Dev Blog 17/01/19

[parsehtml][IMG]https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_73_taleworldswebsite.jpg[/IMG] Over the course of the past few months, one of the most commented features that we have shown in this dev blog is the use of siege engines when someone is trying to take a castle by storm -- but we didn't really go into much detail about how they work. In this week's entry of our blog, we talk with Bahar Sevket, one of our gameplay programmers, who is currently working on new mechanics for that particular area of the game and can give us some interesting insights on how siege engines will be integrated into Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord. [/parsehtml]Read more at: https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/93

 

[JuanNieve]

Is it hard to learn c #? I already have knowledge of c ++

 

[Viking1978]

In general, I really like where this game is going to. Think the people at Taleworlds are doing a really great job. However, now I'm a bit disappointed here as I see the changes concerning the siege engines as a serious limitation to battle, which is the core feature of the game. Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe I didn't get it right, but I'm not sure why they don't have both options in selecting siege engines... I mean, they already had the other system working. So why not have a siege battle option like:

-Automatically choose siege engines based on tactics
-Manually choose siege engines

You could keep it simple for the AI, have them choose the first option, right?

The thing you will probably have now is:
- waiting for engines to be finished that you don't really wish to use
- your men lingering around some siege engines that you don't wish to use

Again, maybe I'm missing something here?

I mean, I thought it was just great to have more freedom. Thought that was what the game was all about... Of course, I can imagine that some people want to have their hand held during the game and have it easy for them, but why not have both options? That there should be limitations concerning the amount of certain siege engines, that you won't use 10 catapults, not talking about that, of course. But if you just need one battering ram to make a rapid assault before some enemy relief forces arrive, that should be possible, I think.

 

[cherac]

In general, I really like where this game is going to. Think the people at Talesworld are doing a really great job. However, now I'm a bit disappointed here as I see the changes concerning the siege engines as a serious limitation to battle, which is the core feature of the game. Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe I didn't get it right, but I'm not sure why they don't have both options in selecting siege engines... I mean, they already had the other system working. So why not have a siege battle option like:

-Automatically choose siege engines based on tactics
-Manually choose siege engines

You could keep it simple for the AI, have them choose the first option, right?

The thing you will probably have now is:
- waiting for engines to be finished that you don't really wish to use
- your men lingering around some siege engines that you don't wish to use

Again, maybe I'm missing something here?

I mean, I thought it was just great to have more freedom. Thought that was what the game was all about... Of course, I can imagine that some people want to have their hand held during the game and have it easy for them, but why not have both options? That there should be limitations concerning the amount of certain siege engines, that you won't use 10 catapults, not talking about that, of course. But if you just need 1 catapult to make a rapid assault before some relief forces arrive, that should be possible, I think.

There is a reason they changed, I bet it has to do with performance or a bug , anyway its fine by me .

 

[Viking1978]

I'm talking about this change:

I should mention that we recently made some changes to our siege preparation. Previously, a player who besieged a castle had to select what they wanted to build from a number of engines, one by one. Recently, however, we introduced a new tactics feature. Now, the player will select one of the siege tactics available and will get a preloaded waiting list for siege engines that are useful to the selected tactic.

Well, maybe we can start start the siege after having built the engines we like... Maybe we can set the building order ourselves, that would also be a solution.

This change I like

The player will be able to start the bombardment as soon as any machine is finished and will be able to start damaging the defences of the town/castle even before starting the siege mission (battle). The tactic can be changed at any point during the waiting time, based on the defender’s tactic, or any other events occurring in the world at that moment.”

 

[FBohler]

The overworld screenshot looks great!


And... that's it, see you next thursday!

 

[Achilles_TheIV]

... "why bother telling them about this when it will get released soon anyway? Let them figure it out for themselves".

This isn't Death Stranding

 

[HUMMAN]

Settlement issues sounds cool. Pls make special issues for factions too, that when when we play in a different faction we can encounter new issues on a town.

 

[Rungsted93]

I love that there will be more stuff to do in settlement scenes! Btw did anyone ever had luck ordering their guards to arrest someone in their castle? I never found anyone where the order worked.

 

[RKStranger]

Can't believe it is almost a year after the harvesting season blog.

 

[Bonky!]

Can't believe it is almost a year after the harvesting season blog.

Spoiler

It's almost harvesting season.

 

[Innocent Flower]

But do the seige engines still look like they were made by a blind orc carpenter and his wife, duct tape?

 

[Roccoflipside]

I'm talking about this change:

I should mention that we recently made some changes to our siege preparation. Previously, a player who besieged a castle had to select what they wanted to build from a number of engines, one by one. Recently, however, we introduced a new tactics feature. Now, the player will select one of the siege tactics available and will get a preloaded waiting list for siege engines that are useful to the selected tactic.

Well, maybe we can start start the siege after having built the engines we like... Maybe we can set the building order ourselves, that would also be a solution.

This change I like

The player will be able to start the bombardment as soon as any machine is finished and will be able to start damaging the defences of the town/castle even before starting the siege mission (battle). The tactic can be changed at any point during the waiting time, based on the defender’s tactic, or any other events occurring in the world at that moment.”

Presumably, the two work together, so if you select the option with a battering ram as the first thing to be built, you can attack as soon as that battering ram is built if you want, or wait while you build ballista/etc. I do think there should be an option for some sort of at least "modular" selection, i.e. artillery, heavy artillery, breaching/climbing tools, and you put them in the order you want.

 

[anarchy]

I thought the siege part was done already? Back in 2016 or something. Never ending cycle if they keep redoing stuff.

 

[Monaki]

Dear taleworlds, you just lost a customer. I know my existence doesn't matter, but I don't give a ****. We are seeing sieges being redone and they been already finished in 2016, but now we get a blog sayin g they are rescrapped and redone again? Why is the game not out yet? To redo stuff to fix small mistakes? And they keep releasing joke blogs like this to keep the hype. Already been 7 years, if it isnt a good game then let Taleworlds crash and burn. It WILL be overhyped. Im done following TaleWorlds because we havent been given information close to the amount we want. I will not be buying this game. This is my first and last forum post on this ****ty website. Goodbye

 

[Rabies]

WILL THERE BE MORE REASONS FOR PLAYERS TO ENTER SETTLEMENTS OTHER THAN TO JUST EXPLORE THEM?
“We are currently working on something we call settlement issues. They represent conflicts in a settlement between NPCs, or general problems that may arise. These events will pop up randomly during the game and they will affect the properties of a settlement (prosperity, morale, etc.).

The player will have to find a solution to that problem in a specific timeframe using whatever means they can. Issues may lead to different quests or may encourage players to make changes to their current management style.”

Maybe this is just a figure of speech, but "randomly" doesn't sound ideal to me.

It could get annoying, for one thing, if your carefully managed town fiefs keep giving you "Settlement Issues" for no apparent reason, especially if they are limited in number and become repetitive. But most of all, if it is going to be random, it means that we as the player won't be able to instigate them in other people's fiefs, doesn't it? It's would be great if our control of underworld elements, or Roguery skills, could allow us to actually create discord and problems in towns as a means to undermine an opponent's economy or internal stability. But randomising it takes that possibility away?

 

[RoboSenshi]

I should mention that we recently made some changes to our siege preparation. Previously, a player who besieged a castle had to select what they wanted to build from a number of engines, one by one. Recently, however, we introduced a new tactics feature. Now, the player will select one of the siege tactics available and will get a preloaded waiting list for siege engines that are useful to the selected tactic.

What the **** is this ****? Why????

What the hell is the point of this change? I see no upside whatsoever to this change.

Dear taleworlds, you just lost a customer. I know my existence doesn't matter, but I don't give a ****. We are seeing sieges being redone and they been already finished in 2016, but now we get a blog sayin g they are rescrapped and redone again? Why is the game not out yet? To redo stuff to fix small mistakes? And they keep releasing joke blogs like this to keep the hype. Already been 7 years, if it isnt a good game then let Taleworlds crash and burn. It WILL be overhyped. Im done following TaleWorlds because we havent been given information close to the amount we want. I will not be buying this game. This is my first and last forum post on this ****ty website. Goodbye

Yeah, I'm starting to get the same feeling.

 

[Bjorn The Dead]

There is no information about when this change happened. I hope this was before Armağan statement at Gamescom which they stopped redoing stuff. Sincerely, this redoing stuff should end.

Thanks for the blog.

 

[Singham]

for a moment i thought this is last year's blog, but it appears to be the blog of 17/01/2019  .
good to see that we will be able to use it immediately whatever seize equipment we have built.

 

[Worldsprayer]

In C#, as in many other languages, an interface is a specific thing, not what you are thinking.  An interface is basically a class/object breakdown of what must be inside anything claiming to be of that interface.  You do not create and use an interface, you extend it and everything that interface lists must be present.  It allows for moddability because you can then add things to it as well.

An example is that you can have an interface labeled "Animal" that has has as a property the string "type", but if you create a class that extends animal, then while you MUST include the property name in your class, you can also add in say the property of "number of legs".

So lets say in the game there is nothing resembling "lust" in a character, so one of the properties you add to anything extending the already large person interface (assuming here of course) is a lust property that can be modified and accessed through events.

Interesting blog.

...after adding a new feature, we always analyse if it should be something that is moddable. If it is deemed to be a moddable feature, we add corresponding interfaces and maintain our default implementation in order to create room for moddable behaviour.

Presumably:
1. Corresponding interfaces = XML data files containing default formula values that can be changed, &
2. Maintain our default implementation = isolate the default behaviour so it can be switched off and replaced with revised C# code.

I hope most features get this treatment to limit those that remain hardcoded.

Previously, a player who besieged a castle had to select what they wanted to build from a number of engines, one by one. Recently, however, we introduced a new tactics feature. Now, the player will select one of the siege tactics available and will get a preloaded waiting list for siege engines that are useful to the selected tactic.

Sounds like a much better approach to the UI.

We are currently working on something we call settlement issues. They represent conflicts in a settlement between NPCs, or general problems that may arise. These events will pop up randomly during the game and they will affect the properties of a settlement (prosperity, morale, etc.).

The player will have to find a solution to that problem in a specific timeframe using whatever means they can. Issues may lead to different quests or may encourage players to make changes to their current management style.

Great. I suspect the quests to defend friends of a notable in trial by combat fall into this settlement issues category. I’m glad that there will be more of these issues/quests adding depth to town scenes.

BTW the Battanian towns shown so far have been terraced into the sides of hills. I hope we are going to get some classic ring forts covering a whole hill as that was the implication of the previous faction blog.

 

[DtheHun]

In C#, as in many other languages, an interface is a specific thing, not what you are thinking.  An interface is basically a class/object breakdown of what must be inside anything claiming to be of that interface.  You do not create and use an interface, you extend it and everything that interface lists must be present.  It allows for moddability because you can then add things to it as well.

...after adding a new feature, we always analyse if it should be something that is moddable. If it is deemed to be a moddable feature, we add corresponding interfaces and maintain our default implementation in order to create room for moddable behaviour.”

For me it means, "modders interface" != "#C interface"

I fear, if your mod idea is over the devs assumptions, so the inner object structure is not suitable for it, than no tweaks can help like in the old school functional programming of Module System. I hope I'm wrong.