Search results for query: *

I am just waiting for updates League of Legends in the meantime

+1 also add an option to filter what gets displayed on the world messages

+OVER9000!

Pancakelord333 said:

2) I'd also make it so that army food upkeep varies with the season:

• All other empire troops (except Sturgians) consume twice as much (i.e. +100%) food in winter [when above the snow-line] when they are not stationed in a city.
  • When troops are stationed in a city - either in a garrison, or just an army "waiting" in the city walls (in winter/above the snow line), this extra food cost is negated.

In addition to this, I've also been looking at villages, they tend to produce anywhere from 1-4 grain a day, all year round (if grain is not their main production focus, they produce much more grain if it is their production focus) and this output doesn't seem to vary much with the seasons.
3) I would change village output so that:

• Villages above the world map's snowline [i.e. villages in the snowy bit] produce half as many food products each day (so not just grain, but also olives, dates etc) in winter seasons.
  • This will mean that the northern empires are always hungrier in the winter and will need to prioritise granaries - or go to war southward to raid for food.
  • (I haven't played around much with fief management, but maybe the sturgian cities could get a bonus starting granary level to reflect their adaptation to the winter).

Click to expand...

A little oversight on one crucial element here though.... Caravans. They will buy up Sturgian grains and sell them to the other starving cities that armies are buying the grain from since their consumption will be higher their prices are going to be higher.

I personally like the thought behind this idea though
Honestly, yeah food should be more expensive in the winter. It would also add an extra layer indirectly to being a trader.

Dr-Shinobi said:

That theres nothing to do anymore since you can easily train up being OP without repercussions.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is is big reason behind nerfs. Things being too easy leads to boredom which leads to people not playing their game, same goes for it being too hard. Gotta find a middleground and strike a balance.

Sylvanaz said:

I guess we will just have to live with this kind of people due to a high popularity of the game in it's current state. They will either drop out of the community or stay here long enough to see the game finished. Their presence is quite annoying though. I can't believe how disrespectfu, impatient and lacking ability to read with understanding some people are.

Click to expand...

Odd wording while quoting me but I think you're talking to me and not about me right xD
Yeah it'll happen eventually, not all of em though.

Scion504 said:

This thread is now officially pointless.

Click to expand...

It was pointless like 5 posts after it was created.

kappawt said:

Can I ask you something? Does Bannerlord even come close to the amount of things Warband has in terms to do? Does it have the same amount of content? Is it really an updated Warband with better graphics?

Click to expand...

Yes already did. Yes but due to balancing issues you can reach the end game far quicker so it can seem like there is less to do, also some features are just in as placeholders and inactive/unfinished. Yes and no, content is comparable to a degree but it is lacking in some areas and expanded in others. You could argue this either way honestly as it has almost everything Warband has to offer, yet a few pieces are missing or incomplete but it throws in some new stuff as well and expands upon previously existing features.

Good enough?

LegioXDacia said:

lt will be a good improvement if you could donate more than 50 influence at once to your kingdom clans. Having let's say 10 vassals and 10k influence, being able to give only 50 influence it's frustrating and time wasting.

Click to expand...

You can do this though, or you were last I checked on patch 1.2.0. I spam it to raise relations with everybody in my kingdom.

SirOnyx said:

If I have enough money, why can't I buy land?? Why do I must have other land to trade for??

Click to expand...

Because not only is it boring and unfun to just take over the world in 10 days when you have a crap ton of gold(what're you going to do after hmm?) but it's also very unrealistic... If you're going to sell your fief off to an opposing kingdom you might as well join them because the king is going to have your head for letting the title pass from his realm so you can be fat, rich and lazy temporarily. Less control, lower income, less recruits (if they're an enemy).

If somebody offered you 150,000 to never be able to have an income again would you take that deal?

River Twain said:

Which is exactly what I'm doing. I started a new game, with a self imposed condition to not buy any fiefs. It's annoying to do that though, and while of course it's not an emergency issue, it is important that the devs are aware of how broken it is. You have greater faith that upon release this will have been changed.

Change it today? No need. Eventually though, this needs to change. Hence the feedback post.

Click to expand...

Yeah change it eventually but right now there is no rush, I think most people much prefer to be a murder hobo then a filthy rich merchant.

Strange, are you playing on current version or the beta? When I was playing 1.2.0 I didn't notice anything like that, 1.3.0 beta seems to be a little more aggressive on the warfront but I just started fresh again and it could be because everybody has max armies raised right now.

RobustTurd said:

Well, these guy are not looting on their own. They are in MY army just as they were before they had their own party. We are attacking the same enemy parties as an army, so it doesn't make sense that suddenly we get more loot as an army of 3x100 parties than we would get as a single party of 300 troops.

Click to expand...

That's because they each individually get to loot, you really think theres only a few pitchforks and boots you see after the battle is over? If you have 3 parties searching the battlefield for loot afterwards they're bound to find more loot than 1 party.

TheWitchIzalith said:

Skein, but you need to manually set the Line so that it forms a proper wedge, is used to break Shield walls. Make a Wedge formation, and advance it into the Shield wall. The point the the Wedge drives into the Shield wall, opening it up and dividing it. Forcing the shield wall to Turn into the Wedge, thus exposing 2 flanks, to either archers, or Cavalry.

At least that was the historical use for it. I haven't tried it in game since the Shieldwall changes. Give it a go.

Click to expand...

thanks for the info, the ai is bad at shieldwalls but maybe I can utilise it anyways to provide my archers a good flanking position without having to relocate them all the way around the backside. Cav on the other hand is unfortunately useless.... was watching some videos and most of the time they end up losing, watched like 120 bannerknights lose to 150 t1-t2 infantry... thats just sad.

TheWitchIzalith said:

Take a break from the game, and if in a few months time, the game is still in the same state, then I would warrant that deserves the flak and ire.

Again, there's plenty with the game that deserves valid critique and needs to improve, I don't disagree. It's a bit early to be gathering pitchforks and assembling the mob, though.

Click to expand...

This little piece right here +1

federally said:

That's the intent, but for archers it mostly winds up with them just kind of dancing at the edge of their range and not firing very much.

Click to expand...

yeah, I think thats mainly an issue with allies getting in the way though. Troops wont use ranged weapons if an ally is blocking their LoS

Thanks for this well put together piece dude agree 100%

Bannerdog said:

TW have a game with amazing potential, we all know that, but by releasing it in this early state for a full AAA price they have opened themselves up to a world of criticism and must shoulder the burden of responsibility for commitment to quality. There are ongoing standards they need to be held to as a result of taking significant amounts of money from the userbase, for having our trust, and we need to not lose sight of that and be blinded by loyalty or passion for the game.

Click to expand...

I can agree with some/most of this and in my personal opinion I believe they are not only upholding high standards, but within the first 2 weeks of release they practically set a new bar compared to a lot of other developers. As for the significant amounts of money, eh.... bannerlord runs $50 and they granted a generous 20% off ($40 price) to players of their previous title and 10% off ($45 price) to everybody else which is I think is pretty fair considering it's probably going to stay in most peoples libraries for many years to come.

Edit: you forgot this
Bugs and glitches: Although we strive to create a stable game experience, the game will be actively developed during early access and hence there will be a greater chance of bugs and glitches creeping up. It will of course be a priority to fix these.

Bannerdog said:

I have no problem with a game being "Early Access", but it is amazing how many people are irrationally jumping to the Devs defence whenever they are criticized, essentially saying "OMG NOONE FORCED YOU TO BUY ITS EARLY ACCESS DEAL WITH IT".

Click to expand...

The problem is people don't, can't or refuse to understand why we are coming to their defense and just keep yelling about how much they paid for a game that isn't finished yet. Also, since the game is stable and its core functions are there and working (almost) as intended, the game therefor is not in alpha but in beta.

odd maybe they have a lower poly model or whatever for field battles, but that wouldn't really make sense unless it was for performance reasons and even then it would be a lot of work to make doubles of everything..

Ah yes I see, it looks like a lighting related issue judging from how matte the colors are and it seems like there is no armor reflection of any sort.