Thanks for sharing that. I completely agree with you. I also agree with Apocal, if I am understanding him right, in that TW is deliberately trying to dumb down the game for the sake of dumbing it down, because TW leadership has demonstrated to be that incompetent in thinking that dumbing down is good and that players shouldn't be bothered with "complex" decision making opportunities.
Well lets face fact here, some people are a bit less, how can I put this, complex that others and I completely understand trying to simplify things for these people. You kind of got to do this when your trying to appeal to a large audience. I mean it may be insensitive to say but simple statistics say 49% of all people are of below average intelligence hehe. I am only being kind of serious here with that comment to be honest but all kidding aside, things have to be simple enough for the majority of people to understand and be comfortable with and that is going to include people who have trouble making complex decisions.
What I don't condone is dumbing down the game so work on substandard and sub par hardware just because someone made the decision to purchase a "cheap" console for gaming rather than investing in a substantial gaming PC. I am not talking about settings per se, I am talking about things like dumbing down the AI since consoles don't have the same processing power as even a moderately powerful gaming PC. I don't want a worse gaming experience just because a company wants to capitalize on the console gaming market and is too lazy to produce a separate version of the game that allows for each platform to utilized to its fullest. To me, that would be a bigger betrayal than all the features the promised and eventually cut form Bannerlord combined.
Are they going for the most basic they can then letting modders add the extras they want? Or really feels kind they are taking "the modders will fix it" approach to game design.
Actually I am fine with this although wish they would make that clear if this is what they are going for so everyone not only understand the expectations but also the limitations. For example, I am already running a modified, much more complex AI in Bannerlord so I know that much of this can be modded in. However, if they came out and said, "We are shooting for a basic level of AI that allows for low spec machines and consoles to run the game with acceptable performance however, we are including robust toolset that allows for modders to enhance the AI to much greater levels of complexity." then modders would know that they can increase the complexity of the AI and players would know to actually look for mods that increase the complexity of the AI.
Seriously, I truly belive that the strength of Bannerlord lies in its modding community and I know the game with improve 10 times over because of that community. I just wish they would make it clear what the expectation are.
I'm too sure about that, but regardless I'm not playing as a king so I can be in charge of a democracy. I don't have a problem with lords having a say, but if I'm king I should have the final say.
This is my point exactly. No, no Monarch operated completely in a vacuum, immune to the wishes and desire of his vassals and to either a greater or lesser degree the common person. However, it is also true that the final say generally always rested with the Monarch.
Generally speaking, anyone with political power underneath the King could "advise' the King on decision making but that it as far is it would go. For example, They (the advisor) could loudly proclaim, "There will be rioting in the streets!" if a King made a certain decision but that decision STILL rested in the King's hands to make and it was up to him if he was willing to accept the conquences.
To put this in game terms, what should happen is something like this.
1) Vote comes up with 100% of vassal wanting to declare war on Vlandia however, King does not want war.
2) King can decide to use his "Influence" to change the minds of his vassals.
3) Should the King decide to use his "Influence" to change the vote, depending on how much influence he uses and/or has available the 100% vote will change from 100% to some split between 99% and 0% still voting for war. This is the final split of votes prior to King making a decision.
4) Whether King decides to use influence or not, he has final say on if war is declared, period. IMPORTANT, THE KING HAS FINAL SAY.
5) King decides no war, final decision, war is NOT happening. Nope, NO, end of story.
6) All vassals voting for war, after all influence if any is used, get pissed at King for not listening to their wishes and he loses relationship with them.
Again to reiterate, the King make the final decision. This includes policy decision. However, the King can't just steadily ignore his vassal's wishes so he HAS TO take into account what they are vote for or against and decide if he can afford the relationship hit for overriding his vassal's wishes. He has to decide if using his influence to change them minds of his vassals is worth it or not. If he doesn't listen to his vassals and doesn't use his influence to change their votes, eventually all his vassals will get pissed and leave him and his kingdom will fall apart.
What shouldn't happen is a King needing to spend 2700 influence to override his vassals in a war declaration and realizing that he only has 2500 influence so CAN'T override the war declaration. That is a democracy, not a monarchy. That is an issue since any sort of real democracy was unbelievable rare if it even existed at all during the time period represented by this game (11th-13th century).
Note: Does anyone aside from me see how making a minor change such as this to how voting works and incorporating influence and relations mechanics, which already exist in game, in a slight different way, adds a TON of depth to the diplomatic gameplay loop. Why can't Taleworlds come up with this on their own.