搜索结果: *

A better idea than giving renown just because you have money (because that sounds a bit OP), how about getting renown whenever you or one of your caravans sell or buy things in town ? With a minimum amount to get any renown and then a linear amount depending on the worth of what gets sold & bought, it would make it so that if you're an important part of the economy (because you make goods flow), you get renown. Sounds a lot more logical to me anyways.

There's a lot of inspiration that could be drawn from the Paradox games. After all that studio has been trying to find ways to prevent what that community calls "Blobing" for years. From cultural integration mechanics to civil war & revolts, there's plenty of proven ideas to pick from.

What I'd like to see on top of whatever else would be something akin to "World Tension" we can find in Hearts of Iron 4. In that game (about WW2), the vast majority of the warring and conquering of territory is done in the later part of the campaign as every faction becomes more motivated and less limited to go to war. Something similar could be done for Bannerlord, where the world could go through more or less cyclic phases of chaos and order, so to speak. Then, it can be balanced so that without player intervention, there's very little chance great chaos starts. Without great chaos, it's a lot harder for faction rulers to get their armies together, and prevent internal fighting.

I guess "chaos" is a bad name for it, but you get the point.

I think a big issue is the change in time scale, and the fact you play as a clan and not a single immortal character.

It wouldn't really make sense if only in a few years you could become a master in anything, let alone multiple skills. However, in terms of how quickly things move (the economy, politics, movement over the map...) everything is very disjointed from that new time scale. And this is, I believe, why we all feel that skilling up is so slow.

Back in Warband this wasn't an issue - a year in game was a LONG time where the player could really go from rags to riches, and noone cared because the time scale didn't matter. You character or your companions were never going to go away, and most of the grind was for Renown, RTR, and relations. As such the game could afford to have relatively fast skill up without breaking any of its own logic.

Perhaps it would feel better if the logarithmic curve was tweaked so that first 100 skill points were quick to get, especally with focus points involved. However, I wouldn't want to be able to skill my (or any other) character up super quickly so that they could become masters in pretty much everything in just a few years In Game.

EDIT : I'm going as I'm thinking here, but in a sense the whole game could be made slower aswell as the skilling up be made faster. What if travel between two close by towns took multiple days instead of an afternoon ? It sounds bad but hear me out : that would buy a lot of downtime the game could use to introduce even more mechanics to skill up. If you had to make camp at night, there'd be a nice space for the devs to implement training fights with your men to increase combat skills in a relatively safe environment, or you could go hunt and increase your scouting. Or you could play war games and increase tactic... Basically make the whole skilling up thing into a constant element as you play.

Very interesting data ! I wonder how you achieved that. I guess some early modding !

My take on this and what I've seen in my own playthroughs is that there are two solutions to this particular problem, one that I prefer massively.

1 -> Balances and "brute force rules" applied to AI in order to straight up prevent this from happening IE making dominating AI dumber, giving a bonus to armies that belong to struggling factions... Basically what you'd call a band aid to the problem as opposed to a proper cure. I'd see that being done short term so as to not slow down testing on all the other aspects of the game.

2 -> Understanding the fundamental problem with the simulation. That's a lot more complicated, and if ever a proper conclusion is reached it's going to take a lot more data, and a lot more thinking and debating.

For that we can step away from Bannerlord "the game" and enter Bannerlord "the simulation". What happens if the player doesn't ever do anything ? You've collected some data on that : one or two factions swell in power and almost never get stopped. There seems to not be a single mechanic that can stop a strong faction's momentum other than the diplomatic AI deciding to have peace for a while. The speed at which this happens has to be noted too.

From what I've observed, here's what I think : it seems way too easy for factions to gather their strength together and put all their might towards one goal : total annihilation of the enemy, taking all they have. On top of that, the new territory can immediately feed the war machine : there is no mechanic such as "core territory" or "cultural integration" or any real debuffs to how much newly conquered territory gives to a faction compared to the heartland.

So the solution is twofold : splitting each faction's might into multiple, sometimes conflicting goals, and avoiding systematic recovery and strengthening of a faction's war machine without some time of stabilization.

The first solution is probably the most complex to actually get to work. Luckily, there already seems to be a pretty strong framework of vassal and clan individuality within kingdoms. Moreover, with the possibility of characters dying of old age, it stands to reason to think every single system related to characters is dynamic. Mechanics involving changing the ruler of a kingdoms for example shouldn't be game breaking.

With that in mind, I would propose that the Clan layer be used more. There is no reason why clans should never fight eachother, even within kingdoms. Clan conflicts with each clan belonging to different kingdoms could also happen without the kingdoms themselves acknowledging them of course. If rulers had to spend a lot more resources to fight internally as well as externally, it'd take a lot longer for any faction to become united enough in their goal to start steamrolling anybody. On top of that, it makes sense being steamrolled would be a strong unificating factor, wherein lies your "comeback" mechanic for struggling factions. Outright civil war could also trigger (tho should stay rare, lest the game become confusing) where a faction could splinter along its clans.

Finally, extinct faction that still have "loyalist" anything (freshly defected clans, freshly conquered towns...) could rise from such inner conflicts and come back into the game. Clans could also outright create their own kingdom... after all, doesn't Warband take place only a couple hundred years after Bannerlord ? If the ambition is to have generations-spanning playthroughs, where are the mechanics for the Khergit Khanate or Sarranid Sultanate to form ?

The second solution is simpler. From the lore it's reasonable to infer Calradia does not share a single culture beyond language and the love of butter. As such it'd make sense for towns to have cultural preferences as far as their direct and indirect leaders go. When placing a imperial cultured lord to rule over a Battanian town, himself being a vassal of a imperial ruler, the local populace shouldn't be as willing to enroll into armies or pay taxes. Some notables could outright decide to "resist" and create more banditry in the countryside aswell as redirecting caravans to trade away from these towns.

I think as I write... where are notables in all this ? What would prevent the system from letting notables (especially gang leaders) from staging rebellions and proclaiming themselves as independent clan leaders ?

Tons of ideas in my head... but ideas are a dime a dozen as they say.

TL;DR My main goal with writing this wall o text is to argue for not (in a durable manner) putting in brute-force mechanics to artificially curb strong factions with the pure goal of "player experience". Playing into the deep simulation and emergent gameplay might seem like uselessly complicated to solve these problems but they add much more to the game than band aid solutions.

NoobCakes 说:

I love skirimish. It is exactly what I am looking for in terms of M&B multiplayer. The problem I have with it is the fact that cavalry and archers aren't limited. Any team with majority archers can just pick apart a team with infantry. It's ridiculous. I find playing archer to be extremely mundane and cheesy, and same goes for cav. The real skill lies in infantry, but I can't get that because I get shot to hell by arrows. If I am lucky enough to make it to the archers if I decide to run a shield, well that's a spear to the back from a dude on a horse. Ridiculous.

点击展开...

Well, try to follow my guideline ! I'm not so scared of archer spam personally, unless the team I get just has no brains and tries to huddle together to get picked apart by cross fire.

The Luminary 说:

Devs also seem insistent on making the AI clans fight on an even footing with the player like it's a shorter multiplayer game they're designing instead of a single player, 200+ hour no rush sandbox play how you want experience like warband.

It's ok for AI lords to spawn with a few strong unique units so we don't see kings getting captured by bandits all the time. It's ok for some tier 5+ AI clans to have a higher base income than most players do for most of the game.

点击展开...

I would disagree. Sandbox games are made a lot better when you know the AI has the same possibilities as you. But of course it has to be balanced like everything else.

Jess_the_Hobozerk 说:

Good ideas otherwise though. I would think a bit more regarding countering cavalry however. Good cavalry does not need to lance you in the back to win a fight. Also, their high mobility makes it very simple to change the entire tactical landscape in a blink while making what was a balanced fight into a 4v2 while the rest of the team is out of position due to low mobility.

点击展开...

Yes, full heavy cavalry with long lance spam is probably the best counter to my strategy, as even if they stay together, they can outdo the extra "mobility" the spread out team gets from holding more flags than them. But well, at the same time I'm part of those who think cavalry should either be nerfed or made a LOT more expensive (no more than one life for any class with a long lance or armored mount). And seeing how effective they are even now when people are on average not that good yet, it's only a matter of time before they get nerfed.

I hope they don't nerf spears tho. I like the fact they can now be used as a proper all round weapon instead of following the trope of them only being good against cavalry.

Chambers were not that common but they were still excellent at breaking the pace of a drawn out hit / block / hit / block duel / small fight between good players. I really dislike how they made chambering waaay harder and at the same time didn't give us the proper tools to learn how to do it now.

Jess_the_Hobozerk 说:

I fight in a group in skirmish for the exact reason you said. I am treating it like battle because I want battle, not limited respawn capture the flag TDM; however TW took that option away. I don't really care if I do well or the team does well, it's the closest option I have to the experience I want.

点击展开...

I will say that, yes, I can appreciate the fact that people who want a proper battle mode without castle walls or wierd spawn points in the way don't really have anywhere to go to right now.

People seem to be saying Warband's leveling system was not a chore. That getting your skills or your companions' was not a grind. What the hell people ? Are your memories this short ? Of COURSE it was a bloody grind, and worst of all, the only way of leveling was by killing stuff, basically. Quests gave some too and, sure, not all quests involved heavy fighting, but damn.

The feeling I get from readingyou guys' posts is that you want to be quickly done with the core of your character's leveling and skills and then get onto the relations / renown grind. Basically, how Warband was played in theory (once again, skilling up in Warband definitely was a chore too).

A lot of the more obscure skills are easy to level up in Bannerlord. And at least, with this system, I get to choose the way I want to play with the confidence that the vast majority of productive actions will net me some advancement towards the next level. I LOVE the new system. Sure it takes longer to become a uber war machine, and sure it makes it more tedious to level companions up the way you want them to.

I will agree with one thing though : it could use balancing, and perhaps better means of leveling some skills (trainers and books, basically). Maybe make it faster in general ? Not even sure about that one, maybe put it as a setting?

EDIT : I also want to say, after reading some stuff about having companions that are "blank slates". It would indeed break immersion for me to find grown adults with absolutely 0 skills. However, we have (or will soon have) the ability to have children ! Isn't that exactly what we need here ? If you want an elite doctor in your clan, just get your first character to make moneyz so that you have the resources for it.

I'm guessing that for now it's mostly a show off thing. It wouldn't really be in the spirit of M&B to allow people to skill up in multiplayer.

Malorn 说:

The AI got a LOT better at most of what you mention with bannerlord, however. And the AI can 'level up' in the same way, and in fact most of early game they will have 'leveled up' long before you.

点击展开...

They have gotten better true, but not THAT much better. Besides, as you mentionned there is a combat AI setting. Notice I've said nothing about absolutely needing to turn it to the highest difficulty :p

As for AI leveling up... I guess you are talking about the lords / heroes themselves ? Well yea sure but the vast majority of enemies you will be fighting will be standard troops that have fixed stats, so no worries. When heroes come just let your men do the work )

The advantage humans have is being clever with placement, weapon length, the ability to kick / nudge, the ability to rotate their character's body along the attack to speed it up, the ability to level up, and the ability to not be completely random in their defense / offense balance.

Malorn 说:

But seriously, go fight one enemy. Two-hander only. You have to block, and only block, for 2 minutes...that isn't going to happen, I'd bet. And perhaps it shouldn't, but even trying to read where the attacks are coming from in time is seriously difficult, especially with short weapons. I think you will find you have been relying on killing the enemy rather then actually blocking him, in a lot of cases.

点击展开...

So, I tried fighting both the trainers in the tutorial field with the two hander and only blocking. Longest I've lasted was about 25 seconds, they always endup getting me once with a nonsense point blank thrust attack or my hand gets too tense or whatever else. And I guess that yea, it's normal that in less than two minutes of pure defense I'd eventually make a mistake. But does that mean it's not worth learning how to block effectively without the game doing it for you ? No it doesn't ! Attacking back is part of being defensive, and when I attack back I can beat any AI easily. That's only normal. And no, I don't kill every single enemy before they start attacking, far from it.

At the end it's about the learning process and whether you want to be able to fail. Whether you want challenge. If you've told yourself that it's not worth it because you can't reach automation level of reliability, so be it. But I will say this : you are missing out on a lot.

That said, I want to reiterate that I'm not against the option. Any option some people feel they need to enjoy the game should be in. Now, should every option still allow to get achievements... that's a more complex topic :p

Malorn 说:

But seriously, go fight one enemy. Two-hander only. You have to block, and only block, for 2 minutes...that isn't going to happen, I'd bet. And perhaps it shouldn't, but even trying to read where the attacks are coming from in time is seriously difficult, especially with short weapons. I think you will find you have been relying on killing the enemy rather then actually blocking him, in a lot of cases.

点击展开...

Challenge accepted. I'll go fight the trainer in the tutorial :p

Well, it's hard to know what you mean by "I tried". Did you try for like 2 hours of gameplay and then decided you'd never be able to ? Did you try for days and days and then made other attempts ? Got another player to help you learn ?

As for the "AI vs Human" argument, I feel like I need to say that it's a bit ridiculous. OBVIOUSLY the AI is coded so that it doesn't always perfectly react, otherwise they'd be easily killable. In fact, I can tell you that even in Bannerlord they're not the smartest. I have a much harder time killing other players in MP than I have killing a single AI.

I agree that the option should be there (although it is discouraged in any way, because it's not there in MP). However, have you tried to really put some effort into learning ? I often see people like you guys saying they "don't have the reflexes" or whatnot. You now have the perfect incentive to actually try ! I can tell you one thing : I started playing M&B when I was 11, and sure I was a youngster with apparently reptile fast reflexes. However it was NOT easy to get any good at it. Getting good at blocking without a shield took a lot of trying. It's a very satisfying learning process.