搜索结果: *

cavalry really should not be good charging into spears, thats like the one thing that cavalry is supposed to be bad at. The difference between pikemen and spearmen is that pikemen should be able to simply negate the cavalry entirely whereas spearmen are able to be charged but should more or less trade kills with the cavalry.

The main advantage of cavalry is its mobility. This is even present in this game on a strategic level as it makes your map movement faster. In battle it can run over archers and against dense infantry formations its job is to rear charge or flank, its like having a second infantry unit that can move faster for good positioning.
What they do need to do in my opinion is make heavier cavalry that is bogged down in melee more combat effective in general. Depending on the unit they can become quite useless after the initial charge, and i know you can keep cycle charging but they aught to be able to take their swords out and start fighting too whereas some units have a hard time even reaching anything. Cavalry historically tended to have longer swords than infantry.

they need more bardiches and squatting, less round shields
Also every troop needs to consume less food and make the snow penalty so bad only they can even operate in snow

I have now fixed

I got a lot of combat skills very fast on a new save too. I dont think they needed to mess with the combat (including riding/athletics) skill gains, it was just some of the support skills had no good way/too slow to raise, they were lagging way behind combat.

You would expect a character speced in say, a weapon skill, tactics, and leadership, to be able to go recruit a few guys, attack some bandits, position his people with a few orders, and get a few kills himself, and have all three of these skills raise approximately the same amount from this.

Instead combat still gains a lot faster, its just everything gains extreemly fast so the support skill grind is removed.

artdayne 说:

It is not counter intuitive and it works as it is supposed to. If you're learning something new you are going to be picking up a lot of things quickly at the beginning but as you get closer to mastery of that thing the longer it takes to make small improvements.

The leveling system is also designed as such to promote concentration in a few key areas, they do not want your character to be a god at everything and frankly that's how I prefer it too because it provides replayability and I think that is simply good role playing design.

Your learning rate goes down with levels which means that especially when your learning rate is at the highest you should be focusing on the things you want to learn the most. You can keep your learning rate pretty high if you pump a lot of attribute points and learning points into a specific area.

点击展开...

The problem is you cant shut off skill gains on skills you dont want to raise.
If you manage to get any of the party support skills you intend to use a companion to cover up a few levels before finding a companion for them because you accidentally spotted a hideout and gained a scouting level, or engaged in combat against looters and took a little damage and gained a surgery level then looted a few different food types from them and got a steward level, that is forever lowering your potential maximums. If you participate in a tournament and get 10 levels in some weapon you are not building your character around, that is forever lowering your potential maximums. Those few levels can then go on to be the difference between making a perk breakpoint or not in your main skill before the learning multiplier totally 0s out hard capping you - possibly hundreds of hours down the line in the save.

That is not a good design because it actively encourages you to avoid raising skills you dont want to focus on. So it encourages you to rush to find companions early while avoiding raising any skills and reloading if you accidentally do. It encourages you to avoid tournaments entirely. dont want to raise trade? You better not sell things at all because now in 1.1.0 you dont need to make a profit on things you have bought, just selling food looted from bandits will very slowly raise it.

When you come up with a character concept, building that character now requires constant obsession and checking to make sure you do not accidentally raise a skill you dont want.

It becomes even worse in the long run because even among skills you DO want to use, focus points and attributes only take you so far, you will be leveling your primary skills outside of learning bonus in 'the end', and in this case, maybe you only want the 200 riding perk, and want to dump all your remaining learning potential into getting your weapon as high as it can possibly go? What then?

The system as it currently is could be somewhat salvaged if you could just toggle off certain skills from ever raising. This would still leave a system were players would be pushed to try and snag some level 25 perks early on, becaus etheir player level pushes the 2 attribute non focused learning limit below 25 (it starts out at like 44 if you raise only that skill from level 1, meaning you could probably, for example, have 2 in vigor, and only intend to raise focus points in one weapon type, and get the other two up to 25 before they hardcap if you focused on it early on)

Is it good for a games system to encourage players to have to twist in such ways with so strict a playstyle to simply use the character progression system optimally? In a well designed game optimal use and intuitive use are the same.

JustinTime49 说:

Someone tell me if I interpreted the information wrong though!

点击展开...

The problem is it results in things like running around the map saving and reloading any time you accidentally gain a scouting level because you are not raising scout on your character, but intend to find a scouting companion, and so gaining scout levels does nothing for you but lower your potential in skills you do intend to raise. Repeat with the other skills that can be assigned to a companion: Not wanting to raise steward? Whoops! you accidentally looted another food type from that last battle and gained a few levels by having +moral from food! Maximum potential lowered!

It also discourages you from playing in tournaments because any weapon skill level gains in weapons you do not want to focus on are just hurting your potential.

This system creates the opposite effect from what it seemingly intended. Instead of 'using the skills you want to use', you spend more time focusing on 'not raising the skills you dont want to use'.

paladinx333 说:

The new 1.1.0 beta promises better leveling for you and your companions. I have not tried it myself and I have no idea how well it works. Some report that it seems to work better.

点击展开...

you level a lot faster in the beta which is nice, but it still doesnt address the fact that the universal multiplier decrease on levelup shoehorns the order you must raise skills if you want to be optimal, in fact it makes it worse since its very easy to level up a lot now early on and get skills that you can not avoid gaining some levels in at the start like scouting or surgery hard capped at skill level 13 or something uselessly, which does nothing but reduce the total maximum level you will be able to obtain on your main skills

This is annoying. Just today i found myself trying to reach a skill breakpoint for a perk before learning multiplier decreased. This system requires a lot of tedium. If you level up too fast you run into the cap and so cant easily grab the 25 level perks for things with out investing focus points into them. But if instead right at the start of the game you specifically avoid leveling your main skills you can level up these other skills. The result is that the system, that claims to be some kind of enabler for freer play, dictates to you the very order you must raise skills in through its mechanics.

Some skills will raise some automatically. Surgery for example will raise and there is nothing you can do about it. This would not be so bad if you were guaranteed to get it to 25 for the first perk, which is useful, but given the way this level multiplier decreases as you level, this is only possible if you rush grind it to 25 early on. Otherwise you get it hard capped out at some level between 0 and 25, and what good does it do you then? Its simply skill levels that contribute to your overall level, thus harming the potential maximums for the skills you do intend to focus on.

Likewise trade now raises, albeit slowly, even if you are just selling things you loot from looters. While reaching trade 25 before it hard caps would at least be acceptable, some way to prevent unwanted skills from even raising should be added (assuming we keep the current system, which we really shouldn't).

The +hitpoint perks on melee weapons are another example of this, though it is easier to avoid raising those skills unwanted if you avoid tournaments entirely, a thing which i doubt the developers wanted to encourage people do, but here we are.

The overall flow of optimal character building then will be to try and gain 25 in these unavoidable skills to get some 'benefit breakpoint' of the first perk (which requires raising your main skills as little as possible) and then rush to hard cap them by grinding your primary skills to gain enough levels to lock them in at 25 (sine accidentally reaching 26 in them is, again, harming the maximum potential of your primary skills levels)

A terrible result. This is an emergent property of the convergence of mechanic bloat from an overly complex skill levelup system. The best option is to simplify the whole thing

Carabus 说:

News from another thread about smithing: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...ry-post-your-smithing-creations.411738/page-2

You can use your companions for smithing. You just have to click the portrait button in the smithing screen and switch to your companion. This way it spends their stamina (which you can regen by leaving them in town), uses their smithing skill (which you can boost with their focus points), and gives smithing xp to them.

点击展开...

This results in a skill that the player should never ever take themselves then, and if thats the case why have it be a skill and not just an interaction with a smithing npc?

Sundeki 说:

Precisely my argument. In Bannerlord,

点击展开...

Lets hold on a minute here, as i check the OP and the poll again.
I see now the problem, this thread is based on a false dichotomy. Its asking to very strictly compare the current class system in its present state, and warbands system. The problem here, of course, is that not much at all about this game, currently, is in a very good state, its broken all over. My arguments are based on classless systems like in warband and other games that have use similar mechanics, and what bannerlords system will presumably become once fleshed out further, based on what other such games to use class based systems have ended up with. Such arguments have to be based on reason, citing examples from incomplete games doesnt further the fundamental debate of classless vs class, which is far reaching and spans games in their entirety.

since you can't mess around for fun with customization, and experiment with different weapons (something that lead to small shifts in meta over the years in Warband), you only have the ""choice"" between a bunch of things that you don't want to play, and the optimal ""choice"", that since you can't have fun experimenting and messing around with unusual item choices (because they aren't there), you only have 1 ""choice"" at any given moment.

点击展开...

We can define optimal choice here as 'what statistically gives you the best odds of winning'. In a multiplayer game this can change itself, when the optimal is discovered and flocked to, the conditions of the game change, meaning new things might become optimal. Typically games depend on map design to provide different approaches to situations. Again, a most optimal from a statistical viewpoint of success can be calculated overall, but on a case by case instance player knowledge of these optimal can change what might be truly optimal in each instance. This means having a set of less optimal alternate approaches, all of which have their corresponding optimal class, means that you get a much wider variety of total capabilities on the map at any given time, and as the true optimal of that specific instance is discovered through observing the flow of the game, people are forced into situations where their current class is simply not optimal at all for the situation. These conditions are what create the novel choices and strategies that make games most interesting.

Also, in Warband, you always had access to all three modes of play at any given time in all gamemodes.

点击展开...

A good critisizm of bannerlord as it stands now. But this does not argue against class systems, it just illustrates things that aught to be changed within the class system.

Sundeki 说:

But it doesn't. You have less choices

点击展开...

Theoretical choices does not equate into practical choices. Real choice can only occur when you are picking between equal but different options, 'choosing' something lesser is not choice, it is mistake.

Now you might say that a game can be figured out absolutely, and there will always be a calculable best choice for any given situation even if you are picking between these strict and distinct collections of configurations. This is true, but your own argument has also shown how this still plays to the advantage of a class system. Namely the assertion that in team play, you need some diversity. Lets examine a theoretical situation where a single loadout is absolutely optimal for the situation, and everyone would want to take that loadout if they were free to do so, but due to certain considerations a few people need to bring something else requiring them to make sacrifices. In a purely equipment loadout type of situation these people may well just downgrade the least impactful downgrade to allow them to do this, thus resulting in fairly uniform loadouts anyway, with only a few necessary changes between them. But lets say in a class based system the class or classes which have this necessary thing available to them, are radically different in configuration than the most optimal general class for the situation. Suddenly, due to the restrictions of the class system, the group has been given a much broader set of tools to work with and find the best implementation of.

This should not be taken as me saying the current system is ideal, it can be expanded upon greatly. Merely that a class based system has far more potential to result in interesting and meaningful decision making on players part and should be pursued and developed rather than simply reverting to how warband handled things.

The reason class system is good is because it increases the range of tactical considerations.
When you can customize your equipment to the conditions people will sensibly take the optimal loadouts for the situation. This means a great deal of sameness all around.
When however you have to pick between several suboptimal configurations, there is more room for diversity in approaches. Since you are required to take these less optimum loadouts and figure out novel ways to use the tools at your disposal in the given conditions two people may well end up having similar overall approaches to a situation they encounter but the different classes they have picked causing them to try and play to different strengths and weaknesses, meaning you are left with very different play experiences. Moreover even with the same loadout there is more potential for diversity; if they had identical optimal loadouts they could be expected to approach the situation in a similar way, whereas their choice on how to use the less optimal loadout may still result in them deciding to attempt different strategies with it.

In this way the class system is what really gives more choice since you must pick between less than optimal tradeoffs instead of a pure loadout systems always dictated singular optimum.

Maximum997 说:

Who are this peoples who think it is good?

1) It is pointless at all. Smithing just has no purpose in this game.
2) it is grindy and boring.
3) it is RNG based.

点击展开...

The sorts of people who have knee jerk emotional opinions about things and do not consider their positions. While i can sympathize with the desire to have some kind of crafting system, what we have just isnt working and it needs more than a few tweeks to actually salvage it. It could be greatly improved with a few tweeks so that its more usable sure, but it would not be made to fit in with everything else. It would still be a strange outlier in the skill tree

Jhaerik 说:

Another example of why skill-leveling based Elder Scrolls knock off systems just suck.

You end up just finding some unnatural way of leveling them... then abuse it to death. XP/Leveling/Point Assignment systems are just flat better.

点击展开...

Yeah, systems based on skills like this are always terrible but people defend them based purely on idealism. They think skill systems = more freedom and more freedom = more better.
In reality such 'freedom' is just enslavement to gimmicks like this.

The system is ok but the way its implemented is just screwy.
It should not be a player skill. Make it a workshop you can upgrade in your fifes which dictates difficulty level, remove the stamina entirely, balance the game around everyone having access to it. Maybe you need to train up your workshops smith by providing him with materials and weapons, but making it a player skill is just no good.
I cant see how keeping it a player skill in its current form could ever be either not worth bothering with or mandatory. Making it based on managing your fifes adds another level of engagement on that level of the game as well.

The reason its a problem currently is, particularly with the stamina system in place, that this is a game with aging and death and time limits everywhere. Producing heirs is locked in to a narrow time window, the main quest line auto-fails after an amount of time - not to mention the simulation radically alters the world with time, time you are spending waiting in town. You are investing vital time that could be spent improving massive power gains through gaining fifes and leveling up armies and expanding your influence over the time it takes to level up and use the skill... or you can make a better sword for yourself. Its not a smart trade off when you analyze it.

What makes it worse is that this will actively encourage you to avoid gaining skill levels in skills that automatically level through use. For example, imagine scouring the map for a scout companion to make party scout while constantly saving and reloading any time you accidentally discover a hide out and gain skill levels in scouting. Or saving and reloading to keep your surgery skill from raising while looking for a doctor companion, just because you dont want wasted points lowering your multiplier.

Unless you have the option to disable certain skills from gaining exp it will be a big mess. Its also a nerf to tournaments in a sense since gaining levels in weapons you dont use under this system drains your potential with the weapons you do use.

Honestly they should just rework the whole thing. Remove skill leveling through use. Give a generic exp bar and levelups and focus points. Make it like warband, only even removing weapon skills. Instead weapon skills are skills you level up now too. Then you can make the character the way you want it with out these kinds of tedious considerations.