搜索结果: *

I disagree with the above posters and think this is worth fair consideration, since 1) ranged weapons in the game need to be reworked anyway, and 2) no historical handheld ranged weapon (or any modern small arms for that matter) transmits enough energy to significantly move any human body -- in-game they should simply ragdoll with no additional change in momentum, if you want to be accurate and not arcadey.

Konane is easily the hardest minigame, requiring a skillset similar to that of chess to play well, and it was apparently relatively easy to code a decent AI for it compared to say Tablut (a potentially difficult game but the AI sucks). Literally any other game would be easier and more fun to start, except for MuTorere which is too simple and just gets into repetitive loops.

Also see Tavern Board Games Tips and Tricks.

That said, you make a good point. When the AI for all the games is final, it is a good idea that either the hardest AI be behind harder difficulty settings, or that betting limits scale to difficulty choice. If as a good player of game X I spend 5-10 minutes to uncertainly get 500 denars once per town (if a competitor is available in the tavern, which is like 50-50), that's hardly easy money in this game, especially not if the AI is improved (and I support improving the AI to make the games potentially more fun as a player's skill improves).

Warband's Floris mod had a good tournament system (not sure what original mod it was based on, but credit to that). You get points for each individual KO plus points if your team wins, and there is no elimination, just six fixed rounds. They also had extra awards for fiercest competitor, strongest cut, etc., though not sure how that was implemented or how much sense it made in the end.

Yes single elimination is easier to illustrate and easy to understand, but awarding points in each round based on last-man-standing as opposed to say number of KOs per team is less so (and there's even a score counter already implemented!).

The arena overhaul in Floris was silly imo: messy beaten-up terrain with obstacles that would be downright dangerous to run a horse through, random trees and shrubs that would obstruct spectators' views, all making zero logistical sense (similar to the giant immovable rocks in Vlandia tourneys in BL). Historically in arena games, creative obstacles were definitely a thing, but so was practicality. You had to be able to move obstacles into and out of the stadium, you had to be able to see the competitors, and you had to not cripple the horses and gladiators just by moving through them.

To the latter point in general, arena games really should not look so obviously deadly to horses and competitors. This would require a lot of redesign and a lot of new development, which is also why we won't be seeing jousting or even archery competition any time soon. We can still ask.

I think this is a fine idea for a mod.

However I think the base game food variety is fine. There are also reasons to oppose the changes you propse: 1) number of food items has to be scaled to the simplified morale bonus limit (in which case I liked the varied bonuses in Warband only slightly better). 2) In Warband you'd only ever carry nonperishable foods anyway unless you found a great deal. 3) Keeping track of the number of trade goods we have for proper routes is a decent challenge as is and what you're proposing triples or more the amount of food goods. 4) Isn't it implied/historical/common sense that soldiers cook food before eating it? You shouldn't eat grain raw.

There's more reasons, and I didn't originally want to post something non-constructive, but after people voiced support I felt I should point this stuff out.

I'm a programming mercenary and I've been waiting for Google to send me an offer of employment for years.

... *sigh* but I suppose if you want a game that's "high fantasy" ....

Troubling if true. It's hard to prove definitively, so I won't assume until a confirmation or denial or fix from TW.

Tavern games in general need tweaking (e.g. my suggestion for a draw feature), but I imagine it's at the bottom of TW's priority list. But if the AI is indeed fixing the dice in Puluc then the fix is simple and let me add my plea: Puluc as of 1.5.10 was time-consuming enough and win-loss-uncertain enough to be not an easy money farm source (though except in early game tavern games are not the best or most exciting farm). But I still played Puluc from time to time because it is fun. Why? Because the great balance of randomness means that even a weak AI puts up a strong fight and that makes every game interesting every time. So please don't spoil a great game with cheating -- the win probability is balanced without it, even though without dedicated algorithm work the human is going to be smarter.

I practiced chamber blocking (guided by Spartan Gaming's video tutorial) using the tutorial trainers for 2 hours in 1.6.1 and I went from random chance to maybe 8% successful CBs on vertical strikes, 2% on horizontal, and 0% on stabs, all using 2H polearm. Also, I seem to take full damage on parries that are not CBs, which disincentives even attempting the maneuver. Now this is kinda overly difficult for a video game when this is one of a very few -- what else: kick, shield bash, running, attacking, and blocking? -- controllable melee combat maneuvers.

Regarding realism, this general type of receive is one of the first intermediate-advanced maneuvers (that is, after becoming proficient in the beginner stuff) you would learn in any weapon art. (The maneuver that's insanely difficult to master or even do correctly is where you parry/receive and hit in the same forward motion). It's fundamental enough that I'm glad it's worked into the mechanics when so much is abstracted away, but it really should be more accessible to characters who begin the game already knowing how to swing a sword, draw a bow, etc. with reasonable competence (all nontrivial tasks -- we clearly do not start with a novice).

Necro because it's recent and I wanted to post something similar.

The reason afaik it was nerfed from being originally a lower-tier perk was that skilled players could buy the map with barely a battle (see Halcylion on yt who speedran world conquest in 7 hours). First off this exploit requires rushing a trade character, which is a specific play style. Second, however, is that it relies on the fact that in these versions the lords were all too happy to sell their entirely livelihoods to the largest emerging superpower. Honestly it feels to me that making the perk harder to get is the lazy way to balance this out, because trading fiefs should be a regularly accessible part of the mechanic.

The balance is that the people you trade with need to not be selling themselves to oblivion, need to need quick cash over the fief (which should generate wealth but usually doesn't because lords run negative prosperity growth), need to like you, and need to trust that you aren't planning to dominate the world (or take their throne, etc.). The last metric is already built into the war/peace system, though I don't know how accurate it is, while the first two should be relatively easy to roughly figure out.

But I 99% agree that trading fiefs here and there should be a feature accessible to every character. Buying the map should remain requiring a maxed-out trade perk, or not be a feature altogether, because no other skill has a max perk that wins the game.

Lord Doom 说:

I think they increase persuasion chances in dialogue options with similarly-aligned nobles. My (positive) traits are level 2 and when convincing a lord to join my kingdom, one option always gives a 100% critical success if the other guy is honourable. Strangely even if they're devious that option is still very high like 95% if I recall.

点击展开...

If indeed the maximum effect of traits is about a 0-10% bonus/penalty to persuasion chances, that's probably good design imho. If you're negotiating important matter A, then a person's affairs in unrelated matter B shouldn't affect the real decision that much (lrn2compartmentalize!). Real-world research shows that too iirc, that people make more important decisions on a much more pragmatic rather than moralistic basis (accuracy aside).

We can probably all agree though that more transparency in the traits and more balanced means of acquiring and losing points in each is desirable. For such a small gameplay effect though, it's probably low-priority.

Would I care if traits were axed in the final version? Eh. But it would be nice, since NPCs have personality traits, for the player to have them too, and for them to mean something in terms of behavior for both. That might be TW's goal.

Same issue here, latest patch 1.5.10, as Battanian, and also note the little "!" box appears by the party icon after you defeat the bandits which indicated to me that I *needed* to talk to brother right after.