AlexTheCat
Regular
I think we're on the same level. Thanks for a civil discussion.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Death in Battle hurts Lategame
- Thread starter Arkyll
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Regular
appreciated
This entire thread is about one such mechanic. They added death only in player battles and purposefully keep it overtuned. There was a post in this thread that quoted a developer confirming that they're aware of it, but consider it low priority.
They added it to both branches. If it was added to beta, but main branch didn't have it, I imagine people would complain about it less, they'd just switch to the main branch.
If they need help with balancing AI death, I'd gladly opt into branch that has it in some form and provide feedback on it. Instead we're sitting on this feature for months with no end in sight. For what purpose? Did they get anything out of it?
AlexTheCat
Regular
I don't consider death in battle a bad mechanic. I like the feature. Sure, some tweaking here and there. Overall I like the way it's working. If you don't like it you could save scum or disable it. I think it's a %10 chance of someone dyeing when they go down. That sounds totally reasonable to me. Again, it's an option.
We bought this game because we thought to buy an EA game which will be released within around 1 year and only need some minor tweaks and that some features will be missing. And of course that they will value our feedback and maybe change some things / improve some stuff because of our feedback/suggestions.
What we actually bought was access to a closed alpha/beta for 39,99€ - 49,99€ which will be in this state for around 1-2 years from now on. And that TW only sees us as some paying testers who are not worthy enough to ask for improvements.
Last edited:
well that´s good for you, but doesn´t really help the people who do have a problem. sure, you can work around it and if it would be an unavoidable problem that´s clearly the way to go. but it is avoidable and the only reason it isn´t fixed until now, is because some dev doesn´t feel like it. that´s not an accepable behaviour towards people who spend their time and money to support this company. saying that he doesn´t see it as a problem dispite the fact that so many people discribed their problems with it (clans die out, companions/family die on and on, snowballing...) is simply not ok.
If we're talking generally about death in battle - me neither, I like it. I just want it to be applied to all battles and the chance of death lowered (since everyone would die out really fast without it). Currently it's better for your faction if you just stay out of combat with allied lords, because you can be a cause of death for them. Don't reinforce them and just let them lose. There's a pretty high chance of them dying even in winning battles.
The current version of this feature is pretty bad and campaign breaking. It discourages you from participating in most fun features of the game.
Disabling it also disables the entire dynasty gameplay. No births and no deaths whatsoever. Save scumming is an option, but replaying battles so your allies don't die is a chore, not fun at all.
AlexTheCat
Regular
It is avoidable. Just check the the box that says disable death.
Julio-Claudian
Sergeant Knight
That also disables birth and ageing.
I understand that the chance of death is so high because they are testing it but that should really be confined to the beta branch. It just feels ridiculous. Almost quit playing until they fixed it but I got the Heroes Must Die mod to work.
In this case, it really does feel like they did. Remember, they didn't just put in a really high death rate, but they also grouped the different death options into one overall "enable death" option, so you're forced to accept all of it as given or disable the entire legacy system altogether. To me, that felt almost spiteful. "Oh you wanna complain about your prescious companions dying? Fine, no deaths or births for you!"
yes, that´s what i was saying. and as i said, if there is no other way it is recommendable. but this problem was created by the devs and they can surely correct it. so why am i forced to work around something i don´t want to? sure it´s EA and we all agreed to help on a voluntary level. but that does not mean the devs can use us to their free will as testsubjects and we have to deal with it. when players don´t want to be used like that or don´t like how things get handled it should be a no brainer for the devs to look for other solutions and stop bothering their players. they still want to sell us some DLC i guess. so acting like "eat or die" is not the best idea in my opinion
AlexTheCat
Regular
I think an advanced setup option menu at the start of a new game would work for everyone. Sort of like when you create a game in Civilization where you can micro-manage the game parameters. Say, add an option that allows deaths from other clans but not yours. Obviously if every body is having kids the game is going to be way too overpopulated without a (relatively) balanced birth to death ratio.
Arkyll
Recruit
This is me making this post while also having that mod. It's a problem even with the entirety of your family alive.
It's not that consistent, you wont always lose lords. Alot of the time you wont lose anyone, letting your guard down, and then you will lose 3 again.
Armor should decrease the chance of dying in battle by its average coverage on top of the base chance. It's great to see lords dying, but it does indeed happen way too frequently - heroes too. Even if you're testing it, how am I supposed to reasonably keep playing when every hero I grab dies the minute they're KO'd. Off topic I gotta say there have been some good changes to the game since I played last in June, knocking riders off horses, better impact, AI snowball is much more reasonable, and factions will strive to make peace. But performance has absolutely tanked and the menu lag is borderline unplayable, good armor and weapons are still way too expensive. Either make them reasonable or reverse caravan/workshop nerfs. Better yet, both.
It still seems people get this all wrong. First "Early Access" is just one big Beta test to begin with so even the "stable" patch is pretty much just a Beta Test at the end of the day and I think this is why so many people get confused. They should really use a different term than "Beta" for the other patch. I think "Experimental" would have been the better choice. Let me explain.
The Beta patch is a place for them to "Experiment" to see how things work and interact. It will inherently be a buggy mess because they could be stripping entire systems out and replacing them with new things just to see what it break and what it doesn't. If the idea or feature it doesn't work, it gets thrown out. If it does, then maybe, maybe it get added to the "stable" patch. What the beta branch is NOT about an iterative progression forward that is what the "Stable" patch is for.
So Beta = Experimental buggy mess. Stable = Things add to the game that have made it through the Experimental buggy mess of the Beta.
Honestly, unless the whole point of you being here is to actually test, then I don't know why anyone plays on the beta branch. It is definitely not where you want to go to play with the coolest new features.
They don't really use the beta branch this way though. Its really just a staging area for the next stable branch. There are very few things in the beta branch patches that don't make it directly into the next stable patch, often with the bugs still included. The actual experimenting happens somewhere else.
Well.. I´m 50 days into that campaign. 3 of ... 25? 30? vlandian nobles is down and will not be replaced in roughly 18*80 days. during these years, how many battle would I fight? Quite a few I bet.
Arkyll
Recruit
Yeah the chances of death need to be halfed I reckon.
Equal death-risk in all battles, scenario or simulation alike.
That would require at least 90% less risk. or the world is hollow by 5 years in.
