Search results

  1. The real current problem of this game in terms of balance

    Depth and role play. It makes relationship more meaningful like it was in Warband. It also allows deeper politics, especially for mods. Say, stripping a clan of its members one by one into your side. Meddling in a clan's succession crisis. Actual geopolitic because a fief is owned by a person first, and the clan later. These are just from the top of my head. I can keep going if I really try.

    The current clan relation system in Bannerlord makes relationship very superficial and gamey. It prevents a lot of cool features to be added in. Again, this wouldn't diminish the current clan relation. It will still exist in a different form. It will only enrich the game.
    Alright, I get it. You feel it will open up for more opportunities. Sure.
  2. The real current problem of this game in terms of balance

    Just make such actions add relation to every adult member of that clan. It's not hard. Say you rescue a lord from a prison. You get +20 with him and +10 with his clan. Voting for a certain lord to own a castle gives +20 to the lord and +5 to the clan. Stuff like that. This way you can have more realistic relationships with NPC.

    "Grank is best friends with Boronchar and is generally liked by his clan."
    "Grank is neutral with Abagai but her clan generally dislikes him."
    But what would be the point?

    The only practical difference that I can see is that you might experience a very specific situation where a member of clan, from a hostile faction, that you have a good relationship with gets captured and replaced by one you have not developed a relationship with; who then proceed to raid your villages.

    Apart from that it might affect a few akward dialogs of the "never seen you before" -> "you are my best friend" nature (which I personally skip anyway).

    On the other hand. It would negatively affect your ability to build relationships with members of your faction. E.g. you can only affect the relationship of the owner (clanleader) by handing in captured lords.

    I tend to do use that method quite a bit my self so I am not a fan of the proposal.
  3. The real current problem of this game in terms of balance

    1) yes, eventually it does suck with more or less instantly respawning armies. But there is a point in the game where you basically want the map to be populated with as many parties as possible (to farm).

    2) It is a terrible idea to replace clan relationship with individual relationship. Atm you can at least build relationship with a clan by handing in captured lords to one of the clan´s holdings. With individual relationships you would basically be reduced to capture and releash (and forced to do so a truckload of times more).
  4. Constant Warfare in Late Game - Unplayable

    This is a good question as a single life Warband-like pacing is quite different from multi-generational dynasty pacing - those two games need different balancing and you can't have it both ways, like Taleworlds tried to do. They try to accommodate both players who like and hate dynasties and the game balancing suffers. This is cowardly game design IMO, they should have enforced dynastic play (and balancing) and made it palatable to dynasty-haters.

    ...As long as the pacing is based on a non-dynastic playstile:wink:

    But, personally, I can live with some improvement to the early phase of the game; as in the period up to the point where you transition to hunting lords. Atm this does not feel rewarding and is essentially just something that you need to transition out of as quickly as possible.

    Realisticly speaking, "improvement" in the endgame tend to come in two flavors. Everyone declares war on you or a doomstack arrives from off the map.
  5. Constant Warfare in Late Game - Unplayable

    The game is supposed to go on forever so that the heir system has a purpose. I like that they've made it hard to conquer the whole map, it is still possible, just hard. I would perhaps have liked it better if they had chosen another way to make it hard rather than replenish lords fast.
    The game is supposed to go on forever so that the heir system has a purpose. I like that they've made it hard to conquer the whole map, it is still possible, just hard. I would perhaps have liked it better if they had chosen another way to make it hard rather than replenish lords fast.
    The introduction of heirs is probably the source of alot of problems. You can now play the game for (insert number) times longer than warband but you are essentially just repeating the same thing (insert number) more times.

    But, as fare as I recollect it has been a requested feature. so. Self-imposed missery?
  6. Constant Warfare in Late Game - Unplayable

    I rarely aim to conquer the map, its pretty tedious even on warband, the first time I actually made the effort I did it just because I was waiting for Bannerlords ea to release.

    One of my favourite things about this series is that the player isn't meant to do anything, you're just another lord/pleb and you can do what you want so no, I disagree the player isnt mean to snowball the map and "win"
    Agreed. In warband I am sure I have stopped more games shortly after becoming lord than I have continued. Always enjoyed the smaller scale build up/early stage of the game.
  7. Lvl 1 companions like warband

    I agree; at least we should be able to reset all their perks when we recruit them, as sometimes they have the most useless.
    Restart game until scout "of the waste" + healer "Aserai scholar". Go find them, check perks and go arrrggkk.

    I endorse your proposal:smile:
  8. "Footmen on horses" should be as fast as cavalry and be able to carry one more animal.

    Except the cost to acquire cavalry is so much more. You are literally paying for the extra map speed. There are also perks that can massively bridge that gap, and the right combination of perks can have you moving much faster through forests with “mounted infantry” versus a cavalry army, which moves significantly faster in open expanses in the east and south.

    Part of what makes a good sandbox game exciting is risk vs reward and pros/cons choices. Cavalry are expensive and wasted on sieges, but move quickly on the map and offer more tactical options. Infantry move slower but are cheaper to produce, and the Mount/footman combo generates more carrying capacity.

    And let’s not forget that you don’t just expend one horse on the entire line, you expend two horses when training from scratch, and hiring mounted troops with a horse is quite a bit more expensive as well.

    So please, do not turn this into every other game where there is an “obvious” choice and 100% foot soldier armies are strictly better then mounted ones all because a handful of players wanted the upsides both had to offer wrapped into one. I don’t think you were being fully honest on the bullet point, even though you claimed you were. Do you want to get to the siege faster? Or do you want to use the more cost efficient troops?
    There was a time where it was a pain to find warhorse. Buts costs...costs are trivial.

    They could increase recruitment costs by a factor of 5 and it would still be trivial.
  9. "Footmen on horses" should be as fast as cavalry and be able to carry one more animal.

    I would also much prefer that an infantry man + 1 horse would have the same mapspeed as a cavalry.

    Not because of realism but simply because I would prefer to decide on the composition of troops based on what I would like to fight with rather than what gives me a strategic edge on the map.

    And lets be honest. It wouldnt really be a case of "I want overpowered infantry without having to live with the downside".

    So, thumbs up, even if we might not agree on the reasoning.
  10. This Forum is Fun

    Agreed, complaining is fine. Ranting is fine. Insulting is kinda low but it's okay. Threating someone's life is never fine
    I disagree with you. You are a bad person!

    The forum has the occational post about murdering your wife and why everyone hates you for murdering other nobles. But, where are the posts about murdering children?

    CK forums have always had them; this forum also needs more posts about murdering children!
  11. Suicide Bandits During Quest

    Nahh, I am sure they considered making looters explode on death to increase the risk; but decided against it out of a fear it would lead to a call to include firearms in the game.
  12. Suicide Bandits During Quest

    But losing elite units is difficulty = challenge = mad skillz = gud gem.
    That is why it is clear that Hruza is to blame
  13. Suicide Bandits During Quest

    Keep losing cav on auto resolve when doing all these silly bandit quests for villagers get annoying af... consider the time it take to train them up. You can still train up fresh recruits vs bandits, just they not very good at chase down fleeing units.
    Thats what I mean by the "how many knights does it take to ride down one fleeing looter problem".

    I am sure others than my self have been on the verge of throwing stuff at the screen in rage over watching your brave band of knights chase a looter across the map only for him to escape in the end.
  14. Thoughts on the Late Game? Any Benefit of being a King?

    You could turn it around and ask the question "What is the point of not being a king"

    King: chain sieges and buying clans
    Lord: ???

    Edit. I think this reply could come of as rude which was not intended. So to clarify.

    As you progress through the game more and more sources of progression is closed of or grinds to a halt. In the beginning you improve skills, gear up, improve your finances, build an army etc. Eventually these motivations disappear and need to be replaced with other sources of motivation; in this case basically have more land and vassals.

    Is it enough? Not for me and probably not really for you either.

    In fairness, it is not really a problem exclusive to Bannerlord/warband. On the top of my head I cant actually think of a game that have really succeeded in making the path from "I am now the strongest king in the world to I have conquered the whole map" engaging.

    I have not personally conquered the whole map in Bannerlord and I really doubt that anyone would be able to come up with something that could compel me to do so.
  15. Suicide Bandits During Quest

    Do you know reason for this change? It makes no sense.
    It is clear you are to blame:wink:

    They figured out that players use looters to level up low level troops and went:

    "Hey that will not do, there should be a risk involved! How can we solve this? I know! Make it so tedious to do that players will autoresolve instead so we can secretly kill off some of the elite units!"

    Maybe they just figured out that they couldnt solve the "how many knights does it take to ride down one fleeing looter problem" and decided to resolve the problem by removing the option entirely.
  16. Leveling - "Stronger Opponent Logic"

    And now compare that to MB:

    1) Send your people to fight looters to level.
    2)3)4)5)6)7) Repeat.

    Congratulation, you will have a group of supersoldiers in 1 week.

    So which way is better?
    You fight weak enemies to prepare for fighting stronger enemies seems fine to me.

    I have not found that fighting looters is very rewarding. The only thing that it is really useful for is training companions in archery-horse riding.

    In my view you only start seeing real progress when you move to merc work-hunting lords.

    Edit. what I miss from warband is the middleground e.g. it still felt rewarding to fight particularly searaiders.
  17. Leveling - "Stronger Opponent Logic"

    If kenshi was balanced it wouldnt be nearly as fun.
    I agree, it can be incredibly fun to break the system; which is also why it is one of my favorit games.

    But, I dont think it would translate well to Bannerlord. In fairness, you could also break Warband by e.g. farming Nords as a horsearcher.
  18. Leveling - "Stronger Opponent Logic"

    Not really, no. First of all the only reward you get from loosing is XP, there's no other "heavy reward". So yes, it's rewarding as long as you don't mind the consequences of loosing the fight. Second of all, stronger opponent logic doesn't require you to lose the fight. There are plenty of ways to defeat higher level opponents starting with the simplest and most obvious one: bring more men in to a fight.

    Getting stomped, enslaved, crippled and eaten alive is one way to play Kenshi, but by far not the smartest one.
    The thing is. It is essentially the smart way to do it.

    1) Send your people to different camps or the place with supersized banditgroups (forgot its name) for toughness training (get up)
    2) Find a high level wanderer to beat you up for defence training
    3) Go kick UCs for attack training or go hunt beakthingnests for the added bonus of money.
    4)Somewhere along the way, train strenght by running forth and back with a dead/alive guy on your shoulders.

    Congratulation, you will have a group of supersoldiers in 2-3 weeks depending on how much strenght is enough for you.
  19. Prosperity and hearth inflation?

    My personal experience has been that there are certain consistent "safe zones" that form away from the borders and the rest of the towns spiral down into low/very low prosperity. I don't know why they've gone and added another soft cap to prosperity. I just happened to note the thread where the dev responsible saw things were not to his liking.
    Yes, it is also my experience that there are certain, particularly, border regions that are really hard hit.

    It would be beneficial, in my opinion, if there were a form of catch up mechanisms in place to compensate a bit for this.
  20. Leveling - "Stronger Opponent Logic"

    Been playing Kenshi, game that is quit similar to MB. That game have something called "Stronger Opponent Logic". What that means is that you level faster if you fight opponents better then you. On the other hand fighting opponents far below your level won't make you learn anything.

    That made me think that MB could benefit from similar mechanic. It could potentially remove some more grindy parts of the game, there would be no need to farm looters, and that would remove need to spam bandits (looters in particular) just for the purpose of leveling player and his soldiers.

    The way this works in Kenshi is that when game character attacks another game character (either NPC or player), his attack skill is compared to opponents defense skill and larger the difference (in favor of opponents defense), more XP for the attack skill he gains from that attack (further modified depending on if he lands a hit or gets blocked). Same for the other character, his defense skill is compared to attacker's attack skill and larger the difference, more XP he gains for his defense skill.

    What this does in the game is that when low level character fights high level character, low level character is more likely to loose but he is also gaining XP faster.

    Now this can't be just copy pasted in to MB, since A, combat is not based on attack versus defense skills and B, there is different leveling for troops and "heroes", but some other implementation of this principle would be possible. I believe MB could potentially benefit from something like that.
    No it could not.

    Kenshi is fantastic and it is an interesting mechanism; but also one that is deeply flawed.

    Virtuelle everything in Kenshi reward you for playing the game "unnaturally". E.g. you are heavily rewarded for taking on opponents you cannot beat. You are heavily rewarded for "getting up", knowing full well that you will go down moments later (so you can get rewarded for getting up again..and again...)

    and so forth.

    It is a fun and novel game. But it is also a completely unbalanced one.
Top Bottom