-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Consider: Post Release.
- Thread starter Niroc
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
I see no issues with that, it's a common practice when you plan to port your game on consoles anyway.
Are we sure we are talking about dumbing down the mechanics from the PC / main branch ?
It's worth something to remind that if we are talking about current-gen consoles ( PS5 / Xbox Series ) this is still a piece of hardware that is far more powerful than the random PC according to Steam surveys ( even if it's biased I know ).
As is, I'm sure a PS5 beats 90% of your hardware on this very forum, I read on a regular basis some of you guys play this game on a freaking laptop ...
So please, while I'm a PC user like everyone here, this kind of faux-elitism has to stop somehow.
edit : I've just read the message from mexxico.
WhyAmIHere
I mean they're definitely not designing it for PS5/Series X only, unless they're complete morons. You still can't get one of those without following a twitter restock bot for ****'s sake
I find it extremely amusing how you shift your argument once evidence is provided.
These PC restrictions are now commonplace? Why do you think we are disappointed that consoles are holding back improvements and additions, literally like mexxico communicated.
Its about target audience and the required simplicity for said audience, simpleton.
Bruh, they got rid of nighttime penalties to ranged units because people kept opening bug reports about their archers only firing at short range at night. Even in Warband days, the majority didn't reach vassalhood and the requirement was somethibg stupidly low like 75 renown. In this very thread there was a guy claiming food prices didn't change much based on being starved when the game nearly slaps you in the face with that info.
The target audience of Mount and Blade isn't exactly high IQ gentlemen of leisure.
Where did you see an actual shift ? I've read the link provided but figured my message still remains the same as it's litterally made of a question.
Think about it, if I was playing the dishonesty card I would delete my post.
My point still remains the same as it's worth knowing PCs on average are less beefy than current-gen consoles.
Yet you decided to discard that whole point.
Mexxico is a pretty poor example of TW's design philosophy in that he's demonstrated that he actually cares about this stuff in contrast to the desires of management.
I haven't done in-depth testing of the economy in the latest builds as I've admitted in another thread, but I think the fact that mexxico was working on it kind of supports my case that the deeper complex systems are basically vestigial.
Do you really think he went rogue with that entire economic system or something? And even if he did, I'm not saying it is representative of TW (or not); I'm saying that complexity doesn't matter because most players don't, can't or won't engage with it.
How does that follow? He spent months tinkering on a system and that proves it does nothing?
The problem with the economy is that it is really easy to blow up in various ways that affect the gameworld and most players don't care about it, not that it was somehow simplified. It definitely isn't vestigial. It is functioning and tied into the mechanic mexxico talked about in his first devblog, where players have the option to do economic damage rather than being forced to assault settlements to impact the enemy.
I personally think it is interesting and fairly unique but I'm on a somewhat lonely island with that one. Most players -- even on this forum -- would have found it preferable to just have a static system where workshops spit out a fixed income, where garrisons didn't eat and caravans existed "off-map." It is hard to disagree based on the massive threadnaughts this forum has seen due to workshops paying peanuts, garrisons starving off, and caravans dying to bandits.
That's why I said if they were deliberately aiming to dumb the game down they wouldn't have bothered.
edit: Although in the interest of full disclosure, I don't find complexity an inherent virtue or simplicity an inherent vice when it comes to game design.
Last edited:
I am completely with you on this. I like the dynamic character of dealing with the world that the simulated economy inherently provides. This is one of the concepts in Bannerlord that I am happy about. What I think happened is that they started developing the model around 2015/16, finished it a year and a half later, but didn't axe it dzring the "pivot to simplicity" because it was already too huge and could not in any way be dumbed down without hurting it. So the idea was probably to keep the economy model as it is but to reduce the other fields of the game (RPG and diplomacy elements. He mentions ally kingdoms in the blog but in the game war and tribute is all there is) in favour of a more simple and streamlined experience.
No, you are not on a lonely island.
I really appreciate the campaign mechanics and all the interactions that were implemented.
Notables and recruitment, herd penalty etc...
Another mechanic about food consumption (partially related with the economy) that you explained in this thread is also a good example.
Everything is connected but for whatever reason some people keeps considering those mechanics obscure and unnecessary because they don't have the option to organize feasts...
Indeed mexxico said that he was requested to limit campaign calculations, but my guess is that they took those constraints into consideration and managed to find solutions apart from simply dumbing the game down.
I think we're talking past each other. I appreciate the economic system, even if I'd appreciate it a whole lot more if it were balanced. For all I know, mexx is still doing that but I haven't seen the proof in the pudding.
My point is that the process thus far bears the hallmarks of "Fix the feature just enough so that players won't notice how broken it is and then move on". I can see a dedicated dev like mexxico working overtime to fix/balance a system beyond the point where it's visible to the average gamer. Stop me if this sounds familiar... making slight fixes as long as it isn't "too complicated".
I don't see much evidence that these systems are more than vestigial as far as the greater company Vision is concerned - except when things like caravans and workshops get smacked with a nerf bat after being called an "exploit". Random thought: I don't know how exactly they "balanced" caravans but - if it were me - I'd have dealt with the issue of too much caravan profit by increasing the number of caravans for competition. Also adding neutral caravans so the player isn't able to "exploit" the unique ability to never be at war.
I can't tell without seeing the underlying code, but my suspicion is that the only reason why TW wouldn't simplify the economics is that the complexity isn't prohibitive in terms of processing power. Prices and production seem to be the result of a fairly straightforward set of calculations. The Prosperity mechanic in particular seems like kind of a goat-bleep composite of various factors that isn't well-balanced.
Maybe someday if mods and Bannerlod and Bannerlord mods are still a thing I'll put together an economic overhaul for extra special nerds like us.
Regardless, the fact is that console porting promises to be the biggest cash cow in TW's intermediate future, so I don't doubt that management would happy cut any feature or work that is "too complicated" in terms of making that payday happen.
Wow that's a really great devblog. I wish I could play that game instead of BL
Like, come on, it's literally everywhere.
For probably months you denied the idea that game mechanics were being simplified due to consoles. People pointed out the UI changes, but you (rightfully so) didn't believe it to be evidence enough (I came to a conclusion you were right with this).
With the resurfacing of a post that specifically says that improvements/additions cannot be made because of console limitations, all of a sudden it is no longer "you don't have enough evidence to prove this", but now "I see no issues with this". To that, I suggest you look over some old gameplay content/interviews where Armagan specifically said the plan of this game was a full solid release on PC and then ported to consoles, not developed at the same time taking into account both hardware and potential restrictions.
While I agree with you that some or many people may not have optimal hardware, you must realize that is the beauty of PC gaming. To generalize that everyone cannot appreciate the changes is an absurd comment, system requirements/recommendations exist for this exact purpose.
Furthermore, your comment is implying that mexxico is wrong when saying:
because according to you it should be the other way around:
Anyway, for whatever strange reason you seem content on simplified AI, despite the people coding the game wanting the exact opposite. Still, I agree with Apocal where simple and complex aren't black and white concepts, but if a change to dumb down AI is ever confirmed that would be a loss for the M&B franchise as a whole.
Edit:
The economy in M&B has always been a staple of the series imo. The loot is good, the trading, especially in BL is fantastic and rewarding. The dynamic income also serves it well, similar to when the Guild Master in WB would guarantee how the price of goods would fluctuate when buying an enterprise.
I guess the only issue I have is how there are certain mechanics that don't harmonize well with the economy.
Take for example garrisons. I don't think people would have an issue with garrisons consuming food if 1. The overall prosperity to the food situation was a lot more fleshed out and less of a soft cap, and 2. there were supporting mechanics that allowed you to feed larger garrisons without jumping through hoops or conquering the adjacent castle for the grain village. If you are a financial superpower, the concept of supply trains travelling from one well off settlement to another with the aid of local notables could do wonders. Of course, the implementation might be genuinely complex, especially for the AI.
Last edited:
I did not read all pages yet but I want to add a quick note regarding link you shared to my post.
Dumbing AI was offered as an alternative way 6 months ago if we could not solve speeding up AI calculatons. Of course it was last option. Good news is we speeded up calculations without dumbing AI. So no need to discuss this furthermore. Campaign AI will not be downgraded to speed up game for consoles. At these days I criticized this to be offered as an alternative way. Campaign AI’s quality is so important for gameplay and we should not downgrade it for any reason.
Dumbing AI was offered as an alternative way 6 months ago if we could not solve speeding up AI calculatons. Of course it was last option. Good news is we speeded up calculations without dumbing AI. So no need to discuss this furthermore. Campaign AI will not be downgraded to speed up game for consoles. At these days I criticized this to be offered as an alternative way. Campaign AI’s quality is so important for gameplay and we should not downgrade it for any reason.
Last edited:
Thank you for the clarification
Thank you very much for giving feedback. It is very valuable
Don't leave us! Thank you for the info.
Players will not pay attention to the economy model meanwhile selling loot is such profitable that prices become meaningless.
How do you manage to reply to this soku guy without getting yourself banned, he might just be the most stubborn uneducated person on the forums.
it's really triggering me
I'd say leave as soon as you can, leverage whatever you learned and make great games.
