Search results for query: *

Dejan said:

It was already fixed internally.

Click to expand...

great!

The movement speed number above parties really needs to go in an early hotfix, please. Let it be shown only when you press the alt key. I don't know who requested this but it wasn't all that bothersome to move your mouse over to the party to see movement speed...

Now this number covers the name and more importantly the number of troop count of parties, I can't see the important stuff!!...

Please fix this

khuzait haircut said:

Anyone else notice looters dont run away anymore? Previously if I soloed 7 looters after kill 3 with a horse archer loadout the other four would run. Now they all fight to the end. Not sure how I feel about these moral changes.

Click to expand...

yeah I think it's better this way. They still run away just not as soon. I was fighting maybe 10 looters and the last guy ran away. I prefer it this way, it's no fun when they all run after 1-2 die. The game is way too cheesy as it is already (with ranged on horseback), so if I fight solo a group of 40 looters it really feels cheap when they run away after I take 10 down. I personally like the change, now fights can be a bit more fighting and less running for the hills after 5 seconds of fighting...

Also if you just started a new game and you take 10 years to kill the looters with a weak bow and also missing a bunch they might be regaining morale and that's why you're not seeing them retreat, so again something against the cheese which I appreciate.
"

• Agents will now slowly regain lost morale up to a half of their initial morale in battles.

"

Please don't show the movement speed of parties when they come into your view, it's really not needed. The player can simply press alt and see the movement above whenever he needs, I think that is definitely enough. Every time a party comes into view my eyes instinctively glance at the numbers above the head of the party, it's distracting. Also it overlaps with the name of the party, it's not pleasant visually the way it is right now

I don't think it would look so bad if it was in the view only when the player wanted it to be. It makes you prepared mentally, but otherwise the numbers are just thrown at you from everywhere

CptMuppet said:

- You can't put all heroes from the party in one safe group and keep them away from the danger of battle.

Click to expand...

There is an option when starting the game (that I don't remember there being, didn't play in months), which allows you to turn off clan member death chance by 50 or 100%. That should remove your need of putting all heroes in a safe group to keep them out of harm's way.

Finally it seems like the roguery 150 perk "Partners in Crime" has been updated!!! "Bandit parties always offer to join you.". That's a huge one. Welcome to my party, bandits!

It does make sense that the idea you had before with getting bandits above the troop limit without desertion was a bit of a reach, would have been pretty overpowered and conflicted with the current system. I'm fine with this. I'm looking forward to reaching the perk and trying it out, best patch for sure.

Jesus this looks like a huge one

Number 3 would be very appreciated. Would bring more life into the world

I don't fully agree with number 1 and 2: 2 would get repetitive and feel like it's just a thing implemented to artificially prolong gameplay, and 1 I'd rather keep mercenaries as mercenaries personally

The multiplayer changes sound great. Finally shock troops and cavalry nerfs, and throwing weapons damage increase fills my heart with joy.

We need more perks that introduce new playstyles for singleplayer... Still waiting for the roguery perk to let us recruit many bandit units. It's not worth having 100 looters in the party if I can have 100 upgradeable faction recruits instead. Just want a bandit playstyle to make the game worth replaying again. Why aren't the rest of the perks being introduced on a patch-to-patch basis? Not even 1-2 perks per patch anymore... Please finish and improve the perks

Does she have a step brother by any chance? Maybe he could help

Sometimes I wished I could reroll my parents too, but life gives what life gives. It's fairly realistic and immersive in the game as well

Delete skirmish and captain mode and everyone will be happy. Bring battle mode and make it the main gamemode alongside siege with friendly fire on. Bring back naked players running around with two-handed's and then you have a real game.

five bucks said:

Some of the stuff Taleworlds has already said they're working on will help. Turning your companions into nobles could be a nice roleplaying feature that lets you feel like you're rewarding them for loyal service.

Click to expand...

For it to feel like you're rewarding companions for loyal service I'd need companions to have more depth... It doesn't make me feel what you're implying if they're all robots who will follow my lead no matter what I do. I need some to actually betray me, turn hostile against me and attack my party with theirs (and you don't see them as hostile until it's too late, so it's a very dramatic event. Also they'd try to aim for moments when your party is weakened if possible). I need relationship, and relationship to actually matter in such decisions they do. If I treat them well I expect them to treat me well and be loyal to me, especially if our "styles" are similar. If they're good natured and I don't do any bad stuff I expect them to be more willing to stay loyal to my cause. But if they're more of a rogue and have some nasty traits then I expect them to betray me if I'm too good-natured for their liking, and be more willing to follow me if I'm a raiding, peasant killing bastard... I JUST WANT THAT. Some depth to these characters. If I turn them to lords but I know they will always be loyal no matter what, because they're robots with no feelings, how can I roleplay that they're anything special when they're not? I guarantee I still won't care for them at all... The army template based on personality that you mentioned does really sound good though, those are the kind of additions that we need. Game really needs personality.

PS: I'm reading all the comments and so far I agree with what pretty much everyone is saying. One thing we all agree on, late game do be lacking hard.

The progression really kills my vibe for sure. Early game is nice, it's fun doing some quests/tournaments/struggling a bit in fights (if you handicap yourself in some ways at least). The small party really fits my playstyle and it feels like every soldier counts.

Comparing it to late game, where there's 0 need to do quests and tournaments, you don't really struggle anymore in any sense (economically or battles), you don't really care about your soldiers that much, as winning battles is really the only thing left to do in the game. The lack of variety then makes you bored and impatient, and now you just F1 + F3 your troops in to just get over these repetitive encounters on the battlefield. Or you find a superficial goal like trying to raise your medicine skill so you suicide your units, until you realize it was not worth the effort. All this happens because of not enough things to do in the game. Where is some spouse relationship development? Just pay a cow and get a wife. Player hideout, bandit lords? None. I want to interact with some fief-less "lords" and join them to conquer the world as a bandit from 0.

There simply needs to be more things to do, as the game is just empty late in the game. Mid game also! We needed to have our own upgradeable hideout, for it to be a time and money sink, we need more reasons to get castles... For me there is absolutely 0 reason to take a castle. In the beginning it feels like an accomplishment, so you struggle to get your first castle. But then what is left? To defend it and attack another castle... that's all. Why even care to upgrade it? It doesn't belong to you. An enemy can take it right back. No attachment to castles at all. If I had my own little hideout to upgrade and care for, that would feel like a home. Castles and towns feel like nothing. This whole point of conquering the map seems like a really boring concept. And I don't know why. Games like Rome Total War were fun, because they're more strategy focused. I can't put my finger on it but something is truly lacking... the casual nature of the game must be making it so. Even the "hardest" difficulty makes it impossible to get a challenge late game, as all you really need is a bigger party to defeat even the "hardiest" of lords...

So to recap, what I need:
1) more things to do
2) more variety in battles etc, lords need obviously different/flavorful tactics and personalities that really shine. Relationship development with family/spouse. Hideout, bandit lords. Let me have a bandit family and have them live in a hideout! Make it a roguery perk to make it possible to make your own bandit hideout, pls!
3 Also challenge. Please give me a difficulty setting that actually gives the AI an advantage in battle (reduced damage dealt to enemies). It's obvious by now that the player will always outsmart the AI and it will never be challenging. If you put this option + make the AI not recruit a full party in a couple of days (more consequences for AI losing battles), I think you'd have a great game... Impactful/meaningful battles + struggle to win battles, that's what I personally need.

SadShogun said:

Armor is a nice suggestion and gives them another purpose in the game, I will discuss the survival effect of armor in the game with the team. (However, this would also reduce the probability of death for lords as well, making them a bit meaningless, because other than the player everyone who's killable in the battle is a lord.)

Click to expand...

For Armor my suggestion implies that different clan tier lords would get different tiers of armors, so not every lord would have the highest armor values and the most survivability. The highest clan tier lords would have highest survivability because they would get the best armors and would be more likely to reach old age and be seen and remembered by the player. Having some characters be more consistently alive in the world is a MUST, it paints for a believable story with actual life in it that clings to survive, where top of the food chain is making it more often than the bottom of the food chain, because other lords (from low clan tiers trying to get up in the world) would give the impression that they struggle economically and do not have access to the best of armors like a well renowned and successful lord would. Low renown = more death, high renown = more time in your story. It brings a nice flavor to the world. You could even go further and provide a training experience bonus for higher clan tiers so that those lords will have better quality troops than lower clan tiers (tier 4-5 troops vs tier 2's and 3's), to make it more believable that there is an economical gap between clan tiers. High clan tiers could also get a reduction in wages they have to pay, so that they don't suffer economically from the increased tier of troops like they did in the past.

If we had bandit lords and the such you could clearly taste the difference and diversity, because they mostly wear light armor so they would die very often in comparison to lords. it would be a very nice touch. But if there is no such thing (sadly), then there must be some poorer lords out there. How come the player (and his companions too in the future) are the only ones that could wear rags into battle, as vassals etc?

Other than that, I agree that the "resting" thing isn't ideal from a gameplay perspective, I was just brainstorming. I would really love to see armor make a difference in survivability though, I do think this is a great idea if implemented right (and it's an idea that makes the most sense), and hopefully we will see more variety in lords armor tiers and troop quality in the future.

Thank you also for the continued work!

I do feel like graphics are looking worse than before

Also: delete captain mode from the game and give us battle mode. The way people abuse the AI and walk behind your troops to get aggro, and even if they die they just to take control over another unit is the stupidest thing I've seen in this game.

pedromiguel said:

I think that 2% is still way too high.

If you imagine between 5 and 10 deaths per year, let's say 7 on average.

So that's 70 dead lords in 10 years and 126 dead lords in 18 years, by the time the children grow up and replace the dead ones.

I'm not even sure if there are that many in all factions, it's going to be very quiet on the map...

Moreover, no player will get attached to the characters since they will all die one after the other very quickly, each companion/lord will be just a vulgar "bots" without any flavor, a name vaguely heard once during a battle and replaced by another bots which will itself die very quickly.

Yes, the dynastic aspect and death is a really nice feature, bringing another dimension to the games. But it must be customizable by the player (with much more precision than now) and must be RARE to be memorable and have a real emotional impact.

Why not implement some kind of injury system as suggested in another post? Falling in battle would require some sort of recovery/rest to heal without which future battles would increase the risk of dying.
Fallen and defeated lords would have to rest in a fiefdom or could take up arms again, but with great additional risk.

This would make combat victories impactful, with real consequences, rather than having defeated lords reappear on the map 3 minutes later with a small, fresh troop after fighting to defeat them.

That's my opinion anyway, sorry for my English.

Click to expand...

I agree, I suggested this before. It makes sense for me for a lord/companion/ and PLAYER to have deep wounds after falling in battle, needing rest to recover. The solution is so simple, start death chance of every significant NPC at 0%, then after falling in battle he gets a WOUNDED status (if not enough time passes/if the player or npc doesn't rest enough so that the wounds heal then this death chance goes UP to 2% or 5%, so next time he falls in battle he has a serious chance of death (also if the lord/companion is IMPRISONED that time doesn't count as "resting"). If he survives falling in battle again then this chance goes up even further. That way reckless lords will die more often and cautious lords would survive longer, as it makes sense. Same for the player, good cautious players will live longer, giving the game a WELL NEEDED challenge and consequences (so it's not totally BORING, because please take note that GOOD players will barely lose ANY battles in their campaigns, the game is not hard at all. We are talking about players that have mastered masterpieces likes the Prophesy of Pendor mod in Warband and such, which was one of the more challenging ones, which also made it the most fun).

Also times of peace will actually mean a damn, because it can save lords from dying, and it can give the AI another reason to propose peace ("we are in danger of being overrun/our lords are wounded and tired" etc).

This is the absolute best way to implement this imo, I don't know why it's not taken into consideration already... Deaths should be more rare and feel more significant, and feel like they can be avoided for the player and his companions, and it not being just a simple dice roll. If you want to go even more in-depth the type of armor you're wearing should also reduce deep wounds chance (heavy armor is less chances for being wounded etc, you can make this chance something like: 70% chance to be deeply wounded after falling in battle for light armor, 50% for medium armor, and only 30% for heavy armor). This can also make armor feel more significant, and make the penalties to movement speed actually worth it. Low tier clan leaders would have lighter armor than high tier clan leaders, so this makes for a system where the top dogs that have more economy etc actually have more survivability as a whole, making gameplay a lot more dynamic so that low tier lords die more often and high tier clan lords are more hardy and you can actually remember them throughout your campaign more because their presence is consistent and they're not replaced every year.

@Dejan if you could please forward to the devs ideas like this, I think such ideas could make the game a ton better. It's more in-depth but not too complicated. Players would 100% love it in comparison to a simple death chance you have no control over, I'm 100% sure of that, I promise you.

Dejan said:

Nothing changed in regards to player death with this update. The player can't die in battles.

Click to expand...

wish we had an option to enable this