That sounds like regular balancing.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
I feel sorry for AI as players have huge unfair advantage in the nature of this game.
- Thread starter Dreed89
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
That sounds like regular balancing.
I think he is right. They put in incomplete mechanics, said mechanics expectedly don't work as intended, so they try to tweak small easy things, which at most only partially help.
The only way to if broken mechanics is to redo or rehaul it, beating around the bush.
It's pretty normal for game balancing to affect other things. Like, when they nerf econ in some games, its typical to go back over prices and adjust certain items so they are still just as easily available, even with less income.
...what?
Perfect example would be symmetrical vs asymmetrical balancing in a ww2 shooter. Two approaches as exsample hell let loose and call of duty world at war, nether are perfectly balanced.
Cod is more symmetrical whereas hell let loose is more asymmetrical in terms of small arms. Sure they Nerf things here and there that are realistic but impeed gameplay fairness and buff things that arent to smooth game play but both sides are still playing the same game, aim / shoot / cover / teamwork etc.
With bannerlord it seams like the AI is literally playing candy crush and has knowlege of things they just shouldn't know atleast not instaneously ( instant relation hit ). Just my opinion but the way the AI handles knowlege transfer makes no sense to me. It can never be balanced, it feels gimmicky because it is.
The ai then responds with this knowlege or advantage it shouldnt have so instead of rectifiying the actually cause of the imbalance they tweak other things to mitigate the unintended result. That is reverse balancing in a nutshell
Cod is more symmetrical whereas hell let loose is more asymmetrical in terms of small arms. Sure they Nerf things here and there that are realistic but impeed gameplay fairness and buff things that arent to smooth game play but both sides are still playing the same game, aim / shoot / cover / teamwork etc.
With bannerlord it seams like the AI is literally playing candy crush and has knowlege of things they just shouldn't know atleast not instaneously ( instant relation hit ). Just my opinion but the way the AI handles knowlege transfer makes no sense to me. It can never be balanced, it feels gimmicky because it is.
The ai then responds with this knowlege or advantage it shouldnt have so instead of rectifiying the actually cause of the imbalance they tweak other things to mitigate the unintended result. That is reverse balancing in a nutshell
Adryl
Regular
No, that's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Balancing complex systems takes time, if you restart or overhaul each time it's not working it'll just be an endless cycle.
Bro, you're trying too hard, people don't even talk like that.
Adryl
Regular
What? Yes it does. You're balancing a system, things are going to affect other things. That's how systems work.
That's an example of the AI playing by the exact same rules as the player. The message log doesn't have a time delay on it.
So you guys do not think the weird patches and solutions to issues that taleworld has put forward thus far and the resulting unforeseen changes in game play are not undesirable? or are just not occurring?
When you are balancing this game concerning, i ono lets take javelins as an example. You don't make javelins 50k cuz they're to effective, at least not from a realism standpoint. Perhaps from a diversity or fun standpoint you nerf the javalins or implement sway or something else to mitigate the effectivenes ( direct balancing ). The result from this is "Oh look everyone is now making javalins and selling them to break the econ" but atleast no one can afford to get them before level 10. Heck javelins should be no more expensive then spears in terms of material and labour, no?
When you are balancing this game concerning, i ono lets take javelins as an example. You don't make javelins 50k cuz they're to effective, at least not from a realism standpoint. Perhaps from a diversity or fun standpoint you nerf the javalins or implement sway or something else to mitigate the effectivenes ( direct balancing ). The result from this is "Oh look everyone is now making javalins and selling them to break the econ" but atleast no one can afford to get them before level 10. Heck javelins should be no more expensive then spears in terms of material and labour, no?
Last edited:
I don't think they are desirable, but I do think they are pretty normal. Sometimes it is a tradeoff; looters going out and molesting every single lord on spawn was obviously bad so a little cheat (19 free troops on spawn) isn't a big deal. You still have player influence but without any serious downside.
I'm less thrilled about free horses but I understand their intent is that horses be scarce. Putting enough horses in the game world to support all the cavalry of AI parties would make it trivial for a player to amass them. And not putting enough in the game world would mean the player would essentially be racing against the AI to acquire them. My personal feeling is that having no AI horse cheats and super-scarce horses except in certain regions (deep desert Aserai, far east Khuzait, Imperial Midlands) would make the game more interesting, not less, but whatever -- it is clear TW doesn't agree and they made the game moddable for a reason.
The AI being able to see garrison strength is the exact same as a player being able to press N and look at garrison strength via the Encyclopedia, so I don't care. It makes it perform somewhat better at threatening the player, otherwise it becomes pretty easy to cheese (Captain Octavius (I'm ****ing up his name, sorry) had a mod that forced the AI to target border settlements, not weak garrisons) because you can strip every interior garrison to the bone while putting hundreds of troops in your border fiefs. The AI will still go for them and lose -- repeatedly. That's funny the first few times but then you realize you're wiping out another faction just by cramming a town or castle with hundreds of low-tier troops and the fun goes away.
I don't think they've touched javelins since release, lol. We just didn't notice back when Wood Workshops made 20,000/day ?.
Ok, ok so looters never took an idiot lord hostage in history? It seams like a bad fix to me. Horses in medival times we really expensive, 260 denars for one makes no sense in my honest opinion. Did most lords even do thier own recruiting? I think they hired people to do the recruiting for them, or sent letters out to towns for arms to be called.
Why cant we actually have some of these realistic features? why are they trying to balance this game with compromises towards simplicity?
Good point on mods sure.
On the garrison issue, what is the "realistic" standard in your opinion?
They did touch the price of all javalins afaik, specifically harpoons used to be 50k and are now 16k. Might be regional pricing, why do you guys always get stuck on examples? I think this a fitting example, they shouldn't be using artificial hurdles to change gameplay imho, you can disagree.
Why cant we actually have some of these realistic features? why are they trying to balance this game with compromises towards simplicity?
Good point on mods sure.
On the garrison issue, what is the "realistic" standard in your opinion?
They did touch the price of all javalins afaik, specifically harpoons used to be 50k and are now 16k. Might be regional pricing, why do you guys always get stuck on examples? I think this a fitting example, they shouldn't be using artificial hurdles to change gameplay imho, you can disagree.
Last edited:
CrazyElf
Sergeant
Give free units, but make them spawn at villages and towns to make it seems somewhat realistic.
Every castle basically manned as if someone* is going to come and try to take it from you. The exceptions being exceptionally poor settlements, clans with too many fiefs to maintain (and therefore having a reason to give them up to other clans) or clans going through financial hardship.
*"Someone", in the medieval context, possibly being your liege.
AFAIK they do? I recall the Sturgian lords (back when lords insta-spawned after defeat) always appearing at the village south of Balgard.
What TW doesn't tell you is that the player character was Dio all along! They are just enabling The World when time stops for their battles.
Dr-Shinobi
Well yeah, you can press ESC whenever you want ?
You can take a screen shot and ESC and go examine how you got yourself into your predicament and how to best resolve it.
Dr-Shinobi
lol true xD havent thought about the screenshot thingy though
You can end up with a little slide show of how it all went wrong!
Of course you have videos for that too.
I remember in warband I would always snapshot where the tournaments or a lord I was looking for where.
Nerethi
Recruit
wow been quite a complex conversation here !
2 ideas as my two cents to this topic :
1 - what about defeated lords staying longer in-walls training troops, so that they don't rush to war with an army of peasant-like meat balls. on the other side, the player would also be able to train their troops in town and castle, for a price if they're not owners.
'cos yes i feel sorry when i meet an enneny with more than half his troops beeing recruits... but well, ifeel happy for my own troops who will have some safe morning exercise.
2 - what about a radius (visible with the alt key) depending on your tactics skill, that would define wich allies and wich ennemy will join the battle (ok a bit like now) but instead of joining right at the start with this magical shift, each party will have a timer depending on their distance and map speed s that they'll join the next reinforcement wave only when their timer is elapsed.
this whould have two advantage : make the battle more dynamic giving you a chance maybe to beat your first opponent before a massive wave of reinforcement and leave with youru loot and prisonner, and on the other side, when odds are against you, you might aslo have to survive long enough and hold until your own reinforcements arrive.
and this has the advantage to still stop time on the main map (i guess because the engine can't cope with map logic together with the player battlefield logic) but gives the illusion that time still runs.
so just like player reinforcing an ally and change the tide of the battle, player-started battles will have the same level of dynamism.
(and what if the allied lord is really not your friend and might enjoy seeing you beaten ? but that's another step ...)
2 ideas as my two cents to this topic :
1 - what about defeated lords staying longer in-walls training troops, so that they don't rush to war with an army of peasant-like meat balls. on the other side, the player would also be able to train their troops in town and castle, for a price if they're not owners.
'cos yes i feel sorry when i meet an enneny with more than half his troops beeing recruits... but well, ifeel happy for my own troops who will have some safe morning exercise.
2 - what about a radius (visible with the alt key) depending on your tactics skill, that would define wich allies and wich ennemy will join the battle (ok a bit like now) but instead of joining right at the start with this magical shift, each party will have a timer depending on their distance and map speed s that they'll join the next reinforcement wave only when their timer is elapsed.
this whould have two advantage : make the battle more dynamic giving you a chance maybe to beat your first opponent before a massive wave of reinforcement and leave with youru loot and prisonner, and on the other side, when odds are against you, you might aslo have to survive long enough and hold until your own reinforcements arrive.
and this has the advantage to still stop time on the main map (i guess because the engine can't cope with map logic together with the player battlefield logic) but gives the illusion that time still runs.
so just like player reinforcing an ally and change the tide of the battle, player-started battles will have the same level of dynamism.
(and what if the allied lord is really not your friend and might enjoy seeing you beaten ? but that's another step ...)
Similar threads
