Bannerlord needs to learn from Warband

Do you agree with my points?

  • Yes

    Votes: 42 70.0%
  • Somewhat

    Votes: 8 13.3%
  • No

    Votes: 10 16.7%

  • Total voters
    60

Currently viewing this thread:

Apocal

Master Knight
Though to answer your later argument, it gave you the ability build relations, prevent vassals from defecting and depending on who you marry, provide you a claim to the throne. And if I remember correctly, there was also a house inventory to store items. That's a benefit to the player to wedding someone. Now if you do not find that a benefit worth pursuing, that is another argument altogether.
  • You build relations by catch-and-release, attending any feast (not just your own), and running missions. There is also the semi-hidden method of gaining Honor, which makes all the good personality lords like you by default, even if you've never met.
  • Your spouse doesn't actually prevent your vassals from defecting, it is tied to personality types (never recruit ****heads) and their relations with you but ****heads wouldn't attend your feast.
  • The stash comes with any castle or town. Or workshop, effectively.
  • There are no claims on the throne in native Warband, unless you mean the actual scripted claimants. However you can't marry claimants (or rulers).
Like I said, I played a lot of Warband.
 

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
You build relations by catch-and-release, attending any feast (not just your own), and running missions. Your spouse doesn't actually prevent your vassals from defecting, it is tied to personality types (never recruit ****heads) and their relations with you but ****heads wouldn't attend your feast. The stash came with any castle or town. There were no claims on the throne in native Warband, unless you mean the actual scripted claimants however you couldn't marry claimants.

The ability to gain relation or get a crown or whatever else in another way doesn't mean marriage didn't have its benefit. You claimed there wasn't. I proved you wrong. Now you are changing the goal post again to something like this? Are you actually being serious? If you are, yes, she doesn't physically run out and slap them or put them in chains etc etc to keep them from leaving. Your arguments are getting more ridiculous by the post.

edit

As for claimant marriage, yes and no? I don't think native had pure claim rights allowed to claimants, you are right, but it did throw you as Marshall forever (unless that was an unintended bug lol). Even if marriage claims were not a thing in Native, all the other benefits most certainly are. And are, of course, benefits regardless of being able to achieving similar elsewhere.
 
, though I chose to focus on your initial argument of it not having a "point".
Why? He already conceded to your argument. There's really no need to drag this out any further.

It does have a connection to the overall game. Just as going full caravan does etc does, it just isn't what is typically in a RPG. But then, it doesn't have to be nor need to be, because the difference between a full RPG and a sand-box RP game lies in that distinction. So saying, "marriage has no value" is incorrect.

If you want to suggest that what Apocal said about marriages in Warband is a non-issue, simply because he used a superlative you disagreed with, then I for my part vehemently disagree.

It's not a bad thing to have more choice, even for simple RP reasons, but having some meat around any mechanic, be it marriage or trade is always a good thing, no matter whether the game is a cRPG or a Sandbox. And yes, I for my part would say that during my playthroughs in Warband I felt that marriage was pointless.

Edit: To put it another way, if it doesn't feel like I'm married, after I married someone, it at least seems to be a wasted opportunity for the mechanic, if nothing else.
 
Last edited:

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Why? He already conceded to your argument. There's really no need to drag this out any further.

No he didn't, he just switched his argument? He came back with an entirely different argument, but that's not conceding to my original argument. A point and a benefit are not the same thing, especially within the context of a sandbox RP. One post was about points, and the other about benefits.

If you want to suggest that what Apocal said about marriages in Warband is a non-issue, simply because he used a superlative you disagreed with, then I for my part vehemently disagree.

No, he presented two different arguments. One cannot say what the "point" of a RP mechanic is in a game because it's up to the player to find a point in it, and benefits that these features provide you is a different matter altogether. If he meant the later from the start, he should have been more clear and because he was not, I responded in the context provided in the original comment (as in, his response to Vader).

It's not a bad thing to have more choice, even for simple RP reasons, but having some meat around any mechanic, be it marriage or trade is always a good thing, no matter whether the game is a cRPG or a Sandbox.

Firstly, there is a mechanic around it. Secondly, the value or depth of such is completely subjective to the player. Lastly, no one even argued that Warband had perfect marriage mechanics, not a single soul, so logically no one would ever deny that it could have been better or "had more meat around it". But see, that wasn't even the argument in the first place.

And yes, I for my part would say that during my playthroughs in Warband I felt that marriage was pointless.

Good for you? The RP mechanic and the benefits it grants was enough of a point to many players. The whole point of that part was that he cannot say that when his opinion does not speak for others.
 

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I think we can sum this up to:
some people like rp, some people don't.

when it comes to rp warband had the ambition but lacked in many ways
shadow of mordor showed how to do it right
bannerlord ditched it

I haven't played more than five minutes of Mordor, gives me severe motion sickness. How did they do it differently, if you do not mind me asking? It could be good sharing, if the devs are watching. They might get inspiration.
 
There was literally no point to having a wife in Warband though, unless you really liked throwing feasts for RP purposes.
Rephrased: If you really liked throwing feasts for RP purposes, marriage had a point.
The entirety of my argument is that whatever X reasons are, that is a point to people, that's why it matters.
There really isn't any argument here.
No he didn't, he just switched his argument? He came back with an entirely different argument, but that's not conceding to my original argument. A point and a benefit are not the same thing, especially within the context of a sandbox RP. One post was about points, and the other about benefits.
Ah yes, the cardinal sin, synonymously using "point" or "benefit" in regard to a question of gamedesign. Whats the point?

No, he presented two different arguments. One cannot say what the "point" of a RP mechanic is in a game because it's up to the player to find a point in it, and benefits that these features provide you is a different matter altogether. If he meant the later from the start, he should have been more clear and because he was not, I responded in the context provided in the original comment (as in, his response to Vader).
Alright. The discussion is still pointless, because you know what he meant. Him using "literally pointless" when he probably could have said "didn't provide enough of an incentive to do so for my playstyle" makes no difference.
Firstly, there is a mechanic around it. Secondly, the value or depth of such is completely subjective to the player. Lastly, no one even argued that Warband had perfect marriage mechanics, not a single soul, so logically no one would ever deny that it could have been better or "had more meat around it". But see, that wasn't even the argument in the first place.
If you want to suggest that what Apocal said about marriages in Warband is a non-issue, simply because he used a superlative you disagreed with, then I for my part vehemently disagree.
That about covers it. Then I do not vehemently need to disagree with you.

Good for you? The RP mechanic and the benefits it grants was enough of a point to many players. The whole point of that part was that he cannot say that when his opinion does not speak for others.
Yes, good for me.

I understand what you're saying, but it seems nitpicky to continue this when at least I get the impression that his overall intention is just to say that while it was a mechanic, the realization of that mechanic simply wasn't enough for him, or many other players that do not RP in the strictest sense, when there are many other mechanics that lend themselves just as well to RP, but also provide tangible game-changing benefits.
 

XDaron

Knight at Arms
I haven't played more than five minutes of Mordor, gives me severe motion sickness. How did they do it differently, if you do not mind me asking? It could be good sharing, if the devs are watching. They might get inspiration.
it is a very simple system (with complex outcomes), there is a good explanation on the wiki https://shadowofwar.fandom.com/wiki/Nemesis
to put it simply, the nemesis system made every single character highly unique while being semi-procedually generated, to a point you would remember many characters you met through out your play-through

 

Apocal

Master Knight
The ability to gain relation or get a crown or whatever else in another way doesn't mean marriage didn't have its benefit. You claimed there wasn't. I proved you wrong. Now you are changing the goal post again to something like this?
You: "Here are things a wife does for you."
Me: "A wife doesn't do most of that. The one thing she does you could do already."
You: "Why are you shifting goalposts?"
🤔
Between you being angry that I don't RP in Warband and your shaky memory about what was and wasn't a feature in Warband, I'm not really interested in continuing this.
As for claimant marriage, yes and no? I don't think native had pure claim rights allowed to claimants, you are right, but it did throw you as Marshall forever (unless that was an unintended bug lol).
You lost marshall after the claimant war, usually instantly due to controversy.
I understand what you're saying, but it seems nitpicky to continue this when at least I get the impression that his overall intention is just to say that while it was a mechanic, the realization of that mechanic simply wasn't enough for him, or many other players that do not RP in the strictest sense, when there are many other mechanics that lend themselves just as well to RP, but also provide tangible game-changing benefits.
Yeah, pretty much. Well-designed game mechanics are supposed to tie into other aspects of the game, not sit (totally or in-part) disconnected. I mean, husbands are insanely useful to have in Warband, because they allow you to strip troops from their garrisons and are an instant boost to your player kingdom. It is a crazy discrepenacy that makes all the real minmaxers use female characters.

Personally, I think BL does that a bit better by just having her as a possible governor, party leader or what have you. It still isn't really good but I don't think TW wants to add in that sort of politicking where a wife would be useful as something other than someone swinging a sword (why can't I send my wife to run down mercenaries to hire?) or sitting in a castle giving passive bonuses.

I'm not averse to RPing in general BTW, but it is hard for me to get into with M&B because the people don't act like people. If I ask my friend for a favor and he turns me down consistently, we're probably not going to be such great friends. If I get promoted over him but he keeps treating me as an equal in times and places where it would cause problems, then we're not going to stay friends for very long. Should I go way, way over him, there is every possibility we can't maintain a friendship. But there is no tension between characters, no give-and-take, nothing providing a meaningful space for conflict between characters. It is just embiggening numbers for boosts, which is lame and encourages me (personally) to approach what should be RP aspects as if they are just gauges to monitor and knobs to turn on a machine.
 
Last edited:

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
There really isn't any argument here.

Sure thing.

Ah yes, the cardinal sin, synonymously using "point" or "benefit" in regard to a question of gamedesign. Whats the point?

Are you joking? There's a big difference. He should not be surprised, nor should you, when he tried to use them interchangeably and someone worked off that. If his intent was "benefit", he did an exceptionally poor job of explaining that, going to the point that his argument even switched entirely.

If you do not see the point in distinguishing between the two within these contexts, I clearly cannot help you.

Alright. The discussion is still pointless, because you know what he meant. Him using "literally pointless" when he probably could have said "didn't provide enough of an incentive to do so for my playstyle" makes no difference.

Clearly I did not, if this is what he really. Do not think to speak for me and what I might think. If his intent was to mean "benefits of it", he should have said that instead and shouldn't have presented that as an alternative argument to the original "point" argument.

Yes, good for me.

I understand what you're saying, but it seems nitpicky to continue this when at least I get the impression that his overall intention is just to say that while it was a mechanic, the realization of that mechanic simply wasn't enough for him, or many other players that do not RP in the strictest sense, when there are many other mechanics that lend themselves just as well to RP, but also provide tangible game-changing benefits.

If you even half way understood, you would get it isn't about "being nitpicky". They are two completely different things and that difference changes the entire ground of any argument presented. Wording is important. It provides context. And in that, he continued on changing the argument as soon as I answered it within the context of meaning "benefits".

And even with that, it not being enough for him is again different to not have any point or benefit. There is a point and there is a benefit, only he does not personally see either of them.
 

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
You: "Here are things a wife does for you."
Me: "A wife doesn't do most of that. The one thing she does you could do already."
You: "Why are you shifting goalposts?"
🤔
Between you being angry that I don't RP in Warband and your shaky memory about what was and wasn't a feature in Warband, I'm not really interested in continuing this.

No, you shifted goal posts between the context of a point and a benefit, and that it is that you used them [the ability to do these things elsewhere] as an opposition against the benefits of marriage, as if their existence negated the benefits of marriage. Once again, changing your argument. First it was about points. Then benefits. Then when benefits were brought up, you argued that it isn't really since there are other ways of doing it. That's shifting the goal post.

And why do you think I'm angry? Because I...what? Because I dared to respond, to point out the problems with your argument? It has been my experience that people who respond with "you're angry/etc!" commentary are often deflecting.

You lost marshall after the claimant war, usually instantly due to controversy.

And? It doesn't mean it wasn't a benefit. Are you trolling me? Is that what this is?

You're really getting a tad too aggressive for my taste. I'm out.

No I'm not. I would ask you to point out how, but I know you will not be able to. If you cannot argue the point, that is perfectly fine, just don't try to slander me because you don't want to discuss it anymore.
 

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
???
I was saying you lost the marshall position after winning the claimant war, that was all.

Why bring it up against my quote? It has no relevance to the discussion at hand, as I never asked nor insinuated that you kept it. I only pointed out it was yet another benefit of marriage, which you had opposed.

If you are just going to keep shifting goal posts and throwing in random information in which no one argued against, then it is clear now how much of a waste of time this will be going forward.

You don't like conceding, do you? It is a quality.

Concession is a healthy quality indeed, but after the third post I started to realize that was not going to happen.

Imagine someone asking for milk at a restaurant and then saying, "no, I meant water" when the waitress arrives with the drink and then "No, I meant wine" when she comes back again and getting angry at her for not knowing what you wanted. I'm simply flabbergasted.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Why bring it up against my quote? It has no relevance to the discussion at hand, as I never asked nor insinuated that you kept it. I only pointed out it was yet another benefit of marriage, which you had opposed.
What?

You said you kept it forever, I was just saying you lost it afterwards. It was a totally neutral statement. I didn't think you were offering it as a benefit of marriage but... you don't need to be married to be marshall, just take up the claimant questline.
 

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
What?

You said you kept it forever, I was just saying you lost it afterwards. It was a totally neutral statement. I didn't think you were offering it as a benefit of marriage but... you don't need to be married to be marshall, just take up the claimant questline.

Alright then, you corrected a minor mistake of mine (which I had asked/stated it [the forever part] might have been a bug) about a specific detail of the benefit, my bad, but what is the point of only pointing out my mistake when the relevant discussion is its existence?

You originally said there was no point. I explained that you were wrong. You then asked for its benefits. I provided said benefits. Then you complained that because they existed outside of marriage it means less and then here and now, you got hung up on one detail of it not being permanent rather than the fact that it does provide a benefit, which you had opposed? Are you going to at least admit you were wrong on both those accounts, that there is a point and there are benefits? If not, you have been doing this the entire discussion, shifting and shifting your goal posts or deflecting entirely. If that is not your intent, you need to become more clear in what you are trying to convey because right now, it is not working.
 

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
it is a very simple system (with complex outcomes), there is a good explanation on the wiki https://shadowofwar.fandom.com/wiki/Nemesis
to put it simply, the nemesis system made every single character highly unique while being semi-procedually generated, to a point you would remember many characters you met through out your play-through


Thanks for the explanation, XDaron! That sounds incredibly cool! Imagine if Bannerlord had even that sort of feature for the lords/npcs or companions. It would be great to see it in potential love interests, but the non-player characters would actually become engaging. I think it's time I try this game, sickness be damned!
 

Apocal

Master Knight
If that is not your intent, you need to become more clear in what you are trying to convey because right now, it is not working.
The same as my first post: marriage in Warband is for roleplay purposes. There was no added advantage by getting married.
 

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
The same as my first post: marriage in Warband is for roleplay purposes. There was no added advantage by getting married.

But there are advantages to it just as there is a point for it beyond those benefits, whether or not you agree with the advantage being worth it is another discussion. How can you not think relation points, vassal desertion, marshal benefits etc etc are advantages for marriage but see them as advantages elsewhere such as catch-and-release, feasts etc? It makes absolutely no sense. No matter how you cut your argument, point or benefit, you are wrong. It's almost as if you are trying to argue just for the sake of it.
 
Top Bottom