There are also often obvious bugs in like every beta release that should have been found when playing for 30+ minutes.Some same bugs have to be reported and fixed each patch. That shows something..
Last edited:
There are also often obvious bugs in like every beta release that should have been found when playing for 30+ minutes.Some same bugs have to be reported and fixed each patch. That shows something..
Spoken like someone who's never looked at the code.Apparently disbanding party is now broken too. Incredible. I mean how difficult is the logic? It's really not that complex. Someone or a group of someones coded that but it's management's fault that they got the logic wrong. Right.
We’re not exactly in a merit based world society as of now, so it’s harder said then done. Even in Turkey, you’re gonna get flak for firing someone who wasn’t of a center look and lifestyle. This is the world we’ve created. This is what millennials wantedRight. No one's to blame, everyone's great but something went wrong. Bad luck I suppose.
Would be nice if people actually started taking ownership of their work. Nothing wrong with admitting fault. That's actually how you start to improve but responsibility seems to be anathema to people nowadays. Everyone's a victim, no one's responsible. It was all because of XYZ.
Apparently disbanding party is now broken too. Incredible. I mean how difficult is the logic? It's really not that complex. Someone or a group of someones coded that but it's management's fault that they got the logic wrong. Right.
Well, mexxico just nerfed the Cav bonuses overall and that was enough. I don't recall mexxico doing anything to wardecs to fix it. Sturgians did used to get a pretty substantial snow bonus that made it so they could catch Khuzait parties in the snow. TW nerfed it for whatever reason but it had zero effect on snowballing even wen it was gloriously high.What about terrain? Defender bonus? Troop ratio bonus/penalties? These are basic military calculations. If I have 100 soldiers vs 10 looters, I should NEVER lose a single person. Yet it's possible in autocalc for my Elite Cataphract to die.
Because the formula is so basic, it caused the Kuzait snowball. How did they fix it? Did they improve autocalc? No, they gave everyone more cavalry and endless recruits. When that didn't work, they just made the AI declare war against impossible odds.
A more elegant solution would have been to improve autocalc to factor in defender bonus and terrain bonus. Battanians fighting in forest should have the upper hand against Vladian cavalry. Sturgians fighting in snow should be able to catch up to and ambush Kuzaits.
They don't blame them by name, but posters have definitely called specific dev's design and balance changes incompetent before.Of course there is no specific employee to blame and I´m quite sure that the devs are not incompent or anything. But I also don´t see anyone blaming the employees.
Spoken like someone who's never looked at the code.
Well, mexxico just nerfed the Cav bonuses overall and that was enough. I don't recall mexxico doing anything to wardecs to fix it. Sturgians did used to get a pretty substantial snow bonus that made it so they could catch Khuzait parties in the snow. TW nerfed it for whatever reason but it had zero effect on snowballing even wen it was gloriously high.
(Also, "basic" military calculations aren't you take 0 losses at 10:1 odds. It is you take roughly equivalent losses in an attrition exchange.)
They don't blame them by name, but posters have definitely called specific dev's design and balance changes incompetent before.
But those are just a few guys I guess (MP forum?) because I never saw someone blaming specific people.They don't blame them by name, but posters have definitely called specific dev's design and balance changes incompetent before.
The basic logic of the game is AI independence. A sandbox with hundreds of active parties on the campaign map, interacting based on probabilities that create unique and at times unpredictable outcomes. Ditto individual agents interacting in battle scenes as opposed to basing AI control on formations as per Total War. That underlying principle is intended to make game play unpredictable to make the game replayable. However, that approach inevitably allows for unique coding conflicts and unanticipated bugs, which take time to isolate and cull as some might only appear after x hundred days etc. I'd rather have a sandbox game with its unique and challenging code problems than the hardcoded logical outcomes of a dressed up puzzle game where you move from one rigged encounter to the next with minimal player freedom. I only wish TW had ignored consoles and chosen a higher minimum pc spec to make the game less constrained, but that was probably commercially unviable.2 things. Logic > code. If your logic sucks, the code will suck. If code is spaghetti, whose fault is that? Management?
True professionals care about their work. Any professional investing years creating a product becomes emotional engaged with it. Knee jerk criticism by players with no idea about the necessary coding/modelling compromises is bound to hurt.There's no need to name and shame. But certainly, there's nothing wrong with calling it like it is. A professional is not going to allow emotions to cloud their judgement
The basic logic of the game is AI independence. A sandbox with hundreds of active parties on the campaign map, interacting based on probabilities that create unique and at times unpredictable outcomes. Ditto individual agents interacting in battle scenes as opposed to basing AI control on formations as per Total War. That underlying principle is intended to make game play unpredictable to make the game replayable. However, that approach inevitably allows for unique coding conflicts and unanticipated bugs, which take time to isolate and cull as some might only appear after x hundred days etc. I'd rather have a sandbox game with its unique and challenging code problems than the hardcoded logical outcomes of a dressed up puzzle game where you move from one rigged encounter to the next with minimal player freedom. I only wish TW had ignored consoles and chosen a higher minimum pc spec to make the game less constrained, but that was probably commercially unviable.
True professionals care about their work. Any professional investing years creating a product becomes emotional engaged with it. Knee jerk criticism by players with no idea about the necessary coding/modelling compromises is bound to hurt.
Not quite. The attackers and defenders change every round, selected at random. So it would be A1 kills D1, A2 kills D2, D3 kills A3, A1 and D4 kill each other, etc. The reason high-tier units die so easy is because (or was, it has been a long time since I looked it over) is that the high-tier troops' primary autocalc advantage is in killing power, not in defending themselves; the two are separate.If memory serves, the way it's resolved is basically ATK unit 1 vs DEF unit 1. If A1 kills D1, A1 vs D2 and so on. If A1 vs D3, A1 dies, then A2 vs D3. Correct?
I didn't say the underdog would prevail. I said the winner would take equivalent losses. In the case of 100 dudes against 10, there would be 90 victorious at the end of it. Attrition exchange: I kill you, you kill me and last man standing wins.And you're wrong. If I outnumber you 10 to 1, I would most likely not take equivalent losses. Only in fantasy can 1 man prevail against 10. I would agree that 0 losses has a none 0 probability. Like 0.01%.
An employee does something for money and may or may not care about it. A true professional has professional standards and is invested in his/her work.Not really. A professional is just someone who does something for money. Some professionals care and some don't. I don't think it's given everyone will become emotionally attached and I don't see why criticism would hurt. If it's valid, process it and if it's not ignore it.
An employee does something for money and may or may not care about it. A true professional has professional standards and is invested in his/her work.
Not quite. The attackers and defenders change every round, selected at random. So it would be A1 kills D1, A2 kills D2, D3 kills A3, A1 and D4 kill each other, etc. The reason high-tier units die so easy is because (or was, it has been a long time since I looked it over) is that the high-tier troops' primary autocalc advantage is in killing power, not in defending themselves; the two are separate.
Also their power is clamped so they don't have too far of an advantage over low-tier troops, like Looters.
I didn't say the underdog would prevail. I said the winner would take equivalent losses. In the case of 100 dudes against 10, there would be 90 victorious at the end of it. Attrition exchange: I kill you, you kill me and last man standing wins.
It would make for a worse game, because players would spend even more time recovering their numbers between battles, but that's why devs shouldn't add realistic elements (especially military ones) to everything under the sun.
It wouldn't even mean the autocalc was any different in practice. Autocalc is already heavily tilted in favor of raw numbers (moreso now than on release)
and it is rare for the side with less combat power to win, except when other parties jump in to save them.
Why am I not surprised that your only experience of professionalism comes from a dictionary?Nonsense. Go check a dictionary.
Sure, you can find any number of exceptional cases. Point is that military calculations don't exist to cover outliers and definitely do NOT say this:The attrition exchange theory is easily disproven. Battle of Cannae comes to mind. I mean, history is literally littered with battles that totally disprove it.
All the way from the incredibly simple (Lancester's linear law) to the extremely complex (Dupuy's quantified judgement model) say that even a grossly inferior force will occasionally inflict casualties on a superior force.What about terrain? Defender bonus? Troop ratio bonus/penalties? These are basic military calculations. If I have 100 soldiers vs 10 looters, I should NEVER lose a single person.
So high-tier AI parties don't win everything, forever. To be clear, I don't agree with it but that's the reason the campaign devs did it.Why should their power be clamped?
No, it cannot happen in Bannerlord, because even outside the autocalc the AI fights like AI and not like men who are "held in a terrible balance of fear." Fully envelop a force and it will still fight nearly as effectively; all the men require is enough space to swing their weapons and they'll start exchanging off. The only way to avoid it is to use a superiority in ranged weapons and distance or (somewhat) mobility to keep your men safe.May I refer you to the Battle of Cannae once more. A smaller force double enveloped a larger force and totally decimated it due to superior leadership.
Can this happen in Bannerlords? No. Why not? Autocalc is one of the most important functions of the game. I don't think they've invested sufficiently in it and it's the cause of a lot of bad decisions and bad outcomes.
This. Why play Bannerlord if you use auto-calc for your own battles?Autocalc is, at its core, meant for the AI on AI battles. To determine them quickly and without any performance impacts on the map.
Is there even any content beside endless random balltes?This. Why play Bannerlord if you use auto-calc for your own battles?
Sure, you can find any number of exceptional cases. Point is that military calculations don't exist to cover outliers and definitely do NOT say this:
All the way from the incredibly simple (Lancester's linear law) to the extremely complex (Dupuy's quantified judgement model) say that even a grossly inferior force will occasionally inflict casualties on a superior force.
So high-tier AI parties don't win everything, forever. To be clear, I don't agree with it but that's the reason the campaign devs did it.
No, it cannot happen in Bannerlord, because even outside the autocalc the AI fights like AI and not like men who are "held in a terrible balance of fear." Fully envelop a force and it will still fight nearly as effectively; all the men require is enough space to swing their weapons and they'll start exchanging off. The only way to avoid it is to use a superiority in ranged weapons and distance or (somewhat) mobility to keep your men safe.
Autocalc is, at its core, meant for the AI on AI battles. To determine them quickly and without any performance impacts on the map.
Because the formula is so basic, it caused the Kuzait snowball. How did they fix it? Did they improve autocalc? No, they gave everyone more cavalry and endless recruits. When that didn't work, they just made the AI declare war against impossible odds.
A more elegant solution would have been to improve autocalc to factor in defender bonus and terrain bonus. Battanians fighting in forest should have the upper hand against Vladian cavalry. Sturgians fighting in snow should be able to catch up to and ambush Kuzaits.
Giving battanians more cavalry is just cheap. So yes, perhaps management screwed up with their bad decisions on how to fix snowballing but if autocalc was better, they wouldn't have been in a position to make the bad decision.
You asked why was it clamped and I gave you the same answer that was given to me.I'm not here to support points I disagree with. I'm not sure why you feel obliged to support something you disagree with.
They sure do. But a double envelopment doesn't mean every troop is defending from multiple attackers. In Bannerlord the troops (as a whole) do attrition exchange while being outflanked just fine.I disagree. When soldiers get surrounded, they get hit multiple times for every attack they make. It's literally impossible to defend against multiple attackers.
That's because you keep muddling it. If your point is about AI vs. AI, then why do you give a damn what factors go into things? A player will never notice unless they go out of their way to stare at two AI parties/armies battling. The one serious negative effect (snowballing) was fixed. There's no reason to give a **** that autocalc looters occasionally kill an AI's high-tier troop, at all.Precisely! I'm convinced you're not altogether following the premise of my argument. So let me repeat:
If it's still not clear, I am saying AI vs AI battles are flawed.