Search results for query: *

uçanbiblo said:

Hey, our team is aware of this issue and working on it. Thank you for your time.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

czarny said:

My most memorable vanilla criminal expirience was during Ea. I made my character, gained 30 criminal rating in Vlandia, went to Sargoth to sell loot so i had to disscuss terms of surrender. I picked corporal punishment aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand my character died during taking corporal punishment. You should see my face when this happened. It was short, medicore campaing with very cool end.

Click to expand...

Happened to me when I was doing some tests for my mod, was not expecting such a result

Totalgarbage said:

Honestly if TW just paid him and implemented fourberie I would be very content as well, although I must admit that I don't really like the implementation of alley ownership in fourberie particularly due to needing to upgrade our enterprises every week until we reach the point cap. I wish it was much more simple in how it worked, such as working like a workshop where we have to choose our production among things like spices (are they actually spices or drugs?), slaves or weapons (or something else idk).

My other (somewhat minor) complaint about what is otherwise a phenomenal mod is that our other actions from our hideout such as blackmail and assassination has an unintuitive and ugly looking UI (might be because of the game, not the modder, idk). I want to reiterate that I really do love fourberie and appreciate the work done by @Spinozart1 (and all the other people involved in making the mod if there are any).

Click to expand...

You seem to not like my handcrafted UIs!
No worries, I understand it takes some time to get used to (especially the Scheme Room).
It was quite a challenge (for me) to resume everything in one page and defenitely has room for improvement.
As @czarny said, you can leave your suggestions on Nexus (or here) and I will see what can be done.
But for now I'm still working on the beta compatibility (new alley system is unfortunately not what I was expecting...).

Lesbosisles said:

Summary: There is a chance for the game to crash when an alley is taken over. The crash happens right after I assign troops to guard it and hit "Accept" button.
How to Reproduce: Can't trace the exact reason, but it seems, that crash happens if you wait in a city for some time, then go and take over the alley. The other suggestion is that it happens when I assign a wounded follower to watch over an alley.

Click to expand...

Was it an attempt in a hostile town (red on map)?
Clearing an alley in an enemy town will 100% crash.

MArdA TaleWorlds said:

Forwarded to the QA team for further investigation. We will reach out again if we need more information. Thanks for reporting and sorry for any inconvenience!

Click to expand...

Not sure if it is similar case, but I have created a ticket and uploaded the crash report as well.

Temporary possible solution until TW fixes this: hit alt+f4 to knock out all the enemies.

Dejan said:

Will bring it up.

Click to expand...

Sweet

Dejan said:

v1.1.0 Changes​

Greetings!

Patch v1.1.0 came to Beta last week. Here are the modding-related changes that came with it (apologies for posting with delay).

• Improved scene checker code (editor side) in order to detect various spawn path placement problems.
• The map camera implementation was separated from the map screen code for easier modding.
  • In response to the community request by Jansen via the modding discord.
• A new attribute is_moving was added to the monster usage system. It allows specifying different actions in moving or stationary situations.
• Enabled the ability to give banner tableaus to armor pieces. This change adds native support for armor pieces to have banner textures. It works the same way as shields, banner bearer items etc.
• Fixed a bug that caused issues with asset importing if there were two modules with the same id.
• Fixed SpCultures default xml to throw warnings when it has no cultures defined.
• Animation clips can now be searched by their flags in the resource viewer.
• Increased the ModifiedDamage compression info limits from 500 to 2000 and clamped the out of limit damage numbers to the min/max values.
• AddGameMenu and GetGameMenu are now public.
  • In response to the community request by @azakhi here: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...-it-hard-to-manage-menus.452923/#post-9816318
• Game menu options can work with related objects.
  • In response to the community request by @azakhi here: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...ed-code-makes-it-hard-to-manage-menus.452923/
• Fixed a crash that happens if the main hero talks with a hero that does not have any proper conversation lines. Now he/she says a default conversation line if proper dialog lines were not added.

We continue to work on other modding-related features/issues:

• More pathfinding options for MobileParty
  • In response to the community request by @Space_Pot8to here: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/more-pathfinding-options-for-mobileparty.452701/
• Generate doxygen tagfiles from the official API documentation
  • In response to the community request by @Aragas via Discord.
• Other requests in earlier stages of development.

Thank you again for all your feedback and suggestions. If you have any questions or would like to make further requests, please discuss them below (or HERE).

Click to expand...

Keep on with the great job!
@Dejan Any chance you have a look at my request?

Spinozart1 said:

@Dejan
Would it be possible to remove the "IsBanditFaction" check condition in the FactionManager class?
All the methods allowing to manage the relation between the factions have this check condition which result in the following:
It is impossible to set the hero faction neutral with any bandit faction.

Spoiler

C#:

        // Token: 0x06000AA1 RID: 2721 RVA: 0x00037308 File Offset: 0x00035508
        public static void DeclareAlliance(IFaction faction1, IFaction faction2)
        {
            if (faction1 != faction2 && !faction1.IsBanditFaction && !faction2.IsBanditFaction)
            {
                FactionManager.SetStance(faction1, faction2, StanceType.Neutral);
            }
        }

        // Token: 0x06000AA2 RID: 2722 RVA: 0x00037327 File Offset: 0x00035527
        public static void DeclareWar(IFaction faction1, IFaction faction2, bool isAtConstantWar = false)
        {
            if (faction1 != faction2 && !faction1.IsBanditFaction && !faction2.IsBanditFaction)
            {
                FactionManager.SetStance(faction1, faction2, StanceType.War).IsAtConstantWar = isAtConstantWar;
            }
        }

        // Token: 0x06000AA3 RID: 2723 RVA: 0x0003734B File Offset: 0x0003554B
        public static void SetNeutral(IFaction faction1, IFaction faction2)
        {
            if (faction1 != faction2 && !faction1.IsBanditFaction && !faction2.IsBanditFaction)
            {
                FactionManager.Instance.GetStanceLinkInternal(faction1, faction2).StanceType = StanceType.Neutral;
            }
        }

I understand it is a default stance you want to keep for the native game.
But in my case I would like to allow the player clan to at least become "neutral" with the bandits.
Maybe you could add a method that could be called by modders?

Spoiler: "Modding method exemple"

C#:

        public static void SetNeutralForModders(IFaction faction1, IFaction faction2)
        {
            if (faction1 != faction2)
            {
                FactionManager.Instance.GetStanceLinkInternal(faction1, faction2).StanceType = StanceType.Neutral;
            }
        }

Click to expand...

Lord Irontoe said:

It seems more likely and practical that this kind of system would be limited to lords, notables and wanderers rather than random townsfolk and villagers. So since these characters already have unique IDs and character records, would storing all their previous conversations add a lot of bloat or would it be manageable?

Click to expand...

Far more manageable I guess.
I have no clue about how ChatGPT is working but I imagine only keywords would be linked with the character ID every time you interact with an NPC.
So instead of having different NPC using limited random long pre-written texts (basically what BL is doing now), you will have different NPC using generated texts (based on the existing keywords if any).
Resulting in far more dialog diversity...
But again that's only a personal assumption...

MRay said:

Order of Battle Lord Assignments
- Players can now assign heroes to formation as regular troops. This allows players to create formations which only have heroes(bodyguard formations).
- Assignment system is also changed. Players can now drag and drop lords from formation slots to the hero assignment pool and vice-versa.
- We also added new Low Tier and High Tier filters to the formations.

Here you go guys.

Click to expand...

Great job, can't wait to test this!

Nice !!!

Lord Irontoe said:

I think it might mean less accuracy penalty. Like when you raise your bow skill, I don't think your accuracy is actually improving. Its just that there's a penalty at low bow skill which makes your shots go all over the place. So raising your skill gradually reduces that penalty until at some skill level, your shots are hitting right where you aimed them. So the banner would just lower the penalty a little more.
.

Click to expand...

highly plausible!

Ruthven said:

This doesn't have to be the case, NPCs can be generated from noise instead of truly random, and then the engine needs only the seed to remember all the generated details. This is already the case with generic party troops, your regular soldier stacks will always have the same face and equipment despite being randomly generated from the troop recipe.

Great work from Bloc, this is cool and a little terrifying.

Click to expand...

In case of generic party troops for sure. As it doesn't really matter how they look like. The game is using body templates, specified for each character troops as well.
But here we need to keep track of everything so the player sees the exact same NPC (like gang leaders etc...) with the same background story.
It can be recorded in form of seeds, but you still need an unique ID to compile all those characteristics back together.

Impressive implemetation!

RozBritanicus said:

WOW this would change the game and make it interesting to enter towns and villages. TW should hire you. A question through . If you spoke to the farmer again would he have the same background ? like dose it remember every ones story ?

Click to expand...

Before trying to answer to your question, you first need to understand how BL is populating the in-game scenes.
When you enter a scene, the game is creating "agents" (the bots) to interact with.
There are basically 2 types of agents.

• Those who are created based on "permanent" characters (unique ID): the main character, notables, Ladies and Lords, companions etc.
• Those randomly created to make the scene more alive: villagers, traders, townfolks, thugs, chickens, sheeps...

So to reply to your question:
The game may remember about those random NPC's only if they have an unique ID (not the case for villagers).
Which means that every time you speak to a villager (like in this showcase) and that ChatGPT starts to generate some "unique" background, the game will have to create a new "permanent" character with an unique ID. In addition to the appearance, culture etc... the generated background (only keywords maybe) will then be recorded and linked with that new "permanent" character ID.
Looks good so far but if there is no limit set and you start to speak with every single random villagers and townfolks in every villages and towns, you will end up with an impressive save bloat and really long loading time when entering towns/villagers.

But yeah, this showcase shows us probably the next gen of sandbox games.

AngryPanCake said:

Hello,
I am trying to understand how these Banners work. I look at the description and then the numbers, to me it seems like there is some sort of discrepancy.

So, the first one increases Troop movement speed by 0.05. That's easy to understand.
The second one says it Increases weapon accuracy by -0.06, a negative number? this does not make sense!
There are several of these banners like this.

Click to expand...

A -6% chance to miserably miss your target?
Probably the figures we see are the actual factors used by the code, not adapted to make it correctly interpreted by the player...
Just guessing...

We see this kind of reverse logic with the tribute payment.
What the player is seeing is that she/he has to pay a tribute tough the other kingdom is facing heavy loss.
But the actual game logic is that the losing kingdom will never stop harassing the player until it recovers some fiefs or until the player pay them something...

zengry said:

Click to expand...

zengry said:

thats why im thinking its a bug, i get why they wont fight but if its like that than take them out of non simulated battles as well

Click to expand...

In your screenshot we clearly see that only the garrison is selected for the encounter.
In that particular case, should it be a physical battle or a simulated battle, militia should not join.
If you are 100% sure that militia popped up in any of those, then you should report this as a bug.

I don't have time to make a video sorry.
Just go to Omor and visit the Horse Trader.

Another issue for you to "investigate":
The Horse Trader is missing in Varcheg...

Calabanar said:

Everyone seems to be complaining about this "dlc" and I don't see why... it's basically an artbook with some lore and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I for one appreciate it, especially since it was for free!

Click to expand...

A few points I would complain about this DLC:
-It shows us how TW could have done better with the lore of the game. The map is awsome... why not adding it in the game directly? Thinking about this, the whole thing should be part of the game...
-The price... I mean... 10€ for a short audiobook like that?