that makes the death clock on being wounded less permanent and lets the player effectively play the game without having to worry about them or their companions being wounded every now and then without being irreparably affected by increased death chance.
  4. Randomized chance of death needs to be reworked

    This is an easy and rather nice "shortcut" compared to how it is now. At least if OP means for it work for AI and for simulated AI battles as well as for player and their familly :razz:
    On one hand a universal system like that would be good for immersion in the world, but the AI might need a little buff behind the scenes (no wounded penalty maybe?) since AI lords get knocked out so often they'd all be at the 20% cap before the first year and that'd probably result in a massive swathe of deaths.
  5. Randomized chance of death needs to be reworked

    So currently the system of death is a random chance with heavily leaning towards kills if the clan is too large. To me this feels a bit unfun ultimately because of how random it ends up being, you often lose family members out of nowhere I think a better system would be a percentage chance of...
  6. [Main Quest Sidequest] Award a vassal player a Castle

    I'm not so sure about this specific implementation since new fief awards are partially based on proximity to existing owned fiefs when deciding which lords receive the voting nod so having a garbage bandit ridden territory in the back of your kingdom would mean you would almost never be in the voting for new territory, this also hurts the overall gameflow since part of the fun about a new fief is that it's likely conquered from another kingdom and it's on the frontlines meaning you get to protect your new territory in the ongoing war.

    I think something that could be interesting in a similar vein would be land reform. Say a kingdom could call a vote (Or it could happen on a cycle every 9 months or so) to redistribute land. This would require all clans with more than 1 territory to offer up one of their pieces of land and a voting cycle would begin based on current voting factors with a tilt towards proximity to group territory together so that clans can defend their land easier and new lords could receive fiefs without having to go to war.

    This would also allow for defections to be a little more prevalent since they're all but disabled right now as a currently a defecting lord generally won't have any fiefs (that issue having caused the defection), and unless the faction he goes to war with wins a siege, he won't get any more fiefs causing chain defections.
  7. Switch horse archers and cavalry at the start of battle

    I believe it's this way because Horse Archers cannot fire on their right side so they're automatically lined up with opposing infantry on the left to provide easiest access to using their bows without having to make janky movements to be in position to fire.

    If you have any companions in formations that aren't infantry it automatically changes that formation to infantry which is annoying and probably should be fixed. (I don't know if it actually affects the AI commanders performance of the unit which would be a significant oversight if so.)
  8. Improve Clan Relationship Calculations

    I do quite like this suggestion and hopefully a similar system will be put in place in the future, but at the moment I understand why it exists the way it does given the confines of game mechanics we have at our disposal. All of our interactions that really determine relationship pretty much revolve around the clan leader and their decisions (Outside of marriage and quests for clans members of clans who dislike you.)

    In addition to this system, more specific instances of relevant relation status would need to be introduced to provide these personal relationships actual merit. Perhaps even clans splintering or otherwise imploding from poor relation status within the clan could allow more emergent gameplay in longer campaigns. This could also provide an interesting sub-hierarchy outside of the standard kingdoms for the player to interact with and introduce a lot of roguery missions such as assassinating clan leaders or otherwise diminishing the power of clans through one way or another (sabotage, scare tactics, pinning a failed "assassination" attempt on another clan, etc) which would really spice up lord interactions.
  9. More uses for Companions

    Currently the only good use of Companions is to keep 2 as a Medic/Scout then to send the rest on a 1 way exclusively paid trip to be captured by bandits in a few months so they can generate gold for you. I feel that's pretty lame at the moment and I think it boils down to the main 2 core...
  10. Allow players to assign all "discovered" Troop Types to different Group Formations

    One of the most annoying aspects of the Party System at the moment is the Troop Groups that constantly shuffle around because of Prisoners/Clan Parties/Garrisons/etc resetting their Formation Type upon changing hands for seemingly arbitrary reasons. Not only that, but if I don't have immediate...
  11. Need More Info Pressing Mouse4 and Left clicking on dialogue options causes temporary softlock

    This softlock can be fixed by alt-tabbing out and in again to reset the dialogue instance but to give some further information if you attempt to select any dialogue option with your Mouse4 button depressed the selected text will highlight itself and you'll be locked out of selecting any other...
  12. When leading an army, lords should inform you of their needs

    For example, if one of my lords feels understaffed he should bring a dialogue up to request a visit to villages for recruits, or if another of my lords is short on food he should request a visit to town to stock up. Similarly to that, you should be able to "gift" your lords these things in the...
  13. In Progress Wages of extra parties lead by companions inflate everytime they recruit troops

    Is there a possibility that the AI has recruited higher tier troops than recruits? If they recruit any Noble units that's a hefty price of 200 a pop, aswell as any tier 3 units which are 100 each.

    Also parties will buy food and supplies in town/villages if they are low which adds temporarily onto your party wage.
  14. Resolved Mounted Pillager/Raider from "Caravan Ambush" not counting as Bandits for "Landowner needs manual laborers" quest

    I have been informed that this issue is fixed on our development branch and the fix will be implemented with the upcoming patches. Thanks for reporting!
    Great! Can't wait for the next major update boys. Keep it up! :smile:
  15. Resolved Mounted Pillager/Raider from "Caravan Ambush" not counting as Bandits for "Landowner needs manual laborers" quest

    Glad to hear, have fun! :smile:
    The issue isn't actually solved, the other poster just said how a player could manually fix the bug on their end by editing the xml file but it is still a bug that should be fixed officially (And shouldn't be too difficult to fix either since it's a simple labeling problem)
  16. Resolved My companion wins a tournament but award does not show in the inventory

    Are you still experiencing this issue?
    This is still an ongoing issue with all save files across all versions. Your Companions and family that win tournaments don't receive rewards in any form.
  17. In Progress Vassal Defection Takes Fief With It

    I believe the way it works is that if you betray a faction while you are at war you will take your settlements with you. This applies to AI lords too. Last situation I've had this happen was back in the early beta so it may be different now but assuming nothing has changed since then that's how it should be functioning.
  18. In Progress Siege icon stay forever

    I can provide a little more information on this bug as I've had it happen 2 times. It seems to only happen to the player's faction (I was a Vassal in both instances) and it seems to only appear if you aren't in the vicinity of the siege when it ends. (This may not be true but it's what I've experienced so far.)
  19. In Progress Daily Income calculations are off by an exorbitant amount

    In the bottom right information menu on the world map, under the gold coin icon (daily income) I'm projected anywhere between 1,000 and 3,000 gold to be gained per day. Unfortunately I'm finding that I'm instead losing anywhere between 1,000 and 6,000 gold per day. I believe this may have...
Top Bottom