Wow! I didn't know that, thanks for sharing.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Lacking goals for late game
- Thread starter Dabos37
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Wow! I didn't know that, thanks for sharing.
It really is to bad TW didn't have some version of a nemesis system in place though. Not a copy but just people holding grudges and forcing the AI to prioritize a character over another. Killed a lord in battle and his family harasses your caravans and villages. Something like this I think would completely change the whole dynamic of interacting with lords and make every playthrough different and unique to your game.
Well maybe was reading wrong and was expecting a thing that never will be a thing...
Dev Blog 11/01/18
[...]We're using Bannerlord's new events system to create a backstory of grudges and feuds that will test an aspiring sultan's ability to placate and lead.[...]
Where is this? Who knows...
Dev Blog 11/01/18
[...]We're using Bannerlord's new events system to create a backstory of grudges and feuds that will test an aspiring sultan's ability to placate and lead.[...]
Where is this? Who knows...
Early on in EA Tais had the encyclopedia entry "so and so has sworn vegeance upon..." and I assumed that was it. I'm not sure if it is still in the game though.
An NPC Rival or an NPC who simply hates the player either by default or due to ingame affronts - is not a breach of Shadow of War's Nemesis system. Frankly that sort of thing would only be enforceable as breach of patent should designers copy extremely specific design choices and even that would be pretty hard to enforce. To say you have a patent on " Only we can have evil NPC's that hate on and plot against player" would be like a movie saying "Only we can have bad guys that hate the Hero and try to kill said Hero with a gun" - general concepts are no patent-able.
I think they could come up with a "nemesis-like" system that's different enough from Shadow of War to avoid any issues. Its convenient to call these kinds of features a "Nemesis system" simply because everyone's familiar with Shadow of War's system, but really it would just be an extension of the NPC interactions that have always been in the game. Hell, some of the stuff in that patent were in Warband first:
I don't know if that was in the original Mount and Blade, but Warband already had kind of thing that with lords mocking you for losing battles or congratulating you on victories.
Exactly well said and yes this would only be en extnsion of what already existed in previous games. this sort of thing is severely lacking in Bannerlord -there simply needs to be more Aggro hate in the game. Even the blase' way most bandits greet you in game "Hey Good day...I dont really want to fight you anyways..." ...With the real world as apathetic as is humanly possible why on earth would you want that to carry over to a fantasy game world in which you want to fight?!
There should be far more harsh encounters with most NPCs looking down on player or outright hating you -this is generally how aggro criminals behave not "oh hey hows it going ...too bad you wanna fight i thought maybe we'd just chill together..."
They could ... of course. I just stated it could bring trouble. Warner got an army of lawyers just waiting for something like this to happen. Even if it's just "nemesis-like" there's a good possibility you'll hear from them. btw. gl hf if you have no legal insurance
And that's the whole patent discussion **** in the gaming industry. You get your inspirations threw other projects and their work. (Not everything i know ... but i`m looking at you Satisfactory)Like i said ,i would love a system like this but sometimes it's not easy.
Last edited:
Bovice
Recruit
CK3 gets pretty boring once you clear that initial challenge too. I’m waiting for more content for end game before my next play through
five bucks
Knight at Arms
We need civil wars. That's the most important feature to give the game long-term replayability.
The one thing that will fix all.....MODs.
They just have to finalize the game and stop patching every other week so that modders and players who use mods can actually play the game without a gazillion patches constantly breaking the mods and subsequently the save games with them.
They just have to finalize the game and stop patching every other week so that modders and players who use mods can actually play the game without a gazillion patches constantly breaking the mods and subsequently the save games with them.
Yeah this has always been a problem, even back in Warband. Eventually there just isn't much to do. Right now in my latest playthrough, my main character is a vassal with 3 cities and 2 castles. My workshop and fief income in many times my costs and I passively make huge sums of money. Additionally, I get huge sums of money from the battles I fight plus money from the loot and prisoners I sell. I have almost 6 million Denars saved and have all the best loot and equipment that can currently be bought. I also have 255 trade so very soon I won't even have to capture fiefs any more because I will just barter for them. The only thing left to do is fight enemy factions and plant my factions flag all across the map. I guess I could rebel and start my own kingdom but I would still be at the same place, i.e. planting my flag all across the map.
That being the case it would be nice to have other things to do like random events. Maybe a barbarian invasion or suddenly a bandit lord emerges and sends out thousands of bandits to conquer our lands. How about half the kingdom randomly rebelling and having to chose whether I stand with the king, support the Usurper or hell start my own rebel faction and fight both the King and the Usurper for control of the kingdom. Maybe two of our enemies should unite and attack us at the same time. Maybe one of my cities catches on fire and I have to seriously micromanage the city to get it back on its feet. Maybe an enemy faction king will try to bribe me to come over to his side. Basically there are tons of things that could be added to give us other things to do.
That being the case it would be nice to have other things to do like random events. Maybe a barbarian invasion or suddenly a bandit lord emerges and sends out thousands of bandits to conquer our lands. How about half the kingdom randomly rebelling and having to chose whether I stand with the king, support the Usurper or hell start my own rebel faction and fight both the King and the Usurper for control of the kingdom. Maybe two of our enemies should unite and attack us at the same time. Maybe one of my cities catches on fire and I have to seriously micromanage the city to get it back on its feet. Maybe an enemy faction king will try to bribe me to come over to his side. Basically there are tons of things that could be added to give us other things to do.
Mods are nice, but you definitely do not want to rely solely on mods to make a good game. If we let mods implement all the cool stuff, you will have dozens of mods that might not be compatible with each other, using different launching methods, and breaking saves every time one mod changes something. Late-game goals need to be part of the main game, built in to the vanilla experience.
Gandamula
Sergeant at Arms
Just go to Nexus and you will find tons of mods that will give you a entire new game, full of new features, and if you want a different pace mechanism there are mods to do it.+1
Despite all the additional mechanics TW tried to implement, the game is just a battle simulator. I personally would recommend to slow down the war pace. Maybe make recruiting harder and resource dependent. Rebuilding of parties should take lot longer. The recruits are not clones after all. Villages are raided people killed where does those new recruits all come from
Unfortunately there is nothing meaningful to do in peace time. Yet, I think the majority of the players likes this fast pace and the other game mechanics are not interesting for them.
So there's nothing left for me to do, just hope someone will someday create a game with similar battle mechanic with proper economy, technology and kingdom management/world diplomacy.
Thanks for your suggestion but I am familiar with the nexus mods. I used many of them earlier and I will use them again when the patching chaos will be little less hectic. Still, I am convinced there will be limits on what can be fixed by mods and what not.
Edit: hmm, I am trying to understand your response in the context of this another post of yours:
Last edited:
Sir_Smittih
Recruit
Resurrecting this thread as I seem to be incapable of completing any of my play-throughs before I lose interest...
Early game keeps my interest... it's "scrappy" and I'm just trying to stay alive and build a sustainable character (trading, running away from bandits, recruiting, managing the levels of my recruits to stay within my budget). I know what I need to do and I know I have multiple avenues to get there.
Mid-game transitions to a more military focus (more battles, formations, armies, sieges) with some limited character development (marriage, children) and diplomatic play (influence, voting). Progresses/changes things up in a reasonable way. In some sense "I've made it! Now I can think about my vision and execute my strategy to get there."
Late game after I take my first fief and create a kingdom I just completely lose interest. Partly it's because I know how frustrated I'm going to be with spending all my time chasing lords around the map to recruit them while my stupid vassals start pointless wars... partly it's because the only real goal is "take all fiefs". Extremely one-dimensional. In fact it's more one-dimensional than mid-game. This is when I expect the game to be different and more complex, not less. Where's my reward for making it this far? Don't get me wrong... I struggled in the same way with WB. In fact, I think part of the issue for TW is that they classified WB as a "success" without ever fixing this (or recognizing it was a problem in the first place). So I'm not actually sure they understand it's an issue. And if they do, I'm not sure they understand how to fix it. Remember, when you're a hammer... every problem looks like a nail.
I read through this entire thread and there were some good ideas... In particular, I was interested in the reference to the Civ series. I've played Civ for years across multiple versions and for countless hours before I ever discovered WB and then BL. One of the big reasons I kept going back was that they developed multiple "victory pathways": military, science, diplomacy and culture. And you have to play very differently for each. And you have to achieve your victory before someone else does (regardless which path they choose). Right now BL feels REALLY one-dimensional: "fight lords, take fiefs". One solution to that would be to expand on that one dimension: slightly more involved interactions with other lords, adapting the timescale, better balancing, etc. This seems to be the focus of most of this thread. At the extreme you would create a "BL meets CK3". But that's a REALLY tall order. And I think the complexity of CK3 would be 2 steps too far.
Another option would be to add other dimensions (victory pathways and endpoints/goals) like you see in Civ. And I actually feel like BL already has some of the pieces in place for this.
For instance, every town has a garrison (path to military victory). But they also have merchants, artisans and gangs. I would love to see other options for "winning" like:
1. Merchant Victory: Your trader character takes over all caravans. You're the "Medici bank" of Calradia and no king will dare cross you lest you forbid caravans from serving their fiefs, thus causing starvation and rebellions.
2. Artisan Victory: Your smithing character takes over all workshops. You're the "James Hoffa" of Calradia and can bring each faction's economy to a halt giving you tremendous say over matters of state.
3. Criminal Victory: Your rogue character defeats and leads all gangs in Calradia. As distasteful as the kings may find it, they require your cooperation, in particular so you'll keep the merchants and artisans in check.
Adding interactions between merchants, artisans, gangsters and lords would add significantly to the late game dynamic. Regardless of which position you decided to play. To me this would be as important as diplomacy with other factions. And more so if these characters dominated all of Calradia.
I suspect we wouldn't be so upset with the limitations of any one "victory pathway" if we had the opportunity to play the game from multiple angles for each new campaign. Anyway, just a thought. Though it may be too late for such things. What I'm proposing is actually quite difficult to rearchitect if it wasn't designed for from the beginning.
Unfortunately right now every time I think of starting a new campaign (recently considering a rogue playthrough) I ask myself: "To what end? Just until I get bored?" So I don't. I'm gradually shelving BL and it isn't even technically released yet.
Early game keeps my interest... it's "scrappy" and I'm just trying to stay alive and build a sustainable character (trading, running away from bandits, recruiting, managing the levels of my recruits to stay within my budget). I know what I need to do and I know I have multiple avenues to get there.
Mid-game transitions to a more military focus (more battles, formations, armies, sieges) with some limited character development (marriage, children) and diplomatic play (influence, voting). Progresses/changes things up in a reasonable way. In some sense "I've made it! Now I can think about my vision and execute my strategy to get there."
Late game after I take my first fief and create a kingdom I just completely lose interest. Partly it's because I know how frustrated I'm going to be with spending all my time chasing lords around the map to recruit them while my stupid vassals start pointless wars... partly it's because the only real goal is "take all fiefs". Extremely one-dimensional. In fact it's more one-dimensional than mid-game. This is when I expect the game to be different and more complex, not less. Where's my reward for making it this far? Don't get me wrong... I struggled in the same way with WB. In fact, I think part of the issue for TW is that they classified WB as a "success" without ever fixing this (or recognizing it was a problem in the first place). So I'm not actually sure they understand it's an issue. And if they do, I'm not sure they understand how to fix it. Remember, when you're a hammer... every problem looks like a nail.
I read through this entire thread and there were some good ideas... In particular, I was interested in the reference to the Civ series. I've played Civ for years across multiple versions and for countless hours before I ever discovered WB and then BL. One of the big reasons I kept going back was that they developed multiple "victory pathways": military, science, diplomacy and culture. And you have to play very differently for each. And you have to achieve your victory before someone else does (regardless which path they choose). Right now BL feels REALLY one-dimensional: "fight lords, take fiefs". One solution to that would be to expand on that one dimension: slightly more involved interactions with other lords, adapting the timescale, better balancing, etc. This seems to be the focus of most of this thread. At the extreme you would create a "BL meets CK3". But that's a REALLY tall order. And I think the complexity of CK3 would be 2 steps too far.
Another option would be to add other dimensions (victory pathways and endpoints/goals) like you see in Civ. And I actually feel like BL already has some of the pieces in place for this.
For instance, every town has a garrison (path to military victory). But they also have merchants, artisans and gangs. I would love to see other options for "winning" like:
1. Merchant Victory: Your trader character takes over all caravans. You're the "Medici bank" of Calradia and no king will dare cross you lest you forbid caravans from serving their fiefs, thus causing starvation and rebellions.
2. Artisan Victory: Your smithing character takes over all workshops. You're the "James Hoffa" of Calradia and can bring each faction's economy to a halt giving you tremendous say over matters of state.
3. Criminal Victory: Your rogue character defeats and leads all gangs in Calradia. As distasteful as the kings may find it, they require your cooperation, in particular so you'll keep the merchants and artisans in check.
Adding interactions between merchants, artisans, gangsters and lords would add significantly to the late game dynamic. Regardless of which position you decided to play. To me this would be as important as diplomacy with other factions. And more so if these characters dominated all of Calradia.
I suspect we wouldn't be so upset with the limitations of any one "victory pathway" if we had the opportunity to play the game from multiple angles for each new campaign. Anyway, just a thought. Though it may be too late for such things. What I'm proposing is actually quite difficult to rearchitect if it wasn't designed for from the beginning.
Unfortunately right now every time I think of starting a new campaign (recently considering a rogue playthrough) I ask myself: "To what end? Just until I get bored?" So I don't. I'm gradually shelving BL and it isn't even technically released yet.
Last edited:
ArturMorhghain
Squire
Resurrecting this thread as I seem to be incapable of completing any of my play-throughs before I lose interest...
Early game keeps my interest... it's "scrappy" and I'm just trying to stay alive and build a sustainable character (trading, running away from bandits, recruiting, managing the levels of my recruits to stay within my budget). I know what I need to do and I know I have multiple avenues to get there.
Mid-game transitions to a more military focus (more battles, formations, armies, sieges) with some limited character development (marriage, children) and diplomatic play (influence, voting). Progresses/changes things up in a reasonable way. In some sense "I've made it! Now I can think about my vision and execute my strategy to get there."
Late game after I take my first fief and create a kingdom I just completely lose interest. Partly it's because I know how frustrated I'm going to be with how stupid my vassals are... partly it's because the only real goal is "take all fiefs". Extremely one-dimensional. In fact it's more one-dimensional than mid-game. This is when I expect the game to be different and more complex, not less. Where's my reward for making it this far? Don't get me wrong... I struggled in the same way with WB. In fact, I think part of the issue for TW is that they classified WB as a "success" without ever fixing this (or recognizing it was a problem in the first place). So I'm not actually sure they understand it's an issue. And if they do, I'm not sure they understand how to fix it. Remember, when you're a hammer... every problem looks like a nail.
I read through this entire thread and there were some good ideas... In particular, I was interested in the reference to the Civ series. I've played Civ for years across multiple versions and for countless hours before I ever discovered WB and then BL. One of the big reasons I kept going back was that they developed multiple "victory pathways": military, science, diplomacy and culture. And you have to play very differently for each. And you have to achieve your victory before someone else does (regardless which path they choose). Right now BL feels REALLY one-dimensional: "fight lords, take fiefs". One solution to that would be to expand on that one dimension: slightly more involved interactions with other lords, adapting the timescale, better balancing, etc. This seems to be the focus of most of this thread. At the extreme you would create a "BL meets CK3". But that's a REALLY tall order. And I think the complexity of CK3 would be 2 steps too far.
Another option would be to add other dimensions (victory pathways) like you see in Civ. And I actually feel like BL already has some of the pieces in place for this.
For instance, every town has a garrison (path to military victory). But they also have merchants, artisans and gangs. I would love to see other options for "winning" like:
1. Merchant Victory: Your trader character takes over all caravans. You're the "Medici bank" of Calradia and no king will dare cross you lest you forbid caravans from serving their fiefs, thus causing starvation and rebellions.
2. Artisan Victory: Your smithing character takes over all workshops. You're the "James Hoffa" of Calradia and can bring each faction's economy to a halt giving you tremendous say over matters of state.
3. Criminal Victory: Your rogue character defeats and leads all gangs in Calradia. As distasteful as the kings may find it, they require your cooperation, in particular so you'll keep the merchants and artisans in check.
Adding interactions between merchants, artisans, gangsters and lords would add significantly to the late game dynamic. Regardless of which position you decided to play. To me this would be as important as diplomacy with other factions. And more so if these characters dominated all of Calradia.
I suspect we wouldn't be so upset with the limitations of any one "victory pathway" if we had the opportunity to play the game from multiple angles for each new campaign. Anyway, just a thought. Though it may be too late for such things. What I'm proposing is actually quite difficult to rearchitect if it wasn't designed for from the beginning.
Unfortunately right now every time I think of starting a new campaign (recently considering a rogue playthrough) I ask myself: "To what end? Just until I get bored?" So I don't. I'm gradually shelving BL and it isn't even technically released yet.
I’ve got a chart floating somewhere around here detailing potential play through roles - bandit, trader, etc. The one idea it’s missing is an end game goal, that you illustrate so well. It all feels so key to the game and best not left to a mod.
