companions should come back to u when escape captivity

Users who are viewing this thread

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
What a sh!tstorm this all is. Honestly, I don't agree with jumping down people's throat when the initial intent was to help someone who had a suggestion. But TW...ya'll ****ed this. Badly.

You need to send out an written update every once in a while so people can get excited about the game we paid for. Lock the post if you don't want (possible negative) feedback. But the majority of users who check on this forum just want an update on the game.

@Duh_TaleWorlds Can you tell us if there are plans in the future to re-introduce text updates to the community? Maybe if it involves immediate bans on excessively unruly commenters or locked posts. Just something would be nice.

Get over yourself and you White Knighting. Everyone here wants the same thing -better detailed and more often Updates. I never personally insulted Duh i criticize this company's policy. Everyone has the right to speak and its not up to you to play Forum Cop.
 
Get over yourself and you White Knighting. Everyone here wants the same thing -better detailed and more often Updates. I never personally insulted Duh i criticize this company's policy. Everyone has the right to speak and its not up to you to play Forum Cop.
Who the **** are you? 🤣
 

Duh_TaleWorlds

Developer
You said a reply was coming that would address the first part of the thread and then you would tackle the rest later https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...or-you-taleworlds.440590/page-23#post-9673649 which was good, but then we didn't see the latter half.
I think we got sidetracked by the discussion of "it was in warband" at the time :razz: ... it seems like the OP changed a lot since, right? At least I can't find the order of my responses anymore. Having said that, there may be some overlap with this response as well https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...-your-faith-in-taleworlds.448508/post-9769341

For most things it does come down to what I noted more generically here https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...-ready-for-you-taleworlds.440590/post-9663064

But just to go through the ones you mentioned
high tier troops dying too easily in autoresolve in situations where they shouldn't
Some tweaks were made on this quite some time ago. I presume it's still not satisfactory to you, but I would need more specific feedback to engage with (probably there is a thread or ten on this, maybe you could link me the one you find most valid currently).
the option to spend more influence on a vote so you can actually change the outcomes of votes
If you can spend more - so can the AI. I do think this may be evaluated in more depth going forward and changes may be made, but currently a greater focus is being given to the general economy, army AI and skill progression.

AI spamming the same vote and draining the ruler's influence
This seems acceptable in principle. (Otherwise why have voting at all if the ruler always decides?) Of course, the AI ruler would ideally retain some influence for critical actions. I expect that that would be looked at alongside the general influence economy above.

nobles and garrisons not being willing to ever surrender
The single most important thing for an AI clan is their settlements. There is no logical reason for them to give it up without a fight. Given that it is so critically valuable, IMO it is okay that it trumps RP/Immersion. It could be okay for them to give up if the odds are entirely stacked against them (1:20 && troops < 50), but even that is a bit finnicky (f.e. they should at least wait until you are ready to assault, since a relief force may arrive while you are preparing your siege camp).

I also think that the more important change here was to improve starvation in sieges - which was done.

melee cavalry AI being very bad and inaccurate at hitting infantry
I frankly don't know too much about this area - other than that there are more improvements coming for agents in general & sieges in particular.

@Duh_TaleWorlds Can you tell us if there are plans in the future to re-introduce text updates to the community? Maybe if it involves immediate bans on excessively unruly commenters or locked posts. Just something would be nice.
I don't think that any special moderation policy is needed for this. If it happens, people should just be aware that it will not be a grand departure from what we have already shared.
 
I don't think that any special moderation policy is needed for this. If it happens, people should just be aware that it will not be a grand departure from what we have already shared.
I wouldn't consider kicking people for being d!ckheads as a special moderation policy..I would consider that a pretty normal moderation standard.

You stated that the negativity in the forum's have affected other developers in TW (but not you). If you want an engaged community with more helpful suggestions and feedback, you need to clamp down on the little gremlins and their toxicity. That way your fellow developers are not disheartened and feel more free to engage, and we can read posts without some cretin crawling out from under their rock to blast said posts with negativity.

To put it simply, if it wasn't for the negative people, would you be posting more regular updates to the forum?
 
Last edited:

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
I wouldn't consider kicking people for being d!ckheads as a special moderation policy..I would consider that a pretty normal moderation standard.

You stated that the negativity in the forum's have affected other developers in TW (but not you). If you want an engaged community with more helpful suggestions and feedback, you need to clamp down on the little gremlins and their toxicity. That way your fellow developers are not disheartened and feel more free to engage, and we can read posts without some cretin crawling out from under their rock to blast said posts with negativity.

To put it simply, if it wasn't for the negative people, would you be posting more regular updates to the forum?
In case you didnt know, while this is the official forum used by TW it is technically not run by TW, it is run by volunteers(mods) of the community. So the forum policy is not for TW or its devs to decide.
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
If you can spend more - so can the AI
NO, only if you program them to be able to, you could just not to improve the game play and let the player have more agency in the game.
This seems acceptable in principle. (Otherwise why have voting at all if the ruler always decides?)
No because you(TW) made the AI stupid, it doesn't know what areas are good to attack, it doesn't know what fiefs are best for which vassals, it doesn't know what policies would benefit it it doesn't KNOW ANYTHING! It just looks at some numbers and rolls. IMO full control over you faction like in warband would be 1000X better because the AI just doesn't know anything.
Of course, the AI ruler would ideally retain some influence for critical actions.
No ideally you pump out clans ASAP because it's the only thing you can do. You can't control your vassals at all but you make so many that nothing else matters, they just bury the AI. Holding back for a vote is always the wrong the choice.
It could be okay for them to give up if the odds are entirely stacked against them (1:20 && troops < 50), but even that is a bit finnicky (f.e. they should at least wait until you are ready to assault, since a relief force may arrive while you are preparing your siege camp).
Please add something, it's really obnoxious to have to launch a siege battle to kill 2 guys.
also think that the more important change here was to improve starvation in sieges - which was done.
Yes, this was a useful improvement!
I think it would be nice to introduce something that would make this a bit easier (whether it is what you describe or representatives that appear in towns occasionally or a conversation with your governor or simply another circle notification with an offer), but so far this is not being actively worked on.
Occasionally? The AI hires mercs constantly, instant and remotely! Even with the AI ruler in prison they hire mercs! They spend zero campaign time to get them. For the player they need an equal access to them, meaning are always able to contact the available ones and always know who is available. Or, you could remove the remote/instant hiring from the AI, make the rules actually waste days and days fallowing a merc leader on the map! And certainly when the ruler is imprisoned they should be unable to hire more mercs!
 
Last edited:
In case you didnt know, while this is the official forum used by TW it is technically not run by TW, it is run by volunteers(mods) of the community. So the forum policy is not for TW or its devs to decide.
That's interesting. I actually didn't know that. Here was me thinking it was set up by TW for suggestions/feedback during the Warband etc days. I hope TW are atleast footing the bill for the cost of the domain name 💰
 

Duh_TaleWorlds

Developer
I wouldn't consider kicking people for being d!ckheads as a special moderation policy..I would consider that a pretty normal moderation standard.
Depends I guess. Me just being annoyed / frustrated with some of the responses isn't a good enough reason to slap people and lose our free range, grass-fed, organic, gluten-free forum certification. :iamamoron: I can just tell people when I feel that way and they can take it into account. Or take a break. Of course, personal insults & harassment do get a pretty quick boot.
 

stevepine

Knight at Arms
I wouldn't consider kicking people for being d!ckheads as a special moderation policy..I would consider that a pretty normal moderation standard.

You stated that the negativity in the forum's have affected other developers in TW (but not you). If you want an engaged community with more helpful suggestions and feedback, you need to clamp down on the little gremlins and their toxicity. That way your fellow developers are not disheartened and feel more free to engage, and we can read posts without some cretin crawling out from under their rock to blast said posts with negativity.

To put it simply, if it wasn't for the negative people, would you be posting more regular updates to the forum?
Proper, regular updates shouldn't depend on the emotional state of a TW representative or even a Community Manager. They should just be standard practice, regardless. It's a matter of being professional.
 
Last edited:
Proper updates shouldn't depend on the emotional state of a TW rep or even a community manager. They should just be standard practice. It's a matter of being professional.
This was the point I was kinda trying to get at. But I'm not really getting an answer to that part of my query.

I just popped in for one last ditched effort to see if it was possible to get TW to post text updates which I could look forward to reading and see how the game is progressing. Because, as it has been stated a billion times I am sure, we paid for a game and it's not really where we expected it to be.

I'm kinda just not really interested in this game or its development anymore and tonight's engement just clarified it. Peace out and stay safe 🙂👋🏻
 

Duh_TaleWorlds

Developer
NO, only if you program them to be able to, you could just not to improve the game play and let the player have more agency in the game.
YES. It is currently programmed this way. So you seem to be asking for a fundamentally different implementation and design. A cheat of sorts for the player. Assuming the influence gap to be significant, there would be little difference between a player vassal and king and worse a player vassal and AI king. Of course, I guess that (players being able to make every decision by themselves) is what you want, judging by the next bit.

No because you(TW) made the AI stupid, it doesn't know what areas are good to attack, it doesn't know what fiefs are best for which vassals, it doesn't know what policies would benefit it it doesn't KNOW ANYTHING! It just looks at some numbers and rolls. IMO full control over you faction like in warband would be 1000X better because the AI just doesn't know anything.
It is desired that players do not have full control in battles, in the clan or in the kingdom. The extent of that is subject to some adjustment (as evidenced by the introduction of OOB, clan party & kingdom war priorities, etc), but you are extremely unlikely to see the change you are describing. It is much more likely that tweaks will be made to the decision making of AI clans - though they will still pursue what they perceive to be in their rather than your interest.

No ideally you pump out clans ASAP because it's the only thing you can do. You can't control your vassals at all but you make so many that nothing else matters, they just bury the AI. Holding back for a vote is always the wrong the choice.
This seems to discuss something else altogether (player rather than AI king). So... okay?

Please add something, it's really obnoxious to have to launch a siege battle to kill 2 guys.
Auto-resolve?

I just popped in for one last ditched effort to see if it was possible to get TW to post text updates which I could look forward to reading and see how the game is progressing.
If they happen, they will happen regardless of forumites being in a kind or ghastly mood.
 

Goyyyio

Regular
That is clearly a matter for the company to discuss and very different from the content questions we are engaging with here. In any case, afaik no release date was shared.



There are still plenty of outstanding items (either unreleased or to be improved/added upon) that we are working on from this. Not to mention that I shared the kind of information you are asking for... in this very topic.
This is completely out of topic, but is a better form of diplomacy/interaction with NPCs being worked on?
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
It is desired that players do not have full control in battles, in the clan or in the kingdom. The extent of that is subject to some adjustment (as evidenced by the introduction of OOB, clan party & kingdom war priorities, etc), but you are extremely unlikely to see the change you are describing. It is much more likely that tweaks will be made to the decision making of AI clans - though they will still pursue what they perceive to be in their rather than your interest.
I think that allowing the player to at least propose a specific clan to receive a fief and have more weight (yes even more) in giving it to them is a serious need in the game. As is, "The Game" just calculates the 3 candidates and ignores or undervalues things such as culture and proximity. Especially the reality that beyond a certain distance a clan is diminished by too much back and forth. It should be easier (or possible) for the player to arrange who has what, it's a very important part of the "would be" strategy in the game.
Next up, vassals vote semi randomly for policies and war/peace. I think we should have a way to sway them other then just spending our influence points, which can easily be exhausted and is more useful for other things. For instance they want a war so bad with sturgia, why not let me counter propose a war with western empire (much better location) rather then spend massive influence to counter it and them more to propose?
This seems to discuss something else altogether (player rather than AI king). So... okay?
...okay.
Auto-resolve?
Veryfunny, my Bannerlord Sister died that way!
 

JunKeteer

Regular
Getting back to the OP, I get that there should be some tradeoff for losing battles with your companions as a 'downtime' to regroup.
Can't that just be done in terms of a time wait vs having to actually move yourself around to pick them up (or if they teleport towns again)? Ie. set a 'home' base where your companions can default converge/make their way/'travel' to and make it take a couple days before you can add back in party.
The only reason I hate losing battles is the hassle of jumping town to town picking them back up, especially considering they are pretty much crucial to your party given the party leader/role system. That isn't fun gameplay.
 

five bucks

Knight
Replying on his holiday? Give this man a raise and overtime pay! Also no rush in replying to this.
Some tweaks were made on this quite some time ago. I presume it's still not satisfactory to you, but I would need more specific feedback to engage with (probably there is a thread or ten on this, maybe you could link me the one you find most valid currently).
Alright, I'll look for past feedback I've seen as well as gather results myself ingame to make sure the feedback isn't outdated, and I'll make a new thread and link it.
If you can spend more - so can the AI. I do think this may be evaluated in more depth going forward and changes may be made, but currently a greater focus is being given to the general economy, army AI and skill progression.
In my mind, the best way of tackling it would be give the AI the option to spend a lot of influence on a vote too, but make them rarely exercise it.

In addition to how clan heads already vote based on their relationship with the vote caller, make their vote also affected by their Traits. (E.g. a Greedy lord is more likely to vote for policies that financially benefited them, a Valorous and Impulsive lady is more likely to vote for war, a Charitable lord is more likely to award a fief to a clan without one). Clan leaders would never spend high influence on a vote, unless it matched both criteria of being called by a clan they had 25+ relations with and aligning with their personality.

This way you would avoid giving the player cheats as you say, in theory they would have the same ability as the AI, but in practice most clan heads would not give as much of a damn about policies and war/peace decisions as the player, so if the player really wants to get something moving they can.

This will both be more immersive, and make political gameplay more skill based and less arbitrary - if you are good friends with a Charitable lord, you know you can count on them to influence boost your proposed policy that will benefit the realm. Right now voting is a crapshoot where clans often all vote the same way and the player feels like they have little impact even if they have a huge bank of Influence ready to spend.
This seems acceptable in principle. (Otherwise why have voting at all if the ruler always decides?) Of course, the AI ruler would ideally retain some influence for critical actions. I expect that that would be looked at alongside the general influence economy above.
The specific issue is that AI can just spam the same vote and drain your influence. There should be a vote cooldown timer especially on re-voting the same issue. If there is one already, it's too short.
The single most important thing for an AI clan is their settlements. There is no logical reason for them to give it up without a fight. Given that it is so critically valuable, IMO it is okay that it trumps RP/Immersion. It could be okay for them to give up if the odds are entirely stacked against them (1:20 && troops < 50), but even that is a bit finnicky (f.e. they should at least wait until you are ready to assault, since a relief force may arrive while you are preparing your siege camp).
I think it's logical for the garrison to give it up without a fight because they are just hired goons. I also think it's logical for a noble to surrender in the field when their personal fief is not at stake and their life is, but they don't.

Nobles don't value their own lives at all. Unless they're brave/stupid, that is what should be the most important thing to them. The end goal of Bannerlord's detailed simulation should be player immersion and fun, right?

Surrender offers from the player should be accepted by Cowardly or Cautious nobles when outnumbered by 1:2, accepted by castle/city garrisons or regular nobles in the field when outnumbered by 1:5, and never accepted by Impulsive/Valorous nobles. Maybe even make player Charm, traits and relations with target affect surrender thresholds. That's my take for how it could be a feature which is actually useful ever to players and make the game more fun - I don't think many other players would find it too unreasonable either.

Let's face it, it's not like the AI is going to win even a 1:2 odds fight against the player anyway. The outcome is going to be the same as if they had surrendered. If cheese tactics result they should be possible to balance out. So, why not let the player skip clearly won battles to take some grind out of the campaign if they choose, and benefit their immersion in the process?
I think it would be nice to introduce something that would make this a bit easier (whether it is what you describe or representatives that appear in towns occasionally or a conversation with your governor or simply another circle notification with an offer), but so far this is not being actively worked on.
Yes, this would be fantastic and many of us would love it if you could bring it up at a TW meeting.

To be able to talk to a governor or even just a generic "minister" NPC in the lord's hall of a town/castle you own, and tell them to send a mercenary offer, marriage offer, or defection offer as a message to a clan leader, would take an enormous amount of boring/frustrating legwork out of the game that the player vassal/king doesn't have time for when they're fighting constant wars. And it would increase immersion and usage of the lord's hall scene too.
 

black_bulldog

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SVC
It is desired that players do not have full control in battles, in the clan or in the kingdom. The extent of that is subject to some adjustment (as evidenced by the introduction of OOB, clan party & kingdom war priorities, etc), but you are extremely unlikely to see the change you are describing. It is much more likely that tweaks will be made to the decision making of AI clans - though they will still pursue what they perceive to be in their rather than your interest.
This is completely illogical to think that most gamers want player adjacency taken away from them. If I win I want to feel I won because I made good decisions, not because that the ai was so stupid anyone with half a brain could beat it, and ofc the opposite applies. There are plenty of twitch type games that require not much thought just lots of action and I play those but when I play a game like this I expect more depth not less. This is a fundamental issue with this game. The core ideas behind are completely bass ackwards. 😒
 

MostBlunted

Sergeant Knight
All those answers doesn´t make me more optimistic, the funniest part is that TW thinks they are actually doing a good job communicating with their community. And we are just too stupid too understand their way of communication (random posts in random threads).

I mean I still want to know what is the decision about the pila issue? You said week agos you´ll discuss this internally and it was never heard of again, as always...

Thanks to Duh anyways, every information is better than nothing and much appreciated.
 
Last edited:

JunKeteer

Regular
I think it's logical for the garrison to give it up without a fight because they are just hired goons. I also think it's logical for a noble to surrender in the field when their personal fief is not at stake and their life is, but they don't.

Nobles don't value their own lives at all. Unless they're brave/stupid, that is what should be the most important thing to them. The end goal of Bannerlord's detailed simulation should be player immersion and fun, right?

Surrender offers from the player should be accepted by Cowardly or Cautious nobles when outnumbered by 1:2, accepted by castle/city garrisons or regular nobles in the field when outnumbered by 1:5, and never accepted by Impulsive/Valorous nobles. Maybe even make player Charm, traits and relations with target affect surrender thresholds. That's my take for how it could be a feature which is actually useful ever to players and make the game more fun - I don't think many other players would find it too unreasonable either.
Agree, right now, there's is absolutely no discernable difference between NPCs with or without traits; or at least not explained to us how it affects if it does.

I get that settlements are the most vital/important aspect for NPCs, but let's be honest, in both Warband and BL, we could never actually get a surrender or prolonged seige to properly work - so why bother wasting time on that mechanic in the first place. I think it did for a moment a few patches ago where you could starve out/'wound' the garrison numbers down but that was removed. Maybe make it so that if a castle has no lords/ladies within the castle that it has a higher % to surrender (just hired guards); but if there is a lord/lady in the castle, the % is lower (and also affected by their traits too).
 
You skipped the most important part of Ananda's post.
Occasionally? The AI hires mercs constantly, instant and remotely! Even with the AI ruler in prison they hire mercs! They spend zero campaign time to get them. For the player they need an equal access to them, meaning are always able to contact the available ones and always know who is available. Or, you could remove the remote/instant hiring from the AI, make the rules actually waste days and days fallowing a merc leader on the map! And certainly when the ruler is imprisoned they should be unable to hire more mercs!
This right here. If I have the money and the authority to hire a mercenary company it stands to reason that I also have the ability to send a message.

For me the lack of a messaging system - the simple ability to pay some gold to send a postcard - is hands down the most frustrating part of the game.

My neighbors and my vassals are all bloodthirsty morons so I'm pretty much always at war with everyone. That's apparently an intentional design decision. So be it.

But if I want to communicate with anyone outside of my party I have to personally track them down, leaving my vassals (who I might have mentioned are morons) to fend for themselves??? By the time I come back things have inevitably gone sideways because I had to leave. Beyond that, even in the best of times blindly chasing wandering NPCs around the map is not fun. Having to do it every time I want to have a flippin' conversation is tiresome. I'd hire mercenaries if I it was a simple matter of sending them a message, but as things stand they may as well not even be in the game. My gaming time is not unlimited and I want to spend it having fun. All of which begs the question:

WHY HAVE YOU MADE THESE TWO UTTERLY INCOMPATIBLE DESIGN DECISIONS???

This problem would be solved by a simple messaging system like the one that's been available in the Diplomacy mod for months (years?). It's an incredibly obvious need. How have we gotten to this point without one?

I don't understand.
 
This would really be perfect. I reload the game and avoid captivity at all costs just to avoid having to gather the companions back together. I'm missing out on a good chunk of gameplay and RP by avoiding captivity.
 
Top Bottom