About Death Trigger

Currently viewing this thread:

iRkshz

Regular
I noticed that the "death trigger" happens every 48, 58, 68 years (sometimes at 46, 56, 66 years) - and it's awful, ill-considered. Why?
First, death must come by accident, randomly - but not according to the script.
Secondly, I understand why the developers did this - in order for the player to get a "second breath" playing for the heir.
But it doesn't work as it should.
Every time death comes either too soon or too late.
Last time I started the game as a 30 year old player and my character died at the age of 48, I was not enough one year for the heir of 18 years
This time I specially started the game as a 40 year old player and my character died at the age of 58, I was not enough one year for the heir of 18 years
...and playing for another 10 years for the "cripple" or wife with bad stats is not interesting for me, when I know that an heir with good stats awaits me.

I have a suggestion:
"Death trigger" should be triggered randomly after age 60, but not before.
or
Make a quest in the campaign and sandbox - add an oracle (medicine man) who will make a medicine that will delay death by one year, with the ability to repeat.
or
Add an object on the global map, the "path of death" cliff, this will allow the player to decide when to die.

if you do not allow the player to end his life optionally, you deprive the player of choice and an interesting game with a "second breath"
 
Last edited:

Antaeus

Sergeant
Life expectancy pretty much anywhere in the pre-industrial world never topped 40. Often it was closer to 30.

Allowing for a good quality upbringing, and allowing for life expectancy to go up if you're lucky enough to survive childhood... you might expect that to go up a little... but the developers are being generous at 48. Rolling the dice from then on seems reasonable to me.

If I was going to look at nice features... I'd expect the number of times a player has been downed on the field to raise the chance of an earlier death - repeated concussions, infections, organ trauma etc etc (all lowering quality of life for even modern combat sports competitors) - to simulate Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and general brain injuries etc....

And maybe an arthritis mechanic might be good too - stealing hand combat skill points from the player's character every time an aging character goes down. A great many pre-industrial skeletons show arthritis showing up from the late 20s thanks to the impact of more frequent and worse treatment of injuries.

And our characters probably spend more time in combat than any actual historic person ever could.
 
Last edited:

Some Rando

Recruit
Life expectancy pretty much anywhere in the pre-industrial world never topped 40. Often it was closer to 30.
This is a misunderstanding many people have. The average life expectancy is within that range, but it is factoring in the very high child mortality rate of the times. If you live past 5, living to your 60s is not unusual.
 
How about an early retirement option where the player controls an heir and the old MC is now a clan mate that can govern or be a party leader still?
This solves the problem of you "heir" effectively being very week for thier age by the time the MC dies, since you have only limited means to raise thier skills without controlling them. You could even take over as wife or wanderer temporarily then when an heir was 18 choose to pass control to them, which seem really reasonable. If you take over your boss's estate as a guardian you would step down when the heir comes of age, not wait until you die!

This could also mean the currently dead captain and governor perks on the MC could have some utility if the MC is retired to a clan member.
 

Bjorn The Hound

Grandmaster Knight
WBVCNWWF&SM&B
How about an early retirement option where the player controls an heir and the old MC is now a clan mate that can govern or be a party leader still?
This^^^. This post made me remember that we had this option in WB actually. It was just a Game Over thing but still we had it. With Bannerlord, this old feature making perfect sense but oddly enough we don't have it.
@mexxico @Duh_TaleWorlds Is this kind of retirement system planned or could you add this into list?
 

Some Rando

Recruit
How about an early retirement option where the player controls an heir and the old MC is now a clan mate that can govern or be a party leader still?
This solves the problem of you "heir" effectively being very week for thier age by the time the MC dies, since you have only limited means to raise thier skills without controlling them. You could even take over as wife or wanderer temporarily then when an heir was 18 choose to pass control to them, which seem really reasonable. If you take over your boss's estate as a guardian you would step down when the heir comes of age, not wait until you die!

This could also mean the currently dead captain and governor perks on the MC could have some utility if the MC is retired to a clan member.
Yes, I was trying to die in battle because I wanted to play my hair sooner, until I learned you can't. Would he a nice feature.
 
Life expectancy pretty much anywhere in the pre-industrial world never topped 40. Often it was closer to 30.
Yes life expectancy was low, but it's skewed much lower because infant mortality was much higher. Many people pre-industrial live into their 50's, 60's and even longer.
 

Antaeus

Sergeant
This is a misunderstanding many people have. The average life expectancy is within that range, but it is factoring in the very high child mortality rate of the times. If you live past 5, living to your 60s is not unusual.

Interesting that two people in this thread challenged this point, even though I caveated for it in the second paragraph of my post...

I guess I should stop posting more than one paragraph if nobody is going to read it?
 
Last edited:
Life expectancy pretty much anywhere in the pre-industrial world never topped 40. Often it was closer to 30.

Allowing for a good quality upbringing, and allowing for life expectancy to go up if you're lucky enough to survive childhood... you might expect that to go up a little... but the developers are being generous at 48. Rolling the dice from then on seems reasonable to me.

If I was going to look at nice features... I'd expect the number of times a player has been downed on the field to raise the chance of an earlier death - repeated concussions, infections, organ trauma etc etc (all lowering quality of life for even modern combat sports competitors) - to simulate Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and general brain injuries etc....

And maybe an arthritis mechanic might be good too - stealing hand combat skill points from the player's character every time an aging character goes down. A great many pre-industrial skeletons show arthritis showing up from the late 20s thanks to the impact of more frequent and worse treatment of injuries.

And our characters probably spend more time in combat than any actual historic person ever could.
Actually, this isnt really true. Life expectancies were low because infant mortality rates were so high. If someone actually survived pastrr the age of two they could live a long time. As nobles had access to good food, it was not at all unheard of for people to live into their 70s or even 80s. For presents the hard labor meant that they usually did not see 50, but it is not like everyone died young.
 

iRkshz

Regular
Life expectancy pretty much anywhere in the pre-industrial world never topped 40. Often it was closer to 30.
study medieval history, feudal lords lived for a long time if they were not killed

at the moment, triggered death looks like a crutch, a special obstacle to complicate the game - not logical complication
death (fatal illness) must be justified - for example, the character often "loses consciousness in battle", or abuses alcohol
death is a random event that should happen by chance, and not when the game developers decided for triggere - I'm sorry that you do not understand this and are ready to justify this not a far-sighted decision
 
How about an early retirement option where the player controls an heir and the old MC is now a clan mate that can govern or be a party leader still?
This solves the problem of you "heir" effectively being very week for thier age by the time the MC dies, since you have only limited means to raise thier skills without controlling them. You could even take over as wife or wanderer temporarily then when an heir was 18 choose to pass control to them, which seem really reasonable. If you take over your boss's estate as a guardian you would step down when the heir comes of age, not wait until you die!

This could also mean the currently dead captain and governor perks on the MC could have some utility if the MC is retired to a clan member.
Thought this were already in the suggestion block. If not it has to be, good one
 

Antaeus

Sergeant
study medieval history, feudal lords lived for a long time if they were not killed

at the moment, triggered death looks like a crutch, a special obstacle to complicate the game - not logical complication
death (fatal illness) must be justified - for example, the character often "loses consciousness in battle", or abuses alcohol
death is a random event that should happen by chance, and not when the game developers decided for triggere - I'm sorry that you do not understand this and are ready to justify this not a far-sighted decision

Everybody in history lives for a long time if they are not killed. That statement is moronic. But I'll let it pass because I get your point and you're actually agreeing with me - if you read my post past the first sentence (like the other 3 people who were triggered by it and didn't read on).

Ageing and dying should have some narrative - some purposeful decline. I suggested Alzheimer's or Parkinson's from all the head injuries that our characters sustain. But alcohol consumption from the post traumatic stress our characters invariably suffer probably would kill a few too. As would long term damage to untold parts of the body, if not the crippling arthritis from all the injuries. I doubt any person in history, short of a mammoth wrestling Neanderthal suffers as many debilitating injuries as our characters.

Our characters should be dying early, and in chronic pain. Even if they die in their sleep. They've been through more hell than almost any actual medieval person would or could live through.

Certainly, again if you read my post - I'm not saying characters should all die at 48. I'm saying that there should be a chance to die from 48 - and that chance goes up from there. That's being generous too. A quick look at English kings from 1066 to 1500 and I can see that 2 died in their 30s, 7 in their 40s, 4 in their 50s and 4 in their 60s (that's 9 under 50 and 8 over 50). And most weren't killed - most died of illness. So I think it is a fair balance to start at 48 years old - particularly if they gave us some information as to why it was happening, or if our actions in game led to the decline.

Actually, this isnt really true. Life expectancies were low because infant mortality rates were so high. If someone actually survived pastrr the age of two they could live a long time. As nobles had access to good food, it was not at all unheard of for people to live into their 70s or even 80s. For presents the hard labor meant that they usually did not see 50, but it is not like everyone died young.

The best part about not reading, is when you don't notice what is written in the very next sentence after the one that triggers you.

It's even better, when this has already been pointed out to two other people in the thread who didn't read past the first line (see my post 4 above this)

Great analysis guys. Two thumbs up.
 
Last edited:
The best part about not reading, is when you don't notice what is written in the very next sentence after the one that triggers you.

It's even better, when this has already been pointed out to two other people in the thread who didn't read past the first line (see my post 4 above this)
First off, who said I was triggered?
Allowing for a good quality upbringing, and allowing for life expectancy to go up if you're lucky enough to survive childhood... you might expect that to go up a little... but the developers are being generous at 48. Rolling the dice from then on seems reasonable to me.
Second, in response to the next sentence of what you wrote, what I said still stands. You said 'you might expect that to go up a little'. This however, is what my point is. It does not go up alittle. It took me about 5 minutes worth of research to find several sources that point out the life span of nobility in the middle ages.
is one such source that found that thru ought most of the middle ages, an adult male who made it to 21 had between 40-50 years of additional life expectancy beyond 21. That means a noble in the middle ages who made it to 21 would be expected to make it into the mid 60s or even early 70s and this still accounts for dying of sickness, injury and in battle. Dying at the age of 48 from natural causes for nobility was not the norm, so again your statement 'but the developers are being generous at 48' untrue. For a noble to die of pure old age would be in their 60s at least.
 

iRkshz

Regular
Everybody in history lives for a long time if they are not killed. That statement is moronic. But I'll let it pass because I get your point and you're actually agreeing with me - if you read my post past the first sentence (like the other 3 people who were triggered by it and didn't read on).
you manipulate and defend a bad decision of the developers - death should be a random event, but not fixed

is one such source that found that thru ought most of the middle ages, an adult male who made it to 21 had between 40-50 years of additional life expectancy beyond 21. That means a noble in the middle ages who made it to 21 would be expected to make it into the mid 60s or even early 70s and this still accounts for dying of sickness, injury and in battle. Dying at the age of 48 from natural causes for nobility was not the norm, so again your statement 'but the developers are being generous at 48' untrue. For a noble to die of pure old age would be in their 60s at least.
+1
 
Interesting that two people in this thread challenged this point, even though I caveated for it in the second paragraph of my post...

I guess I should stop posting more than one paragraph if nobody is going to read it?
What you said in the second paragraph isn't especially accurate either. Letting the payer live to 48 is not "generous" because lots of people lived that long - especially male aristocrats. The average life expectancy is low because of high infant mortality rate. Zeros make averages plummet.

The place where the game is actually really generous is in allowing all of your kids to survive to adulthood. I don't recall losing a wife to childbirth either, so maybe it's generous there too.

Now, once you finally got around to fleshing out your thought it made sense, but by then you were also saying that people were "triggered" because they disagreed with your initial vague statement, so you'd meandered from vague to vaguely dickish.

So yeah, good one.
 
Last edited:

Bannerman Man

C# Sleuth
Knight
I noticed that the "death trigger" happens every 48, 58, 68 years (sometimes at 46, 56, 66 years) - and it's awful, ill-considered. Why?
That is just coincidental. Heroes start having a daily chance to die of old age after the age of 47 (player included), which will become higher and higher as the character becomes older and older. There is no death trigger at fixed or scripted intervals.
 
coincidence? are you a game developer? not? then don't tell me it's a coincidence
Calm down a bit, will ya? Bannerman reads the code like you speak your language. If you want proof just install dnspy, open the taleworldcampaign.dll and read it if you can. The classes and methods are quite understandable if you know about programming.(c#)

Here is you Code btw
Code:
public override int BecomeOldAge
        {
            get
            {
                return 47;
            }
        }
public override int MaxAge
        {
            get
            {
                return 128;
            }
        }

private float CalculateHeroDeathProbabilityInternal(Hero hero)
        {
            float num = 0f;
            if (!CampaignOptions.IsLifeDeathCycleDisabled)
            {
                int becomeOldAge = Campaign.Current.Models.AgeModel.BecomeOldAge;
                int maxAge = Campaign.Current.Models.AgeModel.MaxAge;
                if (hero.Age > (float)becomeOldAge)
                {
                    if (hero.Age < (float)maxAge && !hero.IsSpecial)
                    {
                        float num2 = 0.8f * ((hero.Age - (float)becomeOldAge) / (float)(Campaign.Current.Models.AgeModel.MaxAge - becomeOldAge));
                        float num3 = (float)(1.0 - Math.Pow((double)(1f - num2), 0.011904762126505375));
                        num += num3;
                    }
                    else if (hero.Age >= (float)maxAge)
                    {
                        num += 1f;
                    }
                }
            }
            return num;
        }
 
Last edited:

iRkshz

Regular
Calm down a bit
sorry I'm just tired of people saying anything before just thinking logically
if I see a strange situation, I make a save load and start experimenting
it was with this question that I tried to "cheat death", but the game really wants to kill me at 48 and 58 :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom