Search results for query: *

@SadShogun, have you investigated the fleeing behavior of caravans at all? I am a couple patches behind right now, but I've often seen caravans run directly past hostile parties which are moving to engage them, which causes them to be caught (see my comment here for screenshots). Once they're caught, nearby bandit parties will pour into the battle which leads to the caravan's destruction. This can also happen when a caravan passes by several small parties of bandits grouped together that would otherwise not attack/engage if it were only a lone party.

Might be worth it to record the last behavior of caravans (e.g. "Travelling to Car Banseth" or "Fleeing from Looters") before they get into a battle in your tests to see if there's a pattern of caravans getting attacked by parties that they are ignoring. Just something to keep in mind.

If you have your clan party's priority set to defensive, then they should not be able to either raid or besiege enemy settlements as a solo party. The value of those actions gets set to 0 in that situation. If your clan party is not part of an army and is still raiding settlements, then that is most likely a bug.

However, your clan party can still be called to join an army even when configured to defensive priority, and if your clan party joins an army, then the army's objective supersedes the clan party's objective, and they will still be able to participate in offensive actions. So check if they were part of an army, and if that was the case and you don't agree with it, then there's an ongoing discussion about that topic here.

A clan party configured to defensive priority has the following effects:

• They cannot raid or besiege enemy settlements as a solo party.
• They are more cautious around enemy war parties (they are about 20% more likely to flee from an enemy party that poses a threat to them).
• They are more likely to help defend an allied settlement that's under attack.

A clan party configured to aggressive priority has the following effect:

• They are more likely to raid or besiege an enemy settlement. Since they can't besiege a settlement as a solo party anyway, and I don't believe they can form their own armies, that means this stance only affects their likelihood to raid.

A clan party configured to neutral priority has the default behavior and is not barred from raiding or besieging. Clan parties can be summoned to join armies regardless of priority setting.

---

If your faction's war strategy is set to defensive, then it will have the following effects:

• Raiding and besieging objectives will be considered 35% less valuable than when the strategy is set to balanced.
• Defending allied settlements will be considered 10% more valuable than when the strategy is set to balanced.
• Allied parties are more cautious around enemy war parties (they are about 20% more likely to flee from an enemy party that poses a threat to them).

If your faction's war strategy is set to offensive, then it will have the following effect:

• Raiding and besieging objectives will be considered 30% more valuable than when the strategy is set to balanced.

The war strategy effects will stack multiplicatively with clan party priority settings, so, for instance, a clan party with a defensive priority while also under a defensive faction war strategy will be about 44% more likely to avoid an enemy war party (because the score to avoid an enemy party gets multiplied by 1.2 twice, and 1.2 x 1.2 = 1.44).

Being faster than most other parties that are equal to or stronger than you definitely cuts down on how often you lose. I don't actually mind losing all that much, but it's fairly rare that the game puts you in a situation where you're at a disadvantage and at risk of losing. The inventory wipe is definitely the worst part of losing, but it's still tolerable. Quality troops are not hard to come by past the early game, so losing your party isn't even all that painful IMO.

I haven't really kept track of my losses, but I'd say it's easily <10%. I usually play ironman now, so I don't savescum my losses either, FWIW.

mortache said:

What's the actual number range for total value of all clan's fiefs?

Click to expand...

The value of fiefs typically fall within the range of about 300,000 in the case of lower end castles to 5,000,000 in the case of high end towns. There are a variety of factors that affect the value of a fief, but you can get a rough approximation of their value with the following equations:

Towns:
750,000 + (Prosperity x 1000)

Castles:
250,000 + (Prosperity x 1000)

Villages:
100,000 + (Hearths x 250)

Since villages are always bound to either towns or castles, you need to add the value of each the villages to the value of their bound settlements to get the total value of the fief. At the end, multiply the total value by 0.33.

So for example, if you have a town with 4000 prosperity and 3 bound villages with 300 hearth each, its value will roughly be equal to [750,000 + (4000 x 1000)] + [100,000 + (300 x 250)] + [100,000 + (300 x 250)] + [100,000 + (300 x 250)] = 5,275,000 x 0.33 = 1,740,750.

As a comparison, a castle with 1000 prosperity and 2 bound villages of 300 hearths each would have a value of roughly 528,000.

With merit score, the game is basically trying to distribute the value of fiefs to clans according to their rank. Tier 5 clans should have more total value in fiefs than tier 4 clans, who should have more value than tier 3 clans, etc. If the fiefs a particular clan owns are less valuable than they should have for their rank, then their merit score will be higher and they will have a good chance to appear on the ballot and earn a fief. If a clan has a lot of strong troops or conquers a fief themselves, then their merit score will get a boost, potentially allowing them to have more valuable fiefs than they otherwise would for their clan rank. The merit score is pretty favorable to the player, but that still doesn't mean that they will get to keep all of the fiefs they conquer.

Currently, I don't think there's a legit way for you to keep all of the towns for yourself as a ruler (besides only having 2 vassals), but if it's for the sake of roleplaying, you could always just use the console command "campaign.give_settlement_to_player" to give yourself all of the towns and leave the castles for your vassals.

I can't see what you posted in your Google Drive, but I think I may know what went wrong (aside from saving, like Apocal said). You probably changed this part of the code:



That's not actually what you need to change, but you are on the right track.

---

Follow these instructions:

1. Click on the magnifying glass icon at the top, or go to Edit > Search Assemblies.
2. In the search bar type, "SpeedUpMultiplier" without the quotations marks.
3. Right click SpeedUpMultiplier in the results box and select "Analyze".
4. In the Analyzer, click the dropdown arrows for Set > Used By and double click on the "OnLoad" method.
5. In the OnLoad method, right click on the line of code that says "this.SpeedUpMultiplier = 4f;" and select "Edit IL Instructions..."
6. Change the number 4 to a 20 and press "Okay" in the bottom right.
7. Go up to File > Save Module and save your changes. Close dnSpy and you should be good to go.

Here's a picture to help guide you:

One final thing to note: anytime a patch is released (including hotfixes), the dll file will be reaquired from Steam and your changes will be wiped. This unfortunately means you will need to follow the steps again to reapply the changes. Once you get the hang of it it should go quickly though.

Let me know if that works!

MadVader said:

You should take more samples from different times of day, not just when the feet per gallon people are awake. The numbers now at 5:30 (very early in Europe, so still low) is 132 forum members (a few are notably only Warband/off-topic users, like me) and 10596 people finding bugs.
So we here are the mighty 1% of all players. Screw the 99%!

Click to expand...

Ideally a mod just provides the daily peak concurrent user number for the forums so that we can directly compare it to the peak concurrent players without having to hope the peaks line up. Or better yet, Taleworlds releases the DAU and MAU numbers so that we can finally put the silly idea that only 20k people still play the game to rest. By the way, I wasn't including the guests in the count because there's no way for us to know if they're lurkers or non-logged in members, and the whole discussion started over whether or not the forum is a good representative of the greater playerbase, of which you need to be a member to contribute (not that all of them even contribute). I'm betting the peak members don't crack 100 on most days.

It's a veritable ghost town on here when you live in ft/gal land.

Roy1012 said:

He is talking about unique users, most people on at a given time is a different stat entirely.

Click to expand...

Mhmm, that's what I figured he meant, and I understand the difference. But that is actually the reason why I ask, because if that's the case, then he's using two different metrics in his comparison: Daily Active Users from the forums vs. average Concurrent Users playing BL, or put another way, he's comparing all of the unique users that visit the forums in a whole day to the average number of players playing Bannerlord at a single point in time.

To get a better comparison you should be using either CCU vs CCU or DAU vs DAU, not DAU vs CCU, if that makes sense. We don't actually have an accurate picture of how many daily active users Bannerlord has because Valve does not release that info to the public, but if you use Concurrent forum users to Concurrent players, as shown below, you see that forum users only represent 0.2 to 0.3% of the players currently in the game (24/10349 = 0.0023).



The current number of forum users comes from here, and the current number of players comes from here.

Orion said:

Average daily users in April 2020 was a little over 6,500 on the forum.

Click to expand...

By this do you mean the average total users per day on the forum for the month of April? Meaning, each day 6,500 unique members logged into the forums total, as opposed to 6,500 users logged into the forums at any given moment in time.

You're looking for the "SpeedUpMultiplier" variable, which isn't in an external file that's easily editable, but if you download a .NET decomplier program such as dnSpy, you can accomplish what you are asking for without too much trouble. It all just depends on how technical you want to get with it.

mortache said:

I was referring to the "Diplomacy" perk from Charm tree. Afaik that barter functions separately from "trade". I haven't tested it though, just seen it like this in Bannerlordperks website for a long time.

Click to expand...

Lol I guess I'm the one who misunderstood. I honestly forgot about that perk and the first trade perk fit the description well enough. I would agree with Swally in that case then, reworking the charm perks is probably pending other changes that are meant to interact with them. In the code, the charm perk tree still uses an old method that has since been replaced by a new method that all of the reworked perk trees use. The only other perk tree that still uses the old method is smithing, and we know from something SadShogun said that they were holding off on reworking the smithing perks until after the changes to the crafting system were implemented. I would guess it's a similar situation with charm.

black_bulldog said:

The thing that bothers me the most is nowhere does it tell the player this info.

Click to expand...

Yeah I'm hoping they improve on that front too.

The barter reduction from Whole Seller/Appraiser is already implemented, and is one of the perks that has been functional since day one (although its effects slightly changed circa patch 1.5.0).

I think there's a misunderstanding as to what it actually does though. It doesn't simply give you a 15% better price on selling trade goods, it reduces the trade penalty on selling trade goods by 15%. The base trade penalty for both buying and selling is only 6% to begin with (when selling to a town), so a 15% reduction to that percentage means the trade penalty is reduced to ~5%, and as a result it only has a minor effect on the final price you earn from selling an item.

The trade penalty is that low in the first place to allow for the player to more easiliy make a profit from trading. When the game launched, the base trade penalty sat at 11%, and has been reduced over time to its present value of 6% as part of balancing tweaks. The downside of having a low initial trade penalty percentage is that altering it has a limited impact on the actual final prices.

Antaeus said:

In that case, it saves you the cost of a low tier archer...

/glass half full

*sigh*

Click to expand...

?‍ I appreciate the optimism though, lol.

Antaeus said:

A 20% reduction in only one of the costs associated with workshops might only mean a real reduction of 3 or 5% of costs.

Probably not noticeable amongst the periodic swing of workshop returns without a detailed breakdown, but when compounded across 4 or 5 workshops could still end up as savings of 20 or 30 gold per day. Which is the wages of a good lord, companion or noble in the field.

Click to expand...

No, no, I mean it only affects wages, not any other costs. Since wages are fixed at 10g per day for a single workshop, this perk only saves 2g per day per workshop, period. There's nothing else to it. If a player has 4 workshops, this will amount to exactly 8g in savings per day.

Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James said:

As DLCs are added, they rebalance the game for all the DLCs. This is probably the worst in EU4 which is quite literally not a functional game without paying about £60 extra. The more they add, the worse it gets.

Last time EU4 was playable without paywalls was like 2015 before they added development buttons, institutions and estates. The game frequently breaks without these, especially development.

Click to expand...

I don't play EU4, but can't you just rollback to a patch prior to a specific DLC release?

Edit: Yeah, this guy talks about that exact issue here. I guess you still can't mix and match old patch balance with newer DLCs, but it seems like it would be nearly impossible to balance a game in a way that supports any given subset of DLCs when you release as many Paradox does. Either way, it looks like it's still possible to play vanilla balance without having to drop money on DLCs.

Yes, this is probably one of the weakest perk effects in the game. It only cuts the daily wage of workshops by 20% (i.e. wages go from 10 to 8 per day), meaning this essentially saves 2 gold per day per workshop. This reduction not being reflected in the finance menu is apparently just an oversight.

This idea is something mexxico addressed awhile back:

mexxico said:

Hiding exact numbers of parties from player is discussed about 4-5 years ago. We tried something like ?-0..9 ??-10..99 ???-100..999 or something like this. For about 1 year development we go with that feature then it is removed. It created another problems I could not remember exactly what they were.

At least for example player started a siege after waiting outside 3-4 days and after building siege equipments and when he enters siege battle he sees there are much more garrison compared to he expected. At that point player will probably give up that siege and go another target. This is a time loss and it can be a repetative action not so fun to play that way however we are forcing player to play that way to be more succesfull. Its same on map, get closer to a party learn exact number and run away if you are 0.1 faster, player need to look tooltips compare speed all time. There can be some percentage of players want to play like this of course it can be optional but as a general game rule it does not suit well. There was another problems as I said which I can not remember and finally this feature is removed.

However in paper it seems a good idea but it does not suit well our M&B series. It can be used in another similar game design of course.

Click to expand...

They explored the idea years ago, and apparently even implemented it for a period of time, before ultimately dropping it due to various issues.

Philozoraptor said:

When I was developing more production and more income mod, I found out that high tier gear often dissapeared after one day (sometimes it was replaced), so I assumed some sort of consumption since the player is the only character that is really buying military gear. However I am always playing the game with RBM (where best armors are for 50K not 500K) so maybe thats why high tier armors dissapeared more often during my observations.

Click to expand...

Got it. Yeah I was just curious, since I knew you've created mods related to production, but wasn't aware of any mechanism that would cause workshop produced equipment to get consumed so quickly in vanilla. Even an armor that costs 10k would still only have about a 1 in 300 chance to be consumed per day, which is fairly low. There may have been an issue with an old patch that caused the game to delete some items though.

Does your mod happen to add item modifiers (rusty, tailored, etc.) to workshop productions?

NPC99 said:

I assume landless minor clans without traditional sources of income are subsidised to keep them in the game.

Click to expand...

Yep, minor clans do get a modest subsidy, regardless of whether or not they've been hired. They'll get around 300-500 gold per day for free as seen in the red box below. That'll roughly cover a single parties wages, so it's definitely not something they're going to get rich from. I'm not sure what's causing some mercenary clans to get obscenely wealthy, and I haven't noticed it happening in any of my own tests, so I can only really speculate. I would guess they're either getting a very high mercencary award multiplier (i.e. the amount of gold earned per influence), or they're earning an excessive amount of influence somehow (or both). It's something probably worth looking into though.

Philozoraptor said:

and extremely high chance to be immediatelly consumed by the same town.

Click to expand...

Can I ask what makes you say that? From my understanding, it's the complete opposite; it's highly unlikely for a town to consume high tier items after they've been produced. Like for instance, there's a less than 1 in 3000 chance that a 100k armor would get consumed by a 5000 prosperity town on any given day. I'm basing that on the MakeConsumption method.

Apocal said:

prosperity boosts the construction speed of siege weapons for the defenders

Click to expand...

Are you basing that on observation? Because I don't believe prosperity actually factors in at all. If you're noticing high prosperity towns pumping out siege engines at a high rate, it's probably due to them typically having larger garrisons + militias, as well as multiple levels of the building Siege Workshops. Each level of Siege Workshops adds +30% to the construction speed of siege engines, so level 3 boosts the speed by a full 90%.

Let's say a town has a combined defending force of 576 troops. That would give them a base siege construction speed of 24 per day. If they have level 3 Siege Workshops, that boosts the speed to (1.9 x 24) = 45.6 per day. Ballista only have a build cost of 8, so that means the town would be able to pump out almost 6 per day.