Search results for query: *

Not much to add, just want to say I agree, and this logic applies to a lot of things, including other games, shows, and movies.

I hate when people use "this is just a video game" or "it's not real" as arguments to justify things. With that kind of logic, you could justify anything, no matter how stupid or nonsensical it is.

The whole point of is to be believable and make sense (even in fantasy) in order to draw you into the story/world, off course with video games you also need to take gameplay into account and make it enjoyable to play, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give a crap about anything else.

Negative said:

Ever timed how long an ingame year takes you to play? My estimation was around 12 hrs.
Sooo after 240 hrs you'll have a heir you'll have to retrain to reach the level they dangle like a carrot in front of you - you really think that's great gamedesign?

-edit-
i mean i might be missing that aging is not connected towards the ingame day counter or something...

Click to expand...

One in-game year is 80 in-game days.

I have about 30 hours of play time, and almost 300 days total.
300 days = 3,75 years.

That makes it about 8 hours per year, at least for me. Which would mean about 80h of play time until your character turns just 40 years old.

Also, some people think time passes way too fast. This is a perfect example of how you can't please everyone, and Talewords should just do what they want, and follow their vision.

If you go into one of their settlements, there should be a symbol(among several) at the top of the screen and on the left of the portraits, which represents "criminality".

As far as I'm aware, that is the only way to see it.

I would also love co-op, but I think the main problem that people don't think about is the passage of time, and how you would design co-op to fit the game. What would happen when one person is still and another one moving? What happens when one person is in town and the other on the map? What about battles? Does one person wait for the other? Does time just never stop? Are people not allowed to be in different parties?

RNGregory said:

Read my post again ‘cause I didn’t compare anything, idiot. Just said you’re probably one of those types that only played The Sims and would suck a stick for that lmao

Click to expand...

In other words, you brought up the Sims in a M&B forum where people are discussing M&B. Why did you do that if you're not comparing them, idiot?

Now go troll some where else, you're just annoying and adding nothing to the discussion. You're the definition of toxic.

Lord Earl said:

I think you're seriously underestimating how much time is spent travelling, recovering, or waiting as part of quests. I got five days into the game after completing three quests, and that many only because I made sure they were all in the same direction. An amount of the time was spent healing.

Click to expand...

That's a lot, so I'll only reply to what you said to me:
I see what you're saying, but I think you are underestimating two things:

• How long you spend in tournaments, battles, managing your army, managing your equipment, and talking to people, etc.
• How many days have to pass before having to even worry about old age.

If it takes X time for 5 days to pass, you would need to play for 400X time (or do those 3 quests 1200 times) just to pass 2000 days(which is 25 years). By that point your character would only be 55, and not even close to dying of old age.

RNGregory said:

That’s what you’re saying. What’s your problem, idiot? All we want is option to turn it off. You buthurt because of that?

Click to expand...

You're the one who compared this game to Sims just because it has aging and you can get married and have kids, "idiot".

Warband already had marrige, and lots of people wanted to be able to have kids. Now you can do that. And if you don't want to do that, you can spend several dozen hours in the game without even having to worry about dying of old age. I, and some other people, even proposed some other ways to make the game even longer without having to stop people from aging which wouldn't have the same problems.

Kangamangus said:

...or it makes other players have to skip experiences or adventures they've never had to give up on in the past.

Ok then, you can play The Sims, CK, or Pirates. No other M&B forced you to stop playing a character because of aging.

Click to expand...

Again, are you even reading what I'm saying? Because it sounds like you're not, so I'm not gonna argue with you any more.

PS: please stop with the Sims and CK comparisons, it makes you sound ridiculous.

RNGregory said:

That’s what I don’t understand. Why are others against the option to turn it off? There’s nothing to gain or lose, just pure selfishness the way I see it lmao. Many of them probably haven’t played previous titles but Sims

Click to expand...

Yes, because as we all know, Sims is the only game with aging or families... And of course, the most important aspect and focus of M&B has always been immortality... /s

Kangamangus said:

Ok, then disregard the opinions of others who have said as much in this thread.

Dying mechanic does only apply to combat, but it applies to lords and NPCs as well. Turning it off 'ruins the experience' in a manner you suggest not dying of age would. TW still gave people the option to disable that mechanic.

If you look at some of the skills, stats, and perks in leveling, you can see there are perks you can take to improve life expectancy, and even one to 'cheat death once' from dying from disease. The life expectancy might be much shorter than you assume. Some people don't want to have to recreate the same character over and over, only to relevel them until they die again.

I don't want to play The Sims. I don't want to play Crusader Kings. Letting people play this Mount & Blade like any other M&B won't stop you from the mundane life simulator you obviously want.

Click to expand...

I feel like you are either not reading what I'm saying, or not understanding it.

• I'm not disregarding peoples opinions, I'm saying that their opinions and fears are mostly unfounded. In short: I'm saying it's not as bad as they think, and I explained why.
• Stopping characters from aging could have unforeseen consequences that could affect the game and mess with other mechanics, which would be more work for the developers, and less time spent working on and improving other stuff. It's not the same as turning off death in combat.
• I even provided a much easier alternative that would increase the time you could play by about 800 days by just allowing you to make younger characters, which would not have any consequences. You could also just give player an option to change how fast time passes (How long a day is), which could make the game be like 2 times as long. All this would have pretty much the same effect you want,with no problems or need for further development as far as I can tell. And in fact, I've heard you can also age in Warband, it's just much slower and most people never get to that point.

Also, saying that aging and families makes this Sims or CK is just nonsensical. Being immortal isn't what makes M&B what it is. Sid Meyer's Pirates is a great game, similar to M&B, that also has aging (although no family), and that doesn't make it either Sims or CK. It just encourages players to make better use of their time.

Kangamangus said:

The aging mechanic is already ruining the game for some players. They have the option to disable the death feature. Why not aging as well?

Click to expand...

The death feature only affects you dying in combat AFAIK. It still doesn't affect other mechanics.

And as for the aging mechanic ruining the game for some players, to be completely honest, I highly doubt it. Like I said, it would take 2400 days just to get to 60 years old, probably much more to actually die. How many people have actually gotten that far in the game? I've played a lot in the last 3 days(+-25 hours), and all 3 of my characters put together haven't even reached 200 days.

I think most people don't realize just how long you have to play before you even have to worry about dying of old age. This whole thing feels like a big deal over nothing to me.

imgran said:

but I'm getting my butt handed to me by Looters half the time.

Click to expand...

I think you might be miss remembering Warband. Looters here felt the same to me:
It can be hard at the start if you go against them alone and with no shield or horse, but if you get a horse and a spear/lance or a bow it becomes ridiculously easy to beat groups of 5 to 10 looters all by your self. Even easier if you also use a shield with the spear/lance. It's the exact same as warband. Go in circles around them and pick them off 1 by 1.

EDIT: Also, if you go in the options you can change the damage that enemies do and you can also lower the enemy AI. You can try doing that until you get more used to it.

Kangamangus said:

Do we even know what life expectancy is?

Click to expand...

Probably that of a normal human. I imagine around 60 there's a small chance it might happen and by the time you're 80 it's probably much higher. In any case, i doubt it's lower than 60.

Kangamangus said:

Adding the ability to turn off aging won't affect any body who wants to play as is. Why do you care if it messes with someone else's experience if that would be the way they prefer to play?

Click to expand...

I'm just saying it either will have consequences that you don't expect and might ruin your game, or it will be a lot more work for taleworlds than you think and it will be less time they spend working on other stuff.

And like I said, you can get pretty much the same effect much easier and with no consequences by just allowing characters to start at a younger age.

I think it's just a matter of getting used to the timing. I don't have problems with it and haven't heard many people complain. Besides, it's supposed to be harder than using shields, other wise shields would be pointless everywhere except against arrows.

If you're new to the series, you'll probably be better of waiting at least 1 to 2 months for the game to be a bit more polished and optimized. At least that's my opinion.

If one year takes 80 days, and the character starts at 30 years old, it would take 2400 days to get to 60 years old. Most people don't even play one character that long. You could probably easily play through most of the game without dying of old age.

And adding a non-aging option would completely mess with the current system. Like some one else said, what happens when a lord dies and their kids stays 13 years old forever? It's not the same as adding auto-block which doesn't affect the other mechanics.

If you're worried about aging, it would be much better to have an option to choose starting age with a minimum of like 20. That way it would still take 1600 days to get to just 40 years old, and another 1600 to get to 60, which would give you 3200 days before you even have to worry about dying of old age. And you could even change how skilled your character is depending on how old they are.