a sound suggestion, pretty logical and makes executions into a viable path either gameplay-wise or as a RPing tool (like killing those who raid your villages). That means we ain't getting it because that's how TW rolls:They seemed to have been improved a bit, at least in some cases:
(Seems really odd his own clan dey Valant literally doesn't care)
The problem is the relationship hits are all so random (after a bit of my own testing), so sometimes you do still get like -60 relation hits with Clans/Factions when the executed isn't even really affiliated with them. If I recall most of the relationship penalties are determined by who the executed friends are, but those lists are so large and random they don't make any sense. It may still be random for the relationship hits too, think it was that way at one point. Like how how would a Vlandian noble be friends with a Khuzait noble when they don't even share borders?
I get there needs to be some discouragement for executions, otherwise it's all too simple just to execute all the Lords you capture. The way relationships is gained/lost currently is pretty poor overall though. Do a quest for someone and you might only improve your standing by +3, dump a half dozen prisoners in a Lords dungeon and now your +100 having become their best friend forever?
The other glaring problem is A.I. never executes anyone themselves (except Rebels sometimes?) Obviously you don't expect a Honest/Merciful Lord to execute anyone, but what about Dishonest/Cruel Lords? If you're constantly raiding their villages and you reach -100 with them, why wouldn't they execute you or a fellow clan member when captured?
But relationship strength doesn't matter much outside of trying to convert Lords. Well and you can get locked out of Castles.
Tweaking my earlier post, maybe this would be more reasonable?
Clan of executed: -75 relations
Fellow Kingdom vassals of executed: -15 relations
Friends of executed: -10 relations
Merciful/Honest/Valor Nobles: -5 relations
Cruel/Dishonest/Cowardly Nobles: +5 relations
Enemies of executed: +10 relations
Of course Friends/Enemies need to be more logically defined. Ideally they would develop organically over course of a game session.
The trait system drive me nuts, it's literally right here and could add so much dynamism to the game. But TW doesn't seem to being doing anything with it at all other then a select few checks (like when you loot a fief).
ok, it is time for my answer:My ideal "Bannerlord" for me would be a much more immersive Bannerlord and many other activities more interesting than repeated battles.
I "preach" on this forum for a "singleplayer" Bannerlord with more interactive npcs, truly "endearing" companions, a deeper "diplomatic" and "economic" game system, fewer battles, more diversified activities, more depths in the RPG dimension and real Lore.
There are so many things missing in this game, that we keep repeating ourselves. But two years after EA's release, it's hard for many to hide our disappointment. The development of the game is so slow and the communication of Taleworld so superficial that we sometimes have a feeling of being ripped off.
So I'll just ask the question:
What would the ideal "Bannerlord" game be for you?
lol! I noticed that recently too but didn't say anything - the one at Amytratis' just as broken (all that involve a nearby bridge)I can't for the life of me figure out where the 2nd siege tower slot is. Let me guess it's under the bridge?
*sigh* I understand you (TW) want stuff to be on the game map, but god it would be so much simpler to have a side menu to queue equipment. Most Towns/Castles are fine, but there's always that one fief where it's like trying to find Waldo.
mate, just take the mockery like a man, giving "no you" replies really makes look like "your idiot brain's being ****ed by stupid"Yet another troll remark, have you not read the thread. I have not called MostBlunted a troll, even though he say he is one himself. I am not a troll. Just because my opinions are far separated from yours does not mean I am what you call me, that's just your power fantasy to try and make my statements seem unimportant in the eyes of others. A very disingenuous attitude, one that any reasonable person can see through and know what you are about.
And if I need to explain it further there is just no hope for you ever understanding, sorry.
who? MostBlunted? I can acertain that he is, and it always makes me crack, so no complaints there!
Why would you necro this thread, you maniac?!
I agree he exagerated there, but he isn't completely wrong (just made a thousand into a million)Um...
Roberts Space Industries is the official go-to website for all news about Star Citizen and Squadron 42. It also hosts the online store for game items and merch, as well as all the community tools used by our fans.robertsspaceindustries.com
I never defended TW, I was simply trying to help the guy improve his own experienceBut that only highlights how badly this game isnt calibrated. Its up to the Developers to give us a tightly or at least decently calibrated game. This is one of the drawbacks of "platform" type games -the devs will just go the easy route out and say "well -grab a mod if you dont like it". Of course they wont actually say that -their voice comes in the inaction of wanting to present a finely tuned game.
lol haven't used that one yet. - my new favorite combo now is Distinguished Service + RTS cameraSO you can dispose of the trash to make room for more to spawn hopping for a lucky wanderer drop with a few skill.
I might went for just making them all better or some way to request certain types but.... oh well.
Of course the skills barely matter, you can use mod recruit anyone and see even the no skill tavern maid is a fine vassal.
So we went from being able to kick at any time, plus having a kick button on the clan screen, to you have to be on the road, then actually click to talk to them, then you can kick them
Plus they die
Taleworlds is brilliant (sarcasm)
All that was seen was the banners (with stupidly undertuned bonuses) and the fixed jiggling. Admittedly, I'm glad to see the second one, but that's still a lot of problems left with unknown fixed status.
they are probably rushing the fixes as fast as possible and will release what's done to keep patching stuff for years to come... The only thing concerning about it is if they go full rage "PDX DLC CANCER" mode on us and start releasing "paid fixes" instead of actually coming through with the game... The disappointment of getting yet another broken release's not avoidable anymore, unfortunately.Yeah you'd think we'd have seen this release version by now.
Though not much good releasing it now anyways. Even if something is horribly broken, our feedback wouldn't be processed in-time to make a difference. But if they are releasing to console and actually selling physical editions (looks like there are physical copies) then they've got to be printing disc copies by now. Of course this is 2022 so I'm sure a Day 1 patch is inevitable.
I also suspect they may be deliberately holding it back, because I think they know all too well the majority of PC fanbase is displeased. And if most of us are able to play this "release version" and aren't happy with it... well that creates bad word of mouth. Let's not fool ourselves, only thing that matters at this point is selling as many copies as possible to console players. Sure there will be some extra PC sales this October, but I'm sure anyone with even a modest interest in the series bought the game as an EA title already.
Ah well just a month to go and I can make my peace with Bannerlord hopefully.
for what? bringing up that RPers don't care about losing? I'd tell you to steer clear from games focused on RPing that are built as sandboxes, like avoid CK games, they are meant for that kind of play mentality (RPing where you actually have a chance to lose and the game isn't necessarily over for it)Wow, congratulation.
kingdom alliances would be cool and all IF we had more kingdoms... As is it'd be exceptionally awkward because there aren't size disparities between kingdoms at all, the imbalance comes from biased geography and settlement distribution rather than "size" - which makes alliances either boost snowballing (which was a problem they've had a lot of difficulty solving) or it'd make the AI too passive overtime.I reckon stuff like kingdom alliances would be a cool feature, probably not that hard to implement either. Armies formed of two colors would be neat, a system of contract between the allies that affects how land is divided based on the leaders' relations with each other plus the traits they have. Contracts could be dynamic too, with multiple options like just a contract for non-aggression or purely defense (no multi-color armies just parties coming to aid when being sieged). The contracts would be made with an expiry time, followed by a cooldown that should block wars between the former-allies for at least a bit. An actual system like this would require a bit more thought than what I've wrote, it could just make things worse but more diplomacy options should be in the game and this, to me, seems like something that wouldn't be the most difficult thing to add.
so you believe you hold the best insight as to how people should play their singleplayer, and as such you oppose anything that some may or may not try to avoid because reasons? Makes absolutely no sense.The problem with most good ideas are that they only really going to be good in theory. In practise, it is just fare more likely that it is something you are going to work around instead of embracing. There is always a risk in generalising (and being alitte too cynical perhaps) but
If we take something like the ability for companions to die as an example. If I had to make a guess then it is fare more likely that players work around it rather than actually embracing it. Maybe by placing them well to the rear, maybe by ordering them to retreat at the start of a battle or perhaps as a reason to take those skills personally. The number of players who actually just let things flow as they may, is probably very very small.
Another example. There has been plenty of posts over time arguing that traits should play a bigger role. But there is one place where it does actually play a role and that is for sieges (cruel/merciful). So what do (I) do? Work around it. First line of defence is to avoid hiring merciless lords and the second is to just not call them. Management by excel when you start getting too many.. Does it really add anything?
The culture penalty. Best course of action, work around it.
The "political system". Best course of action, work around it.
And the list probably goes on and on.
I never oppose any ideas that may give the game more depth, but I also doubt TW will do anything more advanced than what we're seeing right now. All cheese will be punished severely in-game, relations are likely to remain as shallow as they currently are and NPC's will most likely remain playing the role of bots / numbers. I don't think they've ever intended for the game to have a strong RPing possibility, which's odd because without it the game becomes exceptionally boring overtime... As is I suspect they want to DLC all the fun stuff and just let the community make good games out of their skeleton barebones while they cash-in as much as possible from it.Executions are terrible because just 2 or 3 of them make the whole map hate you even if you executed one of the clan's arch-nemeses. Just tone the relationship loss down quite significantly, and maybe make executions help increase relations with cruel lords and enemy clans to the deceased.
On the other hand, being a king or vassal is plain boring because there are no inner kingdom politics. Lords don't consciously start votes for policies and they most of the time don't vote for what's in their clan's best material interest or according to their traits. Votes for seizing fiefs or kicking clans out of your kingdom never happen. Unhappy clans with money don't secede from the kingdom. You can't even start a vote for making the king abdicate, which I imagine would be beyond easy to implement. Your character is selected the ruler of the faction 99% of the time even if you're a landless tier 2 clan that joined the faction 5 days ago. The king doesn't suffer any relation penalties for overturning a majority vote. Don't even get me started on clans voting for newer wars for no reason while you're already fighting in 1-2 fronts already.
Honestly, one of the worst parts of the game has consistently been the late game precisely because these systems are not fleshed out or straight up broken. I honestly believe most of the community would be satisfied with what I've written above being fixed + landline messengers + non-aggression pacts and trade agreements (not even alliances) being implemented for late game. It obviously wouldn't be perfect but just these additions would make the game so incredibly much better.
@Duh_TaleWorlds, are there any improvements on the late game for the release?
errrmmm... here some recommendations:I finally stopped my campaign cuz forced to full spam Fiann army to do anything good in the battlefield. Boring asf, going back to modding i guess. Ah, wait no i can't cuz the modding tools are throwing random errors all the time when clicking buttons or opening native scenes ending in crashing the tools. But that deserve its own thread.
all of the systems are already woven, and apparently you don't fully understand the core game style from M&B at all.Eh does it really matter?
About the only reason to care about Prosperity is that it effects the spawn of some high end gear I think. And a bit more taxes/revenue?
High Prosperity is only meant to be temporary; everything with Towns/Castles is meant to be seeking an equilibrium - it's why you have Loyatly drift, etc. Think of it this way if a city got so big population wise that it relies on foreign food exports, you can be pretty sure at some point that city's population will crash when there's a food shortage. Most cities, even ones that have effectively been around hundreds/thousands of years go through these sort of highs and lows of "prosperity".
Like Ananda says only thing that matters in this game is the battle loop. That's where all your income really comes from right now. Trade, Fief taxes, Workshops, Caravans - yes they can net you some additional money. But it all pales in comparison to what you'll get from a few minutes of fighting a larger battle. So really why even bother with the rest?
I understand the appeal of trade and fief management, but like smithing and the board games - it's really all just a distraction to make you think the game is "deep". I think TW has really handicapped themselves by adding all these extraneous systems into the game. I believe a lot of the reason development is so slow for this game is they are trying to keep all these systems working in some kind of harmony. But in the end this game is just really a medieval kingdom battle sim of sorts. So while I admire TW's ambition to make a medieval sandbox, it has become painfully clear it's just not possible to make all this work, at least not in a reasonable amount of time.
I don't think village production will ever be reasonably balanced; you'll always end with too much or too little
So here I go on big tangent...
Quite frankly I would strip all of the following from Bannerlord:
- Food; get rid of all of it - including livestock
- Trade; and all Trade items like Jewelry
- Workshops; and all produced goods
- Village Parties (why are these even a thing to begin with?)
- Looter Parties (Looters might be fine as low level bandit, but there shouldn't be armies of hobos wandering around)
- Kingdom Policies
- Fief management (takes too long, very little real benefit)
Here's what I would leave in or add:
- Caravans; basically just gather gold - longer and further they run more gold they accumulate
- Bandits; they raid villages and attack caravans (they steal gold) - as can the player
- Notables; exist solely as Quest Givers/Influence Makers (i.e. gain their support can overthrow existing fief lord). When a Notable likes you enough, they also support you, granting you Influence
- Influence; effectively a second kind of currency you get by building relations, doing favors
- Armies; you would still need to spend influence to maintain/gather armies
- Villages, Castles, Towns; all generate income - they generate progressively more the less they are disturbed via raids/sieges i.e. Prosperity!
- Diplomacy/Politics; Calradia is offensively bland - bare minimum needs to be alliances and truces
So you start the game landless. You build up a party by either being a "good guy" doing quests or "bad guy" raiding/stealing what you can, heck maybe you do both strategically. Pretty similar to how it is now. Eventually you earn either enough money, influence, or muscle that you can become the landlord/chief of a village by buying it outright with gold, influencing out the existing landlord, or take it by force.
Instead of buying "food" (nobody really likes going around to buy cheese let's be real) you gather "supplies" by waiting in your camp, villages, or towns. You can also raid to get supplies quickly. This means you can't always be on the move though, marching from one end of the continent to the other. You do need to stop occasionally. Here's where you can add side activities in Towns, Villages, and Castles to pass time. Probably where you can have some actual RPG stuff as well. Maybe your soldiers get into brawl, maybe a companion steals something from a villager, etc. The bigger your party the more supplies you will drain (stewardship would increase supply capacity) as well. Basically even if you can put together a "doom stack" army it'll simply run out of supplies.
Basically the scheme of the game would be to
1. Build a Party i.e. complete quests to earn money
2. Become a Landowner i.e. take over a village/small fief so you have a steady income source
3. Become a Lord i.e. by taking over castle/town or joining faction so get even more income
4. Become a King i.e. by taking over multiple castles/towns and get rich
Loot from battles should provide some chump change and the occasional nice bit of gear, but ultimately owning land/collecting taxes is where you really generate money. If you want to be more then a Mercenary - you gotta claim some land. This would better justify the game's constant wars and give more importance to taking and owning fiefs.
Ideally I think Bannerlord would be better if it truly focused on party building, relationship building, fief building, and finally kingdom building. That way it's kind of strategy/war game, kind of an RPG, but it's not trying to effectively simulate a whole medieval world. Instead of modding in "diplomacy" we should be modding in "farming" or "workshops" for flavor, but here we are...
it does change, yet it's very biased.When I say the AI is barely effected by it, I mean that their behavior and the interaction with the player barely changes. It doesn't matter what troops they have, they all die the same so unless some change in prosperity prevents them from having an army that can siege a fief (it doesn't) nothing changes. You could make prosperity never change no matter what and the player experience would be the same or, possibly improved if some towns would always have food for the garrison at low prosperity.
sounds goodwe are working on this currently, and we settled on something similar on what you are proposing here.
roughly, instead of just relying on village inventory for raiding loot, we are rewarding denars, trade goods that would be commonly found in villages (such as linen, live stock, various foods, hard wood, salt etc) and of course primary production of the village. oh also, if you complete a village raid successfully instead of leaving in the middle of it you will be getting a reduced time for your disorganized state maybe non at all.
the primary idea is to make village raids a profitable action to begin with, but we didn`t want to make them just give denars, but instead primarily reward the action through trade goods. that makes sense both roleplay wise but also creates a difference between raiding villages, running back to towns to make money, and marching through Onira.
with this of course some of the perks and skill effects will be adjusted and changed as well to match the new method.
the issue's that there are too many weird rules, like the hidden kingdom bank, total clan asset also "hidden" (you have to actually talk to all members, enter barter, and look how much they have available individually, than add that to the clan leader). The Encyclopedia Extender fixes most of that, and it also brings attention to some really glaring details:It's just out of place a squandered. Someone clearly put a lot of work into this stuff, but it ended up not adjusted in a way that's useful or interactive at all. It seems very out of place along side the campaign AI that is seriously just "do I have enough troops to join army? If no raid, do I have enough troops to raid? If no go to villages, check 1 again, check 2 again..." They do absolutely nothing with the economy or fiefs and are barely effected by it. It takes years for a fief-less faction to actually go broke and break up, so long that you can paint the map and not a single AI clan has left it's original faction.
Now, in this regard you are wrong, the issue's that it's hard to understand what's going on and how AI is affected by all of the whole prosperity, food, trade, produce, etc...It seems very out of place along side the campaign AI that is seriously just "do I have enough troops to join army? If no raid, do I have enough troops to raid? If no go to villages, check 1 again, check 2 again..." They do absolutely nothing with the economy or fiefs and are barely effected by it.