Community Feedback-based EARLY ACCESS ROADMAP - ready for you, Taleworlds!

Does this roadmap represent your basic wants for Bannerlord?

  • Yes

    Votes: 184 87.6%
  • No

    Votes: 26 12.4%

  • Total voters
    210

Currently viewing this thread:

Sorry for the delay guys, these past weeks were a bit complicated in terms of private life.

Usual disclaimer - Personal opinion. Not a company statement. Not a promise. I will skip any bits that you already marked in progress or that I can't discuss.
Overworld
*
Civil Wars: The ability for a kingdom to split into two warring sub-factions. This feature was mentioned in devblogs, and also present in Warband.
The blog is about the persuasion feature and mentions civil war in passing - which is the setting and one of the mechanics of the main storyline.
The persuasion system is based on the premise that, even in a dark and desperate land like Calradia, there are some things that money can’t buy. An honorable emir may feel compelled by his oath of fealty to stick by even the vilest of sultans. A conniving one might turn down the choicest bribe because frankly, he doesn’t think you have what it takes to win a civil war, and silver is no use to him if he’s dead. Persuasion is a means to help players overcome these reservations.
One may also argue that any separation from a kingdom in conflict (player leaving with fiefs) is arguably an act of civil war. But I presume that your reference to warband concerns claimant quests. This type of content seems possible but not a critical priority to me. I personally think that the base game mechanics of kingdoms and clans should be as solid as possible before building quests upon such a foundation.
* Suggesting to allied lords that they attack/defend a specific location without you, or scout an area, or bring reinforcements.
I don't think this will come. I remember the discussion with @mexxico - while the idea was explored, there were too many challenges with AI and the focus went to making the base army and party AI better.

* Ability to promote companions to lords when you are a faction ruler.
This seems possible.
* Deserters: Hostile roaming parties of runaway troops with military-level equipment, created on the world map when AI parties' morale falls too low.
* Manhunters: Neutral bounty hunters who spawn to fight bandits in areas of high bandit activity, and have a unique recruitable troop tree
It doesn't seem impossible, but it's not part of the current priorities. These are changes at a rather broad level and may cause a range of unforeseen consequences - and I'm sure you wouldn't want them added in a way that makes the game worse. Nonetheless, they certainly seem worth discussing to me since they can add life to the world.
* Choosing a city to be your "capital" (home base for the player kingdom's court and husband/wife).
Just designating a capitol would yield little gameplay value, so this is a bit of an empty suggestion. Non-party leading clan members should (soon) be staying in whichever location you leave them in in any case. Of course, there can be many features added to make a capitol more interesting, but I am not sure which you are looking for.

* Poor clan leaders coming to a player kingdom's capital and offering to defect.
This seems possible, but needs to be approached carefully as a free defection is a fairly powerful boon. I personally like the idea as it adds to the feeling of a living world (like ransom offers for prisoners), but it's more of an immersion / QoL feature than a matter of critical urgency.

* Minor Faction bases as seen in the 2016 gameplay video.
I have no strong opinion on them. I don't know their original design or the reason for their removal. I can see that they may add some additional points of interest to the map (permanent point of contact, opportunity for recruitment) but may also not be straight forward to pull off in a worthwhile fashion. (Is it pure menu/dialogue interaction or would they require a new scene per location? Base game locations are still WIP. Do they serve any other purpose than what i mentioned earlier? Do kingdoms have to go after them if they are at war with the minor faction? If so, what consequences does their clearing bring with it? I'm sure some solution could be found to KISS... but well, just like capitols, that may not be what you specifically are looking for.)

Roleplaying
*
Reactive Companions: In Warband, companions had more detailed backstories, talked about the locations you visit, asked the player to make decisions, and reacted more often to the player's actions. They had unique, permanent personalities (could be added along with the randoms).
I think the current template system can be expanded upon to make the companions feel more alive. I don't think a separate type of companion is required for that.

* Feasts: Gathering which can be hosted by the player or AI lords (only in peacetime) in order to improve relations and gain influence.
I am on the fence with this feature. Feasts only really make sense if there is a good bit of attendance - which means lords and ladies need to prioritize them over other activities and those tend to be mostly military or self-preservatory in nature. Naturally, they could just be limited to periods of peace... but those can be few and far. Maybe I shouldn't be so concerned about logical decision making and just welcome the return of Harlaus the Butterlord. Or it's worthwhile even if it's rare. I don't think that they are impossible, in fact, I am sure that they will continue to be discussed but they are not part of the current priorities.

The plot to betray a king is linking to a discussion of the persuasion feature, which is in the game. However, I do think that there could be more issue quests that follow a political theme. They just need to meet in the middle between some form of reasonable gameplay experience (so ideally not just going through menus and dialogues) on the one hand and a limited impact on the sandbox on the other. This kind of excludes plots to start a war, but a plot to steal from the king or a rich clan (or the reverse - you being tasked to foil such a plot) or a quest to denounce / embarass another lord seem quite viable and I like the ideas.

* Courtship: The ability to talk to other NPCs about a potential spouse's likes in order to gain conversation topics. Completing quests for love interest to gain approval. Dissuading or dueling competing suitors. Returning more times over a longer period of time to build the relationship.
Persuasion may see some additional work, but I don't think it will go this route.
* Dueling lords: Legally fighting an enemy lord one-on-one, if you are competing for a lover or in a political feud.
This seems like it is repeating the previous two points so skipping it. Let me know if, I misunderstood.
* Skill Books: Expensive items which you can buy from a bookseller and read over time to gain proficiency in a skill.
I don't think this would be particularly difficult, but it may distort feedback on the gameplay based skill progression and we should get that fixed first.
* Sword Sisters: Hiring peasant women and upgrading them into combat troops with their own troop line.
It's certainly possible to add another set of mercenaries, but this doesn't seem like high priority to me.

* Crime and Gang system: Taking over gang hideouts and installing your own operation there, bribery (added for breakouts in 1.5.9), smuggling contraband, crime rating penalties by faction, undermining local nobility, etc.
The crime system largely works as described (crime rating tracking and penalties per faction), there are quests that use criminal activities like smuggling and alleys continue to be discussed. I am not sure what you are referencing by undermining local nobility but if it concerns same-faction combat encounters, then I don't think that that will be coming.
* Visible spawn point marker for reinforcements. (In Warband this was the supply chest and a banner, but anything easily visible will do.)
I think this is possible but it isn't my area of expertise. It may have been discussed recently, will check.
* Ability to select a group of troops in a small radius around you.
I don't think anything like this will be offered as it sounds like it would clash with the way formations work. Of course, if you have a formation following you, then they would presumably be selectable and around you.

*Skip 4

* Fight in the streets after winning the wall fight of a town siege.
The assault already includes the streets and will have the enemy retreat to the lord's hall - once the lord's hall fight is in.

I don't know whether you are discussing campaign or mission, but I think both can be affected by the character traits. Maybe the mission is only looking at the tactics skill, but I am not sure if further limits would actually make for a better experience, since it would just mean that there are more battles with a lower range of tactics that players can experience.

*Skip 1

I mean that's the goal :grin: They already use 3 different fronts and react to changes on the battlefield (losses of troops & equipment & defenses). Sieges will continue receiving attention.
* Banners borne by troops as shown in the 2017 video.
Banners are pending another feature, but they will come.

//

Yes, it's still not complete. But then everyone uses cliffhangers.
 
Sorry for the delay guys, these past weeks were a bit complicated in terms of private life.

Usual disclaimer - Personal opinion. Not a company statement. Not a promise. I will skip any bits that you already marked in progress or that I can't discuss.

The blog is about the persuasion feature and mentions civil war in passing - which is the setting and one of the mechanics of the main storyline.

One may also argue that any separation from a kingdom in conflict (leaving with fiefs) is arguably an act of civil war. But I presume that your reference to warband concerns claimant quests. This type of content seems possible but not a critical priority to me. I personally think that the base game mechanics of kingdoms and clans should be as solid as possible before building quests upon such a foundation.

I don't think this will come. I remember the discussion with @mexxico - while the idea was explored, there were too many challenges with AI and the focus went to making the base army and party AI better.


This seems possible.


It doesn't seem impossible, but it's not part of the current priorities. These are changes at a rather broad level and may cause a range of unforeseen consequences - and I'm sure you wouldn't want them added in a way that makes the game worse. Nonetheless, they certainly seem worth discussing to me since they can add life to the world.

Just designating a capitol would yield little gameplay value, so this is a bit of an empty suggestion. Non-party leading clan members should (soon) be staying in whichever location you leave them in in any case. Of course, there can be many features added to make a capitol more interesting, but I am not sure which you are looking for.


This seems possible, but needs to be approached carefully as a free defection is a fairly powerful boon. I personally like the idea as it adds to the feeling of a living world (like ransom offers for prisoners), but it's more of an immersion / QoL feature than a matter of critical urgency.


I have no strong opinion on them. I don't know their original design or the reason for their removal. I can see that they may add some additional points of interest to the map (permanent point of contact, opportunity for recruitment) but may also not be straight forward to pull off in a worthwhile fashion. (Is it pure menu/dialogue interaction or would they require a new scene per location? Base game locations are still WIP. Do they serve any other purpose than what i mentioned earlier? Do kingdoms have to go after them if they are at war with the minor faction? If so, what consequences does their clearing bring with it? I'm sure some solution could be found to KISS... but well, just like capitols, that may not be what you specifically are looking for.)


I think the current template system can be expanded upon to make the companions feel more alive. I don't think a separate type of companion is required for that.


I am on the fence with this feature. Feasts only really make sense if there is a good bit of attendance - which means lords and ladies need to prioritize them over other activities and those tend to be mostly military or self-preservatory in nature. Naturally, they could just be limited to periods of peace... but those can be few and far. Maybe I shouldn't be so concerned about logical decision making and just welcome the return of Harlaus the Butterlord. Or it's worthwhile even if it's rare. I don't think that they are impossible, in fact, I am sure that they will continue to be discussed but they are not part of the current priorities.


The plot to betray a king is linking to a discussion of the persuasion feature, which is in the game. However, I do think that there could be more issue quests that follow a political theme. They just need to meet in the middle between some form of reasonable gameplay experience (so ideally not just going through menus and dialogues) on the one hand and a limited impact on the sandbox on the other. This kind of excludes plots to start a war, but a plot to steal from the king or a rich clan (or the reverse - you being tasked to foil such a plot) or a quest to denounce / embarass another lord seem quite viable and I like the ideas.


Persuasion may see some additional work, but I don't think it will go this route.

This seems like it is repeating the previous two points so skipping it. Let me know if, I misunderstood.

I don't think this would be particularly difficult, but it may distort feedback on the gameplay based skill progression and we should get that fixed first.

It's certainly possible to add another set of mercenaries, but this doesn't seem like high priority to me.


The crime system largely works as described (crime rating tracking and penalties per faction), there are quests that use criminal activities like smuggling and alleys continue to be discussed. I am not sure what you are referencing by undermining local nobility but if it concerns same-faction combat encounters, then I don't think that that will be coming.

I think this is possible but it isn't my area of expertise. It may have been discussed recently, will check.

I don't think anything like this will be offered as it sounds like it would clash with the way formations work. Of course, if you have a formation following you, then they would presumably be selectable and around you.

*Skip 4


The assault already includes the streets and will have the enemy retreat to the lord's hall - once the lord's hall fight is in.


I don't know whether you are discussing campaign or mission, but I think both can be affected by the character traits. Maybe the mission is only looking at the tactics skill, but I am not sure if further limits would actually make for a better experience, since it would just mean that there are more battles with a lower range of tactics that players can experience.

*Skip 1


I mean that's the goal :grin: They already use 3 different fronts and react to changes on the battlefield (losses of troops & equipment & defenses). Sieges will continue receiving attention.

Banners are pending another feature, but they will come.

//

Yes, it's still not complete. But then everyone uses cliffhangers.
Thanks for the answer.
 

Nalgasucia507

Sergeant at Arms
Sorry for the delay guys, these past weeks were a bit complicated in terms of private life.

Usual disclaimer - Personal opinion. Not a company statement. Not a promise. I will skip any bits that you already marked in progress or that I can't discuss.

The blog is about the persuasion feature and mentions civil war in passing - which is the setting and one of the mechanics of the main storyline.

One may also argue that any separation from a kingdom in conflict (leaving with fiefs) is arguably an act of civil war. But I presume that your reference to warband concerns claimant quests. This type of content seems possible but not a critical priority to me. I personally think that the base game mechanics of kingdoms and clans should be as solid as possible before building quests upon such a foundation.

I don't think this will come. I remember the discussion with @mexxico - while the idea was explored, there were too many challenges with AI and the focus went to making the base army and party AI better.


This seems possible.


It doesn't seem impossible, but it's not part of the current priorities. These are changes at a rather broad level and may cause a range of unforeseen consequences - and I'm sure you wouldn't want them added in a way that makes the game worse. Nonetheless, they certainly seem worth discussing to me since they can add life to the world.

Just designating a capitol would yield little gameplay value, so this is a bit of an empty suggestion. Non-party leading clan members should (soon) be staying in whichever location you leave them in in any case. Of course, there can be many features added to make a capitol more interesting, but I am not sure which you are looking for.


This seems possible, but needs to be approached carefully as a free defection is a fairly powerful boon. I personally like the idea as it adds to the feeling of a living world (like ransom offers for prisoners), but it's more of an immersion / QoL feature than a matter of critical urgency.


I have no strong opinion on them. I don't know their original design or the reason for their removal. I can see that they may add some additional points of interest to the map (permanent point of contact, opportunity for recruitment) but may also not be straight forward to pull off in a worthwhile fashion. (Is it pure menu/dialogue interaction or would they require a new scene per location? Base game locations are still WIP. Do they serve any other purpose than what i mentioned earlier? Do kingdoms have to go after them if they are at war with the minor faction? If so, what consequences does their clearing bring with it? I'm sure some solution could be found to KISS... but well, just like capitols, that may not be what you specifically are looking for.)


I think the current template system can be expanded upon to make the companions feel more alive. I don't think a separate type of companion is required for that.


I am on the fence with this feature. Feasts only really make sense if there is a good bit of attendance - which means lords and ladies need to prioritize them over other activities and those tend to be mostly military or self-preservatory in nature. Naturally, they could just be limited to periods of peace... but those can be few and far. Maybe I shouldn't be so concerned about logical decision making and just welcome the return of Harlaus the Butterlord. Or it's worthwhile even if it's rare. I don't think that they are impossible, in fact, I am sure that they will continue to be discussed but they are not part of the current priorities.


The plot to betray a king is linking to a discussion of the persuasion feature, which is in the game. However, I do think that there could be more issue quests that follow a political theme. They just need to meet in the middle between some form of reasonable gameplay experience (so ideally not just going through menus and dialogues) on the one hand and a limited impact on the sandbox on the other. This kind of excludes plots to start a war, but a plot to steal from the king or a rich clan (or the reverse - you being tasked to foil such a plot) or a quest to denounce / embarass another lord seem quite viable and I like the ideas.


Persuasion may see some additional work, but I don't think it will go this route.

This seems like it is repeating the previous two points so skipping it. Let me know if, I misunderstood.

I don't think this would be particularly difficult, but it may distort feedback on the gameplay based skill progression and we should get that fixed first.

It's certainly possible to add another set of mercenaries, but this doesn't seem like high priority to me.


The crime system largely works as described (crime rating tracking and penalties per faction), there are quests that use criminal activities like smuggling and alleys continue to be discussed. I am not sure what you are referencing by undermining local nobility but if it concerns same-faction combat encounters, then I don't think that that will be coming.

I think this is possible but it isn't my area of expertise. It may have been discussed recently, will check.

I don't think anything like this will be offered as it sounds like it would clash with the way formations work. Of course, if you have a formation following you, then they would presumably be selectable and around you.

*Skip 4


The assault already includes the streets and will have the enemy retreat to the lord's hall - once the lord's hall fight is in.


I don't know whether you are discussing campaign or mission, but I think both can be affected by the character traits. Maybe the mission is only looking at the tactics skill, but I am not sure if further limits would actually make for a better experience, since it would just mean that there are more battles with a lower range of tactics that players can experience.

*Skip 1


I mean that's the goal :grin: They already use 3 different fronts and react to changes on the battlefield (losses of troops & equipment & defenses). Sieges will continue receiving attention.

Banners are pending another feature, but they will come.

//

Yes, it's still not complete. But then everyone uses cliffhangers.
Thank you for your time and your replay.
 

DennyWiseau

Regular
Sorry for the delay guys, these past weeks were a bit complicated in terms of private life.

Usual disclaimer - Personal opinion. Not a company statement. Not a promise. I will skip any bits that you already marked in progress or that I can't discuss.

The blog is about the persuasion feature and mentions civil war in passing - which is the setting and one of the mechanics of the main storyline.

One may also argue that any separation from a kingdom in conflict (player leaving with fiefs) is arguably an act of civil war. But I presume that your reference to warband concerns claimant quests. This type of content seems possible but not a critical priority to me. I personally think that the base game mechanics of kingdoms and clans should be as solid as possible before building quests upon such a foundation.

I don't think this will come. I remember the discussion with @mexxico - while the idea was explored, there were too many challenges with AI and the focus went to making the base army and party AI better.


This seems possible.


It doesn't seem impossible, but it's not part of the current priorities. These are changes at a rather broad level and may cause a range of unforeseen consequences - and I'm sure you wouldn't want them added in a way that makes the game worse. Nonetheless, they certainly seem worth discussing to me since they can add life to the world.

Just designating a capitol would yield little gameplay value, so this is a bit of an empty suggestion. Non-party leading clan members should (soon) be staying in whichever location you leave them in in any case. Of course, there can be many features added to make a capitol more interesting, but I am not sure which you are looking for.


This seems possible, but needs to be approached carefully as a free defection is a fairly powerful boon. I personally like the idea as it adds to the feeling of a living world (like ransom offers for prisoners), but it's more of an immersion / QoL feature than a matter of critical urgency.


I have no strong opinion on them. I don't know their original design or the reason for their removal. I can see that they may add some additional points of interest to the map (permanent point of contact, opportunity for recruitment) but may also not be straight forward to pull off in a worthwhile fashion. (Is it pure menu/dialogue interaction or would they require a new scene per location? Base game locations are still WIP. Do they serve any other purpose than what i mentioned earlier? Do kingdoms have to go after them if they are at war with the minor faction? If so, what consequences does their clearing bring with it? I'm sure some solution could be found to KISS... but well, just like capitols, that may not be what you specifically are looking for.)


I think the current template system can be expanded upon to make the companions feel more alive. I don't think a separate type of companion is required for that.


I am on the fence with this feature. Feasts only really make sense if there is a good bit of attendance - which means lords and ladies need to prioritize them over other activities and those tend to be mostly military or self-preservatory in nature. Naturally, they could just be limited to periods of peace... but those can be few and far. Maybe I shouldn't be so concerned about logical decision making and just welcome the return of Harlaus the Butterlord. Or it's worthwhile even if it's rare. I don't think that they are impossible, in fact, I am sure that they will continue to be discussed but they are not part of the current priorities.


The plot to betray a king is linking to a discussion of the persuasion feature, which is in the game. However, I do think that there could be more issue quests that follow a political theme. They just need to meet in the middle between some form of reasonable gameplay experience (so ideally not just going through menus and dialogues) on the one hand and a limited impact on the sandbox on the other. This kind of excludes plots to start a war, but a plot to steal from the king or a rich clan (or the reverse - you being tasked to foil such a plot) or a quest to denounce / embarass another lord seem quite viable and I like the ideas.


Persuasion may see some additional work, but I don't think it will go this route.

This seems like it is repeating the previous two points so skipping it. Let me know if, I misunderstood.

I don't think this would be particularly difficult, but it may distort feedback on the gameplay based skill progression and we should get that fixed first.

It's certainly possible to add another set of mercenaries, but this doesn't seem like high priority to me.


The crime system largely works as described (crime rating tracking and penalties per faction), there are quests that use criminal activities like smuggling and alleys continue to be discussed. I am not sure what you are referencing by undermining local nobility but if it concerns same-faction combat encounters, then I don't think that that will be coming.

I think this is possible but it isn't my area of expertise. It may have been discussed recently, will check.

I don't think anything like this will be offered as it sounds like it would clash with the way formations work. Of course, if you have a formation following you, then they would presumably be selectable and around you.

*Skip 4


The assault already includes the streets and will have the enemy retreat to the lord's hall - once the lord's hall fight is in.


I don't know whether you are discussing campaign or mission, but I think both can be affected by the character traits. Maybe the mission is only looking at the tactics skill, but I am not sure if further limits would actually make for a better experience, since it would just mean that there are more battles with a lower range of tactics that players can experience.

*Skip 1


I mean that's the goal :grin: They already use 3 different fronts and react to changes on the battlefield (losses of troops & equipment & defenses). Sieges will continue receiving attention.

Banners are pending another feature, but they will come.

//

Yes, it's still not complete. But then everyone uses cliffhangers.
gg
 

Rungsted93

Sergeant at Arms
WBWF&SVC
Sorry but why does it feel like every minor request/suggestion is made out to sound like some over-complicated feature which is not high priority.
Even worse when so many cool things were teased in the dev blogs and now we might not even get feasts lol.
 

D0c1

Knight
@five bucks
please add doing away with clan tiers for at least party sizes. it doesn't make sense that before the renown the limit (for example not actual numbers) at 2499, you have an x party size and at 2500, you have x+30.
warband's system of slowly increasing party size as renown increases is much better imo. and they should add renown decay from warband.

another point is that all factions being elective monarchies doesn't make sense for every faction. especially for the southern empire
the right to rule system from warband should make a comeback and be part of the calculations of elections and lords' defections imo.

lords who lose elections by a narrow margin (or even by a large margin if they have a certain trait) turning into claimants is a good dynamic way of creating them imo.
another way would be if the monarch won by using his influence (or bribed the lords when/if this feature of influencing kingdom descisions is added)
 
I appreciate the reply but after reading it I have lost faith in your dev team and this game. You completely under value what made previous games charming and as long lasting as they are. Warband was never just about the battles.

It was also the preparation and time spent getting to those battles. Every system however lacking they maybe blended together and made the player feel like a rising lord and when you became a lord or king those systems helped reinforce that feeling.

What you and the team do not realize is that all you had to do was copy and paste warband to bannerlord. All warband needed was a new paint job and a little polish, yet here we are 10 years later and we didn't even get what you advertised 3 years prior to release.

This game in its current state is a spit in the face to your long time supporters and fans. And if you can't give us an actual answer that is not just your opinion. Then get someone who can.
 

niekdegrijze

Sergeant at Arms
I am very disappointed with most of the replies. It looks like the game is only geared as a battle generator while a lot of the suggestions and discussions are about role playing and light kingdom management. The first big battle I had in bannerlord was amazing, but this feeling became less and less with each big battle. Loosing a fief doesn’t matter if you are not invested in that fief. Kingdom management and clan management do matter if you want the battles to matter.

capitals:
An easy implementation could be to assign a settlement as a base point for released and escaped clanmembers. An more in-depth implementation could be to add your court to the castle scene. With minister’s, constable, wife, ambassadors, spy master etc.

bandit based gameplay:
Sorry but this is the biggest let down for me personally. Based on the previews. It was shown that you could beat a gang and install your own. Simple as that.

as a noble you have passive income from taxes and flexible income from battles

as a trader you have passive income from workshops and flexible income from caravans

as a bandit you only have flexible income from raids and Battle loot. Street gangs could function as a passive income source and as a way of recruitment and black market acces.

I am under the impression that taleworlds thinks that the only good way to play the game is to become a noble, lead armies and fight in batlle after battle. The different incomes are only extra sources and it is not intended to role play.

persuasion:
This system can be better, warbands mariage system was basic, but more engaging then what we have now.

fiest/gathering:
The answer that it is very hard to implement because of the priorities of the nobles in relation to the almost constant wars cuts right to the hearth of the matter. There is only war and battles. There is not much to do in peace time, the constant battles and wars just hide this fact.
 
Last edited:

niekdegrijze

Sergeant at Arms
I would like to add that I don’t mind just fixing the mechanics and features that are currently in the game before release. I just hope that the developers realise that a lot of the old player base really liked warband + mods because of the light kingdom management options and role playing options. I am hoping that after release the work on these functions will become a priority
 
This game in its current state is a spit in the face to your long time supporters and fans. And if you can't give us an actual answer that is not just your opinion. Then get someone who can.
Mind the attitude, Duh is only there for the last couple of years, long after many (poor) design decisions were made and he answered here on his own initiative about what he knows. You usually can't get ANY kind of substantial answer from official Taleworlds.
 
Sorry for the delay guys, these past weeks were a bit complicated in terms of private life.

Usual disclaimer - Personal opinion. Not a company statement. Not a promise. I will skip any bits that you already marked in progress or that I can't discuss.

The blog is about the persuasion feature and mentions civil war in passing - which is the setting and one of the mechanics of the main storyline.

One may also argue that any separation from a kingdom in conflict (player leaving with fiefs) is arguably an act of civil war. But I presume that your reference to warband concerns claimant quests. This type of content seems possible but not a critical priority to me. I personally think that the base game mechanics of kingdoms and clans should be as solid as possible before building quests upon such a foundation.

I don't think this will come. I remember the discussion with @mexxico - while the idea was explored, there were too many challenges with AI and the focus went to making the base army and party AI better.


This seems possible.


It doesn't seem impossible, but it's not part of the current priorities. These are changes at a rather broad level and may cause a range of unforeseen consequences - and I'm sure you wouldn't want them added in a way that makes the game worse. Nonetheless, they certainly seem worth discussing to me since they can add life to the world.

Just designating a capitol would yield little gameplay value, so this is a bit of an empty suggestion. Non-party leading clan members should (soon) be staying in whichever location you leave them in in any case. Of course, there can be many features added to make a capitol more interesting, but I am not sure which you are looking for.


This seems possible, but needs to be approached carefully as a free defection is a fairly powerful boon. I personally like the idea as it adds to the feeling of a living world (like ransom offers for prisoners), but it's more of an immersion / QoL feature than a matter of critical urgency.


I have no strong opinion on them. I don't know their original design or the reason for their removal. I can see that they may add some additional points of interest to the map (permanent point of contact, opportunity for recruitment) but may also not be straight forward to pull off in a worthwhile fashion. (Is it pure menu/dialogue interaction or would they require a new scene per location? Base game locations are still WIP. Do they serve any other purpose than what i mentioned earlier? Do kingdoms have to go after them if they are at war with the minor faction? If so, what consequences does their clearing bring with it? I'm sure some solution could be found to KISS... but well, just like capitols, that may not be what you specifically are looking for.)


I think the current template system can be expanded upon to make the companions feel more alive. I don't think a separate type of companion is required for that.


I am on the fence with this feature. Feasts only really make sense if there is a good bit of attendance - which means lords and ladies need to prioritize them over other activities and those tend to be mostly military or self-preservatory in nature. Naturally, they could just be limited to periods of peace... but those can be few and far. Maybe I shouldn't be so concerned about logical decision making and just welcome the return of Harlaus the Butterlord. Or it's worthwhile even if it's rare. I don't think that they are impossible, in fact, I am sure that they will continue to be discussed but they are not part of the current priorities.


The plot to betray a king is linking to a discussion of the persuasion feature, which is in the game. However, I do think that there could be more issue quests that follow a political theme. They just need to meet in the middle between some form of reasonable gameplay experience (so ideally not just going through menus and dialogues) on the one hand and a limited impact on the sandbox on the other. This kind of excludes plots to start a war, but a plot to steal from the king or a rich clan (or the reverse - you being tasked to foil such a plot) or a quest to denounce / embarass another lord seem quite viable and I like the ideas.


Persuasion may see some additional work, but I don't think it will go this route.

This seems like it is repeating the previous two points so skipping it. Let me know if, I misunderstood.

I don't think this would be particularly difficult, but it may distort feedback on the gameplay based skill progression and we should get that fixed first.

It's certainly possible to add another set of mercenaries, but this doesn't seem like high priority to me.


The crime system largely works as described (crime rating tracking and penalties per faction), there are quests that use criminal activities like smuggling and alleys continue to be discussed. I am not sure what you are referencing by undermining local nobility but if it concerns same-faction combat encounters, then I don't think that that will be coming.

I think this is possible but it isn't my area of expertise. It may have been discussed recently, will check.

I don't think anything like this will be offered as it sounds like it would clash with the way formations work. Of course, if you have a formation following you, then they would presumably be selectable and around you.

*Skip 4


The assault already includes the streets and will have the enemy retreat to the lord's hall - once the lord's hall fight is in.


I don't know whether you are discussing campaign or mission, but I think both can be affected by the character traits. Maybe the mission is only looking at the tactics skill, but I am not sure if further limits would actually make for a better experience, since it would just mean that there are more battles with a lower range of tactics that players can experience.

*Skip 1


I mean that's the goal :grin: They already use 3 different fronts and react to changes on the battlefield (losses of troops & equipment & defenses). Sieges will continue receiving attention.

Banners are pending another feature, but they will come.

//

Yes, it's still not complete. But then everyone uses cliffhangers.
I was very disappointed that you think that many of the features are ready . I'll say nothing about the siege ... Because Siege's AI is terrible !
 
Mind the attitude, Duh is only there for the last couple of years, long after many (poor) design decisions were made and he answered here on his own initiative about what he knows. You usually can't get ANY kind of substantial answer from official Taleworlds.

Yeah no. The only reason duh posted that is because he got permission to post that. You can't just have developers posting whatever they want on the forums about your product. So don't give me the developer of the people crap. It's just his opinion. Give us someone who actually calls the shots.

We need an OFFICIAL statement from the COMPANY about what is intended for their game.
 
Yeah no. The only reason duh posted that is because he got permission to post that. You can't just have developers posting whatever they want on the forums about your product. So don't give me the developer of the people crap. It's just his opinion. Give us someone who actually calls the shots.

We need an OFFICIAL statement from the COMPANY about what is intended for their game.
You don't get it. Calm down and count to 10. This is a voluntary response from an individual developer, not the company. Maybe you would be happier with no response at all or PR crap? Because no one has to listen to your Karen roleplaying.
 
You don't get it. Calm down and count to 10. This is a voluntary response from an individual developer, not the company. Maybe you would be happier with no response at all or PR crap? Because no one has to listen to your Karen roleplaying.
Lmao Everything that gets posted here by a member of the tales world team has to be approved by someone. You can't just have people who represent your company saying whatever they please.
 
Lmao Everything that gets posted here by a member of the tales world team has to be approved by someone. You can't just have people who represent your company saying whatever they please.
Different companies have different policies about the engagement that is permitted. There are certainly some statements that would require permission (any confirmation of future content for one), but others, such as the discussion of existing features or community suggestions and what we (personally) think about them, don't. Of course, there are still certain standards to follow, including courtesy, but, no, not every post by a developer requires approval.
 
Thanks for your elaborate answer Duh, much appreciated.
Although it's quite disappointing that stuff like companions probably will be even less complex than in warband... unbelievable.
 
Top Bottom