Beta Patch Notes e1.5.5

[Medivhtratos]

I think that they dont wanna bring a hot fix just for one case, but for several. So it takes them longer.
Waiting for other game breaking bugs(gathering information)
Set priorities internal
Asign the developer for the fixes
Testing the fixes(if they collide with other game code)
Release the fixes

Beside that:
Develop new game mechanics
Conversations about the new game mechanics or future mechanics
Include the mechanics
Testing the new game mechanics
Looking out for bugs/deny some mechanics

Maybe there is more, but that is what I would think of a daily workflow of a dev. So I can understand when than there is a language barrier, they are not eager to share information with us.

 

[Flesson19]

I think that they dont wanna bring a hot fix just for one case, but for several. So it takes them longer.
Waiting for other game breaking bugs(gathering information)
Set priorities internal
Asign the developer for the fixes
Testing the fixes(if they collide with other game code)
Release the fixes

Beside that:
Develop new game mechanics
Conversations about the new game mechanics or future mechanics
Include the mechanics
Testing the new game mechanics
Looking out for bugs/deny some mechanics

Maybe there is more, but that is what I would think of a daily workflow of a dev. So I can understand when than there is a language barrier, they are not eager to share information with us.

I can't understand any loss of communication, for many months devs like Duh, Callum and mexxico have been on the forums all the time and right since that hotfix that turned death on, the communication went to zero, not one comment in 10 days, something has changed but still to make a change or a bug get introduced and no communication is just plain stupid for a game that wants us to communicate and help them fix things but then don't think they need to respond to us. I feel something is up, there is no real good reason to for all communication to drop to nothing in one day like this, it doesn't take much time to get on the computer and write a single quick message about a massive death bug/feature in 10 days, seriously can't take 5 or 10 minutes in 10 days to respond. don't buy it, I have my suspicions about why they aren't but don't want to say here, I put it in a video, but if I am right then I understand why they aren't

 

[AndrewArt]

Disable companion and player clan member death in battle.

Since 1.5.5 it is impossible to separate death in battle from death by old age in campaign settings. Probabilities of death in battle of player's companions are insanely high. So as a simple solution

www.nexusmods.com

I'd rather have the devs reduce the chance for death in battle instead of completely disabling it. If the chance is 10% it's a little bit much imo, it should be a rare occurrence after you get attached to your party a bit at least, and it hits you emotionally... because right now there is not much point of having companions at all. And If lords will die in battle in simulations that the player isn't involved in as well, then a LOT of lords will begin dying with that big of a chance. I personally would prefer the world changing a little bit slower than that, because how did lords even reach old age if everyone can die so easily... I'd rather see them fight less often or just be more cautious if this is the way things will be. Or the lords in simulations should be like the player (command from distance), so they don't fight with the enemies, and if their party loses then they have a high chance to surrender instead of dying, but the other AI can still execute them if they hate them which would create a big chain reaction of "if I catch you I execute you" between their friends etc. I don't know, I'm waiting for 1.5.6 to see if it's worth playing for me to test these things out...

The player can't even die in battle. Imagine if the chance for player death would be 10% as well... lots of people would dislike that. I for one am very careful and don't die much in battle, but still, feels like a bit much. And right now player never dies and can be captured thousands of times and released... not realistic... and companions have a very high chance to just die. I think there should be 3 armor tiers - light armor, medium armor, and heavy armor. Heavy armor = less chance to die. It can go from 10% (light), to 5% (medium) to 1%(heavy) (depending on how much armor they have, simple (also make heavy armor cost more..). They move slower = less chance to die on battle). So that we can at least outfit the companions better, and lords and the player have a decently small chance to die. Executions should be the cause for more deaths, that's more drama. Maybe 1% is too little of a chance, then make it 5%. 10% is just too much anyhow, and I remember it being 10% if I'm not wrong. This is a very simple sistem, very easy to implement. If you want to go more in-depth after that - calculate the type of weapon he was struck by, or if he died by a big boulder on the head, or a cavalry couch lanced him... deadly, deadly things, then maybe they can give higher chance for death. Or those can just be used for "heavy wounds" concept, where player/companions/troops need to heal longer from them or it increases death chance if you fall in battle again (2x chance even). That is a great concept if executed properly, will fix the snowballing the player can do as well.

 

[Flesson19]

I'd rather have the devs reduce the chance for death in battle instead of completely disabling it. If the chance is 10% it's a little bit much imo, it should be a rare occurrence after you get attached to your party a bit at least, and it hits you emotionally... If lords will die in battle in simulations that the player isn't involved in as well, then a LOT of lords will begin dying with that big of a chance. I personally would prefer the world changing a little bit slower than that, because how did lords even reach old age if everyone can die so easily... I'd rather see them fight less often or just be more cautious if this is the way things will be. Or the lords in simulations should be like the player (command from distance), so they don't fight with the enemies, and if their party loses then they have a high chance to surrender instead of dying, but the other AI can still execute them if they hate them which would create a big chain reaction of "if I catch you I execute you" between their friends etc. I don't know, I'm waiting for 1.5.6 to see if it's worth playing for me to test these things out...

I know people that like it before where just old age was on, my whole point is be more like civ 6 which gives you more options to customize a game to your playstyle instead of forcing options on you, thats where I think civ6 dominates with so many options to choose. I just think bannerlord should do the same, we shouldn't need to rely on mods for things the game should have, unless they only care about throwing out a product and let modders to all the work to make it sparkling nice

 

[AndrewArt]

I know people that like it before where just old age was on, my whole point is be more like civ 6 which gives you more options to customize a game to your playstyle instead of forcing options on you, thats where I think civ6 dominates with so many options to choose. I just think bannerlord should do the same, we shouldn't need to rely on mods for things the game should have, unless they only care about throwing out a product and let modders to all the work to make it sparkling nice

Sure, even so, I don't understand why someone would want to disable death, when it's a literal requirement for a more dynamic/changing world... people die, people are born. And once they implement new clans being created after rebellions, disabling death would cause lots of issues, like infinite clans and clan inflation... death is necessary, just need to be lower chance imo, a rare and significant occurrence. And I'd rather the devs take care of these things and not modders. Modders can give more options to the player that the devs simply don't want in the game, and that's fine. For example autoblock should have been a mod, it should have definitely not been in the game, because taleworlds created this good combat and wanted the players to rely on it and enjoy it, but some just wanted their mount and blade warband autoblock on... it could have been easily a mod, but instead they wasted time implementing this useless feature that most won't even use. If an official feature needs an option to be disabled imo then it's just not done right, that's why I suggest lowering the chance of death to make it a good feature. A good system is a system loved by at least most people, it makes sense and it fits the game well. Only a few would change it with mods if it was done right, or almost nobody would want to anyway. Even in this mod's description, it says "chances for death are insanely high". The solution is in the problem. Lower the chance and you fix the problem. Disabling it completely is just a step backwards. Companions are quite generic and it would get completely boring if you wouldn't have to change them every now and then... they would be soulless invincible robots and that would just lower their value even more. Imagine having a good companion, and a very, very low chance to die (he is in heavy armor, very sturdy). When he actually dies you will be surprised, and more than that, you will be sad it happened. You will remember him. It will make for a good story to tell. It's just a good feature, just needs lower chances to happen and a little bit more tweakings/features to go alongside it. Being vulnerable, having a chance to die, is just something so inherently human that we can all emphatize with... it makes us want to take care of our companions more, protect them, and we wouldn't just send them head on into battle because we know they won't die. All this said, I really hope for a player chance to die in the future as well.

 

[Flesson19]

Sure, even so, I don't understand why someone would want to disable death, when it's a literal requirement for a more dynamic/changing world... people die, people are born. And once they implement new clans being created after rebellions, disabling death would cause lots of issues, like infinite clans and clan inflation... death is necessary, just need to be lower chance imo, a rare and significant occurrence. And I'd rather the devs take care of these things and not modders. Modders can give more options to the player that the devs simply don't want in the game, and that's fine. For example autoblock should have been a mod, it should have definitely not been in the game, because taleworlds created this good combat and wanted the players to rely on it and enjoy it, but some just wanted their mount and blade warband autoblock on... it could have been easily a mod, but instead they wasted time implementing this useless feature that most won't even use. If an official feature needs an option to be disabled imo then it's just not done right, that's why I suggest lowering the chance of death to make it a good feature. A good system is a system loved by at least most people, it makes sense and it fits the game well. Only a few would change it with mods if it was done right.

That's the point you can't understand why you would disable, when person A says I can't understand why you want it, its personal preference, people have different playstyles and maybe want there 1 character like in Warband to play the whole game. Not everyone is the same and we shouldn't restrict things when we can give people options. For me I like death only from old age, that makes 3 different play styles, so people are different and when you like a certain style it is hard to understand why someone would want to do something different or else why give any options at all. just make the game one style and thats it. We shouldn't have to resort to modding to get options that should be in the game. If you setup a poll about the 3 death styles you would get really wide numbers as to what people want. I don't think 1 is better than the other, its just a matter of taste, it like getting a white shirt, when someone wants blue its the same item, like bannerlord is the same game, just a different variation of it. As you said so perfectly 'imo' that is the point, everyone has an opinion as to how they want to play. I shouldn't say leave death off because I like it and force my opinion on you or for you to mod to get what you like
"A good system is a system loved by at least most people"
A great system is a system that is loved by all since it accommodates all people
having 1 more option for birth on, death on for old age, doesn't hurt your game, it makes mine better for me so it's not like adding that hurts 1 option will lessen your game
All I am saying is let's accommodate more play style and not force them to mod.

 

[Flesson19]

Sure, even so, I don't understand why someone would want to disable death, when it's a literal requirement for a more dynamic/changing world... people die, people are born. And once they implement new clans being created after rebellions, disabling death would cause lots of issues, like infinite clans and clan inflation... death is necessary, just need to be lower chance imo, a rare and significant occurrence. And I'd rather the devs take care of these things and not modders. Modders can give more options to the player that the devs simply don't want in the game, and that's fine. For example autoblock should have been a mod, it should have definitely not been in the game, because taleworlds created this good combat and wanted the players to rely on it and enjoy it, but some just wanted their mount and blade warband autoblock on... it could have been easily a mod, but instead they wasted time implementing this useless feature that most won't even use. If an official feature needs an option to be disabled imo then it's just not done right, that's why I suggest lowering the chance of death to make it a good feature. A good system is a system loved by at least most people, it makes sense and it fits the game well. Only a few would change it with mods if it was done right, or almost nobody would want to anyway. Even in this mod's description, it says "chances for death are insanely high". The solution is in the problem. Lower the chance and you fix the problem. Disabling it completely is just a step backwards. Companions are quite generic and it would get completely boring if you wouldn't have to change them every now and then... they would be soulless invincible robots and that would just lower their value even more. Imagine having a good companion, and a very, very low chance to die (he is in heavy armor, very sturdy). When he actually dies you will be surprised, and more than that, you will be sad it happened. You will remember him. It will make for a good story to tell. It's just a good feature, just needs lower chances to happen and a little bit more tweakings/features to go alongside it.

I do thank you for that post though, you answered my questions the devs couldn't for 10 days, so thank you

 

[AndrewArt]

I do thank you for that post though, you answered my questions the devs couldn't for 10 days, so thank you

yes, I understand your point about personal preferences. And yes, I think that would be the reason, they want a more dynamic world and that would be great. I said "at least most" because there will realistically always be people that don't like something or that prefer something else. It's virtually impossible to please everyone's taste buds, no matter how many options you put in the game. Even rimworld, which has lots of options, still has mods that cater to some people's unique preferences. Doesn't civilization 6 also have mods? You could make a poll to prove that not only you want such an option though, that's a good idea... if this is reality then you will see positive feedback of the community and devs would too. Because if just 1 person wants a certain option, I'd say it's pretty tough to make the devs listen to you with that. Because realistically, every person can want something different, and so an infinity of options would need to be created for every little thing, which is just not realistic at this point of development where basic features still need to be polished and new content be added (As examples: some want insane amounts of money, making the economy redundant for example. Should we have an option to give the player infinite money? But there are already cheats, or mods, no? But players also want it to be official, they don't want to feel like cheating, even if their preference wasn't intended design and devs want a balanced economy... Also combat was too hard for many, in tournaments. Taleworlds made it easier for all... instead of putting a combat option... players wanted realistic to be easy too... I personally loved how tough opponents were in the tournament before, even though a peasant should definitely not be so skilled. Fights felt really intense, it actually was a challenge... but I didn't get an option to keep the hardcore AI in the game, they just changed that because the majority was yelling that combat was too hard for them. It made me sad, so I understand your point, but still, it's just proof that we can't please everyone everytime. And I see nothing wrong with mods doing that, the devs should focus on their vision of the game and on most prevalent player feedback... it just makes sense. I for one hope for leveling progression and perks to be fixed, I feel this should be highest priority but it doesn't seem to be. I also hope tournaments will be fun again when they add actual combatants, and hopefully the high-tier guys will be more of a challenge than the current units.

 

[Flesson19]

yes, I understand your point about personal preferences. And yes, I think that would be the reason, they want a more dynamic world and that would be great. I said "at least most" because there will realistically always be people that don't like something or that prefer something else. It's virtually impossible to please everyone's taste buds, no matter how many options you put in the game. Even rimworld, which has lots of options, still has mods that cater to some people's unique preferences. Doesn't civilization 6 also have mods? You could make a poll to prove that not only you want such an option though, that's a good idea... if this is reality then you will see positive feedback of the community and devs would too. Because if just 1 person wants a certain option, I'd say it's pretty tough to make the devs listen to you with that. Because realistically, every person can want something different, and so an infinity of options would need to be created for every little thing, which is just not realistic at this point of development where basic features still need to be polished and new content be added (As examples: some want insane amounts of money, making the economy redundant for example. Should we have an option to give the player infinite money? But there are already cheats, or mods, no? But players also want it to be official, they don't want to feel like cheating, even if their preference wasn't intended design and devs want a balanced economy... Also combat was too hard for many, in tournaments. Taleworlds made it easier for all... instead of putting a combat option... players wanted realistic to be easy too... I personally loved how tough opponents were in the tournament before, even though a peasant should definitely not be so skilled. Fights felt really intense, it actually was a challenge... but I didn't get an option to keep the hardcore AI in the game, they just changed that because the majority was yelling that combat was too hard for them. It made me sad, so I understand your point, but still, it's just proof that we can't please everyone everytime. And I see nothing wrong with mods doing that, the devs should focus on their vision of the game and on most prevalent player feedback... it just makes sense. I for one hope for leveling progression and perks to be fixed, I feel this should be highest priority but it doesn't seem to be. I also hope tournaments will be fun again when they add actual combatants, and hopefully the high-tier guys will be more of a challenge than the current units.

just want to say thank, it's so nice to have a civil discussion here without fllaming, your first class and I appreciate it

 

[HedgeKnight1]

+1
It was nice to read some fleshed out thoughts on this subject, told in polite manner and elaborating the point. I do agree woth AndrewArts view on the death subject, it is a very good feature, makes for good and deep storytelling and immersion. It just needs this little bit of tweaking and balancing.
A good read to start the day
Have a nice day, folks!

 

[Dabos37]

It don't think it will be sufficient for long game. I am currently playing a game to skip few generations but the whole pace of the game appears to be completely improperly timed. Basically everything is happenning to fast in the game (clan progressions, billions of wars, fief development).
I am using increased time multiplier to move fast forward. I tried to have only one castle for one generation with minimal action but the game is just not paced for family dinasty. It's a fast paced action and all happens in the firat 10-20 years. Even if you try to sllow down progression the game just does not allow to. It's rediculous how many wars/peaces are declared in one year

Agree with this and I have been complaining about this since a lot of time ago. Aging and death system is probably one of the hardest things to do that devs have implemented in this game but it is totally a waste of time currently because it is almost useless. You can do everything with the first character. Plus 84 days per year is an insane amount of time and something below 60 would be more appropriate.

The idea about aging and death system is by far the best and my favorite feature introduced in Bannerlord in my opinion, but it is totally waste of time currently because the game pace is pretty unbalanced.

 

[D0c1]

A good system is a system loved by at least most people

isn't this how catering to casuals and dumbing down of games happen?

it makes sense and it fits the game well

i agree with this though.and i agree that they should have a wide variety of options for different tastes.

 

[Worlok]

Agree with this and I have been complaining about this since a lot of time ago. Aging and death system is probably one of the hardest things to do that devs have implemented in this game but it is totally a waste of time currently because it is almost useless. You can do everything with the first character. Plus 84 days per year is an insane amount of time and something below 60 would be more appropriate.

The idea about aging and death system is by far the best and my favorite feature introduced in Bannerlord in my opinion, but it is totally waste of time currently because the game pace is pretty unbalanced.

For long game it will need completely changed balance. The numbers of wars should be decreased dramatically. More internal town/castle activity is required by some meaningful quests. The design of the castles and towns is beautiful and I enjoy to take a walk and find quest givers, do quests. But the game is always pulling you into the same game flow.

Rebellions will be also problematic with the current pace. You cannot properly build realation with villagers and work on loyality/security. You own usually castles as vasasal on border of faction. With billions of wars the villages are permanently raided and destroyed and there is not too much you can do about it.

Edit: To not only complain but suggest some possible solutions

To decrease the amount of wars:
- Truce periods are required
- Warmonger penalties are required
- Alliances would be sooner or later necessary

To improve castle life:
- more projects and quests
- make visual effects of ongoing projects in castles

To protect your fiefs:
- improved party control

 

[Pejot]

For long game it will need completely changed balance. The numbers of wars should be decreased dramatically. More internal town/castle activity is required by some meaningful quests. The design of the castles and towns is beautiful and I enjoy to take a walk and find quest givers, do quests. But the game is always pulling you into the same game flow.

Rebelions will be also problematic with the current pace. You cannot properly build realation with villagers and work on loyality/security. You own usually castles as vassasal on border of faction. With billions of wars the villages are permanently raided and destroyed and there is not too much you can do about it.

Basically what we need besides rebellions are domestic wars between clans and reduction of kingdom wars. War between 2 kingdoms should be a huge thing with strong backing for purpose. And if kingdom wars would be rare then clan wars would keep the flow of the game in the time bewteen kingdom wars.

 

[AndrewArt]

+1
It was nice to read some fleshed out thoughts on this subject, told in polite manner and elaborating the point. I do agree woth AndrewArts view on the death subject, it is a very good feature, makes for good and deep storytelling and immersion. It just needs this little bit of tweaking and balancing.
A good read to start the day
Have a nice day, folks!

just want to say thank, it's so nice to have a civil discussion here without fllaming, your first class and I appreciate it

thank you guys for the nice words as well, makes day better ^^ wish you a good happy day

 

[Dabos37]

For long game it will need completely changed balance. The numbers of wars should be decreased dramatically. More internal town/castle activity is required by some meaningful quests. The design of the castles and towns is beautiful and I enjoy to take a walk and find quest givers, do quests. But the game is always pulling you into the same game flow.

Rebelions will be also problematic with the current pace. You cannot properly build realation with villagers and work on loyality/security. You own usually castles as vassasal on border of faction. With billions of wars the villages are permanently raided and destroyed and there is not too much you can do about it.

Once we can assign directives for clan members, getting villagers safe should be easier. I do agree with number of wars should be reduced, but I currently find other issues which are much more problematic in my view concerning late game:

- There are tons of game mechanics which disappear in late game. Fiefs are usually upgraded at 100%, tournaments become useless, leveling up character turn in something ridiculously slow, most of quests and manual trading stop being useful because we can get much more defeating lords in battles while getting pretty low losses (we can easily fight 3 or more battles consecutively without having to rest).
- 84 days per year is an insane amount of time. +1684 days for having the first kid is simply too much. I am at day 550 in my current campaign and already own the strongest kingdom in calradia and the game is currently about recruiting new lords and getting new fiefs. My son just has 2 years and my main character is below 30 years old... Yes, part of the problem is that taking new fiefs is pretty easy due to bad defensive AI, but the game would be much funnier and more dynamic if time would have a faster pace.
- Companions lack progression feeling at all. They are pretty hard to leveling up and it is simply impossible to find high tier equipment (plus it is totally overpriced).

 

[Worlok]

Basically what we need besides rebellions are domestic wars between clans and reduction of kingdom wars. War between 2 kingdoms should be a huge thing with strong backing for purpose. And if kingdom wars would be rare then clan wars would keep the flow of the game in the time bewteen kingdom wars.

I starting to think the same as it was suggested somewhere, TW should let it go. For me it seems, all these necessary changes are out of their ability to code. Let the modders finish the game (no offense TW, just realistic conclusion). Give some stabilization patches and some LTS versions for modders. Otherwise we will run in circles...

 

[Pejot]

Once we can assign directives for clan members, getting villagers safe should be easier. I do agree with number of wars should be reduced, but I currently find other issues which are much more problematic in my view concerning late game:

- There are tons of game mechanics which disappear in late game. Fiefs are usually upgraded at 100%, tournaments become useless, leveling up character turn in something ridiculously slow, most of quests and manual trading stop being useful because we can get much more defeating lords in battles while getting pretty low losses (we can easily fight 3 or more battles consecutively without having to rest).
- 84 days per year is an insane amount of time. +1684 days for having the first kid is simply too much. I am at day 550 in my current campaign and already own the strongest kingdom in calradia and the game is currently about recruiting new lords and getting new fiefs. My son just has 2 years and my main character is below 30 years old... Yes, part of the problem is that taking new fiefs is pretty easy due to bad defensive AI, but the game would be much funnier and more dynamic if time would have a faster pace.
- Companions lack progression feeling at all. They are pretty hard to leveling up and it is simply impossible to find high tier equipment (plus it is totally overpriced).

Yep i agree with this. Also part of the problem is that map movement speed is totally off the timeflow. You can travel 1/3 of the map in single day with 1k+ army. Either the map is too small for this or the movement speed is to high. This is also causing some big armies to take 3-4 fiefs in one run cause they are fast enough to do this before cohession drops and if the leader has enough influence he can basically take 5 fiefs in single run.

Influence is also part of the problem in mid/late game many lords have tons of influence and single kingdom can form 4-5 big armies. There should be a limit for that or something more than influence needed.

 

[MostBlunted]

Sure, even so, I don't understand why someone would want to disable death, when it's a literal requirement for a more dynamic/changing world...

Because I have more fun this way, so don´t take away the option.

 

[fanugi]

Is today the day for 156?
Is TW quiet because they got a Christmas surprise for us with a major update filled with content goodies?
Has TW given up on the BL community?
Will I ever be able to give my companions orders for their party? They need some direction, otherwise they are just lost.
Will I ever be able to give my units a focus on which group to attack? (Bowman, fire on the infantry!) (Infantry charge the Archers!)
Personally I would like to fight with my companions on the battlefield but i can't if every one of them is running a caravan. Can we just buy a caravan and be notified when it's being attacked? Or have a time limit on how long they run the caravan for?

C'mon TW don't quit on us! There is so much potential here and a community that is rooting for you! At least I know I am. Let us know what you're thinking TW.

Have a Happy Holiday all!