Btw turning into a camp while waiting was good as well 
Standing like a brick in the world map in BL sometimes weirds me out
Standing like a brick in the world map in BL sometimes weirds me out
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
-
If you are posting SP feedback without an actual suggestion, please head over to The Keep - Singleplayer section.
Bannerlord's Gameplay Has Gone Backwards In Multiple Areas From Warband
- 主题发起人 five bucks
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
roffels11
Hmmm, most named features are not needed in Bannerlord or replaced in Bannerlord by other, sometimes better, features.
What I mean by this: (structure of the bulletpoints below: topic, in-game design/appearance, my opinion)
- Claimants and civil war are already in the game, actually they are the core of the campaign mode's story, as the Empire is in a constant civil war between three claimants until one faction wins with your help (or you decide to destroy all three of them).
- Feasts were a cute detail, but I participated in my 300 hours of playtime only at two and started one my own. Five lords and ladies standing around a throne-room were not that exciting to me. Sorry, but I'm glad they are not (yet) part of the game. Taverns and the everday scenes at the keeps are already more exciting and interesting than the feasts were (some ladies or lords read, others play boardgames, clan leaders sit on their throne with a bored expression in Bannerlord etc.).
- Reactive handcrafted companions: Everything in Bannerlord lives and dies, which is one of its best features. This applies to the companions too so a sort of "random generator" system is inevitable. In 1.5.8. companions and family members sometimes started talking to me when they liked or disliked an action I did. Since 1.5.9. they react frequently to my deeds they dislike based on their character traits and thank me for saving them after a prison break, for example. So this is already implemented well in the Early Access of Bannerlord and is nomore "missing" in the game.
- Dialogues: the clan system and the army system made these dialogues superfluous. In the clan menu since Beta 1.5.10. you can manage your parties behavior if you created a second or third party of your clan in the "parties" screen/submenu, so talking to them is unnecessary. Armies in the kingdom menu replaced the dialogues ("follow me", "raid a town", "patrol there") by the player leading the army whereever he/she/it wants the army to be. This also replaced the marshal system. In my opinion an improvement, as talking to every single lord telling what to do for the next five minutes was... "immersive" but got tedious fastly.
- Deserters, manhunters and other small factions: replaced by minor clans/factions. Read their descriptions in the in-game encyclopedia. There are clans such as the "Legion of the Betrayed" who are deserters, the "Hidden Hand" that are special criminals and so on. Plus once there is war in a territory more people turn toward looting and robbery which results in more looters and bandits instead of deserters... Not better, not worse - just a different approach to the same phenomenon.
- Escape, prison-break, intrigue, crime: Escape and prison-break are implemented into the game since 1.5.9. They are a bit different, but the outcome of these actions is the same it was in Warband. Intrigue is a good input, but I personally did not care for the intrigue quests in Warband and With Fire and Sword. They were ok and boosted your relationship with the lord/lady giving you said quest, but as a quest they were no outstanding feature in my opinion. We got a quest system concerning crime though, which is very similar to Warband's intrigue quests, so you should be entertained by these. The execution system is part of a new approach to the topic of "intrigue" as well as new options concerning how to exploit/torment villages and "devastate, pillage or show mercy" to conquered castles/cities (devious, dishonorable character traits are aquired by executing lords/ladies and the trait cruel is gained by devastating castles/cities). It is already nicer than the quests in Warband were and I hope that even more intrigue.
- Courtship and marriage in general: having a spouse in Warband, which you aquired by reciting some poems after meeting her during a feast where she just stood around, was only relevant for feasts, again a minor cute detail but no main feature of this sandbox-action-strategy game. Playing as a female character and offering yourself to a lord was more engaging, tactical and personal in Warband than the "male approach" I just described. In Viking Conquest children were implemented too, but they were more like an immersion feature than actual heirs to your title, if I recall correctly. In Bannerlord you talk to your potential spouse, meet with him/her, make gifts through the barter menu to win him/her and his/her clan over, talk at least two times about your views/personalities and then you may talk to his/her clan leader and marry. If this is not in-depth courtship, I don't know what is!
In Bannerlord marriage is not a small feature, a detail, but it is potentially the most important deed: spouses and children are the key to survival, because if your "main hero" dies, which he or she will someday, you can continue by playing as a family member aka your spouse, brother, sister or one of your children. As a bonus, you can marry off your children to other clans or recruit members of other clans into your clan by arranging a marriage with your child through dialogues and barter (daughters leave their current clan and join their husbands clan). Your children can be educated by your "main hero" and inherit their parents traits, which later influence some skills and AI-behavior, I think (not sure about that in 1.5.9 but it is true for 1.5.10). The only other game with a similar marriage system is Crusader Kings.
Opinion: Neither Warband nor Skyrim had this marriage, birth, heritage system although they offered the (cosmetic) option to marry.
- Lord duels and insults: They were indeed a fun element of Warband! Warband calculated relationship for individuals while Bannerlord calculates relationship for clans, which means several individuals, mixing reactions to actions with the individual character traits of the present individuals. Example given: If the player devastates a castle and has a merciful and a cruel lord in his army, the merciful lord and his entire clan loose relationshippoints (-1 or -2 relation with the player's clan) while the cruel lord and his entire clan like this action (add +1 or +2 relation towards the player's clan). I don't know is this could work in Bannerlords system. My knowledge of XML and potentally conflicting files in Bannerlord is too small to judge this topic. I think, it would be a fine addition to the game although the character trait system already covers this indirectly (read my example).
- Misc./sexism: In warband being a female warrior lead to a very challenging playthrough. Getting those Steam achievements was some hard work, I tell you! In Bannerlord, which has a more late antiquity/early medival setting there are no peasent women to train, but some few outstanding female individuals (Rhagea, Ira, X the Shieldmaid, X the Wronged, the female player character) that face phrases like "the woman who fights like a man" or "As you are no warrior you are free to go.", which are sexist but as we are talking about nobles a peasent cannot refuse to follow them. If the queen, duchess, countess, mistress of a noble or domina (Roman wife) of senator wanted you, the digusting peasent/plebs, to do something you better did exactly what she told you. My opinion: The sexism in Warband is actually sexism from the 17th and 19th/20th century. We have written sources/historical accounts of some noble women and some artisan daughters/wifes doing "their thing" in the middle ages, especially the second half. Being part of nobility and having money was more important in the medieval Europe than your sex was. It was more that special groups, such as artisans, nobles and clerics, had special rights/"priviledges" (modern term I dislike when talking about the middle ages), but the exact rights a person had inside this special noble or cleric groups could differ from town to town, realm to realm and year to year. What is true and sexist from our modern European point of view is that men tended to have the active rights (right to wage war, become "easily" a member of a guilde, becoming a priest etc.) while women tended to have the passive rights (their children were always of the status they had, if they married a noble man they would become instantly noble women without having to perform dangerous tasks etc.). Archeology gives us not many clues about the late antiquity/ early middle ages: somes cultures, like the Celts, southern Germans, Mongols or the Danish, seem to have had some more active, sporty women who were sometimes burried with horses and weapons. BUT: horses and weapons are actually a symbol of nobility, not war. The same is true for men: being burried with a (now rusty, blunt) sword does not make the dude a badass warrior. It tells us only that he was a rich and maybe noble person who could afford being burried with a sword. Findings on battlefields are an other topic...
- Swordsisters: they were an interesting troop type, that's for sure. They are covered by noble women/ladies and female companions in Bannerlord though, if you read the in-game encyclopedia articles of some women. Circumstances made them into swordsisters/shieldmaiden/amazones... whatever you want to call these female warriors. Your female player character is a swordsister too, if you play the campaign mode in which she looses her parents. In my opinion I would like to have a female trooptype for the Khuzait or the Sturgians, but in general the special noble women and tough companions are the more realistic approach, as we have historical accounts of some noble women and some artisan daughters/wifes doing "their thing" in the middle ages, especially the second half. (see: Misc./sexism)
- sieges: Nothing technical to say. In my opinion in Bannerlord they are as "good" or "bad" as they were in Warband (play vanilla/native Warband and you will see the same weird situations during sieges). The "multi stages" just have shifted from default ladders or towers and keep fights to creative storming by destroying gates, climbing walls with ladders, building rams or siege towers and fights on the city square and in the area of the gate. The addition of selecting and building siege engines and the ability to use them (A & D to move them, W & S to increase or decrease their range, left mouse button to fire) is a big improvement over Warband. They are not perfect but are there, so they are not a missing feature. If you need to fight inside a keep instead of the more fluid fight at the walls -> gate -> square, thats ok with me.
My opinion in exaggerated words: If these features were implemented the way the OP and other users imagine them to be implemented, Mount & Blade II Bannerlord would not be a standalone sequel but a clone of Warband with a different historical setting. Bannerlord would feel like a "next gen conversion mod/HD retexture mod" of Warband, so why not just play Warband with modifications then?
I'm sure such a "Warband HD 2.0" would be a good game, but I am happy the developers created a new engine, a new birth-life-death system... a new outstanding action-sanbox game with strategic and roleplaying elements instead copying a ten year old game.
If you like Warband better, than that's fine, but I like the new stuff and don't "miss" any of the old stuff, because the old stuff is playable by playing the old game. If I want the old features I can simply play the old game. It's not like Bannerlord erased Warband from your Steam library or harddrive and with Bannerlord's release playing Warband became impossible or forbidden.
Maybe I'm taking the nostalgia too seriously but, although I'm a dude listening to old Rock n Roll and Swing music in his freetime and fights with a sword during the weekend, I think nostalgia is no valid reason to stop progress. The implementing the content of the original post means stopping progress to me.
What I mean by this: (structure of the bulletpoints below: topic, in-game design/appearance, my opinion)
- Claimants and civil war are already in the game, actually they are the core of the campaign mode's story, as the Empire is in a constant civil war between three claimants until one faction wins with your help (or you decide to destroy all three of them).
- Feasts were a cute detail, but I participated in my 300 hours of playtime only at two and started one my own. Five lords and ladies standing around a throne-room were not that exciting to me. Sorry, but I'm glad they are not (yet) part of the game. Taverns and the everday scenes at the keeps are already more exciting and interesting than the feasts were (some ladies or lords read, others play boardgames, clan leaders sit on their throne with a bored expression in Bannerlord etc.).
- Reactive handcrafted companions: Everything in Bannerlord lives and dies, which is one of its best features. This applies to the companions too so a sort of "random generator" system is inevitable. In 1.5.8. companions and family members sometimes started talking to me when they liked or disliked an action I did. Since 1.5.9. they react frequently to my deeds they dislike based on their character traits and thank me for saving them after a prison break, for example. So this is already implemented well in the Early Access of Bannerlord and is nomore "missing" in the game.
- Dialogues: the clan system and the army system made these dialogues superfluous. In the clan menu since Beta 1.5.10. you can manage your parties behavior if you created a second or third party of your clan in the "parties" screen/submenu, so talking to them is unnecessary. Armies in the kingdom menu replaced the dialogues ("follow me", "raid a town", "patrol there") by the player leading the army whereever he/she/it wants the army to be. This also replaced the marshal system. In my opinion an improvement, as talking to every single lord telling what to do for the next five minutes was... "immersive" but got tedious fastly.
- Deserters, manhunters and other small factions: replaced by minor clans/factions. Read their descriptions in the in-game encyclopedia. There are clans such as the "Legion of the Betrayed" who are deserters, the "Hidden Hand" that are special criminals and so on. Plus once there is war in a territory more people turn toward looting and robbery which results in more looters and bandits instead of deserters... Not better, not worse - just a different approach to the same phenomenon.
- Escape, prison-break, intrigue, crime: Escape and prison-break are implemented into the game since 1.5.9. They are a bit different, but the outcome of these actions is the same it was in Warband. Intrigue is a good input, but I personally did not care for the intrigue quests in Warband and With Fire and Sword. They were ok and boosted your relationship with the lord/lady giving you said quest, but as a quest they were no outstanding feature in my opinion. We got a quest system concerning crime though, which is very similar to Warband's intrigue quests, so you should be entertained by these. The execution system is part of a new approach to the topic of "intrigue" as well as new options concerning how to exploit/torment villages and "devastate, pillage or show mercy" to conquered castles/cities (devious, dishonorable character traits are aquired by executing lords/ladies and the trait cruel is gained by devastating castles/cities). It is already nicer than the quests in Warband were and I hope that even more intrigue.
- Courtship and marriage in general: having a spouse in Warband, which you aquired by reciting some poems after meeting her during a feast where she just stood around, was only relevant for feasts, again a minor cute detail but no main feature of this sandbox-action-strategy game. Playing as a female character and offering yourself to a lord was more engaging, tactical and personal in Warband than the "male approach" I just described. In Viking Conquest children were implemented too, but they were more like an immersion feature than actual heirs to your title, if I recall correctly. In Bannerlord you talk to your potential spouse, meet with him/her, make gifts through the barter menu to win him/her and his/her clan over, talk at least two times about your views/personalities and then you may talk to his/her clan leader and marry. If this is not in-depth courtship, I don't know what is!
In Bannerlord marriage is not a small feature, a detail, but it is potentially the most important deed: spouses and children are the key to survival, because if your "main hero" dies, which he or she will someday, you can continue by playing as a family member aka your spouse, brother, sister or one of your children. As a bonus, you can marry off your children to other clans or recruit members of other clans into your clan by arranging a marriage with your child through dialogues and barter (daughters leave their current clan and join their husbands clan). Your children can be educated by your "main hero" and inherit their parents traits, which later influence some skills and AI-behavior, I think (not sure about that in 1.5.9 but it is true for 1.5.10). The only other game with a similar marriage system is Crusader Kings.
Opinion: Neither Warband nor Skyrim had this marriage, birth, heritage system although they offered the (cosmetic) option to marry.
- Lord duels and insults: They were indeed a fun element of Warband! Warband calculated relationship for individuals while Bannerlord calculates relationship for clans, which means several individuals, mixing reactions to actions with the individual character traits of the present individuals. Example given: If the player devastates a castle and has a merciful and a cruel lord in his army, the merciful lord and his entire clan loose relationshippoints (-1 or -2 relation with the player's clan) while the cruel lord and his entire clan like this action (add +1 or +2 relation towards the player's clan). I don't know is this could work in Bannerlords system. My knowledge of XML and potentally conflicting files in Bannerlord is too small to judge this topic. I think, it would be a fine addition to the game although the character trait system already covers this indirectly (read my example).
- Misc./sexism: In warband being a female warrior lead to a very challenging playthrough. Getting those Steam achievements was some hard work, I tell you!
In Bannerlord, which has a more late antiquity/early medival setting there are no peasent women to train, but some few outstanding female individuals (Rhagea, Ira, X the Shieldmaid, X the Wronged, the female player character) that face phrases like "the woman who fights like a man" or "As you are no warrior you are free to go.", which are sexist but as we are talking about nobles a peasent cannot refuse to follow them. If the queen, duchess, countess, mistress of a noble or domina (Roman wife) of senator wanted you, the digusting peasent/plebs, to do something you better did exactly what she told you. My opinion: The sexism in Warband is actually sexism from the 17th and 19th/20th century. We have written sources/historical accounts of some noble women and some artisan daughters/wifes doing "their thing" in the middle ages, especially the second half. Being part of nobility and having money was more important in the medieval Europe than your sex was. It was more that special groups, such as artisans, nobles and clerics, had special rights/"priviledges" (modern term I dislike when talking about the middle ages), but the exact rights a person had inside this special noble or cleric groups could differ from town to town, realm to realm and year to year. What is true and sexist from our modern European point of view is that men tended to have the active rights (right to wage war, become "easily" a member of a guilde, becoming a priest etc.) while women tended to have the passive rights (their children were always of the status they had, if they married a noble man they would become instantly noble women without having to perform dangerous tasks etc.). Archeology gives us not many clues about the late antiquity/ early middle ages: somes cultures, like the Celts, southern Germans, Mongols or the Danish, seem to have had some more active, sporty women who were sometimes burried with horses and weapons. BUT: horses and weapons are actually a symbol of nobility, not war. The same is true for men: being burried with a (now rusty, blunt) sword does not make the dude a badass warrior. It tells us only that he was a rich and maybe noble person who could afford being burried with a sword. Findings on battlefields are an other topic...- Swordsisters: they were an interesting troop type, that's for sure. They are covered by noble women/ladies and female companions in Bannerlord though, if you read the in-game encyclopedia articles of some women. Circumstances made them into swordsisters/shieldmaiden/amazones... whatever you want to call these female warriors. Your female player character is a swordsister too, if you play the campaign mode in which she looses her parents. In my opinion I would like to have a female trooptype for the Khuzait or the Sturgians, but in general the special noble women and tough companions are the more realistic approach, as we have historical accounts of some noble women and some artisan daughters/wifes doing "their thing" in the middle ages, especially the second half. (see: Misc./sexism)
- sieges: Nothing technical to say. In my opinion in Bannerlord they are as "good" or "bad" as they were in Warband (play vanilla/native Warband and you will see the same weird situations during sieges). The "multi stages" just have shifted from default ladders or towers and keep fights to creative storming by destroying gates, climbing walls with ladders, building rams or siege towers and fights on the city square and in the area of the gate. The addition of selecting and building siege engines and the ability to use them (A & D to move them, W & S to increase or decrease their range, left mouse button to fire) is a big improvement over Warband. They are not perfect but are there, so they are not a missing feature. If you need to fight inside a keep instead of the more fluid fight at the walls -> gate -> square, thats ok with me.
My opinion in exaggerated words: If these features were implemented the way the OP and other users imagine them to be implemented, Mount & Blade II Bannerlord would not be a standalone sequel but a clone of Warband with a different historical setting. Bannerlord would feel like a "next gen conversion mod/HD retexture mod" of Warband, so why not just play Warband with modifications then?
I'm sure such a "Warband HD 2.0" would be a good game, but I am happy the developers created a new engine, a new birth-life-death system... a new outstanding action-sanbox game with strategic and roleplaying elements instead copying a ten year old game.
If you like Warband better, than that's fine, but I like the new stuff and don't "miss" any of the old stuff, because the old stuff is playable by playing the old game. If I want the old features I can simply play the old game. It's not like Bannerlord erased Warband from your Steam library or harddrive and with Bannerlord's release playing Warband became impossible or forbidden.
Maybe I'm taking the nostalgia too seriously but, although I'm a dude listening to old Rock n Roll and Swing music in his freetime and fights with a sword during the weekend, I think nostalgia is no valid reason to stop progress. The implementing the content of the original post means stopping progress to me.
最后编辑:
İt was good in warband, though idk how it fits to bannerlord tbh. But having a feast was not bad before, after a tournament I was looking for a stunning girl to marry so I can honor her with my win. And seeing every lord in a one room and taking quest from them way easier like that or even suggest them something or ask. On the other hand I loved the feast because I can actually get in the scenes and see the lords feasting in there. You find it unnecessary but I'm sure most people would like feast in BL but I'm not judging you you may not like it. İn bannerlord having scenes are kinda useless. I just use shortcuts because it's... Well, shorter. I never go in the city except for buying a workshop, I never go in villages I mostly using shortcuts. Never ever going in the throne room. So after a while I wish to see some scenery but instead all I'm doing is roaming the map 7/24
Having a more characteristic companions was better in my opinion. I know people live and die but this should be optional. I think making a random companions was a bad idea for bannerlord. Maybe they should have try to make a system for having random or charasteristic companions according to option you choose of them to die or not.
Warband sieges was too basic however it's an old game. So idk if I should show understanding to TW for making a broke sieges because it's 2021. But it's clear that the bannerlord sieges are way complex that the sieges in warband. Hard path finding, breaking double gate, using the siege tools like catapult and battering ram, spliting the troops into 2-4 ways to enter the castle etc. So I think it's not gonna be easy but I believe devs will handle this fine and fix it eventually.
roffels11
Everything you wrote is fine, it is your opinion and our opinions differ. Good to know I'm not the only one who likes the sieges in Bannerlord better than the sieges in Warband! Glad you can appreciate the complexity of them, from a programer's point of view!
I understand this sentiment, but how much scenery you admire depends totally on you in Bannerlord: you have the option to enter any village/city/castle and walk to the notables or lords or just enjoy the surroundings, you could also teleport directly to their current location by clicking on "visit" and enjoy the surrounding this way too or you could simply use the short cut talk - it is your choice. (I like choices in videogames)
In Warband searching for a lady on a feast once was fun, but I never did it again after marrying in my first playthrough. In Warband walking around and searching for this guildmaster in Uxhal was fun and immersive one time, but it got tedious and a bit frustrating after understanding that every single guildmaster in every single town has a different position, which is not shown to the player (neither in the HUD like in Bannerlord by pressing Alt or asking a peasent to show you the way). Same goes for the village elders, who the player must walked up to. Searching and walking is cool once, but gets old fast. This is the reason why most mods included a new button in the town/village menu that teleported you to the guildmaster/villageelder. I'm not a huge modder myself and I enjoy my games vanilla/native the most, but this button was a great addition and saved me lots of headache.
In 2011 TaleWorlds added this button in "With Fire and Sword" and I loved "With Fire and Sword", exactly because visiting towns and talking to important NPCs was possible yet optional. I don't play videogames to get super immersed, but to have fun for an hour or two in the evening instead of watching TV. If I wanted hours of immersion and scenery, I would play "Kingdom Come Deliverance" by Warhorse Studios, not Mount and Blade by TaleWorlds. So shortcuts and optinal scenery is one of the things I like the most about Bannerlord, but I understand the wish for immersion at the same time - thankfully, we have both in Bannerlord and we can choose.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Thanks for the in-depth reply. Here's why you're wrong on most points though.
In Warband you could choose to support a different claimant for every single faction, and it would allow you to wage a civil war pitting members of every single faction against each other. You can't do that in Bannerlord. So it is not replaced.
Feasts provided a non-combative way to gain relation with other lords (important if you want to do a charm-oriented playthrough), gathered together lords and ladies in one place to make it easier to consult with them (which is important because tracking down lords/ladies to talk to is a pain in the ass right now), helped create longer periods of peacetime so the player can regroup their forces (since when lords are feasting they aren't out starting wars) and gave the player something to do during peacetime (which was a complaint in earlier versions of Bannerlord back when there wasn't such constant war) in addition to their immersion benefits.
Kind of like how currently, all the kingdom rulers have in-depth backstories and proper personalities (Caladog, Lucon, Rhagaea etc), but if they die, eventually they get replaced by another lord, or a randomly generated heir.
Right now Bannerlord wanderers only seem to react to winning a big battle or raiding a village. In Warband, companions would also react to having other companions in the party they didn't like, retreating, not having food, not being paid on time, failing quests, heavy casualties, raiding caravans, taking an action in certain quest like "return serfs" and "assassinate merchant", leaving troops behind to cover retreat, etc.
Warband companions also had more dialogue (both talking about their own story and the history of Calradia), which they revealed to you in on-map conversations triggered by visiting certain areas, and also when asking them if they would support you as ruler. Sometimes they would argue with your other companions, and sometimes they would tell you something they had in common. None of this is done by Bannerlord wanderers.
I'm not seeing you explain anywhwere how Manhunters are supposed to have been replaced. Like I said, Manhunters had the benefit of reducing the numbers of bandits when they get too high (which nothing in Bannerlord does, leading to massive bandit infestations) and of having a unique manhunter troop tree (which is not replicated in Bannerlord).
THAT is in-depth.
I don't think poems need to make a return, but the system for talking to other NPCs to find out a potential spouse's personality and gain an advantage in conversation was great. And we need more visits to a potential spouse because right now getting married in Bannerlord feels like buying a car.
"In Bannerlord you talk to your potential spouse 3 times about your views, then talk to their clan leader and give them money to get permission to marry. If this is not in-depth courtship, I don't know what is!"
Saying the 1200s were not highly sexist is just weird historical revisionism. In addition, the sexism of the Byzantines in the 1000s time period Bannerlord's based on was actually quite extreme.
There isn't actually any fighting in the city square in Bannerlord, except on a couple of maps where reinforcements route through there. What happens is that enemies sometimes run away a small distance into the city square if routing, but they don't fight. In Warband they would actually battle you, with troops spread all over the streets sections.
So that's not the same thing as actually fighting the enemy throughout the streets, and definitely not the same as fighting in a keep.
Just because another new, different feature exists in Bannerlord does not mean it replaces the original ones or fulfils the same role.
The feature itself is still not present. Therefore, it is missing.
A piece of backstory is not the same thing as the game mechanic of having civil wars.
In Warband you could choose to support a different claimant for every single faction, and it would allow you to wage a civil war pitting members of every single faction against each other. You can't do that in Bannerlord. So it is not replaced.
You didn't read the OP, which says there are many points to feasting than just the immersion side (keep in mind though, everything good you said about taverns/everyday scenes could easily be added to feasts too).
Feasts provided a non-combative way to gain relation with other lords (important if you want to do a charm-oriented playthrough), gathered together lords and ladies in one place to make it easier to consult with them (which is important because tracking down lords/ladies to talk to is a pain in the ass right now), helped create longer periods of peacetime so the player can regroup their forces (since when lords are feasting they aren't out starting wars) and gave the player something to do during peacetime (which was a complaint in earlier versions of Bannerlord back when there wasn't such constant war) in addition to their immersion benefits.
That's fine, but there's nothing stopping non-random companions with more in-depth backstories from being added alongside the random ones, and if they die, they get replaced by random ones.
Kind of like how currently, all the kingdom rulers have in-depth backstories and proper personalities (Caladog, Lucon, Rhagaea etc), but if they die, eventually they get replaced by another lord, or a randomly generated heir.
Bannerlord's traits system is barely implemented as it currently stands, and Bannerlord wanderers in general have a far smaller range of things which they will actually react to.
Right now Bannerlord wanderers only seem to react to winning a big battle or raiding a village. In Warband, companions would also react to having other companions in the party they didn't like, retreating, not having food, not being paid on time, failing quests, heavy casualties, raiding caravans, taking an action in certain quest like "return serfs" and "assassinate merchant", leaving troops behind to cover retreat, etc.
Warband companions also had more dialogue (both talking about their own story and the history of Calradia), which they revealed to you in on-map conversations triggered by visiting certain areas, and also when asking them if they would support you as ruler. Sometimes they would argue with your other companions, and sometimes they would tell you something they had in common. None of this is done by Bannerlord wanderers.
The clan/party management system is similar, I agree, but it does not let you tell vassals to go to a specific location without you. This is a significant difference for the purposes of actually trying to manage a kingdom. However, it might not be needed if they fix the strategic AI to stop being so stupid. We'll see.
Minor factions do fulfill the role of being a stronger neutral enemy, but they aren't ubiquitous like deserters were, and if you attack a single minor faction party you instantly commit to being at war with all of them and can't use them as mercenaries, which means attacking them has an opportunity cost (where Deserters didn't). Deserters also had an immersion component, since roving bands of deserters were a thing in real life. Additionally, TW made a statement pre-release that deserter parties were going to be created when AI parties' morale fell too low on the world map.
I'm not seeing you explain anywhwere how Manhunters are supposed to have been replaced. Like I said, Manhunters had the benefit of reducing the numbers of bandits when they get too high (which nothing in Bannerlord does, leading to massive bandit infestations) and of having a unique manhunter troop tree (which is not replicated in Bannerlord).
Fighting your way out when you fail to sneak into a town is not implemented in 1.5.9. Right now if you fail sneaking you just instantly get imprisoned.
None of those are even remotely the same thing as the political quests, what are you even talking about?
You're misremembering Warband. There you dedicated tournament victories to a lady, or rescued a relative of theirs in prison, or fought a duel against someone who had insulted their honor, to gain your initial boost of relations. Then you talked to NPCs like the bard to hear rumours about the lady's personality and what they liked. Then (if you had learned a poem), you could recite one appropriate to the lady's personality. Once courting, you might have to fight a second duel for a lover competing for their affections, or convince them to step down. Over a period of time the lady would send messengers asking you to come back and visit (more than just two times) which would require you to sneak into their chamber, gaining relation each time. Following all this, you could either gain the parents' permission, or even elope if the lady had high relation with you but not the parent (not possible in Bannerlord due to relations being tied to clans).
THAT is in-depth.
I don't think poems need to make a return, but the system for talking to other NPCs to find out a potential spouse's personality and gain an advantage in conversation was great. And we need more visits to a potential spouse because right now getting married in Bannerlord feels like buying a car.
"talk to your potential spouse and meet with him/her and talk at least two times" are all the same thing, and talking to clan leader and barter menu are in the same conversation, and paying money to the parents is a dowry not a gift, so your list boils down to:
"In Bannerlord you talk to your potential spouse 3 times about your views, then talk to their clan leader and give them money to get permission to marry. If this is not in-depth courtship, I don't know what is!"
I'm glad you agree, unfortunately a TW employee has said they think they "probably won't" return (in their opinion).
Yes, noble women could inherit land in the medieval period, and could tell their serfs to do whatever they wanted. However, you are getting that confused with acceptance of women in roles as a military commander among the rest of the nobility (which is where this is relevant) or being given new territory by a liege. Just look at Robert De Baudricourt's and Jean d'Orleans' reaction to a woman in a leading role.
Saying the 1200s were not highly sexist is just weird historical revisionism. In addition, the sexism of the Byzantines in the 1000s time period Bannerlord's based on was actually quite extreme.
No, they aren't. If you want an all-female fully sized war party in Bannerlord, you can't do that whereas you could in Warband. So they aren't the same thing.
Since ladders, siege towers, and fighting in the area of the gate were already a thing in Warband, we can boil your list down to "destroying gates and building rams".
There isn't actually any fighting in the city square in Bannerlord, except on a couple of maps where reinforcements route through there. What happens is that enemies sometimes run away a small distance into the city square if routing, but they don't fight. In Warband they would actually battle you, with troops spread all over the streets sections.
So that's not the same thing as actually fighting the enemy throughout the streets, and definitely not the same as fighting in a keep.
I don't think you really get what "missing feature" means.
Just because another new, different feature exists in Bannerlord does not mean it replaces the original ones or fulfils the same role.
The feature itself is still not present. Therefore, it is missing.
最后编辑:
roffels11
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I will think about these answers.
One thing I want to answer and counter right on the spot is "marriage".
From 1200 till roughly speaking 1600 A. D in central Europe "Minnesang" started, which is courting nobles by writing and receiting poetry. Before this aristocratic marriages went nearly 1:1 like they are displayed in Bannerlord: One side expresses interest, the other side considers the offer, ideally the spouses like each other, deal closed. That's as accurate as one can be in a videogame set in 1084.
Plus receiting poetry in Warband was, like courting is in Bannerlord, talking to a woman, talking again to her until she likes the male player character and ask her father/head of her family to marry her. Mechanically speaking, both games use dialogue screens and Picking the right option followed by paying money to accomplish this. To me there is no step backwards here, quite the contrary, they are equal in simplicity and historical accuracy.
Sexism in the middle ages is a topic that can be debated till the end of time. German historians at the university of Tübingen (Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen) claim, that the term sexism itself is pointless regarding the middle-ages as each class and each individual in each class had specific obligations to fulfill and rights. A simple statement like "men did X" and "women did Y" during "the middle ages", because of their penis or vagina, applied to a time period as long as 500 -1500 is not correct. I'm not saying you said this, but the OP wanted hard 19th century sexism for all cultures equally in 1084... that's neither historical accurate, nor backed by academic/scientific debate.
Civil war :
-In Warband: I recently made an entire playthrough with Arwa the Pearled One claiming Hakims throne, which you can see on my YouTube chanel. My faction in red, which works looks exactly like playing your own kingdom which is red by default, fought a war with the Sarranids in yellow until I destroyed the Sarranids. I received a message that the Sultanate was destroyed - end of the rebellion/civil war.
-In Bannerlord: If you play the campaign mode in 1.5.9 joining Rhagaea for example, then destroy Lucon's faction, you receive a message stating that said faction was destoyed - 1:1 the Warband experience. If you own 2:3 of all culturally imperial settlements you get the message that the civil war is over, very similar but not identical to Warband.
Other factions than the imperial don't have (obvious) claiments because the new lord/challenger is selected after the faction leaders death. But there always is one civil war trigger/claiment for every kingdom: you, the player! By choosing the Aserai as your culture during character creation, reaching Clan Tier 4 and conquering an culturally Aserai settlement you creat a new Aserai counterpart through the Kingdom menu. Than you do what you would do in Warband with the same result.
-> most differences are not mechanical, but in the players head. The only real difference is that Arwa starts with 0 fiefs while Rhagaea starts with 4 or 5 cities and some castles, but the messages and the result on the world map are the same.
link to my civil war playthrough in Warband:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGSz_qxr0Yd5TecHq_o8nxo4XQO8TkiGC
I agree that I misunderstood the term "missing", because to me replacing old systems with new ones and introducing features that can result in similar outcomes to the predecessor is the definition of a well-made sequel, in my opinion. If those features were in Bannerlord exactly the way the OP wanted them, I would not consider Bannerlord a well made sequel but an average sequel that makes no interesting changes, but is still a visual improvement over Warband in an interesting setting. Progress comes from change, not redundancy, don't you agree?
If you miss Warband so much, than play it or play diplomacy mod to add more politics to your Warband experience. Voi-là, no missing features but no progress either.
I've picked this tiny bit of your message since I wish so much to see Feasts included in the game.( see below )
Allow me to say that's purely an example of how your experience alone shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things, that your experience isn't my experience. I'm saying this of course because you seem to drive your main argument of your message from this said experience, or the lack of it.
What you failed to explain to us however is how this feature shouldn't be in the game, given how glad you are not seeing this.
Reading your critique I don't think you understood / felt how tedious it is to pursue behind each single Lord or Notable in the map just for the sake of meeting them. That of course is even more visible during peacetime ... Yeah of course you can meet them on their keep, if somehow the planets are aligned and they aren't doing whatever they're doing on the other edge of the map. It is simply boring. I have no words.
Currently the game hasn't a Messenger mechanic to contact those Lords, so to me Feasts is a feature that not only could please those nostalgic folks, adds a substancial amount of life inside the game but also could at the same time tackle some real problems we encounter in Bannerlord in a regular basis that needs somehow to be fixed.
It's clearly a win-win situation.
EDIT : Okay I didn't see the answer provided by @five bucks since I started my message yesterday when there were no answers yet. I let this one for the mighty posterity.
Allow me to say that's purely an example of how your experience alone shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things, that your experience isn't my experience. I'm saying this of course because you seem to drive your main argument of your message from this said experience, or the lack of it.
What you failed to explain to us however is how this feature shouldn't be in the game, given how glad you are not seeing this.
Reading your critique I don't think you understood / felt how tedious it is to pursue behind each single Lord or Notable in the map just for the sake of meeting them. That of course is even more visible during peacetime ... Yeah of course you can meet them on their keep, if somehow the planets are aligned and they aren't doing whatever they're doing on the other edge of the map. It is simply boring. I have no words.
Currently the game hasn't a Messenger mechanic to contact those Lords, so to me Feasts is a feature that not only could please those nostalgic folks, adds a substancial amount of life inside the game but also could at the same time tackle some real problems we encounter in Bannerlord in a regular basis that needs somehow to be fixed.
It's clearly a win-win situation.
EDIT : Okay I didn't see the answer provided by @five bucks since I started my message yesterday when there were no answers yet. I let this one for the mighty posterity.
There's no backstory in your character in Bannerlord to justify the endless battles. The game is barren in this department, it needs feasts, it needs robust town management, it needs a reason own a castle, it needs better companions so you care about them, it needs a reason to visit town scenes, it needs a deeper workshop feature, it needs a reason to visit throne rooms, it needs diplomacy of some sort, it needs bloody anything at this point to not be on immersion life support. Go play Nova Aetas for Warband, the difference here is night and day. Bannerlord is a robust economic simulator with battles, that's it. Not sure how any other interpretation is arrived at.
It is a bad game guys. And TWs knows it.
It is a bad game guys. And TWs knows it.
最后编辑:
roffels11
Interesting take on the feasts. For me it was more effective to target two or three lords and befriend them one after the other by questing for them and ignoring all the other lords of their faction. With this focused tactic the search for these few individuals was never a burden to me. I recently started a new character in Warband (native) and will try to exploit the feasts the way you did. Maybe this will change my mind about five noble NPCs standing around in a room staring at a wall (don't get me wrong, it's hilarious and I love it thus!).
So I will try out a "different experience" to see if I'll still think feasts are a "cute minor detail" or a "valuable feature" in Warband. That's more than most people would do in a discussion with a stranger, I think. (I got to much sparetime and, like the rest of us "warriors of Calradia", am wayyyyy too invested in this franchise...)Edit: After five more feasts, which makes seven I participated in my now 320 hours of Warband, I still cannot appreciate them from a serious point of view. The more I participate the weirder they become: "Let's raise our glasses to..." - the NPC has no glas and does not raise his hand but creepily stares at you; "You talked to my daughter without permission!" - the daughter, who looks older than his wife, is present at the feast and looks at an empty chair as if it was the most entertaining thing ever; finding one specific lord during a feast does not play differently than searching him on the map, because never all lords of the faction come together, but only a few, so the player asks around only to find out the lord he's looking for is at the other end of the realm... I think they are hilarious, but not useful. Sorry.
I could say the same to you. I could say your experience does not matter in the "grand scheme of things" as it was not my experience. But why should my experience weigh more than yours or vice versa? Let us return to the topic of "redundancies" or "missing features" in a sequel, because that is what I wanted to actually discuss in this thread.
Concerning Bannerlord I continue to think that feasts in the "Warband style" would be redundant, because finding a lord in Bannerlord is easier than ever.
1. Open the encyclopedia by pressing N on your keyboard.
2. Click on heroes.
3. Click on the lord/faction leader/wanderer you want to meet.
4. Click on his last known location in the upper right corner.
5. Click on the circle next to the location's name to mark it on the map. Go back to the lord's page which told you the current location by clicking on the back arrow.
6. Travel in the direction of said location BUT visit settlements along the way. This refreshes and corrects the last known location of the lord.
7. travel, visit, refresh, press N, travel, visit refresh, press N... With a bit of practice you will be able to find whoever you want with this method in no time.
In Warband: ask Lord X about the location of Lord Y, scroll through the list of towns, pick the right one, travel and ask Lord Z on the way where Lord Y was seen last, scroll again, travel - oh no! Lord Y was taken prisoner and you cannot find him. Bannerlord on the other hand tells you if he was taken prisoner by whom and when and Bannerlord tells you if the lord is free again and where he is now. In Warband not all lords of a feasting faction show up, but around 5, sometimes 7, so they are a way of contacting lords but not the way to keep in touch with the lord Y we wanted to talk to in my example. -> This makes feasts, in the manner of Warband had them, redundant. If I want to experience them exactly in the way the OP stated, well, I would play Warband. Redundancies are no missing features, in my opinion. Sorry.
To make my point clear in exaggerated words (take this with a grain of salt):
If TaleWorlds had announced on Steam, gog.com or in a trailer that there would be (a new kind of) feasts, I would speak of feats as a "missing feature". Currently that is not the case. Currently this is just a thread in a forum about features one player (OP) wishes to appear in Mount & Blade II Bannerlord, which he deemed to be important in Mount & Blade Warband. Currently I would call feasts and all features on the list, no matter whether I personally like them or not, "nice features from Warband". Pretending them to be missing as if there was an official trailer showing all these features is incorrect. This is what bothers me and this is why I countered the OP.
My opinion: If these features were implemented the way the OP and other users imagine them to be implemented, Mount & Blade II Bannerlord would not be a standalone sequel but a clone of Warband with a different historical setting. Bannerlord would feel like a "next gen conversion mod/HD retexture mod" of Warband, so why not just play Warband with modifications then? I'm sure this would be a good game, but I am happy the developers created a new engine, a new birth-life-death system... a new outstanding action-sanbox game with strategic and roleplaying elements instead copying a ten year old game. If you like Warband better, than that's fine, but I like the new stuff and don't miss any of the old stuff, because if I wanted the old features I would simply play the old game. It's not like Bannerlord erased Warband from your Steam library or harddrive. Maybe I'm taking the nostalgia too seriously but, although I'm a dude listening to old Rock n Roll and Swing music in his freetime and fights with a sword during the weekend, I think nostalgia is no valid reason to stop progress. The original post means stopping progress to me.
(If there are any typos or grammatical errors, don't be to hard on me. I'm not a native speaker, just a native player! XD)
最后编辑:
Fair enough, do want you please in the end. Mind you I'm specifically talking about feasts in Bannerlord and how it could shine in this game, given the long list of problems I encounter inside it.
I agree with you. Yes you could, of course, my experience is as important as yours in the end.
What falls short however is the fact that you seem to base your criticisim on the sole premise of your experience without elaborating it further.
( "I did this feature twice in a n amount of time so it's bad" basically )
Thus I can't see how this feature shouldn't be in the game reading your post, just saying that you didn't use this feature in Warband is not quite convicing I'm affraid.
I'm not against sharing our experience as a player, that's how a forum like this can live of course.
Now if we get to argue something in a saine debate, we need to put actual material on it ( like datas ), both of us can't speak for every players on this forum, let alone the actual playerbase of Bannerlord.
It is god damn relevant here because as I said earlier on my previous message, I'm not entirely talking about Warband but how the feature could shine on Bannerlord, basically tackling a lot of problems at once ( adding a substancial amount of life inside the game should be always prefered , or gimme the name of the 2-3 folks who like to play in a dead world like this.)
Why this has to be a copy-paste of what we are used to see on Warband ? Again I get that we are talking about TW, but it's fair to assume these feature could be enhanced to fit into Bannerlord just like any others features ( debatable ).
Without spending too much time on how you seem to think that 7 freaking points are " easier than ever ", it shows exactly how in my opinion you didn't seem to get the " substancial amount of life " part.
How entertaining is it to spend a significant amount of time stalking after the Lords in your Encyclopedia ?
There is no organic encounter in your process, to the point that you're treating Lords like another data on a freaking Encyclopedia, planning the "meeting" beforehand because who else will do it if not the player..., chasing them and tick a bland array of dialogues. That's it folks.
Very RPG of course.
This very type of experience you described to us is what raises a lot of criticism out there, and shut completely the premise of an immersion for the RP folks who do want to get immerged by the Mount & Blade experience.
We might aswell get the same entertaining result with a spreadsheet from Excel at this point.
Feasts, can tackle this problem, provoking encounters to the players, encounters in peacetime the player didn't actively plan, as an example this young woman, the daughter from this powerful Lord you could marry after a while.
Or just reassembling your Lords during peacetime given how tedious it is to have them in the same location. ( marriage arrangement for instance )
It's up to you and your imagination, but again on paper it adds a sizeable amount of life in this game, even if many players will actively discard it.
On a general note, I think it's fair to assume that Bannerlord as a sequel would enhance the vanilla Warband formula( note that I'm not setting a tremendous high bar here, given how people seem to wish TW to get some ideas from popular mods ), the same game developed by this same studio more than a decade ago.
Again in summary none of your points is proving me that adding more choices to the player should be bad, I think that's a game design 101 that's more choices and events are generally prefered in a game like this.
If it's done the right way of course.
It's up to the players to live their experience inside the features proposed.( as an example, yours in Warband )
Because you, you as a player seem to think that it's " okay " " it's not that boring ", it's easier than ever to meet Lords is by no means a solid argument on how we shouldn't see this feature in the game.
Javelins with the actual economic system in Bannerlord are uber broken, that's a fact, a thing that needs to be fixed.
Gate-keeping the addition of a feature which could add a more organic layer in this game because you think it's a redundant feature, that's debatable.
No worries , me neither.
Mind you I'm specifically talking about feasts in Bannerlord and how it could shine in this game, given the long list of problems I encounter inside it.I agree with you. Yes you could, of course, my experience is as important as yours in the end.
What falls short however is the fact that you seem to base your criticisim on the sole premise of your experience without elaborating it further.
( "I did this feature twice in a n amount of time so it's bad" basically )
Thus I can't see how this feature shouldn't be in the game reading your post, just saying that you didn't use this feature in Warband is not quite convicing I'm affraid.
I'm not against sharing our experience as a player, that's how a forum like this can live of course.
Now if we get to argue something in a saine debate, we need to put actual material on it ( like datas ), both of us can't speak for every players on this forum, let alone the actual playerbase of Bannerlord.
It is god damn relevant here because as I said earlier on my previous message, I'm not entirely talking about Warband but how the feature could shine on Bannerlord, basically tackling a lot of problems at once ( adding a substancial amount of life inside the game should be always prefered , or gimme the name of the 2-3 folks who like to play in a dead world like this.)
Why this has to be a copy-paste of what we are used to see on Warband ? Again I get that we are talking about TW, but it's fair to assume these feature could be enhanced to fit into Bannerlord just like any others features ( debatable ).
Without spending too much time on how you seem to think that 7 freaking points are " easier than ever ", it shows exactly how in my opinion you didn't seem to get the " substancial amount of life " part.
How entertaining is it to spend a significant amount of time stalking after the Lords in your Encyclopedia ?
There is no organic encounter in your process, to the point that you're treating Lords like another data on a freaking Encyclopedia, planning the "meeting" beforehand because who else will do it if not the player..., chasing them and tick a bland array of dialogues. That's it folks.
Very RPG of course.
This very type of experience you described to us is what raises a lot of criticism out there, and shut completely the premise of an immersion for the RP folks who do want to get immerged by the Mount & Blade experience.
We might aswell get the same entertaining result with a spreadsheet from Excel at this point.
Feasts, can tackle this problem, provoking encounters to the players, encounters in peacetime the player didn't actively plan, as an example this young woman, the daughter from this powerful Lord you could marry after a while.
Or just reassembling your Lords during peacetime given how tedious it is to have them in the same location. ( marriage arrangement for instance )
It's up to you and your imagination, but again on paper it adds a sizeable amount of life in this game, even if many players will actively discard it.
On a general note, I think it's fair to assume that Bannerlord as a sequel would enhance the vanilla Warband formula( note that I'm not setting a tremendous high bar here, given how people seem to wish TW to get some ideas from popular mods ), the same game developed by this same studio more than a decade ago.
Again in summary none of your points is proving me that adding more choices to the player should be bad, I think that's a game design 101 that's more choices and events are generally prefered in a game like this.
If it's done the right way of course.
It's up to the players to live their experience inside the features proposed.( as an example, yours in Warband )
Because you, you as a player seem to think that it's " okay " " it's not that boring ", it's easier than ever to meet Lords is by no means a solid argument on how we shouldn't see this feature in the game.
Javelins with the actual economic system in Bannerlord are uber broken, that's a fact, a thing that needs to be fixed.
Gate-keeping the addition of a feature which could add a more organic layer in this game because you think it's a redundant feature, that's debatable.
No worries
, me neither.
最后编辑:
roffels11
This is an excellent point you made. I can't counter this, so I will admit that in this you are completely right.
More choice combined with a "new" feast scene could indeed be a nice addition offering choices. By new I mean a bit more animation like lords raising a glass from time to time and ladies looking annoyed at there husbands who drink too much would be cute and a bit funny, I guess. It's a cliché, I know, but we are talking about games set in fictional middle ages full of clichés.
Of course the more convenient way for the developers would be to "copy" the tavern scene (position of NPCs, animations of talking, sitting and drinking people, using the same furniture mesh with a "more noble" texture, although - now that I think about it - many keeps have furniture for potential feasts). I would be fine with this too, because the taverns combine useful features (profitable deals, updating the prices in the trade menu, latest gossip about notables in need of a player character doing their quest) with cute animations fitting the scenario.
In Warband lords talk to you about raising their glasses but they have no according animation, so they just say: "Let's raise our glasses to ~insert name of current faction leader here~." During the dialogue they don't stare at the wall for once but more or less in the direction of the player character's face.
This leads me to the following statements:
- Feasts could be a cute addition and they offer a small choice to the player, which is always good and reason enough to add them to Bannerlord. They are not missing, but would be another choice, which is always good. (I don't like the phrase "game X has a lack of choice", because videogames themselves are a restricted medium, thus they are a restritive medium by default! The only "medium" offering many choices is the real life.)
- Nonetheless they are not as immersive in Warband as the OP stated nor as useful as you said they were, because, despite the feasts, looking for a lord was the usual procedure of asking lords where he was seen last, remembering the name of the location, searching the location in the "notes" menu, clicking on "show on the map", then travel in the direction of this location and repeatedly ask other lords, if he is lucky enough to encounter them on the road, at their fief or during (another) feast. Now that I think about, between waiting at w lords fief for him to show up, because he will sooner or later return there, and waiting at a feast for a lord to show up, which he might not, is pretty much the same "fun" experience... ups, that level of being polemic about Warband was not intended.
- If feasts became more than a booster in the town/castle management menu ("feats and games"), I would insist on at least one lord facing the wall. It is a tradition.
Assuming to know what I think and understand is a bit bold, I think. The only thing you can deduce from my text/post is what I wrote/"said"/stated. But this is getting meta-philosophical about the boundries of deduction and written communication. In Bannerlord the player only needs to do step 7. Step 1-6 were explained in so many steps to make sure even the newest of players would understand how to play Bannerlord. Maybe I thought you did not know how simple finding a NPC in Bannerlord was or maybe I did not, maybe I thought to show you that there already are more effective ways to find a lord in Bannerlord than there were in Warband - including feats. Who knows? Only I do.
In real-life, I don't like this attitude neither, because arguments with "You think X, but I claim Z and I am right!" are neither constructive nor helpful, but just pretentious. I'm sure I used this argumentation too, but I will stop this from now on, because this comment showed me how weird this reads/sounds/looks to the other participant in the discussion. (I'm saying it reads weird and pretentious, not that you intended to be pretentious.)
Thanks for this lesson in communication! (I'm not kidding you) I will be more polite in future arguments to provide even stronger, yet less pretentious, counters.
... but this applies to Warband too. It applies to most, if not all RPGs: The Dragon Age Series, Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic, The Elder Scrolls series, especially Skyrim, Kingdom Come Deliverance, Mount & Blade (the very first one), Fall Out New Vegas, Mount & Blade Warband (technically M&B 2.0), Mount & Blade With Fire and Sword and - of course - Mount & Blade II Bannerlord. In all these games the player is the trigger for every dialogue, either by standing at a certain point or actively pressing the "interaction button". They all are a chase for NPCs to then "tick a bland array dialogues".
Some RPGs just mask this mechanisms better than others. Strip away Dragon Age Inquisition's symbols next to the dialgoue options and you see that there is only a small randomization of sentences of the NPC and the player character's choices are "limited" and "redundant", except for the "path choosing" dialogues that give two to four options with sometimes different outcomes due to the chosen path.
Mount & Blade was always bad at masking this mechanism. The dialogues and the roleplaying mechanics are TaleWorld's weakness, but TaleWorld's strength are combat systems, strategic commands, (more or less) historical accurate 3-D items (armour, weapons, horses) and the new birth-life-death cycle, that until Bannerlord I only saw in Crusader Kings, but in CK it was much less engaging to me than it is in Bannerlord. I like TaleWorlds' focus on their strength in Bannerlord instead of trying to be something they are not.
The motto is: "Less talking, more raiding!" It is not: "Slower gameplay, more dialogues, more immersion!"
Enough talking by my side, more raiding for me. I said all I have to say on this topic. Thanks for your time.
最后编辑:
Are you s***ing me, @roffels11 ? You've been on this forum for less than a month and you're doing nothing but flaming actual fans of this game who have been suffering here for over a year, making the most obnoxious and thin-skulled defenses of the game while accusing us of "not understanding what Early Access is".
For f***'s sake, it's been a year. It is no longer "Early". You have to be a troll. No human could be this stupid and annoying by accident.
No. They're not.
So instead of feasts, which allowed you to improve relation with nobles and get quests from them and duel them and court spouses and also there was a tournament... we've got 2 entire animations (sitting bored or reading) and the option to play a board game. Forgive me if I don't die of excitement.
And, as others have pointed out, feasts are the only way to reasonably find many nobles in one spot without.... opening up the encyclopedia... figuring out which noble you want to talk to... finding where they are on the map... going to that spot... oh no they've moved on... oh no you went the wrong direction... oh wait they've been captured... oh no they weren't... they just popped into town... then bribe the guard... and THEN you talk to someone.
Feasts greatly simplified getting to know nobles and made it organic instead of something you plan out by looking through a wiki. They were also a reward for lower-level chars who won tournaments... and, for dudes, dedicating victories to ladies was a great way to meet and influence randos... which made courtship less of a spreadsheet-affair and added more lifelike contours to who you met + associated with.
In WB, I knew the personalities of every single noble in my kingdoms and had defined relationships with each. I'd get emotionally invested in allies and enemies. In BL, I usually don't even meet most of the nobles in any kingdom I join and I can't even remember their names half the time except for the one or two noble families I married into.
No it isn't. There are a handful of scripted reactions. That is not "implemented well".
No it didn't. Yes, clan and kingdom army pages are a thing. Whoop de doo. By your logic, I can make my GF "superfluous" by replacing her with an excel spreadsheet with the word "boobs" on it.
As it stands, there is generally nothing to talk to any NPC about... but some people actually like RP and convincing nobles to do something and challenging them to duels and conspiring to start wars with them. Also persuasion doesn't work because personalities aren't fully implemented.
Also, being able to - for instance - order patrols to reduce grind from having to constantly mow the looter grass in order for your towns to stop being poor would be REALLY nice in lategame. What's the point of commanding an entire kingdom if you have to literally do everything yourself in every part of the map when bandits hordes cover every square inch?
Except the minor factions all have the same AI and the same behavior. Legion of the Betrayed and the Hidden Hand will both raid your villages and attack your caravans and - whether or not the flavor text says they're heinous criminals - you can't execute them or refuse to ransom them if captured. Read my description in the following sentence: your opinions are bad and you should feel bad.
LOL WRONG. BL has crap quests and they're usually broken. Prison break is busted. You can't fight your way out if you fail a sneak.
The worst part of how bad current BL is about intrigue... is that it's even worse than past BL, because you used to be able to fight gangs for territory and loot. Beating them would temporarily remove ownership of a town block and significantly impact their power and increase relation with rival notables.
" If this is not in-depth courtship, I don't know what is!" --> You HAVE to be a f***ing troll. There is no other explanation for this take.
In previous WB games, marriage was about building relationships over time and building renown/honor and completing quests and getting in good with family and - once you were married - your spouse would play a critical role in the rest of your life. You'd inevitably talk to many nobles and build relationships with several and figure out which one was the best fit and even fight for the chance to continue a courtship. Marriage itself could start a war if you eloped instead of going the trad route.
BL is exactly two conversations which - if you fail - you can't recover from (so most people look through the wiki to shop for a spouse, then savescum through the convos). Then it's a financial transaction. After that, you can drop your spouse in a castle and never talk to them again, while they regularly pump out babies.
You also fail at history. While some of your commentary is on point, a lot of it is 21st-century LARP with no basis in reality. Yes, Middle Ages women had much more in the way of passive rights than we give them credit for in modern times but - no - that doesn't mean they were starting mercenary companies and waging wars and fighting duels and winning tournaments.
Sweet merciful goat-f***ing hell... are you kidding me?
Sieges have been broken from Day One. They crash and stutter like crazy. Troops don't know how to use ladders or guard gateways... and they're so suicidal bad at using siege towers that it's literally better to stick them on ladders instead. Pathfinding is completely broken. Troops clip through solid rock and fly across the map.
These have been problems for over a year. I'm pretty sure the siege tower problem got WORSE since last year. What are you smoking?
Can you name a single feature in this entire game that is fully-implemented and balanced and not bugged?
Just one. Please. Indulge me.
link to my civil war playthrough in Warband:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGSz_qxr0Yd5TecHq_o8nxo4XQO8TkiGC
I agree that I misunderstood the term "missing", because to me replacing old systems with new ones and introducing features that can result in similar outcomes to the predecessor is the definition of a well-made sequel, in my opinion. If those features were in Bannerlord exactly the way the OP wanted them, I would not consider Bannerlord a well made sequel but an average sequel that makes no interesting changes, but is still a visual improvement over Warband in an interesting setting. Progress comes from change, not redundancy, don't you agree?
If you miss Warband so much, than play it or play diplomacy mod to add more politics to your Warband experience. Voi-là, no missing features but no progress either.
OMFG this explains it.
You discovered M&B a few weeks go and you're on the spectrum and have unlimited free time and played exactly one campaign on vanilla WB, which gives you the impression that you have the right to insult people who've been playing MB games for the better part of a DECADE.
I almost feel bad for reacting this way.
On the off-chance that you're self-aware enough to correct antisocial behavior:
Please stop insulting people who have legitimate beefs with games that you like. It accomplishes nothing except making people angry at you, angry at the mods for allowing you to stay on the forums insulting people and angry at the devs for - we fear - listening to you when you say that our concerns don't matter.
You feel entitled to insult people who are complaining about "Early Access"... but Early Access began over a year ago and there's been virtually no progress on anything we care about. We were here then and you were not. We've been playing MB for years and you have not.
I used to volunteer with LD kids and I understand that this is a common issue: you latch on to a socially-simple and mechanically-complex game and obsessively play it and then get obsessively angry about anyone who wants it to change. This is especially a problem with Early Access games, because you become threated when people demand games become more socially-complex and mechanically-simple.
The fact is that practically everybody on an online forum for a video game with an account over 1 month old is a fan. We're not personally attacking you and your fun by complaining. We just want the game to be better and, if it doesn't hurt your enjoyment, you really don't have a right to complain when we ask for improvements.
Why did you write an entire novel about how feasts aren't good and aren't important? We have plenty of relevant posts and polls on this forum... and the vast majority of fans want things like feasts. And - here's the kicker - it would take minimal coding and they'd literally just have to copy+paste the dialogue from WB or VC for us to be happy. A modder would have already done it if the relevant AI behavior weren't hardcoded.
Feasts will not hurt you. You can not "disprove" the fact that feasts are fun for us by disagreeing with us.
It is attitudes like yours that kill entire franchises... because you are not remotely the majority. If you scroll through your mentions, you should even see a MOD explaining to you that - over the past two years - there has been a sea change in the fanbase as TW has lied to us and taken our money and abandoned us.
Ask yourself... If a F***ING MOD is feeling down about this game, how many millions of fans feel the same way? Millions of fans who bought this game and - according to user stats - have not played it at all for about a year now. They pop into the forums every couple months, asking "Is it playable yet?" - to which people respond, "No."
People like you cannot sustain a game franchise. You need to pool resources with people like us if you want people to make games for you. So please stop driving us crazy with your attempts to undermine our enjoyment of this game.
I and many others already look in forums for people like you, to see whether devs pay attention to them... we do that because neurotypical people feel tortured by the repetitive activity that is fine for someone who is autistic. We actively avoid spending our money on games driven by autistic fans because we've learned from harsh experience that devs will drive a game into the ground on their behalf.
That is why there are so few games for people like you. But if you just pipe down a bit... a teensy bit... we might be able to save BL from drowning in obscurity.
That's what WB was. It was a magical peaceful land shared by autists and neurotypicals and ADHD's... and that's because the devs cared about what made ALL of us happy - not just you. That's why Warband was nearly instantly vaulted into one of the top 5 games of all time.... that's ALL GAMES, not just RPG's or real time tactics or whatever... while Bannerlord is earning no accolades.
So please, for the sake of all that is good and holy in gaming, STFU.
最后编辑:
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Two lords isn't really enough to build a kingdom out of though.
You're enormously missing the point. Feasts made lords stop in a location for a significant period of time, so you didn't have to chase them everywhere.
The method you are describing requires you to chase individual lords all over the countryside in Bannerlord if you want to talk to them. People very often complain about this on the forums. It isn't fun, it's annoying.
With Warband you would hear there was an invitation to a feast at (location), you would travel there and have access to almost every single lord at once. It was much less tedious, it massively cut down the amount of running around.
When something was once there and is no longer there, it is "missing".
In this case, these features are "missing" in the context of the series. They were there in the last M&B game, and they are no longer in this M&B game.
Either way this is needless semantics.
Nowhere did I ask for Bannerlord to be Warband HD. Nowhere in my post is that implied.
I am asking for the existing game of Bannerlord, with its improvements to the series, to also have the features which people liked from Warband. That is all. If you think otherwise, you're reading in words that aren't there.
So you're saying sequels don't need to be an all-around improvement? That it's okay for games to get worse in some areas if they get better in others? Listen to yourself, dude.
False dilemma - Wikipedia
roffels11
It's fascinating how a different opinion and an argumentation, without any insults in it, triggers people on this forum.
I'm impressed how fastly this escalated. I'm not sure if insulting me ("stupid", "annoying") will silence me. Everybody knows insulting people is anything but the easiest way to deescalte any situation, to convince them that you have the better arguments and that you are a person to be taken seriously. *hint hint*
I never thought this much rage could come from a discussion on a videogame...
On the other hand I should have never underestemated the irrational behavior of nostalgic fans...That is a valid observation, but no "rule" that applies to every sequel.
Let us take Fall Out 3 and Fall Out New Vegas as examples: For these games your statement is correct.
They use the same engine thus the same mechanics which allows for the same features to be implemented without much effort. Same goes for Warband and Viking Conquest and any other games sharing the same engine.
If we take the Elder Scrolls Daggerfall and the Elder Scrolls III Morrowind as examples, well they are chronological sequels but are different engines thus have different features. Implementing all features from Daggerfall into Morrowind is tough work and no success is guaranteed. For the two games it's obvious, I mean: stepping up from a 2-D gameplay with simulated depth and an actual 3-D game using 3-D meshes of course brings changes.
Now, what is true for Warband and Bannerlord? The visual difference is not as big as between Daggerfall and Morrowind, but they use different engines, different meshes, different physics and are coded in different languages. This makes implementing the same features difficult. The developers seem to implement similar features adapted to the new engine (new tournament system, activating "feasts and games" in the town management menu, new encyclopedia that allows you to track down lords easier compared to Warband's notes system).
Then I have a question: What is so bad about different features in different games belonging to the same franchise, e.g. fusion of parties into one armies instead of small warbands following onemarshals, random companions who live and die instead of immortal ones, several small independent clans with x number of parties attacking looters instead of 4 warbands of 10-15 manhunters for the entire map attacking looters in vanilla Warband (I'm not kidding, it is 4 warbands each in one part of the map that respawn after a few in-game days if killed) etc.?
最后编辑:
Vekar
Recruit
I am with Bonestorm and Fivebucks on this one, they nailed everything. Well said.
On that note, I enjoy the different fell of Bannerlord but it would just make the game better to have some of the old features back and others which would simply spice things up so it feels more "living" than as Bonestorm put it: a spreadsheet.
On that note, I enjoy the different fell of Bannerlord but it would just make the game better to have some of the old features back and others which would simply spice things up so it feels more "living" than as Bonestorm put it: a spreadsheet.
Your "opinions" in this game is seriously weird. You need to think trough this once more. You need to know this game has been developing since 2012, and if this is a sequel game why the hell they remove the good feature that everyone liked in warband ? I really don't understand this. People loved it. No one complained about them, so simply add it to the BL but not only stay with it and add some more content so we can call it Bannelord, so people like *"This game is copy of warband"* can be silenced.It's fascinating how a different opinion and an argumentation, without any insults in it, triggers people on this forum.
I'm impressed how fastly this escalated. I'm not sure if insulting me ("stupid", "annoying") will silence me.
Yes BL has good features but it's shame that the *good* ones are so few.
Your points are mostly about "This changed in a feature like this in BL" but you know what ? They are worse. Maybe you like it as your opinion but you have yo know that most of the community annoyed by it or don't like it.
Having the insults for your opinions are shame for the guy that insults you. But it's good for you to know that your criticisms are so much subjective. So I offer you to think this trough again so you won't confuse devs minds by your criticisms
This isn't true. An engine is just a codebase, and different coding languages have no bearing whatsoever on end user mechanics like feasts or civil wars or whatever. If I can't think of a way to code something in C#, chances are it's literally impossible full stop.
Why would the scripting language of Warband (which is a horrifyingly slow, buggy, inflexible mess) be easier to make mechanics work than C# (which is probably the most flexible language)? And what does "different physics" have to do with it? Do you even know what the difference is between "physics" in both games?
You can find them in armies, sometimes. It used to be a lot more common at the start of EA but people kept bug reporting "useless" armies just chilling in town so now they dip in and out really fast.
Well, if we look at other games like the elder scrolls series, you also see that they had removed a lot or "changed" some methods, so I can understand him in this regard. (I will never understand why skyrim was such a hype)
Inappropriate behavior
I started out insulting you because your behavior is abrasive and insulting.It's fascinating how a different opinion and an argumentation, without any insults in it, triggers people on this forum.
I'm impressed how fastly this escalated. I'm not sure if insulting me ("stupid", "annoying") will silence me. Everybody knows insulting people is anything but the easiest way to deescalte any situation, to convince them that you have the better arguments and that you are a person to be taken seriously. *hint hint*
I never thought this much rage could come from a discussion on a videogame...
What you've been doing by dropping into our fandom a year into EA with just a few weeks of experience in the franchise and then tell us in half a dozen threads that we're all "wrong" about how the game needs to improve... how all of our complaints are unfounded... and how we're just dumb because we don't understand what "Early Access" means...
It's like you walked into a funeral with no pants, climbed on the casket and tried to start an orgy.
We're not "nostalgic fans". We're active long-time fans who have been playing MB for years and invested in BL at a AAA-game price because promises were made - promises which were not kept. And we're trying to get TW to deliver on those promises by talking it out in the forums... which is what EA is supposed to be all about.
Yeah. It inspires anger. Because this is the exact same s*** people were saying last year... and nearly all of those people have either given up on BL entirely or joined us in taking the TW-took-our-lunch-money blackpill.
I then realized that you're just autistic. You don't know any better. You should, though. You're young and you have time to change... and your life is going to really suck if you don't learn how to interact with neurotypicals.
