Is the dynasty mechanic wasted feature and is it also the reason fast paced combat agenda pushed by TW?

[Bjorn The Dead]

Polls goes like this:
1- I played just with my main character,
2- I died and chose a successor,
3- My chosen successor died and I chose another one,
4- My second successor died and I chose another one, so on and so forth

So I did another poll at the r/mountandblade subreddit regarding how many generation players had played in their longest campaign. Although the poll is not closed yet and there is 2 days before it is closed, I don't expect and did not see before, poll numbers in percentage to change after considerable amount of people voted. I will update the numbers if there is a drastic change.

As of right now there is 273 voters, the poll option in percentage is like this:
1- 71.43
2- 11.36
3- 4.76
4- 0.37
5- 1.10
6- 10.98

I must say 10 percentage at the 6th option is odd. I added a little note saying "you need a life, my friend" to that option so they may very well be trolls but let's ignore that possibility.

So 71% of the people only playing with their first character never reaching the time where they had to choose a successor and also this question was about their longest campaign. How many times did all of the voters reached their chosen option at other than their longest campaign, we do not know. As the way it is, the dynasty mechanic is never used by huge amount of players. What do you think? Is it irrelevant in your games?

TW advertised this feature before the release. So they shorten the how the times flows in Calradia for that feature to be relevant for players. But what other thing they can shorten? Is this fast paced battles agenda pushed by TW over 2 years for the dynasty feature to be relevant which is mostly not used by the players?

 

[Goyyyio]

For me, it's a complete waste of a mechanic. To me it seems they just added it for the lulz "because we can" and then did nothing with it. The whole marriage, having children/forming a family system is terrible and underwhelming. It lacks soo much depth, so much dialog, so much interaction, that having a child and then playing as them is just a pure cosmetic feature in the end. If they expanded it, made the children age faster, add more interaction with them (you can't even see them until they grow up?? Damn nice absent parents we are in this game lol), maybe it would be an interesting RPG mechanic, right now it's useless

 

[argon45]

Of course it is a wasted/unnecessary feature. I always said this years ago, this game is action/rpg game; not a grand strategy game. If there should be a child feature at all cost, they could done it like dynasty warriors 8 style (get married, at some point have a child, 1 year later or so child becomes adult and serves as npc, of course 1 child or 2 at most) They wasted a lot of Bannerlord's potential with this and many other useless features unfortunately.
Warband marriage system has much more depth in it then Bannerlord marriage sys/trash.

 

[Goyyyio]

Of course it is a wasted/unnecessary feature. I always said this years ago, this game is action/rpg game; not a grand strategy game. If there should be a child feature at all cost, they could done it like dynasty warriors 8 style (get married, at some point have a child, 1 year later or so child becomes adult and serves as npc, of course 1 child or 2 at most) They wasted a lot of Bannerlord's potential with this and many other useless features unfortunately.
Warband marriage system has much more depth in it then Bannerlord marriage sys/trash.

Yes, even if Warband systems weren't perfect, at least they took a while instead of two clics in early game, I loved that the relationship system had some sort of depth, for example, you could increase your relationship with ladies in many ways: poetry, tournaments, being close friends with their relatives, who then would let you visit them. You also straight up needed to get the approval of the relative, which is a thing in Bannerlord, but in Bannerlord you don't need renown, relationships with the clan leader at all, having a place to stay at all, you just needed to have like 2k in denars and that's it. Why did they even decided to step backwards soo much in this design? It's not only boring, but nonsensical. In Warband you even sometimes had to compete with other suitors to them, which was amazing because you could absolutely throw a noble to the ground and marry a woman who would resent you for taking away her true love, you could be an horrible person in Warband (not that I was...) Why didn't they expanded this? God I swear to God I wished I could mod so I could change this game into something interesting because it seems the dev won't do it anytime soon

 

[KEYFEKEDER]

Well lets see,

In my longest campaign, i imagined a dark triad vamp character who is born to a modest principality in my mind. Then i started to game with a merciful and lawful father character who done all grinding like creating a nice wealth, gathering the army and taking the first fief for principality. But as i created that first charater as a pacifist, i didn't fight anyone other than bandits until his evil son grow up enough to take the charge and eventually making the tiny principality he inherited from his father an imperial faction that spreads death everywhere it besieges. That dark prince is living his prime years right now and i am planning to take at least half of Calradia by the time he passes away and leaves the throne to his descendants

That being said, if it wasn't for that dynasty mechanic in the game there wouldn't be any way for me to RP as a spoiled young prince who is abusing his heritage without cheats. You might not like it or can say that it has some flaws (which i also agree) but its still one of the biggest improvements we got in Bannerlord and i wouldn't change this feature for anything

 

[Terco_Viejo]

I will not vote because it would be untruthful as I have not yet conducted a deep campaign (mostly due to the shortcomings of the mid-late game).

In my opinion, yes it is a totally wasted mechanic and certainly in 2018 I didn't see the practicality of it, which is why I posted this thread.

One might think that by speeding up the passage of time this mechanic would make sense and fit into a more "fast pace" time continuum. Unfortunately this comment by Duh already warned that such a simple change would not be easily implemented.

I assume that the new @Duh_TaleWorlds () mantains the 2018 stance... or is an acceleration of the passage of time possible today?

 

[murtega]

Game progresses too fast (or time flows too slow) for the game to be a dynasty thing. By the age of 30-35 you are already stuck in a neverending war spiral that only way out is conquering the entire place. I've never seen any of my kids ever grow to adulthood, though never conquered the entire land either, as the game becomes way too grindy and illogical to keep on by the point you conquered around half of Calradia.
They should either bring a lot of mechanics to slow down the progression (which I bet they won't) or make time flow faster in order to make the succession relevant. First meaningful step may be enabling player death in battle.

 

[AJAJP_Juan]

I dont get where the notion of dinasty comes from. They advertised having kids, and they would inherit should something happen to you. And because how the game plays out there is no way to make more than 1 generation possible. I'll explain myself.

There is no point in a leveling system of any kind with dinastical gameplay, as it will be too fast to actually mean anything, or your characters will die before they achieve anything. Another problem is the span of the game, on average people live up to their 55, that means that when you play your fourth character inherits, 165 years will have passed. But the world will be the same. No new weapons, tactics or anything, and be real: there is no way to implement this without remaking the whole game, which they won't.

But despite what I said, I fee, it is a bit underutilised because player immortality, which makes the lack an heir of any kind a problem not worth solving. There should be more ways for the player to die to make it better.

 

[vonbalt]

It all boils down to the passing of time, Bannerlord passes time too slowly to make the dynastic mechanics meaningful.

In vanilla it's 21 days seasons, 84 days year while some faction can easily dominate the continent in some 10 years or less with player intervention which places any children you might have as kids when you are already at end-game and bored with nothing left to do.

Using the pacemaker mod it's default settings brings the passing of time down to 7 days seasons, 28 days year and it's a much much better pacing, it makes me actually use the dynastic mechanics and easily play 3-4 generations in a single playthrough, sadly it hasn't been updated since 1.7.0

 

[argon45]

Speeding up passing of time would be disastrous imo.

If there should be a child feature at all cost, they could done it like dynasty warriors 8 style (get married, at some point have a child, 1 year later or so child becomes adult and serves as npc, of course 1 child or 2 at most)

But we're discussing for nothing, remember, they have their own Vision™. It's really a shame to see what became of this game, especially when you watch the older gameplay videos (2015-17) and looking at older blog posts (up to 2017)

 

[Bjorn The Dead]

I dont get where the notion of dinasty comes from. They advertised having kids, and they would inherit should something happen to you.

You are right, I think. I don't remember them calling dynasty. But npc getting generic childs, they die and their successor take the position of the leader like what happens in players clan. So I don't think it is not too much a stretch to call it dynasty.

Another problem is the span of the game, on average people live up to their 55, that means that when you play your fourth character inherits, 165 years will have passed. But the world will be the same. No new weapons, tactics or anything, and be real: there is no way to implement this without remaking the whole game, which they won't.

I would most definitely don't expect something like that. And also this is dark ages, it would not be so immersion breaking that somethings stay the same.

You might not like it or can say that it has some flaws (which i also agree) but its still one of the biggest improvements we got in Bannerlord and i wouldn't change this feature for anything

There is a possibility that modding community take it upon this feature and turn it to something game changing element like how Heathfires dlc allowed what modder can do in Skyrim. But as much as vanilla goes, there is not anything to do to past the time other than battles in the game. Too much time to wait to play with your son or daughter, and how to spend that time is just boring as hell.

Edit: So they speeded up battles, this is a speculation, I know but I think it has some merit.

 

[Spulor]

In my longest campaign I played very slow, a trader/merc playthrough where I already owned a few towns by just buying them and did not interfere in other kingdoms wars to much for a long time and I was actually able to see one heir grow up. As soon as I started to participate in the game it took me a few more years to paint the whole map and my char was about 60 and started turning grey when there was nothing left to conquer.

So yes for vanilla it is probably unnecessary but if I imagine this feature in mods like LotR, Warhammer or whatever where some races could outlive others it sounds quite cool that the possibility is there. Still you probably would have to adjust the pace of the game for this to work.

 

[vonbalt]

Speeding up passing of time would be disastrous imo.

Tastes may differ but you can easily test that with the pacemaker mod, for me it did wonders to the pacing of the game and the immersion since i was able to get my children on my party for combat experience and then on their own commanding parties before the sun died of old age lol

 

[five bucks]

Let's discuss the best ways the heirs system can be made more relevant, and the potential downsides of each method.

* Reducing the amount of days in a year further so children and their parents age faster.

Cons: could be immersion damaging if years are too short - and would need to be a number divisible by 4 with no fraction, to account for 4 seasons. Maybe 60 days a year (15 * 4 seasons)? Also, making years shorter would make AIs die of old age faster and wives become unfertile quicker too. I am not sure how much this would impact balance.

* Allowing heirs to become eligible AI party leaders or successors to the player at a younger age.

Cons: could be immersion damaging or raise moral questions about the game if too young, especially if there aren't separate age limits for marriage eligibility. could have possible negative effects on kingdom balance or campaign length, as more party leaders become eligible to defend against the player or each other, making it harder to capture all a kingdom's party leaders.

* Putting the player at more risk of death in battle, as right now almost nothing can actually kill you except old age or very rarely being executed.

Cons: Increasing the risk of death also increases the chances of the player dying before they have an heir lined up in sandbox, so to avoid this, anything that increases death chance should be balanced towards lategame and maybe the player should have the option to have family members in sandbox. Also, heirs have sucky stats right now and so taking over one sucks. Either the education system should give stronger stat increases, or the heir should "inherit" like half of the player's skill points once they come of age, which can be explained away as advice passed down.

If anyone can think of more ways that heirs could be made more relevant, or any more pros or cons, please mention them.

I dont get where the notion of dinasty comes from. They advertised having kids, and they would inherit should something happen to you. And because how the game plays out there is no way to make more than 1 generation possible. I'll explain myself.

There is no point in a leveling system of any kind with dinastical gameplay, as it will be too fast to actually mean anything, or your characters will die before they achieve anything. Another problem is the span of the game, on average people live up to their 55, that means that when you play your fourth character inherits, 165 years will have passed. But the world will be the same. No new weapons, tactics or anything, and be real: there is no way to implement this without remaking the whole game, which they won't.

But despite what I said, I fee, it is a bit underutilised because player immortality, which makes the lack an heir of any kind a problem not worth solving. There should be more ways for the player to die to make it better.

I both agree and disagree with this.

In the scope of the "normal" Bannerlord experience, even if heirs were made more viable, it's true that gameplay of more than 2 generations is pointless, because by the time you get to the 3rd generation you have conquered the map and there are no enemies left to fight.

However, IF a feature is added to the mix such as AI civil wars or foreign invasions, and then heirs are made more useful too, I could see a multi-generational/dynastic playthrough of Bannerlord being a fun experience. You conquer half of Calradia as your original character, you conquer the rest as your son, and then your grandson has the task of keeping the dynasty in control of Calradia against plotters/separatists within and barbarians without.

When both were still updated, you could get this experience by combining Separatist mod with Pacemaker mod.

Overall though since I have not much hope that TW would do any such thing in vanilla, I am happy enough with simply making 2nd-generation heirs a more viable part of a normal playthrough, and leaving the rest to modders.

Tastes may differ but you can easily test that with the pacemaker mod, for me it did wonders to the pacing of the game and the immersion since i was able to get my children on my party for combat experience and then on their own commanding parties before the sun died of old age lol

How did you find 28 day years affected balance for NPCs dying off from old age?

 

[vonbalt]

How did you find 21 day years affected balance for NPCs dying off from old age?

Npcs dying of old age is really negligible to the balance with longer or shorter pacing, the greatest impact comes from death in combat and the shorter yearly cycle of pacemaker mod really improved the population of clans since children grew faster and were married off to make offspring of their own before their clans were severely depopulated from the constant fighting that goes on Calradia.

In the vanilla 84 days/year you need at the very minimum 1512 days (18 years) from birth till a child becomes adult to marry and produce children of his own, with a 28 days/year you'll only need 504 days (same 18 years) for that with the exactly same amount of battles, sieges and the consequent deaths of nobles going around.

 

[five bucks]

Npcs dying of old age is really negligible to the balance with longer or shorter pacing, the greatest impact comes from death in combat and the shorter yearly cycle of pacemaker mod really improved the population of clans since children grew faster and were married off to make offspring of their own before their clans were severely depopulated from the constant fighting that goes on Calradia.

In the vanilla 84 days/year you need at the very minimum 1512 days (18 years) from birth till a child becomes adult to marry and produce children of his own, with a 28 days/year you'll only need 504 days (same 18 years) for that with the exactly same amount of battles, sieges and the consequent deaths of nobles going around.

If there is little negative impact on balance as you say from dropping the year to 28 days, sounds like a pretty sensible option then to at the very least shorten the year to 60 days or so.

I wonder what thoughts @Dejan has on the matter for making the heir game mechanic have more of a place in Bannerlord's gameplay? Has further shortening the year ever been discussed by Taleworlds?

 

[Bjorn The Dead]

In my longest campaign, I literally waited on the map for Monchug to die so I can be the new khan. He was 55 years old or so when I started to wait. I did have not any motivation to past the time for my main character to die after that. I was burnt up at that point from just fight and fight. In the end of my campaign, we Khuzits captured half of Southern Empire and Northern Empire along with some of Aserai. Also, the map is so big for my taste to capture all of it even in 2 life times since I imagine Calradia like this in my head.

60 day could work actually for me at least. As I said, in my longest campaign I was feeling, I spent enough time with my main character. Although I wanted to play as my son, I just was not motivated enough to wait.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

In my longest game my first baby turned 18 just in time for about the last 3 sieges of the map. I think the children need to age faster and join younger for it to be worthwhile. Of course shorting the year time would work too. Ultimately though I don't know if it's a good feature in un-modded game, there's just no use for more clan members. You can only field a few parties anyways, there's no benefit in having more then 1 fief so you don't need tons of governors. But with mods for other activities for clan members, more parties, more side clans (like extended family) or any number of creative interesting things, it could be very useful.

I could see a challenge (?) play style though where you only use your family and no making vassals, where you could as a male MC take many wives and make as many children as you could to be able to govern all the towns with matching culture children. That said the most I've taken with just my clan is about 2.5 faction of land before I decided it was just too boring and Sir Vex Raider had to be retired..

 

[MostBlunted]

For me it´s useless at the moment, game get´s boring after I reach ~40 years with my hero so I´ve never played longer.

 

[KEYFEKEDER]

There is a possibility that modding community take it upon this feature and turn it to something game changing element like how Heathfires dlc allowed what modder can do in Skyrim. But as much as vanilla goes, there is not anything to do to past the time other than battles in the game. Too much time to wait to play with your son or daughter, and how to spend that time is just boring as hell.

Edit: So they speeded up battles, this is a speculation, I know but I think it has some merit.

As i said, i agree with you guys about how poorly it was implemented. But even if its barebones right now it still works and has a huge modding potential. It also adds some spice to the game and actually feels like what you are building in the name of your clan/dynasty are not going in vain, your children are getting to make use of your clan that you grinded to make something to be feared.

Dynasty mechanics do not have much to improve right now except for a retirement option so we dont have to kill our main character to switch characters and a small introduction system so that heir won't be a copy of his/her father/mother in terms of relationship with NPCs. The problem that there is nothing to spend time while heirs grow up addresses to the other mechanics of game.