Beta Patch Notes e1.8.0

Users who are viewing this thread

dannazgu

Sergeant at Arms
Thanks yeah, enjoyed it. Went to Turkey, Antalya. Hot and high humidity but the food was great, and air-con helped.

We're working on it, but it will in any case contain a fix related to it - whether temporary or a more long-term solution.

Can't answer that definitively but don't see them so far.
any cool features in the horizon?
 

dannazgu

Sergeant at Arms
Unlikely to come with the next Beta.
  • Re this: The design change explained by uncabiblo here will show up in a later patch.
  • Re this: It's not a high priority at the moment but we are thinking about potential solutions.
Dejan, the chance of this new system could backfire, no?
I mean, the AI doesn't make "proper cultural" marriages, he just marries randomly without prioritizing inside his own kingdom, like in WB before.

So, this could backfire because the system of rebellions and clash between cultures in settlement and the presiding governor. Or you guys already thought of that to prevent the chain of endless rebellions
 

Flesson19

Not a Cookie
Knight
@Dejan welcome back so maybe tis can get solved since the people from tech support have no clue what this means. Pre 1.8 "Your clan party leaders" would sell prisoners as they entered a town. Now in 1.8 they just throw all in the dungeon, I wonder if this is a side effect for the fix for AI lords not dropping off captured lords into dungeons. This has made getting roguery so hard to do for out clan party leaders and now with the roguery exploit fixed it take so much time just to get roguery done attacking caravans. Can you please tell the team to make it so our clan party leaders sell their prisoners when the enter town like it was before 1.8.
In one game my town has over 2,000 prisoners as my clan parties just keep depositing them. I made a bug report but they just dont understand the issue and what to do. Roguery is a nightmare to try and level for our clan party leaders
Here is the post on tech support, they start talking about AI party leaders and sending in save files when this is the easiest thing in the world. 'Our clan party leaders should sell prisoners when entering town like it was before 1.8" That's it

PS I tested defection chance on a save file someone sent me weeks in which gifting Sargot gave a defection chance and after hotfix it still does, now running a new game might make a difference but just from early testing it appears the temporary change that was made, wasn't pushed enough
 
Last edited:

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
PS I tested defection chance on a save file someone sent me weeks in which gifting Sargot gave a defection chance and after hotfix it still does, now running a new game might make a difference but just from early testing it appears the temporary change that was made, wasn't pushed enough
I think what the fix is, is that they just don't do a roll to leave. So whatever is effecting thier defection chance still exists in the code, but they (at least in your faction) won't do the roll to leave. This is fine as IMO they need to do some serious consideration and designing about how and when clans leave factions. It can't just be a % chance, it needs to be process with transparent causes and rules that can be interacted with.
 

Dejan

Community Manager
WBNWVCM&B
Dejan, the chance of this new system could backfire, no?
I mean, the AI doesn't make "proper cultural" marriages, he just marries randomly without prioritizing inside his own kingdom, like in WB before.

So, this could backfire because the system of rebellions and clash between cultures in settlement and the presiding governor. Or you guys already thought of that to prevent the chain of endless rebellions
We will likely be implementing measures to prevent endless rebellions that could spring up as a consequence of that design change. Thanks for your feedback though, I have relayed it onwards.
@Dejan welcome back so maybe tis can get solved since the people from tech support have no clue what this means. Pre 1.8 "Your clan party leaders" would sell prisoners as they entered a town. Now in 1.8 they just throw all in the dungeon, I wonder if this is a side effect for the fix for AI lords not dropping off captured lords into dungeons. This has made getting roguery so hard to do for out clan party leaders and now with the roguery exploit fixed it take so much time just to get roguery done attacking caravans. Can you please tell the team to make it so our clan party leaders sell their prisoners when the enter town like it was before 1.8.
In one game my town has over 2,000 prisoners as my clan parties just keep depositing them. I made a bug report but they just dont understand the issue and what to do. Roguery is a nightmare to try and level for our clan party leaders
Here is the post on tech support, they start talking about AI party leaders and sending in save files when this is the easiest thing in the world. 'Our clan party leaders should sell prisoners when entering town like it was before 1.8" That's it
I've relayed the info, for now, I can verify that we're looking into this and the potential solutions for it.
 

Flesson19

Not a Cookie
Knight
We will likely be implementing measures to prevent endless rebellions that could spring up as a consequence of that design change. Thanks for your feedback though, I have relayed it onwards.

I've relayed the info, for now, I can verify that we're looking into this and the potential solutions for it.
Just change it back where they sell prisoners, it was always this way, but got changed in 1.8
 

dannazgu

Sergeant at Arms
We will likely be implementing measures to prevent endless rebellions that could spring up as a consequence of that design change. Thanks for your feedback though, I have relayed it onwards.

I've relayed the info, for now, I can verify that we're looking into this and the potential solutions for it.
If I may suggest

Could you guys create something during the childhood education event?

It would be like this:

The player:
  1. The first event of the child ( age 6): the player could tick a box that would say: teach spouse's culture to [Child Name]
  2. progress on the education childhood, the player can always stop that
  3. By the final age: the child that had that box ticked would have more chance become that culture, let's say Father (player - vlandia) + mother (sturgia), the child that was "learning" the mother culture would have like 60% to change from vlandia to sturgia
The AI
  • 70% father, 30% mother (if different cultures)

Reason: I'm not against any culture in game, I want let this clear, and i know this a medieval epic fantasy, but:

Logic

If a child is born from two different cultures and inside a country that speak that language, let's say Vlandian. It's more likely the child will follow Vlandia culture than sturgia culture.

If we talk modern, usually would be a hybrid: like, italian-turkish ( this means the child is from both cultures) but depending by whom and where he/she is raised will have more likely tendency to that culture
 
Last edited:

breath117

Recruit
I think there is something wrong with the enfeoffment mechanism. It's too bad to calculate only according to whether there is territory or not and the location of the new fief from one's own territory. No matter how much effort one has made for a city or is not qualified to participate in the election, this greatly affects the game experience.

Therefore, I suggest that the main siege attackers should also be included in the list of candidates, and some compensation should be given if they don't get the fief.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Therefore, I suggest that the main siege attackers should also be included in the list of candidates, and some compensation should be given if they don't get the fief.
Makes sense to me. To simplify it, I would say the clan who led the army that captured the fief should be the first candidate on the vote for the fief. The other two candidates can be whatever like currently.

I don't see undeserved lords who didn't fight for the fief receiving it as a problem, but I do see it as a problem when the player isn't even an option for the fief and is completely unable to influence the vote result in their favour.
 

Brano

Sergeant
Voting as concept is kind of weird when speaking about time period game suppose to mimick. King was the decision maker. Any war waged was in the name of the king. Every village,caste,town conquered in the name of the king. He decides if he keeps spoils of war for himself or grants them to his subjects. And here is where this game is missing a lot.

Every king had to watch that fragile balance between his supporters and oposition. To please everyone ment to project weakness. To favour only one house ment uproar among the rest of noble houses. And keeping this balance would be great game layer to be introduced. Inner strife between supporters,oposition,king.Noble house neglected by king, as example in case they would bare biggest costs in war conquering a city and not getting it as reward, would give this house right to wage war against king. But not to dethrone him. Just to get what is righteously theirs.

...and one more thing that always killed any of my previous playthrougs when I got to vassal and the king died. I was always voted as a new king. No oposition, no relations, not even member of ruling house...
 

dannazgu

Sergeant at Arms
Voting as concept is kind of weird when speaking about time period game suppose to mimick. King was the decision maker. Any war waged was in the name of the king. Every village,caste,town conquered in the name of the king. He decides if he keeps spoils of war for himself or grants them to his subjects. And here is where this game is missing a lot.

Every king had to watch that fragile balance between his supporters and oposition. To please everyone ment to project weakness. To favour only one house ment uproar among the rest of noble houses. And keeping this balance would be great game layer to be introduced. Inner strife between supporters,oposition,king.Noble house neglected by king, as example in case they would bare biggest costs in war conquering a city and not getting it as reward, would give this house right to wage war against king. But not to dethrone him. Just to get what is righteously theirs.

...and one more thing that always killed any of my previous playthrougs when I got to vassal and the king died. I was always voted as a new king. No oposition, no relations, not even member of ruling house...
voting is nothing new in "elected rulership"

The Angle-saxons did all the time with the Witan.

France also had it the voting by nobility concept

In Iberia the Asturias did with their king (royal family)

Charlegmane = voting concepts, but always inside the royal family

In the baltic (denmark, sweden, norway) - the kings and rulers were also elected by majority of nobles supporters

italy also had it before turned into city-states under the HRE

Councils of nobles existed all the time, some were stronger others not (and yes, to decide wars, policies, whatever)

The idea of king held all the power was hard concept on of middle and late medieval ages.

The problem is the game sets the same for every culture and gives no sense of different gameplay, that's all
 

Flesson19

Not a Cookie
Knight
I think what the fix is, is that they just don't do a roll to leave. So whatever is effecting thier defection chance still exists in the code, but they (at least in your faction) won't do the roll to leave. This is fine as IMO they need to do some serious consideration and designing about how and when clans leave factions. It can't just be a % chance, it needs to be process with transparent causes and rules that can be interacted with.
I ran a test and had a vassal with a 9.4% chance to defect, and they did so they still cant defect
 

Nakh

Sergeant
Voting as concept is kind of weird when speaking about time period game suppose to mimick. King was the decision maker. Any war waged was in the name of the king. Every village,caste,town conquered in the name of the king. He decides if he keeps spoils of war for himself or grants them to his subjects. And here is where this game is missing a lot.

Every king had to watch that fragile balance between his supporters and oposition. To please everyone ment to project weakness. To favour only one house ment uproar among the rest of noble houses. And keeping this balance would be great game layer to be introduced. Inner strife between supporters,oposition,king.Noble house neglected by king, as example in case they would bare biggest costs in war conquering a city and not getting it as reward, would give this house right to wage war against king. But not to dethrone him. Just to get what is righteously theirs.

...and one more thing that always killed any of my previous playthrougs when I got to vassal and the king died. I was always voted as a new king. No oposition, no relations, not even member of ruling house...
In many cases early medieval king was just one of top feudal's ruling on consensus basis and representing will of most powerful nobility group. You speaking about absolute monarchy, which is typical for later history periods. Voting in Bannerlord represents process of founding consensus among nobility, by spending influence, IMHO.
 
Top Bottom