• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

Beta Patch Notes e1.6.3

Users who are viewing this thread

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
Has something funny happened with Battanian horse armour? or do I just need to start a new playthrough?

The Battanian scale barding and half scale barding were showing up as OP, but with almost no weight....
 
I'm waiting until they actually fix major things and add the 1st parts of the battle terrain system. Until then, no point playing. Go back to sleep everyone.
-snip-
This update gave us another thing we've been asking for for ages. The magic patch to end all patches does not exist. A lot of crumbs eventually make up for a whole pie, if you cant wait for that, well, follow your advice and go back to sleep. Hibernate, we'll see you at the end of winter.

EDIT: @stevepine dont know if you read the snip but shouldnt have said that, unnecessary and uncalled for and for that id like to apologize.
 
Last edited:

Madeloc

Recruit
I think that 2% is still way too high.

If you imagine between 5 and 10 deaths per year, let's say 7 on average.

So that's 70 dead lords in 10 years and 126 dead lords in 18 years, by the time the children grow up and replace the dead ones.

I'm not even sure if there are that many in all factions, it's going to be very quiet on the map...

Moreover, no player will get attached to the characters since they will all die one after the other very quickly, each companion/lord will be just a vulgar "bots" without any flavor, a name vaguely heard once during a battle and replaced by another bots which will itself die very quickly.

Yes, the dynastic aspect and death is a really nice feature, bringing another dimension to the games. But it must be customizable by the player (with much more precision than now) and must be RARE to be memorable and have a real emotional impact.

Why not implement some kind of injury system as suggested in another post? Falling in battle would require some sort of recovery/rest to heal without which future battles would increase the risk of dying.
Fallen and defeated lords would have to rest in a fiefdom or could take up arms again, but with great additional risk.

This would make combat victories impactful, with real consequences, rather than having defeated lords reappear on the map 3 minutes later with a small, fresh troop after fighting to defeat them.

That's my opinion anyway, sorry for my English.
Indeed with the last beta update, I see again deaths in AI x AI battles, and in just several hours of play, at this rate it is a massacre.
Although I think it is good for immersion, there has been around 6-7 deaths in approximately 4-5 hours of game.
I would say the death rate is to be reduced a bit.
 

Cornelis

Regular
Indeed with the last beta update, I see again deaths in AI x AI battles, and in just several hours of play, at this rate it is a massacre.
Although I think it is good for immersion, there has been around 6-7 deaths in approximately 4-5 hours of game.
I would say the death rate is to be reduced a bit.
I would suggest pacemaker slow it right down that way not as many battle happen and it's more immersive

Just think though how many days pass in 4-5 hours shouldn't a fair amount of lords die

idk gonna try it out now got some mods for 1.6.3 already updated raise your torch, pacemaker, houses of caldaria and noble titles
 

AndrewArt

Squire
I think that 2% is still way too high.

If you imagine between 5 and 10 deaths per year, let's say 7 on average.

So that's 70 dead lords in 10 years and 126 dead lords in 18 years, by the time the children grow up and replace the dead ones.

I'm not even sure if there are that many in all factions, it's going to be very quiet on the map...

Moreover, no player will get attached to the characters since they will all die one after the other very quickly, each companion/lord will be just a vulgar "bots" without any flavor, a name vaguely heard once during a battle and replaced by another bots which will itself die very quickly.

Yes, the dynastic aspect and death is a really nice feature, bringing another dimension to the games. But it must be customizable by the player (with much more precision than now) and must be RARE to be memorable and have a real emotional impact.

Why not implement some kind of injury system as suggested in another post? Falling in battle would require some sort of recovery/rest to heal without which future battles would increase the risk of dying.
Fallen and defeated lords would have to rest in a fiefdom or could take up arms again, but with great additional risk.

This would make combat victories impactful, with real consequences, rather than having defeated lords reappear on the map 3 minutes later with a small, fresh troop after fighting to defeat them.

That's my opinion anyway, sorry for my English.
I agree, I suggested this before. It makes sense for me for a lord/companion/ and PLAYER to have deep wounds after falling in battle, needing rest to recover. The solution is so simple, start death chance of every significant NPC at 0%, then after falling in battle he gets a WOUNDED status (if not enough time passes/if the player or npc doesn't rest enough so that the wounds heal then this death chance goes UP to 2% or 5%, so next time he falls in battle he has a serious chance of death (also if the lord/companion is IMPRISONED that time doesn't count as "resting"). If he survives falling in battle again then this chance goes up even further. That way reckless lords will die more often and cautious lords would survive longer, as it makes sense. Same for the player, good cautious players will live longer, giving the game a WELL NEEDED challenge and consequences (so it's not totally BORING, because please take note that GOOD players will barely lose ANY battles in their campaigns, the game is not hard at all. We are talking about players that have mastered masterpieces likes the Prophesy of Pendor mod in Warband and such, which was one of the more challenging ones, which also made it the most fun).

Also times of peace will actually mean a damn, because it can save lords from dying, and it can give the AI another reason to propose peace ("we are in danger of being overrun/our lords are wounded and tired" etc).

This is the absolute best way to implement this imo, I don't know why it's not taken into consideration already... Deaths should be more rare and feel more significant, and feel like they can be avoided for the player and his companions, and it not being just a simple dice roll. If you want to go even more in-depth the type of armor you're wearing should also reduce deep wounds chance (heavy armor is less chances for being wounded etc, you can make this chance something like: 70% chance to be deeply wounded after falling in battle for light armor, 50% for medium armor, and only 30% for heavy armor). This can also make armor feel more significant, and make the penalties to movement speed actually worth it. Low tier clan leaders would have lighter armor than high tier clan leaders, so this makes for a system where the top dogs that have more economy etc actually have more survivability as a whole, making gameplay a lot more dynamic so that low tier lords die more often and high tier clan lords are more hardy and you can actually remember them throughout your campaign more because their presence is consistent and they're not replaced every year.

@Dejan if you could please forward to the devs ideas like this, I think such ideas could make the game a ton better. It's more in-depth but not too complicated. Players would 100% love it in comparison to a simple death chance you have no control over, I'm 100% sure of that, I promise you.
 
Last edited:

MArdA TaleWorlds

Community Support & Localization
Community Support
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Bit of an issue here. The graphics seems to have gotten worst, for some reasons the graphics for me looks pixelated and awful even with my graphical settings all set to the highest possible option. I can also see a noticeable grid like lines on 3d assets but not on menus/illustrations.

My graphics card driver is up to date, resolution is set to my monitors etc.... also I've never had this issue before.

Anyone else seeing this or having this issue?
Are you using an AMD card? If so please check if the anisotropic filtering setting is enabled in the AMD Control Center?
 

dannazgu

Sergeant at Arms
I agree, I suggested this before. It makes sense for me for a lord/companion/ and PLAYER to have deep wounds after falling in battle, needing rest to recover. The solution is so simple, start death chance of every significant NPC at 0%, then after falling in battle he gets a WOUNDED status (if not enough time passes/if the player or npc doesn't rest enough so that the wounds heal then this death chance goes UP to 2% or 5%, so next time he falls in battle he has a serious chance of death (also if the lord/companion is IMPRISONED that time doesn't count as "resting"). If he survives falling in battle again then this chance goes up even further. That way reckless lords will die more often and cautious lords would survive longer, as it makes sense. Same for the player, good cautious players will live longer, giving the game a WELL NEEDED challenge and consequences (so it's not totally BORING, because please take note that GOOD players will barely lose ANY battles in their campaigns, the game is not hard at all. We are talking about players that have mastered masterpieces likes the Prophesy of Pendor mod in Warband and such, which was one of the more challenging ones, which also made it the most fun).

Also times of peace will actually mean a damn, because it can save lords from dying, and it can give the AI another reason to propose peace ("we are in danger of being overrun/our lords are wounded and tired" etc).

This is the absolute best way to implement this imo, I don't know why it's not taken into consideration already... Deaths should be more rare and feel more significant, and feel like they can be avoided for the player and his companions, and it not being just a simple dice roll. If you want to go even more in-depth the type of armor you're wearing should also reduce deep wounds chance (heavy armor is less chances for being wounded etc, you can make this chance something like: 70% chance to be deeply wounded after falling in battle for light armor, 50% for medium armor, and only 30% for heavy armor). This can also make armor feel more significant, and make the penalties to movement speed actually worth it. Low tier clan leaders would have lighter armor than high tier clan leaders, so this makes for a system where the top dogs that have more economy etc actually have more survivability as a whole, making gameplay a lot more dynamic so that low tier lords die more often and high tier clan lords are more hardy and you can actually remember them throughout your campaign more because their presence is consistent and they're not replaced every year.

@Dejan if you could please forward to the devs ideas like this, I think such ideas could make the game a ton better. It's more in-depth but not too complicated. Players would 100% love it in comparison to a simple death chance you have no control over, I'm 100% sure of that, I promI disagree and am sure that many too and prefer to see the NPCs
I disagree and I'm sure many players do too, it's way more realistic and immersive to see death in battles, than the magic wounded after death and dyeing after that, 2% is too low for the deaths, takes too many battles too someone to die. The same goes reducing the chances of NPC death of old age especially when they're on their 50-70. Specially with the skill "Medicine" helping to make survivability longer and helping preventing deaths

Alongside death for Hero player in battle would much more interesting and realistic. If you lose you lose, if you die you die right there, no second chances to "rest" and get better, there's no such thing
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
You guys are pre-maturely complaining about the 2% bot death. You should actually finish a new campaign and see how it goes. Most players will eventually decapitate every one anyways when they figure out they can't order vassals around or give themselves more fiefs, or make vassals take care of thier's or do anything useful whatsoever.
 

Penn

Veteran
I uninstalled my game, deleted all my folders and installed it again - and my music and instruments were back in the tavern.
Went to bed, woke up today and now they are gone. Dafuq?
 

Tryvenyal

Squire
If you lose you lose, if you die you die right there, no second chances to "rest" and get better, there's no such thing
I agree.

2% is too low for the deaths, takes too many battles too someone to die.
Yes!

BASE deatch risk if falling in battle could be considerable higher. It could be 8-10%. Then there could be static prevention, from age, armour, medicine, athletics etc.

Most lords with a few of these preventions could end up between 2-5%.
 

Althix

Sergeant
Avoid battles where you're outnumberered, those ones are often nasty...
dude, 350 vs 1500 is an average how we roll in Sturgia. Losing 20 units in the process is acceptable.
As it now, however, if I sim I might lose companions just because.
Aside from companions, there is also an issue with lords. If we take the campaign as an example, Sturgia is at war with Vlandia. Imagine the situation in which Sturgia losing some of the lords in the first month of the game. That's insta -gg and there is nothing you can do about it.
 

pedromiguel

Veteran
I agree, I suggested this before. It makes sense for me for a lord/companion/ and PLAYER to have deep wounds after falling in battle, needing rest to recover. The solution is so simple, start death chance of every significant NPC at 0%, then after falling in battle he gets a WOUNDED status (if not enough time passes/if the player or npc doesn't rest enough so that the wounds heal then this death chance goes UP to 2% or 5%, so next time he falls in battle he has a serious chance of death (also if the lord/companion is IMPRISONED that time doesn't count as "resting"). If he survives falling in battle again then this chance goes up even further. That way reckless lords will die more often and cautious lords would survive longer, as it makes sense. Same for the player, good cautious players will live longer, giving the game a WELL NEEDED challenge and consequences (so it's not totally BORING, because please take note that GOOD players will barely lose ANY battles in their campaigns, the game is not hard at all. We are talking about players that have mastered masterpieces likes the Prophesy of Pendor mod in Warband and such, which was one of the more challenging ones, which also made it the most fun).

Also times of peace will actually mean a damn, because it can save lords from dying, and it can give the AI another reason to propose peace ("we are in danger of being overrun/our lords are wounded and tired" etc).

This is the absolute best way to implement this imo, I don't know why it's not taken into consideration already... Deaths should be more rare and feel more significant, and feel like they can be avoided for the player and his companions, and it not being just a simple dice roll. If you want to go even more in-depth the type of armor you're wearing should also reduce deep wounds chance (heavy armor is less chances for being wounded etc, you can make this chance something like: 70% chance to be deeply wounded after falling in battle for light armor, 50% for medium armor, and only 30% for heavy armor). This can also make armor feel more significant, and make the penalties to movement speed actually worth it. Low tier clan leaders would have lighter armor than high tier clan leaders, so this makes for a system where the top dogs that have more economy etc actually have more survivability as a whole, making gameplay a lot more dynamic so that low tier lords die more often and high tier clan lords are more hardy and you can actually remember them throughout your campaign more because their presence is consistent and they're not replaced every year.

@Dejan if you could please forward to the devs ideas like this, I think such ideas could make the game a ton better. It's more in-depth but not too complicated. Players would 100% love it in comparison to a simple death chance you have no control over, I'm 100% sure of that, I promise you.
I totally agree, it is even obvious.

Anything that can weight this absurd and arbitrary rate is welcome.

Especially since, again, it would make the game more interesting and balanced. Wars and changes would be less frantic (due to rest/convalescence times)

There would be more rest, so time would pass faster, the dynastic system would make more sense and the lords would have time to have a real place, a real history, without being immortal.

In short, given the disagreements on this, the death rate and the way it occurs should be precisely adjustable so that each player can find his own way.

But to all those who think that this rate is too low, do you really want an empty Caladria after a few years?
It's mathematical, with 5 - 10 deaths per year as desired apparently (or 4, 5 deaths in 5 hours of play as seen above), you imagine what it is after a campaign of 50H or 100H? Do the calculation...
The current system does not allow the replacement of these deaths with the arrival of new generations. It MUST be adjusted!
And preferably with a smarter mechanic than a simple die roll.
 

dannazgu

Sergeant at Arms
BASE deatch risk if falling in battle could be considerable higher. It could be 8-10%. Then there could be static prevention, from age, armour, medicine, athletics etc.

Most lords with a few of these preventions could end up between 2-5%.
I thought 5% would be for everything, player and NPC, same chances for all

Player shouldn' t get buff or advatages over the already AI, not AI... everybody knows a human can beat machine everytime
But to all those who think that this rate is too low, do you really want an empty Caladria after a few years?
It's mathematical, with 5 - 10 deaths per year as desired apparently (or 4, 5 deaths in 5 hours of play as seen above), you imagine what it is after a campaign of 50H or 100H? Do the calculation...
The current system does not allow the replacement of these deaths with the arrival of new generations. It MUST be adjusted!
And preferably with a smarter mechanic than a simple die roll.
That's why exist the dynastic and marriage system , no? So Calradia won't be empty

That's why the proposal to implement the Player human Hero death along the way
 

Piconi

Fashionista
Section Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
If anyone was wondering how the new ornate battle crown for Aserai lords (hopefully only for the King/Sultan) looks like, thanks to Artem's video, here's a couple of screenshots
iwplI.jpg
-uEB_.jpg
 
Top Bottom