Search results for query: *

Yay!

Really amazing work. All the emphasis on clothing and not just armor is really going to add to the medieval sim aspect of the game.
Love it.

Looks like TW is going to win over a few celt fans with this post.

As a celt fan I hope the range of colors on the battlefield and in the towns isn't going to be all dirt tones. Celts used woad(?), had patterned clothing, and were ornately decorated in jewelry/gold. Being that this ties into the flair>effectiveness stance, I dont see why one wouldnt exploit this aspect of their culture. If the empire is has a cold steel aesthetic, the Battanians should be colorful and chaotic, with less need formation lines and less uniform soldier kits.

Cavalry normally wouldnt charge straight into a line of spear infantry anyway.

However I take the point that a spearman shouldnt just stab an oncoming horse like they might another soldier. they'd have to brace themselves for the impact of the horse, since the majority of force being applied is coming from the horses momentum and weight rather than the spearmans thrust itself.  A spearman attacking a horse should be a special maneuver to make sense. Basically the character might squat low, brace their spear against the ground and hold fast for the attack. The squat would allow the enemy attacks to fly overhead. Then if the stance can only be held momentarily, they can't just stay in it and avoid cav entirely.

I can imagine playing this mode with buddies would be great for a laf. Looks great.

I really hope that's not all we're getting from gamescom.

Anyone know if there will be a fog of war on the map itself. I think one thing that would really add to the exploration of the lands could be the feeling of adventuring into the unknown, having no idea where anything is.

they should solve coop in a dlc. that way it doesnt jam up the release.

Maybe just force players to be in the same army, and they can alternate being in the drivers seat as to who controls the army. Both players always fight battles.

Like a motorcycle with a sidecar.

ragnarlothbrok89 said:

Why don't major developers think abount a Bannerlord like game ? There are thousands of people who want a game like this.....I really don't understand...

Click to expand...

there have been several attempts at some aspects of WB. For Honor and War of the Vikings. They all fail, more or less, typically because they need a high amount of graphic fidelity and easy player adoption (they don't want the depth WB has because muh mass market).

Attila7 said:

Maybe they are trying to time the release with something else. Console release? Milk current sales some more?

Click to expand...

I'd bet they are having trouble getting the network hit detection working right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqZ8T3zt0OY&t=7s

New Interview. Hog tie me up to a horse and ride over rough stony roads if old.

HUMMAN said:

Disobedience to the commanders order has no penalty.

Click to expand...

I mean really-- how are they to measure that at all. Also I think if there was a penalty it would be really frustrating. Finally, what if there is something legitimately preventing you from executing the order, but you still get the penalty.

I think if anything there should be some kind of combat effectiveness ranking done after a fight, proportionate to the amount of troops you command. If you kill more or equal to your number the lord views you with favor. If it's substantially lower then rumors go around that your a weak willed and possibly a coward. Different troop types might have a multiplier. Infantry are defensive so you don't expect to kill equal numbers, while with archers you expect to kill more than you lose.

Styo said:

Balexander said:

MK: Can we say that you're doing the finishing touches?

AY: Yeah, we're doing the finishing touches. When we're sure of it, when we're sure that the product won't result in negative feedback from the players, we'll release it.

Click to expand...

Welp there we have it! Stop *****ing about the game on forums! 

Click to expand...

yeah I mean the days of 'no negative feedback from players' have been gone for a very long time. But let's not be unfair in our interpretation.

when are these interviews going to happen? are we going to see news today? I'm trying to look at schedules but I don't see anything regarding TW.

They do need to hurry up. As far as making Bannerlord marketable to a larger market, there is a window they have available. Once the graphics get too ripe their momentum and potential for new sales dwindles.

Thoughts on controller support for BL? How is it in Warband? Might try playing this on a steam link with a controller or steam controller, easier on the hands.

Wasn't M&B the original EA/sold beta title? Seems strange to knock the format if one is a M&B fan.

It's a matter of trust. I think we can trust TW enough to know they care about the title and aren't going to make some kind of cash grab. They haven't given any one any reason to think otherwise as far as I can see.

SirMairaki said:

For the Civ relation, I think this will play out differently because as far as I can tell, they simply tell you how much influence each action costs, so either you can do it or you can't.

Based on many of the things they've talked about, it would seem as though the AI will have influence as well.

As for why they would value it, it'd be the same reason as why they value honor or renown: it's what people do. TW is just putting a visible quantity on something you see in the real-world.

Click to expand...

Yeah I mean, like I said, I do hope it plays out differently. Obvious TW made this great game, I feel one should always give benefit of the doubt when a dev has proven themselves as original and interesting as they have,

I don't ascribe to the notion that people 'just do' anything. The very notion that one has to 'spend' influence to get people to do something already implies they don't 'just do' it. People have often very powerful reasons for why they do something, perhaps even them not knowing that reason. Renown is a measure of accomplishment, what your past deeds have wrought. Honor is how much someone can implicitly trust you with a task. Also these are not bartered, but earned or lost depending on actions. Influence doesn't as easily translate, and still makes little sense to me why it might be bartered. Again, if you have done a thing to earn influence why should another lord pay you back?

So ex. I want a lord to come with me on an attack on an enemy castle, as oppose to joining the king. Here the idea is if I have saved up enough influence the lord will come with me rather than the king? The real reasons for why a lord might do that are slightly varied; recognition of my waxing power and the kings waning power, their desire for glory, the attack will have better results for this individual than the one the king is doing. None of those motivations have to do with my 'influence' in the sense that I think the barter nature of influence here is really most analogous to favors. He won't betray his king, or is long term strong self interest, for a favor.

SirMairaki said:

Largely probably true, but that's still just your opinion.

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out to anyone who might not know.
Also if a thing can be true then it cannot be an opinion.

SirMairaki said:

Isn't that the exact reason they're adding it? To make add a more transparent layer to the system that existed in Warband?

Click to expand...

Here I'm referring to how, say, Civ V has an opaque system in that you just play with the toggles of what you offer until the AI seems to accept since the player hasn't received sufficient enough information to warrant an educated estimate.

Here the issue of transparency would be:
What exact value does this 'influence' coin render unto the AI. Can that AI trade it? Why should the AI value your influence at all? If the value of influence is predicated on past actions, why would anyone have any interest in paying those acts back after they have already been completed. These are the opaque elements that might present themselves during gameplay.

The possible issue with influence coins isn't that it's a gamified system, it's that it's yet to have been fun in any other game yet.  If the logic by which the player can barter with the ai isnt transparent or nuanced then as a player I'm just left to slide the bar until arbitrary setting that the AI is happy with is met and that's that.

I'm happy to be proven otherwise, just stating what possible misgivings there are with it.

The problem with negotiating systems in most games I've seen is they fail utterly to emulate the 'fun' of haggling in real life. IMO there are two components to that, there needs to be a cost of failure (no deal if you guess wrong, or since it's a game, the worst possible deal) and sufficient information available to the player that they might make an educated guess to maximize the power of their position.

Because most games fail to really emulate how a human might expect another human might think one often has to peck around at the solution like you are stuck on some snes/psx jrpg where you didnt talk to the one guy to trigger that thing to move on (because who would think THAT was the key to moving forward right?).

If BL was IRL a lord might have days or weeks to consider the proposal he might put to another lord, and the stakes were high enough that both sides did nothing arbitrary. Meanwhile negotiating in games often feels exactly that-- arbitrary. So a player needs to have sufficient information available to them to make an educated guess but because this is a game the player should really be able to come to that decision within a few minutes at max about what their negotiating strategy should be.

Personally I don't know about the influence coinage system. To a certain degree it makes sense. However I help lord x get his village in order and running like a clock, why should lord y care? After all with feudal powers each lord was very much their own law within their domain. The subordination to a king was more begrudging obligation than some aspiration to a united identity. As a result I only see influence being applicable as a concept from a top down perspective. that is to say If I help lord X, Lord X cares and his King cares, and because the king cares Lord Y must indirectly care. However Lord Y is only tertiarily obliged by such influence.

This then only applies within one sphere of influence. It doesn't therefore apply to say another kingdom, merchant guilds, bandit guilds etc. Those organizations are more likely to recognize the brute power of the players army and respect that as the primary bargaining chip in any dealings with the player.