-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Almost two months into EA. Satisfied?
- 主题发起人 Dodgy
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Played that mod, the lack of firearms put me off it though because I felt they belonged in the setting.
I tried playing warband after bannerlord just for the fun of it, but now the graphics of warband put me off, even before bannerlord the warband graphics weren't that great, during playing it didn't matter all that much but don't ask me to watch warband videos on youtube because they are objectively ugly and difficult to look at.
I just wanted Bannerlord to be warband but with the graphics we have now in bannerlord (and I'm on medium graphics settings) and a few improvements here and there kind of like what happened when we went from Mount & blade to mount & blade warband.
By the way, does anyone remember vanilla Mount & blade or vanilla Warband? The games weren't all that fantastic it was the mods that made those games fantastic, go ahead, remove all your mods, and play vanilla warband you'll notice that a lot of your comparisons of Bannerlord with warband aren't actually based on memories of warband but memories of a mod. And i do mean all mods, and also undo all the changes you made with the tweaker tool just play a pure vanilla game....
Bannerlord adds a lot, and I do mean a lot and in the beginning things need to be fleshed out a bit and afterwards mod tools will be released and people will start making mods and you will all forget about all your complaining right now as you decide bannerlord is the greatest game ever (forgetting that you are playing an awesome mod) and with the expansion to Bannerlord that will one day come you will compare that to the modded versions you play and declare the expansion the biggest pile of **** in the history of ****piles etc....
Of course one can compare Bannerlord to modded Warband. Mods have been developed by non-professionals during their leisure time, and Bannerlord had 8 years to take from them, with best financial support!
I mostly played Warband in vanilla, because mods never felt actually finished or consistent. And still i am absolutely disappointed in how little the effort is, that has bin put into Bannerlord in its core in 8 years.
If you compare it with vanilla Warband, Bannerlord lacks a lot - namely most of what was already missing in Warband. No real improvements made, features even deleted. No thoughts invested in how to actually get from the 1 to the 2, instead they just made it more pretty and more superficial.
I mostly played Warband in vanilla, because mods never felt actually finished or consistent. And still i am absolutely disappointed in how little the effort is, that has bin put into Bannerlord in its core in 8 years.
If you compare it with vanilla Warband, Bannerlord lacks a lot - namely most of what was already missing in Warband. No real improvements made, features even deleted. No thoughts invested in how to actually get from the 1 to the 2, instead they just made it more pretty and more superficial.
Bannerlord would be a lot better if they had just copied M&B Warband with improved graphics/UI.
But instead they decided to improve only the graphics and strip away a lot of features, even small stuff like: spoiling food, horses that can be killed/wounded and many more stuff.
But instead they decided to improve only the graphics and strip away a lot of features, even small stuff like: spoiling food, horses that can be killed/wounded and many more stuff.
Modding has always been a central element of this company, it all started out with a simple highly moddable game, that is the essence of Taleworlds
Ok, tell me what feature in unmodded vanilla warband is better than in Bannerlord and also tell me:
- what bannerlord lacks
- what improvements haven't been made compared to vanilla warband
- what features of vanilla warband have been deleted
Well yeah those things suck, what's the point of spoiling food? When you know it spoils you only buy grain bread dried meat and fish because they don't spoil. And why would you want your expensive horse to die because a looter managed to hit it with a stone? This isn't deleting stuff this is improving quality of life
Yes it was, still you pay money for a game (not a bare platform) and its vanilla version - mods remain a free extra, made by fans.
see below
Feasts, tactical map, spoiling food, dying horses, training troops on the go, training troops in camps, setting up camp, following other lords, logical troop recruitment (who tf would have built up his army out of people that have been offered by criminal gang leaders?)...
Improvements in combat, tactics, deeper party management (better organization, grouping, reserve management...), working and logical AI, a deep and wide world (instead of a stuffed place, which is essentially the same everywhere), different combat maps based on the region you are in, troop customization, actual kingdom management, roads, borders, historical immersion (e.g. you can freely move in the territory of other kingdoms as they were your own, credible gender distribution...) and so on. Enough could have been added, which wouldn't have damaged the actual M&B experience.
see above
Because it would actually die, it would make you think twice before rushing blindly into a spear formation (if something like that would actually work in Bannerlord...). Obviously by quality of life you mean unrealistic and boring things, making it easier for you to effortlessly reach the state of an invincible god as fast as possible.
What I mean is that I think it's wrong to justify the amount you spend on a game by how much you enjoy it, because then you fall into the opposite trap of "I need to play for X hours to get my money's worth" even if subconsciously. There are some games I've bought in the past that I really should have just deleted, but I kept trying them because I kept thinking "if this game is worth £30 then it should be worth my time, right...?"
The real telling part here is that some of you assume modders are just passionate outsiders who this value metric doesn't apply to. Why does all the money go to Taleworlds if nobody even plays native singleplayer?
I'm not saying that mods should be paywalled, but that people should at least accept the arbitrary nature of video game pricing which is basically just a tradition at this point.
So we should just accept that games become more expensive every year and that developers have to do less and less to come up for the price?
It is not arbitrary, but based on profit maximisation. If people keep buying expensive bad games, then bad games become worse and prices increase.
I would gladly support modders, when the mods they make get actually finished, polished and deliver a consistent game addition. Instead of a greedy company, that sets a price upon knowing, that most people buy it because of the mods, developed by passionate outsiders (and they are nothing more). I mean, they weren't even able even copy from the few well done mods for Warband and still people defend TW, abusing the passion of modders!
It is not arbitrary, but based on profit maximisation. If people keep buying expensive bad games, then bad games become worse and prices increase.
I would gladly support modders, when the mods they make get actually finished, polished and deliver a consistent game addition. Instead of a greedy company, that sets a price upon knowing, that most people buy it because of the mods, developed by passionate outsiders (and they are nothing more). I mean, they weren't even able even copy from the few well done mods for Warband and still people defend TW, abusing the passion of modders!
You paid money for the other 2 games as well, what are you on about. The business model of taleworlds was always to create a simple highly moddable game and eventually work together with some mod teams to release a dlc, every DLC started out as a mod you know this right?
Feasts will probably still be implemented, personally I never saw the point of them aside from courtship, the Bannerlord courtship is less of a hassle in my opinion as you can approach any woman at any time instead of: win a tournament ===> being invited to a feast ===> talking to a lady ===> wait for her to summon you over right as you are in the middle of besieging a castle on the other side of the map ====> having to quickly assault and win the battle/ give up the siege ====> get to the lady's location before it's too late ===> have your conversation about poetry =====> gain some relationship =====> race back to the castle you just conquered to defend it if it hasn't been taken already/race for the castle the aI just took back before it has a strong garrison to reconquer it ===> wait for the lady to summon you again ===> rinse and repeat
The tactical map was nice, but so is just pressing ALT and seeing where the enemy is in a way that is slightly more realistic than having a magical map that knows where everyone is and in real time has dots moving about....
spoiling food/dying horses are pointless features, nobody is going to buy spoilable food and dying horses or horses going lame are just annoying
training troops on the go Was nicer in Warband I'll give you that although it appears that the leadership perk in Bannerlord is implemented falsely, there's a mod that fixes the perk in the way that it is probably intended once it works as it should it's just as strong as the warband training
training troops in camps was pretty pointless in warband you never got much experience from that
following other lords is in the game it's called join army
logical troop recruitment Is not something we should be nitpicky about since if we really want realism Warband should have used the lance system introduced in the anno domini mod
improvements in combat, tactics How do we not have this? Do you even remember Warband combat and (lack of) formations? The formations system has been completely changed from vanilla warband. We have formations, and unlike the formations like shieldwall that mods would provide us we can tell our formation to keep facing a certain direction so they don't all wheel around to face a stray cavalry dude and expose their flanks to the on coming archers and infantry Warband was simple: if a lord was alive int he AI army they would slowly march forward doing the 10 paces forward command every time and they would always go to your left flank with their cavalry. So if you had the hills and set up your troops on the hills with the infantry in front of the archers you would race forward with your bow, snipe the enemy lord and see the army lose cohesion and charge ypur troops on the hill. That's it, that was the tactics in warband. In Bannerlord depending on the situation I have seen AI armies change formations to suit the situation. and choosing to stay put or approach carefully I have seen the AI stand firm with it's infantry whereas it's crossbows pelted my shieldwall until they ran out of ammo and only then have it's infantry charge me whilst it's cavalry went round and charged my shieldwall in the rear.
In vanilla warband we didn't even have formations that was a mod, and it didn't always work very well either
deeper party management we can create parties lead by our companion members and even send out caravans led by our companions, in warband you needed to own a castle first and have a steward etc... (come to think of it, this might have been a mod too) or be a king and give lordships to your party members
working and logical AI please elaborate, I agree the AI is not great because it cheats too much in my opinion but I think we mean different things
a deep and wide world (instead of a stuffed place, which is essentially the same everywhere) what do you mean? We get a huge world with different cultures and you feel that you are in a different place with a very different culture in every city seriously what are you on about? the world is much more diverse and beautiful than Warband or it's many mods ever where
different combat maps based on region is already in the game.... in asserai teritory you fight on a very different map from sturgia or vlandia or battania territory. Are you even playing this game?
Troop customization Let me get this straight on the one hand you want realistic recruitment, on the other hand you want to be able to completely customize your troops regardless of their culture? a bit contradictory here aren't we?
actual kingdom management is being fleshed out and is allready deeper than vanilla warband, as is fief management by the way. I think you are comparing to memories of a mod, even a mod like diplomacy is still not vanilla warband despite looking like it and only adding diplomacy and management features
roads, borders roads I'll give you, it would be nice to have roads on the map and to have parties follow them, I'm not sure how you imagine implementing borders in this game though
historical immersion (e.g. you can freely move in the territory of other kingdoms as they were your own) Would you care to explain this one as I have no idea what you are trying to say here
credible gender distribution what's that supposed to mean? You aren't one of those "ehrmagurd there's too many woman and woman should not be warriors" kind of people
Nobody rushes blindly into formations that's just silly, your horse isn't to charge, it's to get away when you run out of arrows and there are still looters left in the early game. After a while you start relying on your army and then you become too important for the cohesion of the army to do any fighting at all. At that point the Horse is to get you to ride around a bit and scout the terrain from a distance and have an overview of the battle as you order your various formations around from a slightly elevated position
And why is not buying spoiling food unrealistic?
由板主最后编辑:
I justify everything I buy for entertainment by how much I enjoyed it, why wouldn't I? I look to the number of hours I play any game as a marker of how much I enjoy it. Its not the only thing I use, but it's the easiest to use when explaining how much I enjoys something.
As for mods, I would pay for the right ones. I look at games like Skyrim or Conan Exiles that modders have added a lot of replay. Again, why shouldn't I use that as a way to be happy with the price I payed for the entertainment I received. The games were designed with support for modding. The modder couldn't build the base game or they would have by now.
Modders can only mod the game because the Devs put a lot of effort into making the game easily modifiable. Some part of your 50€ goes into mod tools and stuff.
Not sure if you are making a good point considering the amount of people who complain about 8 years development time...
Don't know man, my favourite team played pretty poorly last year and there was more frustration than happiness and we didn't even get to finish the competition so there wasn't much enjoyment, I still payed 185 € to renew my season ticket 5 minutes ago and next month after the next paycheck I'll do the same for my kid. And I have to look at the flag of our biggest rival every day because the neighbor across the street hangs it out his window every year when they become champions, causing a certain degree of frustration. It's all still worth it
I also bought the latest warhammer II dlc even though I don't play as elves or greenskins and never will so there won't be any enjoyment but I got swept away with the hype over on reddit.
Bannerlord is something I still enjoy and play so I don't get the sense that I wasted money on it, there's also future enjoyment to take into account, once the game is fully fleshed out and mod tools are released there's a good chance you'll be enjoying this game and it's many mods for years to come
最后编辑:
All of the mod tools we currently for warband have were developed by modders, with the exception of the script compiler which is about 5 times slower and buggier than a compiler made by a modder called Lav. Warband was not "designed" for modding. Even editing models in the early days required the use of a hack. It has some script functionality but it is slow, poorly written and doesn't allow access to core mechanics like combat, AI or pathfinding without workarounds.
Also, a lot of the modders who made overhaul mods for warband are now making their own games (me included).
That's not entirely true jacob, They did release a whole bunch of module files back in the day, all that python stuff was released by Taleworlds, before that it was guessing what all the numbers meant remember? There was great cheering on the forum back then, what modders did was create extra tools to make the modding easier
Not sure how that's related to Bannerlord Modding support.
The module files are what I meant by "script functionality". But if you want to edit the world map, add models, edit the font, change items / troops / characters or edit parts of the UI, you have to use 3rd party apps, and for most modders this is the bulk of the work. There is only one "official" mod tool.
There currently isn't any, so there's nothing to discuss there.
Just not to exaggerate this discussion, a few points:
The tactical map: In reality you would have captains leading their platoons based on previously defined orders, which you cannot give. A basic map would enable you to tell your troops what to do and where to move - in reality you could tell them by shouting or pointing, here you can't, except if you are on a hill. So a map just would give you abilities back, which you loose because of the artificial nature of a computer game.
spoiling food/dying horses: First one could be motivated by a much higher morale "injection" (as in Warband), second would simply add realism and challenge to a degree that you would expect and could circumvent.
logical troop recruitment: Never heard of a "lance system". It should at least be credible. Recruiting villagers was realistic, recruiting only from criminals makes every kingdom (btw also without distinction, -> faction diversity) rely on criminal bandits. That's not just unrealistic, but unlogical and unnecessary.
improvements in combat, tactics: Bandits would never charge you frontally. Spear armies were the most common thing in that time, thus the minimum measure would be to couch spears and enable a spearwall, which you can't. Tactics always include telling your troops WHOM to attack, not just to storm blindly into the next best enemy, clumping together. It does also not include battles with hundreds of soldiers ending a battle in under 5min.
deeper party management: What i mean is the management inside your own party. You should be able to decide whom you want to take with you in battle and whom to have as a reserve (why should i take recruits with me in the first line of battle?), and you should be able to sort your troops instead of sorting manually everytime a new type or tier of soldier enters your army.
working and logical AI: I think we mostly mean the same here. No faction behaved even closely logical on the world map, so far as i have seen.
different combat maps based on region: We get different "colours", yes. But there is just a small number of predefined maps. In 8 years i would have wished for a map decision based on how the terrain looks where the battle happens. E.g a fight near a bridge, between a lake and mountains could take place on exactly such a map with according starting positions. Complicated, yes, but something they could have achieved in that time.
Troop customization: No its not. A king would always be able to decide how their troops are equipped, and would do it according to cost, availability, enemies to expect and in part own cultural beauty measures. That's why historical equipment was what it was, and if the game would have closely realistic battle mechanics you would anyways come out close to them. But you would have the freedom to adjust your troops according to your wealth, to your enemies, to your own colours, and to your own battle style (archers or crossbowmen, lances or spears, swords or axes, horses or on foot...).
credible gender distribution: Instead of insulting blindly, you could have just read properly. Gender distribution means gender roles at least close to the historical/cultural models. Battania could have more women, even as leaders (see e.g. Boudicca) than the muslim oriented cultures. That would make the world more credible (-> faction diversity) and interesting. Rebel queens or shield maidens are credible for Sturgia or Battania, high ladies without or wild bandit oriented girls with armour for Vlandia, close to none for Aserai... Just as an example, open for deeper discussion.
Borders: A line on a map, distinguishing the land of one kingdom (or clan) from the neighbouring one. If you would cross that line with an army, no king would just accept that. But in M&B you can just do that without any consequences.
Most of those things would surely be easy to implement, increase depth, increase replayability, decrease the grindfest, but increase the duration of a playthrough. All of that without lowering the actual M&B experience for anyone. They just didn't, because they never actually thought about how to improve the game in its core. Instead they made it a bit more beautiful copy, more according to modern zeitgeist, thinned it out and increased the price.
Not really possible with this type of game I think, this isn't a total war game
It boils down to lords would not have permanent armies you'd recruit lances (groups of 10 men) from your fiefs for a campaign and then after the campaign they'd go back to working their fields doing other stuff, there was a mod that implemented this system for realism. If Bannerlord where to implement it I assure you people would go mad.
Also you don't just recruit from criminals
Spear bracing would lead to a million complaints about spears being too op and every battle being camping somewhere in spear wall formation and watching horses die. This is a game, no matter what type of fighting system you implement people will cheese it, there's allready a total war corner camp style left corner camp tactic to counter horse archers. Also you can have plenty tactical battles, my battles are constantly about setting up the infantry in a way to be able to cover the archers without blocking them from firing, and have the archers be able to support the infantry when enemies start engulfing the shieldwall, whilst you tell your cavalry to move to a certain position and then order it to charge, let them fight a bit, order them to reform at a certain place and then charging them back in etc.... Sometimes I make more tactical decisions during a battle in this game than in a total war battle
A million people have asked for spear bracing by the way (including myself) but it would inevitably be followed by a million people who love to gloriously charge screaming that the spears are op and must be nerfed or the bracing must go.
The units who are on top in your roster, are the first to join you in battle, the ones in the bottom the last
armies in this time period would be formed based on what's available for the miserable peasants pressed into a fyrd, kings didn't get to customize their troops aside from maybe a bunch of elite units. Even the Romans let their auxilia fight in their native weapons and armors
Sorry then, it's just when you hear someone complain about gender distribution online it's usually a neckbeard incel. I apologize for assuming you where one too. I want to mention that the asserai or any of the other factions don't have an outspoken religion for all we know the Asserai are Baal Hammon worshipers. I wouldn't assign gender roles to fictional cultures based on our biases of cultures that these fictional cultures remind us of
You are a traveling merchant, mercenary, later vassal of a king if you leave the kings holdings well enough alone they won't bother risking their forces over it why would they? Kings didn't think in terms of national borders back then and they weren't always that powerful heck the French king held barely any authority outside of the Île-de-France and it could be dangerous for the King of France to venture outside of this hold around Paris to tour the rest of the Frankinsh kingdom of which he was king
