Search results for query: *

mniezo said:

P.S. i am not mad with the devs about their condescending silence, i am actually mad that everytime i tell some friend how great MB is the answer is always the same: never heard of it.

Click to expand...

Same here.

Even my brother, who introduced me to M&B before Warband came out, doesn't really know anything about Bannerlord other than the bits and pieces I thought were interesting from the dev-blogs.

I wouldn't even know what to send him to bring him on board. The overall vibe of the game is great, but there's no single piece of promotional material that makes me go "wow" or would win any of my friends round.

It's annoying, because I know two or three people who would love the game conceptually. Small team doing amazing work though.

moysturfurmer said:

Cosmetic items and a cohesive faction identity aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Provided an example.

Click to expand...

Nice point well made.

CaptainLee said:

DanAngleland said:

Shame? Dirt? That's going overboard in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Out and out lying to the community? How's that sound?

Click to expand...

I don't think you can call something a lie if it was said in good faith. Maybe time constraints mean they just can't live up to it...

Falconian said:

If there is any "quality of life" thing that I really missed in MB is for instance:
-  why can't I tell Borcha to pick a horse and run to Sargoth to tell them to build a prisoner tower?
- or instruct 10 soldiers to take my prisoners to nearby town, sell them and come back
- or send messager to tell Sargoth to move 50 huscarls to Thir
- or send my troops to a city, or send a messenger to pick troops from a city and bring them to me
- or send messenger to nearby Haen to hire recruits

Really, messengers are fundamental.
A lord/general shouldn't have to go to places himself to give orders, it's the main flaw of MB.
Everything was done through messengers IRL, the general himself doesn't have to go around to give basic orders.
If I'm campaigning, I should be able to issues all orders to villages, towns etc.
Without messengers, MB is largerly a chore simulator even if you are a major Lord of a King even.
A king who has to actually walk to a village to get recruits is just no.

Click to expand...

Yes to all this.

What do people think about messenger birds? I'm thinking similar to crows in Game of Thrones (but with pigeons as the more historical option?)

We've already seen that poster for Bannerlord with a big bird of prey and its handler - maybe these would be used to intercept pigeons and read the messages, giving you knowledge of your enemy's plans. Like...

"Your lordship,

Send reinforcements to Praven immediately. We are badly undefended.

Your liege,
King Harlaus"

And you'd intercept it and be like... "Oh, I'll send reinforcements alright..."

And not just intercepting birds. Imagine torturing information out of messengers or spies you intercept. That's the dream, right? Torture?

DanAngleland said:

So in summary I think that:

Steppe Stable => Various steppe horse breeds
European Stable => Various 'European' horse breeds
Stable => Various generic breeds

Click to expand...

This would be very, very cool.

I'd quite like a similar system where you build a generic stable (perhaps do away with any distinctions except the architecture), then you populate that stable with a "sire" of your choice. So if you have a really awesome rare warhorse, you can leave it at the stable and it will sire foals of the same breed (at the detriment of not travelling with that awesome rare warhorse yourself). Equally, you could have a stable produce steppe horses or whatever you need by depositing a horse of that type. (That's right, horse sperm simulator).

RE: Multiplayer Campaign

It makes sense that the host controls time-flow. Maybe they even have a manual pause/start button instead of the automatic pause. In terms of "fairness" however - as people are describing a primarily competitive mode here - I would say leave it all real-time. It would be frantic, but less grating than constantly finding your game pausing. Even playing with someone who's not taking the piss, that's going to get old. So, yeah, real time. If people like the idea of a competitive campaign mode I figure they'd like a frantic RTS mode anyway. (Er, right?)

RE: Co-op Campaign

I'm down for the one-party co-op as talked about in this thread. That would be my preferred mode in any case. I just want to have my friend's/brother's back in battle as we conquer the known world, share out loot, assign troops to each others command, that sorta thing.

It comes down to this for me. M&B is more of a party-based RPG to me than a grand strategy game. Of course it has elements of both - but that's what makes the idea of campaign multiplayer an unusual challenge. I'd be delighted and surprised if TW managed to incorporate both.

RoboSenshi said:

So far no one has still presented a clear feature list for Co-Op or MP Campaign game mechanics that can work.

Click to expand...

Co-Op Campaign:

- All players exist in the same party
- The lead player controls the party on the world map
- Secondary players join in real-time scenes like battles and towns

That's the basics.

It's limited by players being in the same party but there's a lot of fun to be had along the theme of "King Arthur + Knights" or "Robin Hood + Merry Men".

It also seems achievable - coming from someone who has never coded anything in their life.

On Co-op:

I think people have different hopes and expectations.

I get the impression most people are using "co-op" to mean a multiplayer campaign taking place on the world map, with different factions controlled by different human players likely fighting eachother when there's not a truce. We should be calling it a "multiplayer campaign" instead of co-op, surely?

Pure co-op would be comparatively easy to implement. My preferred way would be this...

One "leader" player controls the party on the world map. The leader and any "follower" players control their own characters during battles, tournaments, at camp and in towns etc. Follower players can potentially amuse themselves with delegated party management responsibilities while the leader is controlling the party's travel on the world map - sort of like a team on the bridge of a spaceship (corny comparision, I know... "Blacksmith, set weapons to full smith... ness. Surgeon, restore that beheaded man to full health."). Each player still has full control of their own character's skills and equipment - they could even have control of their own "division" within the party e.g. their own loyal troops, companions, prisoners and maybe even their own share of the gold. Leadership could be held as a ballot between all the players, or challenged via a duel, or based on the nobility of player's characters, or just agreed on like civilized people who are co-operatively playing as friends can't we all just get along join-hands start a love train etc.

Alright, it's not full-blown campgain multiplayer, but it seems achievable to a noob like me, and could incorporate more continuity, ownership and features than what would most likely be TaleWorld's solution: Joining a battle in another player's game, as an ally or enemy.

creuzet said:

I have to admit that they haven't shown much of the combat system. I also hope they solved the problem of the way the AI handles weapons selection in combat and that we won't see lancers or spearmen getting killed by bandits or looters because they don't use their one-handers.

Click to expand...

Oh God. That was bad enough to be considered a full-blown bug.

There are so many sexy ideas (like board games first and foremost), but I hope combat AI is the top priority. That's the actual heart of the game, after all.

Or, maybe... just maybe... a personal retinue that follow you around town etc?  (Probably not)

Edit: Might also be cool that to get the benefit of a character with a high trade skill, or high diplomacy skill - you have to include them in your retinue. Likewise, good fighters in your retinue act as bodyguards during ambushes in town.

Asulador said:

I'm satisfied with the "raw" and "natural" accents of the voice actors, I don't get why some of you guys want to have people who speak some bland english language in some bland american accent.

(Might be wrong with what you guys want exactly though, so please do clarify what you actually hate about the voice acting?)

Click to expand...

I agree.

I quite like the fact that not everyone is speaking their first language. Makes sense. I definitely favour it to an American or even English accent in a quasi-Dark Age setting.

The writing wasn't so much to my taste. "Alright, mate! I'm gonna put you down, mate!" Did they have Ray Winstone in mind for that character.

I'm pretty happy with it overall, but I would keep to more standard English where possible. "I'm going to put you down, friend!" would fit better in that accent.

Amontadillo said:

irt "If people don't have to do the most ****ty jobs anymore that would be great, and it would also create higher paying engineering jobs for the people designing and maintaining the robots."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

Click to expand...

I yearn for this day...

Always stark how vacuum cleaners, washing machines and dishwashers and universally seen as good things.

While self-service checkouts and other technology that replaces jobs get a mixed or negative response.

Under a system with universal basic income, where you don't have to earn your keep through labour, technology in the formal economy could be as universally lauded as it is in the informal economy. All these forms of technology free humans from mind-numbing drudgery.

But I think it will be a long time before the majority of people understand that humans aren't becoming wilfully unemployed, genetically feckless, lazy scroungers - rather, technology is freeing people from all kinds of drudgery. What happens to all those people who would have traditionally been farmhands, miners, factory workers, drivers etc. When they worked, they were seen as the salt of the earth, now they can't...
we consign them to the scrapheap of unemployment figures and allow right-wing politicians to denigrate them...

mabhalsahari said:

dont get your hopes up to high for gamescon. it seem that they will talk more about warband than bannerlord.

schedule.gdceurope.com/session/unglamorous-esports-a-mount-blade-warband-case-study

Click to expand...

"This talk will offer insight into a lesser known kind of gaming experience, where people play for thousands of hours with no expectation of a material reward."

So that's the Warband booth. And the Bannerlord booth...

"This talk will offer insight into a lesser known kind of gaming experience, where people play wait for thousands of hours with no expectation of a material reward."

jacobhinds said:

I don't see why they need to be linguistically consistent within faction. It's not like each faction owned each town and village from the time of their founding until the start of the game, is it?

I'd also be pretty annoyed if they went down the 100% cheesy copout route of just copying names of towns and lords from real ones. The uncanny valley between history and fantasy is incredibly immersion-breaking.

Click to expand...

Perhaps faction was the wrong word but I think it should make sense culturally. So, yeah, I could see easily why hypothetically there might be a place in Swadia that got its name from the Nords - but I hope we don't have to justify every town name with that logic. Also, I think that's a slightly different issue from my contention - which is that none of the names in Warband were culturally consistent or distinguishable from anywhere else (as I said, excepting the Sarranids and possibly only based on my lack of knowledge of the differences).

Real town names would be horrible, I agree.  But unless we're going for completely unrecognisable names (e.g. no-one has any idea what language/culture this word came from or was inspire by), I think it's worth making deliberate decisions on what influences those names and picking appropriate ones.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with a Nord called Bjorn and a Khergit called Khasar. (Don't forget King Ragnar and the like from Warband). But, yeah, Genghis Khan would be a bit much. 

hugo90 said:

i'd like to see an mix of M&BW and Cruzaders kings 2 map. Sorry for my bad english, i'd hope it understand

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think there's a lot of things in general they could borrow from Crusader Kings 2 (and simplified for M&B's less political gameplay).

Osviux said:

I think names are distinguishable enough in Warband, except for Rhodoks and Swadians as their cultures are similar in some ways.

Click to expand...

Actually, some of them I can definitely distinguish, like the Sarranid town names. I struggle with most of the others, though. I'm sure there must have been some linguistic rules or inspirations they used to try and be consistent but I honestly can't see them. For example, a name like Uxkhal sounds more Nord than Swadian to me (if anything).

It'd be good if the town names reflect the map layout. So, they sound like they belong to the faction that controls them (originally).

So, as a very crude example, if you get a quest to go to "Asgard", you know it's going to be somewhere in or around the Nord territory. If you get a quest to go to "Roma", you know it's going to be in or around the Empire territory.

Ideally the faction and lord names would be culturally consistent too.

I struggled to distinguish names from one another in Warband for the reason I don't think they necessarily followed this rule.

I'm curious how combat controls would work on a console. Warband is on Nvidia Shield and that has an analog stick, so I'm assuming it plays passably well compared to using a mouse and keyboard.

It's interesting that the leaked clip of the Bannerlord UI had inventory equipment listed instead of using the old grid style. Similar to how TES changed from a grid to a list to accommodate consoles. (Oblivion, not Skyrim, was the low point of UI for me).

Bannerlord would sell brilliantly on consoles. Especially as a digital download at the usual M&B price bracket. That's where "niche" titles thrive. Look at some of the fastest selling digital downloads ever: State of Decay with its permadeath, RE Remastered with its limited saves. M&B isn't all that "out there" by comparison - in fact, I think the concept would hold huge appeal if people were exposed to it.

Amazing.

I wasn't big on original M&B music. It was very evocative of old movie battle sequences.

This is exactly the sort of change I was hoping for.

ThegnAnsgar said:

Well, I don't think horses should be as tanky as they are in vanilla, but they are rather hardy animals. So native horses could probably do with some kind of a nerf in some way. The problem with cavalry in games is that the depiction has to sacrifice things for gameplay elements.

Click to expand...

In single-player, the effectiveness of horses can be justified by their cost and scarcity. In Bannerlord's quasi-Dark Age setting, I guess pre-stirrups, heavy cavalry would be markedly less effective than Warband's medieval setting.

It's more difficult in multiplayer with the Warband system, where cavalry is supposedly equal to range and melee. Although the effectiveness of all those classes will always depend on the battlefield and the organisation of both sides.

I'd quite like to see a multiplayer mode where you can upgrade your equipment over a "career" rather than per match - not necessarily replacing the Warband system, just an alternative. Horses could be justifiably powerful in that mode if you have to save like hell to get one.

Coming from someone that worked at a riding school, I personally don't think they're overpowered in Warband relative to real life. On the one hand, they shouldn't be able to canter for hours without tiring, and they should sometimes bolt, rear or buck. On the other hand, they should do much more charging damage (usually knocking the victim over), and they should spin, kick and bite when trapped in combat. And they shouldn't run into obstacles without a player looking ahead to guide their every movement.

Redleg said:

If you want the game to get fixed, give them useful feedback so they can get on with it.  It's okay to complain, but do it in a way that will get their attention in the right way, rather than giving them a reason to dismiss what you're saying because of how you're saying it.

Click to expand...

Absolutely this.

You have to trust that people have the best intentions. Point out problems, sure. But once you start questioning people's integrity you're being completely unfair. Things go wrong despite people's best efforts. Anyone who's ever had a job where they've been accountable to anyone knows this. For those who don't, one day the boot WILL be on the other foot and it might finally hit home.