搜索结果: *

Haha Timecube goes brr

BugFeedbackbot 说:

I see people suggesting a faster rate of leveling. Now I believe that is a result of unclear gamedesign/vision of the game.

I remember reading blog posts about the Clan system. How you can continue playing the game when your character dies, taking the role of an heir.
Children taking like 20(?) years to reach adulthood. Basically youre playing as a Clan over generations.

Now considering this vision of the game, a slow xp gain makes sense. You start your campaign with a 30 year old.(as far as I know)
I am guessing the game has/will have an increasing chance of natural death rising with age. Diseases will be implemented too.
So lets say you have 50 ingame years to develop your character.
Now, with this timeframe you can either have a slow xp gain and create a character with weaknesses and strengths, making the character unique, or a fast xp rate resulting in a jack of all trades supersoldier after a few years.

点击展开...

Not really, though.

Even with a fast XP rate, the learning limit mechanic limits(sic) the ability to become a 'jack of all trades supersoldier.' Even with the slow rate, 50 years is more than enough time to hit those same limits.

With that limiter in place, the difference between fast and slow isn't whether you have a character with 'weaknesses and strengths' - it's how long you have to spend playing a character with *just* weaknesses and no developed strengths.

If you're watching the combat messages while fighting, it actually says (in purple) when you or your opponent chamber-block an attack. So it's definitely an official feature and not a bug. Hard to pull off though, especially in the heat of a real battle.

The items file for single player does list a number of different crossbows, including a light crossbow that requires 0 skill to use. And as far as I can see from the file, there's no reason why it shouldn't be spawning in shops.

But it isn't.

Askorti 说:

That's the exact issue I just pointed out in the message you're quoting, AI lords should not have armies that are 50% recruits. They should have at least T2 units.

点击展开...

So.. recruits would only exist as a handicap to the player - and one that becomes negligible past the very-early game - while everyone else just skips them entirely?

I'm for tweaking the proportions, but I think that's going a bit too far in the other direction. Might as well just erase recruits entirely at that point.

"Everything"? No.

But in my honest opinion, none of the problems I've seen with the game fall under the category of "not excusable by EA" yet. Hell, some of them are things I've seen crop up in *final release* from other companies.

Proton 说:

Why do all these SP-only normies

点击展开...

This is why I couldn't care less about multiplayer.

Not that the SP crowd is completely innocent either, but it's far less pronounced.

abc123456 说:

Think about it,if campaign was multiplayer, that's what real players would do.

点击展开...

If campaign was multiplayer, real players would blitz the map in about 3 months game-time and make the currently unpopular AI snowballing look like a snail's pace. I'm pretty confident in saying those who want an actual satisfying single-player experience aren't looking for *that.*

I tested a few things, including skipping the tutorial and figured out what's happening.

You now gain Charm XP when you raise relations with village notables. In the tutorial, there's a large scripted relations boost with the tutorial Headsman of the village as soon as you talk to him - likely to enable you to recruit his whole stack for the rest of the tutorial missions. This boost is treated by the engine the same as any other, so you're getting Charm XP for it.

Enough for 39 points, if your starting from nothing being invested into charm or social during character creation.

Admiralsexy 说:

T
If you have tried to talk to lords like i have their seems to be signficant portions of text missing specfically under the can i ask you a quick question prompt as there is nothing there it might still be added to the game.

点击展开...

True, that's a pretty blatant placeholder and it's about where this kind of stuff was located in Warband so it would make sense that something 'more' is coming in this field.

lockefeer 说:

Sturgians are neither Nords nor Vikings. They're inspired by the Kievan Rus. Therefore, they don't have to look like Vikings at all.

点击展开...

Ingame lore on the Sturgians suggests that they're actually a blend of the Kievan-Rus inspired nation that becomes the Vaegirs by Warband's era, and the Viking-inspired Nords, and Raganvad's mother is explicitly stated to be a Nord princess.

So they shouldn't be entirely Viking, but still should have *some* Viking elements to them. Fortunately (at least to my eyes) they do.

It's not like taking a castle and seeing the king give it to someone else (or keep it for himself) is a new thing; this happened all the time in Warband, and was in fact one of the pretexts for rebelling to start your own kingdom.

What is new is the different kind of transparency of the vassal opinions. In Warband, you had to talk to the other vassals to see who they supported and usually there was at least a couple who believed it should go to the person who took it - so even though the king could over-rule, or someone else had more support for other reasons, you always had a sense that you were at least a consideration for it. Also, those who supported someone else always gave a reason why.

But here, with the way the voting works you get a clearer picture of who the realm supports, but not the why - and this can leave people wondering when they didn't even make the short list. It's one thing to see your peers vote for someone else, or even see the king ignore the vote and hand it to some random, but another entirely to visually see that you're not even under consideration after putting in all the work. (Which you might not have been in Warband either, but there wasn't a visual list making that obvious.)

TLR version: I have no complaints about how it works, but I can understand why some are thrown by the way it's presented.

Oldtimer 说:

Hi all,

I`d say OP isn`t all wrong. but he  points out the way himself, i e do NOT get knocked out, compose your army according to the operational task at hand, use terrain. In other words, be a leader.

点击展开...

I'm pretty sure he pointed that out in the context of feeling coerced into taking it and not really enjoying it.

But really, thanks to the way battle continuation works in this mod getting knocked out isn't all that bad.  Unlike native, you're not forced into auto-retreat (often with extra casualties getting you off the field) when you're otherwise winning the battle.  Moreover, you can still issue commands from the tactical (backspace) map - though I'm not sure if that's intended or not - which can keep your forces from charging out of good positions, let you issue charge and regroup orders to your cavalry, even reposition as necessary if you can read the minimap well enough.  The only thing you really lose getting knocked out is the opportunity to keep racking up kills (xp) for yourself - but you lose that anyway if you play the 'leader hiding behind his troops' approach.

Oldtimer 说:

So it comes to a fundamental decision: be a fighter or a leader?. If you choose the leader approach you will face fake challenges: no officers with you in towns and villages and very powerful enemy ambushes there. That`s my main gripe here.

点击展开...

TBH, I actually enjoy those town fights.  Not so fond of the drunken adventurers in the bars, but the 1v5 street fights are the best. 

PlebCarry 说:

So, my question is comes from the fact that i took a city that had over 600 defenders without the NPC that was in it. The NPC that owns the city is not wealthy enough to afford this (especially). So, as anyone would, I assumed that this city could pay for this defense. My other walled fiefs pay for themselves almost. I put 300 troops in this city. Most of which cost 39 per week. I get less income from this city, which is fully built, than two of my three castles. Why? How did the NPC afford this? Is the game designed in such a way that you have to non-stop capture enemies commanders to survive? My main problem is that the enemy can spend weeks in my dungeon and still maintain their city, but the city produces 4k for me. This alone wants to me stop playing. If late game my only option is to crash into NPCs constantly and the RTS elements devolve into treating enemy commanders like a payday. Why would I want to hold to hold multiple walled fiefs when it cost more to supply troops to defend them than it is worth to play having them?

点击展开...

Apologies in advance if I'm telling you things you already know, but:

In native, there's a 'tax inefficiency' that introduces diminishing returns to owning too many fiefs; I assume Pendor keeps that (I haven't got that far in the game yet.)  This feature is actually meant to discourage you from holding too much land to yourself (or at least, make it harder to maintain garrisons in all of them if you do.)  As a general rule in native, I liked to have one castle, one town and ~2 villages; that might not be the most efficient setup, but it's the one I'm comfortable with.  I'll take more when I'm setting up for my rebellion, but not to keep - I want them to have them in my post-rebellion kingdom so that I can give them away to the (good) lords who join me after.

The other factor on income is prosperity, and there's a number of factors involved in that - but the short version is that sieging it diminishes the income potential for awhile, so it's probably not doing as much for you as it was for the previous owner, but this will *eventually* improve.

Also, NPC lords have different income and expense mechanics than the player does.  You get 'productive enterprises' alongside your fiefs for passive income, they get... I'm not really sure, but I see someone else dropped a guide on that topic earlier.

PlebCarry 说:

P.S. I ask this because I either am missing something you can do besides build buildings with fiefs, or the game is innately flawed and purposefully holds it own potential back.

点击展开...

There are quite a few things.  Among them: knight order chapters and recruiting troops from the Noble lines instead of just the Commoner lines.  More details in the guide NicotiN mentioned.

Shadow_Ordo 说:

This guide has been very helpful, I have one question which has just occurred for me. Or well, its been gradually occurring and is now at a breaking point.

I have followed your recommendation of companion composition, and for the most part this has worked, however I am having conflicts with a few and I am concerned I must loose some key characters. Boadice is naturally conflicting with Sir Rayne, Boadice is currently at 66 relations (happy-ness?), and Rayne is significantly dropping at 46; Fredrick is also at 46. I know Rayne is the issue here, though your guide did not recommend against him so i figured the other companions love interests would counter balance it, least that was how i took it. What should i do? Kick Rayne? Do companions happyness ever climb back up?

点击展开...

Relatively new to the mod and I haven't played the old versions, but I've heard there was a companion rework at some point so it's likely the guide is just out of date on that issue.  The guide on the wiki is up to date:
http://pop3.wikia.com/wiki/Companions

Burzum 说:

I don't understand how killing a few hundred men without a scratch is fun, I pretty much only get wiped when I fast travel into armies or try to solo knights while on foot with no shield.

点击展开...

I can only imagine being that good yet.  Even with a full kit of top-tier (shop) gear, I still find myself getting beat up and knocked out by a stray bolt to the face or something quite frequently.

Hatchet 说:

Wow! I thought I was reasonable at the game, but your playing on full damage, and 10 minutes in have 20k to drop on a sword? Are you saying an ebony weapon is a bigger advantage than 2 enterprises?

点击展开...

In the short term, it probably is.  The sword will help you get more kills (ie more XP) and rely less on your men to help carry you (ie fewer expenses) in better (more rewarding) fights - so if you don't have my problem of being easily killed, it's probably a faster ROI in the early game. 

OTOH...

Burzum 说:

Last one I saw was about 8k balanced ebony longsword way too cheap when u can join a lord battle with 5 men capture their KO prisoners and sell them for 3-4k with auto calc. I want to work my way up gradually, but yes an enterprise or two would be way more beneficial early game, I just like racing flashy gear first. Autocalc rewards are waaaay too good when u can be level 1 joining a 200 v 150 battle autocalc and come away with 4k profit. I normally start my char with high Prisoner Management and Looting.

点击展开...

I haven't tried that myself, but it sounds like the problem is more with the autocalc than with the availability of the gear itself.  Grinding for the gear without abusing autocalc is a bit slower, at least in my experience.

kalarhan 说:

KaosProphet 说:

MasterVegito 说:

Or just modify the game with tweakmb to give you like 100 relation for buying everyone a beer.

点击展开...

Not sure if serious, but:  too far in the other direction.  Is there nothing in between "extremely grindy" and "ridiculously trivial" anymore?

点击展开...

I think its simpler than that: the lesson is that you should play the game your own way, with your goals and challenges. No need to rant about X or Y when you can easily tweak the game for your personal taste.

点击展开...

I think you use different metrics for declaring a rant than I do :p

Also, if it were that simple then one would think he would have said "just use tweakmb to adjust to taste" rather than "use tweakmb to virtually eliminate it entirely."  But maybe I'm overthinking things a bit there.

kraggrim 说:

kalarhan. I have no idea why you wasted 20 sentences explaining to me that the devs have limited resources to distribute between adjusting old features and creating new ones, and have to make a choice. What makes you think I don't understand something that basic?

Trust me, I'm well aware that devs have to make choices. I just don't think that it's "time wasted on low value for the players..." to choose to allocate resources to balance old features.

点击展开...

Is this (infinite prisoner storage) actually 'unbalanced,' though, or is it just a missing verisimilitude (I don't like to say realism) feature?

I ask, because if it's more the latter than the former... then you need to use an entirely different set of metrics to determine whether or not it's "time wasted on low value."  The difference also affects the viability of different approaches to fixing it.  If it's primarily a balance issue, simply reducing the prisoner count 'fixes' it quickly while a nominal upkeep on stored prisoners is going to be of trivial impact.  If it's primarily a verisimilitude issue, then flip those around.

kalarhan 说:

sirgzu 说:

Number of prisoners is an issue for me and others apparently. Please don't be dismissive. Well thanks for pointing to that thread as well, didn't see it.

点击展开...

sirgzu 说:

it's neither realistic nor balanced.

点击展开...

simple put: not true, as it is based on historical numbers.

点击展开...

If the historical numbers your working from are "casualty rates" (as the thread you linked to was discussing) rather than "prisoner counts" (as this thread is talking about), then it's not necessarily going to be realistic - the two aren't directly correlating statistics, as not all survivors are going to be viable prisoners.

OTOH: there's not much actual surrendering going on in game either, and the lack of that would be artificially dragging prisoner counts down.  So it might actually wash out in the end.

MasterVegito 说:

Or just modify the game with tweakmb to give you like 100 relation for buying everyone a beer.

点击展开...

Not sure if serious, but:  too far in the other direction.  Is there nothing in between "extremely grindy" and "ridiculously trivial" anymore?