Let players decide.

Users who are viewing this thread

Goyyyio

Sergeant

This is a very bad design choice that you guys carried over from Warband, why would you limit and disallow players from taking actions? It's nonsensical for a game like this, nonsensical for a simulator. You're taking choice away from players without a reason really. If you make a treaty you should be able to dishonor it whenever you please and deal with the consequences of breaking a pact. Same thing with supporting whoever you want in a fight where you're neutral in. These limitations seem totally artificial and take away the immersion. You guys need to change it.
 

This is a very bad design choice that you guys carried over from Warband, why would you limit and disallow players from taking actions? It's nonsensical for a game like this, nonsensical for a simulator. You're taking choice away from players without a reason really. If you make a treaty you should be able to dishonor it whenever you please and deal with the consequences of breaking a pact. Same thing with supporting whoever you want in a fight where you're neutral in. These limitations seem totally artificial and take away the immersion. You guys need to change it.
Something something not possible for some arbitrary reason. Followed by someone trying to defend TW by starting off their comment with: "well actually in the Byzantine era.." forgetting this is a game and should be fun and not infuriating.
 
Just to clarify this is ONLY when you barter to be let go from a battle. If you make peace with a faction you absolutely can start another war by raiding as a vassal (-200 influence) OR if you're the ruler you can directly attack a party or army and not even lose any influence. I'm sure it's just an oversight but it's very useful since the kingdom management is such a horrible non-functioning mess. I agree though, let us FAAFO

Also wtf that phone picture, reddit needs to be removed it just makes human beings devolve.
 
Just to clarify this is ONLY when you barter to be let go from a battle. If you make peace with a faction you absolutely can start another war by raiding as a vassal (-200 influence) OR if you're the ruler you can directly attack a party or army and not even lose any influence. I'm sure it's just an oversight but it's very useful since the kingdom management is such a horrible non-functioning mess. I agree though, let us FAAFO

Also wtf that phone picture, reddit needs to be removed it just makes human beings devolve.
No yeah, but it still limiting not to let you choose. It feels like an out of in game imposition when it should be something you get consequences paid for.
I don't care to understand, or to read the argument and neither I have an argument so I create a false one where I can win some sort of competition where I am right.
Really dont understand what you're going here bro. I'm saying that the game should punish players for consequences inside the game, not that you should have limitless power, no idea where you got that from.
 
The punishment has been decided already. The impotence you feel is a design decision, not a mistake.

You just don't like it, so you want what you want, and won't shut up about it.
The punishment is superficial and imposed by an out of in game force, that's the argument here, not wether there's a punishment or not. What is that you don't get? Do you need things being repeated like a little child?
 
If it's superficial, why are you crying so ****ing hard?

You don't get to break treaties. Cry more, like a little child.
Superiority complex much?

It's a dumb decision, to lock out the player from playing the game however they want to.

Treaties can be broken, just add a punishment/consequences to reflect that in game. Just disabling the option entirely just removes the player from playing the game.
Same goes with being held prisoner, yes, sitting around and seeing a ****ty graphic for a few days (even if just a minute or so) before you escape is dumb. Though that one I'm fine with to 'punish' the player but there's more creative ways to do that.
Same with dying in the battlefield, yes, one should do their utmost to stay alive, being cautious, etc..., But when you die, you're also left just sitting around not playing the game (at least there's a fast forward button).
Same with waiting at a bandit camp a few seconds to play the game only at night.

Most of the game is menu-clicking or also, surprise, sitting watching your party move from one town to the next in order to even access the barebones town management or other menu clicking smithing/markets. You don't even need to go to taverns anymore or walk through towns or meet village elders.

That's all well and good, if everything is 'designed' to the build up and lead up to the battles...why are they only 5 minutes long? Why can't you just take over an NPC when your player falls or, to survive, why must you hang back and be commander only (which is dumb as you're now not engaging the major element of M&B series).
 
If it's superficial, why are you crying so ****ing hard?

You don't get to break treaties. Cry more, like a little child.
Brother you really don't understand anything that I'm saying lmfao jesus christ its like talking to the Façade couple, I won't even bother trying to explain anymore
 
How long does the lockout last?
See that dude wrote compelling arguments and your only response is to attack him because you don't actually care about what anyone says lmfao, that's sad and lonely, I guess this is your way of having fun since you're not getting fun just by playing Bannerlord, I hear you bro I find it boring too. Well, have fun! This was stupid
 

This is a very bad design choice that you guys carried over from Warband, why would you limit and disallow players from taking actions? It's nonsensical for a game like this, nonsensical for a simulator. You're taking choice away from players without a reason really. If you make a treaty you should be able to dishonor it whenever you please and deal with the consequences of breaking a pact. Same thing with supporting whoever you want in a fight where you're neutral in. These limitations seem totally artificial and take away the immersion. You guys need to change it.
Just raid a village and a war will start.
 
Just raid a village and a war will start.
I'll quote a comment from that post
Maybe a permanent "oathbreaker" flag, because nobody trusts you to keep your word anymore?

Could work a little like Necrophages in *Endless Legend* or Fanatical Purifiers in *Stellaris.* You're not completely locked out of the social game, but it's obvious to everyone else that you can't be dealt with on equal terms.

Want to swear yourself to a faction? Sorry no, we don't trust you'll keep to your oaths. Want to serve as a mercenary? Sure, but you're not getting paid in advance because you'd just run off with the money. Honourable lords refuse to associate with you. Dishonourable lords might work with you but they'll never be *seen* with you, because you might tarnish their reputation.
The idea here is that the game creates punishments that feel realistic and influence the player's gameplay through their actions, creating different outcomes depending on how you play the game. This of course doesn't happen which is why almost every playthrough ends up feeling the same.
 
I'll quote a comment from that post

The idea here is that the game creates punishments that feel realistic and influence the player's gameplay through their actions, creating different outcomes depending on how you play the game. This of course doesn't happen which is why almost every playthrough ends up feeling the same.
Oh, huh, just looked at the Reddit post (I was on my phone before) and I thought it was the enforced wartime cooldown. I didn't realize they added something to prevent village raids after paying to not get rumbled.

(Or maybe I just forgot, lol)
 
See that dude wrote compelling arguments
I don't find it compelling. Just a bunch of "I want it to be different".

It's not different. Play the game.

I have no issue pointing fingers at TW for actual problems, but this isn't one of them.

It's a design decision. Like in Civilization, you can't re-declare war for 10 turns. It's not a *problem*.
 
I don't find it compelling. Just a bunch of "I want it to be different".

It's not different. Play the game.

I have no issue pointing fingers at TW for actual problems, but this isn't one of them.

It's a design decision. Like in Civilization, you can't re-declare war for 10 turns. It's not a *problem*.
I want to be different in what? What the hell are you talking about lmfao. You haven't actually argued against what is actually being argued about anyways, when you do let's talk, and, like, we can talk like proper people instead of you just attacking everyone you get that right?
 
It's a design decision. Like in Civilization, you can't re-declare war for 10 turns. It's not a *problem*.

They have that in civ games because they want diplomacy to be a viable way of winning a campaign and indefinitely deterring invasion, because sid meier doesn't want the games to just be about war. But bannerlord is the opposite, its main draw is the battles and a pacifist run would be possibly the worst gaming experience imaginable.
 

This is a very bad design choice that you guys carried over from Warband, why would you limit and disallow players from taking actions? It's nonsensical for a game like this, nonsensical for a simulator. You're taking choice away from players without a reason really. If you make a treaty you should be able to dishonor it whenever you please and deal with the consequences of breaking a pact. Same thing with supporting whoever you want in a fight where you're neutral in. These limitations seem totally artificial and take away the immersion. You guys need to change it.

There are quite a few things broken with the game still. Regardless, if you use barter to escape from a battle, I agree that you should be penalised and made to wait a certain amount of time before being able to attack again.

Do I find the mechanic annoying? Yes. Do I understand its implementation? Also yes. Imagine if you could just be like "please take this money, don't attack me" then walk about 2 minutes away and absolutely demolish a group of villagers. That would be madness.
 
Back
Top Bottom