-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Beta Patch Notes e1.7.2
- 主题发起人 Callum
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
five bucks
Knight at Arms
This is what was done with TF2 for the 2016 and 2017 major updates, Valve got in contact with various well known community members and got their opinion on the changes they wanted to make. Then after that initial run-by experienced players, they made public the changes they were going to make for everyone to comment on, and a while later (with mild changes based on feedback) released the changes.
So what's stopping Taleworlds from actually sharing the hits-to-kill and their goals for armour and letting the community give feedback on that?
When your company has worse communication/community rapport than Valve, which is famous for its inaction, you know there's an issue.
No wonder the beta threads have just become a ****posting hub now, we don't even get answered when asking if there won't be a patch this week! The absolute bare minimum of communication, taking less than 1 minute to do, and TW seemingly can't manage that.
Pubes and grunting for everyone!
xGreedo
Regular
Yes it has been mentioned. They just don't know how to "balance" the game properly.
I warned about this back when people were complaining about snowballing. Can't have it so every faction has equal power all the time.
I wonder if it could be that they are defining balance incorrectly. On average, aggression, power, etc. should be more or less even but there should also be a butterfly effect.
Antaeus
Squire
A couple of thoughts...
Snowballing isn't the problem, one faction consistently snowballing is. Over the long term, one clan moving to a new faction, or a single city switching hands, creates potential for a snowball. It changes the logistics equation. A faction has a potential 4 or 5 fewer parties and 2 or 3 settlements from which to recruit. This small advantage is where a snowball might start.
But the hard part, is preventing a situation where just one faction always takes that first city, or gets those few extra parties that disrupts the status quo and turns that first advantage into a snowball, wrecking them map. This could be caused by something as small as a few damage percentage points in a single weapon that a faction has. It really is butterflies in Africa.
So to fix snowballing two things have to be addressed:
1. Whether only one faction is ever doing it (and solving this without making that faction weak, or by replacing it with another faction that snowballs). And in so doing, discovering why one faction is snowballing - is it that bow they use?, is it the extra armour their archers have? is it how their faction benefits uniquely from a particular law change? is it a faction trait or the laws it starts with? is it the balance of the village economy the faction has access to? is it the unique traits of a faction leader that lead to differing outcomes for simulated fights early game? is it the spread of traits the faction's starting commanders have? is it a gender/reproduction issue that leads to imbalance in characters or child traits? is it that a faction's economy is adversely affected by randomised bandit predation? - and we could go all day with this.
2. is it that any faction might do it, but it might be different every time? If this is the case, the units, leaders and traits might be in balance, but the simple math of how small advantages in numbers when land or people change sides impact on the game might need to be addressed - usually this is done by making it harder for factions to control or govern territory they take (this is the solution used for Total War games, and is increasingly what we're getting with Bannerlord)
The hard part, is that we all play certain ways that upset the balance of factions. We cause snowballs where they might not otherwise occur by stealing party leaders through marriage, by raiding inconsistently, by changing the economic base through our trade, by changing bandits locations, then by taking castles, cities, recruiting clans - which all changes the balance.
And we might be playing a single game for weeks, or months, so judging whether balance is correct, on enough different human impacted scenarios, with enough different playing styles, to be acceptable, takes time. A lot of time. And then you might find you've changed something too much, and have to go back and try something different.
In summary, creating complex systems is hard. It takes time. Bannerlord is trying to be a little bit of a lot of different game types. It is a little FPS, a little RPG, a little RTS and more. Most games focus on one or the other of these styles because it is hard. So I'm ok with them taking their time, and helping them along the way.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Well this is obviously the opposite extreme, but there was nothing wrong with fixing snowballing. It was a good thing and needed to happen.
1.2 to 1.5.8 was Snowballing. One faction could eat the world very quickly before you could enjoy the other factions on offer. It was bad and not fun.
1.7.2 is Stagnation. Factions don't conquer anything and trying to progress as a vassal sucks. It is bad and not fun.
But 1.6 to 1.7? That was a good medium point of world stability/instability. That was what was intended when mexxico was fixing snowballing.
"Snowballing" complaints were never about factions being able to take territory. They were about factions being able to take territory *way too fast.* And the current Super Stagnation is not a result of fixing snowballing so much as it is a result of faulty AI war/peace calculations and the inability of strategic AI to successfully conclude a siege before changing their mind and going to do something else.
Snowballing = Bad Thing. It's a term to describe instability happening too fast. It should not be equated with world instability in reasonable amounts, which is a good thing.
A good amount of world instability is one where some factions might have lost or gained a few cities and a few castles by the time the player gets to the mid game, but no factions have actually died off, and none have "snowballed" to eat multiple factions.
最后编辑:
Snowballing may be bad but equally as bad is homogenized bored to tears non-eventful gameplay. The problem with that whole "fix the snowball" push is it gave them plausible deniability that they did indeed 'fixed our game through mutual cooperation". It was a classic bait and switch and now we have a forum filled with post-apocalyptical stragglers clamoring about the spaghetti -code fallout 'whhhhhat hhhhaaappened...." unable to deal with the fact that its all over. There is no Messiah coming -no matter how polite you may be to the devs.
xGreedo
Regular
Of course creating complex systems is difficult and take time. None said otherwise.
The game went from ultra snowballing to complete stalemate, nothing is happening in the world of Calradia without the player interference.
If i had a choice i would like to play the game with the Ultra snowballing in it rather that what ever the game is supposed to be right now. It's boring.
The game went from ultra snowballing to complete stalemate, nothing is happening in the world of Calradia without the player interference.
If i had a choice i would like to play the game with the Ultra snowballing in it rather that what ever the game is supposed to be right now. It's boring.
The problem was that it was always Khuzait steamrolling the map...snowballing could be "fine" if it´s not always the same faction.
madnessario
Knight at Arms
Considering that the autocalc takes only into account the tier and mounted (or not) I can see how the khuzait used to steam roll (among other things). A simple clan changing sides and 4-5 parties more should not upset the balance so much that a faction is snowballing: for this you need better autocalc, battles to matter more, wars to have objectives (I target this castle/region), ..., etc.
Short: Stuff we won´t get from TW.
epil
Recruit
This is true. Dozens of massive bloody battles causing nearly no impact on campaign map is making this game so boring. Solution is actually very simple and relevant feature which can achieve this solution is already implemented long ago. This feature is: "Rebellions".
If rebellions were designed to be way more successful which could turn into strong separate kingdoms, campaign factions would be dynamic instead of static 8 factions. So OP factions snowballing the certain regions wouldn't turn into world conquest because big empires would be shattered by big rebellions, new kingdoms would arise out of OP factions. These new kingdoms could turn into OP Empires in the time flow and start to snowball the map until they're shattered by rebellions too.
To achieve dynamic campaign system, separation wars should also be a thing. For example lords that are very upset with their liege would declare war to their liege to achieve their own independent kingdom. Player can do this against their liege at the moment but AI cannot.
In conclusion, while trying to avert effects of snowballing at the beginning of EA process, Taleworlds actually introduced a balance that made game very very boring in the long run. But Taleworlds can achieve dynamic campaign system with falling and rising kingdoms instead of 8 static factions by tricking and rebalancing some of their existing features.
Antaeus
Squire
I think the point is that the game world is supposed to be relatively stable, and that it's up to the player to impact on the world. To forge an empire or conquer the world or build a trade empire or what ever. Etc. This makes the player central to the narrative future of Calradia - the protagonist of the story.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Disagree - snowballing (as in, one faction steamrolling the map before the player can build their kingdom to a decent size, or join/interact with certain kingdoms before they are destroyed) is always a Bad Thing.
Because even if you balanced it so different factions took turns steamrolling the map in each playthrough, it would still not be fun to get 5 years into the game in playthrough A and find that Sturgia has killed off the kingdom you wanted to join, and get 5 years into the game in playthrough B and find that Aserai have killed off the kingdom you wanted to join, and get 5 years into the game in playthrough C and find that Battania have killed off the kingdom you wanted to join.
Snowballing is a Bad Thing. Stagnation is a Bad Thing. A reasonable level of kingdoms taking a handful of castles or cities by midgame, like in 1.6.0-1.7.0, is the ideal situation for player fun and choice and variety.
The only time which snowballing could be good for the fun of the game, is if it's quite rare for it to occur as a novelty, and even then, only if it's not too quick for them to steamroll.
最后编辑:
Duhk_Tails
Regular
Let's try positive energy to will the patch!
-Name something you love about Bannerlord.
*I love the combat
*I love the command control within combat
*I actually really love the story and if you pay attention it's a history lesson.
-Things you liked from previous patches
*Mercenary clans had stronger(non-noble) troops than standard faction troops
*I liked being able to set the group # for troops in the party menu.
*I enjoyed the physics bug that made people go flying when hit with Javelins. (honestly a lot of fun and laughter)
-Name something you love about Bannerlord.
*I love the combat
*I love the command control within combat
*I actually really love the story and if you pay attention it's a history lesson.
-Things you liked from previous patches
*Mercenary clans had stronger(non-noble) troops than standard faction troops
*I liked being able to set the group # for troops in the party menu.
*I enjoyed the physics bug that made people go flying when hit with Javelins. (honestly a lot of fun and laughter)
Great love Immortal
Veteran
Nemesis?
