If no nerfs for Fians or Khan's Guard then..

Users who are viewing this thread

xdj1nn

Knight at Arms
WBWF&S
"I'll do the cool part, as long as other people do all the real work."
yeah, sure, cool part of writing a GDD - super cool, amazing - not a job at all - absolutely no difficulties on doing so properly... Not the first time I see such a reaction, and not that surprising.
I see ppl with your line of thought as insane, do you know what defines a good designer? And I'm talking about across the board designers, any field? The intricacies and the toe over any creative work at all? Proper higher education generally teaches that, partially to those who aren't in the field - when receiving good education on creative fields meant for industries that's the first thing we are taught
 

thomas13

Regular
it's just a suggestion.
One thing i will never get about this game is why when i play on the hardest avaiable difficulty the AI doesn't cheat as much as any other game.
Let's say that the AI can upgrade troops faster and thus having more High tier troops in their parties (something i tried myself by modding the game and it makes it way more enjoyable)
Stacking a lot of T5 and T6 is the only way to compete with them. So you have to have a strong character before taking down towns yourself.

The AI will never be good at tactics, it's a processor at the end, it will always be predictable.
But what they can do is making the hardest difficulty actually hard by giving bonuses to the AI and reduce the player capabilities in unfair ways.

I am a bit bored of having to create a real hard difficulty setting when any other game as one available with the simple click of a button.
Challenging in this game is just a "normal mode" with a mask. it's not really a challenge, it's a grind.

Anyway, going back to the suggestion.

This game as a massive flow nobody can even see:
it's too easy for the player to have a stacked army
And it's too hard for the AI to have at least 50% of their troops being T4+
And let's not to talk about the huge amount of perks that only the player can benefit in a smart way and are not made for the AI.

The imbalances among troops are even greater because of how the game just doesn't really challenge you.
If i meet the King of Vlandia in a field battle his army must make me shiver, instead Derthert will bring 10 Banner Knight 5 Sharpshooters and 3 Sergeants in comparison to my 100 Legionaries and 100 Palatine Guards.

better perk selection for the AI and faster upgrading will allow them to create challenging armies.
How you balance that you may ask? Longer Prison time and cooldown on the creation of new parties.

I have tested similar stuff myself, the game is not even comparable to vanilla at that point.
You hit the nail on the head. Even at bannerlord difficulty the player still has every advantage while AI nobles are completely nerfed.
AI nobles are unable to take advantage of certain attributes and skills which severely hinders their ability to wage war semi competently. They also can't earn denars in as many ways as the player which hinders their ability to field strong armies because of troop wages. Fixing those two things will go a long way that I think players really under estimate.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Yeah, it is even worse when you think about garrison wages… In Warband you pay 50% of wages for garrison units, which makes a lot of sense and would help the AI by a lot in this game. In Bannerlord we have to pay full price for garrison units, while there are some perks for governors and buildings which the AI does not priorize at all.

I have been complaining about this game difficulty since the release. Good to see more people now complaining about it.
 

Sweynforkbeard

Sergeant at Arms
Yes, this is what I think, but people get mad if someone suggests the AI getting small cheats for matching the player management/advantages.

Saving money for buying overpriced armors while wages are pretty easy to pay is probably what I most hate about this game.
Changing wages isnt going to do anything. What made Warbands economy work (better) had nothing to do with wages.

The key difference between Warband and Bannerlord is that in Warband loot was shared with your party. So, with a small party you own share of the loot was much higher and, for that reason, it was perfectly possible to make a decent living just running a small party taking on relatively smaller challenges. It was viable to stay small.

This is not the case in Bannerlord. In Bannerlord it is straight up "bigger target, greater loot". You are just not going to be able to earn a decent living staying small. Your best cause of action is to scale up as fast as possible so you can take on the bigger challenges and make the big bucks.

I just started a new campaign in 1.9. I am 21 days in to the campaign, I have an elite army of 115 men plus the horses to go with them, bought gear (bows) for roughly 80k and I have 112k in spare cash.

So, do I care about wages? No I dont. An elite army is not a cost; it is the source of your wealth.

Making it more interesting to stay small would be a better way forward. Let it be more profitable to make a living out of hunting bandits and stuff. And yeah, part of that would also be to make some of the most costly armor cheaper (atleast tournaments help alittle there).
 
Last edited:

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Changing wages isnt going to do anything. What made Warbands economy work (better) had nothing to do with wages.

The key difference between Warband and Bannerlord is that in Warband loot was shared with your party. So, with a small party you own share of the loot was much higher and, for that reason, it was perfectly possible to make a decent living just running a small party taking on relatively smaller challenges. It was viable to stay small.

This is not the case in Bannerlord. In Bannerlord it is straight up "bigger target, greater loot". You are just not going to be able to earn a decent living staying small. Your best cause of action is to scale up as fast as possible so you can take on the bigger challenges and make the big bucks.

I just started a new campaign in 1.9. I am 21 days in to the campaign, I have elite army of 115 men plus the horses to go with them, bought gear (bows) for roughly 80k and I have 112k in spare cash.

So, do I care about wages? No I dont. An elite army is not a cost; it is the source of your wealth.

Making it more interesting to stay small would be a better way forward. Let it be more profitable to make a living out of hunting bandits and stuff. And yeah, part of that would also be to make some of the most costly armor cheaper (atleast tournaments help alittle there).
Well, I am not against this reasoning. Huge loot income is something which I have also complained a lot in the past.

As I have said in other threads, I am not sure about the best way for making the game more challenging, and suggestion related to this are pretty much welcome.

I do agree with an elite party is something which allows you to farm AI lords and get an insane amount of money. So, it is not a problem to pay wages at all, while at the same time you become richer.

Plus in 1.9.0, we can algo get 15K rewards after winning tournaments which are available in 50% of towns or even more. I do not dislike the idea about good tournament rewards through, but I think everything is too easy to exploit for the player un this game. The tournaments availability is too high and excessively easy to win.
 
Changing wages isnt going to do anything. What made Warbands economy work (better) had nothing to do with wages.

The key difference between Warband and Bannerlord is that in Warband loot was shared with your party. So, with a small party you own share of the loot was much higher and, for that reason, it was perfectly possible to make a decent living just running a small party taking on relatively smaller challenges. It was viable to stay small.

This is not the case in Bannerlord. In Bannerlord it is straight up "bigger target, greater loot". You are just not going to be able to earn a decent living staying small. Your best cause of action is to scale up as fast as possible so you can take on the bigger challenges and make the big bucks.

I just started a new campaign in 1.9. I am 21 days in to the campaign, I have elite army of 115 men plus the horses to go with them, bought gear (bows) for roughly 80k and I have 112k in spare cash.

So, do I care about wages? No I dont. An elite army is not a cost; it is the source of your wealth.

Making it more interesting to stay small would be a better way forward. Let it be more profitable to make a living out of hunting bandits and stuff. And yeah, part of that would also be to make some of the most costly armor cheaper (atleast tournaments help alittle there).
I agree with all your points. I think one possible way of curbing player income while simultaneously making the game more immersive is through tweaking how settlement ownership votes work; For example, unless we have rather high relations with a lord, they shouldn't vote for us during the ownership vote for a town. A town is several times more profitable than a castle and it should be very hard if not impossible for a low tier clan to take ownership of it. This change wouldn't really affect player finances in the later stages of the game, when we actually start to have some money problems if we try to invite many clans to our faction. I mean realistically lords shouldn't vote for a nobody even for the crappiest castle in the middle of enemy territory but making it very hard to get a fief may be too unfun maybe?
 

Sweynforkbeard

Sergeant at Arms
Well, I am not against this reasoning. Huge loot income is something which I have also complained a lot in the past.

As I have said in other threads, I am not sure about the best way for making the game more challenging, and suggestion related to this are pretty much welcome.

I do agree with an elite party is something which allows you to farm AI lords and get an insane amount of money. So, it is not a problem to pay wages at all, while at the same time you become richer.

Plus in 1.9.0, we can algo get 15K rewards after winning tournaments which are available in 50% of towns or even more. I do not dislike the idea about good tournament rewards through, but I think everything is too easy to exploit for the player un this game. The tournaments availability is too high and excessively easy to win.
I am fine with good rewards from arenas. It is one of the things that can contribute to creating a martial gamestile alternative to lordhunting. But, its just enough.

Tune up the loot from bandits a tad.
Maybe, increase the party size where you dont get a disorganized penalty to 15-20.
And adjust gear prices a bit.

Combined with arenas and perhaps a bit of trade on the side it might just be enough to allow for a reasonable level of progression; while staying small.
 

xdj1nn

Knight at Arms
WBWF&S
You hit the nail on the head. Even at bannerlord difficulty the player still has every advantage while AI nobles are completely nerfed.
AI nobles are unable to take advantage of certain attributes and skills which severely hinders their ability to wage war semi competently. They also can't earn denars in as many ways as the player which hinders their ability to field strong armies because of troop wages. Fixing those two things will go a long way that I think players really under estimate.
I have a strong feeling that if they leveled the AI to the player, the game would become unplayable considering that the AI isn't limited by fog of war or even vision to see what's where and when. Did a recent post about it even...

You see, I think there's a lot of sugar coating taking place in the game, even the snail paced progression and excessive grind are things I cannot perceive as anything other than that... To me they are trying to disguise how shallow and boring the game actually is while avoiding hefty work to bring things the game needs to function properly (as in, being actually fun and unique). At first I found it odd that they were so focused on balancing the game during EA even before "100% confirmed" features were implemented or even being notified as being currently under development. Now I kind of understand, they were preparing the game to be as sugar coated as possible, and the bad news' that it could mean that they have zero intention of actually finishing it...
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
yeah, sure, cool part of writing a GDD - super cool, amazing - not a job at all - absolutely no difficulties on doing so properly... Not the first time I see such a reaction, and not that surprising. I see ppl with your line of thought as insane, do you know what defines a good designer? And I'm talking about across the board designers, any field? The intricacies and the toe over any creative work at all? Proper higher education generally teaches that, partially to those who aren't in the field - when receiving good education on creative fields meant for industries that's the first thing we are taught
The game design document is the cool part of what most people imagine making games is, regardless of anything else it is. When people say "I want to make games" being able to write (or even contribute) to the GDD is what they mean; almost no one imagines pounding away for hours debugging AI code or unsnarling issues with specific brands of graphic cards.

As for the question of my experience with game design, I have enough from dealing with/being adjacent to commercial hex-and-chit or miniature wargames and non-commercial consims to know the central limit theorem is real and makes for bad games.
 

xdj1nn

Knight at Arms
WBWF&S
The game design document is the cool part of what most people imagine making games is, regardless of anything else it is. When people say "I want to make games" being able to write (or even contribute) to the GDD is what they mean; almost no one imagines pounding away for hours debugging AI code or unsnarling issues with specific brands of graphic cards.

As for the question of my experience with game design, I have enough from dealing with/being adjacent to commercial hex-and-chit or miniature wargames and non-commercial consims to know the central limit theorem is real and makes for bad games.
okay, describe to me what must be in a GDD - my take is that you have only a faintest clue of what encompasses a proper one, otherwise you wouldn't dismiss it as "cool/fun" as laymen do, there's a reason why it's a job and ppl get paid to do it
 
Last edited:

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
okay, describe to me what must be in a GDD - my take is that you have only a faintest clue of what encompasses a proper one, otherwise you wouldn't dismiss it as "cool/fun" as laymen do, there's a reason why it's a job and ppl get paid to do it
What must be in a GDD? Literally nothing, there isn't an industry standard. We're not talking about designing five nines reliable systems that can cost millions or kill people if they go awry, there's no oversight like with engineering. It is just whatever the guy running the show decides should be in there.

As for what's in a "proper" one? IMO? The entirety of the game design itself -- same as a software design document. Starting with the core concept and a "wiring diagram" for various loop(s), going all the way down to where UI elements fit and interact, the story structure, level design aspects and -- this is sorta important too -- the various technical milestones to make all that work.

Something tells me that the guy who has trouble with coding is going to struggle with that last one.
 

Brano

Sergeant at Arms
Few points how I would go about it:
1. player ,who is not a vassal, should have acces only to bandits and mercenaries to hire.
2. kingdom units should have labels. As example => Battanian Oathsworn from Seonon. So when non-vasal player defeats a party or bandit base, can free them and receive a bonus to Charm and relationship with Lord of Seonon.
3. When player is raised to the rank of vassal, each faction ruler should have one "spare" castle available to give it to player as fief.
4. Vassal player is now able to recruit troops from his fief. And only from it. Every AI lord should be doing the same. It is not very convincing that every lord can recruit everywhere. This would also (maybe) make lords more protective of their fieves and could also act as incentive to end war, if majority of manpower pool is exhausted and lords need to return home to lick their wounds. Hiring mercenaries would finally make sense, as every lord running low on soldiers, but still with plenty of gold coins, would hire them wherever they are available, mitigating necessity to return home.
 

Grank

Master Knight
WBNWVC
"I'll do the cool part, as long as other people do all the real work."
ZoomingJoy.gif
 

thomas13

Regular
I have a strong feeling that if they leveled the AI to the player, the game would become unplayable considering that the AI isn't limited by fog of war or even vision to see what's where and when. Did a recent post about it even...

You see, I think there's a lot of sugar coating taking place in the game, even the snail paced progression and excessive grind are things I cannot perceive as anything other than that... To me they are trying to disguise how shallow and boring the game actually is while avoiding hefty work to bring things the game needs to function properly (as in, being actually fun and unique). At first I found it odd that they were so focused on balancing the game during EA even before "100% confirmed" features were implemented or even being notified as being currently under development. Now I kind of understand, they were preparing the game to be as sugar coated as possible, and the bad news' that it could mean that they have zero intention of actually finishing it...
Not true. AI nobles are limited by the fog of war. And their vision is the same as a player with no scouting. Follow an AI army sometime and watch as they walk right up to a larger enemy army and they turn around at the last second. Why? Because they don't see them. AI nobles are nerfed compared to the player.
 

Helerek

Recruit
Not true. AI nobles are limited by the fog of war. And their vision is the same as a player with no scouting. Follow an AI army sometime and watch as they walk right up to a larger enemy army and they turn around at the last second. Why? Because they don't see them. AI nobles are nerfed compared to the player.
Lmao no. It's not even a 1% truth. I had 1 noble chase me from battania all the way up to Khuzait without vision. Then I used cheats to see 12 enemy lords chasing me with no vision on me. AI is cheating when it comes to vision since 1.8? Maybe 1.8.1
 

xdj1nn

Knight at Arms
WBWF&S
What must be in a GDD? Literally nothing, there isn't an industry standard. We're not talking about designing five nines reliable systems that can cost millions or kill people if they go awry, there's no oversight like with engineering. It is just whatever the guy running the show decides should be in there.
there's a standard, if ppl use it correctly or not probably talks a lot about their competency at their jobs. That's because it follows the same principles of thorough documentation meant as workflow reference bible - done properly it will always result in a more consistent final product - when done wrong it becomes disjointed and disorganized and results in bad products.
A GDD works similarly to what pre-production film documents, product design documents, so on so forth. It's a logistical piece that, despite carrying creative work, is meant to achieve proper results and is a document made for others, not to be fun or boost ego. If you are working with ppl who do that than I feel sorry for you but it means they shouldn't be at creative lead positions at all...
Maybe the difference is that the industry doesn't demand it to be good - but try to pull that off when seeking financing for a film or pitching the large scale production of a product and you'll be bet with a massive middle finger and remain unemployed/unfinanced.
As for what's in a "proper" one? IMO? The entirety of the game design itself -- same as a software design document. Starting with the core concept and a "wiring diagram" for various loop(s), going all the way down to where UI elements fit and interact, the story structure, level design aspects and -- this is sorta important too -- the various technical milestones to make all that work.
Exactly, it's a lot of work and requires a lot of consideration and knowledge. Of course nobody can remember every crack and nuance about all technicalities, but a proper GDD will contain measures predicting all troubles during a development cycle, and try to steer it to be as much of a clean work as it should.
Feeling diminished because one cannot contribute to it, or think that such a work is a "privilege" is insane. Some ppl are better at doing things like that while others excel at practical applications like programming, conceptual art, 3d designing, level designing, etc etc etc.
Outside example would be that we do have college specialization on logistics, and job positions for that.
Same goes for Administration. The thing about "promotions" that place ppl on leading positions' that it's not good, yet it's safer than betting on new leadership talent, and as such it's the overall standard for most of the market.
A company that recognizes such nuances about individuality and understands that leadership isn't a prize but a talent, ends up dominating markets because the majority of ppl believe this absurd misconception that leadership work and creative work are "fun" or "less work than mine" when in reality most of these ppl wouldn't be able to pull that off properly. Funnily a fair share of those are right leaning politically, but preach some sort of "socialist" take on things when it becomes personal "it isn't fair" when it was never about "fairness" or "justice" but optimizing the results, different ppl have different talents and weaknesses.
Companies that had the correct take on these things today own the entire market, like google ie.
Something tells me that the guy who has trouble with coding is going to struggle with that last one.
Not at all - there's a reason why logic's time and time again affirmed to be the core knowledge to deal with programming at any levels. In that regard I was always pristine, my limitations with coding are much more about my disorder combined with my personality. I simply hate working in front of computers with computers.
I often split my working between digital and analogic whenever I can - be it using typewriters or pen&paper I'll always opt to do the hefty part by hand and only use the computer to make it more accessible and organized, even when eventually dealing with art designs where I do have to bring graphical elements to something, I'll draw by hand first until I have a clean draft that I'll later on digitalize by hand.
I don't have difficulty coding, I don't do it if I have a choice - to a point that if I'm "blackmailed" into it with things like "you can only do this if you code" I simply walk. What makes you think I should do something just because someone else "demanded" it?
Do you know Rage Against the Machine? Repeat those words like a mantra
 
Last edited:

thomas13

Regular
Lmao no. It's not even a 1% truth. I had 1 noble chase me from battania all the way up to Khuzait without vision. Then I used cheats to see 12 enemy lords chasing me with no vision on me. AI is cheating when it comes to vision since 1.8? Maybe 1.8.1
Or maybe there are two truths but you only want to see one.
 
Top Bottom