Companions limit should raised

[crimsonsogood]

First I like to mention about how hard the player skills increasing is. I am at the day of 343, I get into lots of battles, sieges but I am only at level 20. and its become very hard to level up right now. I have tried to increase all of my skills to get much focus and attribute points, but it seems I can't level up anymore. I reached the limit of all my skills and can't get much experience and due to can't level up, thus can't get more focus points.. endless loop..

I wrote that companions limit should be raised because with this current skill system, I think we can only "mastered" in one ore two skill branch.. like you are either two-handed- riding and bow or one handed- crossbow and athletics. Okay this can be seem balanced but, it can be boring also.. and for more, you also can't increase your intelligence and cunning skills at the same time. because if you want to increase that skill, you have to spend focus and attribute points. which you can't if you wanted to be good at ranged and melee.

So, companions actually have an important role, for example if you assign them a party role, like giving up on your steward skill and assigning to companion, this can give you a more unused focus points. and you can become jack of all trades in fighting. But the fact is we don't enough companion member limit until we hit some decent clan level. and after that, when you are in a kingdom, and vassal of it. of course you will be rewarded with a fiefs. and usually they would be different culture from us. and without governor assigned, loyality, milita and other micro managment is will be missing.

you just can't have enough governor for towns and companions as a warriors for your main party and medic or scout or quartermaster or surgeon. the damn thing is always will be missing.. and you can't much level up your companion skills because they don't have much focus points on their skills like your charcter. if you are level 20 you will have 32 focus points but a companion of level 20 can have only 20 focus points. So they will indeed develop some skills if you assign them but not for the combat skills.


TLDR: my humble advice is increase the companion limit and rework the skill system(maybe like in the warband) or atleast give more focus&attribute points per level.

 

[Lazregamesh]

I think governors should not count in companion limit. I know we should not horde towns but sometimes you want a Town in a new front to use as an HQ and its hard to give up a town you have spent years developing. Once you are king you can ignore governors because policies will cover any loyalty issue but still, it feels good to assign governors and level them up. They could be used as your eyes in the cities (Give trade price info, maybe quests for food/prosperity rewards). Something to think about

 

[crimsonsogood]

I think governors should not count in companion limit. I know we should not horde towns but sometimes you want a Town in a new front to use as an HQ and its hard to give up a town you have spent years developing. Once you are king you can ignore governors because policies will cover any loyalty issue but still, it feels good to assign governors and level them up. They could be used as your eyes in the cities (Give trade price info, maybe quests for food/prosperity rewards). Something to think about

hmm, I can agree with not counting governers in the limit. that would give more empty place for others indeed.
yeah kinda, we are playing a role playing game at the end. I would want to have high prosperity towns of course. but these micromanagment is what bothers me. we need to have more limit.

and adding new features for governers would be cool as you wrote.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I reached the limit of all my skills and can't get much experience and due to can't level up, thus can't get more focus points.. endless loop..

This isn't how exp works in any recent versions. You still get raw exp to level up, even if you're at a hard cap for a skill. SO if you want to level up more, just shoot enemies from horseback from long distance, even with capped skills in ranged and riding you will get a lot of raw exp.

Okay this can be seem balanced but, it can be boring also.. and for more, you also can't increase your intelligence and cunning skills at the same time. because if you want to increase that skill, you have to spend focus and attribute points. which you can't if you wanted to be good at ranged and melee.

You can have 10 in one attribute, 7 in another and 2 in the rest with 1 extra point. I would recommend not investing in vigor or control ever, getting the 200 skill from just FP is plenty for any of those skills on you MC, you can even ignore vigor skills and wield melee weapons perfectly.

I do agree if feels stingy though and choosing between the 3 passive groups is hard as all are important. I would like to see attributes go away so we can freely pick our skills we want to specialize in. For instance leadership and scouting are really good but roguery, tactics, charm and trade can go eat bag of ?.

One things I think would help is if none-MC clan members could fill multiple roles in your party. AS it is you can make good INT builds for family/kids, but then they can only be 1 INT role at a time in you main party.

I agree that if you're trying to take the map as a solo clan the amount of companions/governors isn't enough obviously, but I also know TW doesn't really intend for us to play this way (for a long time) so it's questionable whether they consider this scenario. A good solution might be to hire another type of PC that is just a governor for that town/castle and cannot be called to a party, they're just like a professional mayor or something and you pay them.

As for playing the conventional way, once you make a kingdom a few loyalty and security policies make governors unneeded, plus it is better to retain only 1 fief and use the rets to raise new clan whenever possible.

 

[Ser Jon]

I think governors should not count in companion limit. I know we should not horde towns but sometimes you want a Town in a new front to use as an HQ and its hard to give up a town you have spent years developing. Once you are king you can ignore governors because policies will cover any loyalty issue but still, it feels good to assign governors and level them up. They could be used as your eyes in the cities (Give trade price info, maybe quests for food/prosperity rewards). Something to think about

I agree. It's bizarre that governors count toward your companions. The companions should be only NPCs which actively follow your around or such. A separate category should be made for "heads of state" etc etc.

 

[crimsonsogood]

This isn't how exp works in any recent versions. You still get raw exp to level up, even if you're at a hard cap for a skill. SO if you want to level up more, just shoot enemies from horseback from long distance, even with capped skills in ranged and riding you will get a lot of raw exp.

you are right, even if you pass the skill limit, still you get at least 4.00 skill point increase. but its slightly become lower and lower. and makes the all things more grindy.

You can have 10 in one attribute, 7 in another and 2 in the rest with 1 extra point. I would recommend not investing in vigor or control ever, getting the 200 skill from just FP is plenty for any of those skills on you MC, you can even ignore vigor skills and wield melee weapons perfectly.

I do agree if feels stingy though and choosing between the 3 passive groups is hard as all are important. I would like to see attributes go away so we can freely pick our skills we want to specialize in. For instance leadership and scouting are really good but roguery, tactics, charm and trade can go eat bag of ?.

One things I think would help is if none-MC clan members could fill multiple roles in your party. AS it is you can make good INT builds for family/kids, but then they can only be 1 INT role at a time in you main party.

this is were its become more micromanagment.. i start to hate it. I realized the struggle after the level 20, and can't change the focus and attribute points either.
yes, also that can be add in the game. more roles for clan members.

I agree that if you're trying to take the map as a solo clan the amount of companions/governors isn't enough obviously, but I also know TW doesn't really intend for us to play this way (for a long time) so it's questionable whether they consider this scenario. A good solution might be to hire another type of PC that is just a governor for that town/castle and cannot be called to a party, they're just like a professional mayor or something and you pay them.

As for playing the conventional way, once you make a kingdom a few loyalty and security policies make governors unneeded, plus it is better to retain only 1 fief and use the rets to raise new clan whenever possible.

There was a topic about things should be brought from warband to bannerlord. hiring governors is absolutely one of them.
Hmm, I had created kingdom in my old gameplays from the last year but didin't remember anything about it. and after started again to bannerlord 2 weeks ago, I haven't create any kingdom and thus didin't realize there is a policy about balancing loyality and security. and it seems AI kingdoms also don't interested in diplomacy so I didin't see much any change during being vassal of vlandia. thanks for the info Ananda

I agree. It's bizarre that governors count toward your companions. The companions should be only NPCs which actively follow your around or such. A separate category should be made for "heads of state" etc etc.

In warband there wasn't any such thing, you could get all the companions. why not bannerlord don't have unique companions, maybe even with random ones too. also can be fun with struggling little conversation about dislikes among companions. kinda same like in warband.

 

[Lazregamesh]

I agree. It's bizarre that governors count toward your companions. The companions should be only NPCs which actively follow your around or such. A separate category should be made for "heads of state" etc etc.

Exactly! they need to accompany you if they are to be called companions.

hmm, I can agree with not counting governers in the limit. that would give more empty place for others indeed.
yeah kinda, we are playing a role playing game at the end. I would want to have high prosperity towns of course. but these micromanagment is what bothers me. we need to have more limit.

and adding new features for governers would be cool as you wrote.

If the governors had more autonomy based on traits or the way you leveled them that would solve all the micromanagements.

 

[Earth Dragon]

I disagree with this entire premise unfortunately. There is a semantical element of “they are called companions, therefore if they aren’t with me, they shouldn’t count!!” Call them close friends, compatriots, trusted individuals, whatever, those are the people you have surrounded yourself with and you only have so much capacity to have folks outside your family in that capacity. It also dismissed the natural evolution that companions can have where they are a companion leading their own column of troops, or you’re allowing them to fulfill their dream of running a caravan etc.

This is another case where people see a “limit” and if they can’t max out all the other “limits” within that number, they demand more. Games work best when there is a give and take, and most certainly is a game like this. You have to give up one thing to get another. Another post was saying they should get 10 parties for their personal Clan at ruler level because, I imagine, they had 10 bodies to make those parties.

So start adding all these together: I need more party limit because I have more bodies to make them, and I need more “companions” because I can’t reach the max on all fronts, or I need to be able to hire people who don’t count against any limits so I manage everything I want optimally and you are destroying a core tenant of the game. So much of Bannerlord is presenting an environment where you have to collaborate, you can’t do it all yourself, and your influence and clan have their limits. The caps are there to enforce a limited span of personal control and that you have to make decisions of what you choose to control and optimize.

This also gives more meaning to skills and milestone abilities that increase these limits, whether it’s your party size, your clan’s party limit, your companion limit etc. It’s a great showing that you have a wider span of control because of your skills and abilities.

I’d rather they dip the other direction. Not that they “lower” limits or anything that crazy, but having companions in your party can also be assigned as default captains in your personal battles. Now there are major decisions to be had: do you keep your people close and assign them to make your personal retinue that much stronger, or do you have them spread out and have more loyal parties to call up to your personal army.

That’s the sort of thing where if you don’t like the risk vs reward, pros and cons model, you do what most power gamers do and mod it all out, missing the point of all those systems as usual. But the balanced experienced should be the “base” experience, not something you have to mod into the game.

 

[Gandamula]

This kind of problem could be solved installing a mod, like Bannerlord Cheats,you cam have a army full of companions. They just try to maintain some restrictions, imagine you have 20 companions trading, even without trading perks.
Playing with mods that modified the game premises make the game more enjoyable but much more easy,I use the companion cheats and with Distinguish service some times I have 20/30 skilled companions just because, I don't give them any value because they are so easy to get and so many. I think thats why they try to impose some limits.

 

[MostBlunted]

This kind of problem could be solved installing a mod, like Bannerlord Cheats,you cam have a army full of companions. They just try to maintain some restrictions, imagine you have 20 companions trading, even without trading perks.

Wouldn´t it be easy if we could have X companions but only Y caravans?

 

[Gandamula]

Wouldn´t it be easy if we could have X companions but only Y caravans?

They could do it, but you could ask why can't we made more caravans if we want. Limits make things more valuable, you have to make choices, that's the game developers' intention, limits are made to keep the slow pace of the game.

I still remember before using Mods, I spent the first two hours of the game buying wheat and then with the money I bought one mule at a time and more wheat, and more mules, I had few soldiers because I couldn't pay etc.
Now with the Mods I have installed, I immediately sell the helmet for 70k and buy all the mules in the city and some horses, recruit troops in all villages, buy and sell huge amounts of goods right away, advance 5 or 6 skills in trade each time I enter in a city, I have looters available from 10 to 300 to train my troops. In short, when I was supposed to have a little band that was barely armed and trained I already have a practically indefeasible army.
And that's when the game gets boring and I start all over again.?

 

[MostBlunted]

It´s not about their limits it´s about the missing late game. Different difficult settings are there for stuff like this.

But yes, the early / mid game grind is the most fun, because after that there is not really much to keep playing for. The only goal is to paint the map when you´ve seen everything else (which is not that much). There aren´t many different playstyles you can try, I would even say only two (with and without trading). The rest is always the same again and again and again.

 

[Ser Jon]

This kind of problem could be solved installing a mod, like Bannerlord Cheats,you cam have a army full of companions. They just try to maintain some restrictions, imagine you have 20 companions trading, even without trading perks.
Playing with mods that modified the game premises make the game more enjoyable but much more easy,I use the companion cheats and with Distinguish service some times I have 20/30 skilled companions just because, I don't give them any value because they are so easy to get and so many. I think thats why they try to impose some limits.

Solutions should not come in the form of modifications. The limit doesn't have to endless, it just should increase or there needs to be a separate category for companions which are not with you on the field. They can easily be swapped back out or in again, too. It would solve the issue...well, almost entirely.

 

[Earth Dragon]

Solutions should not come in the form of modifications. The limit doesn't have to endless, it just should increase or there needs to be a separate category for companions which are not with you on the field. They can easily be swapped back out or in again, too. It would solve the issue...well, almost entirely.

But this isn’t something that necessarily needs a “solution”. It’s one preference to try to completely circumvent the decision making components of the game.

So if you are insistent of circumventing part of the core game experience (your characters limited capacity to do “everything” at once) then absolutely mods are something that should be looked at.

What’s being asked for could honestly easily turn into less “companions” total and the player just having access to a stable of friends, with companions designated as “how many are allowed in your party. In the game’s current form, it essentially allows you to bring your entire clan with you into one super party if you want. So by insisting that companions be a designation of how many non-family can come with you, a change could result, if people insist, on companions being replaced with some other wording like “Party nobles” and then another clan limit surface designated as “Clan Notables” which is just shifting around what we call what.

So the current iteration actually offers players with the most choice of how they operate with their family and friends, and offer you pros cons as to what all are you going to do with them

 

[Ser Jon]

But this isn’t something that necessarily needs a “solution”.

That's your opinion. It's been an issue stated by many people before though, and telling them their suggestions are not necessary or should be done via a mod is dismissive, and doesn't make any of it true, to boot.

It’s one preference to try to completely circumvent the decision making components of the game.

So if you are insistent of circumventing part of the core game experience (your characters limited capacity to do “everything” at once) then absolutely mods are something that should be looked at.

What’s being asked for could honestly easily turn into less “companions” total and the player just having access to a stable of friends, with companions designated as “how many are allowed in your party. In the game’s current form, it essentially allows you to bring your entire clan with you into one super party if you want. So by insisting that companions be a designation of how many non-family can come with you, a change could result, if people insist, on companions being replaced with some other wording like “Party nobles” and then another clan limit surface designated as “Clan Notables” which is just shifting around what we call what.

So the current iteration actually offers players with the most choice of how they operate with their family and friends, and offer you pros cons as to what all are you going to do with them

Not every decision TW has made is good just because they thought to make it, they aren't infallible, despite what you might think. There are numerous things they decided upon that has been absolute trash and trusting in them to get things right without input from us (the customers) is ridiculous. In this case, companion limits needs adjustments, and adjusting it won't "circumvent" a core game experience. No one is saying remove it or completely alter it, just to adjust it. If you promote companions into a new category, such as governors, it would mean relieving important companion space for those you want to drag about. All this would do, is free up a little space, and give players just a bit more room to work with. No one is asking TW to give them the moon and back.

And circumventing something also isn't inherently a problem, when what you are circumventing is trash. As for your reasoning as to why it shouldn't be, "because it would cause so and so", that sort of fear it "might happen" is not really a reason to not do it? Though I don't see how you can make such an assertion so easily and so confidently in the first place.

How about this scenario though; it gets changed and people can use mods to change it back. Though I suspect then they'd understand why "use a mod" isn't an answer.

 

[Earth Dragon]

That's your opinion. It's been an issue stated by many people before though, and telling them their suggestions are not necessary or should be done via a mod is dismissive, and doesn't make any of it true, to boot.



Not every decision TW has made is good just because they thought to make it, they aren't infallible, despite what you might think. There are numerous things they decided upon that has been absolute trash and trusting in them to get things right without input from us (the customers) is ridiculous. In this case, companion limits needs adjustments, and adjusting it won't "circumvent" a core game experience. No one is saying remove it or completely alter it, just to adjust it. If you promote companions into a new category, such as governors, it would mean relieving important companion space for those you want to drag about. All this would do, is free up a little space, and give players just a bit more room to work with. No one is asking TW to give them the moon and back.

And circumventing something also isn't inherently a problem, when what you are circumventing is trash. As for your reasoning as to why it shouldn't be, "because it would cause so and so", that sort of fear it "might happen" is not really a reason to not do it? Though I don't see how you can make such an assertion so easily and so confidently in the first place.

How about this scenario though; it gets changed and people can use mods to change it back. Though I suspect then they'd understand why "use a mod" isn't an answer.

Dude, apply what you said to yourself and get a clue. “It’s just your opinion” applies to you and is the ultimate show of being dismissive. Stating why something is practical and fits to the core of the game isn’t being dismissive, but that’s what you want to do because the game hasn’t been 100% catered to your sensibilities. At some point, yes, one should mod a game if they don’t like the balance functions of the game in favor of how they want it, not force the game to be dumbed down or simplified on a specific front, in this case the fact you have to manage your own personal limitations and max span of control, just because that’s what you want.

 

[Ser Jon]

Dude, apply what you said to yourself and get a clue. “It’s just your opinion” applies to you and is the ultimate show of being dismissive. Stating why something is practical and fits to the core of the game isn’t being dismissive, but that’s what you want to do because the game hasn’t been 100% catered to your sensibilities. At some point, yes, one should mod a game if they don’t like the balance functions of the game in favor of how they want it, not force the game to be dumbed down or simplified on a specific front, in this case the fact you have to manage your own personal limitations and max span of control, just because that’s what you want.

Of course it's just my opinion. That's why I'm sharing it here and clearly as indicated by others, it's a shared one. The whole point of my comment was that you can't say it isn't necessary simply because you don't value it, since many people have commented on it before (even now), it clearly has a merit to a number of people within the community. If you are going to get upset over a statement like that though, alright?

Getting a mod is not a solution, and it never will in a circumstance like this. This isn't like someone's asking for a theme overhaul of the game like asking for a fantasy overhaul, or for them to re-structure the entire essence of the game like removing companions or limits entirely, which could qualify for a mod. This is someone making a suggestion on improving a core mechanic. So yes, telling someone it "isn't necessary" because you don't care for it and to "get a mod to do it" is dismissive. Telling you that your statement is "opinion" is not dismissive, but if that's what you want to believe, I can't stop you.

And it's interesting you think altering the companion limit a little dumbs the game down or makes it "simplified". Can you explain how people wouldn't be able to manage their own "personal limitations" and "control" if the companion limit was raised a little or divided into categories? It's not like they'd have eight million companions on the field at once giving them some insane buffs because they made Billy Jean the Barbarian the governor of some dingy town. It would be freeing up existing companion space by moving/converting companions you've allotted to civilian jobs or state jobs into their own category.

 

[Lazregamesh]

And it's interesting you think altering the companion limit a little dumbs the game down or makes it "simplified". Can you explain how people wouldn't be able to manage their own "personal limitations" and "control" if the companion limit was raised a little or divided into categories? It's not like they'd have eight million companions on the field at once giving them some insane buffs because they made Billy Jean the Barbarian the governor of some dingy town. It would be freeing up existing companion space by moving/converting companions you've allotted to civilian jobs or state jobs into their own category.

I don't see how that simplifies the game either.
Every opinion in the forum counts and contributes to the possibility of enhancing the game. I respect the design they come up with, the first step is always the hardest, but we can suggest to make it better. We can be wrong as much as they can be too. The only way to find out and to evolve is through a discussion and exchange of ideas, a forum of a game while it is still in beta seems like the perfect place to do that.

not force the game to be dumbed down or simplified on a specific front, in this case the fact you have to manage your own personal limitations and max span of control, just because that’s what you want.

I am glad you are happy with the way things are, your opinion matters as much as everyone else. I like Jon's idea of giving governors their own category. It helps with organization and frees up space for active duty "Friends" if you want to call them that. A king with 8 friends doesn't make sense if you ask my opinion though. Look at CK3 for example, how many dukes, clan leaders, barons, family members, landed lords, fief holders does a king have to deal with? I am not asking for the companion limit to represent that, not by a long shot, but i am just using that example to highlight the extent of a king's entourage.
I am ok with limits, and i agree, limitless should be a mod thing. Improving an existing system is better though.

 

[Earth Dragon]

I don't see how that simplifies the game either.
Every opinion in the forum counts and contributes to the possibility of enhancing the game. I respect the design they come up with, the first step is always the hardest, but we can suggest to make it better. We can be wrong as much as they can be too. The only way to find out and to evolve is through a discussion and exchange of ideas, a forum of a game while it is still in beta seems like the perfect place to do that.

I am glad you are happy with the way things are, your opinion matters as much as everyone else. I like Jon's idea of giving governors their own category. It helps with organization and frees up space for active duty "Friends" if you want to call them that. A king with 8 friends doesn't make sense if you ask my opinion though. Look at CK3 for example, how many dukes, clan leaders, barons, family members, landed lords, fief holders does a king have to deal with? I am not asking for the companion limit to represent that, not by a long shot, but i am just using that example to highlight the extent of a king's entourage.
I am ok with limits, and i agree, limitless should be a mod thing. Improving an existing system is better though.

Let’s not act like Jon was acting in good faith. If someone has to mention “that’s your opinion” as he did, it’s only to undermine the other. I only said it to show the hypocrisy. But I’ve already set him to ignore since there’s no use in engaging people that don’t show you the default courtesy that we’re all here for the same reason: to discuss and present our opinion. I didn’t need it explained and so I don’t appreciate you thinking that I need it explained either. We should all just operate as if everyone understands that and not be so arrogant that “we” understand and “they” don’t.

You still collect taxes even if you don’t have an assigned governor.

You still see other parties even if you don’t have assigned scout.

You can still build siege equipment even if you don’t have an assigned engineer

And for those last two, you still do those things even if you had no investment in those categories as I understand you are technically assigned.

The issue here is you guys are advocating that a core tenant of the game be scrapped. That core tenant being your own limitations. It’s why you can’t max out Scouting, and Blacksmithing, and Engineer with all the same character. You have to get others help if you want all those. But by grabbing others to do all that it comes at the cost of maximum efficiency to either your party count, or how strong all your fiefs could be.

And that’s why I said it’s best left to a mod to get an raw increase. If you want to circumvent the fact you aren’t intended to have everything covered, then “shifts in numbers” are easy to do and doesn’t unbalance the game as intended for all. Again, you still have scouts and your towns are still being governed even if there is a name to them, but if you want to put a trusted family member there that will do a great job, you can’t cover it all.

The is already barely on this side of respecting a “pro/con” model of decision making and if the suggestions I’ve seen like 10 party limit, hirable governors (ignoring you essentially are already doing that as a default), and mounted infantry moving as fast as cavalry, the game has nothing left.

Warband was all about limitations, including that of your birth status and gender. If you wanted that gone, you had to mod it out

 

[Ser Jon]

Let’s not act like Jon was acting in good faith. If someone has to mention “that’s your opinion” as he did, it’s only to undermine the other.

Stating something is your opinion and thus you shouldn't dismiss other people is "bad faith"? Alrighty.

I don't see how that simplifies the game either.
Every opinion in the forum counts and contributes to the possibility of enhancing the game. I respect the design they come up with, the first step is always the hardest, but we can suggest to make it better. We can be wrong as much as they can be too. The only way to find out and to evolve is through a discussion and exchange of ideas, a forum of a game while it is still in beta seems like the perfect place to do that.

It's because it doesn't, and that's why my questions was ignored. A slight increase or allotting non-combatives to a new category to relieve existing limits wouldn't break a thing about the game.

And yes, this is the perfect place to discuss something like this. And the idea that because Taleworlds made a decision it must be absolute even when customers are requesting a change is just bizarre. They aren't a God, they can and have been wrong a thousand times over. If a good number of people think the companion limit is a hindrance right now, and come up with several ways to fix it, TW should at least consider it. We are the ones playing it, after all.