Search results for query: *

AxiosXiphos said:

M&B has always been in a similar place as say Crusader Kings. Afterall what do you do in Crusader Kings really? Paint the map? Make a Dynasty? None of these things are strictly too difficult nor offer any real reward at the end.

Click to expand...

I have hundreds of hours on CK and have never painted the map past the size of like the UK haha. There is just so much more roleplay, immersion/interactions that you can easily have a fulfilling playthrough without being warrior kings. BL on the other hand...

Bjorn The Upset said:

Just add marshals back in the game, give more autonomy to the lords whether they decide to join the army or not. Rework influence system or just get rid of these ridiculous thing all together.

Click to expand...

Even though we know why, it really is a shame that the marshal system was altogether scrapped. I dont really understand the reason either, since it can very easily fit into the game.

Why not have the most influential clan/ruler adopt the title, and, given much preperation, can assemble a mighty army not meant to just take a castle/town and leave, but go on an extended campaign, maybe even deep into enemy territory? It could be major shift from the regular border wars that happen time after time.

Spyware said:

I think that would definitely not be up to standards for release and since it wasn't used as intended, it might not work well with overall design as people would eventually just use it as a workaround.

Click to expand...

Indeed, so the alternative is having the AI run circles around the bottom of the towers until they get wiped out by arrow fire. Truly up to standards for a release.

This is cognitive dissonance at its finest. TW have been doing what you said they shouldn't with just about every other aspect of the game, but I fear you won't acknowledge it since it goes against your statement.

Never thought I'd see the day.

I can only assume TW has something in store for sieges, but who can say when that'll come? ?‍

SupaNinjaMan said:

Not white knighting or anything, but no one has pointed out that it could be free, unpaid, optional content.

Click to expand...

I'm hoping this is the case.

Aside from this specific DLC, I find it difficult to imagine TW attempting to go toe-to-toe with modders and charging for official DLC that may already be possible with current/future modding tools. For example, we already have naval travel, with works on naval combat, and that was a DLC idea that Armagan mentioned way back when. Furthermore, any DLC packs regarding items and troop overhauls/creations are already possible with mods that allow even newbie modders to create their own troop trees/custom troops.

I have no reason to believe that TW would now purposefully suppress modders for their own DLC, so I kind of have the opinion this is content that might make its way at the full release or part of a patch.

Deathmacabre said:

I think main problem in TW is how to have full modding freedom and also make momey from DLC. Because let us be honest. DLC are just payable mods.
And modders could just copy content from DLC so people will not buy them.

Click to expand...

Pray they don't get any ideas from Bethesda concerning the "Creation Club".

AndrewArt said:

Before completely dismissing the patch try it out. So far just starting the game gives me a good feeling, there don't seem to be any more menu lags, you can see the main production of villages which is really underrated and cool, there's a button that lets your upgrade your troops easier with less clicks which looks lovely. It's the little things that count for the general feel of the game.

Click to expand...

After the confirmation of not having the terrain system and keep battles, I kept my expectations very low for this patch (save for the modding changes!). Still, I sympathize with almost everyone here about the game, it has no charm to it. The things you pointed out aren't meaningful enough for starting a new campaign, especially since these were already available through mods (not trying to say the implementation isn't fantastic as a base game function). Basically, QoL changes are always welcome and should be met with praise, however, as OP says, there is really nothing content-wise to warrant a playthrough of more of the same empty boring Calradia that we have right now.

Dejan said:

Added and removed some internal modifiers to make them more consistent and reduce unnecessary limitations.

Click to expand...

Damn, I was just thinking how different the other thread might've looked if they added that last part there as well.

This sounds like great news overall, hope this sparks passion in modders again!

Callum said:

Non-upgradeable and max-tier units no longer gain XP from the shared XP distribution.

Click to expand...

Is this a universal change that affects every party and will it result in higher-tier army comps?

Nice patch, hopeful for mods.

Old-Bull said:

Funny....no one has anything positive to say about TW, but when a patch is about to drop, everyone is lined up like crackheads on government cheese day.

Click to expand...

mexxico said:

I did not read all pages yet but I want to add a quick note regarding link you shared to my post.

Dumbing AI was offered as an alternative way 6 months ago if we could not solve speeding up AI calculatons. Of course it was last option. Good news is we speeded up calculations without dumbing AI. So no need to discuss this furthermore. Campaign AI will not be downgraded to speed up game for consoles. At these days I criticized this to be offered as an alternative way. Campaign AI’s quality is so important for gameplay and we should not downgrade it for any reason.

Click to expand...

Grand news! So glad that you guys found a way, attributing to the fact that TW truly does have fantastic devs who don't opt for the 'easy way out'.

danEN said:

How do you manage to reply to this soku guy without getting yourself banned, he might just be the most stubborn uneducated person on the forums.

it's really triggering me

Click to expand...

Ya his statement of:

SOku said:

I see no issues with that, it's a common practice when you plan to port your game on consoles anyway.

Click to expand...

really pissed me off, it's almost like he wants TW to downgrade the game. This isn't even white knighting anymore, but just straight sabotage to the game.

SOku said:

Is that your piece of evidence ? A freaking UI change ?

Click to expand...

SOku said:

So basically your interpretation, now jump onto conclusions you want if that make you feel better, that's my whole point afterall, I'm just pointing the amount of evidences we got are iffy.

Click to expand...

SOku said:

I think we all got it that you think the game is "super simplified because of consoles". Now I did gently ask you to elaborate your thoughts.
Something that you failed, color me surprised.
It's super obvious as.. for some reasons you can't even build a single solid argument past the UI change.

Click to expand...

Like, come on, it's literally everywhere.

For probably months you denied the idea that game mechanics were being simplified due to consoles. People pointed out the UI changes, but you (rightfully so) didn't believe it to be evidence enough (I came to a conclusion you were right with this).

With the resurfacing of a post that specifically says that improvements/additions cannot be made because of console limitations, all of a sudden it is no longer "you don't have enough evidence to prove this", but now "I see no issues with this". To that, I suggest you look over some old gameplay content/interviews where Armagan specifically said the plan of this game was a full solid release on PC and then ported to consoles, not developed at the same time taking into account both hardware and potential restrictions.

While I agree with you that some or many people may not have optimal hardware, you must realize that is the beauty of PC gaming. To generalize that everyone cannot appreciate the changes is an absurd comment, system requirements/recommendations exist for this exact purpose.

Furthermore, your comment is implying that mexxico is wrong when saying:

mexxico said:

Actually there are people who want us to change AI to make less calculations than now (even they say AI can randomly can give up evaluation of some targets - which can result in total disaster) because it seems we need to get 30 fps at consoles.

Click to expand...

because according to you it should be the other way around:

mexxico said:

Actually there are people who want us to change AI to make less calculations than now (even they say AI can randomly can give up evaluation of some targets - which can result in total disaster) because it seems we need to get 30 fps at laptops.

Click to expand...

Anyway, for whatever strange reason you seem content on simplified AI, despite the people coding the game wanting the exact opposite. Still, I agree with Apocal where simple and complex aren't black and white concepts, but if a change to dumb down AI is ever confirmed that would be a loss for the M&B franchise as a whole.

Edit:

Apocal said:

How does that follow? He spent months tinkering on a system and that proves it does nothing?

The problem with the economy is that it is really easy to blow up in various ways that affect the gameworld and most players don't care about it, not that it was somehow simplified. It definitely isn't vestigial. It is functioning and tied into the mechanic mexxico talked about in his first devblog, where players have the option to do economic damage rather than being forced to assault settlements to impact the enemy.

I personally think it is interesting and fairly unique but I'm on a somewhat lonely island with that one. Most players -- even on this forum -- would have found it preferable to just have a static system where workshops spit out a fixed income, where garrisons didn't eat and caravans existed "off-map." It is hard to disagree based on the massive threadnaughts this forum has seen due to workshops paying peanuts, garrisons starving off, and caravans dying to bandits.

That's why I said if they were deliberately aiming to dumb the game down they wouldn't have bothered.

edit: Although in the interest of full disclosure, I don't find complexity an inherent virtue or simplicity an inherent vice when it comes to game design.

Click to expand...

The economy in M&B has always been a staple of the series imo. The loot is good, the trading, especially in BL is fantastic and rewarding. The dynamic income also serves it well, similar to when the Guild Master in WB would guarantee how the price of goods would fluctuate when buying an enterprise.

I guess the only issue I have is how there are certain mechanics that don't harmonize well with the economy.

Take for example garrisons. I don't think people would have an issue with garrisons consuming food if 1. The overall prosperity to the food situation was a lot more fleshed out and less of a soft cap, and 2. there were supporting mechanics that allowed you to feed larger garrisons without jumping through hoops or conquering the adjacent castle for the grain village. If you are a financial superpower, the concept of supply trains travelling from one well off settlement to another with the aid of local notables could do wonders. Of course, the implementation might be genuinely complex, especially for the AI.

SOku said:

I see no issues with that, it's a common practice when you plan to port your game on consoles anyway.
Are we sure we are talking about dumbing down the mechanics from the PC / main branch ?

It's worth something to remind that if we are talking about current-gen consoles ( PS5 / Xbox Series ) this is still a piece of hardware that is far more powerful than the random PC according to Steam surveys ( even if it's biased I know ).
As is, I'm sure a PS5 beats 90% of your hardware on this very forum, I read on a regular basis some of you guys play this game on a freaking laptop ...

So please, while I'm a PC user like everyone here, this kind of faux-elitism has to stop somehow.

edit : I've just read the message from mexxico.

Click to expand...

I find it extremely amusing how you shift your argument once evidence is provided.

These PC restrictions are now commonplace? Why do you think we are disappointed that consoles are holding back improvements and additions, literally like mexxico communicated.

Gotta save the link to this thread somewhere. It is a great compilation that can be referred to anyone ignorant and curious about the situation.

AJAJP_Juan said:

Balancing weapon breaking mechanics is useless IMO. Just using Warband mods as an example, most people I have seen on the internet hated this mechanic, and the mods offered an option to disable it altogether due to the scale of this complaints. In VC was even an skill, which translates into another "tax skill" like Inventory Management that will suck the fun of playing unless you leveled it up, limiting builds.

Click to expand...

IIRC that skill was a party skill no? With the many premade companions that you recruit over the game I personally never had too big an issue with the weapon modifier repercussions.

Even if I am wrong here, I remember that if you talk to any of the weaponsmiths/armoursmits in settlements you can ask them to enhance your weapon/armour for a price. Essentially, if your weapon "breaks" to crude, you can pay like 1500 to get it back to the norm, and even pay to get it all the way to masterwork/lordly if you have the funds.

Warbandit Bannerlordie said:

Anyone tried to remove the 1000 man limit somehow and see if their system could handle greater battles?

Click to expand...

I played using 1200 battle size with Kaoses Tweaks. I can empathize with OP but I personally don't have this issue. It is also something that I believe would be difficult to balance for TW.

I'm not certain, but with the removal of the battle size slider, maybe they intend to make different tactics and behaviours based on these predefined values.

Askorti said:

The OP "literally" specifies he asks if TW is capable of designing features better than those in mods.

Click to expand...

I know this might sound harsh, but I don't view his stance as incorrect. The mods he listed far outshine any official intended gameplay imo.

Ya the tone is there, but why should his observation be silenced any more or less than someone praising the game?

@AnandaShanti, correct me if im wrong, but doesnt leaving a companion/clan member in the tavern/keep automatically take on settlement issues?

AnandaShanti said:

That sounds amazing, if 1.5.6 doesn't drop soon maybe it's time for me to mod up for a bit. I'm not saying I have great anticipation for 1.5.6, but I usually like to play the update and report bugs.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming you mean 1.6? If so yeah, I'm pretty excited to see if they improve the limit wager as it's kind of the only thing I'm looking forward to (aside from the modding debacle) since other info is under CIA protection. It's a system that has a lot of promise and gives much needed control over parties. Only wish they continue onto this trend and allow us to order our parties specifics like this,

LDominating said:

That happens when walls are Lvl1.
But yes ramps should be a band aid until AI gets smarter,both defending and attacking.
(I am hitting you archer,why are you still shooting the enemy outside?)
(Why are they walking pass me?All of them?)
(Why aren't you using bombs).

Click to expand...

This is a large issue, especially for large numbers in sieges.

Since defenders spawn at the front gate, when they're reassigned to the section they hold, they do everything in their power, even if attackers are already on the streets to get to the compromised ladder position. Defending archer AI is pretty sloppy and inefficient too.

With realistic battle mode where AI properly (somewhat) uses ladders, you really see how attacker-sided they are if you have missile superiority. In simulations, however, the fortification bonus is unbelievably high. An army in simulation 2/1 for the attackers will lose the offensive, however if you join the battle, you can lose as little as 100 men out of 1000 without doing a thing because the defender militia crumbles when in combat.

Ling* said:

If the devs are fearful of lords gathering all in one place for a council/ holding court perhaps there could be a "Conference Call" method used where the lords don't actually have to be physically at the location on the map, but instead an interface pops up and you can speak to the council of lords remotely as the decision for war is being made and speak to them individually as if they were using Skype or something. It may not be the most realistic approach but it makes a good compromise between having a council and not putting lords all in one basket for the enemy to attack.

Click to expand...

Personally, I don't like the idea of this method. Not only is it an immersion killer, but the many fears that you mention seem like interesting fresh gameplay to me.

I mean, if the lords of the realm are incapable of meeting at the capital to discuss kingdom matters due to them being occupied defending their borders, it gives the impression of "we will discuss who gets x fief or y policy once we subdue our enemies" which could lead to instability if much time occurs between meetings. The catch, of course, is if they still decide to hold this meeting while at war, there could be consequences since the most powerful figureheads of the faction are indisposed while their enemies loot and siege their lands. Apply this to every faction, and this mechanic can give more power and responsibility as a ruler, as you/they would decide if the risk of holding a council mid-war would be worth it to figure out fief distribution/policy management/international diplomacy. This would also heavily benefit non-warring factions as their free agendas would allow for them to arrive at the council, discussing the many needs of the realm and overall allowing the ruler to appease his vassals and prosper the people (feast?).