Yep the best argument for defending both games. Now I see it. #mademyday
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Bannerlord needs to learn from Warband
- Thread starter King Harlaus The Fat
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
This is a sandbox game, there isn't a point to much beyond doing what you feel is fun RP wise. If you need a point for marriage in Warband, there one is. You might disagree with it, but tons of players saw a point in it and liked the feature.
Ur wrong, it's not suppose to be lifeless because it's a sandbox game, I think there should be characteristic lords, companions and ladies. Calling this a sandbox game is not that simple to use as a defence. Because characteristic gameplay is one of the factor that holds you in the game and pushes your boring line further.
Fixing the lifeless gameplay is maybe not the priority but it's a must.
The map is way bigger and there is much more lords, so having more forgettable lords in BL is I guess understandable. But the relation with lords seriously useless.
One thing I wanna see most is the spesific companions than the randomize ones(blabla the iron fist... ughh) I wanna find a doc. like a Jeremus, fighter like a Rolf, waifu like a Yennefer
. I wanna Try to have a balance between companions and make sure they don't hate each other. And sometimes seeing Kings wanting my companions for sometime making me realise their importance. That's why I care about my companions in warband but not in the Bannerlord. I accually don't even wanna suit em up with armors as well because I don't care about them. They are lifeless.
So I hope this is one of the feature that TW is planning.
The map is way bigger and there is much more lords, so having more forgettable lords in BL is I guess understandable. But the relation with lords seriously useless.
One thing I wanna see most is the spesific companions than the randomize ones(blabla the iron fist... ughh) I wanna find a doc. like a Jeremus, fighter like a Rolf, waifu like a Yennefer
. I wanna Try to have a balance between companions and make sure they don't hate each other. And sometimes seeing Kings wanting my companions for sometime making me realise their importance. That's why I care about my companions in warband but not in the Bannerlord. I accually don't even wanna suit em up with armors as well because I don't care about them. They are lifeless.So I hope this is one of the feature that TW is planning.
I didn't say it was supposed to be lifeless. Perhaps you should re-read my post and get the meaning before responding to me.
You can 100% play Warband as a map painter, without RPing. The design and most of the supporting mechanics encourage it, and the game itself explicitly places world conquest as both a theme and an end goal. Maybe Armagan intended a wife to be useful to the goal but Warband missed the mark there.
(It also sucks and is a grind, but that's an aside: they clearly meant for a player to do it.)
How?Fixing the lifeless gameplay is maybe not the priority but it's a must.
The map is way bigger and there is much more lords, so having more forgettable lords in BL is I guess understandable. But the relation with lords seriously useless.
One thing I wanna see most is the spesific companions than the randomize ones(blabla the iron fist... ughh) I wanna find a doc. like a Jeremus, fighter like a Rolf, waifu like a Yennefer
So I hope this is one of the feature that TW is planning.
Relations with lords play a role in defection, marriage, Influence gain and excecution. What should they do? A tournament for your sake. A bottle of wine as a birthday present? OK I went a bit overboard but "useless" hit my mark.
Regarding the companions with a background and all this sort of stuff like " look here is the city I was born". They die in battle. You will hire new ones, they say the same or do the same and die again in battle. There is no reason for a deep relationship model between companions as long as there is the dynasty model.
And why do you think being able to play it a certain way or not has any relevance? I can play the game without ever trying to become king or raiding. Just because you can do something or avoid doing something doesn't mean there isn't a point to it...it only means you do not see one.
I think @Apocal is one of those minmaxers that use minimum effort for maximum efficiency in playing the game, and then ironically complains about soulless grinding, while sneering at non-optimal roleplaying.
In truth, Armagan and co. wanted an open-ended sandbox game that could be played in different ways, with a RPG style supported by its RPG elements, but not forced upon the player.
In truth, Armagan and co. wanted an open-ended sandbox game that could be played in different ways, with a RPG style supported by its RPG elements, but not forced upon the player.
Possible death only makes relationships more intense, if they were built up by the game in the first place (which is the real problem with BL). This is not really a multi generational game where there's no point in being invested in PCs or NPCs, the time scale is still at one or two generations until you quit.
I'm not a minmaxer. I won't do things that are literally useless but I don't run anything close to minmaxed playthroughs in Warband or Bannerlord. I don't smith, for one obvious example.
Think of it as playing Total War with first person battles. Or chess; nobody is thinking they are controlling an actual medieval kingdom on a chessboard but people play chess for years just because it has that sort of depth* to it. So I play it like a strategy game, and I don't really RP in Warband because it is a bad game for that. My favorite mod, 1257, recognized that much, which was why the companions there were just archetypes who never missed the opportunity to shut the **** up.
...because you brought it up?
Like, I said marrying had no actual benefits unless you liked RPing (inclusive). You said there was no reason to do anything in Warband except RPing, which is only true in the loosest sense of the word. Other mechanics worked to give the player an advantage towards the (loose) goal of conquest. Marriage didn't.
*I'm not saying Warband strategy is as deep as chess, to be clear.
Last edited:
I think you are confused on what I was getting at. Let me explain again.
You responded to Vader that there was "no point" in marriage for Warband. I then responded to explain to you that nothing in games like this has a "point", it comes down to the RP value for the individual person. Thus, even if it meant nothing to you, it meant something to someone else.
So your next response (about it being a world conquest game, which would still be an RP mechanic for one to follow) held no relevance to my argument of "value", because the game is about whatever you want it to be, that there is value in every feature of the game, only that they may be valued differently per person (e.g, you not caring about marriage in Warband when others do). That was the entire point you completely failed to understand.
JohannTheFirst
Veteran
This argument seems to boil down to the usage of RP value. Usually you'd express some kind of immersion in the actual role you play as a character as RPing, while you seem to use it to essentially include whatever goal a specific person might set themselves during a playthrough.
It seems you'd say we play the role of whatever leader we choose in a total war game, for example, which is technically correct, but quite uncommon to be emphasized in such a way, making it (implicitly) an RPG. In command and conquer I'd be roleplaying as well, etc.
Though I'm not sure that the argument couldn't be made that someone simply doesn't immerse themselves as the character, that their goal has nothing to do with the character they play and is simply something they encourage themselves to do despite whatever role they have within the game world.
Either way, RP reasons or not, ideally mechanics in a game should have some sort of connection to the overarching game. It doesn't necessarily cost much to add features that aren't really tied into other mechanics, but neither does it bring much to the table. On the flipside, it doesn't really cost much to tie them in either.
It's also possible, and very good game design, to design mechanics in a way that could be situational, with pros and cons.
Edit: For example, a marriage could need to be maintained with a greedy spouse. Gaining massive advantages through your own clan in land/numbers, but if your spouse is materialistic he or she might demand gifts from time to time, or betray your trust. It would not only add to "RP value", but also be relevant for other decisions and situations in the game. It's all just a matter of how fleshed out a system truly is.
Last edited:
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.
And? That's the point. There are purposes to it that you throw aside because you do not see them as such, but that does not make them any less to others (and that's why they don't like the rather lacking marriage features in Bannerlord). The entirety of my argument is that whatever X reasons are, that is a point to people, that's why it matters. Basically, even if it is just for an RP purpose, that's a point, a very crucial one I might add in a sandbox RP game. Quoting yourself saying exactly what I already knew and directed my argument against is meaningless.
Do you know what "unless" means?
I think you are failing to grasp my meaning. I'm aware you chalked it down to an "unless", the point I was making that there is no "unless", the game is not designed like that. All features boil down to what the person desires to do within their RP experience, and each person sees it differently. Do you understand now?
I said that marriage was an RP-only thing in Warband, it didn't give you any advantages otherwise. If you think it was for purposes of RP, then there isn't any disagreement. If you think there was some mechanic attached to marriage that advantaged the player, then say what it was. I played a lot of Warband and never found any.
Maybe there was a mod that added that stuff in, I wouldn't know (except for 1257, where she was just as useless).
No. Your original comment to Vader said there was no point to it, beyond RP. But the problem with that statement is that itself, the role playing aspect, is a point. That was what I had responded to.
Your argument after that original comment was that it has no mechanic benefit, but that is also incorrect, though I chose to focus on your initial argument of it not having a "point". 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.
