How about a new character creation system?

[工人国际支部]

Some game element looks fine separately,but it'll be another matter when you combine them together.

For instance,in the character creation,your default character is set at the age of 30 while a male can't do marrying over 40.The fact that "a year has 89 days" makes it worse.

So will it be better if our character is younger?

Some may say our character has a experience in army,but it doesn't make sense that our character is even weaker than a raw recruit.

A good exmaple I think we can learn from is the character creation system in Crusader Kings II:
If you startup character is older,he(she) can get more skill points at the beginning,otherwise a younger character has less skill points.

This question was discussed many times in both MountBladeCN and BaiduBar(Chinese Reddit).

http://bbs.mountblade.com.cn/thread-2062448-1-1.html

https://tieba.baidu.com/p/6645354634?

So I put a thread here to hear your guys thought.

 

[humility925]

no point of character creation, because your character is lost in end, because of age, can killed even you turn off death, there is no import and export as far as I'm aware.

 

[工人国际支部]

no point of character creation, because your character is lost in end, because of age, can killed even you turn off death, there is no import and export as far as I'm aware.

As a role-playing game, I think it still makes sense.

Especially if there is a marriage deadline.

Maybe we should change the number of days in the year？

At least some options should be provided.

 

[Lord Irontoe]

I agree that 30 is way too old for the game start. For the time period you'd already have 5 kids by that age. Why are you even still living at home with your parents at 30?

I hope that the 30 yrs old was just an arbitrary number that they set without really thinking about it and nobody changed it yet. It really should be 18 or 20

 

[工人国际支部]

I agree that 30 is way too old for the game start. For the time period you'd already have 5 kids by that age. Why are you even still living at home with your parents at 30?

I hope that the 30 yrs old was just an arbitrary number that they set without really thinking about it and nobody changed it yet. It really should be 18 or 20

very much agree with

 

[mr_nifty]

very much agree with

+1

 

[humility925]

I agree that 30 is way too old for the game start. For the time period you'd already have 5 kids by that age. Why are you even still living at home with your parents at 30?

I hope that the 30 yrs old was just an arbitrary number that they set without really thinking about it and nobody changed it yet. It really should be 18 or 20

Not everyone can get marriage, not everyone can get family or children, some might live with parents, because parent unable take care or children can't take care of themself, mostly because disability, or save lot of money or make life more bearable because economy wasn't good for common low income, ect. Some don't had choice, some had choice, many had reasons, so guess.

Beside very, very rare people had 5 children in 30, Most I know and common is they don't had children (well, for men more often are childless than had a child, but women on other hand had children more than childless), often had 1 or 2, fewer but yet many may had 3 but not 5 at least, very rare.

I don't know why you think everyone should had number of children, I'm petty sure more common people don't had children or very few than had manys. More and more common children do live with or parents live with children, due economy is so bad for low income people, thought often roomate/friend live together to save money, not much difference live with family (whatever parents or greatparents or uncle or even family friend.

I guess back in long, long ago it's easier to children go out and get own land even it's free but had to work hard for it, but today, too many people, there is no free taking land, let alone land tax (there was no land tax, just income tax in ancestral time, even no tax at all, if you are strong or very well hide like live in forest where lord or king had limited to reach, but today IRS, Goverment's force can get anyone on anywhere ensure no one outrun their scam of tax.

Even you work hard, but unreasonable cost of money and even unreasonable law/policy blocked way of get tax free land to live on it, unless you are rich or good income to cover cost. It's not like old day where children can or able to move out of parent and get land for free but had to work on it or build it, but you can't do that today where goverment and too many owner had almost all land on this world where there is no free land to live on, so most end up live with someone by mostly not choice because too many people live on earth, too much goverment power where make you pay for living on land by bully.

Come to think of it, I think children in ancestral had more freedom and more to grow, yet it's more danger than today, while today it's more safe than back in time but limited freedom, limited grow.

Oh, I'm not sure but common parent in back in time hopeful children live with them when they are in age, children in return taken care of aged parent, I think it's common at least one children live with parent, along child create family along with it to taken care, but today in american, children dump or parent end up live in nurse home, ect due because it's could time, cost, career, new family or had no strong bond, I guess even long ago parent and children might had boud even they hate each other but I don't think children and parent had strong bond today in american but rather weak or none of it, at least.

There is no nurse home back in time, so children are one who take care of parent so often parent live with children or children live with parent along with new family children married to, but I guess rich can afford to get away or had a slave or servant to take care of them, while poor depend on children.

 

[MightyMidgit]

Beside very, very rare people had 5 children in 30, Most I know and common is they don't had children (well, for men more often are childless than had a child, but women on other hand had children more than childless), often had 1 or 2, fewer but yet many may had 3 but not 5 at least, very rare.

I don't know why you think everyone should had number of children, I'm petty sure more common people don't had children or very few than had manys. More and more common children do live with or parents live with children, due economy is so bad for low income people, thought often roomate/friend live together to save money, not much difference live with family (whatever parents or greatparents or uncle or even family friend.

Historically, people, especially poor and peasant, had many, many children. The reason was because of the death rate of children being so high. Most children did not survive to adulthood. Additionally, more children meant more workhands, which meant more food productivity, etc.. That reasoning persisted all the way through the 1800's. Only recently did families start having fewer and fewer children.

What that comes down to is that it would be VERY odd for you and your brother in Bannerlord to not be married with a bunch of children already by 30. In my opinion we should be able to start the game at ages as low as teenager, and depending on what you set your age at, you can have additional character creation options, such as creating your wife/husband, selecting the number of children you have.

 

[humility925]

I'm quite sure it's common for men to be single back in time, women on other hand is often good chance to get into marriage but worse case prostitute if many guy don't want marry or won't take settle down and taken care of womens, of course many men end up in army or crime like bandit, or often got killed, I don't know, but maybe men had higher number of getting marriage and had children, but single guy and had no children is no small number, too but large number, I would said 60 to 70% guy might marriage and had children while 30% to 40% single guy might not into marriage (but they could had sexual with prostitue and still had no children, but I bet some guy would avoid children or worse case guy do marriage or taken children in but beat children up as I guess they don't love children at all but only marriage for women, not children, who know.

As today, well, more and more are rather to be single or won't marriage but still had lovers all while avoid children due policy, law, cover cost is too high.

But I could be wrong, maybe there is balance for guy might not had children and other do (guy sleeping with bunch of women while other guy unable to sleep with women because other guy already took many wives is part of reason why higher number women had children while large number men do not had children maybe, or guy can't find women they want or desire even there may be bunch of women but do not want that or this women or women don't want that guy.

As for the game, who said character had to had children by 30 year old? depend on role playing, soldier of fortune or adventure is highly like is why we play those character, if character had children, then we can't play that character because those who had children had to settle down and stay, can't go out adventure or be soldier of fortune, unless they abandoned children if they had one. It's good chance 30 year old love freedom and want adventure lifetime rather than stay and slave away taken care of children.

Not everyone want to settle down and taken care children, otherwise this game wouldn't be exist.
It's don't matter what age, no one should expect all had to had children like a law. It's not for everyone even everyone might want lover, but not want children. Some might expect to get killed in battle or war before their age for personal glory, or avoid glow old and weak.

So no, I don't think it's odd your character and character's brothers don't had children, that is why we play character in the game unless people don't like to play character that abandoned children, if your character had children, then what is point if you are not allowed to do adventure in game, you had to play like sims 4 to stay and taken care of children and can't go adventure. I think most player who buy this game want to do adventure, not stay and taken care of children, On otherhand, maybe character already had children but somewhere in the world, if that character you playing got children by 15 year old, and now he or she is 30 year old, children now grow up 15 year old and already in other world, but not in this game, so your character is free going to adventure. I don't know what to said if people still think our character must had children because of character's 30 year old. What if people don't want character to had children even they want 30 year old or 40 year old even 100 year old. or immortal.

Now I do like to had option of my character's background a immortal do not age, and not die in and out of battle, and maybe had super power like vampire, bit and suck every soldier to regen my health bar while had superspeed, superstrength, superendurance, ect. Oh vampire can't get children, well most case unless it's magical, turn lord or soldier a vampire and join my rank/clan.