Keep Fights after Sieges - Good Idea, but

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I dont wanna lose my character after dozens of hours leveling and then get control over some of my usless weak children with random attributes. Same as AI, strong lord with awesome stats die-> his 1st lvl son with 0 skills become an army leader. doze siblings are just so crappy i dont even bother to have sex with my wife

Lol, I'm a little disappoint with how the kids and sibs turn out too but IME you have to really play your ### off to get to the age where you character might die before a new update comes anyways. Sure you could continue though updates but I feel I'm missing potential issues if I don't start from scratch.

Congrats, you snitched yourself

That's how I do it! If a potential bug is annoying or breaks the game I report it ASAP. If potential bug is amusing and beneficial I just tell everyone everywhere when it's relevant and make it known and TW will either get to it eventually, or not.

 

[swally0ne]

I dont wanna lose my character after dozens of hours leveling and then get control over some of my usless weak children with random attributes. Same as AI, strong lord with awesome stats die-> his 1st lvl son with 0 skills become an army leader. doze siblings are just so crappy i dont even bother to have sex with my wife

the issue i mentioned isnt affecting you at all as you can turn permadeath off and go on playing the game just like you want to. there is nothing wrong with it. but respect that there are other approaches to the game, not just yours. i wouldnt care at all who is going into a keep fight when there is no death to my lords too.
but, you know, the game is called mount and blade: bannerlord and not paperhorse&mattel light saber: virgin lord. <3

 

[MostBlunted]

and not paperhorse&mattel light saber: virgin lord. <3

Can we please start a petition to rename the game?

 

[julijs]

Armağan: Armageddon 2

 

[Gandamula]

After a siege there could be more things to do if the player wanted to, like slaughtering civilians fleeing the city, looting palaces and houses, ordering mass executions, ethnic cleansing, and all the other things that were done in sieges. But bearing in mind that the AI barely defends the walls, the easiest thing, is needless to ask for more, just as the "prison break" is needless to be asking for more mechanisms that almost no one will use afterwards.

 

[five bucks]

I appreciate the good communication from Duh in this thread.

 

[Bazza_ov_da_Norf]

For 1, I don't really think it's a worthwhile goal. The player is unlikely to experience it, because chances are good they will already be knocked out on the wall.

This reasoning seems a little arbitrary and anti-sandbox to me. Bannerlord is a sandbox game, and sandbox games are all about giving the player the freedom to play as they want (within reason!) within the sandbox environment, including niche choices. I'm a bit disappointed that players cannot partake in a keep last stand as a defender - I think that could be fun to do now and then for immersion & role playing reasons. Giving players the choice of gameplay options is never a bad thing, and it's often the little things that can make a difference, especially from an immersion perspective (which is why I think some are annoyed at the lack of feasts and other smaller features from Warband).

Why not let the player "retreat" to the keep stage by running back to the gates and pressing the use key, which then acts the same way as it does when the player falls in battle (i.e remaining AI troops fight on, can speed it up etc) and then it moves to the keep stage. Or if a player has been knocked out on the walls, there could be a 10 - 20% chance of giving them the option to partake in the keep stage to simulate the chance that fellow soldiers carried them back to the keep while unconscious.

 

[MostBlunted]

Why not let the player "retreat" to the keep stage by running back to the gates and pressing the use key, which then acts the same way as it does when the player falls in battle (i.e remaining AI troops fight on, can speed it up etc) and then it moves to the keep stage. Or if a player has been knocked out on the walls, there could be a 10 - 20% chance of giving them the option to partake in the keep stage to simulate the chance that fellow soldiers carried them back to the keep while unconscious.

+1

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

This reasoning seems a little arbitrary and anti-sandbox to me.

It feels to me like you are misunderstanding that particular point.

If a few players are to experience a particular feature rarely, it becomes less worthwhile to pursue than a feature that more players are likely to experience often - all else being equal.

To elaborate further - these things are not developed in isolation. That is to say if we pursue one thing, we do so by not pursuing something else. Similarly, if we chose to not pursue that one thing, we do so in favor of something else. All of these options can enhance the sandbox experience and must be prioritized according to their assumed costs and benefits.

I don't want people to get the impression that all is set in stone because I keep going back to this point (to clarify it). It is only my current impressions that the cost and benefits of this aspect are worse than those of other priorities. Maybe a good solution will be identified that can drastically reduce costs. Maybe other people will view the value higher than I do.

To get a bit more back on topic - A question to those that are interested in defensive keep fights. Would you feel that the current offensive set up would offer an enjoyable defensive experience to you? That is to say - no control over your troops, no reinforcements for your side and generally a mission that you are quite likely to lose (or, well, are intended to lose - since another challenge may be players exploiting the terrain to simply 1on1 200 bots and basically mean that no siege has to be lost anymore... encouraging that very approach). If not, how do you imagine it should work?

 

[MostBlunted]

To get a bit more back on topic - A question to those that are interested in defensive keep fights. Would you feel that the current offensive set up would offer an enjoyable defensive experience to you? That is to say - no control over your troops, no reinforcements for your side and generally a mission that you are quite likely to lose (or, well, are intended to lose - since another challenge may be players exploiting the terrain to simply 1on1 200 bots and basically mean that no siege may be lost anymore). If not, how do you imagine it should work?

Good question.

Maybe just give the player the option so he can decide if he wants to fight the defensive keep battle even under those circumstances? Would that be much work for "you"?

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

Maybe just give the player the option so he can decide if he wants to fight the defensive keep battle even under those circumstances? Would that be much work for "you"?

While I'm no actual engineer, I think that would be the cheapest option. However, if it provides a poor experience, that may reflect badly on the product. That time may then be better spend on improving existing siege experiences.

 

[MostBlunted]

That time may then be better spend on improving existing siege experiences.

Of course, fixing the overall siege experience should be the main priority.

But if it isn´t that much work to make the keep battles playable you should do it. I don´t think that those battles will reflect badly on the product (not like other decisions made by TW). Players should be smart enough to know that they´ll most likely lose those fights, but there will be some rare cases where they can even win.

It would give the game some more meat in my opinion.

And thanks for taking your time on the weekend to gather some feedback.

 

[Bazza_ov_da_Norf]

Maybe just give the player the option so he can decide if he wants to fight the defensive keep battle even under those circumstances?

While I'm no actual engineer, I think that would be the cheapest option.

I think it would be OK "as is" as well. Sometimes the siege stage can go down to the wire, so in that situation a player might like the option of going to the keep defence even if they cant position/control troops.

However, a possible option - if any of the players companions/family members who were in their party have made it to the keep stage, it would be cool if they followed the player. It would be a very small number, and would give the feeling of a last stand with your closest friends (yeah I'm thinking of too many film scenes here ?). That could be fun even in a loss, and I'm guessing it wouldn't be too much work to implement.

 

[Thelior]

If a few players are to experience a particular feature rarely, it becomes less worthwhile to pursue than a feature that more players are likely to experience often - all else being equal.

Keep fights are set up to favor attackers (as a bit of a reward to a successful siege - not something that is likely to lose them the siege).

It's been a while since my last play through, so maybe things changed, but as far as I remember your points would count for defensive sieges as a whole.

The only time I played a (hopeless) defensive siege was while resting in town with a small party and not paying attention to the approaching army. Every time I would be able to reinforce a besieged city and win the battle, the enemy AI immediately breaks of the siege once I get near the city and tries to siege elsewhere.

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

It's been a while since my last play through, so maybe things changed, but as far as I remember your points would count for defensive sieges as a whole.

The only time I played a (hopeless) defensive siege was while resting in town with a small party and not paying attention to the approaching army. Every time I would be able to reinforce a besieged city and win the battle, the enemy AI immediately breaks of the siege once I get near the city and tries to siege elsewhere.

Defensive sieges (to my knowledge) follow the same ruleset as offensive ones. It is the same mission. But yes, I would also say that the defensive siege experience provides less value to players currently in contrast to offensive sieges because it happens much less frequently - and it would be nice if we could find a balanced solution that would allow players to experience them more often. (We have already made some such tweaks throughout EA - such as having the AI take player strength into account less strongly when they calculate a siege target or an assault action.)

 

[Askorti]

Personally I do not care much for keep battles, either offensive or defensive ones. I would much rather have the siege proper that works really well, something that currently is not the case at all, and quite frankly seems like a pretty far goal at that.

But on the topic of having a choice of participating in a defensive keep battles, I think that's a good idea, if you decide to implement them. Giving the player options and choices is a great thing.You should do more of that. Currently Bannerlord really does not offer enough choices and decisions.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

To elaborate further - these things are not developed in isolation. That is to say if we pursue one thing, we do so by not pursuing something else. Similarly, if we chose to not pursue that one thing, we do so in favor of something else. All of these options can enhance the sandbox experience and must be prioritized according to their assumed costs and benefits.

I would prefer the work resources go into another feature besides player keep defense.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

I would prefer the work resources go into another feature besides player keep defense.

The priority is besides the point. They can finish other things before implementing this.

@Duh_TaleWorlds I have yet to test keep battles so I’ll have to comment on this question later, but I have a few ideas.

 

[Mad Vader]

The priority is besides the point. They can finish other things before implementing this.

It's very likely they could implement this in the time it takes to debate its priority. The mission is already done, they probably just need a few additions and tweaks to handle this as a special case. There's little justification to drop it because only few people would play it if the effort is low.
Most players are not veterans that know the exploits and can defend every siege from the walls, this is just what it looks like on this forum.

 

[GrandiousBrain]

I dont wanna lose my character after dozens of hours leveling and then get control over some of my usless weak children with random attributes. Same as AI, strong lord with awesome stats die-> his 1st lvl son with 0 skills become an army leader. doze siblings are just so crappy i dont even bother to have sex with my wife

You know that there is something called OPTIONAL.ITS LITTERALY PLAYERS CHOICE THAT DEVS THANKFULY gave to players to chose.All you need is go to option and check/uncheck it.

You people writing like its FORCED upon you when its LITTERALY and OPTIONAL CHOICE.So with people like you you would rather highway or no way/eighter implement it or remove instead of going with mentality/aproach of HEY i personaly dont like it but hey devs could you kindly put it as optional thing where players HAVE A CHOICE if they want or dont want something.

I am high advocate for players to have BUNCH of CHOICES where good chunk of things are implemented and then made optional like 7 Days to Die devs are doing where we have bunch of features and stuff that then player have a flexibility to tweek to that players liking.What happens next is that then that player instead of just having lets say 10 hours of gameplay content thanks to flexibility and freedom of bunch of stuff being optional it ends up with player having 10-20-30-50 different playthroughts with 100+ hours all thanks to that FREEDOM of CHOICE that has been given to the player and im not even mentioning mods that even more adds to it on top of that freedom that has been given to the player.

As i stated people need to STOP having that mentality of eighter in or out and instead have a mentality of hey i dont like a feature but i know others that will like it,i personaly wont use it but also devs please dont remove it and instead make it optional where players have free hands to make its own gamplay by making that feature be OPTIONAL and be able to toggle on or off.

That way and mindset is WIN WIN situation for ALL sides bcs the one who dont like the feature wont use it,those that like the feature will use it,BOTH parties/types of players will have a REING over how they will play by feature being OPTIONAL and be enabled/disabled while Taleworld itself will get a win bcs those that loved the feature will be happy and those that didnt love the feature but have an option to disable it wont be mad/angry nor will make a big fuss over it bcs devs gave FREEDOM for those players to disable the feature via options.INSTEAD of pis*ing of both camps where one side of playerbase loves the feature and is in their eyes good implementation while other side is fuming and bitc*** about it just to then in next update the feature gets nerfed,destroyed or compleatly removed bcs those players that complained,just to then pis*off the players that realy liked the feature/change and who were happy and more hopefull for the game to then basicaly get big slap on the face in the very next update simply bcs some didnt like it.Instead of all of it couldve been removed/mitigated if features were made with the mindset of being OPTIONAL where players can CHOSE how they want to start their gameplays.