Dev Blog 18/01/18

Currently viewing this thread:

Mount & Blade is RPG, strategy, epic battles... and it's also a unique world which acts as the perfect framework for your own adventures and heroic deeds. Calradia, the continent where Mount & Blade takes place, is a low-fantasy setting deeply rooted in history: its past and factions are inspired by real kingdoms and conflicts of old, but it also adds its own doses of imagination. It's a delicate balance: you have to combine creativity and imagination with thorough research and interpretation of historical sources. The result, however, is worth all the efforts: Calradia may be a fictional place, but it feels as alive and real as our world. It takes a lot of talent and hard work to create such a place, and today we want to introduce you to a member of our team who plays an essential role in its creation: our writer and designer Steve Negus.


Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/42
 

White Lion

Regular
10/10 blog in my opinion

I love what you choose to do with the companions and with the lords, and giving those lords some backstories I do agree that it matters more for the game.

I wonder, In Warband if you own more then 1 city, 2 castles and 2 villages you would pay some sort of tax (tax inefficiency it was called, I think), are we going to have the same in Bannerlord? Or maybe we can give some villages/castles to some companions and we wouldn't have a tax problem, or maybe we can own the entire map without having tax problems. To be honest I like and dislike "tax inefficiency". Maybe it's not a bad ideea to have tax problems but if we own 2 cities, 4 castles and 4 villages, or something like that.

What do you guys think?
 
I have to admit I always thought my English was good but after trying to read this blog I noticed that I have to work harder on my vocabulary.

The guy literally didnt have to say he used to be a journalist, the blog makes it VERY clear.

I literally used the f*ck out of translate.
 
He never said they’ve only just started on the story quest. So everyone worried that they’re far behind schedule can relax.
He probably meant they are trying to work out the fine details.
 

Bustah

Regular
White Lion said:
To be honest I like and dislike "tax inefficiency". What do you guys think?

I think if you want to even vaguely represent a historically accurate system of fief management there NEEDS to be delegation and layers. Like there are your peasants who pay taxes to a farmer, who pools it up with fellow farmers at a higher administrative level, and so on. The level just gets higher and higher to the top, with each level being unique in both the type of people who are involved and the possibilities for inefficiency/corruption. I think it would be very interesting to be more hands on in this, as historical lords were. If you find you are getting less taxes than you believe you should (rather than the game just saying "Tax inefficiency: -15%") then you could ask around the local populace and perhaps hire some investigators (this was kind of in VC, but less dynamic). If you find it's just the peasants being reluctant with their taxes, you have a variety of options - help them and make them love you, and they will be less reluctant to support you - hire someone to enforce tax collection like lords often ask you to do in native - take punitive action, perhaps to the point of sacking your own village, at the obvious benefit of massive income at the time but long term distrust and economic difficulties - and I'm sure many more. However if you find the issues are at a higher level, perhaps with a noble you have appointed to the office of treasurer or steward who is taking a bit too much for himself or being slack with his collections, the situation would become more difficult. If you remove him from office, you lose support of him and his family, making your situation in the nobility a bit more precarious. You could give him a stern talking to, using your persuasion and charisma skills, perhaps convincing him to straighten up or perhaps starting a fight. And if his situation amongst the nobility is much stronger than yours, perhaps he will flat-out refuse to leave office - are you willing to start a civil war that will tear your nation apart over some missing denars?

To conclude I think corruption should be treated differently at every level but should ultimately have a theme: corruption is an inevitability, but it is up to the player to decide the balance, based on his playstyle preference and the current situation in the game world. The overall idea is that corruption reduces efficiency and stagnates a nation, but to remove it will cost stability and therein perhaps more money and more progress than was lost by allowing a bit of corruption. If you want to eradicate corruption you should be ready to manage your vassals, the nobility, and the peasants with an iron fist whilst also maintaining your diplomatic and economic skills in order to sustain a level of peace and prosperity that will allow your continued dominance. However, if you let corruption in while you are having difficulties, it can allow you to freely build up your power and improve the strenuous relation with lords whilst increasing the future workload of removing the said corruption. And I think it should be allowed to spiral out of control. How cool would it be if you were just doing these tax collecting quests for a king, and as you do them you notice the lords becoming more and more disgruntled and are hearing about issues within the court as the king banishes and arrests corrupt officials, only to see the country ripped to shreds in a violent civil war of multiple different factions with different leaders who rebelled for different reasons, perhaps just being opportunistic of the times? And on the other hand, a nation that is lax with its corruption will slowly sink into depression, as peasants will virtually ignore their lords, nobles will sit idle and decadent, and the lords and king will have little money to support their armies and garrisons, and will likely fall prey to a stronger, balanced faction.

That's my thoughts.

Edit: I said delegation and layers at the top but only really talked about layers. I think the type of people you assign to the various jobs involved in tax management should be very important. If you are a ruler who does not care about his people and is in search of pure income at the expense of those below him, perhaps a bandit-type companion you picked up on the way is a better idea than the kind-hearted, high honour companion that has more economic skills... even though it would seem he is better at handling the money, the conflict of practices and doctrine between the layers of management should be highly detrimental.
 

BayBear

Knight
KhergitLancer80 said:
I have to admit I always thought my English was good but after trying to read this blog I noticed that I have to work harder on my vocabulary.

The guy literally didnt have to say he used to be a journalist, the blog makes it VERY clear.

I literally used the f*ck out of translate.

I could tell he’s American just by his writing style and vocabulary, I’m actually from the US myself.  Let me me know what parts you had trouble with and I will better explain what he meant.
 

Owen Wulfson

Knight at Arms
I am very glad that the companion system is receiving such an overhaul. It always grated me in Warband having to sift through taverns for the right combination of companions, but this new companion system seems more open-ended, especially without those ridiculous pre-scripted events.

I wonder if this entails a limitless amount of companions who are generated based on traits and personalities? If we are able to lose companions in battle, I would like to know that a player on "iron man mode" can't possibly be forced to make do entirely without companions if he or she loses too many battles. Naturally this won't be an issue for a player who save-scums (like me  :mrgreen:).

If I were to guess right now (especially with lords having their own heroes), we will most certainly see randomly generated companions in Bannerlord because it is more "dynamic" & "open-ended", less work, and far more favorable to players.

Still no word yet on personal politics of the Kingdoms, how players may become King (main story-line?), and if a family system will be included. Back to the main story-line, we saw how in Vikings Conquest how a scripted story-line might interfere with a player's prospects for marriage as lords would become hostile based on our choices.

this leads me to admire that more time is being put to enliven the lords and give them their own backstory. Before it was only Monarchs and largely through banter with Claiments who had any such lore, but now we get confirmation of otherwise :smile:.
 

Kortze26

Sergeant
WBNWVCM&BWF&S
Callum_TaleWorlds said:
Yes, grudges between lords can emerge dynamically. For this to happen, the lords need to have some personality incompatibilities (ie an honest lord and a devious one) and also there needs to be a trigger, like a lost battle or one lord receiving a fief that the other coveted. When this happens, lords will have negative relations, which will affect many different aspects of warfare and politics. If two lords are enemies, a player should usually be able to look at their histories and learn why they fell out.

Well, that kind of answers my question about npcs being capable of deception.  So, it will be possible to see the history of what led to a deceptive interaction.  I'm curious if it will be possible to predict this behaviour by reading a lords backstory,  and either using that informed prediction to avoid conflict or set a trap politically to lower a rivals standing within a faction, resulting in exile or imprisonment. 
 

Owen Wulfson

Knight at Arms
Kortze26 said:
Callum_TaleWorlds said:
Yes, grudges between lords can emerge dynamically. For this to happen, the lords need to have some personality incompatibilities (ie an honest lord and a devious one) and also there needs to be a trigger, like a lost battle or one lord receiving a fief that the other coveted. When this happens, lords will have negative relations, which will affect many different aspects of warfare and politics. If two lords are enemies, a player should usually be able to look at their histories and learn why they fell out.

Well, that kind of answers my question about npcs being capable of deception.  So, it will be possible to see the history of what led to a deceptive interaction.  I'm curious if it will be possible to predict this behaviour by reading a lords backstory,  and either using that informed prediction to avoid conflict or set a trap politically to lower a rivals standing within a faction, resulting in exile or imprisonment.

I doubt it will be more complicated than "lord's backstory [insert here] points to this man being [placeholder: honest]" and so he will be honest in the game and then we deal with him as we would an honest lord.

I remember how in Mount and Blade: With Fire and Sword I dealt with lords that in the movie were honest and upright characters but were then easily bribed churls in the game when I went up to them. It was a bit immersive breaking and I hope that doesn't happen in Bannerlord.
 

SenorZorros

Squire
On tax inefficiency.

I think the idea of inefficiency is fine. people shouldn't have many fiefs. however, I would like to see more layers of vassalage. for instance, a king who lords over dukes who lord over counts who lord over barons. More options to direct your vassals. and a smarter ai that actually enters a castle instead of constantly fleeing for the besiegers.
 
Owen Wulfson said:
I doubt it will be more complicated than "lord's backstory [insert here] points to this man being [placeholder: honest]" and so he will be honest in the game and then we deal with him as we would an honest lord.

It shouldnt be like that anyways.
I dont want it to be like total war or CK2 this game is mount and blade.
Characters should be hidden.

It would be boring and discouraging to be able to see all character traits of a person.
Every character should have random stats on five morality types Steve talked about.
For example Lezalit
-a loyalty to friends and kin value
-an honesty value
-a man of purpose value
-a good moral value (protecting peasants)
-an utilitarian value

For example I am playing in the perma-death mode(betrayals dont mean anything in no perma-death mode)
Lets say Lezalit is my doctor.I got caught in a desperate situation.My winning chance is very low.
The game will calculate with the desperation of the situation, relation between lezalit and me(how attached are we to each other), utilitarian value of Lezalit and loyalty to friends and kin value of Lezalit.
After this calculation Lezalit will either betray me or stay along with me.

Or for example I saved a village from bandits and our party isnt doing economically very good for a long time, say I couldnt have been able to pay Lezalits salary for a week.If I tell villagers to keep their goods a calculation will be made with lezalits utilitarian value, good moral value,his relation with me and loyalty value.If his utilitarian value overwhelms other three he will be pissed at us and leave the party.

Lets take a historical character under this system Genghis Khan for example

-loyalty to friends and kin value very high.This value also determines the size of the reaction this character will show if he gets betrayed.Loyal people expect more loyalty after all and in Genghis codes betrayal was the biggest crime.
-As far as I know he always kept his promises.So his honesty value would be high.
-This determines the man's ambition strength now Genghis as a man who wanted to rule the whole world would probably have a very high value.
-Nope.He was a massacrer.
-Balanced I think.

I hope this will be the way game will manage relationship stuff since, for me at least, it is the most ideal one.
It is both logical and systematical and also can be suprising plus randomness in the values will contribute a lot to the sandbox feel.

I dont support the idea of background effecting this values since humans are way too complicated to be generalised like that. Not everyone react same to a specific event.

+BayBear
Thanks, mate but I understood everything thanks to the translate.I also learnt ''out of the blue'' idiom.It appearently is used to describe unexpected stuff made by strangers or long time no see friends.
 

Gurkhal

Sergeant
Another ok blog. But I'm rather curious about that mod he mentioned about Sicily...

EDITED: And to not forget...the Empire sounds better and better. Really looking forward for a preview of it. :grin:
 
I like that the companions will be more dynamic, because it does allow for more dynamic stories (our warband will be made of different people each game).

Though I hope there's the option to add more unique character depth for use in mods.
 

Niara

Veteran
Callum_TaleWorlds said:
Styo said:
Next blog....

https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Features

We are working on an entirely new website at the moment, it would be a waste of time and resources updating that page. :smile:

You should focus on releasing the game, please don't waste the time and resources on updating the website  :grin:.

*edit: I should add that I've liked a lot this last interview on the blog. I guess we will soon have a description of the Empire faction/s and then the mostly anticipated release of the game, in a form or other.  :party: :fruity:
 

White Lion

Regular
Bustah said:
White Lion said:
To be honest I like and dislike "tax inefficiency". What do you guys think?

I think if you want to even vaguely represent a historically accurate system of fief management there NEEDS to be delegation and layers. Like there are your peasants who pay taxes to a farmer, who pools it up with fellow farmers at a higher administrative level, and so on. The level just gets higher and higher to the top, with each level being unique in both the type of people who are involved and the possibilities for inefficiency/corruption. I think it would be very interesting to be more hands on in this, as historical lords were. If you find you are getting less taxes than you believe you should (rather than the game just saying "Tax inefficiency: -15%") then you could ask around the local populace and perhaps hire some investigators (this was kind of in VC, but less dynamic). If you find it's just the peasants being reluctant with their taxes, you have a variety of options - help them and make them love you, and they will be less reluctant to support you - hire someone to enforce tax collection like lords often ask you to do in native - take punitive action, perhaps to the point of sacking your own village, at the obvious benefit of massive income at the time but long term distrust and economic difficulties - and I'm sure many more. However if you find the issues are at a higher level, perhaps with a noble you have appointed to the office of treasurer or steward who is taking a bit too much for himself or being slack with his collections, the situation would become more difficult. If you remove him from office, you lose support of him and his family, making your situation in the nobility a bit more precarious. You could give him a stern talking to, using your persuasion and charisma skills, perhaps convincing him to straighten up or perhaps starting a fight. And if his situation amongst the nobility is much stronger than yours, perhaps he will flat-out refuse to leave office - are you willing to start a civil war that will tear your nation apart over some missing denars?

To conclude I think corruption should be treated differently at every level but should ultimately have a theme: corruption is an inevitability, but it is up to the player to decide the balance, based on his playstyle preference and the current situation in the game world. The overall idea is that corruption reduces efficiency and stagnates a nation, but to remove it will cost stability and therein perhaps more money and more progress than was lost by allowing a bit of corruption. If you want to eradicate corruption you should be ready to manage your vassals, the nobility, and the peasants with an iron fist whilst also maintaining your diplomatic and economic skills in order to sustain a level of peace and prosperity that will allow your continued dominance. However, if you let corruption in while you are having difficulties, it can allow you to freely build up your power and improve the strenuous relation with lords whilst increasing the future workload of removing the said corruption. And I think it should be allowed to spiral out of control. How cool would it be if you were just doing these tax collecting quests for a king, and as you do them you notice the lords becoming more and more disgruntled and are hearing about issues within the court as the king banishes and arrests corrupt officials, only to see the country ripped to shreds in a violent civil war of multiple different factions with different leaders who rebelled for different reasons, perhaps just being opportunistic of the times? And on the other hand, a nation that is lax with its corruption will slowly sink into depression, as peasants will virtually ignore their lords, nobles will sit idle and decadent, and the lords and king will have little money to support their armies and garrisons, and will likely fall prey to a stronger, balanced faction.

That's my thoughts.

Edit: I said delegation and layers at the top but only really talked about layers. I think the type of people you assign to the various jobs involved in tax management should be very important. If you are a ruler who does not care about his people and is in search of pure income at the expense of those below him, perhaps a bandit-type companion you picked up on the way is a better idea than the kind-hearted, high honour companion that has more economic skills... even though it would seem he is better at handling the money, the conflict of practices and doctrine between the layers of management should be highly detrimental.

+1
 

Madijeis

Sergeant
WBNW
Oh boy a fac blog coming next. YAY EMPIRE FINALLLLYYYYYYYYYYY

[i'm going to be very sad if it turns out it's not that way]
 

Vorrenus

Regular
Wow, interesting read indeed. I’ll admit I was most shocked to find that he lives (and works) about 20 minutes away from me. All this time Bannerlord has been right under my nose and I had no idea.. Hey Steve, drinks after work? I swear I wont let you get too drunk and divulge massive amounts of infos......?
 

Curiocaueri

Grandmaster Knight
They guy before me appears to have a malfuntion. We should try to turn him off and on again.


From the blog said:
DO COMPANIONS/HEROES HAVE AN EVEN MORE IN-DEPTH PERSONAL BACKGROUND THAN IN WARBAND?
Definitely the funniest blog so far.
 
Great blog, Steve. The more quest branches the better. We all want the freedom to burn our own fingers in moral dilemmas rather than to solve puzzles with pre-determined outcomes.

but I'm actually most excited about the Empire. It's based on the Byzantines but for its politics we've drawn a lot from the classical political legacy. The Greeks and Romans didn't really have ideologies, but they recognized certain styles or postures that leaders could strike. Populists/democrats had a passion for justice but could easily fall into mob groupthink. Oligarchs brought experience and stability but tended to confuse their class interests with those of the state. Monarchs brought a certain unity of purpose to a city-state but tended to be arbitrary and tyrannical. These weren't fixed, and leaders could switch or mix stances as the need arose.

Today most people believe in elections and the universal franchise and are thus what the ancients would probably consider very radical democrats, but there's a lot of debate about the kind of leaders we want, and I think we'll see the same assumptions and stances, the same trade-off of justice, stability and unity that the ancients dealt with. Bannerlord is absolutely NOT going to be an analogy for the present, the characters are all inspired by historical leaders rather than modern ones, but I think you may find the echoes to be interesting.

It has already been said that Bannerlord deals with the Empire’s decline and fall. When things go wrong we all look for scapegoats and leaders can change at the drop of a hat. This suggests (to me at least) that faction leaders in Bannerlord aren’t as secure as in Warband, and that they can be changed, not by a sterile pretender/claimant mechanism but by dynamic internal politics. By working with clans or sub-factions we may be instrumental in ousting our current ruler and replacing him/her with someone better or far worse, or we may suffer from our affiliations to a losing side when the last person we wanted gets crowned. I hope I my suspicions are correct as this will greatly deepen immersion.
 

578

Banned
WBVCNWWF&SM&B
All of that info has been confirmed before in interviews. We know there are more than 60 companions, can be recruited by enemies, rise to power and die.
 
578 said:
All of that info has been confirmed before in interviews. We know there are more than 60 companions, can be recruited by enemies, rise to power and die.

Will our choices alienate certain companions reducing our pool of potential recruits? What better example of dynamic events?
 
Top Bottom