Search results for query: *

  1. Can we just hand out the game to modders?

    MostBlunted said:
    The devs cared about their community. Bad comparison.
    Click to expand...
    As I asked at the very begining, why not think the alternative way? And you give the answer, because the dev team does not care about the community. Then it is actually a good comparision

  2. Was building new castles not a thing?

    As far as I can remember, they said that with the upgradable castle mechnics, AI lords will all upgrade their villages to castles for defense and left no city/village for economic prosperity at some point, therefore they decided to remove this feature.
    On my opinion, that is nonsense. Based on the game experience, winner of war will keep winning and there is no way to stop the snowballing. All the political/ecomics mechnics that may somehow slow progress of war and conquering remains unimplemented by now. Then it is pretty reasonable to upgrade all village to castle for defense, the AI is behaving in a proper way.

  3. TW make reinforcements spawn outside the map limits and march into battle area

    TBH I believe the best solution is increasing the maximum amount of troops that can enter a battlefield simutaneously. Then reinforcement can be a portion of troops that stands outside of battle, acting as reserved forces that can be called at the moments you believe proper, just as how the reality works

  4. Can we just hand out the game to modders?

    five bucks said:
    I would prefer TW to finish doing what they've been paid to do, then hand the game over to the modders after that.

    The less we have to rely on modders for stuff which should be in the base game, the better. Because needing mods to try and make vanilla playable and stable, before you can even think about mods to expand, means more incompatibility issues between different mods.

    Mods should be for expanding a base game, rather than making a base game good.
    Click to expand...
    Why not think in a alternative way? The development team focusing more on solving compatibility and performance issues, so that the modding community can expand the horizon even further? Just like how rimworld community has been working out

  5. Where can I find annotations/documentations of vanilla Bannerlord files?

    Bloc said:
    I don't think the first one is the case, because if this is not defined in their task DoD, then it's not a requirement and they don't have to do that. Even if you are a top-notch engineer, you wouldn't do something outside of the scope of your sprint and enforce your own set of rules. Why this is not in their task DoD is another story though. Only their Tech Leads or PM can answer that, if they have such roles.
    Click to expand...
    hmmmmm, refer to my own programming experience, primary purpose of annotations(at least in-line annotations) is improving quality of life for the writers, not something about DoD. I originally start to wrote those annotations because of school marking scheme; but as time goes on, I keep doing so even though I no longer need to worry about such thing. Those annotations helps me a lot when I want to modify or review my code later, and thus improve my quality of life as programmer.
    But yes, after about 1 year and a half of EA state, I agree that
    Bloc said:
    I think we have substantial evidence that they are working in a chaotic environment and many things are not well-planned but rather ad-hoc things
    Click to expand...
    So this might be the case? If a programmer do not need to maintain his/her own code after completion, or programmer team of TW are changing fast and no programmer will stay in TW for a long time, annotations are useless for the writers if not specified in DoD.

    Bloc said:
    So expecting a mod-friendly coding style from them wouldn't be logical.
    Click to expand...
    hmmmmmm, not mod-friendly, I mean reader-friendly. The writers will also become readers when they need to modify or review the codes. This is the same as above.

    Bloc said:
    If you want them to generate an XML documentation for assembly ( so that you can hover over for function descriptions ) I think you should open a suggestion thread rather than question one in Q&A. Suggestion threads are checked by Dejan ( I guess ).
    Click to expand...
    I will try later, has been waiting for officials documentations since EA release.

  6. Where can I find annotations/documentations of vanilla Bannerlord files?

    Bloc said:
    Modding for BL is not simply referencing Taleworlds DLLs and using those DLLs like you would do for most of the software projects. Modding would be cleaner and less painful in this scenario but it also limits people and code itself is nowhere there yet. And that's why even if they add annotations ( more specifically, generate XML documentation for the assembly ) you still won't get much information out of it because you still need to use decompiler for your "patches"

    If you had a chance to reference the actual source code of the TW gameplay codes, then you would be able to do everything you want to do + read the code easily without using dirty tricks like dnSpy or dotPeek. If they had summaries for their functions that would also work out of the box without requiring them to generate XML for the summaries. So for that, you usually require open-sourced code so that you can have all the summary/comments for that and simply hover over to learn more about it. But I asked this question in here and then it become a thread in here which is rejected by TW.

    What TW is saying by "API documentation" will be similar to this -> Example CampaignBehavior But this is community documentation and it's far more detailed than TW's documentation at the moment. And you can't simply rely on the documentation without decompiling the actual code since it's changing and names/usages are very very very vague in many cases.

    Tl;dr: No documentation or whatsoever is released yet. You need to decompile the codes and read/understand on your own and then use that knowledge for your mod until the next patch arrives and then hope that previous knowledge is still relevant and not changed by TW.
    Click to expand...
    I know we cant easily reference TW DLLs for making mod, but have a clear look on it will significantly help increase efficiency of modding process and compatibility of mods.
    Since writing annotations and APIs are kind of basics for programming, and it would be very easy for TW to release such documentation if they did fulfill that requirement, I can only find two possibilities under this circumstance. 1. TW programmers are so bad that they can even fulfill this basic requirement, or 2. TW are not even trying to help improve quality of life for the modding community, even though their game relies heavily on work of the modding community.
    Even the most dumb programmer should have known how painful it is to read and modify un-annotated code of others.Even worse, refer to the files I have read, TW programmers were not even following another basic rule of programming: assign meaningful name to variables, which makes the process even more painful for modders.

  7. Where can I find annotations/documentations of vanilla Bannerlord files?

    order_without_power said:
    Have you taken a look at the game code with a C# decompiler?
    Click to expand...
    I have read some of them. I cant say I have checked all availiable .dll files, but among all the files I have read, I did not find any documentaion/annotations there, neither in-line or at the begining

  8. Where can I find annotations/documentations of vanilla Bannerlord files?

    order_without_power said:
    I'm not sure I know what you mean by API. What are you trying to modify specifically?
    Click to expand...
    ah, I might be using false term, usually confused about those terms. I mean annotations and documentations(both overall and in-line) for functions and codes.

    Example from my personal repository
    Python: 
    def nn_update(model, eta):
    """ Update NN weights.
    :param model: Dictionary of all the weights.
    :param eta: Learning rate
    :return: None
    """

    Or this in-line annotation started by #

  9. Where can I find annotations/documentations of vanilla Bannerlord files?

    As I can remember, several months ago TW has said that they will release API for vanilla BL files in the future, are the documents released now? If so, where can I find those documents?

  10. Dear Taleworlds, Is there any way you can remove the 2048 unit cap on battle size for the game?

    Fate said:
    I think it's fantastic you're interesting in how this works, but I unfortunately can't put more time into explaining it out. I'd recommend looking up gaming architecture and what goes into a game engine and how it works with your computers resources

    Simply put increasing this limit is much farther reaching and complicated than it sounds. Like Kentucky said it has to do with how the software uses memory and processing directly

    I'm extremely cynical of TaleWorlds, but I don't judge them at all for not trying to work on this even as much as I'd like to see larger battles
    Click to expand...
    I come from CS background so I do know about how the machine works(though not familiar with game design major). And from what I know, this kind of crash does not look like induced by incapability of computing resulted from complexity/structure issues, as explained above.

  11. I heard battle size of Bannerlord is capped at 2048, but why?

    Grank said:
    Why? It's really not important from an engineering perspective. What benefit will a higher number of troops at a battlefield at once give you? You will feel pretty much the same thrill with 2048 troops at once. Those troops are not even real players. The only one experiencing the battle is you. There's no importance to that number like it would in an MMORPG or a vcon app.
    Click to expand...
    I do not understand what you mean by "engineering perspective". But as a video game, from player perspective, it did affects gaming experience. Reinforcement issue has been discussed above. Another example I can come up with is tactics. With a small battlesize like 500 each side(which is the current cap), tactics and commanding troops won't affact battle much(players can barely have reserved/mobile forces that is effective enough to do something by themselves, so most battles are just one-wave rush and that's it, choice of tactics has been narrowed down)
    Wait, seems I got a point. Did TW put the upper cap to give themselves a reason for not implementing a better command/squad system and better tactic AI?
    By the way, if your so-called "engineering perspective" concept is true, why did TW put effort to increase availiable battlesize so that with same hardware, Bannerlord can support much larger battle than Warband? Any explanation?

  12. Dear Taleworlds, Is there any way you can remove the 2048 unit cap on battle size for the game?

    Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James said:
    It's probably neither. The fact that it's a power of two suggests that it's due to a limitation of how the code uses hardware and memory directly.
    Click to expand...
    The power of 2 cap suggests that kind of guess, and that's also what I have originally thought. But a year has passed and still no official interpretation released, regardless of so many similar forum posts.
    Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James said:
    Performance usually isn't linear or gradual, for example in warband a texture of size 2048 would load and be rendered about 10 times faster than a texture of size 2047.
    Click to expand...
    Normally not linear, but normally gradual. I don't quite understand what you are saying in the second sentence, do you mean "slower" instead of "faster"?
    Also you can take a look at the picture and comment I posted above

  13. Dear Taleworlds, Is there any way you can remove the 2048 unit cap on battle size for the game?

    Fate said:
    The crash is not due to increased amount of computation. The crash is because you've surpassed the game engines limitation.

    Use a mod which allows you to increase this cap and watch your CPU when the game crashes. I doubt it'll be maxing out
    Click to expand...
    Picture attached. The CPU and GPU occupation drops suddenly when I tried to load the battle scenes, which suggests the game has even not at least tried to do the job when the point has been passed.
    1QRXtyA.png

  14. Dear Taleworlds, Is there any way you can remove the 2048 unit cap on battle size for the game?

    Fate said:
    The game engine is the same for everyone regardless of machine and it's an entity cap. More than likely because going up another power of 2 would have been too intensive for even the most powerful machines.
    Click to expand...
    It may not be able to go much higher than 2048, but then the performance is supposed to drop differently for differnent machines. Not like now, it suddenly crashed after passed an identical point for all machines no matter how the game perform before the point. In Warband, if you keep increasing battlesize, performance will drop gradually to some point you can not actually play the game (for example, super-low FPS)before crash. But in Bannerlord, the machine may perform normally before the break point and suddenly crash after the point has been passed. Most video games works in the Warband way.
    Fate said:
    The crash is not due to increased amount of computation. The crash is because you've surpassed the game engines limitation.

    Use a mod which allows you to increase this cap and watch your CPU when the game crashes. I doubt it'll be maxing out
    Click to expand...
    Wait, did you say it's not hardcoded? Now you are saying it is hardcoded.
    What do you mean by "engine limitation"? If by that you mean developer manually implement that limitation in engine, then it is hardcoded.
    If by that you mean the algorithm and structure of the engine is not efficient enough and induced this limit, then this is due to increased amount of computation.
    I have tried, and obviously my CPU is still capable when the game crashed

  15. Laggy menus

    Did you turn on cheat mode? Cheat mode will permit access to a cheat inventory on left-hand side of screen when you open your inventory directly(by directly I mean not when talking to a merchant), that cheat inventory is extremly lengthy and require much more time to load

  16. I heard battle size of Bannerlord is capped at 2048, but why?

    TripleThreat said:
    Yes, each troop in Bannerlord has it's own independent AI. Total War Games may look impressive, but there's a reason they don't let you actually fight, and that's because it's all visual simulation to make it look like a massive battle when infact there's not a whole lot actually happening behind the scenes. It looks great for sure, but you wouldn't actually be able to interact with those soldiers if you was down there with them.

    AI in Bannerlord need to be able to fight dynamically, having freedom of movement, selecting the closest target, accessing that targets blocking direction, choosing it's own, predicting it's movement to correctly throw javelins or fire projectiles at. None of this would work with the Total War Style of AI implementation and all of these calculations can add up to be very intensive with a large amount of troops.
    Click to expand...
    I know what you mean, that's why I focus on pathfinding part. Current AI do not support complex commandng, during field battle, most time we only have several big clusters of units before final charge(and fight normally end fast after that, or number of units on field reduced greatly after that, and during the fight we do not need complex pathfinding but simply find the closest enemy), so if pathfinding for units of a single cluster is computed as a whole, computational burden would be reduced greatly.
    TripleThreat said:
    The reason they limit the troops is so the product they release is stable, if they increased the cap to 10,000, and advertised it as such, there would be a lot of backlash when people realise their machine can't handle it. There may also be some engine limitation in there, so they decided to cap it at what they thought was the highest acceptable value.
    Click to expand...
    We are talking about PC, not console, common sense: select game setting with respect to your machine when playing on PC, the game can support something does not mean your machine can also support the same thing. Simple examples: DLSS/4k. Why can people understand that common sense when talking about graphical issues but cant understand when talking about battlesize? Recall Warband when we do not have such upper cap, will you further increase battlesize when you have already been suffering from significant performance loss? Your logic is really weird. DO NOT TREAT PLAYERS AS IGNORANT MONKEYS.
    Grank said:
    It's just more efficient to hardcode a number than to do various calculations related to your settings, size of the modules, available resources, etc every time the game runs.
    Click to expand...
    Then at least allow players do the choice themselves. Not like hard-coded this way.
    Mikal Manfriedson said:
    Maybe because every trooper might be described in the code with a number which will be translated as a binary symbol combination of I and 0 which seems to be 10 bits big so: 0000000001 is Trooper #1 for the engine and 1111111111 is trooper #2048. For another one you would need to make the engine understand that there are numbers greater than "10 binary digits". Might be engine-related. But it is indeed a power of 2 which might make one guess this could be an allocation thing or something hard-coded. I mean, you must explain to the program what to do with the input it gets and if it is like "there are 2048 troopers possible" because it only accepts a 10-digit number as denominator we cannot simply make it 4096 by adding another digit because then the program will be confused. Maybe something like that. Maybe they thought when making the game years ago "well, we cannot imagine that PCs will be able to handle a larger number than roughly 2000, so we use the 10-digit solution as denominator. I do not know. Maybe I just had a bad coffee and am seeing things.
    Click to expand...
    That may be an explanation, but it is still weird since the limitation you described also need to be manually implemented(since this is not the upper cap of binary number machine can accept and understand). And if it were simply an allocation space issue, then it is suppsoed to be simple to alternate.(As far as i can image, like simply increase to a much larger number that no machine can actually reach, then game will crash with respect to capability of corresponding machine)
    Silfir said:
    My guess is that doubling the hardcoded maximum from 2048 to 4096 (i.e. adding a bit, the smallest possible increase) would cause a significant performance drop that would make *all* battles run worse on *all* systems, raising the minimum and recommended requirements on the CPU side.

    They probably already took a hit from going for 2048 instead of 1024, but did it because they didn't want to lock themselves out of offering sizes over 1000 in the future without a refactor.
    Click to expand...
    That might be the case, algorithm complexity may increase exponentially. But still, at least allow players to alternate the setting themselves, at least through mod. Common sense: modify product, which is Bannerlord under this context, at your own risk. DO NOT TREAT PLAYERS AS IGNORANT MONKEYS.
    GeluHUN said:
    Anyway, with a mod you can increase the battle size to whatever you want (in the .NET code) but the underlaying (low level/rendering) module crashes above 2k when it gets this number, suggesting that there is a hardcoded buffer/list with that maximum size, and if you give a bigger number, it overrides and corrupts memory - and crashes the whole game.
    Click to expand...
    That's what I'm trying to ask: why and how is such cap implemented in the lower level code?

  17. Dear Taleworlds, Is there any way you can remove the 2048 unit cap on battle size for the game?

    Fate said:
    It's an engine limitation, not some hardcode that can be removed.
    Click to expand...
    Then it's very weired why this cap is exactly the same for everyone and every machine. Normally if crash is induced by engine, through memory leak or something like that(since this crash is related to increased amount of computation required), the break point is supposed to be higher for better machine.

  18. Dear Taleworlds, Is there any way you can remove the 2048 unit cap on battle size for the game?

    Julio-Claudian said:
    Yeah it would be great. I don't think a game engine upgrade will ever happen though. I don't know if that's even possible without rebuilding the game, I hope it is.
    Click to expand...
    Not sure why there is a 2048 cap on battlesize. If it were hard-coded like this
    Code: 
    if battlesize>2048:
    raiseerror and exit
    then it woule be very simple to remove this cap.
    If this cap were resutled from algorithm and structure of engine, then the reason behind would be very interesting topic to discuss. Like it's very weird to have a specific number common for every machine being the break point

  19. Do you Think Bannerlord Will be More 'Feature Complete' than Warband was When it Leaves EA?

    Played since about 2006(can't remember exactly, may be 2005 or 2007, at ending of my primary school), when playthrough started at Zendar. That very first version I have ever played is very bareboned, but Warband later is "feature complete" from my perspective. But for Bannerlord, it is mainly graphic and battlesize improvement, when you are talking about features, almost all newly-added features,compared to Warband, are incomplete.

  20. Would the regions system open the door for ZOI control of castles, cities, and settlements

    Terco_Viejo said:
    Ambushing was a planned feature, however, after implementing it, we found that it didn't really work well with the way our sandbox plays out, and ultimately, it wasn't much fun for the player.
    Click to expand...
    TBH, this just like typical TW comments on discarding features. Looks like it is talking about something at the first glance, but after a closer and careful inversitgation, it does not give any actual information, but only the result: discarded.
    And more importantly, if no players have ever seen a demo about this feature, how do you konw it's not much fun for the players?
Back
Top Bottom