搜索结果: *

damn tough luck buddy, hope you found luck looking at other threads or googling

odincasual 说:

Hello everyone!

Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord provides excellent options for creating epic cinematics and good old Machinima. I am sure that in the future, thanks to Nvidia Omniverse, we will be able to see full-fledged animated films on the Bannerlord engine.

I have wanted to create something like this for a long time and had a lot of fun creating this video. A year ago, I started shooting the story walkthroughs of Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord with Machinima elements. In this video you can see the story of the illegitimate son of Emperor Arenikos.

I would be glad to any constructive criticism and suggestions for improving the content. I am especially interested in advice on the technical aspect of recording such videos.

Happy viewing!

点击展开...

Hey man I'm gonna be making some Bannerlord machinima soon too! Glad to see you got smooth camera movements working, can I ask how you did it? I'm guessing a console controller with joysticks but if so which one?
One thing I noticed is that Ares is always just standing still, with either cheats (like in Warband, it's possible with one of the f# commands) or mods or maybe either, you can make your own character go under ai control so that you can film them running or fighting - just a lil something to add more variety!

I also agreed with this post like 98%. They have identified all the same, most important issues with the game that I have (except I'd ignore the lighting one, the engine is ancient by this point, it looks good enough, and I'd much rather processing goes to better/more simulation of gameplay mechanics than graphics) and almost all of the proposed solutions would solve these issues given they could be feasibly balanced without breaking ****.

In terms of prioritisation, the adventurer>merc>vassal>king route is the only way to play the game and get decent hours of enjoyment so making that complete should be the first port of call. Early/mid game is pretty good for now, but later on, as a king with a decently sized kingdom, it is a slog. ESPECIALLY THE CONSPIRACY QUESTS PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS GUY - Increase the amount of impact that the conspiracy quest completion/failure has on the conspiracy meter, decrease the frequency of conspiracy quests dramatically, 1/4th the current frequency is where I intuitively feel it should be when you're in constant late game wars, and increase the size of the forces you have to defeat when you decide to do the quests at minimum. But that is only for story mode which people aren't playing anymore until it gets fleshed out and said story has meaningful impacts beyond the near identical sandbox experience of building a kingdom.
As far as sandbox goes, the above "Wars and Armies" and "Diplomacy and Politics" feedback that OP posted should be treated as TW's in-house bible until something like them is integrated.

After that, TW should vary the NPC Lords' decisions using the established trait system, some of my following propositions could be light on balancing given the following preconditions:
As long as each trait value is redistributed among the lords of Calradia with an even, equal chance within each faction, and the effects of deviating either direction from the equilibrium (0 trait value) for each trait are inversely proportional to the opposing side of the equilibrium, thus making the statistically average lord's decision stay identical to the status quo, and given that the equilibrium for these values IS actually 0 (all traits atm are currently either from +1 to -2, or -1 to +2 so they would need to be changed to have an equal variance both positive and negative, i.e -2 to +2 or -1 to +1), and each trait score of 0 is set to be identical to existing vanilla lord behaviours, i.e. no change.

An example of a "light on balancing" change using this principle would be if the generosity trait could influence stinginess in barters by a percentage increase/decrease, including the cost of recruiting a clan to your faction. This is a "light on balancing" option as the negative would be directly inverse to the positive in every way, so you only have to balance for an acceptable amplitude of deviation. Say the vanilla average cost of recruiting a clan is 1 million denars, the trait system could either increase or decrease that cost by 15%. Assuming they are an equal number of generous and stingy lords, a player blindly buying whoever they can, acting how one does in 1.7.0, will pay the same amount of money through their playthrough, those who read the game mechanics info pages in the encyclopaedia will see that approx 1/3 of clans are gonna be cheaper to recruit, and their rise to influence can in advance be spent cosying up to a lord that doesn't want large sums of gold.

Considering that the relation system exists though, it would make sense that a generous lord who is also good friends with their liege would ask for MORE coin to join you, and a closefisted lord would be more "generous" to you, ironically asking for LESS money, IF they despise their liege - the implication being that they'd seek monetary gain from means (i.e. you) other than their current liege. So in the case of clan leader recruitment, an additional inverted relationship equation could be added for better in world context.

The honour variable could directly cause troop composition preferences, low honour decreases cavalry recruitment and increases archery recruitment, 0 is vanilla (which is normally just infantry dominant), and high honour is more cav, and fewer archers. This would create a tangible, and important differentiation between lords, yet each faction's total military force would be statistically balanced/holistically identical for overall troop type distribution.
I suppose there are actually multiple ways that balance could still be interfered with if either of those +/- ends are disproportionately stronger than each other when comparing individual parties, but there are multiple ways to tweak this so that whatever balance TW is going for could be maintained.
Percentages for these troop preferences could be adjusted, asymmetrically if needed (maybe archers are stronger than cav troop for troop so archer preference could increase by 20% while the opposing trait value's cav preference goes up to 30% extra) and if the average lord's strength is raised or lowered in the same direction by the +/- honour values, the preference for non-infantry troops at 0 honour could increase/decrease OR the average infantry total at the +/- ends could decrease as a counterweight to the specialisation preference.
I'm not sure how cav archers would be defined in terms of honour, but horse archers seem pretty dishonourable to me so I reckon they should count as archers for this equation.

When an ai army/lord is attacked by the player's side, a low 'calculating' trait score could give like a 20% chance of the enemy ignoring a defensive position and pushing right up to your forces to charge you because they've 'miscalculated'. There really is no easily determinable, equally opposing force for this equation to be "light on balancing" so the holistically identical approach doesn't work here, but at this point of the mount and blade series' long history of predictably identical tactics, I think ANY variance in ai battle behaviour would be a nice treat. So maybe a high calculating trait score also has a 20% chance to push up (so they're not next to the edge of the map), but for the purpose of actively trying to use as much of its ranged ammo at 80% of that ammo types maximum distance (Shooting from xbow distance, then bow distance, then closing in to like ~20m for throwing weapons, and when the ammo runs out, the enemy lord executes the retreat command (hence why they should push up first - to give you time to chase them down). The gameplay loop here would be trying to crush a force that is going to slowly move away from you while firing, eventually running away if you're too slow to entrap them with a killing blow. If the enemy lord escapes with their troops using this tactic, they will continue to use it repeatedly for all ensuing battles in the next 12 hours against the player, to prevent the player simply identifying that this strategy is being used and leaving the battle to start it again without the strategy engaged (as it's only a 20% chance of occurrence, in this example).
This means that outnumbered forces with a calculating general will use the same "shoot as much ammo as possible then press tab to retreat and restart the assault" tactic that the player can (and does) exploit frequently (A good additional change to that exploit btw would be to make the player have to retreat every troop to the border of the map as well - and only being possible after a couple minutes to allow the enemy a counter attack).
Alternatively to my suggestion, TW have backups of obsolete and inferior ai tactics from earlier game versions, and possibly some versions that are even more competent than in 1.7.0 so they might already have options to straight up implement dumb/smart ai tactics that could be tied to this calculating trait.

The Valour trait variable could sway ai lord's confidence in the balance of power, daring generals being more willing to engage in potentially tenuous engagements and cowardly generals only wanting to engage when the balance of power is more in their favour. You would only need to discover a suitable amplitude of deviation to balance this.

The mercy trait of a lord or even army leader could slightly sway strategic world map decisions, i.e. more tendencies for raiding villages, villagers, and caravans with a low mercy vs field engagements with the enemy's forces, besieging and (because the previous two are more productive than raiding) maybe releasing the occasional prisoner for mere relation gain (like the player can do after capturing enemies).

These changes would mean that enemy lords are not all equal, identical foes and the player could theoretically identify some of the traits of a lord without even checking the encyclopaedia, but just by fighting them a few times. It also gives long term strategic thinking to the player. Which personality types should I train up to grant land to? Who should I try to gain relations with? Which enemy lord poses a bigger threat to me and for what reasons? Their tactics or their army compositions? Their high cost of conversion? Should I cripple this honourable and generous lord's villages to stop them bringing cavalry against my archer focused army or take away their lands so they dislike their liege and drastically reduce the price of conversion?

After giving the lords some personality, I'd focus down the lack of RP options in your RPG game. Being able to conquer the world economically through mercantilism would be a major major selling point when in addition to military conquest, but seems difficult to suss out, the economy of Bannerlord seems to be the most fickle and unwieldly beast to manage.
Banditry options based on inciting unrest and riots so that you can take a faction's land without declaring war would be perfect and a basic version of that would be easy to prototype cause all the ingredients are already there. You have a conspiracy quest points system where roguery missions are presented to you at regular intervals. When enough points are gathered, you incite a rebellion in a castle or city, which you can already freely take without declaring war on a massive faction. Adding this would be an net improvement and what would you need? Three equivalent quests to the conspiracy quests, but focused on doing naughty things, then just follow the template you already have for the main story, but instead of triggering factions to declare war on you, a rebellion is triggered in a relevant area (maybe within your starting cultural boundaries?). Working it in as a functional narrative would take time but the prototype could be bing, bang, then boom!

To the extent that the early/mid game falls flat I think is mostly down to heaps of quests only being worth doing for their first time novelty. You get unavoidably punished to some degree for doing most of the quests - pretty much all of the ones that aren't "kill thing here", which you're doing anyway. This is very anti player, anti video game heuristics, and anti sense. When I accept a quest, then actually follow through with it, I can get an extra recruitment slot with the person I did the quest for, yet potentially lose two slots with the person (or sometimes, god forbid, multiple notables) I've just insulted. A small gold profit never makes up for losing recruitment power, ever. Stop thinking it does.

May be some errors in this, I'm very tired and will proofread later.

Sweynforkbeard 说:

Alot of good points. There are a few things I do not agree on.

I dont really want harder tournaments as such. I think it would be better if they provide better rewards but are less frequent in return. So more "yeah a tournament!" and less "another one, ohh well, I might as well".

I am perhaps the exception here but I actually do not find the early game well rounded. Personally, I think the pressure to move on to the Merc/lord hunting stage is much too great. Make it a bit more profitable just to "casually" ride around hunting bandits etc. and, obviously, massively reduce the price of gear so you have a, more or less reasonable, alternative goal other than building an army so you can move on.

In terms of the endgame I dont actually have a problem with the price of buying clans. Its an end game moneysink, I can live with that.

点击展开...

How about something like this?
The tournament icons on the world map are colour coded for easy identification to, say, three tiers.

Tier 1 = Yellow icon (Vanilla icon)
This is the tournament that any rabble can join straight off the bat. They are the most abundantly occurring and let's say they're tournaments as they are now in vanilla, but only lords with the cruel trait will stoop so low as to beat on peasants and crush their dreams, meaning they're slightly easier on average. When you win enough tier 1 tournaments you receive membership into the second tier.

Tier 2 = Red icon
Half of the occurring tier 1 tournaments also host a tier 2, which is shown by the tournament icon changing to red. You can do both of them in order, skip the tier 1, or do the tier 1 and ignore the tier 2. almost all lords will participate in these melees, except honourable lords who know they're above the tier 2.
Things get a bit serious here and now every opponent is at least a tier 3 troop. The division of rounds in the tournament is structured to avoid cheesing any rounds (There are no 4v4v4v4 matches where you can ride around, avoiding blows till the end and get through by being killed last and in second place. Someone from your team has to win at the end, every fight, for you to progress).
The tier 2 isn't inherently much more difficult, as by the time you're in it you'll have accumulated tier 1 tournament rewards, plus any armour you've bought or killed for, and have better trained skills. You can play the tier 1 until it's too easy if you like, and only then do tier 2 for better rewards and roughly the same level of challenge that the tier 1 was when you started. Or you can rush to the tier 2 if you're a combat god who wins his first tournament and wants excess challenge. When you win enough tier 2 tournaments you're invited to join any tier 3s that occur.

Tier 3 = Purple icon
Half of the occurring tier 2 tournaments are eligible to host a tier 3, icon changes to purple. You can do any combination of the 3 tournaments, but in ascending order. i.e. 1>2, 2>3, 1>2>3, 1, 2, 3, and 1>3 (if you're weird).
Tier 3 follows the same kind of progression as tier 2. Every troop is tier 4 (or 5?) and above, every round has only two sides on it (Maybe the first round is a really big two sided melee for tournament diversity in mid-late game? Also means you have to be good at crowd control by this point so that their hard hitters don't wipe half your team, idk I'm not sure about that one but could be cool for late game diversity). The rewards are much better here also, but less common as the tier 3 occurs at 1/4th of the vanilla occurrence rate. All lords participate here except cowardly ones (think that's a two negative trait combo idk which two but TW does). This is the tier where you get cool **** like the Pernach mace or a Pureblood horse.

UX/UI suggestion since that's a difficulty for TW sometimes:
Rather than the "Join tournament" button, you now have three buttons stacked above each other on that left panel.
"Join *tier 1 name* Tournament (followed by "x/y wins" if you haven't unlocked the next tier)"
and the other two tier's entry buttons are below that, always there but greyed out when you cannot enter them yet. Hovering over the greyed out buttons opens a context tip box explaining that to enter you must win x more times at the lower tier.

Additional suggestion:
Tier 4 / Noble Tournaments. These occur when a king hosts a feast (assuming feasts will be implemented... shaking my fist at TW) and at least... 8?, or 12? idk this is a tricky one as it can't be too high in case the player arrives before the feast is up and running and has to wait days for enough lords to show up. You must be a highly renowned mercenary of the faction or a noble yourself to join. You fight only lords of your faction, or if that's too difficult, they're all top tier troops with as many lords as are present due to the feast summons (which could be a few or a lot depending on the player's patience)

As a New Zealander, the Asia servers are borderline unplayable at a competitive level with ping going at 120 minimum. Please give us matchmaking!

Ironsun 说:

Nice good job guys!
Oh and this just happened

点击展开...

I got the exact same thing too! I swear it was the same number too, so probably related to going below zero and coming out the other side.

Orula 说:

Another game came out. Actors performance in 3 different languages (English, French and German), motion capture, lots of animations, facial scan, story driven, insane graphics, and it is from an indie company. "A Plague Tale Innocence".

And here you are, 8 years in developent to make a creepy stabbing animation with a couple of keyframes, and characters that say "GRRR" when angry. What you have to say? Oh oh my game has a lot of calculations, and we made our own engine blah blah, excuses. 2 + 2 = 4, and "If (this condition is True) Then Execute This Stuff, Else Execute This Other Stuff".

I thinks this "game" was reduced to weekly blogs. Its time to think: should we call Bannerlord a "videogame" or a "blog site"?

点击展开...

I literally require this to be satire - for my own sanity

Also, work on one element at a time, rather than doing everything at once and trying to figure out where you went wrong when it inevitably goes wrong. Try doing the garrison sizes until it works, then party sizes on top, then bandits on top.

DISCLAIMER
So I've kind of forgotten now. One thing to note is that the game starts off with normal garrison sizes so you have to wait until they decrease naturally. This can be buggy because they lose troops at different rates, they can also reduce a bit but then stay higher than they're meant to, say a 100 limit and they stay at 140.
Most of these problems do sort themselves out but this is not reliable if you're making your own mod to release, as I had to ctrl + space for a couple weeks till the towns and castles were the right size. Party sizes work great for lords, it's instant and doesn't have problems, same for bandits more or less.
/DISCLAIMER

1. There were two Python files which I modified, the first was a tweak compilation (https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,348186.0.html) This had the garrison control for castles and towns. The two lines you change are:
TWEAK_GARRISON_LIMIT_FOR_FORTS = 650    # Default: 650
TWEAK_GARRISON_LIMIT_FOR_TOWNS = 850    # Default: 850
They're near the bottom.

2. I followed the instructions here https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,149878.0.html to change the lord party sizes (TweakMB doesn't let you do it for VC)
After you have both python files modified, you run the batch file in the folder you download that translates the python into code that the game engine can read.
All the instructions and resources you need for how to modify the python module files are in the readme in that zipped folder.

3. I remember using TweakMB (search it up) for the bandit parties, reduced them all by a percentage, then changed a few ones that were still too high. You have to load the latest Brytenwalda Module as it's the closest to VC (There are tutorials on how to use this). Bandits are important to manage because otherwise, they will kill all the low-in-numbers lord parties.

I believe that the python process must be done first because of the way things are overwritten, my memory is bad and you might have to do the TweakMB first instead.  If I'm right, you have to edit the files, then convert them into game code, then run TweakMB and save over the top. I don't remember very well, so there is a slight chance that you do TweakMB first.
Don't get too greedy with how low you make the garrisons. Start off with maybe 100 for castles and 170 for towns, too low can cause crashes sometimes.
Expect crashes, save regularly.
This is as much as I can help without relearning everything. I gave you all the resources I used to figure this out, I'm only 15 so it's not that hard, it just takes a few hours of research, trial and error, and playtesting.
I didn't get this right first try, even after it worked I kept changing values to get a good mix.
This isn't hard if you have a good understanding of research and computers, just take time.

that's not the point. By then I've already won.

OMG, I actually made it work. Reduced garrisons, lords and bandit sizes to balanced. uggghh, it took six hours and it's 4:30am

I found the equivalent python files for VC, and changed the right values, but don't know how to insert those changes into the game, maybe it's gonna have to turn into me learning how to mod from scratch/without premade tweak tools.

Brujoloco 说:

Just for curiosity, wouldn't it be a bit time consuming but super easy giving low charisma and 0 leadership to all lords? that would severely limit armies at least by 3/4 or perhaps half no? without altering much everything else.

It would make the map more static but at least it is a nice experiment, just wondering

点击展开...

Thanks, I'll definitely try that!

I don't know if this works for other lords' lands, but if you go to one of your villages and talk to the village elder you can ask him to raise the levy for that village, which'll be around 30+ guys.

So you didn't actually know how to do it?

Well, you won't know until you try it.

I don't really care about balancing though.

kalarhan 说:

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,347990.0.html

read the OP for links to guides and tutorials

点击展开...

I just want to know if it's possible to do and how I'd go about doing it, but I'm not willing to spend hours learning how to mod the game to see if I can eventually figure out how to do it. It's not worth that much of my time for a playthrough I'll spend less than 20 hours on.