I fixed it for you and you are welcome.
-
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
You don't get marshall benefits from being married. Straight-up. It does not happen. As the for the rest, either it doesn't work (****head lords still defect; you can't force them to attend a feast) or it is an also-ran, i.e. not an additional advantage. It doesn't offer anything unique, exceptional or useful outside of RP elements (which, again, are important to some people).
But when people say "daggers and throwing knives are pointless in Bannerlord" they don't mean they do zero damage. Daggers and throwing knives plainly do damage, but that's all they do and objectively worse than everything else. if they were the only weapons you could smuggle into a city or something, that would be a point. If they had a special armor piercing mechanic, that would be a point. When I wrote "marriage in Warband is pointless, unless you like throwing feasts" it was in the same vein, except I explicitly acknowledged the RP value for some people. I want marriage to offer something unique, something that isn't just the same warmed-over +bonus applied to my sheet of big numbers.
Since you really seem to want to go this route, if I wanted to argue for its own sake, I would have led with something incendiary then insulted you directly.
Let's me put it down simpler.
Even if it doesn't always work (never had a problem with it myself) or you can achieve the same thing elsewhere, what does it disapprove about there being benefits? Most of the game had bugs in its mechanics and didn't always work 100% of the time. It happening within the marriage mechanics doesn't discredit its value. And if it does, then according to your logic, nothing within the game had its point and or benefit because it broke often.
The simple fact is, you were wrong on accounts and you cannot even admit it.
Oh...is that so?
...
Also:
The simple fact is you keep stating features that don't work the way you think they do or just outright don't exist in Warband.
Once again, you have shifted your goal post. Now it's that it doesn't offer working 100% benefits, when before that it was that it doesn't offer something new as a benefit, before that it was "there are no benefits" and then before that your claim of "there is no point". This is just getting sad.
I stated one that doesn't work entirely the way I originally stated (marshal position forever, but I did state that forever part might be a bug) but you can still claim it as a benefit. Every other benefit exists within Warband, bugs causing them to break sometimes withstanding. And until you prove they do not exist within native Warband I will not take you seriously hereon.
Although, I do see that you cannot answer my question in that last post. I'll take that as your concession about being wrong on all fronts.
Three actually: A wife doesn't give you a stash tab -- owning any castle or town does. And there is no way to gain a claim on a throne through marriage -- you can't replace a ruler through anything but claimants, whom you can't marry.
It wasn't a bug (AFAIK) that ****head lords wouldn't attend your feast.
?
That's two, first of all as you are talking about inventory and claimant marriage, not three. Secondly, it's already been stated I meant the benefit is the marshal earlier and conceded that you were right about marrying claimants. It appears you truly aren't reading my posts whatsoever.
And once again, towns or castles providing the same benefit doesn't mean it isn't one for marriage. It is still there even if you can get the same thing elsewhere. What part of this aren't you grasping? None of what you have said makes me wrong on what it overall does or wrong that it is in the game.
....what?
I'll provide it to you one more time. If you cannot do something so simple as to answer this question, then you can sit here and whine about it all to yourself:
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's the part of the picture he just refuses to see.
Your example + my two = three.
If you have a wife, but no castle or town, where does the stash appear?And once again, towns or castles providing the same benefit doesn't mean it isn't one for marriage. It is still there even if you can get the same thing elsewhere. What part of this aren't you grasping? None of what you have said makes me wrong on what it overall does or wrong that it is in the game.
Lords with negative relations will not attend your feast. ****head lords (the ones with bad personality types) start at negative relations and are difficult to keep at neutral (let alone get them up high). They are only ones likely to defect as well. You can't feast your way out of it because -- even at positive relations -- they (generally) won't attend your feast.
Other people might have different experiences there; dealing with ****head lords was easily one of the most frustrating, least fun things in Warband for me. Because they were balanced (again, IME) around eventually defecting with all the **** you gave them, no matter what or how much you did for them. I understand what the designers were going for but it was basically a trap for unwary players.
Asked and answered:
When I wrote "marriage in Warband is pointless, unless you like throwing feasts" it was in the same vein, except I explicitly acknowledged the RP value for some people. I want marriage to offer something unique, something that isn't just the same warmed-over +bonus applied to my sheet of big numbers.
Of course I can do the same thing but worse. But why would I, unless I was roleplaying?
Riffraff99
Veteran
Yes, its empty, full of RNG based mini games wich force you to save scam, characters no matter if theyre minor or major important like Bobs or Ragnars are dead borig, AI is stupid like fffffff, autoresolve breaks kinda the game experience and just delays the uninstalling of the game.
What example? Your vagueness is starting to be a clear indicator of trolling behavior. No true claimant marriage (marshal/claimant is the same thing here in context as it's been stated numerous times now that's what I meant) and inventory space. That's two things, though the later is not incorrect of me to state, because it is a thing and it being something you can get another way does not mean I'm wrong.
That doesn't mean marriage doesn't help negate desertion in some way.
I just don't what other way I can put this to get it through to you.
Good thing bugs and or it not functioning 100% without fault wasn't the topic. It is that those benefits exist in the first place, which was one of your many revolving arguments.
Nope. That's not an answer to my question. I can't say I'm surprised.
Thank you for proving to be a waste of time in the end. ?
The one you wrote, that I quoted.
?
If you get married without a castle or town, where does the stash appear?
Likewise.
It's what makes Bannerlord hit so hard in that regard. Even if Warband had a lot of issues and room for improvement, that old, broken game still managed it in a far more interesting and "better" way than Bannerlord has. I used to think it was something that would just come later, but after finding out that fixing NPCs is not on the SP roadmap, I've lost all faith in it.
JohannTheFirst
Veteran
I didn't even see this edit earlier. I do not believe I need to "slander" you.
You seem to be completely oblivious to the tone of your own writing. Meanwhile, for the past two pages of a thread that could have been an interesting read, that may have brought forth some valid points, you've been blocking any conversation simply because you either do not understand the most basic application of language in context, or because you're hell-bent on making this some ego-masturbatory excercise where you need to hear someone else apologize for making a perfectly valid point.
You're correct, I do not speak for you, but if you even remotely understood his point, after nearly two pages of clarifications, there is -literally- no reason in continuing any of this, because he obviously did not mean "literally without a point", as in, "no person could or would ever use the mechanic". I can not fathom how this could not have come across throughout his answers. This even seems obvious when reading the original message you felt the need to comment on. One snarky "When marriage gives advantage xyz it's not literally pointless, is it? *smileyface*" from your side would have achieved exactly the same thing as your three pages of long winded and growing ever more patronizing replies.
Even here you continue:
He obviously sees them as advantages, but he wants something unique, something that is better than some sub-par advantages thrown together. He explicitly stated this in his answer to you. Yet, you once again completely nonsensically refer to "changing the goalposts". No goalposts have been changed. He used language effectively, slightly exaggerating to make the point that even the way Warband handled marriage was simply sub-par. It's not rocket science. Quite frankly, it's hard to believe you're arguing in good faith when your main complaint is based around a stylistic device a person used. I initially only butted in thinking there was a misunderstanding here, but apparently I was wrong.
Anyway, now I'm truly out. This was about as futile as it gets. You do you. And for the record, marriage in Warband was pointless.
There is nothing aggressive about my tone, at all. If I do not believe you to understand my point, I will say it. If I think you are not being serious, I will ask it. Doing so does not, in any way, indicate I am angry or being aggressive. It's called a debate. If you cannot handle it and see attacks in every word, do not lay that on me by acting as if I were attacking you when I wasn't. It's childish.
And yet you see a reason in continuing it, despite there being no reason to do so? That certainly makes sense. Or is this a "last word" sort of thing?
And no. Clarification would have entailed explaining that was what he had meant from the start, but instead, he provided several different arguments after all the others were dismissed. I do not think you know what it is you are talking about, otherwise, you wouldn't be so bent on the idea that this was a misunderstanding on my end when his last few posts even reinforced that he just had multiple revolving arguments. You were either not paying attention at all and thus arguing from a position you are unwilling to reflect upon, or you are arguing just to argue.
At the risk of you feeling attacked again for no real reason; no, and I am assured in the fact that you not understand a thing being discussed. Not understanding the incredible importance of wording and the context it provides, for example.
If his intent always meant benefit (it wasn't) he wouldn't have first tried to defend his argument of there "being no point", therein distinguishing the two. It was only later that it shifted to "there's no benefit", of which, in case you did not see that, I then answered within his new argument's context. However, it then shifted numerous times afterward to "well other mechanics offer those same benefits" and then to "well, those benefits don't always work" and then to "well I don't see the point in marriage offering those mechanics when others can achieve it". Every single time I provided reasons as to why his argument was incorrect, he changed his argument to shift what evidence counted. That's called changing goal posts, even should you not "fathom" it. I will provide you a quick link so that you might learn what that means.
Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia
You cannot fathom, yes that's true, and if no other words can reach you I cannot help you further. No one can. And it is entirely up to you to find some grand assault on your character from those words or not, but it doesn't mean that's the real aggressive intent behind them. I'm used to seeing this sort of deflecting tactic in debates, from all sorts of people. It never works out for them, their arguments are always shallow despite it.
I'm sure.
That's cool, think whatever you want. And hey, maybe this means you now grasp the difference between a point and a benefit within this argument's context.
I guess you are right about first one but why do you think it is not necessarry to have a deeper connection with compainons ? Btw giving the example from warband is not smart. This is a new generation game and what you know maybe they're gonna give a better perspective for companinons so we can have connection with em ? I'm not blaming Tw to not having this feature.... I just wishing.
You just keep saying people ''you don't understart my point'' but accually you are the one who understand sentences differently. I said it's not suppose to be lifeless because it can be. As I say down there it's not priority but it's a must. İt's a sandbox game yeah... But why ever someone don't want that as a bannerlord feature ? Making a sandbox game doesn't mean it can't have a deeper connection with other npc's
You responded to me out of nowhere with a "Ur wrong, it's not suppose to be lifeless because it's a sandbox game," as if I had said otherwise, when I never even insinuated it. So yes. You very clearly didn't understand what I said. At all.
Again, never said otherwise.
Then next time you can avoid to start a discussion about it and just be agreed or ignored. Thanx
You quoted me first. ?
Instead, how about you actually learn to read people's comments before you respond to them?
+1
