Beta Patch Notes e1.5.10

Users who are viewing this thread

I was waiting for battle scenery from world map patch but couldn't resist anymore and started a campaign with this patch. First campaign start after like 5 months and it already feels more polished and done. Latest changes were easily testable and definitely feels different from last time I've played it. Especially going into towns/villages to see new designs. Tebrikler Taleworlds, I hope the game can to the place where you feel complete good luck!
 
Can't you get it much higher now though? You should have like 4X the learning speed you would have before, since MC level does reduce it. I guess if you only specced in to get 125, you can't, but 125's not that much. As far as the complaints, many players complained their character move too fast at 150+ athletics.
Fair points, obviously I can only speak to my own experience and not to the broader community experience. I can progress it higher for sure but to be at 125 and not to be able to run down fleeing looters is where that felt out of balance to me. I have a unit of skilled infantry men yet, despite out training, we are not able to run down a bunch of looters. Is there data available on community concerns so I can see where "I run too fast at 150" was in respect to all other player concerns? This change, to me, just seemed really arbitrary and I stick by my feeling that this is taking fun out of the game. If this game is aiming to be battle brothers, devoid of all fun but totally committed to its sense of realism fine, but that's not my impression of where the designers were aiming this game and I don't personally want this to turn into that type of game.Realistic but with enough fun to feel powerful without having to commit too much time to get there. Extreme power exists out there for the players that want to put in the effort to get to 300 but the player should not have to wait that long to start feeling powerful. So I have two game years in and have my skill to 125 but now cannot run down looters or impact the battlefield in any area that I didn't originally commit to. Not fun imo.

I need to add some additional thoughts here. It's also the manner in how these changes were implemented. Not a fan of devaluing the perks in principle. Make the perks feel worthwhile. To cut perk effects in 1/2 in this case is to devalue most of the perks in the athletic and other trees that had all their run speed effects cut in 1/2, again I think devaluing the whole perk system in the process.

At this late point in early access, to roll out changes that affect the on-foot user experience so drastically, I would advise greater communication to the community and greater assurances from the community that it actually wants to move in the direction you're planning on taking it before going ahead and making those changes. This change doesn't feel well thought through, granted I know this is beta so maybe this is exactly the type of feedback you're hoping to get but I am concerned with the lack of transparency with these kinds of decisions being made. I think there is room for improvement. Let me provide an example:

TW Community Manager:
>(receiving feedback from community on foot speed progression)
>Creates a poll to measure feedback and collect comments and user perspectives on changes
>Reports back to the community on what the poll revealed and some of the good points each side makes and proposes changes if changes are decided to be needed
> Community tests changes in beta and provides temperature check. We iterate in beta until the greater good/design goal has been achieved.

I think the above would provide a better model to introduce changes to existing features/functionality/system characteristics. That's not how changes are being managed now. I also struggle to understand how, in respect to priority, this change was made. There are numerous other areas of the game that require attention and should be prioritized over fine tuning game characteristics.

This is a great game and the entire TW team deserves congratulations on the product they have put together. I only offer my criticisms in good faith as someone who has logged more hours than I would care to share with any family member (and continue to) You guys don't owe me anything, I got my money out of the game and then some. But I see the company and dev team kind of struggle with communicating the direction and vision of the game while managing the expectations/satisfaction levels of the fan base and I really would love for your whole company and team to be beloved and respected for what you have provided the gaming community. I think it's special.
 
Last edited:
And it doesn't feel or looks like Vlandian, more like Sturgian to be honest.
If you're talking about the masked helmet, that's definitely Vlandian, since Vlandians are Normans and it's an Italo-Norman helmet.
1479d1f8dce643747b09b17cd52bb634.jpg


It's a good piece, people have been asking for TW to add it for a while.
 
About the death feature, any word if eventually it will be implemented for the player aswell? would love to have the option to enable player death in battle, would add more risk to them and i wouldn't need to wait for my character to die of old age before playing his heir sometimes which would be cool :smile:
yes I really wish for that as well. Right now it feels very cheap how the player character cannot die, so when I get knocked out I sometimes feel like resetting my campaign as if I actually died... if companions can die then so should the main character, as an option of course. I'd be way more immersed.

Also, I see that the death chance remains high for testing purposes still... I wish death in simulations also happened and the death chance would be reduced all around, but I guess I can wait a few more patches if devs still consider it beneficial for bug-testing to leave it like that.
 
I guess I'd be more okay with the current rate of battle death if the equivalent also happened in battles I wasn't a part of. But now it's so high and so specific to the player that I just leave it disabled.
 
Right now the death in battle is annoying to say the least, especially when lords with big advantage like to solo suicide charge into enemy.
And because of it i actually need to reload saves, so my kingdom wont get depopulated to quick.
 
I think this may be due to an adjustment @mexxico worked on to improve cases were lords where to attached to kings they disliked - maybe the relation impact now matters a bit too much for situations where they do like their king. Will bring it up.


It's not ignored, we have a pending task for it.
I think that is the case, I have the entire 2 hour situation on Youtube during my live stream if you need a timestamp to see what happens let me know, but almost all lords just say they have no desire to serve another leige or something like that, I think any positive relation and you can't begin a charm check, definatly needs an adjustment
 
I am bout 800 days in now, the first 200-300 days there were 2 or 3 rebellions at all times, but as the game progressed the amount of rebellion did reduce a lot so I am not sure if it was just a bad start or the start in general is tough so ignore that for now as it all panned out, however I am very curious on recruiting lords into your kingdom, virtually all lords you encounter, they dont want to serve anyone else, is that because they have positive relations with their leader? I was able to find 1 clan willing to leave of the 27 I looked for. Of course I crit failed that clan so 150 days into starting my kingdom I have no clans helping me. So is this intended or was the high relation to the leader making it too hard to recruit anyone a bi product of the patch.
At initial years there become more starvations than normal because town prosperity values are not determined by around food sources also towns do not have developed projects so this yields more starvation & rebellions at first 3-4 years then world become more stabilized as terms of food and prosperity so rebellions decrease. Before changes there were nearly no rebellions at 1.5.9, so a new feature (rebellions) was nearly lost.

About lord recruitment if they will want more money than 500K + your money x 0.2 they directly say “i am not interested - i do not want to serve another liege”. So if you have 1M and if lord need 700K for changing sides he directly rejects so you do not lose time in persuasion steps. To reduce amount he will want from you and get a positive answer develop your relation with that lord and find lords in bad financial condition (no fiefs less money)
 
Last edited:
At initial years there become more starvations than normal because town prosperity values are not determined by around food sources also towns do not have developed projects so this yields more starvation & rebellions at first 3-4 years then world become more stabilized as terms of food and prosperity so rebellions decrease. Before changes there were nearly no rebellions at 1.5.9, so a new feature (rebellions) was nearly lost.

About lord recruitment if they will want more money than 500K + your money x 0.2 they directly say “i am not interested - i do not want to serve another liege”. So if you have 1M and if lord need 700K for changing sides he directly rejects so you do not lose time in persuasion steps. To reduce amount he will want from you and get a positive answer develop your relation with that lord and find lords in bad financial condition (no fiefs less money)
I gotcha, thanks for clafirfying that, I will test it and that way I can let people know
also what would be the number in which the lord would begin a charm check, lets say he want 1m, how much do I need to even start a charm check
 
About lord recruitment if they will want more money than 500K + your money x 0.2 they directly say “i am not interested - i do not want to serve another liege”. So if you have 1M and if lord need 700K for changing sides he directly rejects so you do not lose time in persuasion steps. To reduce amount he will want from you and get a positive answer develop your relation with that lord and find lords in bad financial condition (no fiefs less money)
Can you switch that to something like "You can't afford me?" or similar? Because I thought it was based on relations as well, just from the conversation.
 
So to sum up the new version:
200 bugs fixed
312 new bugs introduced
So, i have no idea which patch you played in the last days but form the overall reception of it there in the forums I would place the ratio of Bugs fixed vs introduced more to 2/1 or even better. Besides the people who just complain because they feel like it no mater what the patch contains most people say this patch fixed many of their problems in the game.
 
At initial years there become more starvations than normal because town prosperity values are not determined by around food sources also towns do not have developed projects so this yields more starvation & rebellions at first 3-4 years then world become more stabilized as terms of food and prosperity so rebellions decrease. Before changes there were nearly no rebellions at 1.5.9, so a new feature (rebellions) was nearly lost.

About lord recruitment if they will want more money than 500K + your money x 0.2 they directly say “i am not interested - i do not want to serve another liege”. So if you have 1M and if lord need 700K for changing sides he directly rejects so you do not lose time in persuasion steps. To reduce amount he will want from you and get a positive answer develop your relation with that lord and find lords in bad financial condition (no fiefs less money)

Can you switch that to something like "You can't afford me?" or similar? Because I thought it was based on relations as well, just from the conversation.
that would be a good idea, but maybe they dont want to release that information and the lord just says no and you need to figure it out, i get both sides
 
Back
Top Bottom