Well after nearly a year we have a fix coming for partners in crime not working as advertised.
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...es-not-work-as-described.449479/#post-9846224
AFAIK it's just the captain perks in the battle that stop working when the captain is KO'd. In warband support skills were immediately nullified (or changed to next highest in party) when the owner got KO'd, but it does not seem to be so in bannerlord, other then captain perk effects.
Honestly, they could've left that bug alone and I'd have been fine with it. By the time I've gotten to 150 roguery, there aren't any bandit parties that can overpower me anyway, unless I've specifically put them there with mods.
Yes, doctors/surgeons improve through practice, not disputing that at all and not what I'm arguing against. They also develop through schooling/academics as well as thousands of intern/residency hours too if you want to be fair with that analogy. Likewise, they also 'train' any other residency surgeons with them too, which is essentially what I'm asking for with other companions/player. Not sure how that's 'pay to play' but whatever.
I don't understand, before you wanted more player option diversity, now you don't? The way TW designed their systems practically only allows the player to play one toy at a time or compels them because the other toys are all broken down and degraded and we can't even choose to play with both the 'good' toy and the '****ty' one at the same time too.
Sure, "I'm not a racist but...".
That's a bit reaching.. they learn schooling/academics just to get the privilege to begin to develop their doctor skills. Plus, they already made a change to how fast medicine can be gained in one of the earlier beta patches along with leadership.
The options are already available and viable. The difference is you want it so that any and all builds can become a superman build and that you don't have to specialize your builds. I like how it's setup now it limits the player and forces him to be strategic about what kind of build he wants in order to access certain perks. It makes sense and it's more realistic. Besides the player has every advantage in the game anyways. Medicine is only difficult for some to level because the game is absurdly easy. That's not medicines fault that's the games fault. If there are some skills that are actually hard to level then they should be fixed. Medicine just isn't one of them.
Touche lol though I'm not a racist.
Check out the streams some time. Most players will never once paint the entire map. The majority of them won't even get more than a dozen settlements under their faction. A lot of them will struggle with the moment they create a kingdom, doing it with too little money, not enough access to troops, a party that's too weak, not having enough Charm or traits to bring over other clans or any number of other little mistakes that the game doesn't tell the player about and does a very terrible of explaining through its mechanics.
I Couldnt agree more.
I haven't checked out many streams on here but I've seen many on youtube. I've never played warband or viking conquest my only experience has been with bannerlord for the past year and the forums for a recent short period. When I first started I made all the same rookie mistakes as everyone on those streams but over time I learned from experience. They could do a better job at explaining but they chose to put that responsibility on the player. In a way I kind of like that. You get out what you put in.
Except it kinda does need to be stretched out otherwise a lot features become futile. Very early on the player snowballs and knows with 100% certainty that victory is 100% inevitable. What follows becomes the grind. If the game was a lot harder you wouldn't be complaining about grind. The problem is they spoiled the experienced player with such pathetically easy gameplay that any mention of adding a challenge instantly makes players wet themselves and cry more grind.
We just dont agree on this. As a player I thing you go through an obscene amount of battles and sieges. It overstays its welcome. You can play the game more than one time.
It is a reach, because how it is currently also doesn't match up with any RL analogy. So, if we go with that 'RL' thinking, maybe make the 'surgeon' role only available or more advantageous after a certain X# skills in medicine (say 50 for arguments sake), but not give a hard lock or prevent the other members from gaining XP just because you clicked one to be the surgeon. They already have a soft lock by way of their skill/attributes/focus points anyways. Doesn't take away the fact the end-perks are OP, but at least it's not a one or none option as it is currently.
They did away with that with the ability to reset perks (which I'm fine with). I'm not looking to make a superman build - and the way they do have it set-up, the only way for the player to be 'superman' is if they don't enable death/aging.
I think most of the issues is the lack of challenge, as it's not tuned/timed/scaled well. The very beginning can be, but you very easily slingshot right past many elements to the end (painting map one color) which is the exact same grindiness whether you have 2 towns or 4+.
The early part of the game is the most rewarding part; its where you see progression in most areas. So yeah, extending the early game would be welcomed.
If you make them party leaders you don't have this issue. Making them party leaders will grow medicine fast especially family members who can max it out. Outside of this though you're right it's difficult. But not impossible.
Not entirely, the important part isn't the perks necessarily it's attribute point management. That you can't change. That decides the perks you get to benefit from. The game is setup for specialization of two attributes you can max out. When you spend your attribute points wisely it allows you to get the most out of a build while also setting logical limits for the player.
You don't extend early game. You greatly slow down mid to late game snowball. One of the main reasons people create new games all the time is because early game is the only challenging part of the game which makes it more enjoyable. It's more enjoyable because you can actual lose a fight. The further from early game you get the more likely the game turns grindy because unless you do something outrageously stupid its impossible to lose and victory is inevitable. That is what makes everything feel so grindy like you just going through the motions.
I think you overestimate the scale and length it would take to give a significant change to difficulty. Once you change the difficulty then you can tweak the number of battles. But if you tweak the number of battles now it just streamlines a flawed system. Playing video games is a waste of time regardless but we do it anyway. If your being given a better quality product maybe people would enjoy 200 battles and not care about the increased wasted time they invest in the game.
It overstays its welcome because its too easy. Beating the pulp out of the enemy and taking zero losses all the time is the grind. It's because you know the end is certain very early on in this game.
Ohh there are plenty of productive ways for you to improve difficulty. But first we'd have to list all the different ways and reasons the player can snowball as early as possible. In addition list all the number of ways the player can avoid casualties in battles and sieges. The real goal is to slow down the players snowball. You need to make the player have to do more with less. The player will always have an abundance of anything more than the AI. The player has every advantage in this game and the AI we've been given has been completely neutered in every way. Kingdom bank or not. The reason isn't that there aren't good enough ways to increase difficulty it's because players don't want to lose all the different ways in which they are able to exploit the game.
If the player isn't actually doing more things, performing more actions and more decisions, more control over the situation, you're not actually increasing the challenge, you're just adding padding and repetition to an already repetitive and drawn out game. It doesn't matter if it's adding or taking away, it's the same effect of just "okay player now do it 20X instead of 10X". Many players don't use any exploits, but I agree they should be removed or remade into systems that make sense at some point. Of course "exploit" has an actual meaning, not just "thing I don't like" which I read players often lump anything they don't like as "exploit" 'broken" "OP" or other miss used phrases.
And playing the game "straight up" is at the easiest settings, thus no challenge.
Last I checked playing the game on bannerlord difficulty isn't at the easiest settings.
The issue isn't giving playing more actions and more decisions. The issue is that the player isn't held accountable for the actions and decisions he already makes. For that to happen there needs to be more balanced trade offs in player decision making. For example during sieges the player can choose to siege down the walls. The is a smart choice. The problem is that there is no penalty for taking down the walls. You can take down the walls then 2 days later get into a siege and those walls are magically good as new. This is unrealistic and in order to balance it and you need force the player to think strategically by making it a more difficult choice. Otherwise there is absolutely no downsides to taking down the walls and the player will just abuse it every single time. Thus turning it into an exploit. The game is littered with examples like this. How can you force a player to be more strategic when he is given zero downside to any decision he makes.
