Search results for query: *

Sweynforkbeard said:

I am sorry. But I just dont buy into the whole "rushed through the door" argument that always pop up whenever there is something people dont like.

I honestly think they probably though the whole "factions staying alive" thing was an ingenious organic solution to the basic lategame problem; that a campaign becomes largely pointless once you reach a certain powerlevel relative to the AI.

I would not be surprised if they were simply taken aback by the fact that people just did not like it.

Click to expand...

You're not sorry. Own it. I disagree.

I don't hate that feature. I just think it was poorly executed. The reason people hate it is cause it doesn't make the game challenging it just makes it a nuisance. It's lazy. The AI power level is mostly an illusion. They have infinite funds but they are so limited in what they can do with it. They lack the options of the player because they can't exploit all the same features the player can.

Besides they "fixed" the ability of factions to stay alive and late game still sucks. Late game sucks because the players power level surpasses the AI way too soon. It's so unbalanced. And let's be honest it's not a campaign. It's sandbox with family members. It's a rough draft and nothing close to a finished product. There no way you can convince me that this game is "finished" or was part of some ingenious plan to make the game fun or more playable. That's nonsense.

It's an ambitious idea for a game but it lacks follow through.

Sweynforkbeard said:

This is fundamentally just a genre issue. Once you outpace the AI, well...

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I think it's more of a structural issue that needed more time in development to be balanced. It has a lot of features that don't flow together in a cohesive way. Instead of taking that time it was decided it's playable enough and rushed into beta then full release.

Shiroin said:

Imagine you are a developer at TaleWorlds Entertainment, and every day when you open the forum and see this thread, what goes through your mind is...

Click to expand...

... I should go be a developer for a company that values quality over just good enough.

Ananda_The_Destroyer said:

It really feels they didn't want the player (or are not concerned at all about) to progress beyond the vassal stage or the average sized kingdom. Like all of the fixes went into to making the game stagnate at this stage and no effort or consideration into how it progresses and ends. I think their "end game" idea is you get 7 or 8 fiefs either as a vassal or ruler and you just fight the same battles forever. To progress past this, you have to to brutally steam roll the AI while you vassals/faction barely help with anything. Because AI factions don't run out of money the map piles up with AI enemies anyways. In the past you own vassal would do okay at keeping them in check but in current versions the AI seems to just let enemies take back castes all the time so it just turn into wack a mole forever.

Click to expand...

You're describing symptoms of a bigger problem. Wack a mole isn't the issue. The issue is that once a player advances beyond a beginner the game offers zero chance of actually losing. The player no longer has to rely on his skill he just games the AI. After a certain point it kills playability for intermediate and advanced players. No challenge = no reason to continue playing. Yes, the AI doesn't run out of money but who cares because all they are capable of fielding is endless recruits that can easily be killed. The AI lacks any kind of meaningful challenge and has been reduced to nothing but a nuisance.

anoddhermit said:

If you start this early, you can have minimal garrisons and make tons of passive money with no risk.

Click to expand...

Overall it is an exploit but if you take a fief before clan tier 4 you miss out on being a mercenary and creating armies. You'd have to conquer as a solo party with not a lot of troop capacity.

Trade loot and upgrade them semi instantly. After every battle keep the high valuables and trade the rest for xp. You should get more than enough loot mid to late game to instantly upgrade masses of T1 troops to T6.

The simplest way to fix it would be to give AI lords/nobles who lead parties and armies increased scouting skill. That is the only way to increase their vision and help them maneuver the campaign map better.

Don't fight looters practice against the embers. If you catch them at the beginning of the game the usually lack any throwing weapons or cavalry. In my opinion looters are far more difficult because of the rock throwers. But to deal with looters the best way is on horseback with a bow and get good at keeping out of distance and headshots.

Glasera said:

3-Recruits are scarcer and the player only has one slot available for diffrent cultures, two for the same culture settlements

Click to expand...

I'd add... Unless your a mercenary or vassal of the culture then you also get additional slots but not as many as if the same as the players culture. And this should also apply to the AI.

Askorti said:

Except for the first idea, which is just straight up bad, the other ones will only make the game SLOWER, not harder in any way.
As long as you dont take risks, none of these changes will make things more difficult. It will only take a longer time to get the same results.

Click to expand...

What would make the game more challenging?

Apocal said:

This pushes players towards optimizing party composition and limiting the risks they take in order to make headway in the game. And not in a fun way either.

Click to expand...

It would help push the player into thinking somewhat strategically which is sorely lacking in the game. The game needs some limitations otherwise everything is completely arbitrary.

Glasera said:

Game is already too easy from the beginning and after reaching a certain strength you become unbeatable, making the gameplay boring because of the repetitive winning cycle. I think this should be given attention because it literally kills the reason to play campaign since there is literally no challange, same issue with the warband.

Ideas i have for improvement:
1-Other mercenary clans declaring war on the player's clan (i havent seen it happening for quite some time so i thought they removed the feature)
2-Relations with npcs takes more time and is harder to improve
3-Recruits are scarcer and the player only has one slot available for diffrent cultures, two for the same culture settlements
4-Add new troops with interesting equipments and roles to spice up the gameplay
5-Bring old chad troops back with their badass names like shock troop, veteran warrior, darkhan etc. and make them reachable through special recruit units
6-Hundred thousands worth of equipment in the market are expensive af, but unbelievably cheap for troops when upgrading (also while some troops' wage is seriously low, others' are can be incredibly high)
7-Many trash equipments are high valued, should get a serious decrease in their worth for the sake of realism, since you can literally get rich by selling worthless bandit equipments (i am not saying all of them are worthless but most are and they are weirdly expensive to sell)
8-Enormous NPC armies literally starve to the last man, maybe time to fix that?
9-Make special recruit units scarcer so they actually be special .d (they are too common)
10-I dont know how but make tournaments harder
11-Add new troops and bring the old ones back )))

All that comes to mind rn are these, please make comment on them and maybe add your own

Note:I am aware of how terrible my english is

Edit: Grammar mistake, adding to ideas

Click to expand...

You might be better off listing all the reasons why the game is easy before listing improvements.
Side note.. I agree with you.

Bluko88 said:

Oh yeah

If you're not getting renown for battles, try re-launching the game. Worked for me at least once.


Not sure how renown got messed up. Also it looks like you can attack Caravans without suffering any kind of relation penalty or starting a war LOL.

Click to expand...

This worked for me. Going forward I started gaining renown.
Also, the AI is very active early on unlike I've seen before. I had three rebellions in the first 20 days. Half of battania was gone in the first 15 days. Lots of territory being swapped much earlier on than normal.

No renown gain for fighting minor clans either. Got 50 renown from a battle against the embers. No renown actually granted and didn't give me clan tier 1.

While it's nice that Taleworlds has followed through with continued changes after full release lets not pretend that this patch has brought any groundbreaking changes to the game. Don't fool yourself's into thinking this game is anywhere close to a finished product in need of polishing. This game is still a very rough draft. Don't forget this fact otherwise Taleworlds will.

Apocal said:

It is a perfectly suitable and realistic tactic for storming a castle or other walled fortification.

The problem is the AI is too dumb to stay off the wall. But that's being unfair: the problem is that TW decided to script these scenes for cinematic reasons instead of letting the AI function as normal.

Click to expand...

If garrisons were stronger and utilized the defensive fortifications properly then the ability to maneuver troops wouldn't be an issue because they would take losses. The issue right now isn't that its a realistic tactic its the result. The fact that the player can decimate every garrison without losing a single is what is unrealistic. If you can siege a garrison without losses they might as well just add a surrender feature. Regardless it still allows the player to bypass an important feature of the game rendering it trivial.

Agreed. That's another issue I have with sieges is how the defenders troops aren't ready and waiting on the walls in the beginning when they decide to do that stupid cinematic where they all run to the walls. That extra time wasted running to the walls allows the attacker to get into position easier without being attacked.

Ananda_The_Destroyer said:

Why? You can kill the defenders faster with ranged in font of the ladders. You save campaign time, actual time and usually many units by using good tactics with the ladders rather then building other siege gear.

Click to expand...

It's not that it isn't a smart tactic. It's that until they can counter balance that tactic it's way too overpowering for the player. As I've stated above.

Ananda_The_Destroyer said:

This is a little silly but the AI will siege constantly regardless of the walls, but the walls and siege defense in general is worthless. You're much better of always defeating them enemy in the field or just ignoring their siege and sieging a better target. Live siege defense wastes campaign time if you wait for attackers, wastes units if you break in and prevents you from moving and placing your forces optimally.

Click to expand...

My experience is the opposite I think that since they changed combat in the release patch sieges have gotten even easier to defend. I think defensive sieges are great way to take out very large armies especially when your a smaller party/army. I've taken out over 2000+ troops with 300 men with very little deaths. For me it's a very efficient way to kill. I like siege defenses but unlike most of you I'm not obsessed with keeping in game time to a minimum. Different playstyles/priorities. But it makes sense for you because I know you like KG and the benefit of KG is being on horseback. A siege negates that benefit.

Ananda_The_Destroyer said:

Yep. And won't keep shields facing ranged power if they have to move and won't/can't put enough ranged units in good enough places to damage attackers enough.

Click to expand...

It's not just the number of range units its also that there all mostly recruits/militia. Even in significant numbers they can't do enough. And every fief, 75% of their defense are recruits and militia. It's a joke.

Sweynforkbeard said:

It...doesnt matter. The single best way to manage sieges is also the most intuitive; bring lots of men!

Why does it have to be a problem that it is not the only way of doing it...

Click to expand...

I also think they should limit the players ability to create armies and especially create large armies during mid game. Don't tell me.. That's going to be a popular idea as well.

JunKeteer said:

Do both, the early game has some fine-tuning as well. TBF, I think most re-new playthroughs are probably due to unsalvageable saves (old patches/crashes), or new mods; which is all fun, until you get to the same late-game issues again that remain there since the start of EA.

Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to changes in the early game but the meat of the game is mid-late game. What does everyone consider early game anyway? I consider it getting clan tier 1. Experienced players can get to clan tier 1 in 7 days or less. That's fine. The early game experience is mostly for new players anyway. And most new players already spend a lot of time in early game. Yes, people restart because of crashes but I doubt that is the overwhelming reason for why people to start a new game.

JunKeteer said:

There is no easy way to make 200 battles enjoyable as they are without an overhaul really. But from what some others figure, if we can at least tune the existing systems so we can decrease their frequency and increase their quality; through a few good suggestions littered here over the years.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Truth is you'll never make a game that someone will want to play non stop forever while keeping it enjoyable. Eventually a player will get bored and that's normal. If it wasn't for the battles what separates this game from any other game? Its the special sauce of the game. Battle frequency can be tuned once you dial in the difficulty/quality of the battles.

Ichon said:

There is a limit on how much the AI can be improved- especially in a complex game like BL which has numerous interacting systems.

Click to expand...

Agreed there is a limit. But you'll never discover that limit if they continue to neuter the AI the way they've done.

Ichon said:

Ideally the way to make the game more interesting is to give players more paths to power but also squeeze the options slightly per each path to power AND adjust character traits such that building the character stats to use more than 2 paths at the same time is either impossible (some traits lock out other traits) or just a very long grind (focus points system with limited amount of points that increase levels of character stats).

Click to expand...

Exactly couldn't agree more. The way attributes and skills are setup currently it forces the player to make smart decisions. The problem we have is that you can't say the same about everything else. With sieges they give you two options that aren't even close and it becomes a no brainer what option to choose. There are positive limitations in games and their are negative limitations this game has way too many negative limitations.

Ichon said:

Basically, more ways to play the game and achieve power and players could still 'win' the game as currently by simply following the military path to power but it will be the same long grind we have now.

Click to expand...

It may be the same long path but it doesn't necessarily mean it will be the same grind. If the player is challenged he's not thinking grind if he's thinking grind it's because he's not challenged.

JunKeteer said:

I understand the part and reasoning for why they do the cap with attributes and top perks so you only get a certain type; I have no issues with that. It's more with your companions, it's completely restricting since the ones you assign to a party role only get that particular skill (+combat skills) - and all your other companions cannot; besides kicking them out as their own party. So it significantly stunts/stops any form of 'mediocre' (jack-of-all) build or progression for the rest; both for the player and other companions in the party.

Click to expand...

If they made the game more challenging in numerous different ways then it opens up a path and reason to open paths for companions to level easier. But as the game stands right now it's too easy to even necessitate the need for opening those paths. I'm not against it entirely but to open more paths now just makes the game even easier.

Sweynforkbeard said:

Double down on the grind or take away the player´s agency; this is pretty much the only thing that we are able to contribute with here.

Click to expand...

I think you are being a bit over dramatic about it taking away a players agency. Its a flawed design in the first place and has nothing to do with player agency. What is the point of the developers trying to fix sieges if experienced players can bypass them in the first place? Does it really make you a brilliant commander to mass fians and rain hell upon a force of 400-500 troops that are made up of mostly militia and recruits? When most fiefs aren't even capable of raining down even a fraction of the fire power back on the player. It's completely unbalanced and it ruins the game.

Sweynforkbeard said:

Well, good luck with that. I am sure that will be very popular.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be popular but it needs to happen.