Endgame is boring and really kills all the fun...

Users who are viewing this thread

Altair095

Recruit
I played many rounds warband and i started some days after release on consoles my first bannerlord run up to this day. The Endgame isn't even funny anymore, im vassal of Vlandia and we conquered most of the city's, 3 kingdoms allready got nothing anf the only kingdoms standing get crushed every time but can build their army's up fast, that's so stupid. The warscore system is bull**** too, if killed 30k more than them, more than 50 generals captured and they demand 8k gold from my kingdom of we want peace? Could it be that the developers doesn't care about the players fun? Is there anyone out there that finished one game? I'm all out of fun
 

Altair095

Recruit
taleworlds don't care man, we've been telling them this for years
Thanks for the answer, i saw some old post on reddit about 2 years ago that complained about the same problems, i didn't knew they did nothing to make the endgame enjoyable... I startet my second playthrough, hoping it would work better this time but no, after enough conquering again all other kingdoms declare war ( everybody is under 3k strength, I captured every noble and everyone demands that my kingdoms pays if i want peace, it's totally dumb )
 

Ichon

Sergeant at Arms
I think TW view is that players are not SUPPOSED to win... there is only endless war just like most of the medieval era but I think they forget that occasionally kings did nearly entirely win, Charlemagne, Roger II, Ivan IV, Sultan Mehmed, less than a handful of others but it did occasionally happen and for a game, end state of uniting the the Empire factions to become Emperor and facing an allied group of enemy kingdoms supported by foreign mercenaries and subduing them to become "The Great" is something to aspire to.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
I think TW view is that players are not SUPPOSED to win... there is only endless war just like most of the medieval era but I think they forget that occasionally kings did nearly entirely win, Charlemagne, Roger II, Ivan IV, Sultan Mehmed, less than a handful of others but it did occasionally happen and for a game, end state of uniting the the Empire factions to become Emperor and facing an allied group of enemy kingdoms supported by foreign mercenaries and subduing them to become "The Great" is something to aspire to.

The difference is that even if a war wasnt won -there were plenty of interesting and captivating events as well as very notable battles. Theres just no narrative here in which you can re-tell your game in an interesting way.
 

Altair095

Recruit
I think TW view is that players are not SUPPOSED to win... there is only endless war just like most of the medieval era but I think they forget that occasionally kings did nearly entirely win, Charlemagne, Roger II, Ivan IV, Sultan Mehmed, less than a handful of others but it did occasionally happen and for a game, end state of uniting the the Empire factions to become Emperor and facing an allied group of enemy kingdoms supported by foreign mercenaries and subduing them to become "The Great" is something to aspire to.
It's bad game design(in my opinion ) and if I'm looking through the forum here, it even looks like the Devs don't care about the players that love this game . But I'm happy that bannerlord came out on consoles, even got a better start with my second playthrough, maybe it will look different in some years. I hope they will change some things in the future so that the endgame can be enjoyable. Workshops need rework too
 

Tlap

Veteran
WBWF&SNWVC
I think that map need to be much smaller, so game is not so long. That way, you could finish game sooner and dont be bored to death. It would be even better for replayability.
 

geala

Squire
I can understand that you find the late game of BL boring, what I cannot understand is why you did not find the late game of Warband boring the same way. Fundamentally it's not that different.
 

sh1ny4

Sergeant
I can understand that you find the late game of BL boring, what I cannot understand is why you did not find the late game of Warband boring the same way. Fundamentally it's not that different.
I don't know for him but warband had a few points making the endgame better imo:
  • fewer town, but harder to take. There are almost as many town in the three empires than there were in the whole game in warband. This leads to two things :
    • it's much more tedious since you do the same thing for much longer (and since the towns are pretty easy to capture you can be sure that they will be taken back by the enemy, so you have to do it again and again)
    • you don't see the light at the end of the tunnel. There is no time you're thinking "just one faction, one war and I've done it" because kingdoms do not disappear, just one faction means several years of war because you can't count on your allies, there is too many castles/cities to take. and you know that it will take way too long.
  • battle variety: fight the swadian or the khergits, it's incomparable. fight the empire or sturgia ? same thing. The only factions that feel different are battania and the khuzaits, and even then not by much.
  • capturing/defeating lords had an impact. You didn't have hordes of imperial recruits to fight endlessly because the cousin twice removed from the noble you've just captured somehow can build and army in his stead. And he did not escape so easily too
  • Feeling of progression. high tier troops were hard to get until the mid game, and having a complete army would be even later in the game. But they were very strong and were worth the investment, both in price and time. I can sustain 100+ tier 6 noble troops before reaching clan size 4 in bannerlord, yet feel like they aren't worth neither the time nor the price unless I mod the game.
  • on the same point, armor used to be useful and worth the price, a tier 6 armor in bannerlord protects me against 4 bow shots instead of two without it, for the price of 200k+ gold, and the improvement in melee combat is only a few months old...
  • less painful leveling,with more variety. Getting the focus points is fine, but the attribute points system is terrible, and I won't even talk about the perk, most of which are useless and the ones that aren't are just OP
  • relations were useful, now they just seem to vary the price you have to pay to marry someone
  • companions could be leveled and doing so truly made your troops better.
  • even in late game you could be afraid of fighting your foes. want to take a battanian town ? no problem, just throw more troops. want to take a late game rhodok castle ? now this is terrifying, although some of the reasons why are very bad design, namely the single ladder and the fact that the battle would end at you getting knocked out.
I personally disagree with many post here saying that warband was better because muh feasts, but while bannerlord is overall much better warband still had some superior designs from time to time. I will keep playing bannerlord over vanilla warband anytime, but I shouldn't have to use so many mods to have a decent late game

I have been playing diplomacy 4. litdum this week and I have to say that outside of the combats it feels much better than bannerlord, and even then some parts are better (armor, spears bracing for NPCs, some commands bannerlord doesn't have, ability to deploy pavise shield, overall better AI). Yes it is modded so not really comparable but modded warband is what set really high expectations on bannerlord, leading to the state of the forums.

I once modified the troop trees on my end to make them more like warband (so basically very specialized, not every factions has cav/horse archers, archers or even infantry in the base tree) and yep, changed a lot the endgame when combined with a mod to make armor work. I actually had to adapt my strategy to the enemy instead of the "F1 + F3" or "archers behind shieldwall" that are all you need to win a battle in bannerlord
 

SpartanBG

Recruit
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I agree with
The difference is that even if a war wasnt won -there were plenty of interesting and captivating events as well as very notable battles. Theres just no narrative here in which you can re-tell your game in an interesting way.


Maybe the game is not about conquering the map (as many may seem to believe). But its lacking a lot. There are like 12-15 quests in total (maybe something like 30-40 should be the standard). There are no random events Nothing
 

Ereinion

Sergeant at Arms
WB
I don't know for him but warband had a few points making the endgame better imo:
  • fewer town, but harder to take. There are almost as many town in the three empires than there were in the whole game in warband. This leads to two things :
    • it's much more tedious since you do the same thing for much longer (and since the towns are pretty easy to capture you can be sure that they will be taken back by the enemy, so you have to do it again and again)
    • you don't see the light at the end of the tunnel. There is no time you're thinking "just one faction, one war and I've done it" because kingdoms do not disappear, just one faction means several years of war because you can't count on your allies, there is too many castles/cities to take. and you know that it will take way too long.
  • battle variety: fight the swadian or the khergits, it's incomparable. fight the empire or sturgia ? same thing. The only factions that feel different are battania and the khuzaits, and even then not by much.
  • capturing/defeating lords had an impact. You didn't have hordes of imperial recruits to fight endlessly because the cousin twice removed from the noble you've just captured somehow can build and army in his stead. And he did not escape so easily too
  • Feeling of progression. high tier troops were hard to get until the mid game, and having a complete army would be even later in the game. But they were very strong and were worth the investment, both in price and time. I can sustain 100+ tier 6 noble troops before reaching clan size 4 in bannerlord, yet feel like they aren't worth neither the time nor the price unless I mod the game.
  • on the same point, armor used to be useful and worth the price, a tier 6 armor in bannerlord protects me against 4 bow shots instead of two without it, for the price of 200k+ gold, and the improvement in melee combat is only a few months old...
  • less painful leveling,with more variety. Getting the focus points is fine, but the attribute points system is terrible, and I won't even talk about the perk, most of which are useless and the ones that aren't are just OP
  • relations were useful, now they just seem to vary the price you have to pay to marry someone
  • companions could be leveled and doing so truly made your troops better.
  • even in late game you could be afraid of fighting your foes. want to take a battanian town ? no problem, just throw more troops. want to take a late game rhodok castle ? now this is terrifying, although some of the reasons why are very bad design, namely the single ladder and the fact that the battle would end at you getting knocked out.
I personally disagree with many post here saying that warband was better because muh feasts, but while bannerlord is overall much better warband still had some superior designs from time to time. I will keep playing bannerlord over vanilla warband anytime, but I shouldn't have to use so many mods to have a decent late game

I have been playing diplomacy 4. litdum this week and I have to say that outside of the combats it feels much better than bannerlord, and even then some parts are better (armor, spears bracing for NPCs, some commands bannerlord doesn't have, ability to deploy pavise shield, overall better AI). Yes it is modded so not really comparable but modded warband is what set really high expectations on bannerlord, leading to the state of the forums.

I once modified the troop trees on my end to make them more like warband (so basically very specialized, not every factions has cav/horse archers, archers or even infantry in the base tree) and yep, changed a lot the endgame when combined with a mod to make armor work. I actually had to adapt my strategy to the enemy instead of the "F1 + F3" or "archers behind shieldwall" that are all you need to win a battle in bannerlord
You should try Bannerpage on warband, really one of the best mod that make me finish a warband campaign
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
And he did not escape so easily too
33prgy9cewbz.jpg
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
I can understand that you find the late game of BL boring, what I cannot understand is why you did not find the late game of Warband boring the same way. Fundamentally it's not that different.
Broken down to the most basic elements, they are the 'same'.

But for some reason, BL battles just feel less impactful because of how it's all just programmed army bash vs army bash and fief taking - especially with how quick it all replenishes and repeats within a couple in-game days. And how quick it is for the player to also max/cap out/gear up and replenish their party with high-tier troops too. The losses aren't a setback, and the victories are not meaningful. All those other 'features' like influence, clan tier, smithing, banditry, quests, etc...can be engaging for the first few minutes - but they reward the player way too much/linearly IMO so you're slingshotted to that end-game grind within a few short hours of playing.

Warband armies, if I can remember, were more random, as well as their castle/town targets (if they even manage to attack one) - so the chance for the player to get a castle/town took longer. As well as the clear progression and time differential of getting a village when you first join a faction (always the ****tiest, raided one), to maybe a castle, to a town (ie Dhirim defense) felt longer and more meaningful.
I don't want to lose a castle/town in Warband, in BL though, with how easy they change hands and how the player practically gets a majority of them all the time, don't really care.
 

clock4orange

Master Knight
I played many rounds warband and i started some days after release on consoles my first bannerlord run up to this day. The Endgame isn't even funny anymore, im vassal of Vlandia and...
...and this is not endgame

get kids (and wait 18 years in-game - that's boring), rebel and create your kingdom, get some clans join you, start conquer in your name, menage towns (if you lucky to get any) etc.

if you play on pc get some mods, there are good one, like The Old Realms (25 factions and 50 or so towns to take)
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
yep, this was bad but when you managed to get one you could be sure they will remain with you until the end of the war
No, they had a baseline escape in Warband too, something like 5% every two days or half that if you put them in a settlement.

Unless you were tweaking things through TweakMB like most people and just set it to 100% capture and 0% escape chance out of frustration.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
here are good one, like The Old Realms

Whats so good about that mod? Looked it up and just looks like more Warhammer stuff. Is their any real substantial improvements to the overall game like real kingdom management, things to do in Peace times, real cause for wars and peace, interesting or least distinct NPC player character, things to do in towns etc...From its home page it didnt look all that special
 

clock4orange

Master Knight
Whats so good about that mod? Looked it up and just looks like more Warhammer stuff. Is their any real substantial improvements to the overall game like real kingdom management, things to do in Peace times, real cause for wars and peace, interesting or least distinct NPC player character, things to do in towns etc...From its home page it didnt look all that special
plenty of choices and wars if you mercenerary or vassal, even a king,
 

CrazyElf

Sergeant
I personally disagree with many post here saying that warband was better because muh feasts, but while bannerlord is overall much better warband still had some superior designs from time to time. I will keep playing bannerlord over vanilla warband anytime, but I shouldn't have to use so many mods to have a decent late game

That's the issue though.


There needs to be a lot more content in late game.
 
Top Bottom